Okay, thank you, please be seated. Okay, this is the
13th meeting of municipal Council in this session. Going to
start with Atlanta acknowledgement. We are acknowledged that we are
gathered today on the traditional lands of the Anastronomab Hodden
Shoni Lene Paywack in Attawan Drawn Peoples. We honour Respect
the History Language's Cultures of the Diverse Indigenous people who
call this territory home. We acknowledge all of the treaties
are specific to this area. The two Row - Wump
- Belt Treaty of the Hodenoshoune Confederacy, civil governance chain,
the Biver Hunting Grounds Treaty of the Hodenoshoni Nanfan Treaty
of 1701. The McKee Treaty of 1790, the Lennon Township
Treaty of 1796, the Huron Track Treaty of 1827 with
the Anishinaabek, and the Dish - With One Spoon Covenant
Wampum of the Anishabab and Hodenoshone. The three Indigenous nations
that are neighbours to London are the triple Oz of
the Thumbs First Nation, Oneida Nation of the Thames, and
the Monci - Delaware Nation, who all continue to live
as sovereign nations with individual and unique languages, cultures, and
customs. The City Atlanta is also committed to making every
effort to providing alternative formats and communications supports for meetings
upon Request if you'd like to make a request specific
to this meeting. You can contact Council Agenda at London.
ca or 519 - 661 - 2489 extension 2425.
All right, with that, it brings me great pleasure to
move to the National Anthem Section of the Agenda. Rachel
Gender's Boyd is a traditional English singer from a musical
family who spent her childhood surrounded by the rich tradition
of the Midlands singing. She grew up performing in Folk
clubs around Bingham and Derby and has performed with various
groups at the Schrew - Berry folk festival, Rochester -
Folk Festival, and Lich Field - Folk Festival. She's been
in Canada for 12 years, and nowadays can be found
helping a host of traditional iris helping host a traditional
Irish session at the Scotts Corner, leading workshops and singing
sessions as part of the Forest City, how do I
say this, come haltus. I've never seen that word, that's
excellent. As well as working with the artistic director for
the new Forest City Irish Fest. Please rise and join
me in welcoming Rachel, who will now perform the National
Anthem Forest.
Land. True Patriot Love. In. All of us. Coming.
With glowing. Hearts. We see. The rise. The. True North
Strong. And. Free. From. Far and. Whiter. Canada. We
stand on. God. For. God. Keep our. Land.
Glory. Us and. Free. O. - Canada. We stand on
God. For. Thee.
God.
Okay. Never had a photo bomb of the singer photo,
but that was interesting. Thanks for doing that. All right.
We're on to disclosures of pecuniary interest. I'd look to
see if colleagues have any disclosures for today. Okay, sing
- none, we'll move to Recognitions. I have none. I
don't know if colleagues on Council have any. No. Okay,
seeing none. Review of Confidential Matters would be considered in
public. There are none. We have Council and Closed Session.
There are two items on the Agenda. I'll look for
a motion to move into closed session. Move by Councillor
Catty, seconded by Councillor McAllister. Any discussion? Okay, we'll open
that vote.
Closing the vote. Motion carries 14. 0. Okay, so we'll
be moving to Committee Room 5, the members of the
Public can stay here. And finished.
Okay, please be seated. Okay, that brings us
on to confirmation and signing of the previous minutes We
have the minutes from the 12th meeting of Council held
on July 21st. I look for a mover in a
seconder for those minutes moved by Councillor Cutty seconded by
Councillor Rahman Anytime to the minutes. Seeing none will open
that for voting.
Councillor Council Pribble. Voting on the. Council of Pearl Bowl.
Yes. Both verbally noted closing the vote motion carries 15
- 0. Okay, thank you. We're on to Communications and
Petitions there are 6. 1 through 6. 5 including addeds
These all refer to items at various points in the
agenda There's a consolidated motion to refer all those items
to the points where we'll be discussing them So I'll
look for someone who's willing to move that Councillor Plo's
a second by Councillor Van Meerbergen Any discussion on that.
Singing none will open that for voting. Farsel votes yes.
Council Privileg, yes. Noted thank you closing the vote motion
carries 15 - 0. Right item 7 motions to which
notice was given we have none which means Ron 2
item number 8 Reports The First Report will receive is
the report from the Planning Environment Committee I'll turn it
over to the chair Councillor Lehmann to present the report
Thank you Mayor please present the 12th report of the
planning and environment Committee. Number 11. Requested to be pulled.
And also item number 7. Councillor Hillier. Yes, thank you
to the chair If you could also please pull item
number 10 1047 1055 Junior's Drive so I can rank
inconsistent. Thank you. Absolutely we can do that separate. So
far that 710 and 11 Anyone else. Okay Councillor Layman
I'll eat move a motion. Thank you so I'll move
items one through 68 and 9. Okay 1 through 6
8 9 are on the floor I look for any
discussion on those matters. Go ahead Councillor Trosa. Was I'm
sorry was 9 deferred or is 9 as it was
at the committee. 9 is as it was at the
committee It's part of the group of motions So whatever
the committee did is what is happening with 9. And
I was referred at committee so that referral is essentially
part of the consolidated motions. Okay. Sorry Council Cutty you
had your hand up to. Thank you chair I'd like
to thank staff for the work you've done on Khaleeli
Road We've turned a Country Road into a what's going
to be a virtual bike path with lots of mobility.
And it's just an exciting project This has been a
road that has required attention for many years. When I
first came to Council Uh, this was an issue that
my client my constituents had discussed with me And with
the help of an aid of staff Uh, with our
mobility team. We've been able to turn this road or
it will be turned into a really great transit Um,
for act of transit. For not only for motorists, but
also for pedestrians and for cyclists So this is an
exciting project I'm looking for to see and get finished
next year. And, uh, I appreciate again staff the work
you've done Thank you. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, your
worship I'd like to make a comment on number 5,
which is the report of the Community of the ISRE
Committee on planning I did have a letter attached to
the advisory Report I know having a development inward 9
Uh... With a heritage destination and an opportunity of a
developer taking advantage of... Some... incentives that we offer I
could see the results of how we can protect some
of our heritage And as we address a number of
heritage designations that will be coming to us Uh... I
am very supportive of... The CAC's request to explore and
report back on tax and other financial incentives or programs
I know at planning Uh... The vice chair put forward
emotion to look at a incentive for just... Heritage Property
tax relief program Which I'm very supportive But I would
have... Just like further opportunity for staff to explore more
opportunities and report back to us So those are my
comments. Any other comments in the matters before us. Okay,
sing none will open that for voting.
Closing the vote Motion carries 15 to 0. Council Lehman.
Thank you so I'll put 7 on the floor This
is a small housekeeping amendment Um... So I guess we
would have to move the amendment Is that correct? Yeah
So you put the original staff recommendation on the floor
And then you can move the technical amendment, the staff.
Um... Okay, so I'll put that before and I'll move
the amendment. Okay, so the main items on the floor
Um, Council Layman has moved an amendment Uh... I need
a seconder for the amendment Councillor Colosa. On the amendment.
Kept Cine - animal Open that for voting. Yes, Councillor
Farra. Thanks Mayor 3U Can we just get an update
on the housekeeping amendment to some of the details on
that. Sure. Oh I think it's Ms. O'Hagen who will
update us tonight Um Through your worship So the housekeeping
amendment is to recognise that the Southwest area Secondary Plan
has been repealed at the time of the planning Committee
Um, it was still in for Enforce because the appeal
period hadn't gone through We didn't receive any appeals to
the southwest... Area plan, uh... Being repealed So now all
of the special policies will go directly into the LUD
plan. Councillor Farrah Okay, thank you for that And just
follow - up Uh... When did we get that information?
Go ahead. I'm Through your worship Um... The Peel Period
ended on August 20th. Council Council. Thank you. Okay. Uh...
Anyone else on the amendment. Okay, we'll open that for
voting.
Closing the vote Motion carries 15 - 0. Uh And
now The Az - amended motion Council Layman You're willing
to move I'll move as a second after that Councillor
Hopkins Anytion on the AS amended motion now. Councillor Hopkins,
go ahead. So. Yeah, thank you. You worship This is
a development inward 9 And I want to thank the
committee Uh... For adding an amendment given that There's a
potential of seeing up to 9, 000 people living in
this development To look into future transit through the master
mobility plan So I want to thank the committee for
adding that to the Recommendation. Okay Anyone else on the
ASMIND motion. Seeing none will open that for voting.
Closing the VOD motion carries 15 to 0. Go ahead
Councillor So I'll put item number 10 Uh... On the
floor This was requested to be pulled by Councillor Hillier.
Okay Uh... So this one's on the floor by the
chair Any discussion on this? Okay. Seeing none, then we'll
open that provoting.
Closing the vote Motion carries 13 - 2. Go ahead
Council Lehman. Thank you I'd like to put Item number
11 on the floor This was request to be pulled
by Councillor Stevenson. Okay This is on the floor I'll
look for any discussion. Yep, go ahead Council Stevenson. Thank
you Yes I pulled this one after discussions with the
developer. The concern is I believe Um... The derogatory
implications on the developer without us Looking at both sides
of the situation And what happened So What I wanted
to know a couple of questions through you to staff
Um...
Was this a really unusual situation Where this... kind of...
Contition was put in place... And if not, could you
just tell me how this usually goes in terms of
compliance around the conditions? Mr. Mathers. After your worship So
there was a direction that committee to add Recommendation to
approval authority to work with the owner of the Property
to be able to come up with an accommodation Uh...
Opportunity So we did that Unfortunately There's no way for
us to put that into an agreement So that's why
we don't have a provision to actually require this accommodation
to happen But we do have of course through our
normal processes Um... Our run Eviction - related by law
And that is the main way and usual way How
we would address the situation like this. So it is
a bit different Situation Then we usually have... Compared to
other areas in the city. Council Stevenson. Thank you So
when we're looking at this motion and what's being requested
in terms of Uh Report back on the status Whether
conditions have been satisfied and what authority. Can I just
ask through you to staff? Um... Like I'm just really
wondering how worthwhile this is given that There is a...
The OLT process. And we seem to be like getting
in there and causing potentially some issues in the process
in a jurisdiction That isn't ours And so I'm just
looking through you to staff for some... Your thoughts on
this motion currently before us... And the concerns of the
developer that... We're creating some issues potentially in another jurisdictional
process. Go ahead Mr. Mailers After your worship We're of
course always happy to bring back information Reports Um... We
were able to provide the bulk of the information AD
Committee Just noting that there isn't... For what we can
do to be able to Enforce this matter. There is
other bylaws that do cover Um... These types of situations
that we will ensure that we continue to enforce Um...
But we can provide that further information But there's not
a lot of additional DDL will be that I think
will be helpful for you making a different decision. Okay
Councillor Stevenson. Uh, thank you Actually... Just that last reference
to making a decision Like what decision will be... Before
Council after getting this report? Mr. Maithers Uh... Through your
worship So that there isn't any action to take at
this time There was of course Uh... The letter that
was brought and the delegation Um... Requesting for Council to
consider this matter But there isn't any tangible action That
you could take related to a planning matter Because that's
already decided Matter of Council So there were... It would
just be to receive that information and to receive that
report If you... Decided to do so. Council Council Stevenson.
Thank you This is the reason why I've pulled this
and I'm gonna be voting against it Is we're asking
for a report on information that isn't going to lead
to any kind of a decision That is... You know,
we've got written correspondence from the developer saying Um... As
outline in the attached letter My actions were publicly misrepresented
before the planning and environment Committee Without anyone First Contacting
me from my position... Or requesting the supporting documentation. I
consider it fundamentally unfair and unreasonable For conclusions about my
conduct to be stated publicly without giving the affected party
any opportunity to respond Particularly where the documentary record contradicts
the assertion that replacement units were never offered Elected officials
should exercise appropriate care before making factual statements that can
affect an individual's reputation. This is the uh... The Communication
on the public record from the developer We're hearing from
staff that asking for this report isn't going to do
anything at all. It's... We could... Like I don't want
to go into legal session or anything to know How
Council might be implicated in the misrepresentations and the injurious
Reputational harm here. Point a point of order Now she's
clearly making legal conclusions here that she's not in a
position Council. A point of order would be on Procedural
order. It's not on rebutting Uh... The statements the Councillor
is making She's not... She's not a lawyer She's not
providing legal advice It's not our solicitor She's making comments
on a matter before us You're more than welcome to
debate those comments and refute them in your own course
in time But I have to let the Councillor continue
with her Discussion There's no point of order related to
the content of the Councillors Unless it's a point of
personal privilege Which I don't think the Council is moving
into She's providing her opinion here. Thank you and I
wasn't implying any legal knowledge on my behalf I just
said to me this doesn't even warrant going in to
find out whether the legal implications I don't see why
we would support emotion and take time Uh... For staff
to prepare a report on something that isn't going to
lead to any kind of decision isn't going to do
anything and has been You know fairly clearly objected to
by the developer in question here So I will not
be supporting this. And I would encourage Council as well
not to support it Because I'm not sure what we're
doing here other than You know looking like we're doing
something And there are always two parties And that's the
thing I think we have to be careful when we
take one side or the other without having Uh... Considered...
Both parties and given them an opportunity to speak and
be represented Um... I also... Have other concerns around. Some
of this But I'm going to leave it for. Offline
In terms of future... Future ways of handling this. And
maybe understanding the implications that we might be causing Uh...
Either party in terms of OLT Um. LTB matters. 30
seconds. I guess You know we all want more housing
options in this city And we're also looking to protect
existing tenants And I think that's a good thing But
I think we have to be careful about how this
is done And when things are brought forward in this
manner Uh... The implications and the way other parties are
affected So I'm just going to leave it there And
just say that I won't be supporting this. Okay Any
other speakers to this. Go ahead Councillor Trossa. We often
We often find her through the chair We often find
ourselves in a situation where This jurisdiction is operating under
a variety of different provincial laws. And sometimes they can
flick with each other Sometimes there are boundaries that are
not clear Sometimes Uh, maybe a better job could be
done by the provincial government in terms of legislating A
harmonious Relationship between these different policy pieces But I think
this suggests that the Council is not in a position
to try to find some kind of harmony. Between different
pieces of legislation And actually to try to do that
Constitute some type of meddling into a place that we
don't belong. Yes, there might be implications if we do
something here But then again There might be implications If
we don't do something here And I'm real clear that
the implications for not doing anything here are tenets are
going to suffer potential prejudice. And I'm not I'm not
litigating that question right now And I'm not issuing an
opinion on how a court would deal with deal with
this But I think that we are under an obligation.
