[23:12] Okay, thank you, please be seated. Okay, this is the

[23:18] 13th meeting of municipal Council in this session. Going to

[23:23] start with Atlanta acknowledgement. We are acknowledged that we are

[23:25] gathered today on the traditional lands of the Anastronomab Hodden

[23:28] Shoni Lene Paywack in Attawan Drawn Peoples. We honour Respect

[23:31] the History Language's Cultures of the Diverse Indigenous people who

[23:35] call this territory home. We acknowledge all of the treaties

[23:38] are specific to this area. The two Row - Wump

[23:40] - Belt Treaty of the Hodenoshoune Confederacy, civil governance chain,

[23:43] the Biver Hunting Grounds Treaty of the Hodenoshoni Nanfan Treaty

[23:46] of 1701. The McKee Treaty of 1790, the Lennon Township

[23:50] Treaty of 1796, the Huron Track Treaty of 1827 with

[23:54] the Anishinaabek, and the Dish - With One Spoon Covenant

[23:57] Wampum of the Anishabab and Hodenoshone. The three Indigenous nations

[24:01] that are neighbours to London are the triple Oz of

[24:03] the Thumbs First Nation, Oneida Nation of the Thames, and

[24:05] the Monci - Delaware Nation, who all continue to live

[24:07] as sovereign nations with individual and unique languages, cultures, and

[24:10] customs. The City Atlanta is also committed to making every

[24:15] effort to providing alternative formats and communications supports for meetings

[24:19] upon Request if you'd like to make a request specific

[24:21] to this meeting. You can contact Council Agenda at London.

[24:25] ca or 519 - 661 - 2489 extension 2425.

[24:40] All right, with that, it brings me great pleasure to

[24:43] move to the National Anthem Section of the Agenda. Rachel

[24:49] Gender's Boyd is a traditional English singer from a musical

[24:52] family who spent her childhood surrounded by the rich tradition

[24:55] of the Midlands singing. She grew up performing in Folk

[24:59] clubs around Bingham and Derby and has performed with various

[25:02] groups at the Schrew - Berry folk festival, Rochester -

[25:06] Folk Festival, and Lich Field - Folk Festival. She's been

[25:09] in Canada for 12 years, and nowadays can be found

[25:13] helping a host of traditional iris helping host a traditional

[25:18] Irish session at the Scotts Corner, leading workshops and singing

[25:21] sessions as part of the Forest City, how do I

[25:25] say this, come haltus. I've never seen that word, that's

[25:29] excellent. As well as working with the artistic director for

[25:34] the new Forest City Irish Fest. Please rise and join

[25:37] me in welcoming Rachel, who will now perform the National

[25:39] Anthem Forest.

[26:00] Land. True Patriot Love. In. All of us. Coming.

[26:12] With glowing. Hearts. We see. The rise. The. True North

[26:19] Strong. And. Free. From. Far and. Whiter. Canada. We

[26:29] stand on. God. For. God. Keep our. Land.

[26:40] Glory. Us and. Free. O. - Canada. We stand on

[26:50] God. For. Thee.

[27:02] God.

[28:00] Okay. Never had a photo bomb of the singer photo,

[28:03] but that was interesting. Thanks for doing that. All right.

[28:09] We're on to disclosures of pecuniary interest. I'd look to

[28:11] see if colleagues have any disclosures for today. Okay, sing

[28:17] - none, we'll move to Recognitions. I have none. I

[28:19] don't know if colleagues on Council have any. No. Okay,

[28:22] seeing none. Review of Confidential Matters would be considered in

[28:25] public. There are none. We have Council and Closed Session.

[28:28] There are two items on the Agenda. I'll look for

[28:31] a motion to move into closed session. Move by Councillor

[28:34] Catty, seconded by Councillor McAllister. Any discussion? Okay, we'll open

[28:38] that vote.

[28:57] Closing the vote. Motion carries 14. 0. Okay, so we'll

[29:02] be moving to Committee Room 5, the members of the

[29:03] Public can stay here. And finished.

[39:42] Okay, please be seated. Okay, that brings us

[39:52] on to confirmation and signing of the previous minutes We

[39:55] have the minutes from the 12th meeting of Council held

[39:58] on July 21st. I look for a mover in a

[40:00] seconder for those minutes moved by Councillor Cutty seconded by

[40:03] Councillor Rahman Anytime to the minutes. Seeing none will open

[40:09] that for voting.

[40:37] Councillor Council Pribble. Voting on the. Council of Pearl Bowl.

[40:43] Yes. Both verbally noted closing the vote motion carries 15

[40:49] - 0. Okay, thank you. We're on to Communications and

[40:54] Petitions there are 6. 1 through 6. 5 including addeds

[40:59] These all refer to items at various points in the

[41:02] agenda There's a consolidated motion to refer all those items

[41:05] to the points where we'll be discussing them So I'll

[41:08] look for someone who's willing to move that Councillor Plo's

[41:10] a second by Councillor Van Meerbergen Any discussion on that.

[41:14] Singing none will open that for voting. Farsel votes yes.

[41:28] Council Privileg, yes. Noted thank you closing the vote motion

[41:31] carries 15 - 0. Right item 7 motions to which

[41:36] notice was given we have none which means Ron 2

[41:38] item number 8 Reports The First Report will receive is

[41:42] the report from the Planning Environment Committee I'll turn it

[41:44] over to the chair Councillor Lehmann to present the report

[41:47] Thank you Mayor please present the 12th report of the

[41:50] planning and environment Committee. Number 11. Requested to be pulled.

[42:19] And also item number 7. Councillor Hillier. Yes, thank you

[42:29] to the chair If you could also please pull item

[42:31] number 10 1047 1055 Junior's Drive so I can rank

[42:35] inconsistent. Thank you. Absolutely we can do that separate. So

[42:39] far that 710 and 11 Anyone else. Okay Councillor Layman

[42:45] I'll eat move a motion. Thank you so I'll move

[42:49] items one through 68 and 9. Okay 1 through 6

[42:55] 8 9 are on the floor I look for any

[42:57] discussion on those matters. Go ahead Councillor Trosa. Was I'm

[43:02] sorry was 9 deferred or is 9 as it was

[43:04] at the committee. 9 is as it was at the

[43:07] committee It's part of the group of motions So whatever

[43:11] the committee did is what is happening with 9. And

[43:15] I was referred at committee so that referral is essentially

[43:18] part of the consolidated motions. Okay. Sorry Council Cutty you

[43:22] had your hand up to. Thank you chair I'd like

[43:28] to thank staff for the work you've done on Khaleeli

[43:31] Road We've turned a Country Road into a what's going

[43:34] to be a virtual bike path with lots of mobility.

[43:41] And it's just an exciting project This has been a

[43:43] road that has required attention for many years. When I

[43:48] first came to Council Uh, this was an issue that

[43:51] my client my constituents had discussed with me And with

[43:55] the help of an aid of staff Uh, with our

[43:58] mobility team. We've been able to turn this road or

[44:01] it will be turned into a really great transit Um,

[44:05] for act of transit. For not only for motorists, but

[44:08] also for pedestrians and for cyclists So this is an

[44:12] exciting project I'm looking for to see and get finished

[44:14] next year. And, uh, I appreciate again staff the work

[44:18] you've done Thank you. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, your

[44:24] worship I'd like to make a comment on number 5,

[44:28] which is the report of the Community of the ISRE

[44:31] Committee on planning I did have a letter attached to

[44:35] the advisory Report I know having a development inward 9

[44:44] Uh... With a heritage destination and an opportunity of a

[44:48] developer taking advantage of... Some... incentives that we offer I

[44:56] could see the results of how we can protect some

[44:59] of our heritage And as we address a number of

[45:02] heritage designations that will be coming to us Uh... I

[45:05] am very supportive of... The CAC's request to explore and

[45:11] report back on tax and other financial incentives or programs

[45:15] I know at planning Uh... The vice chair put forward

[45:19] emotion to look at a incentive for just... Heritage Property

[45:25] tax relief program Which I'm very supportive But I would

[45:28] have... Just like further opportunity for staff to explore more

[45:34] opportunities and report back to us So those are my

[45:37] comments. Any other comments in the matters before us. Okay,

[45:43] sing none will open that for voting.

[45:57] Closing the vote Motion carries 15 to 0. Council Lehman.

[46:01] Thank you so I'll put 7 on the floor This

[46:04] is a small housekeeping amendment Um... So I guess we

[46:08] would have to move the amendment Is that correct? Yeah

[46:12] So you put the original staff recommendation on the floor

[46:15] And then you can move the technical amendment, the staff.

[46:18] Um... Okay, so I'll put that before and I'll move

[46:21] the amendment. Okay, so the main items on the floor

[46:25] Um, Council Layman has moved an amendment Uh... I need

[46:28] a seconder for the amendment Councillor Colosa. On the amendment.

[46:36] Kept Cine - animal Open that for voting. Yes, Councillor

[46:43] Farra. Thanks Mayor 3U Can we just get an update

[46:49] on the housekeeping amendment to some of the details on

[46:51] that. Sure. Oh I think it's Ms. O'Hagen who will

[47:00] update us tonight Um Through your worship So the housekeeping

[47:04] amendment is to recognise that the Southwest area Secondary Plan

[47:08] has been repealed at the time of the planning Committee

[47:11] Um, it was still in for Enforce because the appeal

[47:14] period hadn't gone through We didn't receive any appeals to

[47:17] the southwest... Area plan, uh... Being repealed So now all

[47:21] of the special policies will go directly into the LUD

[47:24] plan. Councillor Farrah Okay, thank you for that And just

[47:31] follow - up Uh... When did we get that information?

[47:34] Go ahead. I'm Through your worship Um... The Peel Period

[47:37] ended on August 20th. Council Council. Thank you. Okay. Uh...

[47:47] Anyone else on the amendment. Okay, we'll open that for

[47:51] voting.

[48:08] Closing the vote Motion carries 15 - 0. Uh And

[48:12] now The Az - amended motion Council Layman You're willing

[48:14] to move I'll move as a second after that Councillor

[48:16] Hopkins Anytion on the AS amended motion now. Councillor Hopkins,

[48:20] go ahead. So. Yeah, thank you. You worship This is

[48:28] a development inward 9 And I want to thank the

[48:31] committee Uh... For adding an amendment given that There's a

[48:36] potential of seeing up to 9, 000 people living in

[48:39] this development To look into future transit through the master

[48:43] mobility plan So I want to thank the committee for

[48:46] adding that to the Recommendation. Okay Anyone else on the

[48:50] ASMIND motion. Seeing none will open that for voting.

[49:02] Closing the VOD motion carries 15 to 0. Go ahead

[49:06] Councillor So I'll put item number 10 Uh... On the

[49:09] floor This was requested to be pulled by Councillor Hillier.

[49:15] Okay Uh... So this one's on the floor by the

[49:19] chair Any discussion on this? Okay. Seeing none, then we'll

[49:25] open that provoting.

[49:36] Closing the vote Motion carries 13 - 2. Go ahead

[49:42] Council Lehman. Thank you I'd like to put Item number

[49:46] 11 on the floor This was request to be pulled

[49:48] by Councillor Stevenson. Okay This is on the floor I'll

[49:52] look for any discussion. Yep, go ahead Council Stevenson. Thank

[50:00] you Yes I pulled this one after discussions with the

[50:04] developer. The concern is I believe Um... The derogatory

[50:14] implications on the developer without us Looking at both sides

[50:19] of the situation And what happened So What I wanted

[50:23] to know a couple of questions through you to staff

[50:26] Um...

[50:39] Was this a really unusual situation Where this... kind of...

[50:44] Contition was put in place... And if not, could you

[50:48] just tell me how this usually goes in terms of

[50:52] compliance around the conditions? Mr. Mathers. After your worship So

[50:58] there was a direction that committee to add Recommendation to

[51:02] approval authority to work with the owner of the Property

[51:07] to be able to come up with an accommodation Uh...

[51:10] Opportunity So we did that Unfortunately There's no way for

[51:14] us to put that into an agreement So that's why

[51:16] we don't have a provision to actually require this accommodation

[51:20] to happen But we do have of course through our

[51:23] normal processes Um... Our run Eviction - related by law

[51:27] And that is the main way and usual way How

[51:30] we would address the situation like this. So it is

[51:32] a bit different Situation Then we usually have... Compared to

[51:37] other areas in the city. Council Stevenson. Thank you So

[51:44] when we're looking at this motion and what's being requested

[51:46] in terms of Uh Report back on the status Whether

[51:50] conditions have been satisfied and what authority. Can I just

[51:55] ask through you to staff? Um... Like I'm just really

[52:01] wondering how worthwhile this is given that There is a...

[52:07] The OLT process. And we seem to be like getting

[52:12] in there and causing potentially some issues in the process

[52:15] in a jurisdiction That isn't ours And so I'm just

[52:18] looking through you to staff for some... Your thoughts on

[52:22] this motion currently before us... And the concerns of the

[52:25] developer that... We're creating some issues potentially in another jurisdictional

[52:31] process. Go ahead Mr. Mailers After your worship We're of

[52:38] course always happy to bring back information Reports Um... We

[52:41] were able to provide the bulk of the information AD

[52:43] Committee Just noting that there isn't... For what we can

[52:48] do to be able to Enforce this matter. There is

[52:50] other bylaws that do cover Um... These types of situations

[52:54] that we will ensure that we continue to enforce Um...

[52:58] But we can provide that further information But there's not

[53:01] a lot of additional DDL will be that I think

[53:04] will be helpful for you making a different decision. Okay

[53:07] Councillor Stevenson. Uh, thank you Actually... Just that last reference

[53:13] to making a decision Like what decision will be... Before

[53:17] Council after getting this report? Mr. Maithers Uh... Through your

[53:25] worship So that there isn't any action to take at

[53:27] this time There was of course Uh... The letter that

[53:30] was brought and the delegation Um... Requesting for Council to

[53:36] consider this matter But there isn't any tangible action That

[53:39] you could take related to a planning matter Because that's

[53:42] already decided Matter of Council So there were... It would

[53:45] just be to receive that information and to receive that

[53:47] report If you... Decided to do so. Council Council Stevenson.

[53:54] Thank you This is the reason why I've pulled this

[53:56] and I'm gonna be voting against it Is we're asking

[53:58] for a report on information that isn't going to lead

[54:01] to any kind of a decision That is... You know,

[54:06] we've got written correspondence from the developer saying Um... As

[54:10] outline in the attached letter My actions were publicly misrepresented

[54:14] before the planning and environment Committee Without anyone First Contacting

[54:19] me from my position... Or requesting the supporting documentation. I

[54:23] consider it fundamentally unfair and unreasonable For conclusions about my

[54:29] conduct to be stated publicly without giving the affected party

[54:33] any opportunity to respond Particularly where the documentary record contradicts

[54:38] the assertion that replacement units were never offered Elected officials

[54:42] should exercise appropriate care before making factual statements that can

[54:46] affect an individual's reputation. This is the uh... The Communication

[54:52] on the public record from the developer We're hearing from

[54:55] staff that asking for this report isn't going to do

[54:57] anything at all. It's... We could... Like I don't want

[55:02] to go into legal session or anything to know How

[55:05] Council might be implicated in the misrepresentations and the injurious

[55:11] Reputational harm here. Point a point of order Now she's

[55:19] clearly making legal conclusions here that she's not in a

[55:21] position Council. A point of order would be on Procedural

[55:25] order. It's not on rebutting Uh... The statements the Councillor

[55:31] is making She's not... She's not a lawyer She's not

[55:34] providing legal advice It's not our solicitor She's making comments

[55:37] on a matter before us You're more than welcome to

[55:39] debate those comments and refute them in your own course

[55:42] in time But I have to let the Councillor continue

[55:45] with her Discussion There's no point of order related to

[55:48] the content of the Councillors Unless it's a point of

[55:51] personal privilege Which I don't think the Council is moving

[55:54] into She's providing her opinion here. Thank you and I

[55:58] wasn't implying any legal knowledge on my behalf I just

[56:01] said to me this doesn't even warrant going in to

[56:04] find out whether the legal implications I don't see why

[56:07] we would support emotion and take time Uh... For staff

[56:11] to prepare a report on something that isn't going to

[56:14] lead to any kind of decision isn't going to do

[56:15] anything and has been You know fairly clearly objected to

[56:20] by the developer in question here So I will not

[56:25] be supporting this. And I would encourage Council as well

[56:30] not to support it Because I'm not sure what we're

[56:32] doing here other than You know looking like we're doing

[56:35] something And there are always two parties And that's the

[56:38] thing I think we have to be careful when we

[56:40] take one side or the other without having Uh... Considered...

[56:45] Both parties and given them an opportunity to speak and

[56:48] be represented Um... I also... Have other concerns around. Some

[56:54] of this But I'm going to leave it for. Offline

[57:00] In terms of future... Future ways of handling this. And

[57:07] maybe understanding the implications that we might be causing Uh...

[57:12] Either party in terms of OLT Um. LTB matters. 30

[57:19] seconds. I guess You know we all want more housing

[57:27] options in this city And we're also looking to protect

[57:31] existing tenants And I think that's a good thing But

[57:33] I think we have to be careful about how this

[57:35] is done And when things are brought forward in this

[57:37] manner Uh... The implications and the way other parties are

[57:42] affected So I'm just going to leave it there And

[57:45] just say that I won't be supporting this. Okay Any

[57:48] other speakers to this. Go ahead Councillor Trossa. We often

[57:57] We often find her through the chair We often find

[57:59] ourselves in a situation where This jurisdiction is operating under

[58:03] a variety of different provincial laws. And sometimes they can

[58:07] flick with each other Sometimes there are boundaries that are

[58:09] not clear Sometimes Uh, maybe a better job could be

[58:13] done by the provincial government in terms of legislating A

[58:17] harmonious Relationship between these different policy pieces But I think

[58:22] this suggests that the Council is not in a position

[58:26] to try to find some kind of harmony. Between different

[58:30] pieces of legislation And actually to try to do that

[58:34] Constitute some type of meddling into a place that we

[58:38] don't belong. Yes, there might be implications if we do

[58:42] something here But then again There might be implications If

[58:46] we don't do something here And I'm real clear that

[58:50] the implications for not doing anything here are tenets are

[58:54] going to suffer potential prejudice. And I'm not I'm not

[58:58] litigating that question right now And I'm not issuing an

[59:02] opinion on how a court would deal with deal with

[59:04] this But I think that we are under an obligation.

[59:07] To try to do as much information seeking as we

[59:10] can And the fact that something arises under the planning

[59:12] Act doesn't mean we can't take into account a whole

[59:17] variety. Of other public policies That we're bound to observe

[59:23] So I welcome this resolution I probably would have drafted

[59:29] a little stronger But this is fine This is good

[59:34] And I think that the information that comes back to

[59:36] us Will be useful for us to set a course

[59:41] And ask the question What next. What can this Council

[59:45] be doing in order to avoid these types of conflicts

[59:49] between different Um, different parts of our Of our laws?

[59:53] So I think this is a very important exercise And

[59:55] to say that this is just going to lead This

[59:57] is just a road to nothing That is going to

[59:59] lead to us not being able to do anything We

[1:00:02] can always amend our bylaws. We can always amend the

[1:00:06] bylaws that are within the City of London's jurisdiction Which

[1:00:10] by the way is very broad. It's very bright. And

[1:00:15] we've stepped into in many other cities have stepped into

[1:00:19] the jurisdiction Of looking at What rights tenants might have.

[1:00:25] Uh.... With respect to their units in situations where the

[1:00:28] owner decides to exercise remedies under the Provincial landlord Tenant

[1:00:32] Law... And this is a good development It's shows that

[1:00:37] our relationship between the province. And cities is developing. And

[1:00:43] is not rigid and stale So this is exactly the

[1:00:46] kind of motion that we should be Um... Using to

[1:00:50] get ourselves some more information If for no other reason

[1:00:53] To help inform our future policy - making So I

[1:00:55] will be supporting this motion And I thank the Councillor

[1:00:58] for bringing it And I think I think the objections

[1:01:01] to it are not well taken So thank you very

[1:01:04] much. And any other speakers to this matter Councillor Frank

[1:01:07] Go ahead. Thank you Yes And I just wanted to

[1:01:12] speak to the rationales to why the letter was submitted

[1:01:15] Uh And the main reason I'm bringing this Ford is

[1:01:17] to gain a greater understanding of if there are other

[1:01:19] legal implications in regards to the commitments that were made

[1:01:22] And not specifically in regards to the planning matters As

[1:01:25] we've already heard from planning staff That there is not

[1:01:27] a lot that they can do through the site plan

[1:01:29] authority Um, for example Some of the information I'd be

[1:01:32] interested in is if there's any recourse for the city

[1:01:34] Um, be given any kind of incomplete or false information

[1:01:38] that influences Project Summons in the same way We have

[1:01:41] a list of businesses that we won't procure from if

[1:01:44] they violate contracts Is there something similar for developers who

[1:01:46] do not make commitments This is the kind of information

[1:01:49] that I would like to understand and know more of

[1:01:52] And in addition to the Comments made earlier about claims

[1:01:55] made by the developer I've repeatedly asked for additional information

[1:01:58] from the developer That proves the claims that they're making

[1:02:01] included in the letter Um... I've never seen them They're

[1:02:04] never sent to me Despite being asked repeatedly And if

[1:02:07] there are documents I don't know if anyone has seen

[1:02:09] them Um... I'd be interested in those And I do

[1:02:12] want to read an excerpt Um... From the submission that

[1:02:14] we had from the Tenance Legal Retion In regards to

[1:02:18] the accommodation And so ultimately at the tribunal They acknowledge

[1:02:22] two letters from the contractor from the Landlord's Contractor Both

[1:02:26] indicating temporary units cannot be safely serviced or occupied due

[1:02:29] to construction difficulties over winter Noting that they anticipated Completing

[1:02:33] the work by the end of the month Uh... That

[1:02:35] said The letters were corroborated by the author and the

[1:02:38] Landlord's Contractor by way of background The tenants were offered

[1:02:42] Who were offered a temporary unit An off - road

[1:02:44] that went out to two of five units who were

[1:02:46] remaining at the time Had submitted pictures of the unit's

[1:02:49] proposed for relocation showing the units to be uninhabitable. This

[1:02:52] was backed up at the landlord's witness Uh... By the

[1:02:55] landlord's witness at the April 9th hearing Also notable The

[1:02:59] two notices of temporary units that went outstated that the

[1:03:01] tenants would have access to those units effective in February

[1:03:04] Which was confirmed at the April 9th hearing to be

[1:03:06] not true. So there are, you know As we heard

[1:03:09] some various opinions on this matter Um... But I think

[1:03:12] that's an example of why we would get some information

[1:03:14] from staff to be able to make informed decisions moving

[1:03:17] forward and have a great understanding of what our limitations

[1:03:20] are And I also think it's a great example as

[1:03:22] to why we desperately need a tenant relocation assistance Program

[1:03:26] that would require temporary accommodations and that would legally bind

[1:03:30] the developers to something And again I think that this

[1:03:33] information would provide that context for Councillors and the future

[1:03:36] Council moving forward So I seek your support in getting

[1:03:40] that information back. Any other speakers to this matter. Council

[1:03:47] your times actually up Not speaking Just saying I'd like

[1:03:50] to vote on C separatelys It's the non - address

[1:03:54] specific one I'll support that one But not the address

[1:03:57] specific one Sure We can we can divide it with

[1:03:59] motion.

[1:04:21] Uh I apologise I'll take that back They're all address

[1:04:24] specific So I'm going to vote note everything. Makes it

[1:04:29] actually a little bit easier We don't have to recraft

[1:04:31] the motion. So I look for other speakers though before

[1:04:34] we move to that Council for our go ahead. Thanks

[1:04:38] Mayor I don't have too much to add I just

[1:04:39] wanted to say to the questions Um first I appreciate

[1:04:42] the motion come from the Councillor I appreciate the comments

[1:04:45] that were made But the question to what are we

[1:04:46] doing here? We are bringing some form of accountability to

[1:04:51] developers with a specific case study That shows that this

[1:04:55] is needed Um, is it worthwhile? Yes It's worthwhile You

[1:04:58] know if we can save at least one person to

[1:05:01] be staying within their home That is worthwhile If we

[1:05:04] can save 100 That is worthwhile We have a big

[1:05:07] crisis here when it comes to homelessness We have a

[1:05:10] big crisis here when it comes to people at risk

[1:05:12] of becoming homelessness This is not something that we should

[1:05:14] be looking at in isolation This is something that spreads

[1:05:16] across Um... A lot of different service areas A lot

[1:05:19] of different actions that Council is doing We should look

[1:05:21] at that in a holistic way We should look at

[1:05:23] this in something that it involves our homelessness response It

[1:05:28] involves our preemptively Seeing if we can keep people in

[1:05:30] their home This is a motion That is basically a

[1:05:34] case study that tells us that we should be looking

[1:05:36] at more preemptive actions when it comes to mitigating individuals

[1:05:40] who are at risk of losing their housing So I'm

[1:05:44] going to be full supportive of this I totally agree

[1:05:46] with Councillor Frank's Um direction when it comes to replacement

[1:05:50] When it comes to relocation When it comes to assistance

[1:05:53] for moving If we have to have some kind of

[1:05:55] repairs or renovations I totally support that So I think

[1:05:58] that's really where we need to start looking at We

[1:06:00] need to start looking at preemptive movements of what we

[1:06:03] can do to preempt individuals who are at risk of

[1:06:06] becoming homeless and to keep people in their homes So

[1:06:08] I'm going to fully support this And I think Council

[1:06:10] should fully support this as well. Any other speakers. Okay

[1:06:16] then it's the full motion before us And we're going

[1:06:18] to open that for voting.

[1:06:29] Close in the vote motion carries 13 to 2. Council

[1:06:33] Lehman. Thank you Mayor that completes 12th reporter of the

[1:06:36] Planning Environment Committee. Okay we're on to the 12th report

[1:06:41] of Community Texas Services Committee I'll turn it over to

[1:06:43] Chair Ramen to present that report. Thank you and through

[1:06:48] you I'd like to present the 12th Report of the

[1:06:50] Community and Protective Services Committee I've been asked to pull

[1:06:53] items 3 and 4 And I'll just look around the

[1:06:56] room See if the pull Okay 3 and 4 separate

[1:07:00] Anything else. Okay now you go ahead. Thank you I'll

[1:07:10] put on the floor items 1, 25 and 6. Okay

[1:07:14] 1, 2, 5 and 6 are on the floor Any

[1:07:16] discussion on those matters Go ahead to Council Approval. Thank

[1:07:19] you Mayor And through you to the staff I have

[1:07:22] a question regarding the 4. 1 from the committee or

[1:07:25] 6 on the agenda today I know we're talking about

[1:07:28] coming back Future to the Committee Uh... And I was

[1:07:31] just wondering which one in September are replanting to receive

[1:07:34] it back Thank you Mr. Dickens Go ahead. Uh Thank

[1:07:38] you your worshipping through you Uh we will be coming

[1:07:41] to the second CAPS meeting in September Uh, we wanted

[1:07:44] to see how Council as a whole voted on this

[1:07:47] item Today noting that the deadline for the first caps

[1:07:51] Uh... Meeting to submit our reports would be this week

[1:07:53] to the clerk's office We'll be aiming for the second

[1:07:56] CAPS in September. Council Priviley Thank you Mayor No more

[1:08:00] questions Thank you. Okay Any other questions in the matters

[1:08:04] before us. Okay Nunn will open that promoting.

[1:08:23] Close in vote motion carries 15 to 0. Council Ramen

[1:08:28] Thank you I'll put item 3 2. 2 on the

[1:08:30] floor The proposed winter response for 2627. Okay that's on

[1:08:35] the floor I look for speakers and discussion. Alright Go

[1:08:41] ahead Councillor Stevenson. Thank you just clarifying procedure I have

[1:08:50] an amendment But I have some questions that might add

[1:08:52] to this amendment So can I ask those or do

[1:08:55] I have to do it right away.

[1:09:35] So as you're speaking now It's going to count towards

[1:09:39] your time on the main motion Uh... If at the

[1:09:42] point that you move an amendment What you would need

[1:09:44] to do during your first time for speaking Uh you

[1:09:48] could move the amendment if it's seconded That would be

[1:09:50] a new motion You could speak to the amendment at

[1:09:52] that point So the answer is yes. Okay perfect Thank

[1:09:56] you So through you Uh to staff I just want

[1:09:59] to follow up on a question that I have been

[1:10:02] asking about and that is the 30 spaces at 696

[1:10:07] Dundest Street operated by ARC AD that are part of

[1:10:10] this proposed winter response. I'm still trying to understand how

[1:10:14] this has come forward as a staff recommendation with the

[1:10:20] Alder Council Proved policy that there won't be resting spaces

[1:10:23] on the Mai Street of a B. I. A.

[1:10:39] Mr. Dickens Uh thank you And through you your worship

[1:10:43] Um yes that is That is the case or had

[1:10:47] been the case Uh... We've gone back through to look

[1:10:49] at Uh, some extensive digging on various Council resolution resolutions

[1:10:53] and Council directions And there was a point in time

[1:10:55] where Council actually voted to suspend that requirement Uh... They

[1:10:58] did set a date of April 30th There were... A

[1:11:02] meeting held in February of 2026 Uh... Where it was

[1:11:06] discussed Um... That there would be changes made and that...

[1:11:11] Oversight or that provision B... Be eliminated for the winter

[1:11:15] Um... So what you... Have also directed staff to do

[1:11:19] was to go out and... Engage with the community to

[1:11:23] find as many spaces Uh... As needed to go out

[1:11:26] in canvas Uh... What was available... Uh... For those winter

[1:11:30] months Uh... So we came back Uh... With what the

[1:11:34] Community has offered and what they proposed that they can

[1:11:37] deliver So before Council would be a decision of endorsing

[1:11:41] or supporting Uh... Those spaces Which would mean therefore supporting

[1:11:46] the location in which they are provided Uh, what kind

[1:11:50] of muddies this in throughout is that Council supported a

[1:11:53] two - year winter response plan Uh... With that... Uh...

[1:11:56] Provision that they could exist and then modified it throughout

[1:12:00] and sent us to do a different approach in year

[1:12:04] two of the two - year approved plan So all

[1:12:07] of that to say Uh... We are before you with

[1:12:10] Here's what the community said they could offer you for

[1:12:13] the winter Uh... And these are the locations in which

[1:12:15] they can be provided Should Council wish to have those

[1:12:18] locations You would in fact be endorsing that they're permitted

[1:12:21] to be there. Councillor Stevenson Thank you not to belabor

[1:12:27] this But I have sent emails about this since the

[1:12:30] beginning That committee meeting where we waive that requirement until

[1:12:35] April 30th was done by Committee and Council That was

[1:12:38] us I had a motion brought forward with Counselor's Frank

[1:12:42] Trosso Uh... Ferreira regarding the immediate need that we were

[1:12:46] in in that winter And I agreed to waive the

[1:12:51] provision and Committee and Council obviously supported But it was

[1:12:56] me that had pushed It's my B. I. A. Main

[1:13:00] Street award where the oversaturation continues to occur three and

[1:13:04] a half years later Ten years later However long this

[1:13:06] has been going on. So I understand that Council can

[1:13:10] override their own policies But what brought was brought forward

[1:13:14] by staff. Seem to not take into account the policy

[1:13:19] that had been passed by this Council so that they

[1:13:22] wouldn't be on the main street of a B. I.

[1:13:23] A. And the First Communication that I got back said

[1:13:27] that staff were going to be looking at the clerk

[1:13:30] working with the clerk to see if there was going

[1:13:31] to be some kind of motion required to make this

[1:13:35] go through And I spoke with senior leadership yesterday as

[1:13:40] well to follow up on how did this come forward

[1:13:43] from staff because my understanding throughout this term account has

[1:13:47] been that staff have to operate under the Council policies

[1:13:50] but Council can make different changes. So what I'm hearing

[1:13:54] right now, and I just want to confirm is that

[1:13:56] we don't need to acknowledge the way we did in

[1:13:59] February that notwithstanding the Because I believe that was the

[1:14:03] motion notwithstanding the current policies we made an exception until

[1:14:07] April 2026 under the assumption that we were all still

[1:14:11] committed to moving forward with addressing the oversaturation issues and

[1:14:15] that in the immediate emergency We were going to allow

[1:14:17] it, but hoping that something better trusting that there were

[1:14:20] other options for the city than one particular street. Within

[1:14:26] a few block radius So I just want to confirm

[1:14:29] that the last motion was and notwithstanding the policy and

[1:14:33] I'm still and I would like an answer as to

[1:14:36] how this gets brought forward to this right now. Uh,

[1:14:40] acting as though we didn't have that policy that Council

[1:14:43] has said not on the mean street of a B.

[1:14:44] I. A. Thank you through you and I appreciate the

[1:14:50] question being asked I think it's probably fair to say

[1:14:52] that a staff we bring forth advice to Council and

[1:14:55] as Mr. Dick Contest said we have brought forward a

[1:14:59] suggestion that this be considered We absolutely appreciate that Council

[1:15:03] made a different decision before it doesn't mean that we

[1:15:05] don't have an opportunity to come back to you and

[1:15:07] say we're in a housing crisis We have an issue

[1:15:09] for the winter We have a provider who's willing to

[1:15:12] do this if it is Council's direction we didn't want

[1:15:15] to eliminate or not provide to you all of the

[1:15:18] information on this issue. We acknowledge that Council has a

[1:15:22] different decision It doesn't keep us though from asking you

[1:15:25] to reconsider that decision It's not to change your decision

[1:15:28] It's just to ask you to reconsider it and that's

[1:15:31] why it's being brought back to you today If the

[1:15:33] choices to go a different way We're happy to take

[1:15:35] that and go back with the existing policy. Councillor Stevenson

[1:15:42] Thank you so then through the clerk do we not

[1:15:44] need something in there that says notwithstanding the current policy

[1:15:48] We're making another exception like are we I was just

[1:15:51] surprised that that wasn't in the report asking for Council's

[1:15:54] reconsideration. Give me one second on that.

[1:17:12] Okay I'm gonna just try to give an answer and

[1:17:15] then I might have to go to staff or the

[1:17:17] clerks again So If I understand correctly What I've heard

[1:17:23] is the previous decision of Council about Uh not on

[1:17:27] the Main Street of a B. I. A. is suspended

[1:17:29] as part of a two year winter response Program Uh...