To try to do as much information seeking as we
can And the fact that something arises under the planning
Act doesn't mean we can't take into account a whole
variety. Of other public policies That we're bound to observe
So I welcome this resolution I probably would have drafted
a little stronger But this is fine This is good
And I think that the information that comes back to
us Will be useful for us to set a course
And ask the question What next. What can this Council
be doing in order to avoid these types of conflicts
between different Um, different parts of our Of our laws?
So I think this is a very important exercise And
to say that this is just going to lead This
is just a road to nothing That is going to
lead to us not being able to do anything We
can always amend our bylaws. We can always amend the
bylaws that are within the City of London's jurisdiction Which
by the way is very broad. It's very bright. And
we've stepped into in many other cities have stepped into
the jurisdiction Of looking at What rights tenants might have.
Uh.... With respect to their units in situations where the
owner decides to exercise remedies under the Provincial landlord Tenant
Law... And this is a good development It's shows that
our relationship between the province. And cities is developing. And
is not rigid and stale So this is exactly the
kind of motion that we should be Um... Using to
get ourselves some more information If for no other reason
To help inform our future policy - making So I
will be supporting this motion And I thank the Councillor
for bringing it And I think I think the objections
to it are not well taken So thank you very
much. And any other speakers to this matter Councillor Frank
Go ahead. Thank you Yes And I just wanted to
speak to the rationales to why the letter was submitted
Uh And the main reason I'm bringing this Ford is
to gain a greater understanding of if there are other
legal implications in regards to the commitments that were made
And not specifically in regards to the planning matters As
we've already heard from planning staff That there is not
a lot that they can do through the site plan
authority Um, for example Some of the information I'd be
interested in is if there's any recourse for the city
Um, be given any kind of incomplete or false information
that influences Project Summons in the same way We have
a list of businesses that we won't procure from if
they violate contracts Is there something similar for developers who
do not make commitments This is the kind of information
that I would like to understand and know more of
And in addition to the Comments made earlier about claims
made by the developer I've repeatedly asked for additional information
from the developer That proves the claims that they're making
included in the letter Um... I've never seen them They're
never sent to me Despite being asked repeatedly And if
there are documents I don't know if anyone has seen
them Um... I'd be interested in those And I do
want to read an excerpt Um... From the submission that
we had from the Tenance Legal Retion In regards to
the accommodation And so ultimately at the tribunal They acknowledge
two letters from the contractor from the Landlord's Contractor Both
indicating temporary units cannot be safely serviced or occupied due
to construction difficulties over winter Noting that they anticipated Completing
the work by the end of the month Uh... That
said The letters were corroborated by the author and the
Landlord's Contractor by way of background The tenants were offered
Who were offered a temporary unit An off - road
that went out to two of five units who were
remaining at the time Had submitted pictures of the unit's
proposed for relocation showing the units to be uninhabitable. This
was backed up at the landlord's witness Uh... By the
landlord's witness at the April 9th hearing Also notable The
two notices of temporary units that went outstated that the
tenants would have access to those units effective in February
Which was confirmed at the April 9th hearing to be
not true. So there are, you know As we heard
some various opinions on this matter Um... But I think
that's an example of why we would get some information
from staff to be able to make informed decisions moving
forward and have a great understanding of what our limitations
are And I also think it's a great example as
to why we desperately need a tenant relocation assistance Program
that would require temporary accommodations and that would legally bind
the developers to something And again I think that this
information would provide that context for Councillors and the future
Council moving forward So I seek your support in getting
that information back. Any other speakers to this matter. Council
your times actually up Not speaking Just saying I'd like
to vote on C separatelys It's the non - address
specific one I'll support that one But not the address
specific one Sure We can we can divide it with
motion.
Uh I apologise I'll take that back They're all address
specific So I'm going to vote note everything. Makes it
actually a little bit easier We don't have to recraft
the motion. So I look for other speakers though before
we move to that Council for our go ahead. Thanks
Mayor I don't have too much to add I just
wanted to say to the questions Um first I appreciate
the motion come from the Councillor I appreciate the comments
that were made But the question to what are we
doing here? We are bringing some form of accountability to
developers with a specific case study That shows that this
is needed Um, is it worthwhile? Yes It's worthwhile You
know if we can save at least one person to
be staying within their home That is worthwhile If we
can save 100 That is worthwhile We have a big
crisis here when it comes to homelessness We have a
big crisis here when it comes to people at risk
of becoming homelessness This is not something that we should
be looking at in isolation This is something that spreads
across Um... A lot of different service areas A lot
of different actions that Council is doing We should look
at that in a holistic way We should look at
this in something that it involves our homelessness response It
involves our preemptively Seeing if we can keep people in
their home This is a motion That is basically a
case study that tells us that we should be looking
at more preemptive actions when it comes to mitigating individuals
who are at risk of losing their housing So I'm
going to be full supportive of this I totally agree
with Councillor Frank's Um direction when it comes to replacement
When it comes to relocation When it comes to assistance
for moving If we have to have some kind of
repairs or renovations I totally support that So I think
that's really where we need to start looking at We
need to start looking at preemptive movements of what we
can do to preempt individuals who are at risk of
becoming homeless and to keep people in their homes So
I'm going to fully support this And I think Council
should fully support this as well. Any other speakers. Okay
then it's the full motion before us And we're going
to open that for voting.
Close in the vote motion carries 13 to 2. Council
Lehman. Thank you Mayor that completes 12th reporter of the
Planning Environment Committee. Okay we're on to the 12th report
of Community Texas Services Committee I'll turn it over to
Chair Ramen to present that report. Thank you and through
you I'd like to present the 12th Report of the
Community and Protective Services Committee I've been asked to pull
items 3 and 4 And I'll just look around the
room See if the pull Okay 3 and 4 separate
Anything else. Okay now you go ahead. Thank you I'll
put on the floor items 1, 25 and 6. Okay
1, 2, 5 and 6 are on the floor Any
discussion on those matters Go ahead to Council Approval. Thank
you Mayor And through you to the staff I have
a question regarding the 4. 1 from the committee or
6 on the agenda today I know we're talking about
coming back Future to the Committee Uh... And I was
just wondering which one in September are replanting to receive
it back Thank you Mr. Dickens Go ahead. Uh Thank
you your worshipping through you Uh we will be coming
to the second CAPS meeting in September Uh, we wanted
to see how Council as a whole voted on this
item Today noting that the deadline for the first caps
Uh... Meeting to submit our reports would be this week
to the clerk's office We'll be aiming for the second
CAPS in September. Council Priviley Thank you Mayor No more
questions Thank you. Okay Any other questions in the matters
before us. Okay Nunn will open that promoting.
Close in vote motion carries 15 to 0. Council Ramen
Thank you I'll put item 3 2. 2 on the
floor The proposed winter response for 2627. Okay that's on
the floor I look for speakers and discussion. Alright Go
ahead Councillor Stevenson. Thank you just clarifying procedure I have
an amendment But I have some questions that might add
to this amendment So can I ask those or do
I have to do it right away.
So as you're speaking now It's going to count towards
your time on the main motion Uh... If at the
point that you move an amendment What you would need
to do during your first time for speaking Uh you
could move the amendment if it's seconded That would be
a new motion You could speak to the amendment at
that point So the answer is yes. Okay perfect Thank
you So through you Uh to staff I just want
to follow up on a question that I have been
asking about and that is the 30 spaces at 696
Dundest Street operated by ARC AD that are part of
this proposed winter response. I'm still trying to understand how
this has come forward as a staff recommendation with the
Alder Council Proved policy that there won't be resting spaces
on the Mai Street of a B. I. A.
Mr. Dickens Uh thank you And through you your worship
Um yes that is That is the case or had
been the case Uh... We've gone back through to look
at Uh, some extensive digging on various Council resolution resolutions
and Council directions And there was a point in time
where Council actually voted to suspend that requirement Uh... They
did set a date of April 30th There were... A
meeting held in February of 2026 Uh... Where it was
discussed Um... That there would be changes made and that...
Oversight or that provision B... Be eliminated for the winter
Um... So what you... Have also directed staff to do
was to go out and... Engage with the community to
find as many spaces Uh... As needed to go out
in canvas Uh... What was available... Uh... For those winter
months Uh... So we came back Uh... With what the
Community has offered and what they proposed that they can
deliver So before Council would be a decision of endorsing
or supporting Uh... Those spaces Which would mean therefore supporting
the location in which they are provided Uh, what kind
of muddies this in throughout is that Council supported a
two - year winter response plan Uh... With that... Uh...
Provision that they could exist and then modified it throughout
and sent us to do a different approach in year
two of the two - year approved plan So all
of that to say Uh... We are before you with
Here's what the community said they could offer you for
the winter Uh... And these are the locations in which
they can be provided Should Council wish to have those
locations You would in fact be endorsing that they're permitted
to be there. Councillor Stevenson Thank you not to belabor
this But I have sent emails about this since the
beginning That committee meeting where we waive that requirement until
April 30th was done by Committee and Council That was
us I had a motion brought forward with Counselor's Frank
Trosso Uh... Ferreira regarding the immediate need that we were
in in that winter And I agreed to waive the
provision and Committee and Council obviously supported But it was
me that had pushed It's my B. I. A. Main
Street award where the oversaturation continues to occur three and
a half years later Ten years later However long this
has been going on. So I understand that Council can
override their own policies But what brought was brought forward
by staff. Seem to not take into account the policy
that had been passed by this Council so that they
wouldn't be on the main street of a B. I.
A. And the First Communication that I got back said
that staff were going to be looking at the clerk
working with the clerk to see if there was going
to be some kind of motion required to make this
go through And I spoke with senior leadership yesterday as
well to follow up on how did this come forward
from staff because my understanding throughout this term account has
been that staff have to operate under the Council policies
but Council can make different changes. So what I'm hearing
right now, and I just want to confirm is that
we don't need to acknowledge the way we did in
February that notwithstanding the Because I believe that was the
motion notwithstanding the current policies we made an exception until
April 2026 under the assumption that we were all still
committed to moving forward with addressing the oversaturation issues and
that in the immediate emergency We were going to allow
it, but hoping that something better trusting that there were
other options for the city than one particular street. Within
a few block radius So I just want to confirm
that the last motion was and notwithstanding the policy and
I'm still and I would like an answer as to
how this gets brought forward to this right now. Uh,
acting as though we didn't have that policy that Council
has said not on the mean street of a B.
I. A. Thank you through you and I appreciate the
question being asked I think it's probably fair to say
that a staff we bring forth advice to Council and
as Mr. Dick Contest said we have brought forward a
suggestion that this be considered We absolutely appreciate that Council
made a different decision before it doesn't mean that we
don't have an opportunity to come back to you and
say we're in a housing crisis We have an issue
for the winter We have a provider who's willing to
do this if it is Council's direction we didn't want
to eliminate or not provide to you all of the
information on this issue. We acknowledge that Council has a
different decision It doesn't keep us though from asking you
to reconsider that decision It's not to change your decision
It's just to ask you to reconsider it and that's
why it's being brought back to you today If the
choices to go a different way We're happy to take
that and go back with the existing policy. Councillor Stevenson
Thank you so then through the clerk do we not
need something in there that says notwithstanding the current policy
We're making another exception like are we I was just
surprised that that wasn't in the report asking for Council's
reconsideration. Give me one second on that.
Okay I'm gonna just try to give an answer and
then I might have to go to staff or the
clerks again So If I understand correctly What I've heard
is the previous decision of Council about Uh not on
the Main Street of a B. I. A. is suspended
as part of a two year winter response Program Uh...
Council makes an adjustment halfway through that two years That
had a notwithstanding attached to it But Council makes an
adjustment between halfway through the two years to say Um,
bring us some other options We want to look at
this staff brings back a report You know I guess
it depends on if staff feel it's substantially different from
the previous winter response Uh, and would require an updated
notwithstanding or whether or whether it can just stand with
the previous one Regardless it's been more than 12 months
in Council can essentially decide Uh to proceed at this
point in time Um, but I'd have to go to
staff on the whole piece about You know which way
you went and why it went that way on it.
Thank you and for your worship when we initially brought
the winter response It was a two - year response
It was funded for two years Uh, earlier this spring
you asked us to come back with an enhanced response
more beds Uh... In particular looking at tier three and
that's what we did Uh, we came back because we
didn't have sufficient beds We came back with a proposal
Because we knew opening a community centre again was not
the right decision in tier three So we knew we
had to look for bed So we went out to
our community to look for where the options Where can
we have beds enhancing our current winter response that we
brought forward with you for 2526 and 2627 So we
brought forward an enhanced the original response by enhancing tier
3 and by seeking additional funds and the most important
change is that you asked us to look at Um,
do we look at the minus 15 threshold or do
we look at opening our doors 24 - 7 from
December to March 31st So those are the change recommended
changes based on Community and based on our evaluation and
learnings from the initial First year of the winter response
and that's what we brought forward for Council to make
decision on. Okay Councillor Stevenson Thank you I just say
to my colleagues I've been working on this since committee
So this isn't like a last minute thing that I'm
doing here today. The two - year winter response did
not include the spaces on at 696 10DAS Street That
was something that we as councillors brought forward as an
emergency response that ended April 2026 Uh, that said notwithstanding
our current policy So. Um I find this very frustrating
I'll admit that That it's like this I find it
really frustrating. Um I'm going to and that's why I
wasn't sure what else I was going to add onto
this amendment So I do have an amendment that I'm
going to move And I am going to add one
more section.
I'll read out the one that's been circulated. Yeah If
that's one you're moving you can read it out But
if you're adding something to it You can read it
all out together. I'm still making it up my head
here because we're on the fly I assumed that this
was drafted by staff already I've followed up as early
as yesterday So The answer to my colleague who's speaking
to me beside me is the answer staff would draft
it is because Uh that there should be a requirement
to move something that Council had already I'm going to
say you don't have to respond to your colleague beside
you your colleague beside you should not be talking to
you where you're presenting your debate So I'll ask the
colleague who was talking to please allow the Councillors to
ask their questions and make their points if you'd like
to speak You can put your hand up and speak
to the motions before us Um. So Councillor Stevenson maybe
just read out that and then we'll add to it
with what you're adding to. I'm just trying to do
this efficiently as well Um, how much time do I
have right now?
You spoke for about three minutes and 50 seconds before
you started introducing the amendment Okay And if I can
I do two amendments or do I have to do
it all in one.
Okay so if you've submitted some to some language. You
want to put that on the floor You've got something
Substantially different that you want to add to it I
mean not contrary But substantially different that you want to
add to it You can subsequently make an amendment to
the amendment Like all members of Council can If they're
pretty much the same thing You're just adding to it
Like if it's not a distinct part. Then it probably
should go altogether So there's really two options before you
Okay Thanks I think it is distinct I'm going to
move forward with this so that I can think about
the other piece So my amendment is that the motion
be amended to include a new part that reads as
follows The implementation of the proposed winter response for 2026
- 27 be subject to the following I Council approval
of the proposed to be determined arcade location be required
prior to the execution of any contract related to that
location. I all contracts related to the proposed winter response
be placed on a public agenda immediately following their execution
And III all proposed locations be subject to fire and
bylaw compliance Review and sign off by the appropriate city
officials prior to the execution of any related contract. Okay
I'll look for a seconder for that. Councillor Hillier is
willing to second. Okay give us just one sec.
Okay, so we've got that it's moved in seconded Um,
now if you want to speak to the amendment now
I'll just remind you you've got to move the amendment
to the amendment. The first time you speak because you
only get to speak once it council So just early
heads up on that. Yeah.
Going.
You can still speak to the amendment because all you
did was put on the 4 movement 2... But you're
going to see if other colleagues want to speak first
We can do that. Okay. Does anybody else want to
speak to the moved in 2nd an amendment. As it's
on the floor. I don't see anyone. Ou Councillor Pripple
go ahead Thank you so much I do have a
question Let's go for the eye part. And Propose Harricade
locations The way it is right now Wood 696 would
be included in it? Or would it be just the
additional one if you can please confirm that we base
what's in front of us. Thank you Andrew Yuu your
worship This would be for the new location It would
not include 690 the proposed location 696 Coronan - Warner
This would be for their third location that they are
currently Uh, searching for. Okay Thank you for the confirmation
And for the II If I can get from legal
in terms of the placing those on the public agenda
If I can get a feedback from the legal department
Please. Go ahead. Thank you and through your worship Once
the contract's been executed There should be no issue with
public disclosure Subject to any information that had been agreed
to be kept confidential. Councillor Privileg Thank you for that
and for the III If I can get a feedback
from our By - Law Enforcement team.
Go ahead Mr. Maithers. Three worships So we would undertake
the same protocol as we do for all buildings We
ensure we follow up after By - law compliant For
unably By - law compliance perspective to make sure that
they're Biden by the city's by - laws. Dwight Council
Priviley Thank you to all three of you for your
answers. Have Council Ramen and then Councillor Pelosa. Thank you
and through you and on the amendment. Um part three
of the amendment I'm just wondering if staff are aware
of any potential issues around the fire and By -
Lock compliance Review and how they anticipate or read that.
Go ahead. Thank you Andrew your worship in conversation with
Fire Chief Uh... AT Noon today I shared this with
her And we ensure all buildings follow the fire code
So depending on how its own It would be no
different than any other building following the fire code That
we have That we have across the city. Council Rahman
Thank you and through you So I just I want
to make sure I understand that any current location that
was included in the report. Has met fully all fire
and Bylaw Compliance so far to date So therefore they
would not be excluded in the future Because of some
outstanding matter or potential emergency order that was given to
be able to establish said location. Thank you
and through your worship. That is my understanding I can
confirm with the Lennon Fire Department But I have not
been aware of any buildings that have not Uh that
are included in this list Noting that one is to
be determined So we would have to ensure that that
met the fire code And remember warming spaces are different
than emergency shelters when it's looked at through the fire
code For example. Go ahead Thank you and through you
But the language in the winter response includes both And
so I'm just wanting to confirm Because we may have
some warming spaces that aren't Uh potentially or may potentially
have some challenges. Thank you and through your worship Both
spaces not the one that's not determined Acted as warming
spaces in the past winter response And there were no
concerns at that time with respect to the code or
the zoning. Council Ramon. Thank you and through you and
I'd like to move an amendment. To the amendment. Or
an amendment to the main motion Whichever you perceive to
be better.
So Councillor you kind of ask a question of me
there at the end. Which way you could do it?
You can move an amendment to the amendment now Um...
That's no problem If it's related to the amendment If
it's more related to the general provision You've not spoken
yet to the main motion You could also move an
amendment to the Azimed Motion or the main motion Depending
on that this passes or not. To change a component
of it So I guess I'm in your hands on
Is it related to these clauses or is it related
to another piece. Or if you feel like it has
to be attached to this Then I would say do
it now if you feel like it's more independent Um,
then you could do it. At the main motion. Thank
you Andry It's variable So the first part of this
motion reads the implementation of the proposed winter response And
part D also reads that B directed to implement So
it's the implementation piece that I'm trying to amend. So
it's either.
Councillor I think I know what you're going for So
it says in this piece The implementation that proposed winter
Response be subject to the following. Um When we go
back to the main motion You can change the top
level implementation piece. Because if you did it now and
then this failed Then you might have to do it
again But you could just have it applied all because
the Counselor's main pieces of the clauses are 1, 2
and 3 Um, and the B subject 2 piece But
you can I mean you could adjust the implementation piece
in the main. Clause Which I think was D. And
then depending on where this lands Is this landing under
D.
You could do it after You could change the word
implementation in its forms throughout the has amended motion or
the main motion. After this is passed. But we don't
know what you're trying to do So you might need
to give us more context We could probably rule a
little bit better on this Okay Thank you Um so
my context I guess is this I would like to
amend this motion to include part D Notwithstanding Council Policy
regarding the existence of resting spaces on the main street
of BIA.
Okay, so our advice after some discussion is do it
now because given the context of your emotion, the support
or not for clauses, these new classes that Councillor Stephen
has proposed may be subject to the clause that you
want to put link to the implementation. If this passes
in the asm - ended motion, the implementation piece would
need to be cleaned up because you can't implement it
without doing these things. And so we will have changed
the subject two piece on the implementation. So now is
the time to do it. And then it will link
in with the main motion. We'll have to do something
later because it'll be part of it. Okay? All right.
Could you just read it out. And then you can
provide some more rationale because it'll be as amended motion.
Thank you. That the motion be amended to be further
amended to add a new part IV that reads as
follows, notwithstanding a Council policy regarding the existing resting spaces
on Main Street of BIA. Is there a seconder for
that? Councillor Trosow. Okay, so now we're only going to
debate that edition to the amendment. So we're not debating
the amendment. We're debating that additional clause onto the amendment.
Go, would you like to speed now? Okay, go ahead.
Thank you, Andrew. So I want to thank Councillor Stevenson
for pointing out what was missing from our discussion. And
I think it's important that this discussion beframed correctly and
that the information be put in this light. I know
there was support for this last year when we were
looking at resting spaces. And part of the reason for
that support to allow resting spaces on the Main Street
of a BIA was because we didn't have a lot
of options for where else people could go. And so
here we are. We've received staff's report, staff of outlined
the locations that were possible for, uh, overnight spaces. And
this was one that was put forward. And I want
to make sure that non - technicality, uh, but purposefully
we're addressing the issue so that there is those spaces
available. Or for this upcoming winter. So appreciate that we're
having this discussion here. I'm sorry that it didn't happen
at committee. Um, and hope that this helps us to
move forward on this matter. Okay. Other speakers on the
further amendment. Go ahead, Councillor Tro. Just on the amendment,
because I'll come back to the, um, just on the
amendment to the amendments. I'll come back to the amendment.
Um. I think it's a good amendment to the amendment.
I think it's a reasonable amendment to a bad amendment.
So I'm going to support the amendment to the amendment.
I'm not going to support the amendment, but we'll get
to that later. Um, for now, what I want to
say is I hope that was clear. Yeah. Okay. Uh,
for now, what I want to say is I, I've
always felt that this whole prohibition against having, uh, these
activities that are, that are, that are lawful activities that
are within, that are within the appropriate zoning that are
things that are being, uh, controlled and monitored by the
property owner probably was a bit of an overreach. And
should they be challenged? There could be substantial issues. Now,
I'm not, I'm not asking the solicitor for an opinion
as to whether or not this framework is subject to
a successful attack. All I'm saying is when we come
back and make these. Amendments, we're just showing a level
of flexibility that, that shows we're trying to ameliorate the
potential harshness of the underlying rule. And I think, should
we find ourselves in a situation where we're trying to
defend our, um, our work that would help us a
lot. So that's why I'm supporting Council Raman's. Amendment. Does
the underlying measure say you can't do this on the
street or does it say you can't do it on
any premises with an address on the street. I don't
have that in front of me. Mr. Dickens.
Thank you, your worship. I need a moment to pull
up the exact wording, but it was tied to city
funding only. So not self - funded or funded through
other parties, but any municipal funded service, uh, on the
main street of a B. I. A. It did not
specify whether it was in a dwelling out of a
dwelling or anything like that. And if I understand the
situation, they are not housing people on the street, are
they? Go ahead, Mr. Dickens. Through your worship, that is
correct understanding. Um, hence one more level of ambiguity in
this underlying, uh, measure that could create problems for us
if it was challenged. Now I'm not, I'm not going
to, uh, make a further motion that we, we, uh,
we, we do some major changes to what we already
agreed to. But I just, I just think that given,
given that ambiguous language, which could be problematic. Because for
me, being on the street means being on street. Um,
I just, I just think that this kind of, um,
amendment just sort of gives us the kind of, uh,
flexibility that could really assist this later if we got
into, uh, legal, legal trouble. So I'm going to vote
against the entire thing, but, well, the entire amendment. But
if the amendment passes, it's much stronger and much better
with this. So thank you for, thank you for bringing
that, Councillor. Okay. I have Councillor McAllister next. Uh, thank.
Thanking through the mayor. Uh, I do appreciate the discussion
today. Um, I think Councillor Stevenson had mentioned this earlier,
but, um, I do take a bit of issue in
terms of when we have these discussions in terms of
the notwithstanding, the Council policy, um, I think back to
the time when we had this debate, uh, and it
is predominantly the two B. I. that are constantly impacted
by this. I do recognise in terms of the time
restriction we've put on this. Also recognising we have limited
options as Council Ramen said, um, but when I look
ahead to the, um, the budget ask that we'll be
made on the next cycle. I think that that is
the time where we need to have those discussions in
terms of locations and where we see these things long
term. Because right now I think it is incredibly unfair.
Even when we say B. I. it's not. It's two
B. I. A's. Um, I experienced this with the coffee
house, OAV has experienced this for a number of years.
And so I'm just expressing the frustration that I'm hearing
from the B. I. A. A. members from the community
members that we are constantly putting in on the shoulders
of two communities. And that is why I'm trying to
state a Council that when this discussion comes back for
those, um, budget discussions, then we need to recognise that
we have repeatedly asked two areas of the city to
shoulder the responsibility. And that is grossly unfair. When we
say the notwithstanding this policy, I was very serious in
that discussion that these are the two B. I.'s. And
if I have to change the language to explicitly say
Hamilton Road and OEV, which will eventually become one, or
not one, but they will be in one ward. Uh,
I will change the language accordingly if I have to,
to call out those B. I. A. s because they
have shouldered this for far too many years. So I'm
just calling it out. I recognise again, the situation we're
in. We do have some lead time. But this is
absolutely the last time that I am willing to support
an extension of this sort. Because we have no other
options right now. I am looking forward to, uh, with
this amendment in terms of, well, this is the amendment
to the amendment, but having that location discussed because I
don't, I think it would be unfair to once again,
ask those areas, uh, to take on this responsibility. So
I'm understanding where we're at. I do very much feel
like this is again, um, no win situation. Um, the
same areas are going to unfortunately bear the brunt. But
I do think that this plan, as it's been laid
out is better than what we previously had. We're not
giving up a community centre. Uh, and we are trying
to accommodate smaller numbers and not have large facility, which
would be a very difficult to manage. So I'm just
trying to say, I recognise all the considerations have gone
into this. Appreciate the amendment to the amendment that we're
now discussing. Um, but these are some considerations that we
absolutely need to take into account when we have these
discussions. So thank you. Okay. On this, go ahead Councillor
Stevenson and then Councillor Ferreira. Thank you. Um, I just
will point out that I said that to move things
along, I was going to let people speak so that
I could work on the amendment that I was bringing.
Councillors are allowed to bring another one. But of course
it's contrary to the direction that I was going, but
that's okay. It's consistent with the way this has been
at this during this term of Council. The 696 Dandas
Street location. Is a problem. It is a big problem
for that neighbourhood and for the neighbouring businesses who pay
a levy and have a B. I. A. because this
Council had it as one of their strategic objectives to
make that a viable, livable, vibrant business district with the
way that area deserves. The same as every other area
of the city. To say that there's no other locations
is counter to our whole objective of 12 to 15
hubs around the city. How did we all get behind
that. Well, not all of us. But this Council got
behind that. And yet just says there's nothing we can
do about poor old East Village. So my motion would
have been to say we're going to exclude taxpayer funding
from the 690 6nd Street location. And I will move
that if this fails. The overnight spaces at 696 Dundes
Street have continued to operate under donations as they should.
We should not be using the property tax dollars or
the, uh, the tax dollars, whether they're federal, provincial or
municipal of the residents of that neighbour, neighbourhood and the
business owners and property owners of that area to fund
the spaces to which they have been crying out for
help. If it's done on donations and property that's owned
by a charitable organisation, that's for them to do. But
for this Council to support in the fourth year of
this term to continue to use their taxpayer money, to
fund these services when they have cried out in despair
for four years. And their Councillor has advocated for help
that we just stop using their money to cause the
problem. So I would encourage Council to say no to
this. They the overnight spaces will continue. They haven't stopped,
but they were used by charitable donations. And at half
the cost I must add, because when you see it
on Facebook, it's 50 dollars a night. So I'm asking
Council to say no to this. Allow the organisation to
do it with donations. And then at least we're not
guilty of using their money. To do the service. It's
going to continue anyway. Let's just honour our strategic objectives
and the voice of that neighbourhood. And the pleas of
that neighbourhood to say, please don't do it with our
tax money. Councillor. Thank you Mayor.
Um, so like the conversation here, lots of ideas, um,
and this discussion has been going on for, I think
three and a half years or however long council has
been here since I've been here. Um, like when we
first discussed, um, restricting resting spaces in the OEV, uh,
that was very politically driven. And it was not really
a conversation that focused on what would be the consequences.
It was a motion to try to remove service providers
and shelters within, um, the OEV and within B. I's.
The anticipated result of that was to see, to push
these providers outside. Hopefully, I believe, and this is my
opinion, it was to push outside of the OEV. That
didn't translate into reality. What really happened was individuals are
just left out on the street. And there was more
individuals out on the street. And the reason that I
was against that initial motion was because of exactly that.