[1:17:32] Council makes an adjustment halfway through that two years That

[1:17:36] had a notwithstanding attached to it But Council makes an

[1:17:38] adjustment between halfway through the two years to say Um,

[1:17:41] bring us some other options We want to look at

[1:17:43] this staff brings back a report You know I guess

[1:17:46] it depends on if staff feel it's substantially different from

[1:17:49] the previous winter response Uh, and would require an updated

[1:17:55] notwithstanding or whether or whether it can just stand with

[1:17:59] the previous one Regardless it's been more than 12 months

[1:18:01] in Council can essentially decide Uh to proceed at this

[1:18:04] point in time Um, but I'd have to go to

[1:18:08] staff on the whole piece about You know which way

[1:18:11] you went and why it went that way on it.

[1:18:17] Thank you and for your worship when we initially brought

[1:18:19] the winter response It was a two - year response

[1:18:22] It was funded for two years Uh, earlier this spring

[1:18:25] you asked us to come back with an enhanced response

[1:18:28] more beds Uh... In particular looking at tier three and

[1:18:32] that's what we did Uh, we came back because we

[1:18:35] didn't have sufficient beds We came back with a proposal

[1:18:38] Because we knew opening a community centre again was not

[1:18:42] the right decision in tier three So we knew we

[1:18:45] had to look for bed So we went out to

[1:18:47] our community to look for where the options Where can

[1:18:50] we have beds enhancing our current winter response that we

[1:18:54] brought forward with you for 2526 and 2627 So we

[1:18:59] brought forward an enhanced the original response by enhancing tier

[1:19:04] 3 and by seeking additional funds and the most important

[1:19:08] change is that you asked us to look at Um,

[1:19:11] do we look at the minus 15 threshold or do

[1:19:13] we look at opening our doors 24 - 7 from

[1:19:17] December to March 31st So those are the change recommended

[1:19:20] changes based on Community and based on our evaluation and

[1:19:24] learnings from the initial First year of the winter response

[1:19:28] and that's what we brought forward for Council to make

[1:19:30] decision on. Okay Councillor Stevenson Thank you I just say

[1:19:36] to my colleagues I've been working on this since committee

[1:19:39] So this isn't like a last minute thing that I'm

[1:19:40] doing here today. The two - year winter response did

[1:19:45] not include the spaces on at 696 10DAS Street That

[1:19:49] was something that we as councillors brought forward as an

[1:19:52] emergency response that ended April 2026 Uh, that said notwithstanding

[1:19:57] our current policy So. Um I find this very frustrating

[1:20:04] I'll admit that That it's like this I find it

[1:20:08] really frustrating. Um I'm going to and that's why I

[1:20:12] wasn't sure what else I was going to add onto

[1:20:14] this amendment So I do have an amendment that I'm

[1:20:15] going to move And I am going to add one

[1:20:17] more section.

[1:20:29] I'll read out the one that's been circulated. Yeah If

[1:20:39] that's one you're moving you can read it out But

[1:20:41] if you're adding something to it You can read it

[1:20:42] all out together. I'm still making it up my head

[1:20:46] here because we're on the fly I assumed that this

[1:20:49] was drafted by staff already I've followed up as early

[1:20:52] as yesterday So The answer to my colleague who's speaking

[1:20:58] to me beside me is the answer staff would draft

[1:21:00] it is because Uh that there should be a requirement

[1:21:04] to move something that Council had already I'm going to

[1:21:07] say you don't have to respond to your colleague beside

[1:21:09] you your colleague beside you should not be talking to

[1:21:10] you where you're presenting your debate So I'll ask the

[1:21:13] colleague who was talking to please allow the Councillors to

[1:21:17] ask their questions and make their points if you'd like

[1:21:18] to speak You can put your hand up and speak

[1:21:20] to the motions before us Um. So Councillor Stevenson maybe

[1:21:25] just read out that and then we'll add to it

[1:21:27] with what you're adding to. I'm just trying to do

[1:21:34] this efficiently as well Um, how much time do I

[1:21:37] have right now?

[1:21:52] You spoke for about three minutes and 50 seconds before

[1:21:55] you started introducing the amendment Okay And if I can

[1:21:59] I do two amendments or do I have to do

[1:22:01] it all in one.

[1:22:46] Okay so if you've submitted some to some language. You

[1:22:51] want to put that on the floor You've got something

[1:22:54] Substantially different that you want to add to it I

[1:22:57] mean not contrary But substantially different that you want to

[1:23:00] add to it You can subsequently make an amendment to

[1:23:03] the amendment Like all members of Council can If they're

[1:23:06] pretty much the same thing You're just adding to it

[1:23:08] Like if it's not a distinct part. Then it probably

[1:23:11] should go altogether So there's really two options before you

[1:23:14] Okay Thanks I think it is distinct I'm going to

[1:23:16] move forward with this so that I can think about

[1:23:18] the other piece So my amendment is that the motion

[1:23:22] be amended to include a new part that reads as

[1:23:24] follows The implementation of the proposed winter response for 2026

[1:23:28] - 27 be subject to the following I Council approval

[1:23:33] of the proposed to be determined arcade location be required

[1:23:38] prior to the execution of any contract related to that

[1:23:41] location. I all contracts related to the proposed winter response

[1:23:45] be placed on a public agenda immediately following their execution

[1:23:49] And III all proposed locations be subject to fire and

[1:23:54] bylaw compliance Review and sign off by the appropriate city

[1:23:57] officials prior to the execution of any related contract. Okay

[1:24:07] I'll look for a seconder for that. Councillor Hillier is

[1:24:11] willing to second. Okay give us just one sec.

[1:24:32] Okay, so we've got that it's moved in seconded Um,

[1:24:35] now if you want to speak to the amendment now

[1:24:37] I'll just remind you you've got to move the amendment

[1:24:40] to the amendment. The first time you speak because you

[1:24:42] only get to speak once it council So just early

[1:24:45] heads up on that. Yeah.

[1:24:58] Going.

[1:25:10] You can still speak to the amendment because all you

[1:25:12] did was put on the 4 movement 2... But you're

[1:25:14] going to see if other colleagues want to speak first

[1:25:16] We can do that. Okay. Does anybody else want to

[1:25:19] speak to the moved in 2nd an amendment. As it's

[1:25:23] on the floor. I don't see anyone. Ou Councillor Pripple

[1:25:31] go ahead Thank you so much I do have a

[1:25:34] question Let's go for the eye part. And Propose Harricade

[1:25:39] locations The way it is right now Wood 696 would

[1:25:42] be included in it? Or would it be just the

[1:25:44] additional one if you can please confirm that we base

[1:25:47] what's in front of us. Thank you Andrew Yuu your

[1:25:51] worship This would be for the new location It would

[1:25:53] not include 690 the proposed location 696 Coronan - Warner

[1:25:58] This would be for their third location that they are

[1:26:00] currently Uh, searching for. Okay Thank you for the confirmation

[1:26:06] And for the II If I can get from legal

[1:26:14] in terms of the placing those on the public agenda

[1:26:18] If I can get a feedback from the legal department

[1:26:20] Please. Go ahead. Thank you and through your worship Once

[1:26:27] the contract's been executed There should be no issue with

[1:26:32] public disclosure Subject to any information that had been agreed

[1:26:38] to be kept confidential. Councillor Privileg Thank you for that

[1:26:45] and for the III If I can get a feedback

[1:26:47] from our By - Law Enforcement team.

[1:27:04] Go ahead Mr. Maithers. Three worships So we would undertake

[1:27:10] the same protocol as we do for all buildings We

[1:27:12] ensure we follow up after By - law compliant For

[1:27:14] unably By - law compliance perspective to make sure that

[1:27:17] they're Biden by the city's by - laws. Dwight Council

[1:27:24] Priviley Thank you to all three of you for your

[1:27:26] answers. Have Council Ramen and then Councillor Pelosa. Thank you

[1:27:35] and through you and on the amendment. Um part three

[1:27:40] of the amendment I'm just wondering if staff are aware

[1:27:43] of any potential issues around the fire and By -

[1:27:47] Lock compliance Review and how they anticipate or read that.

[1:27:56] Go ahead. Thank you Andrew your worship in conversation with

[1:28:01] Fire Chief Uh... AT Noon today I shared this with

[1:28:05] her And we ensure all buildings follow the fire code

[1:28:08] So depending on how its own It would be no

[1:28:10] different than any other building following the fire code That

[1:28:13] we have That we have across the city. Council Rahman

[1:28:22] Thank you and through you So I just I want

[1:28:25] to make sure I understand that any current location that

[1:28:28] was included in the report. Has met fully all fire

[1:28:32] and Bylaw Compliance so far to date So therefore they

[1:28:37] would not be excluded in the future Because of some

[1:28:41] outstanding matter or potential emergency order that was given to

[1:28:45] be able to establish said location. Thank you

[1:28:55] and through your worship. That is my understanding I can

[1:28:58] confirm with the Lennon Fire Department But I have not

[1:29:01] been aware of any buildings that have not Uh that

[1:29:06] are included in this list Noting that one is to

[1:29:08] be determined So we would have to ensure that that

[1:29:11] met the fire code And remember warming spaces are different

[1:29:14] than emergency shelters when it's looked at through the fire

[1:29:18] code For example. Go ahead Thank you and through you

[1:29:24] But the language in the winter response includes both And

[1:29:28] so I'm just wanting to confirm Because we may have

[1:29:31] some warming spaces that aren't Uh potentially or may potentially

[1:29:36] have some challenges. Thank you and through your worship Both

[1:29:42] spaces not the one that's not determined Acted as warming

[1:29:45] spaces in the past winter response And there were no

[1:29:48] concerns at that time with respect to the code or

[1:29:51] the zoning. Council Ramon. Thank you and through you and

[1:29:56] I'd like to move an amendment. To the amendment. Or

[1:30:03] an amendment to the main motion Whichever you perceive to

[1:30:05] be better.

[1:30:21] So Councillor you kind of ask a question of me

[1:30:24] there at the end. Which way you could do it?

[1:30:26] You can move an amendment to the amendment now Um...

[1:30:29] That's no problem If it's related to the amendment If

[1:30:31] it's more related to the general provision You've not spoken

[1:30:33] yet to the main motion You could also move an

[1:30:36] amendment to the Azimed Motion or the main motion Depending

[1:30:40] on that this passes or not. To change a component

[1:30:43] of it So I guess I'm in your hands on

[1:30:46] Is it related to these clauses or is it related

[1:30:48] to another piece. Or if you feel like it has

[1:30:51] to be attached to this Then I would say do

[1:30:53] it now if you feel like it's more independent Um,

[1:30:55] then you could do it. At the main motion. Thank

[1:30:58] you Andry It's variable So the first part of this

[1:31:01] motion reads the implementation of the proposed winter response And

[1:31:06] part D also reads that B directed to implement So

[1:31:09] it's the implementation piece that I'm trying to amend. So

[1:31:15] it's either.

[1:31:56] Councillor I think I know what you're going for So

[1:31:59] it says in this piece The implementation that proposed winter

[1:32:02] Response be subject to the following. Um When we go

[1:32:05] back to the main motion You can change the top

[1:32:08] level implementation piece. Because if you did it now and

[1:32:15] then this failed Then you might have to do it

[1:32:17] again But you could just have it applied all because

[1:32:20] the Counselor's main pieces of the clauses are 1, 2

[1:32:22] and 3 Um, and the B subject 2 piece But

[1:32:26] you can I mean you could adjust the implementation piece

[1:32:30] in the main. Clause Which I think was D. And

[1:32:39] then depending on where this lands Is this landing under

[1:32:42] D.

[1:33:37] You could do it after You could change the word

[1:33:39] implementation in its forms throughout the has amended motion or

[1:33:44] the main motion. After this is passed. But we don't

[1:33:48] know what you're trying to do So you might need

[1:33:50] to give us more context We could probably rule a

[1:33:52] little bit better on this Okay Thank you Um so

[1:33:55] my context I guess is this I would like to

[1:33:57] amend this motion to include part D Notwithstanding Council Policy

[1:34:01] regarding the existence of resting spaces on the main street

[1:34:04] of BIA.

[1:36:25] Okay, so our advice after some discussion is do it

[1:36:28] now because given the context of your emotion, the support

[1:36:33] or not for clauses, these new classes that Councillor Stephen

[1:36:38] has proposed may be subject to the clause that you

[1:36:42] want to put link to the implementation. If this passes

[1:36:46] in the asm - ended motion, the implementation piece would

[1:36:49] need to be cleaned up because you can't implement it

[1:36:52] without doing these things. And so we will have changed

[1:36:55] the subject two piece on the implementation. So now is

[1:36:59] the time to do it. And then it will link

[1:37:04] in with the main motion. We'll have to do something

[1:37:06] later because it'll be part of it. Okay? All right.

[1:37:21] Could you just read it out. And then you can

[1:37:27] provide some more rationale because it'll be as amended motion.

[1:37:30] Thank you. That the motion be amended to be further

[1:37:33] amended to add a new part IV that reads as

[1:37:37] follows, notwithstanding a Council policy regarding the existing resting spaces

[1:37:42] on Main Street of BIA. Is there a seconder for

[1:37:47] that? Councillor Trosow. Okay, so now we're only going to

[1:37:53] debate that edition to the amendment. So we're not debating

[1:37:58] the amendment. We're debating that additional clause onto the amendment.

[1:38:04] Go, would you like to speed now? Okay, go ahead.

[1:38:07] Thank you, Andrew. So I want to thank Councillor Stevenson

[1:38:10] for pointing out what was missing from our discussion. And

[1:38:13] I think it's important that this discussion beframed correctly and

[1:38:19] that the information be put in this light. I know

[1:38:22] there was support for this last year when we were

[1:38:27] looking at resting spaces. And part of the reason for

[1:38:30] that support to allow resting spaces on the Main Street

[1:38:33] of a BIA was because we didn't have a lot

[1:38:36] of options for where else people could go. And so

[1:38:40] here we are. We've received staff's report, staff of outlined

[1:38:44] the locations that were possible for, uh, overnight spaces. And

[1:38:49] this was one that was put forward. And I want

[1:38:52] to make sure that non - technicality, uh, but purposefully

[1:38:57] we're addressing the issue so that there is those spaces

[1:39:00] available. Or for this upcoming winter. So appreciate that we're

[1:39:05] having this discussion here. I'm sorry that it didn't happen

[1:39:09] at committee. Um, and hope that this helps us to

[1:39:13] move forward on this matter. Okay. Other speakers on the

[1:39:18] further amendment. Go ahead, Councillor Tro. Just on the amendment,

[1:39:26] because I'll come back to the, um, just on the

[1:39:28] amendment to the amendments. I'll come back to the amendment.

[1:39:32] Um. I think it's a good amendment to the amendment.

[1:39:35] I think it's a reasonable amendment to a bad amendment.

[1:39:39] So I'm going to support the amendment to the amendment.

[1:39:41] I'm not going to support the amendment, but we'll get

[1:39:43] to that later. Um, for now, what I want to

[1:39:45] say is I hope that was clear. Yeah. Okay. Uh,

[1:39:50] for now, what I want to say is I, I've

[1:39:53] always felt that this whole prohibition against having, uh, these

[1:39:59] activities that are, that are, that are lawful activities that

[1:40:03] are within, that are within the appropriate zoning that are

[1:40:07] things that are being, uh, controlled and monitored by the

[1:40:11] property owner probably was a bit of an overreach. And

[1:40:17] should they be challenged? There could be substantial issues. Now,

[1:40:22] I'm not, I'm not asking the solicitor for an opinion

[1:40:26] as to whether or not this framework is subject to

[1:40:29] a successful attack. All I'm saying is when we come

[1:40:32] back and make these. Amendments, we're just showing a level

[1:40:37] of flexibility that, that shows we're trying to ameliorate the

[1:40:43] potential harshness of the underlying rule. And I think, should

[1:40:48] we find ourselves in a situation where we're trying to

[1:40:50] defend our, um, our work that would help us a

[1:40:54] lot. So that's why I'm supporting Council Raman's. Amendment. Does

[1:41:01] the underlying measure say you can't do this on the

[1:41:05] street or does it say you can't do it on

[1:41:07] any premises with an address on the street. I don't

[1:41:11] have that in front of me. Mr. Dickens.

[1:41:22] Thank you, your worship. I need a moment to pull

[1:41:24] up the exact wording, but it was tied to city

[1:41:27] funding only. So not self - funded or funded through

[1:41:30] other parties, but any municipal funded service, uh, on the

[1:41:34] main street of a B. I. A. It did not

[1:41:36] specify whether it was in a dwelling out of a

[1:41:38] dwelling or anything like that. And if I understand the

[1:41:41] situation, they are not housing people on the street, are

[1:41:43] they? Go ahead, Mr. Dickens. Through your worship, that is

[1:41:51] correct understanding. Um, hence one more level of ambiguity in

[1:41:56] this underlying, uh, measure that could create problems for us

[1:42:00] if it was challenged. Now I'm not, I'm not going

[1:42:02] to, uh, make a further motion that we, we, uh,

[1:42:07] we, we do some major changes to what we already

[1:42:10] agreed to. But I just, I just think that given,

[1:42:13] given that ambiguous language, which could be problematic. Because for

[1:42:18] me, being on the street means being on street. Um,

[1:42:23] I just, I just think that this kind of, um,

[1:42:25] amendment just sort of gives us the kind of, uh,

[1:42:29] flexibility that could really assist this later if we got

[1:42:33] into, uh, legal, legal trouble. So I'm going to vote

[1:42:35] against the entire thing, but, well, the entire amendment. But

[1:42:39] if the amendment passes, it's much stronger and much better

[1:42:42] with this. So thank you for, thank you for bringing

[1:42:46] that, Councillor. Okay. I have Councillor McAllister next. Uh, thank.

[1:42:55] Thanking through the mayor. Uh, I do appreciate the discussion

[1:42:58] today. Um, I think Councillor Stevenson had mentioned this earlier,

[1:43:02] but, um, I do take a bit of issue in

[1:43:05] terms of when we have these discussions in terms of

[1:43:07] the notwithstanding, the Council policy, um, I think back to

[1:43:10] the time when we had this debate, uh, and it

[1:43:13] is predominantly the two B. I. that are constantly impacted

[1:43:17] by this. I do recognise in terms of the time

[1:43:20] restriction we've put on this. Also recognising we have limited

[1:43:24] options as Council Ramen said, um, but when I look

[1:43:27] ahead to the, um, the budget ask that we'll be

[1:43:31] made on the next cycle. I think that that is

[1:43:33] the time where we need to have those discussions in

[1:43:35] terms of locations and where we see these things long

[1:43:39] term. Because right now I think it is incredibly unfair.

[1:43:42] Even when we say B. I. it's not. It's two

[1:43:46] B. I. A's. Um, I experienced this with the coffee

[1:43:48] house, OAV has experienced this for a number of years.

[1:43:52] And so I'm just expressing the frustration that I'm hearing

[1:43:54] from the B. I. A. A. members from the community

[1:43:56] members that we are constantly putting in on the shoulders

[1:43:59] of two communities. And that is why I'm trying to

[1:44:02] state a Council that when this discussion comes back for

[1:44:05] those, um, budget discussions, then we need to recognise that

[1:44:09] we have repeatedly asked two areas of the city to

[1:44:13] shoulder the responsibility. And that is grossly unfair. When we

[1:44:19] say the notwithstanding this policy, I was very serious in

[1:44:22] that discussion that these are the two B. I.'s. And

[1:44:25] if I have to change the language to explicitly say

[1:44:28] Hamilton Road and OEV, which will eventually become one, or

[1:44:31] not one, but they will be in one ward. Uh,

[1:44:34] I will change the language accordingly if I have to,

[1:44:36] to call out those B. I. A. s because they

[1:44:38] have shouldered this for far too many years. So I'm

[1:44:40] just calling it out. I recognise again, the situation we're

[1:44:43] in. We do have some lead time. But this is

[1:44:46] absolutely the last time that I am willing to support

[1:44:50] an extension of this sort. Because we have no other

[1:44:53] options right now. I am looking forward to, uh, with

[1:44:56] this amendment in terms of, well, this is the amendment

[1:44:58] to the amendment, but having that location discussed because I

[1:45:02] don't, I think it would be unfair to once again,

[1:45:05] ask those areas, uh, to take on this responsibility. So

[1:45:09] I'm understanding where we're at. I do very much feel

[1:45:11] like this is again, um, no win situation. Um, the

[1:45:16] same areas are going to unfortunately bear the brunt. But

[1:45:20] I do think that this plan, as it's been laid

[1:45:23] out is better than what we previously had. We're not

[1:45:25] giving up a community centre. Uh, and we are trying

[1:45:28] to accommodate smaller numbers and not have large facility, which

[1:45:32] would be a very difficult to manage. So I'm just

[1:45:35] trying to say, I recognise all the considerations have gone

[1:45:37] into this. Appreciate the amendment to the amendment that we're

[1:45:42] now discussing. Um, but these are some considerations that we

[1:45:45] absolutely need to take into account when we have these

[1:45:47] discussions. So thank you. Okay. On this, go ahead Councillor

[1:45:55] Stevenson and then Councillor Ferreira. Thank you. Um, I just

[1:46:00] will point out that I said that to move things

[1:46:02] along, I was going to let people speak so that

[1:46:06] I could work on the amendment that I was bringing.

[1:46:11] Councillors are allowed to bring another one. But of course

[1:46:13] it's contrary to the direction that I was going, but

[1:46:17] that's okay. It's consistent with the way this has been

[1:46:20] at this during this term of Council. The 696 Dandas

[1:46:27] Street location. Is a problem. It is a big problem

[1:46:31] for that neighbourhood and for the neighbouring businesses who pay

[1:46:35] a levy and have a B. I. A. because this

[1:46:39] Council had it as one of their strategic objectives to

[1:46:42] make that a viable, livable, vibrant business district with the

[1:46:47] way that area deserves. The same as every other area

[1:46:50] of the city. To say that there's no other locations

[1:46:57] is counter to our whole objective of 12 to 15

[1:47:00] hubs around the city. How did we all get behind

[1:47:04] that. Well, not all of us. But this Council got

[1:47:07] behind that. And yet just says there's nothing we can

[1:47:11] do about poor old East Village. So my motion would

[1:47:17] have been to say we're going to exclude taxpayer funding

[1:47:20] from the 690 6nd Street location. And I will move

[1:47:24] that if this fails. The overnight spaces at 696 Dundes

[1:47:30] Street have continued to operate under donations as they should.

[1:47:35] We should not be using the property tax dollars or

[1:47:38] the, uh, the tax dollars, whether they're federal, provincial or

[1:47:42] municipal of the residents of that neighbour, neighbourhood and the

[1:47:47] business owners and property owners of that area to fund

[1:47:51] the spaces to which they have been crying out for

[1:47:55] help. If it's done on donations and property that's owned

[1:47:59] by a charitable organisation, that's for them to do. But

[1:48:03] for this Council to support in the fourth year of

[1:48:07] this term to continue to use their taxpayer money, to

[1:48:12] fund these services when they have cried out in despair

[1:48:16] for four years. And their Councillor has advocated for help

[1:48:20] that we just stop using their money to cause the

[1:48:24] problem. So I would encourage Council to say no to

[1:48:29] this. They the overnight spaces will continue. They haven't stopped,

[1:48:33] but they were used by charitable donations. And at half

[1:48:38] the cost I must add, because when you see it

[1:48:40] on Facebook, it's 50 dollars a night. So I'm asking

[1:48:45] Council to say no to this. Allow the organisation to

[1:48:48] do it with donations. And then at least we're not

[1:48:50] guilty of using their money. To do the service. It's

[1:48:55] going to continue anyway. Let's just honour our strategic objectives

[1:49:02] and the voice of that neighbourhood. And the pleas of

[1:49:06] that neighbourhood to say, please don't do it with our

[1:49:08] tax money. Councillor. Thank you Mayor.

[1:49:18] Um, so like the conversation here, lots of ideas, um,

[1:49:24] and this discussion has been going on for, I think

[1:49:27] three and a half years or however long council has

[1:49:29] been here since I've been here. Um, like when we

[1:49:33] first discussed, um, restricting resting spaces in the OEV, uh,

[1:49:38] that was very politically driven. And it was not really

[1:49:42] a conversation that focused on what would be the consequences.

[1:49:46] It was a motion to try to remove service providers

[1:49:50] and shelters within, um, the OEV and within B. I's.

[1:49:56] The anticipated result of that was to see, to push

[1:50:01] these providers outside. Hopefully, I believe, and this is my

[1:50:05] opinion, it was to push outside of the OEV. That

[1:50:07] didn't translate into reality. What really happened was individuals are

[1:50:13] just left out on the street. And there was more

[1:50:15] individuals out on the street. And the reason that I

[1:50:19] was against that initial motion was because of exactly that.

[1:50:23] And today a lot of individuals are saying our homelessness

[1:50:27] crisis is that, you know, is through the roof. And

[1:50:30] some of the reasons of that is because we have

[1:50:32] been systematically shutting down spaces with motions like this. I

[1:50:36] was against this motion at the time. Um, because of

[1:50:39] that, I'm still against that because I understand that the

[1:50:42] capacity that we have is really within these areas. However,

[1:50:47] I also see that there is a truth, a reality

[1:50:52] that we do have service providers within a small area.

[1:50:57] And I do not see the city providing citywide anyways,

[1:51:01] providing such providers. So there is some merit with some

[1:51:06] of the things that are being said. Now I am

[1:51:08] going to vote for this notwithstanding amendment because I understand

[1:51:13] that we have to work with what we have right

[1:51:16] now because we do have a crisis. But I would

[1:51:20] also suggest we put an amendment to this amendment. Can

[1:51:23] I put another amendment on this. Word. There are already

[1:51:26] two amendments deep. You can't do another one yet. Okay.

[1:51:27] Well on the main motion, we need to put some

[1:51:31] priority. To look at all locations citywide. To help us

[1:51:36] when it comes to the homelessness crisis. We need to

[1:51:40] have specific language. And I think this might be the

[1:51:43] time to do it. To also look citywide of where

[1:51:46] capacity can also be increased. Because there is a debate

[1:51:49] and it has turned into a battle of the wards

[1:51:52] back and forth. Who is going to put spaces out

[1:51:56] to help people in need out on the street? Who

[1:51:59] is not this conversation has gone off again and again

[1:52:03] and again and again. And there is merit to some

[1:52:08] of the arguments I see here. But I will say

[1:52:11] the motion originally to shut down or not approve city

[1:52:17] funded resting spaces in the areas of the B. I.

[1:52:20] A. has led to more crisis. Has led to more

[1:52:23] people on the street. That is a reality. If we

[1:52:26] didn't do that, more people would be in on the

[1:52:28] street. Now service providers that do this work would still

[1:52:32] be in that area, but there'd be less people out

[1:52:34] on the street. That would be for sure. So I'm

[1:52:38] going to support this because I understand that our capacity

[1:52:42] right now is existing where it is. But I would

[1:52:44] also say we do need to start figuring out. How

[1:52:48] do we place locations elsewhere. This motion should be in

[1:52:53] coordination with another set of language that says we need

[1:52:56] to start prioritizing other spaces outside the core. That provide

[1:53:02] these services that provide shelter, that provide housing that provide

[1:53:06] all the services resting spaces, whatever the language is. We

[1:53:10] need to start putting that explicitly into this language too,

[1:53:13] because not only do we need to recognise what we

[1:53:15] have, the crisis that we're in, what we've learned on

[1:53:19] this type of direction, but also how do we mitigate

[1:53:24] these issues that are arising? Because there's some realities here,

[1:53:28] but we need to start really looking at the data.

[1:53:29] We need to start looking at what has really transpired

[1:53:32] in the last three years. With this direction. And we

[1:53:35] need to start really understanding that there is only a

[1:53:38] couple areas in the city that have really put, you

[1:53:41] know, all hands in. To respond. We need the rest

[1:53:45] of the city to be responding with us. 30 seconds.

[1:53:48] So I guess I'm going to have to move an

[1:53:51] amendment. So it's coming. You can't on the main motion.

[1:53:59] Okay. Other speakers to the amendment that is before us.

[1:54:02] Go ahead, Depreer Lewis. Thank you, Chair. So in listening

[1:54:08] to this conversation, I think we need to draw a

[1:54:12] colleagues attention back to some realities. First of all, I'm

[1:54:16] going to support the amendment. I think it's, it's the

[1:54:18] appropriate amendment to clean up the language, make sure that

[1:54:20] that's in there. Um, reality one. The ARK and the

[1:54:28] unity project. Own their buildings. So if you want to

[1:54:34] talk about moving them, then you better talk about a

[1:54:36] multi - year budget business plan for property acquisition to

[1:54:39] then do land swaps with them because that is what

[1:54:42] you're talking about. I would also remind colleagues. That the

[1:54:47] core is not the only location where we have homelessness

[1:54:49] services. On Clark Road in the East End, I have

[1:54:53] the YOU Youth Shelter. I also have the Innova Women's

[1:54:56] Shutter. South of the 40 - 1 is where we

[1:55:01] put the micromoduler shelter because we weren't going to put

[1:55:04] it. Again in the downtown. And I heard colleagues argue

[1:55:07] against that because it was too far away because it

[1:55:09] wasn't in the core. So respectfully to say that all

[1:55:14] the services are in the core is not accurate. There

[1:55:17] are services in multiple words across the city. Um, and

[1:55:22] the last time we brought something forward as a council,

[1:55:25] the micromoduler shelter, which I think has been very successful

[1:55:28] so far. Was deliberately put outside the core. Because there

[1:55:34] are a range of needs in our homeless population. There

[1:55:38] are, uh, folks who do need to be away from

[1:55:42] the core area. So that they can, uh, go through

[1:55:46] their journey towards, uh, recovering from addiction, from dealing with

[1:55:50] their mental health crisis, from whatever the situation might be.

[1:55:53] In some cases, just to reconnect with family to get

[1:55:55] back up on their feet, to get back up to

[1:55:56] working and be back out on their own. And I

[1:55:58] know we've had people at the micromodular shelter who have

[1:56:00] seen that progress and have actually moved out of the

[1:56:03] micromodulator shelter and are now, uh, in rental units elsewhere.

[1:56:07] Some of whom I know are back to work. That's,

[1:56:09] that's a success. And we know that we've seen the

[1:56:12] arc with its cronin warner, uh, project do the same

[1:56:15] thing. They have shown us numbers of people who have

[1:56:18] been in those beds who have been able to reconnect

[1:56:22] with family who've been able to get health services who've

[1:56:25] been able to get, uh, help with employment services and

[1:56:27] have been able to get back out on their own.

[1:56:30] I also think we have to be practical that. Say

[1:56:34] this every time we have this discussion to hundreds of

[1:56:37] people, I've said it on the doorstep hundreds of times

[1:56:39] too in the last couple of months. The city's not

[1:56:41] going to solve this problem alone. We're not. Ladies and

[1:56:46] gentlemen, without a serious effort by the province. And we

[1:56:50] could, we could talk about ODSP rates and O. Rates

[1:56:53] and how the shelter allowances are not nearly adequate, uh,

[1:56:57] we could talk about the need for the federal government

[1:56:59] to invest more affordable housing. As well as the province

[1:57:03] investing in healthcare beds, uh, in addiction and mental health

[1:57:05] recovery. We can talk about all of those things. We

[1:57:08] can't do them. There are MPPs and MPs whose job

[1:57:12] it is to address those issues. So we can only

[1:57:14] do our part. And I think with what we've got

[1:57:17] here before us in the winter response, this is the

[1:57:20] best option we have for the moment. I'm going to

[1:57:24] support the amendment. Uh, I will actually just for the

[1:57:28] clerk's sake so that they can, uh, perhaps separate out

[1:57:32] some language. On the amendment from Councillor Stevenson, uh, and

[1:57:36] I'll speak to this when we get back to that.

[1:57:37] But if we could separate out part one. Cause I

[1:57:40] want to vote on that differently than the other parts.

[1:57:42] Um, so if we could do that, that would be

[1:57:44] appreciated. But that's my comments on the, on the amendment

[1:57:48] from Council Rahman. I'm absolutely going to support it because

[1:57:50] I think we do need to recognise that notwithstanding, we

[1:57:53] have two providers who are stepping up. Who own buildings

[1:57:56] in the area. And until we are willing to spend

[1:58:00] money to acquire properties, that's going to continue to be

[1:58:03] a reality. Okay. Other speakers to Council Ramen's

[1:58:12] Amendment. All right. Singe Nummer going to open just Council

[1:58:19] Ramens amendment for voting.

[1:58:36] Closing the vote, motion carries 14 to one. Okay. Now

[1:58:43] I need an as amended motion. Um, for the amendment,

[1:58:48] uh, which I assume Councillor Stevenson, you don't want to

[1:58:50] move anymore. Council Ramen, you're willing to move. I need

[1:58:53] a seconder for the as amended motion, Deputy Mary Lewis.

[1:59:08] Okay. So now we're going to start debate on the

[1:59:11] as amended amendment. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. Um, so I

[1:59:18] just want to go through the first part is the

[1:59:21] approval of the proposed 40 space location that is listed

[1:59:25] currently as to be determined. And, uh, I know that

[1:59:28] the residents that I speak want to have a say

[1:59:30] in where that goes and they want it to be

[1:59:32] done publicly and not just find out after the fact.

[1:59:36] So I think that's important, especially given the, what the

[1:59:40] confirmation. And I just want to confirm through you to

[1:59:42] staff that the emergency shelter guidelines, if we pass them

[1:59:46] today with the illegal substances allowed inside that that does,

[1:59:51] uh, apply to these warming spaces as well. Like I

[1:59:54] confirmed at committee, but I just want to reconfirm here

[1:59:56] at Council. Go ahead. Three of your worship. Um, yes,

[2:00:02] the emergency shelter guidelines do prioritize bringing people indures when

[2:00:06] there's risks to them being outside. And so in the

[2:00:08] winter season, this would be further exacerbated. Um, leaving people

[2:00:11] outdoors in the cold. And so those same shelter guidelines

[2:00:14] would still apply to the winter spaces. Um, the staff

[2:00:17] are still responsible for ensuring safe, um, premises on the

[2:00:20] ground. They're regardless of the client that are in the

[2:00:22] space. Thank you. So again, because illegal substances are most

[2:00:27] likely to be allowed inside if this next motion passes

[2:00:31] or the next, uh, agenda item passes. I think it's,

[2:00:34] uh, something that Londoners want to know and they want

[2:00:37] there to know where their Council members stand when these

[2:00:39] locations are decided. Number two is that all contracts be

[2:00:43] placed on the public agenda. Uh, there's no reason why

[2:00:46] these contracts aren't placed on the public agenda. We've done

[2:00:49] it before. We want to see the details on it.

[2:00:52] We've seen the contracts for the ARC that we say

[2:00:55] daytime spaces, but we've seen the hours shrink from 11

[2:00:58] to 7 to, uh, 9 to 4, 3 to 7

[2:01:03] or whatever it is. I'm not sure what the hours

[2:01:04] are, but they've been shrinking each contract. And those details

[2:01:07] aren't in the staff report. They are in the contracts.

[2:01:10] I do think that they should be publicly, uh, available.

[2:01:14] And the last one is that, uh, all proposed locations

[2:01:17] be subject to fire and bylaw compliance review. So, uh,

[2:01:21] I heard yesterday that fire inspections have not been done

[2:01:26] at these locations. And that 30 mattresses on a floor

[2:01:29] is not something that they've seen and inspected. I may

[2:01:33] have misunderstood that, but maybe if staff have anything to

[2:01:36] add, this is the reason why I've added this in.

[2:01:40] Is rather than me just send an email asking for

[2:01:43] fire inspections that we just make it a matter of

[2:01:45] course. Thank you. And, and I would have to confirm

[2:01:54] with the chief on that. Because I don't understand the

[2:02:00] context of what he said. So we would want to

[2:02:03] confirm from London fire department. Okay. Thank you. And I

[2:02:08] understand. And like I said, what I heard yesterday was

[2:02:12] that, uh, and from a fireish official, but I may

[2:02:18] have misunderstood. But I don't think it hurts to double

[2:02:21] check, even if I misunderstood that, that if we have

[2:02:24] 30 mattresses or 25 mattresses are caught on the floor

[2:02:27] of a basement or in a building that didn't have.

[2:02:33] Isn't regulated for sleeping, um, I heard that the need

[2:02:38] to be done for safety and nobody here wants to

[2:02:41] be part of any kind of tragedy where we've got

[2:02:43] a bunch of people where we haven't met complete fire

[2:02:47] code inspections. It's one of the things we haven't really

[2:02:50] talked about is the fact that emergency shelters, warming spaces,

[2:02:53] all these locations, the, I'll confirm through you to staff.

[2:02:57] There's no licensing requirements. There's no, you know, you have

[2:03:00] to open up a coffee shop. Something the things you

[2:03:03] need to do. But for these, my understanding is there's

[2:03:06] no requirements for this type of, of, of thing that

[2:03:11] usually would be required if you ran a boarding house

[2:03:13] or something like that or a tendency arrangement. Mr. Maithers.

[2:03:21] Three of your worship, I can confirm the specific license

[2:03:23] related to these type operations. Yeah. So I don't see

[2:03:28] any harm in making sure as a Council that we've

[2:03:31] got, you know, fire inspected locations and that everything everybody's

[2:03:36] safe and compliant. And so that's my reason for adding,

[2:03:39] uh, that to the amendment today, uh, is just to

[2:03:42] ensure that when we are bringing people in out of

[2:03:46] the cold, that the fire inspectors have been there and

[2:03:48] ensured that we've got a safe location for people to

[2:03:51] stay. So it's simply knowing the location representing our, our

[2:03:57] residents to ensure that, you know, if and when it

[2:03:59] comes to any of our awards that we have a

[2:04:02] say in it and that the public's involved, contracts transparent

[2:04:06] and accountable to the public for taxpayer funding and fire

[2:04:10] inspection and bylaws seems a pretty basic thing that any

[2:04:12] one of us would want to support. But I leave

[2:04:14] that to my colleagues. Okay. Um, we're on the asthmated

[2:04:24] motion. I know Councillor Ploughs, I had you on the

[2:04:26] original amended, but so if you want to go now,

[2:04:28] you can. Go ahead. Thank you noting the Deputy Mare

[2:04:33] also has his hand up. Uh, just ever so briefly.

[2:04:37] Oh, and Councillor Fair too. Um, Eversa briefly, uh, threw

[2:04:40] you to staff, um, looking at the motion specifically, uh,

[2:04:44] for the timing of it, um, for the original part,

[2:04:50] I, I, I'd all propose locations be subject to fire

[2:04:53] and Bylaw compliance review and sign off by the appropriate

[2:04:56] city officials prior to the execution of, uh, related contract.

[2:05:00] Wondering about timing that perhaps the service provider will find

[2:05:05] a building and need to do modifications to it to

[2:05:08] make it appropriate for the purposes of a side contract,

[2:05:11] but they don't have the money to do it until

[2:05:12] side contract is executed. So I just feel some concerns

[2:05:16] about the inspections that they can't inspect the work to

[2:05:19] give the contract and they can't do the work until

[2:05:21] they have the money from subcontract. Just looking through you

[2:05:24] to staff for that, that one's just a process question

[2:05:26] and I'm just having some concerns with it.

[2:05:38] Mr. Dickens. Thank you worshipping through you. So there is

[2:05:43] one property that's to be determined. I think what the

[2:05:45] organisation is looking for is a commitment coming out of

[2:05:48] today's meeting that there would be a funding allocation set

[2:05:51] aside for them, which gives them the opportunity to go

[2:05:53] and seek an appropriate location. Uh, and I think they're

[2:05:56] aware of the context of the conversation today about where

[2:05:59] that location might be. But also it would then, uh,

[2:06:03] require that whatever this location is. It is safe and

[2:06:06] suitable for the intended use. The other locations that are

[2:06:10] in this report are spaces that are used now and

[2:06:14] today. So the language being, uh, all proposed locations be

[2:06:18] subject to fire inspection or sign off. These organisations already

[2:06:21] have fire safety plans in place. Uh, the fire department

[2:06:26] does visit, uh, from time to time. Uh, last year

[2:06:29] when we ran Boyle, we, uh, we're using it for

[2:06:31] a very different purpose than what it's intended. And the

[2:06:34] fire department was very helpful in coming in doing a

[2:06:36] walkthrough, giving us suggestions and recommendations. When we launched a

[2:06:40] micromoder shelter site, which we have never done before in

[2:06:43] a location that had never intended for that use, the

[2:06:47] fire department was very instrumental in the site plan design,

[2:06:50] doing walkthroughs and making suggestions and recommendations around our fire

[2:06:54] safety plan. So, uh, yes, the timing may be, um,

[2:06:59] complicated when you look at, uh, we need a confirmation

[2:07:03] of funding. So we can go find a confirmation of

[2:07:04] space. We need it to be a suitable space. So

[2:07:07] we can execute that lease agreement. Um, but here we

[2:07:10] are. And I think that's a reality. We're going to

[2:07:12] have to manage the best as we can. And then,

[2:07:14] uh, when all the, uh, agreements are executed, uh, we

[2:07:18] would certainly bring all of those agreements forward, uh, at

[2:07:21] one time to committee. Go ahead. Uh, thank you. Uh,

[2:07:28] I'm fine with, uh, part, uh, part I with the

[2:07:32] reports being public, uh, afterwards. I still have concerns about

[2:07:36] I that if we pass it based on the public

[2:07:38] perception of what they think is going to happen, um,

[2:07:41] and what actually happens might be different or that at

[2:07:44] that time when things are getting implemented, timeline. It might

[2:07:47] be a different council here. Not sure of what parameters

[2:07:50] we set. So those are my main concerns about that.

[2:07:54] And just want to thank the surface provider for watching

[2:07:55] in person today. And joining us. Great. And you said

[2:07:59] Councillor Hillier had his hand up or no. Oh. Oh.

[2:08:03] Okay. I didn't. Oh, David. Okay. Perfect. Um, go ahead,

[2:08:07] Deborah Lewis and then Council Farra. Thank you, Chair. And

[2:08:12] through you, uh, as I said, I'd like item one

[2:08:15] pulled separately, uh, because I believe it actually presents a

[2:08:20] timing problem as well, similar to what Councillor Plosa was

[2:08:23] referencing on, on the fire inspection. So through you to

[2:08:26] staff, uh, the last meeting of this Council is October

[2:08:31] 14th, I believe. The new Council does not meet again,

[2:08:37] uh, until late into November. Uh, subjecting this to Council

[2:08:41] approval, uh, from a timeline perspective, uh, be a barrier

[2:08:47] to implementing this for the beginning of December. Dickens. Thank

[2:08:56] you. Your worship and through with the Deputy Mayor is

[2:08:59] highlighting is real world challenges. So the way it's laid

[2:09:02] out and to our understanding and correct us, if civic

[2:09:05] administration has us wrong, um, the organisation would, uh, receive,

[2:09:12] uh, decision today that there's funding that is allocated to

[2:09:15] them. They would then use that, um, understanding that they

[2:09:19] have funding available to go and secure to the best

[2:09:22] of their ability, a location. But that location that they

[2:09:26] find would need to come back to committee, uh, for

[2:09:30] it to be discussed and debated a committee and council

[2:09:33] for Council to agree on that location being the right

[2:09:36] location. Uh, only then would we be able to then

[2:09:39] enter into, uh, an agreement to have the organisation provide

[2:09:44] the service in that location. Noting we can't execute the

[2:09:48] agreement until the fire inspection and any other applicable sign

[2:09:51] off. Um, when you look at it from that perspective

[2:09:55] of here's the money, go find a location. If you

[2:09:57] find a location, we'll take it to Council of Council.

[2:10:01] OKs the location. Then we'll have fire and Bylaw. And

[2:10:03] then we'll execute the agreement. It's going to create a

[2:10:07] real problem for the organisation on when do you start

[2:10:09] to recruit staff? Uh, when do you start to train

[2:10:13] any new staff you may hire? Uh, when do you

[2:10:16] make sure that the space is suitable for occupancy. So

[2:10:20] long story long, uh, absolutely. This is going to push

[2:10:23] us well into the winter. And we try to our

[2:10:26] best to come to you, uh, before summer really kicked

[2:10:29] off so that we wouldn't be in this position. Thank

[2:10:33] you. And that's my concern. We're talking about one location.

[2:10:38] Uh, we're talking about, uh. Six week window at the

[2:10:43] most for that location to not only be identified, but

[2:10:47] then come back through a committee and Council cycle for

[2:10:50] our approval. And assuming that it's not referred at Council

[2:10:54] and Committee because we want to look for a different

[2:10:56] location again. Then we're talking at the earliest. Council could

[2:11:00] approve a location being the new Council on the 24th

[2:11:03] of November. Uh, for a winter response that, uh, is

[2:11:08] supposed to start on December 1st. So I can't support

[2:11:12] part one. Uh, I think that our staff have demonstrated,

[2:11:16] uh, that they listen. I think we saw that with

[2:11:19] the micro modular site when they came back with a

[2:11:21] location, uh, that they will do their best to work

[2:11:24] with our service partners, uh, but we do have limited

[2:11:27] options here. And we are also on a time crunch.

[2:11:31] And we have repeatedly heard from the public. We've had

[2:11:36] a discussion around this horseshoe. It's certainly been a discussion

[2:11:40] in the media in years past. Why is this not

[2:11:43] happening sooner? Why are we not opening beds until January.

[2:11:48] This proposal is to open beds in December. And in

[2:11:53] November 24th, deadline for Council Approval is simply not enough

[2:11:56] time to do that. So I can't support section one

[2:11:59] of this. I do think that bringing back the public

[2:12:03] information on the contracts on an agenda, um, that's fine.

[2:12:10] It's just to me, it's a transparency piece. That's fine.

[2:12:12] Um, working with the fire and By - law compliance.

[2:12:16] I mean, we've heard Mr. Dickins say that would be

[2:12:17] part of the process anyway. So I'm okay with parts

[2:12:20] two and three. Uh, but I need part one called

[2:12:23] separately because I don't believe that that is a realistic

[2:12:25] timeline, uh, for Council to make approvals on a location.

[2:12:35] I have Councillor Ferreira and then Councillor Hopkins. Thanks, Mayor,

[2:12:40] through you. Um, yeah, I agree with Deputy Mayer on

[2:12:44] part one. Everything that he said there. Um, you know,

[2:12:47] the location is definitely going to be, and always is

[2:12:50] the biggest discussion point. It's not, not necessarily the money

[2:12:53] or the funds or the location of the source. It's

[2:12:55] the location. Of the, of the, of where the facility

[2:13:04] or where the service will be provided. So I'm not

[2:13:07] going to be voting for that. And I think that

[2:13:08] that this will push us into a really tight crunch

[2:13:10] time and could lead to, um, situations that may not

[2:13:14] be within our favor within the city, the greater cities'favor.

[2:13:18] So I'm going to be voting against, uh, part I.

[2:13:23] S the contracts. Yeah. I think I agree as well.

[2:13:25] It's a transparency piece. So I'll be supporting that part

[2:13:28] three. Now I do understand, especially from Councillor Peloso's questions

[2:13:31] that we already do this. So, uh, I feel like

[2:13:35] it's a little redundant because we do do this. I

[2:13:37] have seen, I've had, had, have, had these questions with

[2:13:40] staff prior in our past responses and the staff have

[2:13:44] answered me that yes, we do, we do this work.

[2:13:47] So I'm not going to be supporting that because that

[2:13:48] is already done and I'm worried about the perception of

[2:13:50] the public that it may show that we haven't done

[2:13:52] this before, but this is exactly what we do. Um,

[2:13:55] and then, um, with the Council Rahman's motion, like I

[2:13:58] said, I'm going to be supporting that. And I won't

[2:14:01] be moving my amendment now. I'm going to move it

[2:14:02] on the main motion. So, um, so those are, those

[2:14:05] are my comments. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah. Thank you. Your worship.

[2:14:14] And I want to thank the, um, Award Councillor's advocacy

[2:14:17] for her work in the community. Uh, but I won't

[2:14:21] be supporting, um, the motion. I in particular the ever

[2:14:26] two parts of it. I don't want to get into

[2:14:29] the weeds. I'm pretty sure we already do it. I'm

[2:14:32] satisfied with that. But being on the committee when this

[2:14:36] winter response report came to us, I was so pleased

[2:14:40] that we were getting ahead of the curve a little

[2:14:43] bit when it came to making decisions for our winter

[2:14:47] response program. I think we've all seen this throughout the

[2:14:50] past number of years. We're always doing catch up. We're

[2:14:54] always trying to make decisions as the snow starts to

[2:14:57] fall. So there is no way I'm going to get

[2:15:00] in the way of making decisions to move forward with

[2:15:03] our winter response program. And that's the main reason why

[2:15:07] I won't be supporting eye. So if that could be

[2:15:10] pulled and again those are my comments. Other speakers

[2:15:20] to the amend of amendment Council Troso. I'll make this

[2:15:25] short because, um, through the chair, I'm going to repeat

[2:15:27] a lot of the things that others, including the Deputy

[2:15:29] Mayor. Have said part one absolutely not that will get

[2:15:35] in our way. Part two, my senses, those are going

[2:15:39] to be available anyway, but sure, let's, let's, let's put

[2:15:42] that in there. Um, part three, I'm going to not

[2:15:45] vote for because it suggests that, um, well, let me

[2:15:48] put this in the form of a question. We're enacting

[2:15:51] that all proposed locations be subject to fire and Bylaw

[2:15:55] compliance review in sign - off. Without this passing, without

[2:16:00] that clause passing, aren't these properties subject to such compliance

[2:16:05] and review anyway? And I hear, could somebody say yes?

[2:16:10] No, we'll have staff responding. Okay. I'm sorry. They're just

[2:16:12] shaking their heads in. No, I'm going to have them

[2:16:14] respond if that's your request. Go ahead, Mr. Mayors. Through

[2:16:24] your worship, absolutely that's accurate. It would apply to all

[2:16:26] premises in the City of London. So, um, this is

[2:16:32] clearly redundant. And I think it's also a little bit,

[2:16:37] it's calling into a question whether or not this is

[2:16:39] going to happen. This is, it's not only redundant, but

[2:16:42] it's, it suggests that it's necessary and it's not. So

[2:16:45] I absolutely am not going to vote for three. And

[2:16:48] I think with that, um, yeah, I'll support part two,

[2:16:54] but I think that's, this whole thing's pretty superfluous. But,

[2:16:58] um, let's just get on with it. And, um, I'm

[2:17:01] glad that the whole thing is moving along. Taking a

[2:17:04] little longer than I would have liked. But all in

[2:17:08] all, I think some really good work has been some

[2:17:12] really good work has been done here under very, um,

[2:17:15] difficult circumstances. So that, that's that in terms of the,

[2:17:20] uh, Council Ramen's amendment that passed is, is that, did

[2:17:25] I cover that that's I already said I was supporting

[2:17:27] that. Is that, is that a separate number or is

[2:17:30] that under two.

[2:17:40] Okay. Given what everybody said, Councillor, yes, it's part of

[2:17:43] the azimut emotion, but these, all these pieces are going

[2:17:45] to be voted on separately now. Because pretty much everybody's

[2:17:49] asked to have them all pulled apart. So. I'm done.

[2:17:52] Thank you. Okay. Other speakers.

[2:18:06] Okay. So, um. Okay. So we're going to

[2:18:16] vote on these. We're going to vote on them in

[2:18:20] just order, uh, sorry, I, I, I, I and I

[2:18:23] V. And we'll do them in that order. And then

[2:18:29] we'll just proceed with each of the votes individually. And

[2:18:32] then I'll need a mover, assuming one part passes for

[2:18:37] the as amended main motion. And we'll be back to

[2:18:39] that as amended. Okay. So we're going to open part

[2:18:43] i first for voting.

[2:19:25] Motion carries five to 10. Sorry. Motion fails five to

[2:19:29] 10. It's like, that'd be a different way of doing

[2:19:32] things. It's, uh. Okay. So I, so that one fails,

[2:19:39] uh, as an amendment, um, we're going on to II

[2:19:41] now.

[2:20:23] Council Ketty. Noting verbal vote of yes. Closing the vote.

[2:20:34] Motion carries. 15 to zero. Okay. And now I, I,

[2:20:40] I. Ll open that for voting.

[2:21:11] Councillor. Apologies. My eScribe's not working. I vote no.

[2:21:21] Verbal vote. Note is noted. Closing the vote motion carries

[2:21:26] 10 to five. Okay. And now I V.

[2:21:47] Votes, yes. No, to thank you.

[2:21:59] Closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to one.

[2:22:27] Okay. I now need a mover for the as amended

[2:22:30] main motion Councillor Romans willing to move it. Councillor Ploza's

[2:22:34] willing to second it. Um, which includes all the changes

[2:22:37] we made with the exception of I. Okay. We're back

[2:22:41] to the main motion, but it's as amended. So I

[2:22:44] will start the speaker's list. Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. Thank

[2:22:49] you and thank you, colleagues. I know this has been

[2:22:52] long. Um. But this is, um. You know, this

[2:23:02] impacts my ward dramatically. And when we had the issues

[2:23:06] on Richmond Street, those were dealt with the issues on

[2:23:11] DUNDAS East or not being dealt with. And this isn't

[2:23:16] about no one said anything about moving organisations who own

[2:23:20] property. I was very clear that we just not use

[2:23:24] taxpayer funded money to provide the services there. I have

[2:23:28] never said that we as a council need to move

[2:23:31] charitable organisations who own property. It's about what we are

[2:23:36] doing here as a Council that we are funding. What

[2:23:41] many in that area believe is a large part of

[2:23:46] the problem. It's not 24 - 7. You can't compare,

[2:23:51] we're comparing apples and oranges when we talk about different

[2:23:53] shelters. These are not 24 - 7 spaces. These are

[2:23:57] come and go, or they're just overnight and then out

[2:24:01] onto the street during the day. Or it's just in

[2:24:04] for a meal and then out. So I just want

[2:24:07] to, I need to confirm through you to staff when

[2:24:10] we talk about warming spaces. Are these tables and chairs

[2:24:14] where people are sitting and coming and going throughout the

[2:24:17] night or are these mattresses or caughts where people are

[2:24:20] sleeping? Or does it vary based on location? Okay. You

[2:24:29] whisp. In my. Go ahead, Mr. Dickens. Uh, thank you,

[2:24:36] your worshiping through you. Um, this is really more, uh,

[2:24:41] warming spaces. So tables, chairs, blankets, very similar to what

[2:24:45] we provided at, uh, Boyle, where we created space for

[2:24:49] people to come in. People, well, absolutely reshift their belongings

[2:24:54] and create, makeshift, uh, sleep areas. Um, but this is,

[2:24:58] this is really more creating indoor space for people to

[2:25:01] come in out of the, out of the cold, uh,

[2:25:03] and stay warm throughout the night. And those that choose

[2:25:06] to sleep can and those that donor supported in other

[2:25:08] ways. Councillor Stevenson. Uh, thank you. Those who choose to

[2:25:13] sleep at the table is 17 minutes. Mr. Dickens. Through

[2:25:19] your worship, yes, that's quite common. People come in quite

[2:25:21] exhausted and we'll often sit at a table, lay their

[2:25:24] head down, uh, get some sleep. Or some will curl

[2:25:29] up on the floors. They did in boil, finding a

[2:25:32] quiet spot wherever they can. Councillor Stevenson. Yeah. Thank you

[2:25:36] for the clarification. So I just want to confirm then

[2:25:38] that the 30 spaces at Undundas Street, the 30, well,

[2:25:48] it's really the 30 on dendust street, I guess, because

[2:25:50] London cares. I want to confirm that all those warming

[2:25:53] spaces then will not have caught or mattresses. It will

[2:25:56] be table and chairs. I think it was confirmed, but

[2:25:58] I'm just not sure. Mr. Dickens. Through your worship. Pause

[2:26:04] for not having every detail on what some of these

[2:26:06] spaces are going to be using at the end state

[2:26:09] based on what's proposed. But, uh, for example, one provider,

[2:26:13] uh, uses gravity chairs. Zero gravity chairs. So folks can

[2:26:16] recline. Um, others will use, I don't know, normal chairs,

[2:26:20] uh, like we did at Boil. So it'll be a

[2:26:22] combination. We're not seeing any bed frames or anything set

[2:26:26] up like that. Uh, they're, um, it's primarily, uh, some

[2:26:30] form of, uh, of seeding, uh, the folks can use

[2:26:34] to rest. Councillor Stevenson. Yeah. Thank you. And I don't

[2:26:38] mean to belabor it at 696 DUNDAS what I thought

[2:26:44] happened there were mattresses were caught. Is this going to

[2:26:49] be a change where 696 10S will no longer have,

[2:26:53] um, the sleeping beds, if you call them, I mean,

[2:26:56] they're not beds here, but will they be, is this

[2:26:59] a change that now it will be table and chairs

[2:27:01] at that location. Mr. Dickens. Uh, three year worship. The

[2:27:06] organisation at 696 DUNDAS uses zero gravity chairs and they

[2:27:09] may have, um, like some nylon cots perhaps. Like we

[2:27:14] have in our emergency response that we used at THOC,

[2:27:17] uh, two years prior. Um, I do not believe that

[2:27:20] that organisation uses mattresses though. There's no mattresses. Okay. Thank

[2:27:28] you. So.

[2:27:40] There's a bunch of problems that I have with this.

[2:27:43] And it is that in the very end of our

[2:27:46] term, we still have so many of these spaces within

[2:27:51] a very short distance. Many of them, all of the

[2:27:57] identified. Warming spaces. Are within a few blockadius. They're not

[2:28:06] 24 seven. They're going to be come and go, uh,

[2:28:10] you know, people to get warm and then go back

[2:28:12] out again. Into the neighbourhood and into the business district.

[2:28:17] The biggest concern that I have with this is that

[2:28:20] we're talking about multi - year budget proposals and about

[2:28:23] extending this incontinuity. This has been very clearly stated to

[2:28:30] be unsustainable for that neighbourhood. And when we look at

[2:28:39] these things, none of us want to see people outside

[2:28:41] in the cold, which is why I have supported those

[2:28:45] spaces in the past. But we have to address the

[2:28:49] issues in that area. And to be continuing to just

[2:28:55] say to one community, sorry too bad, uh, this, you

[2:29:00] know, this is the best we can do. It's just

[2:29:04] unacceptable for many who live in that area and who

[2:29:07] are experiencing this on a day in day out basis.

[2:29:11] Many of whom are vulnerable themselves. We tried to do

[2:29:16] a good neighbour agreement. That was just, uh, not even

[2:29:19] considered by these agencies. In fact, they saw it as

[2:29:22] some sort of an insult. And now we're talking about

[2:29:27] allowing illegal substances inside. Into these neighbourhoods, into these business

[2:29:33] districts. So I'm going to have trouble supporting a good

[2:29:37] portion of this. Um, I do want to reiterate that

[2:29:40] the, um, the thing with the resting spaces, this was

[2:29:44] not about telling organisations they need to move. This was

[2:29:47] about respecting the wishes of the taxpayers to say, uh,

[2:29:52] please don't do it on a business district. Main Street

[2:29:55] where it competes with what this Council has, um, has

[2:30:00] said that matters. And we're asking these property owners to

[2:30:03] pay a levy. And yet, what are we doing for

[2:30:05] them? We have core area vacancy issues. And yet we

[2:30:08] continue to move motions like this now with multi your

[2:30:12] budgets and continuity issues. So I'll be asking for some

[2:30:15] of these to be called separately. Councillor McAllister. Thank you.

[2:30:25] And through the mayor, I do have an amendment for

[2:30:28] E. Can read that if you like. Oh, yes, please.

[2:30:35] Okay. So this is on part E Civic Administration be

[2:30:38] directed to proceed with the preparation of a business case

[2:30:41] for the 2027 annual budget update for winter response funding

[2:30:45] for 2027 to 2028 and beyond. One slight edition is

[2:30:50] including but not limited to potential property acquisitions to accommodate

[2:30:55] future shelter locations outside of ward one and 13.

[2:31:05] Okay. Just give me one sec. All right. That's a

[2:31:09] knee scribe. I look for a second to that. I

[2:31:17] don't see a seconder for your motion, Councillor. Okay. Um,

[2:31:23] I'll use this time then for my comments. Um, what

[2:31:26] I was suggesting with my amendment was in no way

[2:31:28] a prohibition, uh, it was to my earlier point that

[2:31:32] we are not being presented with options outside of the

[2:31:35] two wards. Um, that was also in keeping in mind

[2:31:38] that Lord I would then grow to accommodate OEV. That's

[2:31:41] why it said word one 13, which do currently have

[2:31:44] all of our, uh, shelters. I would still hope that,

[2:31:49] uh, future councils would take that into consideration. I think

[2:31:52] it would have been appropriate for this Council to have

[2:31:55] put some, um, options in terms of property acquisitions on

[2:31:57] the table. We hear that time and time again from

[2:32:00] shelter providers. I think obviously the province has the role

[2:32:04] to play. I had earlier, um, brought four to motion

[2:32:07] to ask the province for more money for that. Um,

[2:32:10] I do think the city we have a role to

[2:32:11] play though in property acquisitions outside. I don't want to

[2:32:14] say the core area because I think, uh, it extends

[2:32:17] past the core area. Um, but I do think there

[2:32:19] are in the future two awards that will be predominantly

[2:32:22] impacted. In terms of what we have for for us,

[2:32:26] um, I know last winter was very challenging. I think

[2:32:28] staff have done their best to create something, um, that

[2:32:32] will serve us in the short term. But again, I

[2:32:35] am looking more to the future in terms of what

[2:32:38] a sustained, um, shelter, um, system will look like through

[2:32:42] the future winters. Um, I think it's disappointing. This Council

[2:32:46] is not willing to consider other options, uh, because it

[2:32:50] leads me to believe that they would like to keep

[2:32:52] them in the same areas, which I don't think is

[2:32:54] particularly fair, but that's just my opinion. Um, I think

[2:32:57] what's before us is the best that we can hope

[2:32:59] for right now. Um, I will support it. Um, but

[2:33:02] I do hope with future considerations, um, not just as

[2:33:06] Council, ex Council, um, really do take, um, the words

[2:33:10] of the words that are being impacted seriously. They have

[2:33:13] done their part. And I think other awards need to

[2:33:15] step up. Thank you. Councillor Frank. Thank

[2:33:25] you. I just want to take a quick moment to

[2:33:27] thank staff for getting this work done well ahead of

[2:33:28] winter. Most of the residents I speak with in my

[2:33:31] area, uh, the main priority for them was making sure

[2:33:33] that people are inside over winter and making sure it's

[2:33:37] done well in advance so that we are not kind

[2:33:40] of scrambling around in November and December to lock up

[2:33:42] some spots. So I just want to say thank you.

[2:33:44] I, um, I've already heard from residents that they're really

[2:33:47] happy to see us being done in the summer. And

[2:33:48] I also am really happy we're moving away from a

[2:33:51] temperature - based approach to every single night from 9

[2:33:54] p. m. to 9 a. m. throughout the winter months.

[2:33:57] Uh, I think that it's really great that we don't

[2:33:59] have this threshold to try and meet because it did

[2:34:01] create some confusion. Uh, I also want to thank staff

[2:34:06] for working with the agencies to increase the overall number

[2:34:08] of spaces for people to come inside. Uh, I think

[2:34:11] we saw, especially with the Boyle Community Centre that we

[2:34:14] were exceeding expectations and unfortunately, um, until I see otherwise,

[2:34:19] I think we might be in a similar boat this

[2:34:21] winter. Uh, and just as well to our agencies, thank

[2:34:25] you very much for being a great, uh, member of

[2:34:27] our community and great partners to work with. We wouldn't

[2:34:29] be able to do this work without you. So, uh,

[2:34:31] I really appreciate the work that you do and that

[2:34:34] your staff do. And I think ultimately we can all

[2:34:36] agree that no one should have to sleep outside, especially

[2:34:38] in the winter. Um, but until we have enough, uh,

[2:34:41] apartments and units for everybody across the city, unfortunately, sometimes

[2:34:45] we have to rely on emergency shelters and spaces. So

[2:34:50] again, appreciate the work that staff and our community partners

[2:34:53] are doing to bring this forward. Councillor. Thank you,

[2:35:02] Mayor. Um, I guess I'm going to start with the

[2:35:05] reason I didn't support or second that motion from Council

[2:35:08] McAllister is it because I want to avoid any prescriptive

[2:35:11] language that could, uh, be regarded as a battle of

[2:35:16] the wards. Cause that is, I think, a big issue

[2:35:18] that we have. I don't want any battling of the

[2:35:20] words. I just want everyone in the city to understand

[2:35:22] that this is a citywide issue. People are unhoused citywide

[2:35:27] and we need all hands on deck. I've said this

[2:35:30] countless countless times again and again. I know that, uh,

[2:35:33] many of us want to also have that all hands

[2:35:35] on deck approach, but I don't want to be prescriptive

[2:35:37] in a way that kind of really outlines the ward

[2:35:40] one, VIII. So that's why I didn't support that. But,

[2:35:43] um, like I said, I am hearing here, you know,

[2:35:46] this impacts my words significantly. We have issues that are,

[2:35:50] you know, in certain areas. And that there's a reality

[2:35:52] there. Now I understand that yes, word one has a,

[2:35:56] why O she shelter. Word 13 does as well. And

[2:35:58] I hear that, uh, award four currently as it is,

[2:36:01] you know, has 696 location. Ward 13 has the chronon

[2:36:06] - Warner location. I'm not saying no to spaces in

[2:36:09] my ward. I have actually said yes to spaces in

[2:36:12] my word because I understand that the crisis is, is

[2:36:14] the more people that on the street, the more suffering

[2:36:16] you have, the more suffering you have, the more people

[2:36:19] house, who are watching individuals out on the street are

[2:36:21] unhappy with the directions that they may foresee counsel making.

[2:36:25] So ultimately, if we bring people indoors, if we expand

[2:36:29] those services in that capacity, you will have less crisis

[2:36:32] and you will have less people coming to our emails

[2:36:36] calling us on our phone, coming to us and saying,

[2:36:37] what are you doing when it comes to homelessness? What

[2:36:39] are you doing when it comes to the crisis that

[2:36:42] is very evident out on the street. So that's why

[2:36:45] I supported the knotwithstanding. Motion. Um, I, I did not

[2:36:50] support the original motion as it came to us a

[2:36:52] couple of years ago because I knew what would happen

[2:36:54] and it did transpire that way. More people were on

[2:36:56] the street, period. It was, it was worse. And we

[2:37:01] could have made some decisions that would have made it

[2:37:03] less worse. So I like the direction we're going because

[2:37:06] that is going to set up the next Council very

[2:37:07] well. When it comes to where the locations are, I

[2:37:12] don't want to be prescriptive, like I said. Now I

[2:37:14] did make the argument already on the amendment to the

[2:37:16] amendment or wherever that came through. Um, and I said

[2:37:19] I was going to move a motion and I am.

[2:37:21] Now I don't want to say in word one or

[2:37:24] word 13. And I don't want to say within a

[2:37:26] two mile radius of an existing location. All I want

[2:37:31] to say is to give explicit instructions to staff to

[2:37:34] say, consider this. Consider citywide. Now I know staff do

[2:37:38] that. Already. But I want to have that language there

[2:37:42] so that when you are speaking with your teams, you

[2:37:44] have it up on the whiteboard saying, this is an

[2:37:47] explicit direction from Council. So I have a motion. An

[2:37:51] amendment. That I've already sent to the clerk to have

[2:37:53] clerked up. And I want to move that. And I

[2:37:58] can read it. If you want me to. Okay, go

[2:38:01] ahead. Okay. And I clerked the, I wrote this on

[2:38:05] the fly. And I know I always criticize doing that,

[2:38:07] but I'm sorry. I had to. That the motion be

[2:38:10] amended to add a new part that reads as follows.

[2:38:13] Priority be given to locations citywide rather than being limited

[2:38:17] to locations where current services exist and that all required

[2:38:21] actions to implement this direction be considered and recommended when

[2:38:25] reporting back to Council.

[2:38:36] Okay. Uh, I'll look to see if the seconder for

[2:38:40] that. Okay. I don't see second or Councillor. It's unfortunate.