And today a lot of individuals are saying our homelessness
crisis is that, you know, is through the roof. And
some of the reasons of that is because we have
been systematically shutting down spaces with motions like this. I
was against this motion at the time. Um, because of
that, I'm still against that because I understand that the
capacity that we have is really within these areas. However,
I also see that there is a truth, a reality
that we do have service providers within a small area.
And I do not see the city providing citywide anyways,
providing such providers. So there is some merit with some
of the things that are being said. Now I am
going to vote for this notwithstanding amendment because I understand
that we have to work with what we have right
now because we do have a crisis. But I would
also suggest we put an amendment to this amendment. Can
I put another amendment on this. Word. There are already
two amendments deep. You can't do another one yet. Okay.
Well on the main motion, we need to put some
priority. To look at all locations citywide. To help us
when it comes to the homelessness crisis. We need to
have specific language. And I think this might be the
time to do it. To also look citywide of where
capacity can also be increased. Because there is a debate
and it has turned into a battle of the wards
back and forth. Who is going to put spaces out
to help people in need out on the street? Who
is not this conversation has gone off again and again
and again and again. And there is merit to some
of the arguments I see here. But I will say
the motion originally to shut down or not approve city
funded resting spaces in the areas of the B. I.
A. has led to more crisis. Has led to more
people on the street. That is a reality. If we
didn't do that, more people would be in on the
street. Now service providers that do this work would still
be in that area, but there'd be less people out
on the street. That would be for sure. So I'm
going to support this because I understand that our capacity
right now is existing where it is. But I would
also say we do need to start figuring out. How
do we place locations elsewhere. This motion should be in
coordination with another set of language that says we need
to start prioritizing other spaces outside the core. That provide
these services that provide shelter, that provide housing that provide
all the services resting spaces, whatever the language is. We
need to start putting that explicitly into this language too,
because not only do we need to recognise what we
have, the crisis that we're in, what we've learned on
this type of direction, but also how do we mitigate
these issues that are arising? Because there's some realities here,
but we need to start really looking at the data.
We need to start looking at what has really transpired
in the last three years. With this direction. And we
need to start really understanding that there is only a
couple areas in the city that have really put, you
know, all hands in. To respond. We need the rest
of the city to be responding with us. 30 seconds.
So I guess I'm going to have to move an
amendment. So it's coming. You can't on the main motion.
Okay. Other speakers to the amendment that is before us.
Go ahead, Depreer Lewis. Thank you, Chair. So in listening
to this conversation, I think we need to draw a
colleagues attention back to some realities. First of all, I'm
going to support the amendment. I think it's, it's the
appropriate amendment to clean up the language, make sure that
that's in there. Um, reality one. The ARK and the
unity project. Own their buildings. So if you want to
talk about moving them, then you better talk about a
multi - year budget business plan for property acquisition to
then do land swaps with them because that is what
you're talking about. I would also remind colleagues. That the
core is not the only location where we have homelessness
services. On Clark Road in the East End, I have
the YOU Youth Shelter. I also have the Innova Women's
Shutter. South of the 40 - 1 is where we
put the micromoduler shelter because we weren't going to put
it. Again in the downtown. And I heard colleagues argue
against that because it was too far away because it
wasn't in the core. So respectfully to say that all
the services are in the core is not accurate. There
are services in multiple words across the city. Um, and
the last time we brought something forward as a council,
the micromoduler shelter, which I think has been very successful
so far. Was deliberately put outside the core. Because there
are a range of needs in our homeless population. There
are, uh, folks who do need to be away from
the core area. So that they can, uh, go through
their journey towards, uh, recovering from addiction, from dealing with
their mental health crisis, from whatever the situation might be.
In some cases, just to reconnect with family to get
back up on their feet, to get back up to
working and be back out on their own. And I
know we've had people at the micromodular shelter who have
seen that progress and have actually moved out of the
micromodulator shelter and are now, uh, in rental units elsewhere.
Some of whom I know are back to work. That's,
that's a success. And we know that we've seen the
arc with its cronin warner, uh, project do the same
thing. They have shown us numbers of people who have
been in those beds who have been able to reconnect
with family who've been able to get health services who've
been able to get, uh, help with employment services and
have been able to get back out on their own.
I also think we have to be practical that. Say
this every time we have this discussion to hundreds of
people, I've said it on the doorstep hundreds of times
too in the last couple of months. The city's not
going to solve this problem alone. We're not. Ladies and
gentlemen, without a serious effort by the province. And we
could, we could talk about ODSP rates and O. Rates
and how the shelter allowances are not nearly adequate, uh,
we could talk about the need for the federal government
to invest more affordable housing. As well as the province
investing in healthcare beds, uh, in addiction and mental health
recovery. We can talk about all of those things. We
can't do them. There are MPPs and MPs whose job
it is to address those issues. So we can only
do our part. And I think with what we've got
here before us in the winter response, this is the
best option we have for the moment. I'm going to
support the amendment. Uh, I will actually just for the
clerk's sake so that they can, uh, perhaps separate out
some language. On the amendment from Councillor Stevenson, uh, and
I'll speak to this when we get back to that.
But if we could separate out part one. Cause I
want to vote on that differently than the other parts.
Um, so if we could do that, that would be
appreciated. But that's my comments on the, on the amendment
from Council Rahman. I'm absolutely going to support it because
I think we do need to recognise that notwithstanding, we
have two providers who are stepping up. Who own buildings
in the area. And until we are willing to spend
money to acquire properties, that's going to continue to be
a reality. Okay. Other speakers to Council Ramen's
Amendment. All right. Singe Nummer going to open just Council
Ramens amendment for voting.
Closing the vote, motion carries 14 to one. Okay. Now
I need an as amended motion. Um, for the amendment,
uh, which I assume Councillor Stevenson, you don't want to
move anymore. Council Ramen, you're willing to move. I need
a seconder for the as amended motion, Deputy Mary Lewis.
Okay. So now we're going to start debate on the
as amended amendment. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. Um, so I
just want to go through the first part is the
approval of the proposed 40 space location that is listed
currently as to be determined. And, uh, I know that
the residents that I speak want to have a say
in where that goes and they want it to be
done publicly and not just find out after the fact.
So I think that's important, especially given the, what the
confirmation. And I just want to confirm through you to
staff that the emergency shelter guidelines, if we pass them
today with the illegal substances allowed inside that that does,
uh, apply to these warming spaces as well. Like I
confirmed at committee, but I just want to reconfirm here
at Council. Go ahead. Three of your worship. Um, yes,
the emergency shelter guidelines do prioritize bringing people indures when
there's risks to them being outside. And so in the
winter season, this would be further exacerbated. Um, leaving people
outdoors in the cold. And so those same shelter guidelines
would still apply to the winter spaces. Um, the staff
are still responsible for ensuring safe, um, premises on the
ground. They're regardless of the client that are in the
space. Thank you. So again, because illegal substances are most
likely to be allowed inside if this next motion passes
or the next, uh, agenda item passes. I think it's,
uh, something that Londoners want to know and they want
there to know where their Council members stand when these
locations are decided. Number two is that all contracts be
placed on the public agenda. Uh, there's no reason why
these contracts aren't placed on the public agenda. We've done
it before. We want to see the details on it.
We've seen the contracts for the ARC that we say
daytime spaces, but we've seen the hours shrink from 11
to 7 to, uh, 9 to 4, 3 to 7
or whatever it is. I'm not sure what the hours
are, but they've been shrinking each contract. And those details
aren't in the staff report. They are in the contracts.
I do think that they should be publicly, uh, available.
And the last one is that, uh, all proposed locations
be subject to fire and bylaw compliance review. So, uh,
I heard yesterday that fire inspections have not been done
at these locations. And that 30 mattresses on a floor
is not something that they've seen and inspected. I may
have misunderstood that, but maybe if staff have anything to
add, this is the reason why I've added this in.
Is rather than me just send an email asking for
fire inspections that we just make it a matter of
course. Thank you. And, and I would have to confirm
with the chief on that. Because I don't understand the
context of what he said. So we would want to
confirm from London fire department. Okay. Thank you. And I
understand. And like I said, what I heard yesterday was
that, uh, and from a fireish official, but I may
have misunderstood. But I don't think it hurts to double
check, even if I misunderstood that, that if we have
30 mattresses or 25 mattresses are caught on the floor
of a basement or in a building that didn't have.
Isn't regulated for sleeping, um, I heard that the need
to be done for safety and nobody here wants to
be part of any kind of tragedy where we've got
a bunch of people where we haven't met complete fire
code inspections. It's one of the things we haven't really
talked about is the fact that emergency shelters, warming spaces,
all these locations, the, I'll confirm through you to staff.
There's no licensing requirements. There's no, you know, you have
to open up a coffee shop. Something the things you
need to do. But for these, my understanding is there's
no requirements for this type of, of, of thing that
usually would be required if you ran a boarding house
or something like that or a tendency arrangement. Mr. Maithers.
Three of your worship, I can confirm the specific license
related to these type operations. Yeah. So I don't see
any harm in making sure as a Council that we've
got, you know, fire inspected locations and that everything everybody's
safe and compliant. And so that's my reason for adding,
uh, that to the amendment today, uh, is just to
ensure that when we are bringing people in out of
the cold, that the fire inspectors have been there and
ensured that we've got a safe location for people to
stay. So it's simply knowing the location representing our, our
residents to ensure that, you know, if and when it
comes to any of our awards that we have a
say in it and that the public's involved, contracts transparent
and accountable to the public for taxpayer funding and fire
inspection and bylaws seems a pretty basic thing that any
one of us would want to support. But I leave
that to my colleagues. Okay. Um, we're on the asthmated
motion. I know Councillor Ploughs, I had you on the
original amended, but so if you want to go now,
you can. Go ahead. Thank you noting the Deputy Mare
also has his hand up. Uh, just ever so briefly.
Oh, and Councillor Fair too. Um, Eversa briefly, uh, threw
you to staff, um, looking at the motion specifically, uh,
for the timing of it, um, for the original part,
I, I, I'd all propose locations be subject to fire
and Bylaw compliance review and sign off by the appropriate
city officials prior to the execution of, uh, related contract.
Wondering about timing that perhaps the service provider will find
a building and need to do modifications to it to
make it appropriate for the purposes of a side contract,
but they don't have the money to do it until
side contract is executed. So I just feel some concerns
about the inspections that they can't inspect the work to
give the contract and they can't do the work until
they have the money from subcontract. Just looking through you
to staff for that, that one's just a process question
and I'm just having some concerns with it.
Mr. Dickens. Thank you worshipping through you. So there is
one property that's to be determined. I think what the
organisation is looking for is a commitment coming out of
today's meeting that there would be a funding allocation set
aside for them, which gives them the opportunity to go
and seek an appropriate location. Uh, and I think they're
aware of the context of the conversation today about where
that location might be. But also it would then, uh,
require that whatever this location is. It is safe and
suitable for the intended use. The other locations that are
in this report are spaces that are used now and
today. So the language being, uh, all proposed locations be
subject to fire inspection or sign off. These organisations already
have fire safety plans in place. Uh, the fire department
does visit, uh, from time to time. Uh, last year
when we ran Boyle, we, uh, we're using it for
a very different purpose than what it's intended. And the
fire department was very helpful in coming in doing a
walkthrough, giving us suggestions and recommendations. When we launched a
micromoder shelter site, which we have never done before in
a location that had never intended for that use, the
fire department was very instrumental in the site plan design,
doing walkthroughs and making suggestions and recommendations around our fire
safety plan. So, uh, yes, the timing may be, um,
complicated when you look at, uh, we need a confirmation
of funding. So we can go find a confirmation of
space. We need it to be a suitable space. So
we can execute that lease agreement. Um, but here we
are. And I think that's a reality. We're going to
have to manage the best as we can. And then,
uh, when all the, uh, agreements are executed, uh, we
would certainly bring all of those agreements forward, uh, at
one time to committee. Go ahead. Uh, thank you. Uh,
I'm fine with, uh, part, uh, part I with the
reports being public, uh, afterwards. I still have concerns about
I that if we pass it based on the public
perception of what they think is going to happen, um,
and what actually happens might be different or that at
that time when things are getting implemented, timeline. It might
be a different council here. Not sure of what parameters
we set. So those are my main concerns about that.
And just want to thank the surface provider for watching
in person today. And joining us. Great. And you said
Councillor Hillier had his hand up or no. Oh. Oh.
Okay. I didn't. Oh, David. Okay. Perfect. Um, go ahead,
Deborah Lewis and then Council Farra. Thank you, Chair. And
through you, uh, as I said, I'd like item one
pulled separately, uh, because I believe it actually presents a
timing problem as well, similar to what Councillor Plosa was
referencing on, on the fire inspection. So through you to
staff, uh, the last meeting of this Council is October
14th, I believe. The new Council does not meet again,
uh, until late into November. Uh, subjecting this to Council
approval, uh, from a timeline perspective, uh, be a barrier
to implementing this for the beginning of December. Dickens. Thank
you. Your worship and through with the Deputy Mayor is
highlighting is real world challenges. So the way it's laid
out and to our understanding and correct us, if civic
administration has us wrong, um, the organisation would, uh, receive,
uh, decision today that there's funding that is allocated to
them. They would then use that, um, understanding that they
have funding available to go and secure to the best
of their ability, a location. But that location that they
find would need to come back to committee, uh, for
it to be discussed and debated a committee and council
for Council to agree on that location being the right
location. Uh, only then would we be able to then
enter into, uh, an agreement to have the organisation provide
the service in that location. Noting we can't execute the
agreement until the fire inspection and any other applicable sign
off. Um, when you look at it from that perspective
of here's the money, go find a location. If you
find a location, we'll take it to Council of Council.
OKs the location. Then we'll have fire and Bylaw. And
then we'll execute the agreement. It's going to create a
real problem for the organisation on when do you start
to recruit staff? Uh, when do you start to train
any new staff you may hire? Uh, when do you
make sure that the space is suitable for occupancy. So
long story long, uh, absolutely. This is going to push
us well into the winter. And we try to our
best to come to you, uh, before summer really kicked
off so that we wouldn't be in this position. Thank
you. And that's my concern. We're talking about one location.
Uh, we're talking about, uh. Six week window at the
most for that location to not only be identified, but
then come back through a committee and Council cycle for
our approval. And assuming that it's not referred at Council
and Committee because we want to look for a different
location again. Then we're talking at the earliest. Council could
approve a location being the new Council on the 24th
of November. Uh, for a winter response that, uh, is
supposed to start on December 1st. So I can't support
part one. Uh, I think that our staff have demonstrated,
uh, that they listen. I think we saw that with
the micro modular site when they came back with a
location, uh, that they will do their best to work
with our service partners, uh, but we do have limited
options here. And we are also on a time crunch.