[2:38:50] I thought this Council was making the discussion. That we

[2:38:55] want these services. Citywide. So I know this Council has

[2:39:03] made decisions to shut down services in certain locations without

[2:39:06] the decisions. To see what then, what happens then. I

[2:39:12] don't understand. We have a direction that I have seen

[2:39:15] coming time and time again to shut down services. Put

[2:39:20] people back out on the street. Make things worse. Get

[2:39:24] the city completely divided. But when a direction comes to

[2:39:29] say look city wide, see what we can do. We

[2:39:32] don't. That's telling. So I would like. Council to just

[2:39:40] consider that. Because things won't get better unless we have

[2:39:45] all hands on deck in the city. Okay. Other speakers

[2:39:55] to the main motion.

[2:40:11] Yes, we're, we've had some requests to pull some things

[2:40:14] a little bit separately. So what I'm going to speak

[2:40:20] to give the court time to do that. So I'll

[2:40:21] turn the chair over to Deppy Mary Lewis. Thank you,

[2:40:26] worship all assumed with the chair. And please go ahead.

[2:40:29] Uh, yeah, so I'll say a couple of things. Um,

[2:40:33] one, just through the presiding officer Council Pereira, um, I,

[2:40:38] I know you didn't get support on your amendment. I

[2:40:40] think when you had in your comments said, consider option

[2:40:43] citywide. I think you probably would have got more support.

[2:40:45] But you actually put your most from prioritize, which is

[2:40:48] a more definitive decision to say. I think in the

[2:40:53] search for space, I've got to be as open as

[2:40:55] possible to locations, including locations across the city, which is,

[2:40:59] as it would stand now and how staff would, uh,

[2:41:01] would look at it. Um, I want to, the couple

[2:41:04] of things through the debate that wasn't mentioned first, uh,

[2:41:06] I want to say thank you to the federal government,

[2:41:09] uh, for making decision and executing, um, the, uh, the

[2:41:14] new program that allowed for, uh, 2. 5 million dollars

[2:41:18] to come to the city of London 2. 1 million

[2:41:20] of which, with part of this motion is being allocated

[2:41:22] to support the winter response. This is something that we

[2:41:24] cannot do, uh, on the backs of taxpayers, uh, in

[2:41:28] the City of London. And we require levels of government

[2:41:31] who have the capacity and responsibility for this issue. Um,

[2:41:36] to chip in and do their part. And so I

[2:41:38] want to recognise, uh, and thank those who helped advocate,

[2:41:41] including our local MPs, fragile scados and kayabaga. I want

[2:41:46] to thank my fellow mayor colleagues who advocated vigorously at

[2:41:50] multiple sessions and give specific credit to the mayor of

[2:41:53] Montreal on this issue. Um, who advocated for the renewal

[2:41:56] of this funding. And then of course for it to

[2:41:59] flow in time for municipalities, it actually utilise it. Uh,

[2:42:02] in and before the winter period as one of the

[2:42:04] options. So, um, those two pieces. At the end of

[2:42:07] the day, I raccored the comments that were made. Uh,

[2:42:10] I've heard the same thing for members of the public.

[2:42:12] They want to see, uh, these spaces dealt with, uh,

[2:42:16] well in advance of winter so that, uh, there's clear

[2:42:18] expectations of what is happening to bring people indors through

[2:42:21] the coldest months. I think I want to also thank

[2:42:23] our staff for the work they did in pulling this

[2:42:26] together. I want to thank the service agencies and partners

[2:42:30] because essentially we don't have spaces if people don't step

[2:42:32] up. And then we are using things like Community Centres.

[2:42:34] So for those who said they could provide spaces, uh,

[2:42:37] in their spaces or across the city or any of

[2:42:40] the locations that they've offered, you know, thank you for

[2:42:42] doing so. That, that takes pressure off of us to

[2:42:44] continue to fluoride Community Services and Community Centres rather than

[2:42:48] converting those into winter responses when we don't have the

[2:42:51] capacity to, uh, meet the demand across the system. So

[2:42:54] this is a good plan that brings people indoors. I

[2:42:57] remind you when we bring people indoors, we have the

[2:42:59] ability in those times to connect them with services, to

[2:43:02] connect them with services to help them make their lives

[2:43:04] better. Whether those are people with mental health and addiction

[2:43:06] issues, people looking to connect with employment or housing, uh,

[2:43:09] having people in spaces where we've got, uh, people who

[2:43:12] know how to help them when they can connect with

[2:43:15] individuals and talk with people, uh, that is always a

[2:43:18] good thing for addressing people who are unsheltered in our

[2:43:22] community or are facing significant housing challenges. Um, finally, I

[2:43:26] do want to thank our staff for the incredible work

[2:43:29] they did with the last winter response. Um, we used

[2:43:33] a community centre. We had an expectation that we'd use

[2:43:35] it for maybe five to 10 days. We used it

[2:43:39] for way more than that. Uh, a staff volunteered that

[2:43:41] went above and beyond. Um, and I wanted to recognise

[2:43:43] that as we approve this next iteration of winter response,

[2:43:46] the tremendous amount of volunteering and commitment that our staff

[2:43:51] did to make the last winter response work through, uh,

[2:43:54] very difficult conditions and a very long, uh, stretch of

[2:43:58] cold days through the winter. I think this is a

[2:43:59] better plan because of the consistency through the winter. We

[2:44:02] won't be ramping up and down. Um, but I recognise

[2:44:04] last year was difficult, but it worked because both providers

[2:44:07] in our city and our municipal staff made it work.

[2:44:09] And to the residents of the areas that were impacted

[2:44:11] by the use of the community centres, you know, we

[2:44:13] also thanked them. We know that that was, uh, definitely

[2:44:15] an inconvenience when you can't do all the programming you

[2:44:18] expect in your local community centre. You know, we certainly

[2:44:20] heard your concerns last year and we have a winter

[2:44:23] response plan that does not use those spaces in the

[2:44:25] same way. So, um, with that, I'll be supporting the

[2:44:28] motion for. Thank you, worship. I will return the chair

[2:44:34] to you and I have only myself on the speaker's

[2:44:36] list. Well, you go ahead then. Thank you. So I'm

[2:44:41] going to be supporting the motion. Um, but I think

[2:44:44] it's important to also, uh, set the record straight on

[2:44:49] some of what we heard today. Since. The term of

[2:44:55] this Council began. We have more overnight beds in our

[2:44:59] city. Than we've ever had. We've heard a lot about

[2:45:05] cuts. We have reallocated, uh, resources to other things. But

[2:45:10] we actually have more overnight beds, whether it's Cronin Warner,

[2:45:15] whether it's the Atlosa and YOU hubs, whether it is

[2:45:20] the modular shelters out at Cheese Factory Road. Whether it's

[2:45:25] the new heart hub that was the result of a

[2:45:29] lot of advocacy with the province after we essentially provided

[2:45:32] them the blueprint. Uh, for a hub, um, this Council

[2:45:38] has added beds and capacity to the system. It is

[2:45:44] unfortunate that we have policies from the senior levels of

[2:45:46] government, uh, that continued to put people into homelessness. And

[2:45:50] I know, uh, Ms. Moss is in the gallery. I

[2:45:54] heard her on the Craig Needles podcast not long ago

[2:45:57] referencing as much as we are fishing people out of

[2:45:59] the water and trying to get them dried and helped

[2:46:02] out. Uh, upstream more people are being pushed into the

[2:46:05] river. And that analogy is true. So yes, there is

[2:46:08] still a lot of homelessness in the city, but it

[2:46:10] is not from lack of effort from our service providers

[2:46:13] or from these Council. To address the problem. In fact,

[2:46:18] your worship - e - referenced at your state of

[2:46:20] the city address that through this term of Council, uh,

[2:46:23] there are 1, 500 fewer people on the streets because

[2:46:27] through this four - year term, they have been moved

[2:46:29] through systems, whether it's through the Cronin - Warner beds,

[2:46:32] whether it's through help at London cares, whether it's through

[2:46:34] help with the Salvation Army. They've been moved through the

[2:46:36] system and they are no longer on the street. They

[2:46:38] might be in an end well. Site. Which we have

[2:46:42] added three locations during this term of Council 2. They

[2:46:46] might be at the new home's Unlimited Buildings that we've

[2:46:49] opened on pawn Mills Road or over on Dufford through

[2:46:54] an office to residential conversion. But there is more support

[2:46:58] and more spaces than there have ever been. In our

[2:47:02] city. So we haven't been cutting spaces. We may not

[2:47:05] agree on the allocations. And that's okay. That's part of

[2:47:09] the process. And that's why we have debate and that's

[2:47:11] why we vote on TS. But it's not factually true

[2:47:15] to say we have cut services. We have actually increased

[2:47:18] services over the hospital years. So I will be supporting,

[2:47:22] uh, the main motion before us. Is it perfect? No.

[2:47:25] Would I like other options? Yes. We also experienced, uh,

[2:47:31] less than a year ago. Uh, tasking our staff, uh,

[2:47:35] with standing up a micromodular site. Uh, that when we

[2:47:39] gave them all the criteria we wanted, there was not

[2:47:43] really anything to choose from. They came back to us

[2:47:45] with one site because that was the only one that

[2:47:47] they had available that was in our ownership. That could

[2:47:50] match the criteria we had set out. So I think

[2:47:56] there has been a demonstrated desire. I think the, uh,

[2:48:00] the hubs right now are both located. I think they're

[2:48:03] on a dividing line. So they might be inward 12

[2:48:05] or word 14. And I apologise to the two word

[2:48:08] councillors for, for not knowing exactly where the dividing line

[2:48:11] is, uh, Councillor Frank has a new indwell building in

[2:48:14] her ward. Um, these are things that are happening around

[2:48:17] the city, uh, and so I think we need to

[2:48:19] be mindful of that when we speak to these sorts

[2:48:21] of motions, um, it's not perfect, but we have to

[2:48:25] work with what we've had. And we as a Council

[2:48:28] collectively have made progress on this issue. Uh, the fact

[2:48:32] that we are talking about winter response in August this

[2:48:34] year rather than October, I think continues to demonstrate that

[2:48:38] this is an issue that while we may have disagreements

[2:48:41] about particulars on, every single one of us around this

[2:48:44] horseshoe cares a vote.

[2:48:56] Okay. Any other speakers Council Priviley. Thank you. I know

[2:49:00] I mentioned it to all of you during the meeting,

[2:49:02] but during the, uh, CAPS meeting by just one I

[2:49:04] reiterated one more time and mayor lady said it as

[2:49:07] well. Great. Thank you to our staff for last winter.

[2:49:10] And I visited a place three times. And to how

[2:49:12] our staff came together and I'm not talking, I'm talking

[2:49:15] about management, middle height, executive management, management, staff, life level

[2:49:19] staff. Everyone came together and it was absolutely amazing how

[2:49:23] our staff helped our community. Uh, I mentioned this one

[2:49:27] as well before. All the initiatives that we've introduced, I've

[2:49:32] been talking to some other municipalities and certainly not just

[2:49:35] in Canada outside. And everyone is telling me that based

[2:49:38] on our funding model, it doesn't matter if it's provincial

[2:49:40] or federal or municipal the way decide they honestly don't

[2:49:45] see the light at the end of the tunnel and

[2:49:48] they say it's going to be a deja vu for

[2:49:50] staff and the organization's all the time. Because the funding,

[2:49:53] there was one of my fellow councillors said it's not,

[2:49:56] it's not really about money and about the funding. It

[2:49:59] is. That's all it's about actually. That's the number one

[2:50:02] thing because we have to know how we know what

[2:50:04] we want to do. We could deliver. It doesn't matter.

[2:50:06] If you look at our spectrum of housing, it's absolutely

[2:50:08] great. Guess what? We don't have the funding. We don't

[2:50:11] have the money. But there's the thing that if the

[2:50:13] higher levels of government don't come with a sustainable model

[2:50:17] with a long - term vision, I truly believe that

[2:50:19] discouncil will have to come with a multi - year

[2:50:22] budget, which will include this. Because right now this is

[2:50:25] the most expensive, most nonproactive way. How we are addressing

[2:50:31] it as a Council, as a staff, as the agencies.

[2:50:35] But guess what? None of us want to do that.

[2:50:38] None of us. We want to have a perfect vision.

[2:50:40] We want to see where we want to be in

[2:50:41] 5, 10, 15, 20 years. But guess what? We don't

[2:50:44] have money funding. If you don't have the commitments. But

[2:50:47] thank you, Tole Greer with the mayor mayor, what he

[2:50:51] stated. Are we where we are? Am I glad improving

[2:50:54] this winter response? Of course I'm not. I want something

[2:50:57] with a bigger vision, more bad, more sustainable. But based

[2:51:00] on the funding model we have, and we can always

[2:51:04] be better. Everyone can always be better. But I really

[2:51:07] see that we moved it forward. Forward as much as

[2:51:11] I would like to, not. But again, I'm not going

[2:51:14] to repeat what I already said. Thank you again. Okay.

[2:51:24] Uh, so any other speakers first. Okay. We're going to

[2:51:31] separate this as has been requested.

[2:51:58] So I've had Councillor request to do D. Part three.

[2:52:07] And E separate. So D part III. And E separate

[2:52:12] of the main potion that was Councillor Stevens for that.

[2:52:15] I don't have anybody asking to do anything else separate.

[2:52:18] So yeah. I asked for IV, but maybe it's changed.

[2:52:23] Okay. Yeah. It's, it's incorporated now. You'll see when we

[2:52:28] put it up, but, uh, the clerk took what you

[2:52:30] asked for an email and put it together. So that's,

[2:52:35] that'll be done first. I just need to know if

[2:52:37] anybody else wants it. Then we'll do everything else after.

[2:52:40] No one has any other way they want to do

[2:52:41] it. Okay. Good. We'll proceed that way. So. If you're

[2:52:51] in eScribe, we're going to be doing vote 11. Which

[2:52:55] is just those pieces. And then we'll do the remainder

[2:52:58] of them. Okay. Okay. We're going to open that for

[2:53:05] voting.

[2:53:22] Closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to one.

[2:53:31] Okay. And now we're going to do the remainder of

[2:53:33] the motion. We'll open that for water.

[2:53:59] The vote. Motion carries. 15 to zero. Okay. I know

[2:54:07] the next one probably gets debated a bit. It's been

[2:54:10] two and a half hours. I wonder if colleagues want

[2:54:12] to take a 10 minute break at this point. Councillor

[2:54:15] Farr, you want to move 10. Or people are going

[2:54:18] to boat against it because it's not 15. Like, yeah,

[2:54:20] I think we should amend that 15, let's be honest,

[2:54:23] by the time we get upstairs and back down, we're

[2:54:25] never back in 10. Uh, motion two, take a break

[2:54:27] for 15 minutes. Move by Council Farrak, second of a

[2:54:30] Deputy Mayor Lewis. Let's do it by hand. All those

[2:54:33] in favor. Any opposed. Motion carries. Okay. We'll do 15

[2:54:40] minutes.

[3:16:13] Okay, thank you, please be seated. We're back to Council

[3:16:18] Ramen to continue with that committee's report. Thank you. I'd

[3:16:22] like to put item 4, 2. 3 housing, stability services,

[3:16:25] procurement, and delivery framework emergency shelter guidelines 2011 versus 2026

[3:16:30] comparative analysis on the floor. Okay, that's on the floor

[3:16:33] for discussion. I'll look for speakers. Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson.

[3:16:38] Thank you, I circulated an amendment for this one as

[3:16:40] well. That the motion be amended to add a new

[3:16:44] part that reads as follows. D, the Civic Administration be

[3:16:48] directed to amend the emergency shelter guidelines as appended to

[3:16:51] the above - noted staff report as Appendix A to

[3:16:55] I remove any provision that permits illegal substances to be

[3:16:58] brought into or possessed within emergency shelter locations. And I

[3:17:04] remove any provision that prohibits the discharge of or service

[3:17:07] restrictions being imposed on, an individual for the use of

[3:17:11] illegal substances within an emergency shelter location. And III ensure

[3:17:17] that the current version of the emergency shelter guidelines is

[3:17:20] made publicly available on the City of London's website and

[3:17:23] maintain thereon for an ongoing basis. Okay, so secondative for

[3:17:29] that. A Councillor Hillier is going to second it. Okay,

[3:17:33] so we can start discussion on the amendment. It should

[3:17:35] be in eScribe and available for colleagues to read. Which

[3:17:41] I'd like to go ahead and speak. Oh wait, and

[3:17:44] go after my colleagues. Any speakers to this. Councilman Callister,

[3:17:49] go ahead. Thank you for the chair. Just, I listened

[3:17:55] to the committee discussion on this. No, they went through

[3:18:01] a lot of things. I think the question that still

[3:18:03] is on my mind, and I think this was brought

[3:18:04] up a committee as well. But I just still don't

[3:18:08] understand, in terms of enforcement, how this would be enforced.

[3:18:11] My understanding from what was discussed a committee was, you

[3:18:15] know, shelter staff do not have search and seizure powers.

[3:18:18] And so I'm just wondering if staff can maybe add

[3:18:21] anything further to that. Or if this is something in

[3:18:24] terms of the police having to deal with illegal substances.

[3:18:28] Because my understanding that they do not have the power

[3:18:31] to do anything of this, so the staff can comment.

[3:18:34] Mr. Dickens, go ahead. Thank you, and through you, your

[3:18:38] worship. That is correct. This would be very difficult to

[3:18:42] enforce. I think the delegation submission is part of the

[3:18:45] CAPS agenda was really clear. This community has had several

[3:18:48] policies in place for emergency shelters. Uh, long before some

[3:18:53] of my colleagues and I were here, uh, the same

[3:18:55] issues were persistent when there was a prohibition, as there

[3:18:59] is now under a harm reduction framework. And as we

[3:19:03] point out, um, in the report, uh, we're simply just

[3:19:08] trying to modernize our guidelines to reflect that what is

[3:19:12] in your pocket is not the sole grounds for being

[3:19:15] denied entry to an emergency shelter bed in one of

[3:19:18] our low - barrier emergency shelters. Um, shelter providers still

[3:19:24] have the ability. To, uh, remove someone from the building

[3:19:29] to, uh, put in service restrictions, um, and it's looking

[3:19:33] at the whole experience. So a person comes in and

[3:19:37] if they are, you know, trafficking or using, or, uh,

[3:19:41] disruptive or the behavioral issues, absolutely that shelter provider has

[3:19:45] a responsibility to keep the place safe. And they may

[3:19:49] lay service restrictions. They may ask that person to leave.

[3:19:52] That is what happens now. And I assume that's what

[3:19:54] would happen going forward. Council, sir. Thank you. Through the

[3:20:00] mayor, and yeah, that was my understanding. I did some

[3:20:03] research on this as well. And, um, I know a

[3:20:06] number of municipalities struggle with it. And whether you explicitly

[3:20:08] say not allowed or you allow, um, their response is

[3:20:12] essentially the same where they do have to call police

[3:20:15] services in to manage it. Uh, I would imagine that

[3:20:17] would be the same thing with any sort of like

[3:20:19] weapons, uh, charges. Uh, there'd be a number of issues,

[3:20:22] not just listed substances, but my understanding is that the,

[3:20:25] um. The way of dealing with this would be through

[3:20:28] the police. Um, I understand in terms of what the

[3:20:31] Councillors trying to achieve here, but, uh, I don't think

[3:20:35] it matters one way or the other. I think Enforcement,

[3:20:37] uh, is going to be handled by the same service

[3:20:39] regardless of what you have in your policy, uh, the

[3:20:42] laws would supersede any shelter policy depending on what they're

[3:20:46] dealing with in that situation is my understanding. So with

[3:20:50] that in mind, I think updating this policy is appropriate.

[3:20:54] Um, I do think regardless of what you have, uh,

[3:20:57] written, uh, you're still going to have those challenges. Uh,

[3:21:00] and I understand in terms of where the shelter staff

[3:21:02] were coming from that this is not a task that

[3:21:05] there feel comfortable to handle or can actually enforce. Um,

[3:21:09] so with that, I'll leave my comments there. But curious

[3:21:11] to hear what other colleagues have to say because I

[3:21:13] know if there was a lengthy debate at committee as

[3:21:15] well. Okay. Other, uh, colleagues.

[3:21:28] Right. Councillor Privileg and Councillor Stevenson. Thank you very similar

[3:21:31] to what Council Mcroll Lister said. I love what's in

[3:21:35] front of us what's proposed. But it's actually based on

[3:21:40] the play, based on the city province we live unfortunately

[3:21:44] legal. If you are not able to do it. So

[3:21:47] this I see, I love it. As I said, uh,

[3:21:50] at the committee meeting when I discuss their visor, I'm

[3:21:52] a jurisdiction outside this country. They said absolutely. They would

[3:21:56] support it. They were not allowed. Having said that, that

[3:21:59] they have the tools how to address it, how to

[3:22:02] adjust it right at the entrance with private security guards

[3:22:06] with actually even, uh, detectors. So the weapons don't go

[3:22:09] into places. They have it at every virtual place. And

[3:22:13] they can, they have actually the tools. And they have

[3:22:16] the teeth to actually, uh, to actually implement it and

[3:22:21] to make such decisions. We don't. And based on that,

[3:22:25] I will not be supporting it. We had things before

[3:22:27] us before that we were discussing in other areas. And

[3:22:32] we said, great idea of you actually cannot act on

[3:22:35] it. And I believe, I feel that this is the

[3:22:37] same way if I hear otherwise that we can. I

[3:22:41] would be willing to change my mind. But as I

[3:22:43] said, I just, if it's various people, organisations, uh, in

[3:22:48] our province. And I always got the same answer. There's

[3:22:51] nothing you can do about it. And even if you,

[3:22:54] if you put this forward, you won't be able to

[3:22:56] act on it. Having said that, speaking with the agencies,

[3:23:01] they do, they don't have to, they don't have the

[3:23:05] individuals can enter. But if they do use it, they

[3:23:08] do act on it. So it's not kind of like

[3:23:10] it's a green light. Go ahead to do this. No,

[3:23:13] that's not the case. Thank you. Councillor Stevenson. Uh, thank

[3:23:20] you. We did have a long discussion about this at

[3:23:22] committee. I'm bringing this forward because, uh, it's illegal. And

[3:23:30] so we have a sentence that says allowed illegal substances.

[3:23:36] I could not find that in any other cities guidelines.

[3:23:39] Many of the other stuff we have in our guidelines

[3:23:41] I saw, but not a sentence that allows illegal substances.

[3:23:46] That's what I'm asking to be removed here. I'm not

[3:23:49] even saying go back to the prohibition of 2011. I'm

[3:23:52] saying, how about we just not say that they're allowed

[3:23:55] to bring in illegal substances. We'll let staff work that

[3:23:58] out the guidelines can be published. It already says there

[3:24:03] that they can make amendments and changes. So maybe they

[3:24:06] can find another way to address this without this Council

[3:24:10] endorsing guidelines that allow illegal substances. I know for me,

[3:24:17] we heard what the agency said. We understand the concerns.

[3:24:21] There's always a straw man argument put out there. Like,

[3:24:23] Oh, so who's going to strip search them to make

[3:24:25] sure that there's nothing in there. There's a far cry

[3:24:28] between that and saying they're allowed. So. I feel strongly

[3:24:38] that I need to bring this forward. I heard what

[3:24:40] the agency's had to say. It certainly wasn't all of

[3:24:43] the agencies through you to staff. Did mission services and

[3:24:46] salvation army? Have they both explicitly said that they support

[3:24:50] this change. Go ahead. Three worship. The

[3:25:00] consultation sessions that were developed and carried out in result

[3:25:03] of creating these shelter guidelines that include all the organisations

[3:25:06] that were offering shelter services. We've connected with those organisations

[3:25:10] that you've mentioned. They offer, um, unique programs within those,

[3:25:13] those spaces that are recovery oriented programs. These guidelines do

[3:25:16] make provision for the nuances that come with a recovery

[3:25:20] - oriented program. The low barrier emergency shelters that we're

[3:25:23] talking about in consultation with the other shelter operators, including

[3:25:26] those, those organisations, like this would align with the harm

[3:25:29] reduction practices that they do have in their shelters. Go

[3:25:36] ahead, Council. Uh, thank you. Um, and through you, uh,

[3:25:41] the emergency room at the hospital, do they make allowances

[3:25:44] like this as well, given that they deal with a

[3:25:46] lot of the same clientele. Go ahead. Throw you worship.

[3:25:53] I think I should point out that that is well

[3:25:55] beyond our jurisdiction here as municipal staff to comment on

[3:25:58] the hospital. That's better answered by the hospital. Go ahead,

[3:26:03] Councillor. Yeah. Thank you. I understand that it's just the

[3:26:06] same premise that services are needed by a particular clientel.

[3:26:15] To me, it would be useful to know if they

[3:26:16] were doing that at the hospitals. The R code of

[3:26:22] conduct says that we, uh, are supposed to uphold both

[3:26:26] the letter and the spirit of federal and provincial laws.

[3:26:31] So again, endorsing this policy that allows illegal drug use

[3:26:36] or illegal substances to be brought inside, um, is a

[3:26:40] concern to me. I'm representing the residents in my ward.

[3:26:46] And I've heard very clearly from them that they don't

[3:26:48] support this, that they do not want, uh, illegal substances

[3:26:52] to be explicitly allowed inside taxpayer funding shelters anywhere in

[3:26:58] the city, uh, particularly not in the neighbourhood, uh, that

[3:27:02] they live in. Um, I've also heard concerns, you know,

[3:27:05] there was a letter submitted by the OEV B. I.

[3:27:08] A. Executive Director with a lot of, uh, various questions

[3:27:14] and concerns in here around, uh, insurance possibility of insurance.

[3:27:20] Possibility of, uh, legal liability potentially or workplace and safety

[3:27:25] regulations have through you to staff. Has that exhaustively been

[3:27:31] explored in terms of, will there be insurance, you know,

[3:27:35] no general insurance liability concerns for these agencies with the

[3:27:39] change in policy workplace safety, no concerns there. And I

[3:27:44] don't know if we need to go, uh, into closed

[3:27:46] for legal, but I would want to know if something

[3:27:49] were to happen. Uh, would we be legally liable. For

[3:27:53] the change. Mr. Jins. Um, through you, your worship. Very

[3:28:01] fair question. We did see the communication on the Council

[3:28:04] Agenda, uh, we have lots of, uh, responses to it

[3:28:08] if needed. These organisations have been operating in this way

[3:28:12] now. Um, I want to make it clear. The inclusion

[3:28:15] of the language harm reduction or, you know, removing the

[3:28:20] piece of, of, uh, suspicion of substance use or possession

[3:28:26] of substances is a requirement to, uh, deny you entry

[3:28:30] to a shelter. It's not suddenly introducing this activity to

[3:28:34] our community. These organisations that currently operate this way all

[3:28:38] have board of governors board of directors. They all have

[3:28:41] their own independent legal advice. And they all have their

[3:28:44] own independent insurance. If this had been a problem up

[3:28:47] to this point, it would have been flagged. In the

[3:28:50] consultations by their boards or by their leadership teams. Or

[3:28:55] it would have been a practice. They had not been

[3:28:56] carrying out up until this point. Councillor Stevenson. Um, thank

[3:29:04] you.

[3:29:14] I understand that many people want the laws to be

[3:29:18] different than they are, but the laws are what they

[3:29:21] are. And this is a sentence that clearly states that

[3:29:26] we're allowing illegal substances without setting parameters on other illegal

[3:29:30] activity. As I said, representing the residents in my ward,

[3:29:35] I just can't support having that in there, which is

[3:29:39] why I bring forward this motion for Council to consider

[3:29:43] what their residents, uh, how and how they would want

[3:29:46] them to vote on this amendment. The publishing of the

[3:29:52] guidelines, I think is really important because we delegate the

[3:29:55] authority to make changes. So I think having that accessible

[3:29:58] for anybody to be able to look at is really

[3:30:00] important. And the other one is about 30 seconds, you

[3:30:04] know, discharging, restricting, not being able to discharge people or,

[3:30:09] uh, do service restrictions for people who actually use the

[3:30:13] illegal substances inside, which is still prohibited. Um, that is

[3:30:18] a concern for me as well. And I wonder too,

[3:30:22] if, you know, the other statements in there that say

[3:30:25] people can't be discharged or service restrictions just because they

[3:30:28] have a substance use disorder, that all makes sense. But

[3:30:31] to say that they can't do it if people use

[3:30:34] inside has at least the perception that there's no consequences

[3:30:37] if they do. Your time is up. Councillor Franklin, then

[3:30:46] Councillor Cotty. Thank you. Uh, first off, I just want

[3:30:52] to say thank you to staff for bringing this fort.

[3:30:54] I think it's good for us to have, uh, a

[3:30:57] framework that accurately reflects what is happening within our shelter

[3:31:01] guidelines and to have it updated to 2026. I think

[3:31:04] that's good again for the Community to know what our

[3:31:07] standards are and what's the expectation and what's going on.

[3:31:10] And to again, reflect what is currently happening within our

[3:31:13] services. Uh, I do want to flag that it's my

[3:31:16] understanding it's not illegal for someone to enter facility and

[3:31:21] for this specific example shelter provider. If they're under the

[3:31:24] influence or if they have drugs in their body. So

[3:31:26] I hear there's some discussion about whether or not, you

[3:31:29] know, we're following legislation, but it's not illegal for someone

[3:31:32] to enter that building. Additionally, it's my understanding that shelters

[3:31:36] also have human rights considerations. And as addiction is protected

[3:31:39] as a disability under the Ontario Human Rights Code for

[3:31:43] shelter providers to deny people access to their services because

[3:31:46] they might have an addiction actually puts that at jeopardy

[3:31:49] as well. And I don't think that we want to

[3:31:51] have any claims about not being able to accommodate disabilities

[3:31:54] within our community. Uh, so again, just want to say

[3:31:57] thank you to staff for updating these guidelines. And I

[3:31:59] think they'll be, um, despite some folks not perhaps agreeing

[3:32:03] with a harm reduction approach. I think they'll be helpful

[3:32:06] for the Commute to understand what staff are doing and

[3:32:09] what our providers are doing as well. Council Ketty. Thank

[3:32:14] you worship and through you. Um, question for staff. Mr.

[3:32:17] Dickens, do we have any information on if this is

[3:32:21] an ongoing problem or is isolated cases where people are

[3:32:24] consuming drugs while they're into shelters? Because if it's not,

[3:32:27] it may be nice. If it's isolated, maybe it's a

[3:32:30] tempest and a teapot and it's something we really don't

[3:32:32] need to be concerned with. But if it is more

[3:32:36] than that, perhaps it is something we need to discuss.

[3:32:38] Thank you. Mr. Dickens. Thank

[3:32:48] you. And through your worship, I would, um, I would

[3:32:52] adventure to say that, uh, this is a problem that's

[3:32:55] widespread across the province emergency shelters, uh, from Niagara, uh,

[3:32:59] through, uh, through northern Ontario, uh, especially northern Ontario are

[3:33:03] dealing with these same challenges. Um, trying to manage a

[3:33:06] drug crisis, um, and I want to make sure I'm

[3:33:10] very clear. Organisations can discharge people. They can restrict people,

[3:33:16] uh, for a number of reasons. Uh, it's just coming

[3:33:20] in, uh, with suspected possession of drugs or under the

[3:33:25] influence would not be the sole grounds. If that person

[3:33:28] again is, is trafficking or disruptive or using, um, it

[3:33:33] may lead to a discharge. It may lead to service

[3:33:35] restrictions. What we're really trying to ask service providers to

[3:33:38] do, which they are essentially doing now, is we want

[3:33:41] to create a point of intervention. Uh, to provide someone

[3:33:46] a therapeutic path or recovery. And we can't do that,

[3:33:49] uh, if we keep locking the doors on them and

[3:33:51] asking them not to come in because they have an

[3:33:53] act of addiction. If we can get them in the

[3:33:55] door, um, we can work with them. And if they're

[3:33:58] under the influence, shelter providers can try to provide them,

[3:34:02] uh, a safe space and try to work with them,

[3:34:04] uh, time and time again to get to that point

[3:34:06] where we can make referrals. As it talks about in

[3:34:09] our report, refers to therapeutic services and recovery services and

[3:34:14] addiction and mental health services. We want to get people

[3:34:16] on a path to recovery. Um, we talk about the

[3:34:19] drug problems. We're really focusing at the front door of

[3:34:22] an emergency shelter. As being the pain point. Uh, in

[3:34:26] a community that has a drug crisis, it would be

[3:34:28] great to stem the flow of drugs into our community.

[3:34:32] The police would be a great resource to do that.

[3:34:35] Or to stem the trafficking activity that happens within our

[3:34:38] community. Um, upstream versus just focusing on someone looking for

[3:34:43] a place to sleep. So to answer your question, this

[3:34:45] is a very pervasive problem, not just in London, across

[3:34:49] Ontario, across Canada, uh, regardless of what policy is in

[3:34:54] place. Go ahead, Councillor. You good? Okay. Thank you. I

[3:35:01] have, uh, Councillor Hopkins next. Yeah. Um, I know we've

[3:35:08] got the amendment in front of us. So I will

[3:35:11] speak to the amendment and I'll make my comments to,

[3:35:14] to the main motion. I won't supporting the amendment. Um,

[3:35:17] even though I do appreciate the conversation here, uh, I

[3:35:21] do want to say though, first of all, thanks to

[3:35:26] staff for modernizing our guidelines, I think that is what

[3:35:30] we needed to do here. I really do appreciate the

[3:35:35] focus being more on housing focused. Getting people into places.

[3:35:42] And I want to thank the agencies I know you

[3:35:45] had a delegation at committee from unity project. It was,

[3:35:50] uh, them sharing their experience. And one of the things

[3:35:53] I got out of that, uh, delegation was the understanding

[3:35:58] that compassion and the ability to, uh, still be accountable.

[3:36:06] I think that is where the focus is going. And

[3:36:10] I get that, um, there needs to be still accountability,

[3:36:15] but we can still do with compassion. And my third

[3:36:18] point, while I'm standing, I just want to say the,

[3:36:22] the challenges that we have as a municipality as much

[3:36:25] as we can update a guidelines modernize the need for,

[3:36:30] uh, funding, uh, from the provincial government, I think when

[3:36:33] it comes to not only mental health, but addiction, um,

[3:36:37] supports the other part is the, uh, Affordability. We see

[3:36:43] it in our guidelines. We want people in places. We

[3:36:46] need these buildings built and the operational, uh, dollars that

[3:36:53] go with that to, to make them successful. So many

[3:36:56] thanks to staff. Council Rahman. I thank you and through

[3:37:04] you to staff. Um, I'm just wondering if I can

[3:37:06] get some answers on the amendment for part I'm just

[3:37:13] wanting to clarify what house staff interpret this.

[3:38:13] Okay, go ahead. The rear worship. Um, this would actually

[3:38:16] breed differently from what we're proposing in the current shelter

[3:38:19] guidelines that are before you're proposing that if clients do

[3:38:23] have possession or substances in their possession at the time

[3:38:26] of their intake that they are not, uh, to be

[3:38:28] immediately denied access to the shelter, um, this particular, um,

[3:38:34] phrase reads almost conversely to that, that if they do

[3:38:37] have, um, any substances in their possession during the time

[3:38:41] of the intake that they would be prohibited from accessing

[3:38:44] shelter, which would be, uh, and contravention to what we're

[3:38:46] proposing into just the research behind harm reduction policies. Thank

[3:38:53] you, three, that my question is for the chair. This

[3:38:56] motion then appears to be contrary. To what was brought

[3:38:59] forward by the committee. Okay, give me a sec.

[3:40:35] Okay Councillor, let me just, uh, do a ruling on

[3:40:39] this. So I understand your question about, um, within the

[3:40:43] shelter guidelines, uh, the counselor's direction may be counter to

[3:40:47] some of the pieces within the guidelines. The motion that's

[3:40:51] before us is ABC update the emergencies shelter guidelines as

[3:40:56] appended. Direct them to implement the guidelines, be authorized to

[3:40:59] make further administrative updates. In the motion to amend. It

[3:41:05] needs to not propose a direct negative to the main

[3:41:09] motion. Given the main piece of this is to implement

[3:41:12] the guidelines. I don't see it as counter to make

[3:41:16] some adjustments to the internal proceedings of the guidelines and

[3:41:20] the document, even if it's something that may be different.

[3:41:24] So I think it's probably important for Council to have

[3:41:27] this debate and have clarity on the components of the

[3:41:31] guidelines. And so I'm going to, I would rule that

[3:41:35] the amendment can stand based on the components of the

[3:41:38] main motion before us. Um, but I would recognise that

[3:41:42] this is a different direction than what staff put in

[3:41:45] the emergency guidelines and Council could amend it to take

[3:41:48] a different direction. So, um, I'm happy to be challenged

[3:41:51] on that if someone feels they should, but I'm going

[3:41:53] to, I'm going to allow the motion to proceed. Thank

[3:41:57] you and through you. And I do feel it's an

[3:41:59] important discussion. And so, um, I'm not going to challenge

[3:42:02] the chair on it. But I will say that I

[3:42:05] think what is interpreted versus what is written is two

[3:42:09] different things. I read this asking that the guideline be

[3:42:14] silent on the matter. And so if it's an issue

[3:42:17] of being silent, I could be supportive of it being

[3:42:21] silent. But if it's interpreted as now no longer, as

[3:42:27] sorry, the 2011 version now, then I have a different

[3:42:32] opinion. So that's what I'm trying to understand and make

[3:42:35] my decision on. And so I read this as remove

[3:42:41] what's in the 2026 guideline, but don't go back to

[3:42:45] the 2011. Is that fair?

[3:43:04] Thank you, worship. I don't know if it's as clean

[3:43:06] cut as what we're hoping for here. Um, we're trying

[3:43:10] to talk about admissions into an emergency shelter. And this

[3:43:12] is focusing on possession of illegal drugs. And if we're

[3:43:16] silent on it, I worry that every shelter provider is

[3:43:20] going to have a different interpretation of it. Um, and

[3:43:23] we might run a foul of inconsistencies or discrepancies and

[3:43:28] be right back before you, but why everyone's doing it

[3:43:30] differently. Um, and so I wish I had a more

[3:43:32] clear answer, but this seems to focus more on permitting

[3:43:37] illegal substances when we're talking about, um, grounds and requirements

[3:43:42] for, for bringing people indoors and admitting them into event.

[3:43:49] Okay. Thank you. Uh, I will mull that over for

[3:43:52] part two, um, I'm just wondering again, how to staff

[3:43:56] interpret this. Because again, from a human rights perspective, this

[3:44:00] reads differently for me than perhaps, um, some of the

[3:44:04] other guidelines around, or sorry, some of the other things

[3:44:08] in the guidelines around restricting access. This, I just, I

[3:44:12] need some clarity on how this is being interpreted. Go

[3:44:21] ahead. Through your worship, yes, this would again speak to

[3:44:26] that admission piece that we're making it clear to shelter

[3:44:29] operators that when it comes to admission that based on

[3:44:33] the fact that someone may have substances in their possession,

[3:44:36] potentially for substance use disorder or managing withdrawal symptoms as

[3:44:40] it was mentioned earlier, a potential disability that's code protected,

[3:44:44] um, we're making it clear to shelter operators that that

[3:44:47] alone, um, isn't necessarily grounds for denial to the shelter.

[3:44:53] Um, and the way we have it currently worded in

[3:44:55] the shelter guidelines would provide clarity to that, that section.

[3:44:59] Um, this particular, um, phrase that we're looking at would,

[3:45:03] um, just leads to the other point that we spoke

[3:45:04] about with ambiguity for shelter operators. Council Rahmen. Okay. Thank

[3:45:11] you. And through you, I think I'll listen to the

[3:45:13] rest of the discussion, but, um, I'm hoping that, uh,

[3:45:16] these can all be called separately. Okay. Um, other speakers,

[3:45:26] uh, to this matter.

[3:46:18] Okay. Um, now I have some questions. So I'm going

[3:46:20] to turn the show over to De Mary Lewis. Uh,

[3:46:25] thank you, your worship. I will take the chair and

[3:46:27] please go ahead. Yes. So just I want to go

[3:46:33] off of what Council Ramen said because I, I'm still

[3:46:36] a little unclear on the question. Um. Part, but my

[3:46:42] question is more about part two. Part two seems to

[3:46:46] suggest that within the guidelines, um, that there's no ability

[3:46:52] to discharge for use. And my reading of the guidelines

[3:46:57] was that that's not the case. Um, you can discharge

[3:47:01] for using my conversation with some of the shelter providers

[3:47:04] is they do do that. Um, and so at part

[3:47:08] two, doesn't make a lot of sense to me because

[3:47:11] it, I believe it's already possible within the guidelines. I

[3:47:13] think there is a line in there about, you know,

[3:47:16] try to help the person first. Perhaps connect them with

[3:47:20] services or something rather than discharge right away. I know

[3:47:23] some providers have that right in, but just some clarification

[3:47:26] on what is like actually happening. If someone uses in

[3:47:30] a shelter, can they be discharged by the provider? Mr.

[3:47:34] Dickens. Thank you through you, Mr. President Officer. Um, yes,

[3:47:38] they can be. They can be discharged. Uh, what this

[3:47:41] is updating is to recognise the prevalence and the, uh,

[3:47:46] number of occurrences in which that can happen in daily

[3:47:49] life. Uh, you would spend all day discharging people and

[3:47:52] no time supporting people. And that's a wide generalization and

[3:47:56] broad stroke just to give you some context of the

[3:47:58] scale of the problem that's affecting shelters across Ontario. Uh,

[3:48:03] what we are saying is you, you can still discharge

[3:48:06] a person. Absolutely. And if there's, uh, reason to, uh,

[3:48:12] discharge a person, we expect that it's well documented. Uh,

[3:48:16] that it has come from every attempt to support that

[3:48:19] person first. And again, the, the more that shelter providers

[3:48:23] can engage with a person in that moment, uh, provide

[3:48:26] them pathways to better options, better supports, um, the better

[3:48:30] we are off as a community. And that person is

[3:48:33] better off. Uh, whereas, uh, discharging at the first site

[3:48:38] of a suspected, uh, addiction or someone who may be

[3:48:41] under the influence. If they're posing no harm to anyone,

[3:48:45] um, would be in our minds a little bit callous

[3:48:48] to, to, uh, discharge the moat to the streets when

[3:48:50] they're posing no harm. So we're asking folks, uh, that

[3:48:55] can't be the sole criteria that you're asked to leave

[3:48:57] a shelter. It could, you could be discharged. Again, if

[3:49:01] you're showing up in your trafficking and you're disruptive and

[3:49:04] you're violent and there's concerns and you're using repeatedly, you're

[3:49:07] going to be asked to leave. However, if you're in

[3:49:10] the door and you're in the building and you're under

[3:49:12] the influence, we want staff to safely engage with you.

[3:49:15] And if it's a repeated occurrence, they better be putting

[3:49:18] safety plans in place, care plans in place, start talking

[3:49:22] about referral pathways. And the addiction's world, folks need to

[3:49:25] be at least pre - contemplative that they want help.

[3:49:28] Uh, and so when they're in our care or in

[3:49:31] the care of a shelter provider, we want to get

[3:49:32] them to that state where they start to contemplate the

[3:49:35] idea that they might want help. And we do that

[3:49:37] best. If they're permitted in to have a spot to

[3:49:41] sleep than if we tell them to go away. That

[3:49:43] is what this guidelines is trying to communicate. We're here

[3:49:46] to help people. We want to help as many people

[3:49:48] as possible. And asking them to leave at the first

[3:49:51] sight of an addiction is not conductive to doing that.

[3:49:58] Councillor Stevenson. This amendment is very clear about its substance

[3:50:06] use inside the shelter. So this, you know, the all

[3:50:10] kinds of stuff in it that talks about people have

[3:50:12] substance use. You can't be discharged for that reason. All

[3:50:16] that kind of stuff. I'm not touching that. This is

[3:50:19] one sentence. And I can tell you it's on page

[3:50:22] 176 or the back or the bottom of page 44

[3:50:26] within the shelter guidelines. And it says emergency shelter, uh,

[3:50:31] providers will not discharge participants or impose service restrictions based

[3:50:37] on substance use on or off site. I didn't even

[3:50:41] put the offsite into this. I just don't want to

[3:50:46] restrict the discharge or service restrictions for somebody using those

[3:50:50] illegal substances inside the taxpayer funded shelter. All of the

[3:50:55] other stuff that's being mentioned here is part of the

[3:50:57] guidelines and I'm not touching that at all. Okay. Councillor.

[3:51:02] I know you said point of whatever. Um, I'm going

[3:51:05] to rule that as a point of personal privilege. Um,

[3:51:07] not as a point of order because it's not a

[3:51:09] procedural matter. Um, you're calling a point of personal privilege

[3:51:13] because you believe that you your intent was being misrepresented.

[3:51:17] And so, uh, I'm going to rule that as a

[3:51:19] point of personal privilege. You have made your statement to

[3:51:22] correct your intention. So I'm going to deal deem that

[3:51:25] dealt with. And I'm going to return to Mayor Morgan.

[3:51:34] Okay. Appreciate that. Um. So I'm going to say a

[3:51:38] few things on this. So first, um, I did take

[3:51:42] the time to speak to all the shelter providers. Pretty

[3:51:44] easy to give them a call and ask some questions

[3:51:47] about how they operate. Currently and their engagement on the

[3:51:51] guidelines and whether or not they're supportive of them and

[3:51:53] the answer that I got was yes. Uh, it is

[3:51:55] how they operate today. Um, you know, one of the

[3:51:58] interesting things that came up in my discussions with them

[3:52:00] was the challenge with being silent on. Letting someone know

[3:52:06] that they can come in the door. If the one

[3:52:10] who uses. Gets away from the opportunity to intervene in

[3:52:15] those individuals'lives. The Salvation Army, for example, co - locate

[3:52:19] services. They have low barrier shelter services, but they also

[3:52:22] have withdrawal management recovery community centre. Uh, and they have

[3:52:27] the hard hub. And my discussion with them was they

[3:52:32] see the Lowry shelter as an entry point into connecting

[3:52:35] people with services. So sometimes people do have a drug

[3:52:38] addiction. They will come in the doors. Uh, they may

[3:52:41] be a user. And then they intervene with them. In

[3:52:43] some cases that person decides to go into the draw

[3:52:46] management program. In some cases, it works for them. In

[3:52:48] some cases, they don't. And they might return to low

[3:52:50] barrier shelter. In some cases, they connect into the recovery

[3:52:52] centre because they progressed along through the withdrawal program. In

[3:52:56] some cases, they may be connected with the hard hub.

[3:52:58] There are some abstinent space programs working alongside other programs

[3:53:03] to try to bring people in the doors and capture

[3:53:05] them. The problem that the challenge with this motion is

[3:53:09] I'd like, I totally understand the Councilor's intent. Um, it's

[3:53:13] a, it's a politically challenging motion because it's really easy

[3:53:17] to box it into a space and say, this is

[3:53:21] what we're doing. But the consequences, I'm concerned about it.

[3:53:24] If we don't particularly on I, if we don't let

[3:53:30] people know that they can come in and get help.

[3:53:32] And if we can't engage with them, there's probably going

[3:53:35] to be more people out on the street. Like more

[3:53:37] people who will just, you know, what I'm not going

[3:53:39] to show up to the shelter. Less people to intervene

[3:53:41] with. This is the, these are the concerns that I

[3:53:43] heard from some of the shelter providers. They want to

[3:53:45] engage with people. They want to try to connect them

[3:53:47] with services. Some people are ready for that. Some people

[3:53:50] aren't. To the residents in the area. Might not be

[3:53:55] supportive of the guidelines. If people don't feel they can

[3:53:59] go indoors into a shelter, they're going to stay outdoors

[3:54:02] in parks and doorways. And on the street. And I

[3:54:06] think ultimately we want is to connect people with services.

[3:54:08] I think we're relatively, you know, on the same page

[3:54:12] on that. You know, it's part of the reason why,

[3:54:14] you know, the calls for the province to invest in

[3:54:16] more, you know, voluntary treatment services to be available so

[3:54:20] that when people are ready, they don't have to wait

[3:54:21] for a long period, you know, that they could have

[3:54:24] that. Like the challenges we don't have some of those

[3:54:26] referral points. So people are going to be indoors or

[3:54:29] they're going to be outdoors. They're going to be connected

[3:54:30] with people or they're not. Um, we have some challenges

[3:54:33] here. So it's very difficult to figure out, you know,

[3:54:36] what to do with all the parts of this motion.

[3:54:38] Because again, I think there are the actual practices that

[3:54:41] the shelters are doing. We don't want to create through

[3:54:46] the, we don't want to create the perception that people

[3:54:48] shouldn't be coming and asking for help coming indures, getting

[3:54:51] emergency shelter. Um, protecting themselves from all elements or whatever

[3:54:55] else sleeping outdoors. All the things that emergency shelter provides

[3:54:58] them with because they may have a possession substance on

[3:55:03] them. If they're tracking, if they're doing the things that

[3:55:07] Mr. Dickens said, yeah, for sure they should be considered

[3:55:09] to be banned, right? You've got to protect the other

[3:55:11] people in the shelter. But for me, I have a

[3:55:15] challenge with I because I don't want to put, I

[3:55:18] don't want to give people the impression that they can't

[3:55:19] get help. When they need it. And if they need

[3:55:21] to come indorst to get help, because again, they need

[3:55:23] to be in a shelter. And then we can connect

[3:55:25] with services. I'd rather them be there than I would

[3:55:28] on the streets. So, uh, the other pieces I'm thinking

[3:55:30] about I want to hear colleagues thoughts on, but, um,

[3:55:34] but I think I is moving the wrong direction because

[3:55:37] I think it leaves people outdoors. Uh, thank you Mayor

[3:55:42] Morgan and that was right on your time. I will

[3:55:44] return the chair to you. I don't have any other

[3:55:48] speakers at the moment, but I'm happy to put my

[3:55:51] own name on the speaker's list because I have a

[3:55:53] question now resulting from some other comments. Sure. Well, you

[3:55:57] know what? Then you're on the list and you can

[3:55:58] go ahead. Okay. So I'm going to focus. I was

[3:56:04] interested in what Council Ramen said about remaining silent on

[3:56:06] some things. And I heard Mr. Dickens'answer. But I do

[3:56:10] wonder why. We couldn't allow different emergency shelter providers to

[3:56:15] have different guidelines. Uh, so if a service provider, uh,

[3:56:20] and I'm not saying that they, they want to do

[3:56:21] this, but I'm using, I'm going to use the arc

[3:56:24] as an example because Ms. Campbell is in my line

[3:56:26] of sight here. So, uh, let's say the arc wanted

[3:56:29] to say the first, you know, the beds at Bishop

[3:56:33] Cronin. Were zero tolerance for illegal substances, but the emergency

[3:56:41] beds, uh, they sometimes set up in the basement. They're

[3:56:44] more flexible on or at 696 Dundas. They're more flexible

[3:56:47] on. Um, why could we not allow shelter providers to

[3:56:51] choose their own approach to this and then simply have

[3:56:53] them communicate that to us as part of their contract.

[3:56:56] And list these are the shelters that allow, uh, possession.

[3:57:00] These are the shelters that are zero tolerance for possession.

[3:57:09] Go ahead. Thank you, Richard. B. Fair question. Uh, these

[3:57:14] guidelines are meant to apply to a low barrier emergency

[3:57:16] shelters. And so we have recovery services. The marriage is

[3:57:20] highlighted a couple through emission services, salvation army. In your

[3:57:24] example would prove to be another one where you would

[3:57:26] have, uh, the low barrier emergency shelters following these guidelines,

[3:57:31] uh, and there may be other recovery oriented programs that

[3:57:35] would follow whatever, uh, their mandated service would be. So,

[3:57:39] uh, it is possible, but we were looking, if the

[3:57:42] arc were to be contracted and said, I want to

[3:57:44] be an emergency shelter, we would ask them to follow

[3:57:46] the emergency shelter guidelines. Go ahead. So I

[3:57:54] wonder. And Mr. Dickens will know the individual that I'm

[3:57:58] referring to because we both interacted with that individual over

[3:58:01] the years. Uh, but I've certainly heard from, uh, an

[3:58:05] outspoken letter who's experienced homelessness. Um, that one of the

[3:58:09] reasons she didn't access shelter services is because she didn't

[3:58:14] want to be around users. She wanted an emergency shelter

[3:58:18] bed that was in an absence based, uh, location. And

[3:58:24] instead, uh, her choices ended up being things like couch

[3:58:28] surfing in less than, uh, ideal circumstances, um, and perhaps

[3:58:33] potentially exposing to, uh, intimate partner violence in a couple

[3:58:39] of cases. And so. This is where I struggle because

[3:58:43] I don't know why we couldn't have both. Prohibited spaces

[3:58:48] and spaces where we're not going to private. And I

[3:58:53] don't know if the related to, uh, our own requirements

[3:58:58] with province von staff can provide as to why we

[3:59:03] can't have some of both. And that's presuming that a

[3:59:07] shelter operator wants to do that, um, perhaps all of

[3:59:10] our shelter operators in the city are fine with this.

[3:59:13] But if we had one that wants to provide an

[3:59:17] abstinence - based space so that those who don't want

[3:59:20] to be exposed to users, uh, can feel safe. Like

[3:59:25] how would that agency even approach us. Mr. Dickens. Absolutely.

[3:59:32] Uh, three years absolutely. Uh, that would be done for

[3:59:34] our procurement framework when we go to procure the shelter

[3:59:37] system. Um, often, uh, it can be deterrent could be

[3:59:41] the funding that's required. So you go abstinence - based

[3:59:44] shelter. You often require detox services. Often those type of

[3:59:51] absence - based or recovery - based shelters come with

[3:59:53] medical staff. So there is a cost prohibition there that

[3:59:58] can factor into this. But when we go to procure

[4:00:00] the shelter system, if Council says we want a mix

[4:00:03] of absence - based and low barrier, or we want

[4:00:06] all recovery - based, we can do that work through

[4:00:09] the procurement process and come back and show you what

[4:00:12] the various models would cost and what that would look

[4:00:14] like. So I guess to perhaps frame my question a

[4:00:20] little more tightly under these guidelines. If we had a

[4:00:27] service provider approach us. And say, I've read your guidelines,

[4:00:32] I'd be interested in being a provider. But I don't

[4:00:34] want to allow any possession in our space. Like, I

[4:00:39] want to know from our staff if a provider could

[4:00:42] come forward themselves rather than it being part of a

[4:00:45] procurement thing that we do. Um, and say, we want

[4:00:49] to offer this. It's our choice. We want to offer

[4:00:52] it as an abstinence - based space for emergency shelter.

[4:00:55] Wood staff then bring that forward to us as an

[4:00:57] option to consider, um, voluntarily or with these guidelines in

[4:01:01] place, would our procurement process automatically preclude them. From being

[4:01:09] a potential tender for shelter spaces.

[4:01:26] Through your worship, yes, if a provider did want to

[4:01:29] offer recovery - based abstinence - based program, these guidelines

[4:01:33] wouldn't apply to them. This is for emergency shelter, low

[4:01:35] barrier programs, programs that are outside of that aren't specifically

[4:01:38] spoken to in these guidelines, and that would be considered

[4:01:41] to their contract process if they were deciding to run

[4:01:43] a recovery - based program would build specific parameters within

[4:01:46] their contract. I'm sorry, I'm not asking about recovery -

[4:01:52] based. We have homeless folks who are not drug users

[4:01:57] out on our streets who do not want to be

[4:01:59] in the same space as those using drugs. So the

[4:02:02] question is not about recovery - based programs. It's not

[4:02:04] about detox. It's about what if a provider came forward

[4:02:07] and said, I want to provide emergency shelter beds, but

[4:02:10] I will only take folks off the street who are

[4:02:12] not currently using. And would they then be able under

[4:02:17] these guidelines to apply. Go ahead. Throw your worship. Those

[4:02:22] would not be low barrier emergency shelter programs. The premise

[4:02:26] behind a low barrier program is that for folks that

[4:02:29] are not in a pre - contemplative stage to decide

[4:02:31] about substances or any life circumstances that we limit the

[4:02:36] amount of barriers that prevent them from coming indures. And

[4:02:39] so, um, the guidelines are presented in a way that

[4:02:41] they can come inside, provided that they contribute to safe

[4:02:44] space. If there are exclusionary criterios or things that people

[4:02:48] have to meet to enter the doors, then that wouldn't

[4:02:51] be a low barrier program. And this guideline is specifically

[4:02:54] speaking solely to low - barrier programs. Anything outside of

[4:02:57] a low barrier program, that would be considered in a

[4:03:00] procurement, um, framework, or within the contract with the service

[4:03:03] provider. Go ahead. So through you, Chair, then, are we

[4:03:09] not creating a high barrier to access for those who

[4:03:12] are not users and don't feel safe around users by

[4:03:15] precluding those who want to provide a space without users?

[4:03:20] I hear what you're saying about low barrier. I think

[4:03:22] you're just creating a high barrier for someone else. That's

[4:03:31] who you worship. I mean, they still have to meet

[4:03:32] safety requirements. In those spaces. Um. Using drugs or having

[4:03:38] drugs does not automatically make you a risk to those

[4:03:41] other people that don't use drugs. Um, but if they're

[4:03:47] creating unsafe situations, then those need to be addressed and

[4:03:49] handled. So that those that are looking for a space

[4:03:54] where they can feel safe and not be pestered and

[4:03:56] offered drugs that they can get that as well. Uh,

[4:04:00] and those that are showing up with drugs, this drive,

[4:04:03] uh, we're trying to put this in place. That they

[4:04:05] still contribute to a safe environment. We're not trying to

[4:04:09] create more hoops for people to jump through. People that

[4:04:14] are having addiction or don't have an addiction are all

[4:04:16] entitled to housing. Um, and some may be closer to

[4:04:20] that housing goal than others. Uh, and if somebody can

[4:04:22] commune to an emergency shelter, uh, and, and receive that

[4:04:26] support, or that's not the right space for them. It's

[4:04:29] triggering. It's threatening. It's whatever. Then we look to the

[4:04:32] system to start to find ways to get them into

[4:04:35] a different space. Maybe into some of those other salvation

[4:04:38] army base or emission services - based services or to

[4:04:41] the micromodular shelter where they have their own independent living

[4:04:45] or into some type of housing where they could have

[4:04:48] some follow along support. So it's not a, in order

[4:04:52] to access our shelter, you must be an act of

[4:04:54] drug user. And I know that's not what you're saying,

[4:04:57] but we're not trying to create more hoops for people.

[4:04:59] If somebody comes in and they are free of addiction

[4:05:03] and they're in recovery, we want to make sure we

[4:05:05] get them on that pathway, stay on that pathway as

[4:05:08] quick as we can. And there are examples when that

[4:05:10] goes horribly wrong. This, this is true. And there are

[4:05:15] examples when it goes really, really well. And so we

[4:05:19] are trying to make a policy that is reflective of

[4:05:22] 2026 of the prevalence of drugs in our community and

[4:05:25] trying to create some type of standard that is consistent

[4:05:29] with well over a dozen other municipalities in this province.

[4:05:35] Go ahead. All right. Um, I appreciate those responses. Um,

[4:05:40] I'll see what others have to say. I will say

[4:05:43] for me that we would preclude, um, somebody who wants

[4:05:47] to provide, uh, drug - free space from applying through

[4:05:52] this is a problem. Um, I'm not saying that I,

[4:05:58] because I recognise the problem. I know it's out there.

[4:06:01] It's very prevalent. But I'm disappointed to hear, and this

[4:06:07] may influence how I vote on a couple of these

[4:06:10] clauses. I'm just pointed to hear that if an agency

[4:06:13] came forward and wanted to run a space that was

[4:06:16] drug - free, that staff are saying, we wouldn't come

[4:06:19] forward and say notwithstanding our guidelines. This agency should still

[4:06:23] be allowed to apply. And that's what I've heard. So

[4:06:26] I just want to confirm with staff if that's accurate

[4:06:28] that you would not come forward with a notwithstanding the

[4:06:31] guidelines. This organisation should be considered that you would just

[4:06:35] preclude them. 30 seconds. So I'm just looking for a

[4:06:38] very clear yes or no. Would you bring fortunate notwithstanding

[4:06:42] or would they be precluded? Okay, that answer.

[4:07:03] Yes, there is a provision for those operators to be

[4:07:05] able to offer those programs that are entirely abstinent space.

[4:07:08] We wouldn't, um, immediately preclude them from being able to

[4:07:11] put forward a program like that that particular program would

[4:07:15] be independent of these guidelines or provider can still very

[4:07:18] much do that. And we would consider them just like

[4:07:19] we would consider any other provider or any other, um,

[4:07:22] shelter modality. Okay. Other speakers.

[4:07:32] Go ahead, Councillor Farrah. Thank you for that. Um, okay.

[4:07:37] Follow up to the Deputy Mayor's questions. Um, I do

[4:07:40] know of some providers. They wouldn't be necessarily considered shelter.

[4:07:43] I'm not going to name them. That are, um, bringing

[4:07:47] forth, uh, sober living environments to help people recover and

[4:07:52] move forward and get involved into the housing pathways. Would

[4:07:56] provider like that be able to, um, tap into this

[4:08:00] procurement these guidelines.

[4:08:15] Through you worship, I believe you're talking about a recovery

[4:08:17] treatment program. Which would not fall under emergency shelter guidelines.

[4:08:22] If it fall under, uh, what in a, what an

[4:08:24] accredited treatment program would have to fall under. Go ahead.

[4:08:32] Okay. I know that, uh, I don't want to go

[4:08:33] beyond the scope of, uh, the item at hand. Um,

[4:08:38] so I guess the question would be, are there any

[4:08:41] other guidelines that we're going to be expecting coming forward

[4:08:43] under the procurement framework that would be able to cover

[4:08:45] something like that. Go ahead. The Rear worship. Yes, there

[4:08:52] is precedent and other municipalities across the province. They do

[4:08:55] have multiple sets of guidelines for different types of programs.

[4:08:58] Um, this is not something we're considering particularly for this

[4:09:01] particular phase. Um, a program like that, that you're suggesting

[4:09:05] could very much exist in the city of London. They

[4:09:07] could come through a procurement framework and absence of specific

[4:09:10] guidelines about that program. It would be considered in their

[4:09:13] contract. Um, and that's what we're hoping to bring forward

[4:09:15] to Council and Committee through the Procurement Process that we

[4:09:19] would lay out a number of different shelter modalities, including

[4:09:22] absence and recovery - based programs. There's nothing within our

[4:09:25] current processes that preclude that type of service from existing.

[4:09:30] These particular guidelines are speaking to very specific subsect of

[4:09:33] shelters. Um, we don't have other guidelines for other service

[4:09:37] providers, but that would be included in their contracts. Okay,

[4:09:41] thank you. That's how I read it. Uh, that's why

[4:09:43] I just wanted to ask the question. Cause you know

[4:09:44] the one that I'm talking about that we've been working

[4:09:46] on for a while. Appreciate it. That's all my questions.

[4:09:53] Okay. Other speakers to the amendments before us.

[4:10:05] Okay. I've been asked to do them all separately. So,

[4:10:09] uh, we're just let me make sure we've got that

[4:10:12] lined up.

[4:10:31] Okay. So we're going to start. We're just going to

[4:10:33] do them in order. So we'll do, uh, first.

[4:11:15] End the vote. Motion fails. Seven to eight. Okay. And

[4:11:21] now I, I.

[4:11:43] M closing a vote. Motion fails six to nine. And

[4:11:50] I, I, I.

[4:12:09] M closing the vote, motion carries. 15 to zero. Okay.

[4:12:18] So now we're back to the main, but it's an

[4:12:20] as amended motion now, uh, cause one of those parts

[4:12:22] passed. So I'll look to the chair. Good for the

[4:12:27] azimended motion. I need a seconder on that. I'll second

[4:12:30] it. Okay. Discussion on the as amended motion, which is

[4:12:36] all the pieces, including the addition of the III part

[4:12:39] that we just debated. Go ahead, Councillor Privileg. Thank you,

[4:12:46] Chair. Just want to make some comments. And thanks for

[4:12:48] the staff for updating these skylines procedures. A couple of

[4:12:51] things that I want to, uh, address, uh, I do

[4:12:55] have, I do have issues, which I mentioned before to

[4:12:58] have them, uh, at the premises. I do understand, I'm

[4:13:02] talking about the point, of course, the substances and the

[4:13:05] premises. I totally understand BXED individuals who are under, visit

[4:13:09] the premises there. I don't, I think. Yes. Go ahead.

[4:13:17] Sorry. Uh, Mayor Morgan, um, my apologies. Um. But on

[4:13:25] I. Um, I voted incorrectly. And that would change the

[4:13:30] outcome. So I'm looking for a motion to reconsider.

[4:14:10] Okay. You are on the winning side of that vote.

[4:14:12] So you can move reconsideration yourself. So, and then I'm

[4:14:17] moving reconsideration. Okay. Reconsideration needs a second Councillor Cutty. One

[4:14:26] sec. I just want to make sure I follow the

[4:14:28] rules and reconsideration.

[4:15:12] Okay. So yes, it's moved a second. It's requires two

[4:15:16] thirds of whole Council and it's not debatable. So we'll

[4:15:20] just get the motion to reconsider up.

[4:15:43] Okay. We're going to open that.

[4:15:59] Closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to two.

[4:16:35] Okay. We're good to go. So we're going to open

[4:16:36] that for voting.

[4:17:08] Council Privil. The vote. Motion carries nine to six. Okay.

[4:17:17] So now I need to make sure, cause that's a

[4:17:20] different asm ed motion that you're still okay on the

[4:17:22] azimed. I'm still okay to second it. Now we'll go

[4:17:25] to debate on the main as a minute motion. I'll

[4:17:30] look to speakers. Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. Yeah. Thank you.

[4:17:37] I just wanted to say thank you to my colleagues

[4:17:38] for supporting some of those amendments. Oh, sorry Councillor Stevenson.

[4:17:43] I don't mean to cut you off. But Councillor Purple

[4:17:45] was actually speaking, I think, to the guidelines when Jeff

[4:17:49] D. Mary Lewis jumped up and said, I needed to

[4:17:51] reconsider. So I don't want to let Council Privil make

[4:17:55] his comments because I have him. Partially spoken there. My

[4:17:59] apologies. Go ahead, Council. Okay. Thank you. So actually, uh,

[4:18:03] I was the one who actually together with the Peter

[4:18:06] Mary, Louis V, I changed my vote as well. Uh,

[4:18:09] my concern was legal. Uh, but what I'm trying to

[4:18:11] say is this. I do think that based on this,

[4:18:15] we really need the agencies to have very strict safety

[4:18:19] protocols. Very strict safety protocols because it is an issue

[4:18:23] for me. It really honestly is just unfortunately or as

[4:18:27] I said before, it's very difficult for them to stop

[4:18:31] the individuals or let's put this way. It's impossible. And

[4:18:34] I don't want Londoners to have a, to give them

[4:18:38] a perception that actually they have a hundred percent tools

[4:18:42] to stop them to enter. They don't. Should they try?

[4:18:46] Absolutely. Should they steer them away? Yes. Absolutely. I really

[4:18:49] ask and I don't know how I said it at

[4:18:51] the committee meeting how our staff to really make sure

[4:18:54] that a safety protocols are very strict, very tight. So,

[4:18:58] so we minimize such incidents. Uh, the pre - maritalism,

[4:19:06] when he mentioned the guidelines, and let's say drug -

[4:19:09] free environment. I really took this only as low barrier.

[4:19:14] Having said that, we do, we are missing again, we

[4:19:17] are missing certain parts in our system. Why are we

[4:19:20] missing it? Not of even know it that the organisations

[4:19:23] agencies or our staff. We just don't have the funding

[4:19:25] for it. And this is my issue that these we

[4:19:28] should have the process of step up, step up, step

[4:19:31] up, step up. Unfortunately, our steps are too high because

[4:19:34] we are missing the ones in between. But I took

[4:19:37] this as only low barrier. I really do think that

[4:19:41] we should have for organisations, what was mentioned before, if

[4:19:45] someone wants to go there and they don't want to

[4:19:47] be in such environment that we should have certain guidelines

[4:19:52] and funding associated with these premises. Again, going back to

[4:19:56] it, again, comes to the money and comes to the

[4:19:59] funding. I do think that when I look at our,

[4:20:03] when I look at our system, it needs to be

[4:20:06] improved. We need to have these individuals for each individual

[4:20:11] at every stage. We do need to have the promises.

[4:20:15] But as I said, I took this as low barrier.