And we have repeatedly heard from the public. We've had
a discussion around this horseshoe. It's certainly been a discussion
in the media in years past. Why is this not
happening sooner? Why are we not opening beds until January.
This proposal is to open beds in December. And in
November 24th, deadline for Council Approval is simply not enough
time to do that. So I can't support section one
of this. I do think that bringing back the public
information on the contracts on an agenda, um, that's fine.
It's just to me, it's a transparency piece. That's fine.
Um, working with the fire and By - law compliance.
I mean, we've heard Mr. Dickins say that would be
part of the process anyway. So I'm okay with parts
two and three. Uh, but I need part one called
separately because I don't believe that that is a realistic
timeline, uh, for Council to make approvals on a location.
I have Councillor Ferreira and then Councillor Hopkins. Thanks, Mayor,
through you. Um, yeah, I agree with Deputy Mayer on
part one. Everything that he said there. Um, you know,
the location is definitely going to be, and always is
the biggest discussion point. It's not, not necessarily the money
or the funds or the location of the source. It's
the location. Of the, of the, of where the facility
or where the service will be provided. So I'm not
going to be voting for that. And I think that
that this will push us into a really tight crunch
time and could lead to, um, situations that may not
be within our favor within the city, the greater cities'favor.
So I'm going to be voting against, uh, part I.
S the contracts. Yeah. I think I agree as well.
It's a transparency piece. So I'll be supporting that part
three. Now I do understand, especially from Councillor Peloso's questions
that we already do this. So, uh, I feel like
it's a little redundant because we do do this. I
have seen, I've had, had, have, had these questions with
staff prior in our past responses and the staff have
answered me that yes, we do, we do this work.
So I'm not going to be supporting that because that
is already done and I'm worried about the perception of
the public that it may show that we haven't done
this before, but this is exactly what we do. Um,
and then, um, with the Council Rahman's motion, like I
said, I'm going to be supporting that. And I won't
be moving my amendment now. I'm going to move it
on the main motion. So, um, so those are, those
are my comments. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah. Thank you. Your worship.
And I want to thank the, um, Award Councillor's advocacy
for her work in the community. Uh, but I won't
be supporting, um, the motion. I in particular the ever
two parts of it. I don't want to get into
the weeds. I'm pretty sure we already do it. I'm
satisfied with that. But being on the committee when this
winter response report came to us, I was so pleased
that we were getting ahead of the curve a little
bit when it came to making decisions for our winter
response program. I think we've all seen this throughout the
past number of years. We're always doing catch up. We're
always trying to make decisions as the snow starts to
fall. So there is no way I'm going to get
in the way of making decisions to move forward with
our winter response program. And that's the main reason why
I won't be supporting eye. So if that could be
pulled and again those are my comments. Other speakers
to the amend of amendment Council Troso. I'll make this
short because, um, through the chair, I'm going to repeat
a lot of the things that others, including the Deputy
Mayor. Have said part one absolutely not that will get
in our way. Part two, my senses, those are going
to be available anyway, but sure, let's, let's, let's put
that in there. Um, part three, I'm going to not
vote for because it suggests that, um, well, let me
put this in the form of a question. We're enacting
that all proposed locations be subject to fire and Bylaw
compliance review in sign - off. Without this passing, without
that clause passing, aren't these properties subject to such compliance
and review anyway? And I hear, could somebody say yes?
No, we'll have staff responding. Okay. I'm sorry. They're just
shaking their heads in. No, I'm going to have them
respond if that's your request. Go ahead, Mr. Mayors. Through
your worship, absolutely that's accurate. It would apply to all
premises in the City of London. So, um, this is
clearly redundant. And I think it's also a little bit,
it's calling into a question whether or not this is
going to happen. This is, it's not only redundant, but
it's, it suggests that it's necessary and it's not. So
I absolutely am not going to vote for three. And
I think with that, um, yeah, I'll support part two,
but I think that's, this whole thing's pretty superfluous. But,
um, let's just get on with it. And, um, I'm
glad that the whole thing is moving along. Taking a
little longer than I would have liked. But all in
all, I think some really good work has been some
really good work has been done here under very, um,
difficult circumstances. So that, that's that in terms of the,
uh, Council Ramen's amendment that passed is, is that, did
I cover that that's I already said I was supporting
that. Is that, is that a separate number or is
that under two.
Okay. Given what everybody said, Councillor, yes, it's part of
the azimut emotion, but these, all these pieces are going
to be voted on separately now. Because pretty much everybody's
asked to have them all pulled apart. So. I'm done.
Thank you. Okay. Other speakers.
Okay. So, um. Okay. So we're going to
vote on these. We're going to vote on them in
just order, uh, sorry, I, I, I, I and I
V. And we'll do them in that order. And then
we'll just proceed with each of the votes individually. And
then I'll need a mover, assuming one part passes for
the as amended main motion. And we'll be back to
that as amended. Okay. So we're going to open part
i first for voting.
Motion carries five to 10. Sorry. Motion fails five to
10. It's like, that'd be a different way of doing
things. It's, uh. Okay. So I, so that one fails,
uh, as an amendment, um, we're going on to II
now.
Council Ketty. Noting verbal vote of yes. Closing the vote.
Motion carries. 15 to zero. Okay. And now I, I,
I. Ll open that for voting.
Councillor. Apologies. My eScribe's not working. I vote no.
Verbal vote. Note is noted. Closing the vote motion carries
10 to five. Okay. And now I V.
Votes, yes. No, to thank you.
Closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to one.
Okay. I now need a mover for the as amended
main motion Councillor Romans willing to move it. Councillor Ploza's
willing to second it. Um, which includes all the changes
we made with the exception of I. Okay. We're back
to the main motion, but it's as amended. So I
will start the speaker's list. Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. Thank
you and thank you, colleagues. I know this has been
long. Um. But this is, um. You know, this
impacts my ward dramatically. And when we had the issues
on Richmond Street, those were dealt with the issues on
DUNDAS East or not being dealt with. And this isn't
about no one said anything about moving organisations who own
property. I was very clear that we just not use
taxpayer funded money to provide the services there. I have
never said that we as a council need to move
charitable organisations who own property. It's about what we are
doing here as a Council that we are funding. What
many in that area believe is a large part of
the problem. It's not 24 - 7. You can't compare,
we're comparing apples and oranges when we talk about different
shelters. These are not 24 - 7 spaces. These are
come and go, or they're just overnight and then out
onto the street during the day. Or it's just in
for a meal and then out. So I just want
to, I need to confirm through you to staff when
we talk about warming spaces. Are these tables and chairs
where people are sitting and coming and going throughout the
night or are these mattresses or caughts where people are
sleeping? Or does it vary based on location? Okay. You
whisp. In my. Go ahead, Mr. Dickens. Uh, thank you,
your worshiping through you. Um, this is really more, uh,
warming spaces. So tables, chairs, blankets, very similar to what
we provided at, uh, Boyle, where we created space for
people to come in. People, well, absolutely reshift their belongings
and create, makeshift, uh, sleep areas. Um, but this is,
this is really more creating indoor space for people to
come in out of the, out of the cold, uh,
and stay warm throughout the night. And those that choose
to sleep can and those that donor supported in other
ways. Councillor Stevenson. Uh, thank you. Those who choose to
sleep at the table is 17 minutes. Mr. Dickens. Through
your worship, yes, that's quite common. People come in quite
exhausted and we'll often sit at a table, lay their
head down, uh, get some sleep. Or some will curl
up on the floors. They did in boil, finding a
quiet spot wherever they can. Councillor Stevenson. Yeah. Thank you
for the clarification. So I just want to confirm then
that the 30 spaces at Undundas Street, the 30, well,
it's really the 30 on dendust street, I guess, because
London cares. I want to confirm that all those warming
spaces then will not have caught or mattresses. It will
be table and chairs. I think it was confirmed, but
I'm just not sure. Mr. Dickens. Through your worship. Pause
for not having every detail on what some of these
spaces are going to be using at the end state
based on what's proposed. But, uh, for example, one provider,
uh, uses gravity chairs. Zero gravity chairs. So folks can
recline. Um, others will use, I don't know, normal chairs,
uh, like we did at Boil. So it'll be a
combination. We're not seeing any bed frames or anything set
up like that. Uh, they're, um, it's primarily, uh, some
form of, uh, of seeding, uh, the folks can use
to rest. Councillor Stevenson. Yeah. Thank you. And I don't
mean to belabor it at 696 DUNDAS what I thought
happened there were mattresses were caught. Is this going to
be a change where 696 10S will no longer have,
um, the sleeping beds, if you call them, I mean,
they're not beds here, but will they be, is this
a change that now it will be table and chairs
at that location. Mr. Dickens. Uh, three year worship. The
organisation at 696 DUNDAS uses zero gravity chairs and they
may have, um, like some nylon cots perhaps. Like we
have in our emergency response that we used at THOC,
uh, two years prior. Um, I do not believe that
that organisation uses mattresses though. There's no mattresses. Okay. Thank
you. So.
There's a bunch of problems that I have with this.
And it is that in the very end of our
term, we still have so many of these spaces within
a very short distance. Many of them, all of the
identified. Warming spaces. Are within a few blockadius. They're not
24 seven. They're going to be come and go, uh,
you know, people to get warm and then go back
out again. Into the neighbourhood and into the business district.
The biggest concern that I have with this is that
we're talking about multi - year budget proposals and about
extending this incontinuity. This has been very clearly stated to
be unsustainable for that neighbourhood. And when we look at
these things, none of us want to see people outside
in the cold, which is why I have supported those
spaces in the past. But we have to address the
issues in that area. And to be continuing to just
say to one community, sorry too bad, uh, this, you
know, this is the best we can do. It's just
unacceptable for many who live in that area and who
are experiencing this on a day in day out basis.
Many of whom are vulnerable themselves. We tried to do
a good neighbour agreement. That was just, uh, not even
considered by these agencies. In fact, they saw it as
some sort of an insult. And now we're talking about
allowing illegal substances inside. Into these neighbourhoods, into these business
districts. So I'm going to have trouble supporting a good
portion of this. Um, I do want to reiterate that
the, um, the thing with the resting spaces, this was
not about telling organisations they need to move. This was
about respecting the wishes of the taxpayers to say, uh,
please don't do it on a business district. Main Street
where it competes with what this Council has, um, has
said that matters. And we're asking these property owners to
pay a levy. And yet, what are we doing for
them? We have core area vacancy issues. And yet we
continue to move motions like this now with multi your
budgets and continuity issues. So I'll be asking for some
of these to be called separately. Councillor McAllister. Thank you.
And through the mayor, I do have an amendment for
E. Can read that if you like. Oh, yes, please.
Okay. So this is on part E Civic Administration be
directed to proceed with the preparation of a business case
for the 2027 annual budget update for winter response funding
for 2027 to 2028 and beyond. One slight edition is
including but not limited to potential property acquisitions to accommodate
future shelter locations outside of ward one and 13.
Okay. Just give me one sec. All right. That's a
knee scribe. I look for a second to that. I
don't see a seconder for your motion, Councillor. Okay. Um,
I'll use this time then for my comments. Um, what
I was suggesting with my amendment was in no way
a prohibition, uh, it was to my earlier point that
we are not being presented with options outside of the
two wards. Um, that was also in keeping in mind
that Lord I would then grow to accommodate OEV. That's
why it said word one 13, which do currently have
all of our, uh, shelters. I would still hope that,
uh, future councils would take that into consideration. I think
it would have been appropriate for this Council to have
put some, um, options in terms of property acquisitions on
the table. We hear that time and time again from
shelter providers. I think obviously the province has the role
to play. I had earlier, um, brought four to motion
to ask the province for more money for that. Um,
I do think the city we have a role to
play though in property acquisitions outside. I don't want to
say the core area because I think, uh, it extends
past the core area. Um, but I do think there
are in the future two awards that will be predominantly
impacted. In terms of what we have for for us,
um, I know last winter was very challenging. I think
staff have done their best to create something, um, that
will serve us in the short term. But again, I
am looking more to the future in terms of what
a sustained, um, shelter, um, system will look like through
the future winters. Um, I think it's disappointing. This Council
is not willing to consider other options, uh, because it
leads me to believe that they would like to keep
them in the same areas, which I don't think is
particularly fair, but that's just my opinion. Um, I think
what's before us is the best that we can hope
for right now. Um, I will support it. Um, but
I do hope with future considerations, um, not just as
Council, ex Council, um, really do take, um, the words
of the words that are being impacted seriously. They have
done their part. And I think other awards need to
step up. Thank you. Councillor Frank. Thank
you. I just want to take a quick moment to
thank staff for getting this work done well ahead of
winter. Most of the residents I speak with in my
area, uh, the main priority for them was making sure
that people are inside over winter and making sure it's
done well in advance so that we are not kind
of scrambling around in November and December to lock up
some spots. So I just want to say thank you.
I, um, I've already heard from residents that they're really
happy to see us being done in the summer. And
I also am really happy we're moving away from a
temperature - based approach to every single night from 9
p. m. to 9 a. m. throughout the winter months.
Uh, I think that it's really great that we don't
have this threshold to try and meet because it did
create some confusion. Uh, I also want to thank staff
for working with the agencies to increase the overall number
of spaces for people to come inside. Uh, I think
we saw, especially with the Boyle Community Centre that we
were exceeding expectations and unfortunately, um, until I see otherwise,
I think we might be in a similar boat this
winter. Uh, and just as well to our agencies, thank
you very much for being a great, uh, member of
our community and great partners to work with. We wouldn't
be able to do this work without you. So, uh,
I really appreciate the work that you do and that
your staff do. And I think ultimately we can all
agree that no one should have to sleep outside, especially
in the winter. Um, but until we have enough, uh,
apartments and units for everybody across the city, unfortunately, sometimes
we have to rely on emergency shelters and spaces. So
again, appreciate the work that staff and our community partners
are doing to bring this forward. Councillor. Thank you,
Mayor. Um, I guess I'm going to start with the
reason I didn't support or second that motion from Council
McAllister is it because I want to avoid any prescriptive
language that could, uh, be regarded as a battle of
the wards. Cause that is, I think, a big issue
that we have. I don't want any battling of the
words. I just want everyone in the city to understand
that this is a citywide issue. People are unhoused citywide
and we need all hands on deck. I've said this
countless countless times again and again. I know that, uh,
many of us want to also have that all hands
on deck approach, but I don't want to be prescriptive
in a way that kind of really outlines the ward
one, VIII. So that's why I didn't support that. But,
um, like I said, I am hearing here, you know,
this impacts my words significantly. We have issues that are,
you know, in certain areas. And that there's a reality
there. Now I understand that yes, word one has a,
why O she shelter. Word 13 does as well. And
I hear that, uh, award four currently as it is,
you know, has 696 location. Ward 13 has the chronon
- Warner location. I'm not saying no to spaces in
my ward. I have actually said yes to spaces in
my word because I understand that the crisis is, is
the more people that on the street, the more suffering
you have, the more suffering you have, the more people
house, who are watching individuals out on the street are
unhappy with the directions that they may foresee counsel making.