[4:20:17] If I look at how many people we have homeless,

[4:20:21] we don't even have enough low barriers spots to accommodate

[4:20:25] them. So again, and that's going back, I know that's

[4:20:29] coming back to us again with the additional money that's

[4:20:31] coming in September. I mentioned it last meeting as well.

[4:20:35] But again, just like Maslow's, here are curve needs. If

[4:20:38] you look at the bottom step, even though we consider

[4:20:40] those minimal things, we need to have them. We need

[4:20:43] to have the system retake it out. Our system breaks

[4:20:46] down. So please do consider that. And I think that's

[4:20:49] all I had. Thank you. Okay. Now I can go

[4:20:53] to you Councillor Stevenson. Okay. Councillor Farra. Thank you. Um,

[4:21:03] I guess I got some questions then just because we

[4:21:05] have significantly changed the direction of the procurement policy. Uh,

[4:21:09] for funding sources to the agencies, we're not the only

[4:21:12] source of funding for agencies, correct? The agencies have their

[4:21:16] own sources of funding. Go ahead. Through your worship, that's

[4:21:23] correct. The agencies either can sell fund through donations or

[4:21:26] other levels of government or private sector foundations. Yes. And

[4:21:30] in some cases through you, in some cases, we're not

[4:21:33] the primary source of funding when I say primary, I

[4:21:36] mean like the majority funding source. Is that correct as

[4:21:39] well? Go ahead.

[4:21:49] Through your worship, for the emergency shelters, we are the

[4:21:52] majority funder for the operators that are in the City

[4:21:54] of London. That's correct. Thank you, through you. So follow

[4:22:00] - up question. If the board of directors are making

[4:22:03] these decisions, and as it was said previously by staff,

[4:22:06] uh, some of the, um, the policies in this new

[4:22:09] framework have already been implemented. By the shelters, specifically with

[4:22:16] the item one, to remove the provision of, uh, legal

[4:22:19] substances. Um, they have decided those directors and the management

[4:22:25] there have decided to do it that way. And now

[4:22:29] us as a primary source of funding for many of

[4:22:31] the services or the agencies are now saying, um, you're

[4:22:35] prohibited to do that. How does that reconcile between the

[4:22:37] two? Councillor, that's not what was passed. It's not a

[4:22:41] prohibition. It's just a removal of the language. The guidelines

[4:22:45] would be silent on it. So people could boards could

[4:22:48] make their own choices. I just want to be clear

[4:22:49] on what that vote was. So, but our staff can

[4:22:53] answer your question. But no prohibition. Okay. Let me just

[4:22:57] reframe the question. With it being silent on that. And

[4:23:01] like still, how does it reconcile between the two? Like

[4:23:03] is it up to the agencies or is it up

[4:23:05] to the service providers now. To make that decision on

[4:23:08] their own accord and the funding, if it comes from

[4:23:12] the city, it's still up to the provider, the shelter

[4:23:16] to make that decision? Is that, that's, I guess, a

[4:23:19] clarification question then.

[4:23:33] Thank you, your worshiping through you. I think that remains

[4:23:38] to be determined. Quite frankly. With this change in the

[4:23:43] guidelines. We will go through and we will follow whatever

[4:23:46] the Council recommendation is, is to remove, um, any of

[4:23:50] those provisions, uh, it will probably create, uh, some questions

[4:23:56] or confusions for shelter providers. And we'll have to, uh,

[4:23:58] sort out what that looks like. Go ahead. Um, so

[4:24:07] I don't, we don't know how this will translate in.

[4:24:10] Like, what are we making a decision on here then.

[4:24:12] Um, I thought we are giving direction. And now we

[4:24:18] don't know how that direction is going to land. So

[4:24:23] if it was up to the shelter service provider to

[4:24:27] decide that is one direction. But if we are being

[4:24:32] mute now on that provision and we don't know how

[4:24:36] that's going to translate, I am confused on what the

[4:24:39] decision is that we're going to be making here today

[4:24:41] with this new framework. Go ahead. Thank you, your worship,

[4:24:50] through you. It does create confusion. It's why we brought

[4:24:52] it forward with language in there to reflect, um, that

[4:24:57] it's an occurrence that they encounter frequently. Uh, we had

[4:25:01] a delegation submission as part of the CAPS agenda that

[4:25:05] spoke to the many iterations of this policy and, and

[4:25:09] how having language in or out, uh, often created some

[4:25:12] ambiguity, created challenges with upholding it, uh, with or without.

[4:25:17] So, um, where we're at now is, is needing to

[4:25:20] understand. I wouldn't be able to answer the question for

[4:25:23] you, Councillor. You know, what are you going to do

[4:25:25] if somebody shows up at a shelter and they have,

[4:25:28] um, they use drugs or they have drugs on their

[4:25:31] possession. What is every shelter stance on that? That is

[4:25:35] to be determined now as we change course. Okay. Thank

[4:25:41] you. Um, you know, with that, like we're not making

[4:25:44] a decision here. We're making confusion and we're making confusion

[4:25:47] on a serious crisis we have in the city. I

[4:25:51] thought that we had a data driven evidence based report

[4:25:55] that was very well done. It was specifically made and

[4:25:59] meant to capture everybody to put them into the system

[4:26:04] to be able to put them on pathways to housing

[4:26:06] through stability to make sure that we meet everybody where

[4:26:10] they're at low barrier because the ultimate goal is to

[4:26:12] get people off of the street regardless. Of where they

[4:26:16] stand right now, whether it's struggling with substance use, whether

[4:26:20] it's being unsheltered because they can't afford it. We are

[4:26:24] trying to create a pathway, a system that is able

[4:26:28] to capture everybody because the ultimate goal is to get

[4:26:30] people off the street. The report came back. It was

[4:26:34] very clear, very well done too. And I made those

[4:26:36] comments at committee. Now we are deviating from the data,

[4:26:43] from that evidence. And now we're making a decision that's

[4:26:45] going to create confusion. And this is not an area

[4:26:47] where we need to be confused. If I'm confused because

[4:26:52] of this direction, we don't even have a clear direction

[4:26:56] of what this is now leading to from staff. There's

[4:27:00] going to be confusion with the shelters. There's going to

[4:27:03] be confusion on how this system is supposed to work.

[4:27:05] There's going to be confusion amongst the city. And there

[4:27:07] are once again, going to say, what are you guys

[4:27:09] doing. So with this, like I can't support this at

[4:27:12] this point because there's no decision here. It's a confusing.

[4:27:17] It's, you know, there's nothing that's really being done here.

[4:27:19] There's no changes. And if I can't get a direct

[4:27:22] answer on how this is going to translate, this is

[4:27:24] just going to lead to more spitting of the wheels.

[4:27:28] Um, and I would like to have some decisive direction

[4:27:31] here. So, so I guess I can't support it anymore.

[4:27:36] Which is a shame. To the city manager. Thank you,

[4:27:42] worship. And I certainly appreciate through you to the members

[4:27:45] of Council. A decision bike elected officials to make an

[4:27:49] amendment to something that's put on the floor. We don't

[4:27:51] have an issue with that. The challenge though is that

[4:27:53] we have a scenario where we actually need to consider

[4:27:56] what this means. And I appreciate their questions about, can

[4:27:59] we answer the questions? It requires us a little bit

[4:28:01] of time to think about what this means. And that's

[4:28:03] not because we don't want to answer the questions. We

[4:28:05] just have to think about it from a standpoint of

[4:28:06] what actually will we say to providers? What does it

[4:28:09] mean for us in terms of delivery of essential services

[4:28:11] in our community? So I think our intention is not

[4:28:14] to try to be difficult and not answer the questions.

[4:28:16] We need to think through this process and be able

[4:28:18] to be sure when we give advice back to you

[4:28:21] about the change, what that actually means. And so I

[4:28:23] just wanted to be clear about that. It's not, it's

[4:28:25] not our intention to be difficult. It's just about there's

[4:28:28] this is now a change. Came on the floor today.

[4:28:31] I just want to be clear about that. And thank

[4:28:33] you for the time for that. Okay. Council Rahmen. Thank

[4:28:38] you and through you. So I was supportive of the

[4:28:42] language change because the way that I interpreted it was

[4:28:46] that on page 41 of the shelter guideline where it

[4:28:49] says emergency shelter operators will have a policy regarding alcohol

[4:28:53] cannabis illegal substances and medications without a prescription. The policy

[4:28:57] will include. And then it has a bullet and it

[4:28:59] says to ensure the safety and security file residents emergency

[4:29:02] shelter operators staff regarding alcohol cannabis or legal substance participants

[4:29:06] are allowed to have it in the emergency shelter, but

[4:29:08] not allowed to use it in the building that that

[4:29:10] is where it becomes now silent. So that for me

[4:29:14] was the reason why I could support it because as

[4:29:17] we were entering and debate on this topic as we

[4:29:20] were considering the amendment, we heard different scenarios where this

[4:29:23] could be considered differently. The rest of the documents still

[4:29:27] reads as it reads. It still reads as this is

[4:29:30] a low barrier approach. It still reads as a guideline

[4:29:34] that supports what we have continued to support here at

[4:29:38] Council. So I think that this helps to address the

[4:29:42] issue of whether or not, uh, we were allowing these

[4:29:47] things in, but not allowed allowing people to use them

[4:29:50] inside as well as, I think there will be interpretion

[4:29:57] and discussion from shelter providers. We have a long procurement

[4:30:01] process and timeline before this is in place. So I

[4:30:05] do believe there is time for us to get further

[4:30:07] clarity and go back and have further discussions. So that's

[4:30:11] why it remains supportive. Uh, Councillor Hopkins and then McAllister.

[4:30:19] Yeah. Thank you. And, um, appreciate, um, committee chair's comments,

[4:30:26] but, uh, for me, we're a Council, we make a

[4:30:30] decision here. I am not clear. Uh, based on city

[4:30:36] managers comments about where we are and the confusion, I

[4:30:42] need to make a, I have to make it this

[4:30:46] decision here. And I'm not ready to do that. So,

[4:30:49] uh, given the comments I've heard, I would like this

[4:30:54] to go back to committee for better understanding as to

[4:31:00] exactly what we have done here. Because I'm not clear.

[4:31:06] I was a committee. We had the conversations at committee

[4:31:10] where Harry Council and now you have changed the direction,

[4:31:14] I think in a different way. So, um, I don't

[4:31:20] think this is where we should be doing committee work

[4:31:22] to start off with. But if we can refer this

[4:31:26] back to get further clarification on these changes, I'm not

[4:31:34] sure what else to do, maybe a vote. And then

[4:31:38] if, depending on what happens with the vote, I'll ask

[4:31:41] for a referral PAC. Just looking at process. So does

[4:31:48] the referral start now. Yeah, you only get to speak

[4:31:51] once. There's no other amendments. This is the, we're to

[4:31:54] the main motion now. So I'd like to have this

[4:31:57] referred back to committee. Okay. For what reason? For clarification

[4:32:04] on what we're doing here. I have no idea. The

[4:32:09] implications of what we've just decided. I don't think staff

[4:32:14] are clear. And I'm not sure if the agencies are

[4:32:18] clear.

[4:32:41] Okay. So what the clerk heard you say was for

[4:32:44] basically referral back four further consideration and clarification. Are you

[4:32:49] good with that language? Uh. And I wonder. I wonder

[4:32:54] if we need legal advice as well. I'm just very

[4:32:57] concerned here, you worship. That doesn't need to be part

[4:33:01] of a referral if staff feel we need legal advice.

[4:33:05] They'll schedule it that way. If a councillor feels when

[4:33:07] it comes back, they want that. They can ask to

[4:33:08] go on a camera. Okay. Seconder for the referral Councillor

[4:33:16] Trosa is willing to second. With legal avent, I would

[4:33:19] like. With legal added, I would be happy to second

[4:33:25] that.

[4:33:41] You want to just add including any relevant legal advice.

[4:33:44] Okay. Is that good for you Councillor Hopkins? Okay.

[4:33:55] Okay. On the referral, I'll start a speaker's list. I

[4:33:58] don't know if you want to start Councillor Hopkins, you

[4:34:00] get speed once to the referral. It's up to you.

[4:34:04] Yeah. Based on, uh, what I've heard from staff and

[4:34:08] from my colleague and from my own understanding on exactly

[4:34:12] what I am voting on here, I would like further

[4:34:15] information. Uh, Councillor Farra. Thank you. Thank you for the

[4:34:21] referral. I will support it. Even though I don't want

[4:34:24] to referral. I want to put this to bed. This

[4:34:26] has been going on and on and on. And I

[4:34:29] wish that we could just come up with a decision

[4:34:30] here and take a very well written report with a

[4:34:35] lot of data. And the staff will answer your questions

[4:34:37] too. If you reach out, if you're confused or if,

[4:34:40] but they obviously can't answer this because this is a

[4:34:41] significant change. We want to ask, will this cut people

[4:34:48] off from supports, from pathways, the amendment that has been

[4:34:53] approved. Will it ultimately lead to more people on the

[4:34:55] street. Will it ultimately. Avoid or I guess remove our

[4:35:03] direction of what we're doing? Like ultimately we want to

[4:35:05] be capturing as many people. So I think some of

[4:35:07] the questions that you don't have to answer now, but

[4:35:10] I would like to see in the Report Back, are

[4:35:12] those, are those. Like will this, is this a significant

[4:35:16] deviation. From the framework. Will it mean less people are

[4:35:22] captured within the system for support? Will it mean less

[4:35:25] people are put on those supportive pathways with stability workers

[4:35:29] or housing? Will it mean more people on the street?

[4:35:32] Those are the kind of things that I would like

[4:35:34] to see with the change that we saw here today.

[4:35:37] So I don't want to have, I know you can't

[4:35:38] give me an answer, but that's ultimately why I'm going

[4:35:40] to be supporting this referral, which I will be. And

[4:35:43] like I said, I'd like to decide on this now.

[4:35:45] This is, this has been going on way too long.

[4:35:48] I want to see some decisive decisions here, but the

[4:35:51] direction that we have seemed to be going, um, if

[4:35:54] it's going to have to be referral, it's going to

[4:35:56] have to be a referral. So I'm going to support

[4:35:57] it. And I think we should also put it because

[4:35:59] those questions need to be answered.

[4:36:11] On the referral. Dr. Mary Lewis, then Councillor McAllister. Thank

[4:36:16] you, Chair. Uh, so I'm not going to be supporting

[4:36:19] the referral. I don't think this is confusing at all.

[4:36:22] We've reverted back essentially to the policy being silent and

[4:36:25] allowing the operators to decide for themselves what their policy

[4:36:28] is going to be around possession. It's very simple. And

[4:36:31] they can do that. They can provide the individual shelter

[4:36:34] providers can provide Mr. Dickens their own policy, which can

[4:36:38] be posted on the website along with the emergency guidelines.

[4:36:40] It's not hard. And I think to, to make statements

[4:36:44] about what this is going to mean for more people

[4:36:46] on the streets turned away from services, et cetera. I

[4:36:49] think it's highly speculative at that point. I think we've

[4:36:51] heard from the shelter providers we have active right now

[4:36:54] that they're prepared. To move ahead. With the policy of

[4:36:58] allowing possession as long as the active use. They're not

[4:37:02] saying that they're going to pull out. Uh, because it's

[4:37:06] going to be up to them. So I think it's

[4:37:08] really highly speculative to say that's going to cut people

[4:37:11] off. It's just simply going to be up to the

[4:37:12] shelter providers. And if someone chooses to come forward through

[4:37:16] the process and offer a space that is possession free,

[4:37:21] then that will be their choice. I'm not sure that

[4:37:23] we have anybody who's interested in doing that right at

[4:37:26] this moment. But we did hear from the delegates that

[4:37:30] they were comfortable with the policy. They can pursue that

[4:37:34] policy. Nothing we have done today prohibits. It simply removes

[4:37:39] the permissive language. And says nothing and leaves it up

[4:37:43] to the shelter providers. So I think we need to

[4:37:47] step back from the speculative. And it's not that confusing

[4:37:51] folks. It's very, to me, it's very straightforward. We will

[4:37:54] leave it up to the individual to providers to establish

[4:37:57] their own policy around drug possession in their spaces. Otherwise,

[4:38:01] the rest of the guidelines are in place. Nothing has

[4:38:04] changed. So, uh, I encourage colleagues to not support the

[4:38:08] referral. Let's get this passed and move on. Council McAllister.

[4:38:17] Uh, thank you and through the mayor. I have a

[4:38:19] different take, I think. And I just said, uh, I

[4:38:23] mean, for me, this whole discussion was going from a

[4:38:27] place of, um, ambiguity to some clarity. Uh, and even

[4:38:34] the answers that were provided today, uh, I thought we

[4:38:36] were moving to a space where the emergency shelters had

[4:38:41] the guidelines. I understand in terms of the drug use

[4:38:45] that it's being problematic across the board, uh, and we

[4:38:48] could have other streams. It was never precluding. And we

[4:38:51] heard that a number of times today was not precluding

[4:38:53] other types of supports. Uh, and I would have been

[4:38:57] fine in terms of if other people wanted to be

[4:38:58] designated a certain way, that was fine. And we could

[4:39:00] have developed guidelines that way. I think what this is

[4:39:03] doing, it's muddying the waters. And we're returning to a

[4:39:07] place of ambiguity. And I think Councillor Farr said this

[4:39:10] earlier, but to me, it just, I think you just

[4:39:14] revert back to 2011. I think it's a lack of

[4:39:18] an acknowledgement of what we're experiencing currently on the streets.

[4:39:22] Um, I understand the concerns, but I honestly think it

[4:39:26] just poses the question back to the public. Where do

[4:39:30] we want people who are suffering with addiction to go?

[4:39:33] And I think it's not going to resolve in what,

[4:39:36] uh, people want, unfortunately. I think you're still going to

[4:39:39] see them on the street. And the mayor spoke to

[4:39:41] this. And I know we've all kind of wrestled today

[4:39:43] with, you know, where we go with this. But one

[4:39:46] of the things I want to make clear on this

[4:39:48] vote is I think we all care about this issue.

[4:39:50] We're all struggling with it. But I don't like how

[4:39:55] it has been used for political posturing purposes. We're not

[4:39:58] debating the war on drugs here. This is not a

[4:40:01] pro and anti drug vote. This is more us trying

[4:40:04] to have guidelines that allow opers to work in a

[4:40:08] difficult space with people who are struggling with addiction, which

[4:40:11] is a very challenging space in itself. And I think

[4:40:13] we can all acknowledge we don't have a lot of

[4:40:15] access points right now. And so we have all also

[4:40:19] witnessed the capacity issues with the shelter. We want people

[4:40:21] to be able to come to a shelter, uh, and

[4:40:24] this again, I think it just returns us to a

[4:40:26] place of ambiguity. I am supportive of the referral just

[4:40:29] because I would like a report back for staff to

[4:40:31] now see what this might do to the system that

[4:40:35] we were trying to, um, help in terms of offering

[4:40:38] that clarity. So I think it just puts us back

[4:40:41] to a grey area. And I need further understanding in

[4:40:44] terms of what that grey area looks like and how

[4:40:46] the people who are actually working in that space will

[4:40:49] operate. Um, and so again, I appreciate the discussion. I

[4:40:53] know we're kind of on different sides of this. I

[4:40:54] think we're all grappling with it. But, uh, I'm saying

[4:40:57] it now because I just know the way this is

[4:40:59] interpreted in the public and I'm really tired of this

[4:41:01] war on drugs thing coming up where that's not what

[4:41:03] we're debating. I think we're debating where people can get

[4:41:06] help and where they can seek shelter. And the guidelines

[4:41:09] for that in terms of, um, allowing them a place

[4:41:12] to go, even if they're struggling with addiction. I think

[4:41:14] that was an important thing we needed to talk about,

[4:41:16] but this is not a debate about drugs. It's a,

[4:41:19] it's debate about the shelter space and the guidelines, which

[4:41:23] would have allowed people to come in inside regardless of

[4:41:27] what they're experiencing. So I'm going to leave it there,

[4:41:28] but I'm supportive of the referral. Councillor Tro Sam.

[4:41:38] Thank you through you. Does this shift in our decision?

[4:41:44] And this is directed to the solicitor. Um, does this

[4:41:49] shift in decision create any legal challenges for us in

[4:41:52] terms of human rights legislation?

[4:42:25] Go ahead. Thank you. And through your worship all say

[4:42:29] publicly about that is that we know that addiction is

[4:42:33] a protected human rights ground. And so a person cannot

[4:42:36] be denied entry on that basis subject to a potential

[4:42:41] human rights complaint. And I presume through you, um, that

[4:42:46] means we'll be getting more information about this presumably in

[4:42:49] a closed session at a subsequent point. And you can't

[4:42:52] answer that now. Go ahead.

[4:43:25] Thank you, Andrew, your worship. Um, additional information could be

[4:43:29] provided as part of the referral. Okay. I won't go

[4:43:35] through each grounds of legal objection that I could see

[4:43:39] arising here and ask you individually. I'll just assume that

[4:43:41] we'll get a thorough report. What bothers me so much

[4:43:45] about this. Is we were just on the verge. Of

[4:43:51] being able to have some, a victory. In terms of

[4:43:55] clarity. Certainty. And at least, at least the road that

[4:44:01] is legally, in my view, sustainable, but also ethically and

[4:44:06] practically sustainable from the point of view of administration. I

[4:44:10] believe that we have, um. Well, I won't say that

[4:44:16] that way, but I will say that what's important to

[4:44:19] me here is that we distinguish between stealth, person's status.

[4:44:27] Which can be very broadly construed. To include things that

[4:44:30] they're in possession of and things that they often, often

[4:44:33] have on their person. Or on their body. But we're,

[4:44:37] we're making a distinction here now between status and conduct.

[4:44:41] And what I thought was so, um, beautiful. What I

[4:44:45] thought was so brilliant. What I thought was so sustainable.

[4:44:52] Was the way staff persistently told us. People can be

[4:44:56] deported. People can be removed from the premises. But it's

[4:45:00] based on, it's going to be based on behaviour. Not

[4:45:05] going to be based on what we think they're going

[4:45:06] to do. With something that they persistently. Have on their

[4:45:12] person. Which is part of their. Underlying problem that we're

[4:45:19] trying to cure. We're going to be pushing people away.

[4:45:24] Who are in the most need of the kind of

[4:45:27] help that we were just on the verge. Of being

[4:45:31] able to enact. And I believe that like once again,

[4:45:37] we backtrack. Once again, we are, we are standing on

[4:45:41] the door, doorstep. Of coherence. And what do we do.

[4:45:48] We worry. We worry. And we're allowing posturing. And political

[4:45:54] considerations to affect our judgment here. And that is not

[4:45:58] something that is acceptable. I find it reprehensible. That we're

[4:46:02] doing this. So I look forward to getting a further

[4:46:05] staff report. And I also think that, um, this backtracking

[4:46:09] that we're doing here today is going to have some

[4:46:12] implications in terms of a lot of other people who

[4:46:14] have a lot of knowledge about drug policy. To come

[4:46:18] forth. And I hope we get some good advice. Because

[4:46:22] we were so close, so close. And here we are

[4:46:27] again. Okay. We'll get another staff report. I will be

[4:46:31] supporting. I will be supporting this referral, of course. And

[4:46:35] should the referral fail. Sadly. Because most of what's in

[4:46:39] the report is good. Sadly, I'll have to be voting

[4:46:42] though. On the main motion. Cause I can't, I can't

[4:46:45] support this. I cannot, in good conscience, as a councillor

[4:46:50] who is not only bound to represent the interests of

[4:46:54] people in our community, but also the interests of the

[4:46:56] corporation. Which I think is going to be, in my

[4:46:59] opinion, just my opinion, severely. Compromise. By this move. Plus

[4:47:08] I think all of the goodwill. But run that is

[4:47:11] built up. Through the outstanding staff work. Over this Council

[4:47:15] term. This is what people are going to remember. That

[4:47:20] we were on the doorstep of doing something important. But

[4:47:24] we made a last minute change on a reconsideration. Vote.

[4:47:28] This is not acceptable. And that's why I'll be voting

[4:47:31] no. And I'll be urging everyone else voting voting now

[4:47:37] on the, uh, on the matter. But please, please, please

[4:47:41] vote yes on this referral because we need some more

[4:47:44] information in front of us now because this, this seems

[4:47:47] to be people are of various minds here. So I

[4:47:50] think my time is up. And, uh, I appreciate your

[4:47:54] indulgence, but I'm very, very disturbed about the, uh, the

[4:47:58] turn that this is taken. Thank you. Um, other speakers.

[4:48:14] Okay. Seeing that we're on the referral, um, this Councillor

[4:48:17] Hopkins referral. So we'll open that for voting.

[4:48:37] Closing the vote. Motion fails. Seven to eight. Okay. So

[4:48:45] that puts us back on the main motion.

[4:49:10] Okay. I think Council McDowell Straw was next on the

[4:49:12] list. I think. Cause. We're back to the main motion.

[4:49:18] And I don't know if you remember, but you were

[4:49:19] on a list. You don't have to be on it

[4:49:22] now if you don't want, but you were on it

[4:49:23] if you want to speak now. If someone else wants

[4:49:28] to speak, they can go first. Cause I got like

[4:49:30] my train of thought again. Just so people know

[4:49:40] Councillor's pribble, Ferreira, Ramen and Hopkins have spoken on the

[4:49:45] main motion. So I'll start a speaker some. Ken. Sorry

[4:49:51] for our Councillor. What. No, you can't. You spoke already.

[4:49:57] He spoke before the referral. Okay. So speakers who haven't

[4:50:03] spoken yet to the. Azimated motion. Go ahead, Councillor McAllister.

[4:50:13] Thank you through the mayor. Yeah. Just some clothing thoughts

[4:50:18] for me on this. Yeah. To the point I made

[4:50:24] in terms of supporting the referral. I just think this

[4:50:28] puts us back in a place that's more of a

[4:50:31] grey area. I think it defeats the purpose in terms

[4:50:34] of updating the guidelines. Um, I'll be voting no just

[4:50:38] because at this point, I don't see, I think it

[4:50:42] takes away from what we were trying to achieve. And

[4:50:46] at this point reverting to what we had, it's pretty

[4:50:49] much the same as what we'll go with. Either way,

[4:50:51] I think you go to 2011 or 2026. We're now

[4:50:53] just existing in the grey area. And I think, uh,

[4:50:56] it doesn't really offer the clarity that we were looking

[4:50:58] to see by doing this exercise in the first place.

[4:51:01] So, uh, as it stands, uh, I won't be supporting

[4:51:05] it. I think, um. It just doesn't do what we,

[4:51:09] uh, wanted to, uh, in terms of, uh, offering those

[4:51:12] avenues and those pathways for support that we were looking

[4:51:14] to provide. So I'll be voting no on it.

[4:51:24] Okay. I'll turn the chair to Depomer Lewis. I only

[4:51:26] have myself on the list. I'll take the chair. Please

[4:51:33] go ahead, Mayor Morgan. So I just want to say

[4:51:37] a few words. First off, I think the colleagues who

[4:51:41] are projecting a whole lot on to, uh, the one

[4:51:46] change that we made. The existing shelters are operating as

[4:51:53] the contemplated guidelines were operating. Removing references from the guideline.

[4:51:59] Does not change the way that the shelter operators can

[4:52:02] operate today. They can operate as they're operating. They can

[4:52:08] make decisions of their boards. They can integrate with other

[4:52:11] programs. Um, we have not changed or impacted fundamentally the

[4:52:17] way that they can operate today. So I just want

[4:52:19] to be clear because a lot of people are saying

[4:52:20] that. I would also remind people that everybody has to

[4:52:23] follow the human rights code. I know there's going to

[4:52:24] be questions about that. But being silent on something doesn't

[4:52:26] preclude you from having to follow the rules of the

[4:52:29] provincial and federal governments and the human rights commission. So

[4:52:33] if there are things to apply to the operation of

[4:52:35] emergency shelters or shelters or any aspect of the work

[4:52:38] we do as a corporation, those are still going to

[4:52:40] apply. Uh, you know, our staff could have given us

[4:52:45] legal advice on that, but it's very clear. We have

[4:52:47] to follow the rules of the land. Everybody swore that

[4:52:49] when they took their oath of office, this is something

[4:52:51] we have to uphold. So there's nothing that we're making

[4:52:53] a decision on by being silent on something that precludes

[4:52:56] us. From our obligations to follow any human rights provisions

[4:53:01] in the provision of services that we provide at the

[4:53:03] cortion or in the contracts that we provide to people

[4:53:07] or their board's obligations to follow the rules and the

[4:53:09] laws that they have. So, um, I think colleagues should

[4:53:13] support the guidelines. I think there are a number of

[4:53:15] good things in there. Uh, I don't think you should

[4:53:17] move towards, um, removing all of the other changes because

[4:53:22] you're unhappy that we're being silenced on one provision where

[4:53:24] in my opinion, it's not going to fundamentally change in

[4:53:27] any sort of way the way that the shelters are

[4:53:29] operating today. And we should proceed and should clarity be

[4:53:33] required in the future again, uh, which I don't think

[4:53:36] it will be. That's a change that can be made.

[4:53:40] Down the road by a subsequent Council in the future,

[4:53:44] but the work that our staff have done on all

[4:53:46] the other aspects of the guidelines. I would hate to

[4:53:48] see staff throw it out. I would also remind colleagues

[4:53:51] that if you vote no on the motion, you're voting

[4:53:55] no to like just all of the pieces of implementing

[4:53:59] and directing all the other aspects of the guidelines that

[4:54:02] were updated. So I would say pass this, it may

[4:54:06] be silent on a part that you wanted to speak

[4:54:07] to, but being silent on that part doesn't preclude an

[4:54:10] operator from continuing to operate that way.

[4:54:21] You can give me back the chair if you want.

[4:54:25] I'm debating whether or not to do that, but. Then

[4:54:29] go ahead and share the meeting. Looking for any other

[4:54:32] speakers. I see Councillor Ploso on the list. I'll return

[4:54:36] the chair to Mayor Morgan recognising Councillor Pelosa. Okay. Go

[4:54:40] ahead, Councillor. Thank you. Uh, not rising to move adjournment,

[4:54:46] but, uh, it's quite the discussion tonight. I appreciate the

[4:54:52] work stuff done. Uh, the long conversation to get here.

[4:54:55] And the concerns, colleagues are raising about if we're silent

[4:54:59] on something. And if we do something, is it going

[4:55:02] back to this version, a prior version where are we

[4:55:06] landing? That's why I support the referrals. So we could

[4:55:08] have got some feedback from operators if they were saying

[4:55:11] what they wanted to do. Uh, for me. We always

[4:55:16] say we don't think someone's going to come back and

[4:55:18] then it comes back. Maybe not this council, but a

[4:55:20] future council. Like sometimes therations. Sometimes it's just the timing.

[4:55:26] Um. I was interested in a transparency of clarity. Of

[4:55:31] if those wordings are in there. The public knew what

[4:55:34] we're going for. Service providers knew what we're going for.

[4:55:38] People trying to seek help new clarity should they search

[4:55:41] it of what we were going for. I learnt my.

[4:55:47] I learned from prior councils when they thought removing something.

[4:55:52] It would just default to what the powers were out

[4:55:56] there. People can decide. I hate to use the words

[4:55:58] reptilia. It gets Paul too excited. Um, but that was

[4:56:02] it. A Council removed words. Some it became silent on

[4:56:05] it. And it reverted back to something that was provincially

[4:56:08] mandated. That Council, I believe, hadn't attended when they made

[4:56:12] that small change. It ended up being a really big

[4:56:15] change. And that was my fear with this, that if

[4:56:17] we're silent, what are we actually reverting back to and

[4:56:21] what will actually fill the space in the void of

[4:56:23] us actually being very clear in our intentions. Thank you.

[4:56:32] Okay. Councillor Troso, you can speak to the main.

[4:56:42] I hope I don't sound like a broken record here.

[4:56:45] But I need to repeat something. I said before. And

[4:56:49] that is, um, I have some very serious legal concerns

[4:56:52] through the chair. I have some very legal, serious legal

[4:56:55] concerns about where we're going. And it was very happy

[4:56:59] to, um, have this come up later in a staff

[4:57:02] report. But I must ask the question again in light

[4:57:04] of the referrals being defeated. Um, to the, to the

[4:57:09] solicitor. Do we run some any appreciable risk here. Of

[4:57:14] charter challenges. Uh, of human rights code violations and other

[4:57:20] potential legal issues that, that could, um, plague this Council.

[4:57:26] And I really do not like putting you on the

[4:57:28] spot like this, which is why I thought the referral

[4:57:31] was appropriate, but I have no choice right now to

[4:57:34] ask you that question. Go ahead. Uh, thank you. In

[4:57:42] addition to my earlier comments, any commentary on risk would

[4:57:47] have to occur in camera. I move that we adjourn.

[4:57:55] To go into camera for the purpose of getting legal

[4:57:59] advice. On the issues I had raised as just responded

[4:58:04] to by the city solicitor. I think we have to

[4:58:07] do that now. And I so move that we go

[4:58:09] into camera. Um, and I hope I get a second

[4:58:14] and I hope, I hope at the very least. You'll

[4:58:17] support this. And, um, we can get the best information

[4:58:21] that we can because we're not, we're not operating on

[4:58:23] good up information now. And this is a very perilous

[4:58:26] direction we're going in. Okay. So.

[4:58:36] Okay. So that's a motion to go into camera to

[4:58:39] receive advice on the matter before us. There's some language

[4:58:42] that we have kind of always ready for that. Just

[4:58:46] need a seconder for that. Councillor Hopkins willing to second.

[4:59:08] So going into camera's move to second and any discussion.

[4:59:11] Yeah. Councillor Ramen and then Deputy Mary Lewis. Uh, thank

[4:59:16] you. I'm just looking for clarity on what are we

[4:59:20] going in camera for. I'm happy to lay it out

[4:59:28] in greater detail if you want me to. Speed. The

[4:59:31] reason because. This is. What everybody

[4:59:40] understands what it is. Okay. Uh, Council convenes in closed

[4:59:43] session for the purpose of considering the following. A matter

[4:59:45] of the subject is solicitor client privilege, including communications necessary

[4:59:48] for that purpose. With respect to the staff report dated

[4:59:51] August 10th, 2026 related to the housing stability procurement and

[4:59:54] delivery framework emergency shelter guidelines, 2011 versus 2026. Comparative analysis

[5:00:01] and the proposed emergency shelter guidelines. So all those pieces.

[5:00:08] There's the staff report. And the proposed guidelines. That's good.

[5:00:11] And that would cover all of the. So Council, you

[5:00:14] don't have the four. Council Rahman was asking a question

[5:00:16] and I'm just clarifying. Uh, thank you, three. So, um,

[5:00:22] we're getting legal advice on components of which we're not

[5:00:26] even debating technically at this point. The 2011 and the

[5:00:31] 2026 comparative analysis piece. We've received. We've already went past

[5:00:40] that in this part of the discussion. So I'm not

[5:00:42] sure what we're going in camping. So. This listener was

[5:00:47] given a heads up that there might be a quest

[5:00:49] to go into camera. Uh, I think some broad -

[5:00:52] based parameters assist the solicitor in being able to bring

[5:00:55] up anything that, uh, she, or they may need in

[5:00:58] the discussion. I can't really comment on the rest of

[5:01:01] the language. But that's the title of the item that

[5:01:05] is before us. And so it's basically what we're talking

[5:01:08] about now. But I would just go and buy the

[5:01:11] language that clerks develop for this based on their conversation.

[5:01:18] Okay. Thank you. I'm still unclear as to the question

[5:01:20] as to why we're going to camera. So I won't

[5:01:21] be part of. The. Mayor, Lewis. Well, I'll say I

[5:01:31] won't be supporting it either. I think I've heard clearly

[5:01:33] what I need to hear. However, um, as a point

[5:01:36] of order, it's a good thing. There's no SPPC report

[5:01:38] because we still have ICSE to go and it is

[5:01:40] 20 minutes to six. And while I won't be supporting

[5:01:43] it, I would suggest that your worship may want to

[5:01:45] call for an extension past 6 p. m. before moving

[5:01:48] in camera.

[5:02:28] Yeah. So, um, can be made in camera to go

[5:02:30] past 6. But I think it's more transparent to do

[5:02:32] it now. So we'll just do it now. Um, so

[5:02:35] you want to, I need someone to move. Councillor Stevenson

[5:02:40] Moose. Councillor Hopkins second. We're going to open that for

[5:02:46] voting.

[5:03:20] Closing the vote, motion carries 11 to 4.

[5:03:32] Okay. Now we're on the close session. Piece. Any other

[5:03:36] discussion. Okay. We're going to vote on the motion to

[5:03:39] go into closed session.

[5:04:11] Closing the vote. Motion carries 9 to 6. Okay. We'll

[5:04:16] move to Committee Room 5.

[5:36:39] Okay, please be seated.

[5:38:00] Okay, we're back in public session. Councillor Trosow has to

[5:38:04] go on camera. We went in camera. Councillor Trosow, he

[5:38:07] had the floor. I don't know if you have any

[5:38:10] final comments. Before, but you hold the floor now, now

[5:38:14] that we've come back from main camera. Yes, how much

[5:38:18] time do I have. I honestly have no idea. And

[5:38:27] I was, so let's call it three. And I'm sorry

[5:38:29] for that, but the timer got cleared when we timed

[5:38:32] camera. I'll be brief. Okay. So. I thought that the

[5:38:42] questions that I was raising were legitimate questions. I'm not

[5:38:45] gonna talk about what went on in closed sessions, because

[5:38:48] I can't do that. But I will say I'm not

[5:38:51] walking out of here tonight. Feeling good about the process

[5:38:56] or our prospects. And I'm still very worried about this.

[5:38:59] I think that the excellent work that was done by

[5:39:04] the step, and I went. I wanna look.

[5:39:13] I really want addressed, I went to look senior staff

[5:39:16] in the face and address this right now. The work

[5:39:20] that was done by the staff on directly to staff,

[5:39:25] speaking through the chair, and you can make comments on

[5:39:26] the debate. Okay, so I just wanna let the senior

[5:39:30] staff, now when everybody that worked on this file, that

[5:39:33] in my view, this was excellent staff work. It was

[5:39:35] very difficult, staff work. And you took on some very

[5:39:37] difficult questions that were known to be controversial. And we

[5:39:44] made a significant, and I think it's a significant departure.

[5:39:48] From the staff recommendation. I don't think this was a

[5:39:50] minor change. I've heard it said that this was just

[5:39:53] a minor change from the staff report. This is a

[5:39:56] fundamental shift in direction that I think raises a whole

[5:40:02] panel of issues that are gonna need to be addressed.

[5:40:06] And if they're not addressed to discouncil table, they will

[5:40:08] be addressed. Elsewhere. Now, in closing, I just want to

[5:40:13] say that it is not my intention. To help people

[5:40:18] smuggle drugs or use drugs or get drugs into these

[5:40:21] facilities. My intention here is to assist as many people

[5:40:26] as possible to get the type of treatment and support

[5:40:31] and help that they need. And we have to be

[5:40:36] the situation from the lens of the clientele who will

[5:40:40] be using this service. And I worry sometimes that we're

[5:40:43] looking at it from more of an administrative lens. We

[5:40:47] have to look at this from the point of view

[5:40:49] of people who are not gonna come into these facilities.

[5:40:53] 30 seconds. They're scared. And I think that that is

[5:40:56] going to have an appreciable effect. On the effectiveness of

[5:41:00] this program. And again, it's too bad, as I said

[5:41:03] before than too bad, it's tragic. What I said before,

[5:41:10] my closing thought, heroic, and very, very valuable, not just

[5:41:20] for London, but for the other communities watching. And it's,

[5:41:24] I think it's very unfortunate that we chose not to

[5:41:27] do that. And I hope that at some point this

[5:41:30] or the next Council will reconsiderate. Thank you, Colin. This

[5:41:32] direction. Thank you. Other speakers.

[5:41:47] Okay, there's been a request to separate one part for

[5:41:50] the final vote, and that's part. B, which is the

[5:41:56] directly implementation. That's the only part I've been asked to

[5:42:00] have addressed separately. So. Okay, so we'll do that first,

[5:42:06] and then we'll do all the other pieces. Okay, so

[5:42:09] we'll open B for voting.

[5:42:27] Closing the vote motion carries nine to four. Okay, and

[5:42:32] all the other clauses. Will open that for voting.

[5:43:00] Councillor Traso. Of president, I vote yes on receiving the

[5:43:05] report. Do we have your microphone councillor, Triso. Noted, closing

[5:43:13] the vote, motion carries 11 to 2. That concludes my

[5:43:22] report. Thank you for your report. All right, we're on

[5:43:30] to infrastructure and corporate services committee. It's a four item

[5:43:33] report. I will turn it over to the chair to

[5:43:36] present that. So four iron reports. Whereas half bean pulled,

[5:43:41] so, sorry, but, uh, we, uh, this is 13th report

[5:43:45] of infrastructure and corporate services committee. Um, and I've had

[5:43:49] requests for item two and four to be pulled. So

[5:43:53] I will look to move one and three unless there

[5:43:55] are other pull requests. So looking for those four. I'll

[5:43:58] give you one's disclosures. I think we could just do

[5:44:00] one in three together. Even if people wanted debate it.

[5:44:02] Um, I guess if you want to amend three, it

[5:44:05] has to be separate. Does anybody want to men three.

[5:44:08] No, okay, then you can put one in three on

[5:44:10] the floor. Okay, I'll put one in three on the

[5:44:12] floor. Okay, that's on the floor, any discussion. All right,

[5:44:16] we're going to open that promoting.

[5:44:45] Closing the vote, motion carries 13 to zero. Go ahead,

[5:44:49] Councillor. Okay, I will put item two on the floor.

[5:44:53] This is the school crossing guard program Councillor Trosso has

[5:44:56] an amendment. He'd like to repord. That's on the floor.

[5:45:02] Councillor Trosso. Go ahead. Um, thank you. Thank you very

[5:45:07] much. And through you, I submitted a slight amendment. Which

[5:45:16] I hope will be, um, less difficult as the less

[5:45:20] one, uh, but I, what, what I'm looking for here

[5:45:23] is the addition of the words, um, and other information.

[5:45:29] No. Including accidents reported near accidents and other information reported

[5:45:34] from school principals, teachers, staff, students, and adjoining residents. And

[5:45:41] that's the motion and I'll wait to see if there's

[5:45:44] a second before I talk about why I think that's

[5:45:47] a good addition. I'll second it for you. So go

[5:45:50] ahead. Thank you. I'll go, I'll go right into it

[5:45:52] then. Um. This staff report really, I got into some

[5:45:59] very interesting questions about the feedback from principles. And the

[5:46:04] thing about the feedback from principles was they didn't, they

[5:46:09] didn't go into a lot of detail. Um, counting the

[5:46:12] responses from principles, but it was going at a particular

[5:46:15] direction. And that was there were a lot of concerns

[5:46:17] about the safety around the schools. And of course, that's,

[5:46:21] that's not much of a surprise. Now, um, the reason

[5:46:23] I'm doing this amendment is I don't want this to

[5:46:27] just be, um, accounting exercise. In terms of doing the

[5:46:31] traffic study and counting cars. I want to make sure

[5:46:35] that this, that this, uh, that this exercise takes into

[5:46:39] account also the qualitative aspect of what the principles, the

[5:46:45] students, the staff, and, uh, the crossing guards themselves and

[5:46:49] the, um, adjacent residents have, have to say about this.

[5:46:52] And I think that'll just make it a more complete,

[5:46:56] better report to continue along the lines of doing the,

[5:47:00] uh, exposure index, um, analysis. So I think this is

[5:47:04] a very, very small, small - es - and. And

[5:47:07] we've seen this question come up quite a bit with

[5:47:10] respect to, um, some of the requests that we've had

[5:47:13] in neighbourhoods for either additional crossing guards or for additional

[5:47:17] traffic mitigation. Measures, we just went through a very, very

[5:47:22] fullsome exercise in Old North. Where we looked at, yes,

[5:47:27] we looked at the data. We looked at the numbers,

[5:47:29] but we also looked at a lot of qualitative feedback

[5:47:32] from the residents. And I think that that was a

[5:47:34] benefit. To the staff. So I hope that I'm not,

[5:47:38] um, indicating the staff that I don't think their work

[5:47:41] was good. I think it was fine. I just think

[5:47:44] by making it explicit that we're going to also look

[5:47:47] at this qualitative data, I think we'll have a more

[5:47:50] fulsome report. In the end, and I'm hoping that the,

[5:47:54] uh, I know the traffic department is quite capable of

[5:47:56] doing that. And, um, I hope that this, this, um,

[5:48:00] this minor amendment, uh, pass this. So thank you very

[5:48:03] much. Okay. Any discussion on the amendment. Okay.

[5:48:13] See none. We'll open that for voting.

[5:48:28] Closing the vote. Motion carries 12 to one. And, um,

[5:48:33] Councillor Chair, are you willing to move the as a

[5:48:36] mented motion. Yes on there. Okay. Councillor Trosa, your second.

[5:48:41] Deal. Second it. Yes. Okay. Um, and a discussion on

[5:48:43] the as amended motion. Caseeing none, we will open that

[5:48:49] for voting. Cousin Vowel Motion carries 13 to zero.

[5:48:59] Councillor McAllister. Thank you. And I will put item four

[5:49:05] on the floor. This is the amendment to the Council

[5:49:07] Procedure By - Law of the Striking Committee and Councillor

[5:49:10] Farrer had an amendment for this one. Okay. That's on

[5:49:14] the floor. Council Ferrari. Thank you Mayor. I circulated a

[5:49:19] referral on this one. I did circulate it, but if

[5:49:23] you want me to read it out, I can. Yes,

[5:49:26] please. All right. I just have to find it. I'll

[5:49:31] have it in front of me. Can the clerks put

[5:49:33] that on eScribe so I can read that. All right,

[5:49:36] here it is. Oh, wait. That's not it. If you're

[5:49:41] a frash, it's sir. Okay. So, uh, moving to refer,

[5:49:51] uh, in the referral is that the staff report dated

[5:49:53] August 12th, 2026 related to amending the Council procedure bylaw

[5:49:57] A61 by removing the requirement for the appointment of a

[5:50:02] striking committee for initial citizen appointments to boards and commissions

[5:50:06] following a municipal election be referred to the next meeting

[5:50:09] of the infrastructure and corporate services committee for further consideration.

[5:50:17] Is there a seconder for that? Councillor Troso. Okay, on

[5:50:24] the. All right. Well, the reason I move in this

[5:50:26] referral is because, um, I have some obviously some issues

[5:50:29] with it. Like I do appreciate that independent community based

[5:50:33] layer, um, that goes over all the ABC appointments. And

[5:50:36] I would say that this Council and Past Councils have

[5:50:39] seen some issues coming up with some of the ABC

[5:50:41] appointments. And I feel like if we were to have

[5:50:44] that extra striking committee, um, going over everything, bringing recommendations,

[5:50:48] that would ensure that we have the knowledge, the experience,

[5:50:51] um, and the expertise, uh, for the overall skills, uh,

[5:50:56] needed. Because otherwise, and I do understand that the SPPC

[5:50:59] will be the ultimate decider. But to have those recommendations

[5:51:02] come through, if we didn't have that, then otherwise, um,

[5:51:06] you would have, you wouldn't really have the qualifications really,

[5:51:11] uh, be focused on for the composition. It would be

[5:51:13] really kind of attuned to the Council of Preferences. And

[5:51:15] I'm trying to depoliticize this as much as we can.

[5:51:19] Because in the end, our ABCs are supposed to be

[5:51:21] providing that greater benefit, that greater good and that smooth

[5:51:25] operation for whatever the ABC is. So this is really

[5:51:29] kind of something that I think that we should really

[5:51:31] have, um, here we should have that extra level of

[5:51:35] insight. It will help us make our decisions. And it

[5:51:38] will help us really understand of, you know, after that

[5:51:40] review from a striking committee that, you know, that citizen

[5:51:43] layer, that community layer of, um, just giving us kind

[5:51:47] of that recommendation to show that, you know, this, this

[5:51:50] candidate has, you know, these qualifications, this candidate has these

[5:51:53] qualifications. Otherwise, it's just going to be a matter of,

[5:51:56] of Councillor preference when it comes to that. And I

[5:51:59] would say, you know, I do understand that Council should

[5:52:01] retain the appointment, but we should at least have that

[5:52:05] extra guiding, um, factor. Because we have seen, um, in

[5:52:10] this term, you know, some issues that could come up.

[5:52:13] And I feel like we need to be able to

[5:52:15] use as much resources as possible that will help us

[5:52:18] make those considerations. Because I don't want to have this

[5:52:21] overly political. I would say that, um, I understand that

[5:52:26] there were some issues with the striking committees and the

[5:52:29] compositions of maybe some members not being able to show

[5:52:31] up or having issues with quorum. But I think taking

[5:52:34] a sledgehammer approach and just removing the striking committee altogether

[5:52:38] is not the prudent approach. If we have some issues,

[5:52:41] we should look into how we can recompose or how

[5:52:45] we would set the striking committee, um, amount of members

[5:52:49] that comes through. But I don't think just removing it

[5:52:51] all together is the right answer. Because in the end,

[5:52:54] you know, like you've heard this term before, but the

[5:52:57] definition of insanity is doing the same thing again and

[5:53:00] again and again. And I feel like we see some

[5:53:04] of the issues that have arisen and now we're taking

[5:53:06] away that insurance mechanism that could help us not repeat

[5:53:10] some of the same issues we saw, um, in the

[5:53:13] past. So I think it would be a wise choice

[5:53:15] to refer this and not remove this striking committee. So

[5:53:19] I would like to have some details back from staff

[5:53:21] on how we could recompose or we could mitigate some

[5:53:24] of the issues we saw in this last Council's striking

[5:53:27] committee that was brought to me by the clerks rather

[5:53:31] than just remove it entirely. Go ahead to the clerk.

[5:53:39] Thank you, your worship. Uh, just before I begin my

[5:53:43] substantive answer, I just want to flag that even if

[5:53:46] a referral is supported given the timeline in order to

[5:53:49] provide Council the full option. We would likely advertise and,

[5:53:53] uh, seek members to comprise the striking committee given the

[5:53:58] timelines. The reason we would do that is to provide

[5:54:01] that option should Council choose to disband the striking committee

[5:54:06] than we would advise the members that had put their

[5:54:09] names forward. I just wanted to flag that if you

[5:54:11] do see, uh, outreach from the clerk's department. It's not

[5:54:14] going contrary to whatever is decided here. It's simply to

[5:54:18] ensure that you have that option before you. Uh, the

[5:54:21] other part I just wanted to mention is, uh, quite

[5:54:24] rightly the Councillor has indicated some issues that were experienced

[5:54:29] at the start of the term, um, there was only

[5:54:31] one citizen at large applied for five positions. And then

[5:54:38] resigned just prior to the meeting. So we had no,

[5:54:41] uh, citizens at large. These standard advertisement, recruitment approach, which

[5:54:45] is very broad, was undertaken by the city clerk's office.

[5:54:50] Certainly, uh, we would endeavour to make it as broad

[5:54:53] as possible. Uh, as we always do, um, there is

[5:54:57] no guarantee that we would get that engagement from members

[5:54:59] of the public. We also had some regrets from, uh,

[5:55:04] other striking member composition. Um, and those are the kind

[5:55:09] of the standing organisations. Uh, we would endeavour to encourage

[5:55:13] particition should Council go in that direction. But that said,

[5:55:18] uh, given the timing, uh, the appointments to the striking

[5:55:22] committee pursuant to the existing Council procedure bylaw would need

[5:55:25] to be done no later than they last regular Council

[5:55:28] meeting of this term. So I just wanted a flag

[5:55:30] a few of those issues. Thank you. Okay, just some

[5:55:34] clarification questions from the clerk's comments on, not just to

[5:55:37] make sure I understand this correctly. Um, so if Council

[5:55:41] were to approve this referral from what the clerk is

[5:55:44] telling me, considering the timelines you would still proceed with

[5:55:48] the current mechanism of the striking committee. Because you don't

[5:55:52] have sufficient time to make that, um, that report back.

[5:55:56] However, in time, this would be, I guess, for the

[5:56:00] next Council term, you would be able to look into

[5:56:03] the composition. We'd have a report back. Is that just

[5:56:06] to clarify the first part.

[5:56:19] Okay. So what the clerk said was. If we referred

[5:56:23] it, we will have not made a decision. To keep

[5:56:27] all the options on the table. The clerk would be

[5:56:30] required to advertise for the striking committee. Uh, through the

[5:56:37] referral Council decided to keep the striking committee. There would

[5:56:42] not be sufficient time to advertise at that point on.

[5:56:44] So they would be preemptive in that if they decided

[5:56:46] not to, we'd be telling the people who applied actually

[5:56:50] where we've decided not to proceed. So the reason why

[5:56:53] the clerk said that is didn't want Councillors to think

[5:56:56] that they were proceeding in the absence of a Council

[5:56:59] decision. Um, given the, if the referral passed, um, but,

[5:57:04] but wanted to reserve Council's right to populate that committee.

[5:57:08] Thank you. That fits my understanding then. Um, and I

[5:57:11] would also say if we did proceed to do this

[5:57:14] referral, we could learn, I guess, from another round of

[5:57:17] the striking committee. Um, so I like that. I understand

[5:57:21] that. I think that's fine. But I'd also, I guess

[5:57:23] follow up with if we were to not proceed with

[5:57:27] the referral and vote it down and vote with the

[5:57:30] recommendation from committee, there would be no striking committee, um,

[5:57:35] appointments being sought after. And we wouldn't see anything like

[5:57:38] that. We'd be following the committee's recommendation, which would be

[5:57:42] to not proceed with a striking committee. Okay. Thank you

[5:57:45] for that. Okay. Councillor Frank on the referral. Thank you.

[5:57:54] And I'll be quick. Um, I won't be supporting the

[5:57:56] referral. I sat on the Strang Committee in 2019 and

[5:57:59] Council ignored about 80 percent of our recommendations and it

[5:58:03] kind of felt like a waste of time. Um, my

[5:58:05] time, the Clark's time, other members on the string committee.

[5:58:07] And that's fine because Council at the end of the

[5:58:09] day chooses who they put on all these committees. I

[5:58:12] think we saw the same thing happen most recently. And

[5:58:15] I think that Council will ultimately end up choosing who

[5:58:18] they want to put on the various ABCs. Um, and

[5:58:22] of course I think we all are able, all council

[5:58:25] members are able to go and ask for advice and

[5:58:28] input from experts and from nonprofits in the community on

[5:58:31] who they think should be sitting on and serving on

[5:58:33] our ABCs. But, um, I, from personal experience, did not

[5:58:37] find the striking committee to be a good use of

[5:58:40] time. Any other speakers on the referral? Uh, Deputy R.

[5:58:44] Lewis. Yes, I agree with Councillor Frank. I don't think

[5:58:50] the Striking Committee is a good use of time. I

[5:58:51] won't be supporting the referral. Uh, the timing from, as

[5:58:56] we've heard from the clerk, is really short now anyway.

[5:58:59] Uh, we need to make a decision tonight. Um, I

[5:59:01] will say in two terms, the input from the striking

[5:59:06] committee with no offence to Councillor Frank was not something

[5:59:08] that is Councillor. I really considered. The Councillors are the

[5:59:14] ones elected to make the decisions. And the Councillors need

[5:59:17] to be free to speak to or not speak to

[5:59:19] whomever they want to seek advice from. Um, the striking

[5:59:22] committee does not bear any more weight for me than

[5:59:26] the input from anyone else in the entire community. Including

[5:59:31] colleagues around this horseshoe who might know somebody on the

[5:59:34] striking or on the, um, resumes that come in who

[5:59:37] they might say, Hey, that's a really good person. And

[5:59:39] they, they come and speak to it when we're making

[5:59:41] those appointments. And I appreciate that feedback from Councillors, uh,

[5:59:45] because it does help. Um, I think it's a frankly,

[5:59:50] in my opinion, not a good use of the clerks

[5:59:53] time. Uh, to have, uh, submit all of the, uh,

[5:59:58] advertising, get that out there, review the appointments if there

[6:00:02] are, even any, uh, as we've heard, we didn't attract

[6:00:04] anyone last time. Uh, then circulate all the resumes to

[6:00:08] those committee members. Be there to assist with meeting oversight,

[6:00:14] uh, and then put all of that information into a

[6:00:16] package for the new Council that, as Councillor Frank has

[6:00:20] indicated, many councillors, um, didn't follow when she was on

[6:00:24] the Striking Committee. Certainly hasn't had an impact on my

[6:00:27] decision. Uh, this to me is just. Not a value

[6:00:31] to it. I'm prepared to say, uh, it is gone.

[6:00:35] The decision does rest with Council. The Councillors are the

[6:00:38] one who are elected to make decisions, um, and you

[6:00:41] can consult whoever you want, but we don't need to

[6:00:42] have a formal committee to do that. Any other speakers.

[6:00:47] Councillor Tross Sa. Thank you. Thank you very much. May

[6:00:53] I ask the clerk to the chair? Not an exact

[6:00:57] number, but rough estimate. And I'm not talking about, um,

[6:01:00] advisory committees. I'm just talking about the boards and commissions.

[6:01:03] Approximately how many applications, um, approximately. Came in for review

[6:01:10] during the period at the beginning of the last council.

[6:01:13] Roughly. The answer is that was four years ago. We'd

[6:01:22] be totally ballparking in. So sorry. Um, I guess it

[6:01:27] doesn't help, but I think it was about this much.

[6:01:31] In terms of the thickness of the packet, but it

[6:01:34] was, it was a lot, but, um, maybe she's. Okay,

[6:01:41] let me move on to the next question. And what

[6:01:44] is the time period that Councillors, that the SPPC members

[6:01:47] will have from the time that they received the packet

[6:01:51] to the day of the SPPC edition. I wouldn't have

[6:02:00] the clerk cancer that. So through your worship, we did

[6:02:05] delay some of the appointments. And certainly, uh, SPPC can

[6:02:11] refer certain appointments. Should it choose? There are some timelines

[6:02:16] with some of the ABCs that they may find critical.

[6:02:22] Uh, the turnaround time would be the typical turnaround time

[6:02:25] for, uh, agendas, uh, so you would receive it. And

[6:02:29] you would, uh, you would have it on the agenda.

[6:02:33] And, uh, that, that's the amount of time that you

[6:02:34] would have. That said, SPPC can refer matters. They can

[6:02:39] make some appointments, refers some other appointments. For example, say

[6:02:44] some positions only have a handful of applicants. Some positions

[6:02:48] may have, uh, the number of applicants that are required

[6:02:52] to fill that position and that's it. Some may have

[6:02:54] a lot. So I'll just end it there. So, um,

[6:02:58] if I, if I may, um, add to that typically,

[6:03:02] tell me if I'm wrong, typically we'll get the packet

[6:03:06] Thursday, maybe Wednesday. Uh, and it would be typically a

[6:03:10] Tuesday meeting. Is that correct? But that's correct. Okay. Um,

[6:03:17] so my, my feeling about this is, um, and that

[6:03:21] would take place at the first SPPC meeting. No, I

[6:03:25] can answer that. Um, we passed a motion to delay

[6:03:28] a number of the citizens appointments by extending their terms

[6:03:31] into, I can't remember the date, but it would certainly

[6:03:33] not be the first SVVC. It would be into the

[6:03:36] new year. Okay. That's good to know. So my feeling

[6:03:40] is we should keep the striking committees. And the reason

[6:03:42] why I think we should keep the striking committees is

[6:03:45] I think that we need to do more to talk

[6:03:50] to our residents about civic participation. Because I think civic

[6:03:55] participation is at an overall low right now. It's, it's,

[6:03:59] it's reflected in what was said about the committee's last

[6:04:01] time. And it's also reflected in the voter turnout. Last

[6:04:05] time. Um, it's reflected by a lot of things. And

[6:04:08] I think just to say that, well, we're going to

[6:04:11] make the decisions anyway. So let's not have the striking

[6:04:14] committee. It's, it's a little analogous to saying we're going

[6:04:18] to make the decisions anyway. So maybe we don't need

[6:04:20] so many, um, citizen advisory committees. And I'm not talking

[6:04:24] about advisory committees, but I think it's the same thinking.

[6:04:27] It's the same kind of thinking. We need to engage

[6:04:31] the public much better than we do right now. And

[6:04:34] I think that like eliminating the striking committees is going

[6:04:37] to be sending the wrong signal. To our, our, our

[6:04:42] residents at a critical, at a critical time. So I

[6:04:45] would strongly urge, just encouraging you on the referral, right?

[6:04:49] Right now we're referring it. So, um, well, and without

[6:04:53] the referral, we're just not going to have it. Yeah,

[6:04:56] I can come back and explain why I would vote

[6:04:58] no on the, on the motion. But the referral will

[6:05:01] at least give us the chance to look this over

[6:05:04] again. And the good reasons why. We should have these

[6:05:09] striking committees. And at the, at the meeting to which

[6:05:12] this is referred, people would be able to address that

[6:05:17] in better detail than we can. At this late hour.

[6:05:21] Thank you. Any other speakers to this. Okay. We're voting

[6:05:26] on the referral. And we'll open that for voting.

[6:05:43] The vote. Motion fails three to 10. And on the

[6:05:49] committee recommendation, any other speakers. Out. Well, once again, I'm

[6:05:56] sorry to say that since the referral lust, um, I

[6:06:01] sadly, I'm not going to be able to support this

[6:06:03] committee recommendation. Because basically the committee recommendation is saying, let's

[6:06:08] not worry about getting more citizen impact feedback into this.

[6:06:13] Let's just go ahead and do it ourselves. We'll have

[6:06:15] the weekend. We'll have the weekend. That's a FIC packet.

[6:06:19] I'm sorry we don't have the exact number of people.

[6:06:21] People apply to the library board. I mean, I mean,

[6:06:24] people want to be on the, a number of these

[6:06:26] boards. It's very important. And I think that by, um,

[6:06:30] by just sort of pushing this through, uh, and there's

[6:06:35] only so much spoutiny, uh, even the most diligent SPPC

[6:06:39] member can devote to this, to this file over the

[6:06:43] weekend, I presume that that's, that's not going to be

[6:06:45] the only thing in the SPPC pack at that early

[6:06:49] in the term. So I think we're sending a very

[6:06:52] negative signal. At a time when we really need to

[6:06:55] be increasing civic particition. And not only do we need

[6:07:00] to be increasing civic participation. We need to look back

[6:07:05] and understand why these instances of civic participation failed in

[6:07:10] the past. And rather than to say. They failed in

[6:07:14] the past wasn't a good use of my time, uh,

[6:07:17] let's just not do it. I think we need to

[6:07:20] critically accept what was the dynamic that led people to

[6:07:25] think this wasn't something they wanted to do. So I

[6:07:28] very much, I'm very keen to go ahead and try

[6:07:31] to recruit people for these striking committees. We used to

[6:07:34] have them, uh, we used to have a good, we

[6:07:37] have, we used to have a big, uh, sort of

[6:07:40] cross section of different groups. I remember we had, we

[6:07:43] had the Chamber of Commerce. We had the labour council.

[6:07:46] We had a variety. We had a variety of groups.

[6:07:49] And it was, it was very useful. And I think

[6:07:51] we're giving up something very important. If we just push

[6:07:54] this, uh, throughout regard to how this is going to

[6:07:58] view how the public. Have the public is going to

[6:08:05] view, um, cutting out of one of the few opportunities

[6:08:09] they have to engage in this meaningful decision making. So

[6:08:12] please vote no on this. Thank you. Okay. Any other

[6:08:17] speakers. All right. We're going to open that for voting.

[6:08:46] Councillor Hillier, Council of Traso. Oh, there it goes.

[6:08:58] Thank you closing a vote. Motion carries 10 to three.

[6:09:03] That's recount my report. Okay. Thank you. Um, added reports.

[6:09:10] I just handed you the added report from the closed

[6:09:12] session. Um, you'd be happy with this one. Usually you

[6:09:15] read a long time last time. So I'll let you

[6:09:17] do this one though. Uh, thank you. Yes. This is

[6:09:20] the 13th report of Council and Closed session. I think

[6:09:22] this is the shortest one I ever got. So thank

[6:09:23] you for that. That progress is made with respect to

[6:09:26] items 4. 1 and 4. 2 as noted on the

[6:09:29] public agenda, which was 6. Uh, 12 PEC 6. 1

[6:09:36] slash 13 slash Ics. And that, uh, progress was made,

[6:09:42] uh, for the added, um, added matter that we went

[6:09:44] into closed session for. Okay. And you know what? We

[6:09:48] don't even have to vote on that because they're just

[6:09:51] a reporter progress. It's just a verbal statement. Uh, point

[6:09:56] of personal privilege. Sure. Um, I would, on that last

[6:09:59] matter for the closed session that we just went through,

[6:10:02] I do want to dissent the progress was made. I

[6:10:04] don't, I just want to, I just want to indicate

[6:10:07] my, um, dissent to that perspective. Okay. Okay. That's not

[6:10:12] a thing in our procedure bylaw. So we're, we're going

[6:10:15] to move on. Um. Deferred matters. I need to forget

[6:10:18] matters. Okay. Inquiries. Any inquiries. Emergent motions. None. Okay. Bylaws.

[6:10:48] This is going to take a moment because people are

[6:10:49] telling the clerks now that they want things pulled, which

[6:10:52] is not as helpful as before. Councillor Frank. Yes, as

[6:10:58] circulate via email, I would like to refer one of

[6:11:00] the bylaws. We're not there yet.

[6:11:30] Okay. I'm going to read out how we can do

[6:11:32] this. We're going to do Bill 302 first, which is

[6:11:35] the striking committee item. 306.

[6:11:48] 306, which is the one that Councillor Frankie wanted to

[6:11:51] fur. But I'll just note that until second reading. So

[6:11:55] we have to deal with first reading. Doesn't come into

[6:11:58] effect. He can refer and debate at second rating. Uh,

[6:12:02] that's the appointment of Deputy Mayor and budget chair. Um,

[6:12:06] 308. Counts. I don't know what one that is, but

[6:12:11] a Councillor asked for that separate. It's the street spy

[6:12:15] law. Uh, 305 and 324, which is the PEC motion

[6:12:21] related to DRNess. And then everything else. Does that sound

[6:12:29] OK? To everybody.

[6:12:50] Okay. Is anybody supportive of all the things that I

[6:12:52] can just use the same move in section or deputy

[6:12:55] Lewis Encounter Ke. Always so agreeable. I appreciate it. It

[6:12:59] makes, uh, makes it a little quicker. Um, okay. So

[6:13:02] that's how we're going to proceed. Unless I just want

[6:13:05] to make sure people had time to look at them.

[6:13:13] All right. We're going to start with 302, which is

[6:13:15] the striking committee item. Um, moved by Deffy Murray Lewis,

[6:13:18] seconded by Councillor Ketty. This is first reading. So we'll

[6:13:21] open that for voting.

[6:13:31] Motion carries 11 to two. And second reading, any discussion.

[6:13:39] Okay. Seeing none, we'll open that. Motion carries 11 to

[6:13:48] two. And third and final reading. We'll open that for

[6:13:51] voting. Motion carries 11 to 2.

[6:14:09] Okay. 306 is the next one we'll do. We got

[6:14:12] to move our in secondary. We'll do first reading. Open

[6:14:15] that for voting.

[6:14:29] Motion carries eight to five. Okay. Second reading. Any discussion.

[6:14:34] Councillor Frank. Thank you. Yes. I would like to refer

[6:14:39] this by law to a future meeting of SPPC. I

[6:14:43] believe we have one in September to include provisions regarding

[6:14:46] the nomination process of Deputy Mayor, including that where nominee

[6:14:50] is not confirmed by Council. The mayor may continue to

[6:14:52] make nominations until nominee is confirmed by Council. Second year

[6:15:02] for that Councillor Farra. It's a referral. So that's debatable.