So ultimately, if we bring people indoors, if we expand
those services in that capacity, you will have less crisis
and you will have less people coming to our emails
calling us on our phone, coming to us and saying,
what are you doing when it comes to homelessness? What
are you doing when it comes to the crisis that
is very evident out on the street. So that's why
I supported the knotwithstanding. Motion. Um, I, I did not
support the original motion as it came to us a
couple of years ago because I knew what would happen
and it did transpire that way. More people were on
the street, period. It was, it was worse. And we
could have made some decisions that would have made it
less worse. So I like the direction we're going because
that is going to set up the next Council very
well. When it comes to where the locations are, I
don't want to be prescriptive, like I said. Now I
did make the argument already on the amendment to the
amendment or wherever that came through. Um, and I said
I was going to move a motion and I am.
Now I don't want to say in word one or
word 13. And I don't want to say within a
two mile radius of an existing location. All I want
to say is to give explicit instructions to staff to
say, consider this. Consider citywide. Now I know staff do
that. Already. But I want to have that language there
so that when you are speaking with your teams, you
have it up on the whiteboard saying, this is an
explicit direction from Council. So I have a motion. An
amendment. That I've already sent to the clerk to have
clerked up. And I want to move that. And I
can read it. If you want me to. Okay, go
ahead. Okay. And I clerked the, I wrote this on
the fly. And I know I always criticize doing that,
but I'm sorry. I had to. That the motion be
amended to add a new part that reads as follows.
Priority be given to locations citywide rather than being limited
to locations where current services exist and that all required
actions to implement this direction be considered and recommended when
reporting back to Council.
Okay. Uh, I'll look to see if the seconder for
that. Okay. I don't see second or Councillor. It's unfortunate.
I thought this Council was making the discussion. That we
want these services. Citywide. So I know this Council has
made decisions to shut down services in certain locations without
the decisions. To see what then, what happens then. I
don't understand. We have a direction that I have seen
coming time and time again to shut down services. Put
people back out on the street. Make things worse. Get
the city completely divided. But when a direction comes to
say look city wide, see what we can do. We
don't. That's telling. So I would like. Council to just
consider that. Because things won't get better unless we have
all hands on deck in the city. Okay. Other speakers
to the main motion.
Yes, we're, we've had some requests to pull some things
a little bit separately. So what I'm going to speak
to give the court time to do that. So I'll
turn the chair over to Deppy Mary Lewis. Thank you,
worship all assumed with the chair. And please go ahead.
Uh, yeah, so I'll say a couple of things. Um,
one, just through the presiding officer Council Pereira, um, I,
I know you didn't get support on your amendment. I
think when you had in your comments said, consider option
citywide. I think you probably would have got more support.
But you actually put your most from prioritize, which is
a more definitive decision to say. I think in the
search for space, I've got to be as open as
possible to locations, including locations across the city, which is,
as it would stand now and how staff would, uh,
would look at it. Um, I want to, the couple
of things through the debate that wasn't mentioned first, uh,
I want to say thank you to the federal government,
uh, for making decision and executing, um, the, uh, the
new program that allowed for, uh, 2. 5 million dollars
to come to the city of London 2. 1 million
of which, with part of this motion is being allocated
to support the winter response. This is something that we
cannot do, uh, on the backs of taxpayers, uh, in
the City of London. And we require levels of government
who have the capacity and responsibility for this issue. Um,
to chip in and do their part. And so I
want to recognise, uh, and thank those who helped advocate,
including our local MPs, fragile scados and kayabaga. I want
to thank my fellow mayor colleagues who advocated vigorously at
multiple sessions and give specific credit to the mayor of
Montreal on this issue. Um, who advocated for the renewal
of this funding. And then of course for it to
flow in time for municipalities, it actually utilise it. Uh,
in and before the winter period as one of the
options. So, um, those two pieces. At the end of
the day, I raccored the comments that were made. Uh,
I've heard the same thing for members of the public.
They want to see, uh, these spaces dealt with, uh,
well in advance of winter so that, uh, there's clear
expectations of what is happening to bring people indors through
the coldest months. I think I want to also thank
our staff for the work they did in pulling this
together. I want to thank the service agencies and partners
because essentially we don't have spaces if people don't step
up. And then we are using things like Community Centres.
So for those who said they could provide spaces, uh,
in their spaces or across the city or any of
the locations that they've offered, you know, thank you for
doing so. That, that takes pressure off of us to
continue to fluoride Community Services and Community Centres rather than
converting those into winter responses when we don't have the
capacity to, uh, meet the demand across the system. So
this is a good plan that brings people indoors. I
remind you when we bring people indoors, we have the
ability in those times to connect them with services, to
connect them with services to help them make their lives
better. Whether those are people with mental health and addiction
issues, people looking to connect with employment or housing, uh,
having people in spaces where we've got, uh, people who
know how to help them when they can connect with
individuals and talk with people, uh, that is always a
good thing for addressing people who are unsheltered in our
community or are facing significant housing challenges. Um, finally, I
do want to thank our staff for the incredible work
they did with the last winter response. Um, we used
a community centre. We had an expectation that we'd use
it for maybe five to 10 days. We used it
for way more than that. Uh, a staff volunteered that
went above and beyond. Um, and I wanted to recognise
that as we approve this next iteration of winter response,
the tremendous amount of volunteering and commitment that our staff
did to make the last winter response work through, uh,
very difficult conditions and a very long, uh, stretch of
cold days through the winter. I think this is a
better plan because of the consistency through the winter. We
won't be ramping up and down. Um, but I recognise
last year was difficult, but it worked because both providers
in our city and our municipal staff made it work.
And to the residents of the areas that were impacted
by the use of the community centres, you know, we
also thanked them. We know that that was, uh, definitely
an inconvenience when you can't do all the programming you
expect in your local community centre. You know, we certainly
heard your concerns last year and we have a winter
response plan that does not use those spaces in the
same way. So, um, with that, I'll be supporting the
motion for. Thank you, worship. I will return the chair
to you and I have only myself on the speaker's
list. Well, you go ahead then. Thank you. So I'm
going to be supporting the motion. Um, but I think
it's important to also, uh, set the record straight on
some of what we heard today. Since. The term of
this Council began. We have more overnight beds in our
city. Than we've ever had. We've heard a lot about
cuts. We have reallocated, uh, resources to other things. But
we actually have more overnight beds, whether it's Cronin Warner,
whether it's the Atlosa and YOU hubs, whether it is
the modular shelters out at Cheese Factory Road. Whether it's
the new heart hub that was the result of a
lot of advocacy with the province after we essentially provided
them the blueprint. Uh, for a hub, um, this Council
has added beds and capacity to the system. It is
unfortunate that we have policies from the senior levels of
government, uh, that continued to put people into homelessness. And
I know, uh, Ms. Moss is in the gallery. I
heard her on the Craig Needles podcast not long ago
referencing as much as we are fishing people out of
the water and trying to get them dried and helped
out. Uh, upstream more people are being pushed into the
river. And that analogy is true. So yes, there is
still a lot of homelessness in the city, but it
is not from lack of effort from our service providers
or from these Council. To address the problem. In fact,
your worship - e - referenced at your state of
the city address that through this term of Council, uh,
there are 1, 500 fewer people on the streets because
through this four - year term, they have been moved
through systems, whether it's through the Cronin - Warner beds,
whether it's through help at London cares, whether it's through
help with the Salvation Army. They've been moved through the
system and they are no longer on the street. They
might be in an end well. Site. Which we have
added three locations during this term of Council 2. They
might be at the new home's Unlimited Buildings that we've
opened on pawn Mills Road or over on Dufford through
an office to residential conversion. But there is more support
and more spaces than there have ever been. In our
city. So we haven't been cutting spaces. We may not
agree on the allocations. And that's okay. That's part of
the process. And that's why we have debate and that's
why we vote on TS. But it's not factually true
to say we have cut services. We have actually increased
services over the hospital years. So I will be supporting,
uh, the main motion before us. Is it perfect? No.
Would I like other options? Yes. We also experienced, uh,
less than a year ago. Uh, tasking our staff, uh,
with standing up a micromodular site. Uh, that when we
gave them all the criteria we wanted, there was not
really anything to choose from. They came back to us
with one site because that was the only one that
they had available that was in our ownership. That could
match the criteria we had set out. So I think
there has been a demonstrated desire. I think the, uh,
the hubs right now are both located. I think they're
on a dividing line. So they might be inward 12
or word 14. And I apologise to the two word
councillors for, for not knowing exactly where the dividing line
is, uh, Councillor Frank has a new indwell building in
her ward. Um, these are things that are happening around
the city, uh, and so I think we need to
be mindful of that when we speak to these sorts
of motions, um, it's not perfect, but we have to
work with what we've had. And we as a Council
collectively have made progress on this issue. Uh, the fact
that we are talking about winter response in August this
year rather than October, I think continues to demonstrate that
this is an issue that while we may have disagreements
about particulars on, every single one of us around this
horseshoe cares a vote.
Okay. Any other speakers Council Priviley. Thank you. I know
I mentioned it to all of you during the meeting,
but during the, uh, CAPS meeting by just one I
reiterated one more time and mayor lady said it as
well. Great. Thank you to our staff for last winter.
And I visited a place three times. And to how
our staff came together and I'm not talking, I'm talking
about management, middle height, executive management, management, staff, life level
staff. Everyone came together and it was absolutely amazing how
our staff helped our community. Uh, I mentioned this one
as well before. All the initiatives that we've introduced, I've
been talking to some other municipalities and certainly not just
in Canada outside. And everyone is telling me that based
on our funding model, it doesn't matter if it's provincial
or federal or municipal the way decide they honestly don't
see the light at the end of the tunnel and
they say it's going to be a deja vu for
staff and the organization's all the time. Because the funding,
there was one of my fellow councillors said it's not,
it's not really about money and about the funding. It
is. That's all it's about actually. That's the number one
thing because we have to know how we know what
we want to do. We could deliver. It doesn't matter.
If you look at our spectrum of housing, it's absolutely
great. Guess what? We don't have the funding. We don't
have the money. But there's the thing that if the
higher levels of government don't come with a sustainable model
with a long - term vision, I truly believe that
discouncil will have to come with a multi - year
budget, which will include this. Because right now this is
the most expensive, most nonproactive way. How we are addressing
it as a Council, as a staff, as the agencies.
But guess what? None of us want to do that.
None of us. We want to have a perfect vision.
We want to see where we want to be in
5, 10, 15, 20 years. But guess what? We don't
have money funding. If you don't have the commitments. But
thank you, Tole Greer with the mayor mayor, what he
stated. Are we where we are? Am I glad improving
this winter response? Of course I'm not. I want something
with a bigger vision, more bad, more sustainable. But based
on the funding model we have, and we can always
be better. Everyone can always be better. But I really
see that we moved it forward. Forward as much as
I would like to, not. But again, I'm not going
to repeat what I already said. Thank you again. Okay.
Uh, so any other speakers first. Okay. We're going to
separate this as has been requested.
So I've had Councillor request to do D. Part three.
And E separate. So D part III. And E separate
of the main potion that was Councillor Stevens for that.
I don't have anybody asking to do anything else separate.
So yeah. I asked for IV, but maybe it's changed.
Okay. Yeah. It's, it's incorporated now. You'll see when we
put it up, but, uh, the clerk took what you
asked for an email and put it together. So that's,
that'll be done first. I just need to know if
anybody else wants it. Then we'll do everything else after.
No one has any other way they want to do
it. Okay. Good. We'll proceed that way. So. If you're
in eScribe, we're going to be doing vote 11. Which
is just those pieces. And then we'll do the remainder
of them. Okay. Okay. We're going to open that for
voting.
Closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to one.
Okay. And now we're going to do the remainder of
the motion. We'll open that for water.
The vote. Motion carries. 15 to zero. Okay. I know
the next one probably gets debated a bit. It's been
two and a half hours. I wonder if colleagues want
to take a 10 minute break at this point. Councillor
Farr, you want to move 10. Or people are going
to boat against it because it's not 15. Like, yeah,
I think we should amend that 15, let's be honest,
by the time we get upstairs and back down, we're
never back in 10. Uh, motion two, take a break
for 15 minutes. Move by Council Farrak, second of a
Deputy Mayor Lewis. Let's do it by hand. All those
in favor. Any opposed. Motion carries. Okay. We'll do 15
minutes.
Okay, thank you, please be seated. We're back to Council
Ramen to continue with that committee's report. Thank you. I'd
like to put item 4, 2. 3 housing, stability services,
procurement, and delivery framework emergency shelter guidelines 2011 versus 2026
comparative analysis on the floor. Okay, that's on the floor
for discussion. I'll look for speakers. Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson.
Thank you, I circulated an amendment for this one as
well. That the motion be amended to add a new
part that reads as follows. D, the Civic Administration be
directed to amend the emergency shelter guidelines as appended to
the above - noted staff report as Appendix A to
I remove any provision that permits illegal substances to be
brought into or possessed within emergency shelter locations. And I
remove any provision that prohibits the discharge of or service
restrictions being imposed on, an individual for the use of
illegal substances within an emergency shelter location. And III ensure
that the current version of the emergency shelter guidelines is
made publicly available on the City of London's website and
maintain thereon for an ongoing basis. Okay, so secondative for
that. A Councillor Hillier is going to second it. Okay,
so we can start discussion on the amendment. It should
be in eScribe and available for colleagues to read. Which
I'd like to go ahead and speak. Oh wait, and
go after my colleagues. Any speakers to this. Councilman Callister,
go ahead. Thank you for the chair. Just, I listened
to the committee discussion on this. No, they went through
a lot of things. I think the question that still
is on my mind, and I think this was brought
up a committee as well. But I just still don't
understand, in terms of enforcement, how this would be enforced.
My understanding from what was discussed a committee was, you
know, shelter staff do not have search and seizure powers.
And so I'm just wondering if staff can maybe add
anything further to that. Or if this is something in
terms of the police having to deal with illegal substances.
Because my understanding that they do not have the power
to do anything of this, so the staff can comment.
Mr. Dickens, go ahead. Thank you, and through you, your
worship. That is correct. This would be very difficult to
enforce. I think the delegation submission is part of the
CAPS agenda was really clear. This community has had several
policies in place for emergency shelters. Uh, long before some
of my colleagues and I were here, uh, the same
issues were persistent when there was a prohibition, as there
is now under a harm reduction framework. And as we
point out, um, in the report, uh, we're simply just
trying to modernize our guidelines to reflect that what is
in your pocket is not the sole grounds for being
denied entry to an emergency shelter bed in one of
our low - barrier emergency shelters. Um, shelter providers still
have the ability. To, uh, remove someone from the building
to, uh, put in service restrictions, um, and it's looking
at the whole experience. So a person comes in and
if they are, you know, trafficking or using, or, uh,
disruptive or the behavioral issues, absolutely that shelter provider has
a responsibility to keep the place safe. And they may
lay service restrictions. They may ask that person to leave.
That is what happens now. And I assume that's what
would happen going forward. Council, sir. Thank you. Through the
mayor, and yeah, that was my understanding. I did some
research on this as well. And, um, I know a
number of municipalities struggle with it. And whether you explicitly
say not allowed or you allow, um, their response is
essentially the same where they do have to call police
services in to manage it. Uh, I would imagine that
would be the same thing with any sort of like
weapons, uh, charges. Uh, there'd be a number of issues,
not just listed substances, but my understanding is that the,
um. The way of dealing with this would be through
the police. Um, I understand in terms of what the
Councillors trying to achieve here, but, uh, I don't think
it matters one way or the other. I think Enforcement,
uh, is going to be handled by the same service
regardless of what you have in your policy, uh, the
laws would supersede any shelter policy depending on what they're
dealing with in that situation is my understanding. So with
that in mind, I think updating this policy is appropriate.
Um, I do think regardless of what you have, uh,
written, uh, you're still going to have those challenges. Uh,
and I understand in terms of where the shelter staff
were coming from that this is not a task that
there feel comfortable to handle or can actually enforce. Um,
so with that, I'll leave my comments there. But curious
to hear what other colleagues have to say because I
know if there was a lengthy debate at committee as
well. Okay. Other, uh, colleagues.
Right. Councillor Privileg and Councillor Stevenson. Thank you very similar
to what Council Mcroll Lister said. I love what's in
front of us what's proposed. But it's actually based on
the play, based on the city province we live unfortunately
legal. If you are not able to do it. So
this I see, I love it. As I said, uh,
at the committee meeting when I discuss their visor, I'm
a jurisdiction outside this country. They said absolutely. They would
support it. They were not allowed. Having said that, that
they have the tools how to address it, how to
adjust it right at the entrance with private security guards
with actually even, uh, detectors. So the weapons don't go
into places. They have it at every virtual place. And
they can, they have actually the tools. And they have
the teeth to actually, uh, to actually implement it and
to make such decisions. We don't. And based on that,
I will not be supporting it. We had things before
us before that we were discussing in other areas. And
we said, great idea of you actually cannot act on
it. And I believe, I feel that this is the
same way if I hear otherwise that we can. I
would be willing to change my mind. But as I
said, I just, if it's various people, organisations, uh, in
our province. And I always got the same answer. There's
nothing you can do about it. And even if you,
if you put this forward, you won't be able to
act on it. Having said that, speaking with the agencies,
they do, they don't have to, they don't have the
individuals can enter. But if they do use it, they
do act on it. So it's not kind of like
it's a green light. Go ahead to do this. No,
that's not the case. Thank you. Councillor Stevenson. Uh, thank
you. We did have a long discussion about this at
committee. I'm bringing this forward because, uh, it's illegal. And
so we have a sentence that says allowed illegal substances.
I could not find that in any other cities guidelines.
Many of the other stuff we have in our guidelines
I saw, but not a sentence that allows illegal substances.
That's what I'm asking to be removed here. I'm not
even saying go back to the prohibition of 2011. I'm
saying, how about we just not say that they're allowed
to bring in illegal substances. We'll let staff work that
out the guidelines can be published. It already says there
that they can make amendments and changes. So maybe they
can find another way to address this without this Council
endorsing guidelines that allow illegal substances. I know for me,
we heard what the agency said. We understand the concerns.
There's always a straw man argument put out there. Like,
Oh, so who's going to strip search them to make
sure that there's nothing in there. There's a far cry
between that and saying they're allowed. So. I feel strongly
that I need to bring this forward. I heard what
the agency's had to say. It certainly wasn't all of
the agencies through you to staff. Did mission services and
salvation army? Have they both explicitly said that they support
this change. Go ahead. Three worship. The
consultation sessions that were developed and carried out in result
of creating these shelter guidelines that include all the organisations
that were offering shelter services. We've connected with those organisations
that you've mentioned. They offer, um, unique programs within those,
those spaces that are recovery oriented programs. These guidelines do
make provision for the nuances that come with a recovery
- oriented program. The low barrier emergency shelters that we're
talking about in consultation with the other shelter operators, including
those, those organisations, like this would align with the harm
reduction practices that they do have in their shelters. Go
ahead, Council. Uh, thank you. Um, and through you, uh,
the emergency room at the hospital, do they make allowances
like this as well, given that they deal with a
lot of the same clientele. Go ahead. Throw you worship.
I think I should point out that that is well
beyond our jurisdiction here as municipal staff to comment on
the hospital. That's better answered by the hospital. Go ahead,
Councillor. Yeah. Thank you. I understand that it's just the
same premise that services are needed by a particular clientel.
To me, it would be useful to know if they
were doing that at the hospitals. The R code of
conduct says that we, uh, are supposed to uphold both
the letter and the spirit of federal and provincial laws.
So again, endorsing this policy that allows illegal drug use
or illegal substances to be brought inside, um, is a
concern to me. I'm representing the residents in my ward.
And I've heard very clearly from them that they don't
support this, that they do not want, uh, illegal substances
to be explicitly allowed inside taxpayer funding shelters anywhere in
the city, uh, particularly not in the neighbourhood, uh, that
they live in. Um, I've also heard concerns, you know,
there was a letter submitted by the OEV B. I.
A. Executive Director with a lot of, uh, various questions
and concerns in here around, uh, insurance possibility of insurance.
Possibility of, uh, legal liability potentially or workplace and safety
regulations have through you to staff. Has that exhaustively been
explored in terms of, will there be insurance, you know,
no general insurance liability concerns for these agencies with the
change in policy workplace safety, no concerns there. And I
don't know if we need to go, uh, into closed
for legal, but I would want to know if something
were to happen. Uh, would we be legally liable. For
the change. Mr. Jins. Um, through you, your worship. Very
fair question. We did see the communication on the Council
Agenda, uh, we have lots of, uh, responses to it
if needed. These organisations have been operating in this way
now. Um, I want to make it clear. The inclusion
of the language harm reduction or, you know, removing the
piece of, of, uh, suspicion of substance use or possession
of substances is a requirement to, uh, deny you entry
to a shelter. It's not suddenly introducing this activity to
our community. These organisations that currently operate this way all
have board of governors board of directors. They all have
their own independent legal advice. And they all have their
own independent insurance. If this had been a problem up
to this point, it would have been flagged. In the
consultations by their boards or by their leadership teams. Or
it would have been a practice. They had not been
carrying out up until this point. Councillor Stevenson. Um, thank
you.
I understand that many people want the laws to be
different than they are, but the laws are what they
are. And this is a sentence that clearly states that
we're allowing illegal substances without setting parameters on other illegal
activity. As I said, representing the residents in my ward,
I just can't support having that in there, which is
why I bring forward this motion for Council to consider
what their residents, uh, how and how they would want
them to vote on this amendment. The publishing of the
guidelines, I think is really important because we delegate the
authority to make changes. So I think having that accessible
for anybody to be able to look at is really
important. And the other one is about 30 seconds, you
know, discharging, restricting, not being able to discharge people or,
uh, do service restrictions for people who actually use the
illegal substances inside, which is still prohibited. Um, that is
a concern for me as well. And I wonder too,
if, you know, the other statements in there that say
people can't be discharged or service restrictions just because they
have a substance use disorder, that all makes sense. But
to say that they can't do it if people use
inside has at least the perception that there's no consequences
if they do. Your time is up. Councillor Franklin, then
Councillor Cotty. Thank you. Uh, first off, I just want
to say thank you to staff for bringing this fort.
I think it's good for us to have, uh, a
framework that accurately reflects what is happening within our shelter
guidelines and to have it updated to 2026. I think
that's good again for the Community to know what our
standards are and what's the expectation and what's going on.
And to again, reflect what is currently happening within our
services. Uh, I do want to flag that it's my
understanding it's not illegal for someone to enter facility and
for this specific example shelter provider. If they're under the
influence or if they have drugs in their body. So
I hear there's some discussion about whether or not, you
know, we're following legislation, but it's not illegal for someone
to enter that building. Additionally, it's my understanding that shelters
also have human rights considerations. And as addiction is protected
as a disability under the Ontario Human Rights Code for
shelter providers to deny people access to their services because
they might have an addiction actually puts that at jeopardy
as well. And I don't think that we want to
have any claims about not being able to accommodate disabilities
within our community. Uh, so again, just want to say
thank you to staff for updating these guidelines. And I
think they'll be, um, despite some folks not perhaps agreeing
with a harm reduction approach. I think they'll be helpful
for the Commute to understand what staff are doing and
what our providers are doing as well. Council Ketty. Thank
you worship and through you. Um, question for staff. Mr.
Dickens, do we have any information on if this is
an ongoing problem or is isolated cases where people are
consuming drugs while they're into shelters? Because if it's not,
it may be nice. If it's isolated, maybe it's a
tempest and a teapot and it's something we really don't
need to be concerned with. But if it is more
than that, perhaps it is something we need to discuss.
Thank you. Mr. Dickens. Thank
you. And through your worship, I would, um, I would
adventure to say that, uh, this is a problem that's
widespread across the province emergency shelters, uh, from Niagara, uh,
through, uh, through northern Ontario, uh, especially northern Ontario are
dealing with these same challenges. Um, trying to manage a
drug crisis, um, and I want to make sure I'm
very clear. Organisations can discharge people. They can restrict people,
uh, for a number of reasons. Uh, it's just coming
in, uh, with suspected possession of drugs or under the
influence would not be the sole grounds. If that person
again is, is trafficking or disruptive or using, um, it
may lead to a discharge. It may lead to service
restrictions. What we're really trying to ask service providers to
do, which they are essentially doing now, is we want
to create a point of intervention. Uh, to provide someone
a therapeutic path or recovery. And we can't do that,
uh, if we keep locking the doors on them and
asking them not to come in because they have an
act of addiction. If we can get them in the
door, um, we can work with them. And if they're
under the influence, shelter providers can try to provide them,
uh, a safe space and try to work with them,
uh, time and time again to get to that point
where we can make referrals. As it talks about in
our report, refers to therapeutic services and recovery services and
addiction and mental health services. We want to get people
on a path to recovery. Um, we talk about the
drug problems. We're really focusing at the front door of
an emergency shelter. As being the pain point. Uh, in
a community that has a drug crisis, it would be
great to stem the flow of drugs into our community.
The police would be a great resource to do that.
Or to stem the trafficking activity that happens within our
community. Um, upstream versus just focusing on someone looking for
a place to sleep. So to answer your question, this
is a very pervasive problem, not just in London, across
Ontario, across Canada, uh, regardless of what policy is in
place. Go ahead, Councillor. You good? Okay. Thank you. I
have, uh, Councillor Hopkins next. Yeah. Um, I know we've
got the amendment in front of us. So I will
speak to the amendment and I'll make my comments to,
to the main motion. I won't supporting the amendment. Um,
even though I do appreciate the conversation here, uh, I
do want to say though, first of all, thanks to
staff for modernizing our guidelines, I think that is what
we needed to do here. I really do appreciate the
focus being more on housing focused. Getting people into places.
And I want to thank the agencies I know you
had a delegation at committee from unity project. It was,
uh, them sharing their experience. And one of the things
I got out of that, uh, delegation was the understanding
that compassion and the ability to, uh, still be accountable.
I think that is where the focus is going. And
I get that, um, there needs to be still accountability,
but we can still do with compassion. And my third
point, while I'm standing, I just want to say the,
the challenges that we have as a municipality as much
as we can update a guidelines modernize the need for,
uh, funding, uh, from the provincial government, I think when
it comes to not only mental health, but addiction, um,
supports the other part is the, uh, Affordability. We see
it in our guidelines. We want people in places. We
need these buildings built and the operational, uh, dollars that
go with that to, to make them successful. So many
thanks to staff. Council Rahman. I thank you and through
you to staff. Um, I'm just wondering if I can
get some answers on the amendment for part I'm just
wanting to clarify what house staff interpret this.
Okay, go ahead. The rear worship. Um, this would actually
breed differently from what we're proposing in the current shelter
guidelines that are before you're proposing that if clients do
have possession or substances in their possession at the time
of their intake that they are not, uh, to be
immediately denied access to the shelter, um, this particular, um,
phrase reads almost conversely to that, that if they do
have, um, any substances in their possession during the time
of the intake that they would be prohibited from accessing
shelter, which would be, uh, and contravention to what we're
proposing into just the research behind harm reduction policies. Thank
you, three, that my question is for the chair. This
motion then appears to be contrary. To what was brought
forward by the committee. Okay, give me a sec.
Okay Councillor, let me just, uh, do a ruling on
this. So I understand your question about, um, within the
shelter guidelines, uh, the counselor's direction may be counter to
some of the pieces within the guidelines. The motion that's
before us is ABC update the emergencies shelter guidelines as
appended. Direct them to implement the guidelines, be authorized to
make further administrative updates. In the motion to amend. It
needs to not propose a direct negative to the main
motion. Given the main piece of this is to implement
the guidelines. I don't see it as counter to make
some adjustments to the internal proceedings of the guidelines and
the document, even if it's something that may be different.