[6:15:09] So go ahead. Thank you. Yes. Um, I'll remind folks

[6:15:12] that we had discussed this policy at a previous governance

[6:15:17] working group committee meeting, believe, uh, mid last year. And

[6:15:22] we had discussed having clarity around the nomination process. Right

[6:15:26] now, uh, in the policy, it just states that, uh,

[6:15:29] the mayor will nominate a deputy mayor who will be

[6:15:31] confirmed by Council. And I asked at the time what

[6:15:33] happens if they're not confirmed. Um, and I just wanted

[6:15:36] some clarity around that just so that, you know, in

[6:15:38] the future, if for whatever reason happens, that Council does

[6:15:42] not agree with the mayor's position, uh, we know what

[6:15:45] direction to take. And, uh, this one seems to be,

[6:15:48] um, somewhat easy. And at the point that the nominees

[6:15:52] confer by Council, uh, then we can move forward with

[6:15:54] that position. So just seeking, um, a referral so that

[6:15:58] we can have that added before, uh, new Council is

[6:16:02] elected. Any other speakers to the referral? Depreence. Thank you,

[6:16:11] Chair. So, uh, Setting aside, uh, my own bias, uh,

[6:16:18] well, I think that this is sort of a, and

[6:16:20] I said this, this isn't a DIG at Councillor Frank

[6:16:22] because I said this at governance working group two. I

[6:16:24] think this is a bit of a problem or a

[6:16:26] solution in search of a problem. Um, I don't think

[6:16:28] in the entire history of the City of London, a

[6:16:31] council hasn't affirmed the mayor's appointment to the deputy mayor

[6:16:34] position. Nonetheless, um, I appreciate Councillor Frank's desire for some

[6:16:39] clarity of language. I just don't think we need to

[6:16:41] go through whole committee cycle. I think the language you've

[6:16:43] suggested is very clear. However, I realised that clerks need

[6:16:46] time to edit the bylaw. Um, so I'd like to

[6:16:50] amend this to just have it brought back to the

[6:16:52] October 14th Council. And I will share that at this

[6:16:55] point, uh, the SPPC meeting in September does not have

[6:16:59] any staff reports yet. On the agenda. That doesn't mean

[6:17:02] that there may not be some, uh, because I know

[6:17:05] staff are working on a couple, but, um, that might

[6:17:08] not fall. Like that meeting might not occur. So I

[6:17:11] think the language Councillor Frank has suggested could simply be

[6:17:14] written into the By - on brought back to us

[6:17:16] on October 14th. So I'm going to move an amendment

[6:17:21] that this be referred to the October 14th Council meeting.

[6:17:27] And that, uh, civica administration, the clerks in this case

[6:17:31] be directed to amend the Bylaw to reflect the language

[6:17:33] from the Councillor. Can Councillor Cuddy wants to second that

[6:17:38] amendment. So we're amending just the part on the reporting

[6:17:41] back from SPPC to Council. And then you're picking the

[6:17:46] specific meeting. Okay. So the only one more Council meeting

[6:17:50] of this term. Okay. Well, that's probably a good one

[6:17:55] to do it at then. Okay. Um. Yeah, that's that's

[6:17:59] okay. The set amendments on the Ford Council Cutty seconded

[6:18:01] it. Uh, so we're on the amendment now. I'll look

[6:18:04] for speakers on the amendment. Go ahead, Councillor TroSile. I

[6:18:09] think my question though, it's relevant to the main motion.

[6:18:13] It's also relevant to the amendment. So I'm going to

[6:18:14] ask it now. How did something get onto the stage

[6:18:19] 13 agenda where we do three readings of typically that

[6:18:24] have been done previous in the meeting. I've never seen

[6:18:27] an instance where this Council or any previous council that

[6:18:31] I've been watching. Has done three readings of a bylaw

[6:18:36] if it wasn't something that was on that Council agenda.

[6:18:39] And I actually went back and looked. It's hard to

[6:18:43] figure out, but I thought I'd also talk to some

[6:18:45] of the former councillors. Nobody has any recollection. Of something

[6:18:50] making it onto the stage 13, three reading. Of agenda

[6:18:55] that hadn't previously been on that same Council agenda. So

[6:18:59] I guess my question is how did this get on

[6:19:04] this agenda. In stage 13? If it wasn't on the,

[6:19:09] um, Agenda previously on this meeting, how did that happen?

[6:19:13] Okay. That's the question for the clerk. I'll let the

[6:19:15] clerk answer. Certainly on the current agenda, there are a

[6:19:18] number of bills that, uh, are on the agenda, for

[6:19:24] example, Bill 308 through. 20. At least, uh, that are

[6:19:33] on the agenda. Those are related to dedications of public

[6:19:36] highways. Uh, those relate to active city business, uh, but

[6:19:42] they wouldn't go through a typical process. For items where

[6:19:45] there's a clear direction from Council, where the new decision

[6:19:49] to be made where there's, uh, direction, for example, the

[6:19:53] referral before, um, before Council right now, that would be

[6:19:59] the October 14th change to bring it back to Council.

[6:20:03] It would appear on a Bylaw list. Thank you. Councillor

[6:20:10] Trosa. Well, um, I would like to say I'm going

[6:20:13] to save my, I'm going to save my other comments.

[6:20:18] But if the referral pass is that's at it tonight.

[6:20:21] So I'm going to say I'm going to be voting

[6:20:22] Noah in the referral. Because I think the, uh, there's

[6:20:27] more to the controversy here. Then this is not just

[6:20:30] cleanup language. This is, this is not housekeeping. There's some

[6:20:33] substantive changes that are being made here. And to have

[6:20:36] this appear at the stage 13, three reading, uh, agenda.

[6:20:43] With, I'm sorry, I'm trying. For this to appear on

[6:20:48] the stage 13 part of the agenda without any indication

[6:20:52] on the rest of the agenda, what this is from.

[6:20:54] I think it's very confusing. The councillors. I also think

[6:20:57] it's very confusing to members of the public. I think

[6:20:59] it's bad practice. It's hard enough to go through and

[6:21:03] be diligent reading all of the, um, staff reports and

[6:21:06] reading all of the things that are on the agenda

[6:21:08] proper. But now apparently we also have to plough through

[6:21:11] all of the bylaws in detail without any age of

[6:21:15] staff report or context to see if there is to

[6:21:18] see if the change. And I think, uh, again, legally

[6:21:22] we can do that. There's nothing in the procedural bylaw

[6:21:26] that says we can't do it. But in terms of

[6:21:28] again, going back to my, um, uh, the plea for

[6:21:32] more transparency and civica engagement, I think this is a

[6:21:36] real bad idea. So I'm not saying that that'll turn

[6:21:39] out different in the end, but I think this is

[6:21:41] an important enough question. That it should come to a,

[6:21:45] it should come to an SPPC meeting properly. On the

[6:21:48] agenda with the step report. Where people can actually make,

[6:21:53] um, at the SPPC, if people have objections to the

[6:21:57] text of the, um, of the By - law change.

[6:22:00] And there are serious changes. They can, they can, they

[6:22:03] can send in and add it. They could also ask

[6:22:07] for delegation. And I don't think we should cut off

[6:22:09] the public's right to do that. Now, of course, if

[6:22:12] we put this on the next Council agenda, we'll get

[6:22:14] a report back. People can still do their, people can

[6:22:17] still do their, uh, added. But we do cut off

[6:22:20] the ability for people to make delegations. I think it's

[6:22:23] a bad precedent. For us to be cutting out. The

[6:22:28] typical, um, standard process of going through committees. And I'm

[6:22:32] not asking for this to go back to governance. I

[6:22:36] said, I don't even think we're having another governance meeting.

[6:22:38] I don't know. But, uh, I do think they should

[6:22:40] go back to SPPC. So I'm going to be voting

[6:22:42] against the referral and should the referral pass. I'll be,

[6:22:46] I'll be making more comments at Council about why I

[6:22:48] think this is a very bad process. Thank you. Okay.

[6:22:53] I'm going to have the clerk respond to that because

[6:22:55] you, uh, you made some comments there about controversy and

[6:22:58] process and procedure, um, I want to clerk to answer

[6:23:01] clearly, uh, why they put this particular item on the

[6:23:06] agenda and the way they did. Thank you, your worship.

[6:23:09] There was a resolution passed by Council where the rules

[6:23:13] and responsibilities as well as the appointment process be clarified.

[6:23:17] So there's clear direction for us to already do the

[6:23:21] work. We did the work. We put it on the

[6:23:25] By - law list. And absolutely Council can refer. They

[6:23:29] can do whatever, uh, Council would like, including amendment or

[6:23:34] debate at second reading. Okay. Strike Council, go ahead. Yeah.

[6:23:41] Well, just to briefly respond to that, this is just

[6:23:44] going to create a situation where we're doing committee work

[6:23:47] at Council again. And yeah, this is what we'll do.

[6:23:51] We'll get the reported Council and the, uh, my view

[6:23:54] is there are substantive differences. And, um, those will be

[6:23:57] raised, those will be raised at Council and we'll get

[6:24:00] into a discussion with amendments and maybe the amendments to

[6:24:05] amendments. I really would like to have that kind of

[6:24:09] discussion. Done at standing committees, not at city council, but

[6:24:14] here we'll go again. So please vote, please vote to

[6:24:18] refer this. Please vote no if the referral path does

[6:24:23] not happen. So thank you very much. Okay. Other speakers

[6:24:26] to the amendment. Go ahead Councillor Stevenson. Uh, thank you.

[6:24:33] I mean, I have seen bills come through in the

[6:24:36] past that aren't, uh, outlined. And I've learned to go

[6:24:39] through the Bills carefully. I do think it would be

[6:24:43] better to have some sort of a cover sheet to

[6:24:45] let us know. We do, it would help. Um, to

[6:24:50] Councillor Tross, I was point though if we don't, if

[6:24:53] this referral doesn't pass, then the bills likely to pass

[6:24:55] as it is. So I would encourage, uh, supporting the

[6:24:59] referral if you don't want this to pass tonight. Um,

[6:25:02] and there would be other ways to potentially make other

[6:25:06] changes through a notice of motion or something before the

[6:25:09] next Council Council. Okay. Anywhere else to the amendment. Oh,

[6:25:18] go ahead Council Farra. Uh, thanks Mayor. Um, can I

[6:25:22] just get, uh, procedurally from the clerk. The amendment here

[6:25:28] to refer be amended to bring back to the October

[6:25:32] 14th meeting. Why is that? Could we just, if, if

[6:25:34] the intention is to bring it back, if we were

[6:25:38] to not support the referral. Then this would pass as

[6:25:41] it is now. I just wanted to know procedurally. Is

[6:25:44] there a reason why we have, uh, this amendment brought

[6:25:47] by the Deputy Mayor and Councillor Cuddy. Just procedurally, is

[6:25:51] there procedural reason why we have to have the motion

[6:25:53] to refer to be amended to come back to October.

[6:26:00] Because the Depreamer and Councillor Cuddy are asking it to

[6:26:04] come back to Council for approval at the Council meeting

[6:26:07] on that date. So we can direct things to committee.

[6:26:11] We could drag things to Council. They're just making a

[6:26:13] change to direct it to the Council. So procedurally, it's,

[6:26:17] it's no procedural reason to do this. So I don't

[6:26:23] want to get into a cross debate, but, um, I'll

[6:26:27] let the mover explain the reason. Because procedurally, the clerks

[6:26:36] cannot rewrite the By - law tonight. Councillor Frank has

[6:26:39] provided language to amend the bylaw. Uh, with the clerks

[6:26:43] can't rewrite the bylaw and have it reviewed by legal.

[6:26:48] And have the language in E - Scribe for us

[6:26:49] to vote on. Tonight. They need time to go back

[6:26:51] and put the proposed amendment that Councillor Frank has put

[6:26:54] forward, uh, which I'm supportive of into the bylaw. So

[6:26:59] it doesn't need to go back to committee. It can

[6:27:02] just come back to Council with the amended language once

[6:27:04] the clerks have drafted it up. That's the next opportunity

[6:27:07] really for them to do so if we're going to

[6:27:09] give legal time to review it and make sure that,

[6:27:11] uh, meets all of the legal language requirements as well.

[6:27:26] Okay. Councillor Farrah. Thank you. I was just reminded that

[6:27:29] the motion to refer does say to the next strategic

[6:27:32] priorities and policy committee. So we wouldn't necessarily need a

[6:27:34] by - law to be drafted up before the next

[6:27:36] Council. Um, I do think that something like this, as

[6:27:41] substantive as this, especially when we are going to be

[6:27:43] removing kind of the discretion of the mayor to rotate

[6:27:47] between the skills and experiences, depending on Councillors for Deputy

[6:27:50] Mayor and everything else that Councillor Frank is asking about,

[6:27:53] including clear provisions regarding the nomination process, um, I think

[6:27:58] we should be bringing that to committee. Now, I guess

[6:28:01] next question, and Councillor Trusso kind of alluded to this.

[6:28:04] Can I amend this amendment to send it to committee

[6:28:07] rather than sending it to? No, you got to defeat

[6:28:12] the amendment. And then it goes to committee. So you

[6:28:18] vote no, if you want to do that. You wouldn't

[6:28:20] amend it again. Okay. So I would just clarify. I

[6:28:23] understand the deputy mayor saying that we need the bylaw

[6:28:27] to be drafted up. Um, and they would, the clerks

[6:28:30] would need time for that. But this referral motion is

[6:28:32] to committee, which does not require a bylaw to be

[6:28:35] drafted up at that time. And there is time after.

[6:28:40] Yes, by last come to the committee, uh, as well.

[6:28:42] So the clerks would bring this by a lot to

[6:28:44] the committee, uh, or they'd bring it to Council. So

[6:28:47] it's still a bylaw. It's still at the actual, but

[6:28:50] we can still have that discussion at committee where this

[6:28:52] discussion belongs at SPPC. So, um, I would say vote

[6:28:58] no to this amendment. There's no reason why this amendment

[6:29:00] needs to be here. And support Councillor Frank's referral. We

[6:29:05] need to have this discussion at the proper. Um, forum,

[6:29:08] which is the strategic priorities and policy committee. Other speakers

[6:29:16] to the amendment. Okay. Seeing none, then we're going to

[6:29:23] vote on the amendment.

[6:29:51] Closing the vote. Motion carries seven to six. Okay. So

[6:29:59] on. The, so now it's as amended. I need as

[6:30:05] amended. We have the, so same by - law mover,

[6:30:08] same Bylaw Seconder. As amended this time.

[6:30:21] Okay. So now on the referral. So it's not as

[6:30:24] amended. Sorry, my mistake. The azimated referral. We can still

[6:30:29] vote on. But Council Frank, are you still okay with

[6:30:32] the referral moving it? Okay. So Councillor Frank still the

[6:30:35] mover of the referral. I don't remember who the second

[6:30:38] year was. But Council. Okay. Well, Council Rahman put up

[6:30:43] her hand first. So she's the secondary. No, I wasn't

[6:30:46] second anymore. Oh, he weren't. Okay. Councillor Deputy Mary Lewis

[6:30:51] consecutive. Text. Is now on this. The referral as amended.

[6:30:58] So it's Councillor Frank's referral. With the direction for it

[6:31:04] to go to Council on the 14th. Not SVPC. No,

[6:31:09] that's been amended now based on the last vote. Okay.

[6:31:17] So discussion on the referral now. Head Council

[6:31:27] Ferrari. Okay, thank you. I hear, I heard your comments

[6:31:30] about, uh, the referral to go to strategic priority policy

[6:31:34] committee has been amended. To the October 14th Municipal Council

[6:31:37] meeting. Um, but then it says the referral as amended

[6:31:39] be approved. We still have the words phishing priorities and

[6:31:42] policy committee in there. Is there like a conflict in

[6:31:47] the language here? Is are they counter to each other

[6:31:49] first of all. No, it's just the way we do

[6:31:53] it. We do this all the time. So the motion

[6:31:57] 16, uh, motion 16 was amended by motion 17. Motion

[6:32:03] 18 is that the referral as a method be approved.

[6:32:06] Um. So it's basically the same thing as 16. Just

[6:32:11] going to the place that was passed in 17. And

[6:32:14] then 18 just captures both those things. It's not in

[6:32:18] conflict. It's the way that this is what we do

[6:32:20] a lot of as a mended motions if you read

[6:32:22] through. Okay. Thank you. So this is a referral. To

[6:32:24] take everything that was done here, but put it back

[6:32:27] into the October 14th Municipal Council meeting. Which we'll just

[6:32:31] go to a by - law reading, just as we

[6:32:34] are now. So the changes. We're just putting it into

[6:32:36] the next Council meeting. No, Councillor Frank added some changes

[6:32:41] to the by - line motion 16. To change the

[6:32:45] language there. So. So she's made a change. It'll come

[6:32:48] back with the language with that change. But including clear

[6:32:55] provisions regarding the nomination process, when do we see the

[6:32:58] clear provisions if it's just a bylaw. That would be

[6:33:06] in the By - law that came back. So the

[6:33:10] direction is tell staff to go make those changes. Bring

[6:33:13] back a bylaw that has those provisions. Because those provisions

[6:33:16] would be in the by - log. And we don't

[6:33:20] know what they would be. Yes, it's in motion 16.

[6:33:27] They would be. Including clear provisions regardless of the nomination

[6:33:32] process. That include where the nominee is not confirmed by

[6:33:35] Council that the mayor may continue to make nominations until

[6:33:37] anominee is confirmed by Council. So that's what Councillor Frank

[6:33:41] has asked to come back with those changes. So the

[6:33:45] new by - law would have that incorporated into it

[6:33:47] in detail. Okay, detail, which again, you know, I don't

[6:33:52] want to be beaten a dead horse here, but we

[6:33:55] should have the discussion at SPPC. And the other changes

[6:33:57] there that we saw on the Spy - Law as

[6:33:59] well. So I guess I'll vote how I do when

[6:34:04] the vote time comes in a couple of minutes. Council

[6:34:11] Ramen. Uh, thank you in through you. I know everyone's

[6:34:17] getting tired. Um, uh, the first thing I wanted to

[6:34:21] bring up is that October 13th is the Council meeting,

[6:34:24] not the 14th. Is a far as I understand our

[6:34:29] calendar that way. It's on our calendars and our outlook

[6:34:34] that way. Oh, in the official Councillor Agenda, because the

[6:34:40] Monday is a Thanksgiving holiday. And previously when we mended

[6:34:46] it, people move things around to make sure that it

[6:34:49] wasn't like a holiday and Council. I don't know, the

[6:34:53] clerk's got the calendar here. I'm just going by the

[6:34:55] clerk. Wednesday. It says she, and he says it's the

[6:34:57] Wednesday at 1 p. m. Perfect. We'll mender calendars then,

[6:35:00] because they all say the 13th. Oh, is this the

[6:35:04] calendars at your staff? Bilton? Oh. Yes. Okay. Yeah. Okay.

[6:35:08] So. Okay, so you may let them, their staff know

[6:35:11] that they've got to fix that. I threw the 13th

[6:35:14] or the 14th. Either way, so because we, this was

[6:35:18] amended, we can't refer to another SPPC meeting late October

[6:35:23] the 6th. Because the way that the amendment was done.

[6:35:29] I just want to be clear.

[6:35:51] So I think that would be contrary to the amendment

[6:35:53] we just made that was sent to SPPC. And then

[6:35:57] through that vote, it was a no, send it to

[6:36:00] Council. So I don't think we can mend it back

[6:36:02] to the thing that was just changed, regardless of which

[6:36:05] SPPC meeting, it was a future meeting of SVPC. That

[6:36:09] is a future meeting of SVPC. So I think from

[6:36:11] the advice I got from the clerks, that's, that's been

[6:36:13] decided now. Thank you. And what if it was for

[6:36:17] different reason? So for me, the issue isn't that I

[6:36:20] wanted to refer the matter for just this change that

[6:36:25] Councillor Frank has proposed. Uh, my reason is actually because

[6:36:29] I was looking to get the budget chair policy brought

[6:36:32] forward. Um, I think that we require a discussion as

[6:36:36] a Council as to which roles and how we see

[6:36:41] Council should be best supported in the future. And so

[6:36:44] my reason would be for that exact reason. So I

[6:36:48] would like a discussion at SVP for that reason.

[6:37:52] Okay. So we just need a little bit of clarity

[6:37:54] because I'm asking the clerks. So. The bylaws about the

[6:38:01] appointment process, but you want to have a separate policy

[6:38:04] on Deputy Mayor. Thank you. I want to discuss the

[6:38:08] policy. We're incorporating both positions into a policy. As a

[6:38:14] decision as we move forward. I want to have that

[6:38:16] discussion on the roles. That we're considering in the policy.

[6:38:22] Therefore, I need an SPPC meeting to do so.

[6:40:47] Totally get it. S not complex as it sounds. Okay.

[6:40:55] So. There's no decided matter of Council today. We can't

[6:41:03] change the backdest PPC because it's that vote was made

[6:41:08] You've got a different reason that you want to make

[6:41:09] some other changes. There's there's nothing precluding you from writing

[6:41:17] a communication. To an SBPC meeting or I think that's

[6:41:21] the relevant Council Committee. Having a discussion on that and

[6:41:27] then subsequently that would land at Council at the same

[6:41:31] time, but it would be with the other direction because

[6:41:34] Council will have not made a decision on the policy

[6:41:36] at all. And then it'll be before us with the

[6:41:39] direction further By - lot and then whatever other thing

[6:41:41] came through SPPC and we'd have to reconcile the pieces

[6:41:44] there. Because I guess the clerks aren't exactly sure what

[6:41:49] changed you want to make and maybe it's part of

[6:41:50] a discussion. But that's that's an avenue of pathway Forward

[6:41:53] for you that would involve a discussion at an SVP

[6:41:56] - C meeting. Thank you and so by signalling today

[6:42:00] that the intention to bring a letter to the October

[6:42:05] 6th SPPC meeting There is in a way that that

[6:42:08] SPPC meeting doesn't happen because we don't have enough items.

[6:43:27] So I I can't guarantee that because the chair can

[6:43:30] in consultation with what's on the agenda and the workload

[6:43:33] decide to have a meeting or not. There is one

[6:43:39] scheduled. I don't know the load of that yet. Go

[6:43:47] ahead Thank you and therefore that's the reason why I'd

[6:43:50] like to make this an amendment.

[6:44:10] I'm going to call a point of order sure on

[6:44:11] the process here. Yes. Okay. The clerks have brought this

[6:44:17] forward because of a previously adopted Resolution of Council. That

[6:44:25] was passed after an SPPC meeting. The got a report

[6:44:29] from a governance working group meeting. There was no direction

[6:44:36] from that SPPC meeting or that Council Resolution to move

[6:44:40] into discussions about rotating Deputy mayors and how many were

[6:44:46] going to have or how many budget chairs or rotating

[6:44:49] people in anything like that Which I've heard some people

[6:44:52] refer to there's actually already a decided matter of Council

[6:44:56] on that to have the clerks provide direction In a

[6:45:02] bylaw to clarify some of the language around the nomination

[6:45:05] process and confirmation by Council. The rest of those things.

[6:45:13] Were already in the last 12 months debated at an

[6:45:17] SPPC dispensed with Forward into Council and the resolution from

[6:45:22] Council was clerk sprang - forwards and clarifying language. The

[6:45:28] piece that Councillor Frank brought forward tonight was actually not

[6:45:32] only part of the discussion at governance working group. But

[6:45:36] it was part of the discussion at that SPPC as

[6:45:39] well and just wasn't captured in the Council Resolution Which

[6:45:42] is why I'm supportive of having that come back with

[6:45:44] an amended by - law in October. If colleagues want

[6:45:51] to bring something else forward and I'll remind you Um,

[6:45:55] that we are at the end of our term. So

[6:45:57] you have the policy in front of you. There's not

[6:46:02] a need to go through another committee cycle if you

[6:46:04] have a very specific change you want to make You

[6:46:06] could provide a notice of motion on Council before the

[6:46:10] October 14th meeting You could simply write a letter and

[6:46:14] submit it to the clerk and it would be on

[6:46:15] the agenda Related to Bylaws Well, it won't be 306

[6:46:19] at that point in time Uh... The number will change

[6:46:21] I assume. Saying that you want to make another change

[6:46:25] But keep in mind that the scope of the change

[6:46:28] is very much around the by - law we have

[6:46:33] and The already decided matters of Council through SPPC and

[6:46:37] the Council Resolution that was previously passed So there might

[6:46:40] be some minor amendments to language or proposed change to

[6:46:45] And I don't know what Councillor Ramon's Amendment might be

[6:46:47] But maybe she wants to say You know the budget

[6:46:50] chair should also be on You know another border Commission

[6:46:55] because of how it relates to the budget or something

[6:46:57] like that Um... Which would fit into the job description.

[6:47:01] But it's not changing the process of the mayor nominate

[6:47:04] someone and then Council confirms it It's not changing the

[6:47:07] number of budget chairs or the number of deputy mayors

[6:47:11] It's really focused on what is the job description in

[6:47:13] the bylaw So again. There's no. Thing... There's no peace

[6:47:21] of the process that prevents a member of Council from

[6:47:23] just giving that some thought Consulting with our clerks team.

[6:47:27] And putting an amendment on the October 14th Council Agenda.

[6:47:32] So given that we've already passed an amendment to Ford

[6:47:35] This by - law not just a portion of it

[6:47:37] But this bylaw with some specific amended language to the

[6:47:40] October 14th meeting I would suggest that that is the

[6:47:44] process colleagues have to follow They have to put an

[6:47:47] amendment on that agenda of Council. Any Sending it to

[6:47:53] break it up at this point and send it to

[6:47:55] a committee Would I believe be contrary to the motion

[6:47:57] we've ever passed? That's your point of That's the point

[6:47:59] of order And I've already pretty much said that we

[6:48:02] give me a second.

[6:48:29] So. Yes that is what we're doing I mean the

[6:48:33] context there that was unnecessary for this decision. But I

[6:48:37] have to as sharing the meeting with the procedure by

[6:48:40] - law. The motions the Council has made including the

[6:48:43] motion Um... Which I was in the minority on. The

[6:48:48] last motion to amend. And so that's... So but the

[6:48:52] referral is still on the floor as amended. Which can

[6:48:55] be... Pastor defeated... Um... And then I've outlined the Avenue's

[6:49:03] account would have But I just can't make those guarantees

[6:49:06] about the meeting Because I again I don't I don't

[6:49:08] share that meaning And I don't know the workload of

[6:49:10] the agenda So. But we can't... Unless you're going to

[6:49:16] make an amendment to say Bring - Forward... Some more

[6:49:20] language like some other changes that council Like similar to

[6:49:22] what Councillor Frank did. Um I don't think I have

[6:49:27] an avenue besides the one that I've outlined with you

[6:49:30] going through committee Committee to do anything different than what

[6:49:32] Council's already decided tonight. Um... So far. Which... Again, I

[6:49:39] wish I could give you a different answer But going

[6:49:42] by the advice that I'm given and how we're trying

[6:49:44] to proceed. Okay Thank you.

[6:49:56] Okay, so we're on the referral as amended. Any other

[6:49:59] speakers to that. Council Trump

[6:50:08] Salt to the referral as amended. No. Okay let me

[6:50:14] start by sort of a point of procedure And that

[6:50:17] is Let's not overblow What the effect of the previous

[6:50:21] discussion that we had at Council. Uh... Last year when

[6:50:24] I brought Ford Uhr that request for a staff report.

[6:50:28] All Council voted on was rejecting the request for the

[6:50:30] staff report Council did not vote on any of the

[6:50:33] substantive matters that could have been contained therein with respect

[6:50:37] to the process for the selection of the Deputy Mayor

[6:50:40] The only decided matter of Council was there was a

[6:50:43] request for a further staff report and that was voted

[6:50:45] down. So I think it would be open to Council

[6:50:48] members And I'm willing to vote for this if it's

[6:50:51] if it's clear that Council members coming into this meeting

[6:50:55] I'd rather it be an SP - PC meeting But

[6:50:57] if it's a Council meeting That's okay too But that

[6:51:01] there's not going to be a decided matter of Council

[6:51:04] now or today or with respect to that last thing

[6:51:07] we did That is going to cut Councillors off from

[6:51:10] being able to make other ways of looking at this

[6:51:14] Why are we afraid of looking at other options? I

[6:51:17] don't understand it It's so like we're so set and

[6:51:22] just keeping the status quo with minor tweaks And again

[6:51:25] this goes to the inability of the public to be

[6:51:29] able to actually weigh in to how we're running this

[6:51:33] allegedly well - run city And I just think we're

[6:51:35] going to be a much better well - run city

[6:51:37] if we allow people clear. Chance to be able to

[6:51:41] come to a committee meeting Where they can actually delegate

[6:51:45] and say what they want to say. Now if they

[6:51:47] can't come and delegate they can add a Council meeting

[6:51:50] they can at least submit a letter But why are

[6:51:54] we not giving the public the opportunity to weigh in

[6:51:57] on this? And yes, it's the end of the Council

[6:51:59] term. But all the more reason why we want people

[6:52:03] to be engaged I don't want to send yet another

[6:52:05] signal. To the public. That we're precluding Uh, uh, public

[6:52:10] participation because it's convenient. We shouldn't do that. We should

[6:52:14] be going out of our way to give the public

[6:52:17] the opportunity to come to a meeting And if the

[6:52:20] NSP - PC meeting that's scheduled And this is on

[6:52:23] the agenda It shouldn't be cancelled. And I'll leave it

[6:52:27] at that I'm still very confused about the effect of

[6:52:30] the motion that's on the floor right now in terms

[6:52:33] of everything I've just said Maybe that maybe the American

[6:52:38] explain that But my main goal tonight is to keep

[6:52:42] open the opportunity for members of this Council and members

[6:52:45] of the public to weigh in on this question. And

[6:52:50] I guess maybe that's a question to the mayor or

[6:52:53] the clerk. I don't know. Solicitor.

[6:53:08] So if it is referred to the Council meeting and

[6:53:11] the regular process for communications of the Council Meeting would

[6:53:14] exist. If someone writes a letter to an SVPC meeting

[6:53:19] and has a discussion there that would land at the

[6:53:21] same Council meeting Uh, if councillors brought notice of motions

[6:53:27] or road letters about amendments to the By - Lat

[6:53:29] They intend to do at that meeting Like those are

[6:53:31] all options before you Um. The only option I don't

[6:53:35] have at this moment is undoing the vote that was

[6:53:38] just done. Um, about the meeting where this is going

[6:53:43] to land to if the referral passes. I appreciate that

[6:53:51] response It does leave me just as confused as I

[6:53:53] was when I started But that's my fault And I

[6:53:59] want to hear what other people think. I'm hesitant to

[6:54:03] sit down because then I'm done But I'm going to

[6:54:04] sit down. Okay Councillor Hopkins go ahead Yeah, thank you

[6:54:10] And I do have a question not sure. Uh... Who

[6:54:14] can respond to it? But if this amendment. Is not

[6:54:22] supported What happens next? So it's a referral. If it's

[6:54:29] not supported We would continue with the second reading of

[6:54:32] the bylaw. That's before us. Thank You for that clarification

[6:54:38] And I'll be supporting it. Other comments. Councillor Stevenson.

[6:54:49] Uh Just a couple of things One is I heard

[6:54:52] that there was no items on the next SPPC So

[6:54:55] I just sent an email because I did have something

[6:54:57] that I'd sent to ICSC That was... I was told

[6:55:00] should be SPPC It doesn't seem to be there So

[6:55:03] I'm going to get that done tonight The other Just

[6:55:06] a question If the bill Just say this referral fails

[6:55:12] And then we vote on the bill and it passes

[6:55:14] Is it considered a decided matter of Council such that

[6:55:18] Uh... The these potential changes can't be brought forward. So

[6:55:26] that By - a - law would be passed. Um...

[6:55:28] Like many by - laws. Uh... You can amend bylaws.

[6:55:33] After their past. And so I guess it would depend

[6:55:36] on... It would depend on Well, give me one. I

[6:55:42] Just want to know if it needs a two -

[6:55:43] thirds majority or just a simple majority.

[6:55:56] So you don't need two - thirds Majority to amend

[6:55:58] an existing existing bylaw You can amend the bylaw Like

[6:56:00] so you can change a bylaw And that's the regular

[6:56:03] same process Okay Thank you I'm going to be supporting

[6:56:05] the referral But I appreciate the clarity. Okay Anyone else

[6:56:15] on the referral. Okay let's open that for voting.

[6:56:42] Noting Councillor McAllister Uh... is no longer present Closing the

[6:56:46] vote Motion carries 11 - 1. I just want to

[6:56:51] say Thank you Encire That took so long. Hey Wiz

[6:56:55] Relight It's the first rare referral of a by -

[6:56:57] law It's just not a quick process So okay So

[6:56:59] we don't have to do any more readings on that

[6:57:00] Because it's been referred So we're going to go to

[6:57:02] the next By - law on the list.

[6:57:20] Okay We're going to do in the dearness Bylaws now

[6:57:22] There's two of them Uh 305 And 324 So move

[6:57:27] to 2nd First Reading for voting.

[6:57:43] Carries 9 - 2. Second reading Any discussion. Okay C9

[6:57:49] will open that for voting.

[6:58:17] Council Pelosa.

[6:58:28] Council McAllister. Elfo Yes. AD - reading of the items

[6:58:36] referring to the Dearness Addresses Okay. Yes. Closing the vote

[6:58:41] Motion carries 10 to 2. Okay. Greeting Will open that

[6:58:46] for voting. Otian

[6:58:55] Carries 10 - 2. Okay Bill 308 Um... And

[6:59:05] Councillor Hopkins asked for this to be both So we'll

[6:59:07] do First reading on that.

[6:59:24] S Okay We're doing 308 now because we didn't do

[6:59:25] it yet So we'll do it. We're doing it now.

[6:59:38] Council McD. S carries 12 - 0. Okay and

[6:59:48] second reading of this Any discussion. Seeing none will open

[6:59:50] that for voting.

[7:00:01] Otian Carries 12 - 0. Um. Third reading on this

[7:00:07] By - we'll open that for voting.

[7:00:17] Council Prebel Councillor Trosso. Carries 12 - 0.

[7:00:29] Okay now it's everything remaining. We'll open First Reading for

[7:00:33] voting. Carries 12 - 0.

[7:00:43] And second reading of these items. Any. Okay. Sign 9

[7:00:47] will open that for voting.

[7:00:58] Carries 12 - 0. Third reading We'll open that for

[7:01:03] voting. Otian CARES 120.

[7:01:19] Okay that's it for Bylaws So it's just a motion

[7:01:21] to adjourn I'll look for a motion to John Council

[7:01:24] McAllister Second divide Council Cuddy We'll do that by hand

[7:01:26] All those in favor. Okay We're Djourn Thank you.

Council

Agenda

Transcript