So I think it's probably important for Council to have
this debate and have clarity on the components of the
guidelines. And so I'm going to, I would rule that
the amendment can stand based on the components of the
main motion before us. Um, but I would recognise that
this is a different direction than what staff put in
the emergency guidelines and Council could amend it to take
a different direction. So, um, I'm happy to be challenged
on that if someone feels they should, but I'm going
to, I'm going to allow the motion to proceed. Thank
you and through you. And I do feel it's an
important discussion. And so, um, I'm not going to challenge
the chair on it. But I will say that I
think what is interpreted versus what is written is two
different things. I read this asking that the guideline be
silent on the matter. And so if it's an issue
of being silent, I could be supportive of it being
silent. But if it's interpreted as now no longer, as
sorry, the 2011 version now, then I have a different
opinion. So that's what I'm trying to understand and make
my decision on. And so I read this as remove
what's in the 2026 guideline, but don't go back to
the 2011. Is that fair?
Thank you, worship. I don't know if it's as clean
cut as what we're hoping for here. Um, we're trying
to talk about admissions into an emergency shelter. And this
is focusing on possession of illegal drugs. And if we're
silent on it, I worry that every shelter provider is
going to have a different interpretation of it. Um, and
we might run a foul of inconsistencies or discrepancies and
be right back before you, but why everyone's doing it
differently. Um, and so I wish I had a more
clear answer, but this seems to focus more on permitting
illegal substances when we're talking about, um, grounds and requirements
for, for bringing people indoors and admitting them into event.
Okay. Thank you. Uh, I will mull that over for
part two, um, I'm just wondering again, how to staff
interpret this. Because again, from a human rights perspective, this
reads differently for me than perhaps, um, some of the
other guidelines around, or sorry, some of the other things
in the guidelines around restricting access. This, I just, I
need some clarity on how this is being interpreted. Go
ahead. Through your worship, yes, this would again speak to
that admission piece that we're making it clear to shelter
operators that when it comes to admission that based on
the fact that someone may have substances in their possession,
potentially for substance use disorder or managing withdrawal symptoms as
it was mentioned earlier, a potential disability that's code protected,
um, we're making it clear to shelter operators that that
alone, um, isn't necessarily grounds for denial to the shelter.
Um, and the way we have it currently worded in
the shelter guidelines would provide clarity to that, that section.
Um, this particular, um, phrase that we're looking at would,
um, just leads to the other point that we spoke
about with ambiguity for shelter operators. Council Rahmen. Okay. Thank
you. And through you, I think I'll listen to the
rest of the discussion, but, um, I'm hoping that, uh,
these can all be called separately. Okay. Um, other speakers,
uh, to this matter.
Okay. Um, now I have some questions. So I'm going
to turn the show over to De Mary Lewis. Uh,
thank you, your worship. I will take the chair and
please go ahead. Yes. So just I want to go
off of what Council Ramen said because I, I'm still
a little unclear on the question. Um. Part, but my
question is more about part two. Part two seems to
suggest that within the guidelines, um, that there's no ability
to discharge for use. And my reading of the guidelines
was that that's not the case. Um, you can discharge
for using my conversation with some of the shelter providers
is they do do that. Um, and so at part
two, doesn't make a lot of sense to me because
it, I believe it's already possible within the guidelines. I
think there is a line in there about, you know,
try to help the person first. Perhaps connect them with
services or something rather than discharge right away. I know
some providers have that right in, but just some clarification
on what is like actually happening. If someone uses in
a shelter, can they be discharged by the provider? Mr.
Dickens. Thank you through you, Mr. President Officer. Um, yes,
they can be. They can be discharged. Uh, what this
is updating is to recognise the prevalence and the, uh,
number of occurrences in which that can happen in daily
life. Uh, you would spend all day discharging people and
no time supporting people. And that's a wide generalization and
broad stroke just to give you some context of the
scale of the problem that's affecting shelters across Ontario. Uh,
what we are saying is you, you can still discharge
a person. Absolutely. And if there's, uh, reason to, uh,
discharge a person, we expect that it's well documented. Uh,
that it has come from every attempt to support that
person first. And again, the, the more that shelter providers
can engage with a person in that moment, uh, provide
them pathways to better options, better supports, um, the better
we are off as a community. And that person is
better off. Uh, whereas, uh, discharging at the first site
of a suspected, uh, addiction or someone who may be
under the influence. If they're posing no harm to anyone,
um, would be in our minds a little bit callous
to, to, uh, discharge the moat to the streets when
they're posing no harm. So we're asking folks, uh, that
can't be the sole criteria that you're asked to leave
a shelter. It could, you could be discharged. Again, if
you're showing up in your trafficking and you're disruptive and
you're violent and there's concerns and you're using repeatedly, you're
going to be asked to leave. However, if you're in
the door and you're in the building and you're under
the influence, we want staff to safely engage with you.
And if it's a repeated occurrence, they better be putting
safety plans in place, care plans in place, start talking
about referral pathways. And the addiction's world, folks need to
be at least pre - contemplative that they want help.
Uh, and so when they're in our care or in
the care of a shelter provider, we want to get
them to that state where they start to contemplate the
idea that they might want help. And we do that
best. If they're permitted in to have a spot to
sleep than if we tell them to go away. That
is what this guidelines is trying to communicate. We're here
to help people. We want to help as many people
as possible. And asking them to leave at the first
sight of an addiction is not conductive to doing that.
Councillor Stevenson. This amendment is very clear about its substance
use inside the shelter. So this, you know, the all
kinds of stuff in it that talks about people have
substance use. You can't be discharged for that reason. All
that kind of stuff. I'm not touching that. This is
one sentence. And I can tell you it's on page
176 or the back or the bottom of page 44
within the shelter guidelines. And it says emergency shelter, uh,
providers will not discharge participants or impose service restrictions based
on substance use on or off site. I didn't even
put the offsite into this. I just don't want to
restrict the discharge or service restrictions for somebody using those
illegal substances inside the taxpayer funded shelter. All of the
other stuff that's being mentioned here is part of the
guidelines and I'm not touching that at all. Okay. Councillor.
I know you said point of whatever. Um, I'm going
to rule that as a point of personal privilege. Um,
not as a point of order because it's not a
procedural matter. Um, you're calling a point of personal privilege
because you believe that you your intent was being misrepresented.
And so, uh, I'm going to rule that as a
point of personal privilege. You have made your statement to
correct your intention. So I'm going to deal deem that
dealt with. And I'm going to return to Mayor Morgan.
Okay. Appreciate that. Um. So I'm going to say a
few things on this. So first, um, I did take
the time to speak to all the shelter providers. Pretty
easy to give them a call and ask some questions
about how they operate. Currently and their engagement on the
guidelines and whether or not they're supportive of them and
the answer that I got was yes. Uh, it is
how they operate today. Um, you know, one of the
interesting things that came up in my discussions with them
was the challenge with being silent on. Letting someone know
that they can come in the door. If the one
who uses. Gets away from the opportunity to intervene in
those individuals'lives. The Salvation Army, for example, co - locate
services. They have low barrier shelter services, but they also
have withdrawal management recovery community centre. Uh, and they have
the hard hub. And my discussion with them was they
see the Lowry shelter as an entry point into connecting
people with services. So sometimes people do have a drug
addiction. They will come in the doors. Uh, they may
be a user. And then they intervene with them. In
some cases that person decides to go into the draw
management program. In some cases, it works for them. In
some cases, they don't. And they might return to low
barrier shelter. In some cases, they connect into the recovery
centre because they progressed along through the withdrawal program. In
some cases, they may be connected with the hard hub.
There are some abstinent space programs working alongside other programs
to try to bring people in the doors and capture
them. The problem that the challenge with this motion is
I'd like, I totally understand the Councilor's intent. Um, it's
a, it's a politically challenging motion because it's really easy
to box it into a space and say, this is
what we're doing. But the consequences, I'm concerned about it.
If we don't particularly on I, if we don't let
people know that they can come in and get help.
And if we can't engage with them, there's probably going
to be more people out on the street. Like more
people who will just, you know, what I'm not going
to show up to the shelter. Less people to intervene
with. This is the, these are the concerns that I
heard from some of the shelter providers. They want to
engage with people. They want to try to connect them
with services. Some people are ready for that. Some people
aren't. To the residents in the area. Might not be
supportive of the guidelines. If people don't feel they can
go indoors into a shelter, they're going to stay outdoors
in parks and doorways. And on the street. And I
think ultimately we want is to connect people with services.
I think we're relatively, you know, on the same page
on that. You know, it's part of the reason why,
you know, the calls for the province to invest in
more, you know, voluntary treatment services to be available so
that when people are ready, they don't have to wait
for a long period, you know, that they could have
that. Like the challenges we don't have some of those
referral points. So people are going to be indoors or
they're going to be outdoors. They're going to be connected
with people or they're not. Um, we have some challenges
here. So it's very difficult to figure out, you know,
what to do with all the parts of this motion.
Because again, I think there are the actual practices that
the shelters are doing. We don't want to create through
the, we don't want to create the perception that people
shouldn't be coming and asking for help coming indures, getting
emergency shelter. Um, protecting themselves from all elements or whatever
else sleeping outdoors. All the things that emergency shelter provides
them with because they may have a possession substance on
them. If they're tracking, if they're doing the things that
Mr. Dickens said, yeah, for sure they should be considered
to be banned, right? You've got to protect the other
people in the shelter. But for me, I have a
challenge with I because I don't want to put, I
don't want to give people the impression that they can't
get help. When they need it. And if they need
to come indorst to get help, because again, they need
to be in a shelter. And then we can connect
with services. I'd rather them be there than I would
on the streets. So, uh, the other pieces I'm thinking
about I want to hear colleagues thoughts on, but, um,
but I think I is moving the wrong direction because
I think it leaves people outdoors. Uh, thank you Mayor
Morgan and that was right on your time. I will
return the chair to you. I don't have any other
speakers at the moment, but I'm happy to put my
own name on the speaker's list because I have a
question now resulting from some other comments. Sure. Well, you
know what? Then you're on the list and you can
go ahead. Okay. So I'm going to focus. I was
interested in what Council Ramen said about remaining silent on
some things. And I heard Mr. Dickens'answer. But I do
wonder why. We couldn't allow different emergency shelter providers to
have different guidelines. Uh, so if a service provider, uh,
and I'm not saying that they, they want to do
this, but I'm using, I'm going to use the arc
as an example because Ms. Campbell is in my line
of sight here. So, uh, let's say the arc wanted
to say the first, you know, the beds at Bishop
Cronin. Were zero tolerance for illegal substances, but the emergency
beds, uh, they sometimes set up in the basement. They're
more flexible on or at 696 Dundas. They're more flexible
on. Um, why could we not allow shelter providers to
choose their own approach to this and then simply have
them communicate that to us as part of their contract.
And list these are the shelters that allow, uh, possession.
These are the shelters that are zero tolerance for possession.
Go ahead. Thank you, Richard. B. Fair question. Uh, these
guidelines are meant to apply to a low barrier emergency
shelters. And so we have recovery services. The marriage is
highlighted a couple through emission services, salvation army. In your
example would prove to be another one where you would
have, uh, the low barrier emergency shelters following these guidelines,
uh, and there may be other recovery oriented programs that
would follow whatever, uh, their mandated service would be. So,
uh, it is possible, but we were looking, if the
arc were to be contracted and said, I want to
be an emergency shelter, we would ask them to follow
the emergency shelter guidelines. Go ahead. So I
wonder. And Mr. Dickens will know the individual that I'm
referring to because we both interacted with that individual over
the years. Uh, but I've certainly heard from, uh, an
outspoken letter who's experienced homelessness. Um, that one of the
reasons she didn't access shelter services is because she didn't
want to be around users. She wanted an emergency shelter
bed that was in an absence based, uh, location. And
instead, uh, her choices ended up being things like couch
surfing in less than, uh, ideal circumstances, um, and perhaps
potentially exposing to, uh, intimate partner violence in a couple
of cases. And so. This is where I struggle because
I don't know why we couldn't have both. Prohibited spaces
and spaces where we're not going to private. And I
don't know if the related to, uh, our own requirements
with province von staff can provide as to why we
can't have some of both. And that's presuming that a
shelter operator wants to do that, um, perhaps all of
our shelter operators in the city are fine with this.
But if we had one that wants to provide an
abstinence - based space so that those who don't want
to be exposed to users, uh, can feel safe. Like
how would that agency even approach us. Mr. Dickens. Absolutely.
Uh, three years absolutely. Uh, that would be done for
our procurement framework when we go to procure the shelter
system. Um, often, uh, it can be deterrent could be
the funding that's required. So you go abstinence - based
shelter. You often require detox services. Often those type of
absence - based or recovery - based shelters come with
medical staff. So there is a cost prohibition there that
can factor into this. But when we go to procure
the shelter system, if Council says we want a mix
of absence - based and low barrier, or we want
all recovery - based, we can do that work through
the procurement process and come back and show you what
the various models would cost and what that would look
like. So I guess to perhaps frame my question a
little more tightly under these guidelines. If we had a
service provider approach us. And say, I've read your guidelines,
I'd be interested in being a provider. But I don't
want to allow any possession in our space. Like, I
want to know from our staff if a provider could
come forward themselves rather than it being part of a
procurement thing that we do. Um, and say, we want
to offer this. It's our choice. We want to offer
it as an abstinence - based space for emergency shelter.
Wood staff then bring that forward to us as an
option to consider, um, voluntarily or with these guidelines in
place, would our procurement process automatically preclude them. From being
a potential tender for shelter spaces.
Through your worship, yes, if a provider did want to
offer recovery - based abstinence - based program, these guidelines
wouldn't apply to them. This is for emergency shelter, low
barrier programs, programs that are outside of that aren't specifically
spoken to in these guidelines, and that would be considered
to their contract process if they were deciding to run
a recovery - based program would build specific parameters within
their contract. I'm sorry, I'm not asking about recovery -
based. We have homeless folks who are not drug users
out on our streets who do not want to be
in the same space as those using drugs. So the
question is not about recovery - based programs. It's not
about detox. It's about what if a provider came forward
and said, I want to provide emergency shelter beds, but
I will only take folks off the street who are
not currently using. And would they then be able under
these guidelines to apply. Go ahead. Throw your worship. Those
would not be low barrier emergency shelter programs. The premise
behind a low barrier program is that for folks that
are not in a pre - contemplative stage to decide
about substances or any life circumstances that we limit the
amount of barriers that prevent them from coming indures. And
so, um, the guidelines are presented in a way that
they can come inside, provided that they contribute to safe
space. If there are exclusionary criterios or things that people
have to meet to enter the doors, then that wouldn't
be a low barrier program. And this guideline is specifically
speaking solely to low - barrier programs. Anything outside of
a low barrier program, that would be considered in a
procurement, um, framework, or within the contract with the service
provider. Go ahead. So through you, Chair, then, are we
not creating a high barrier to access for those who
are not users and don't feel safe around users by
precluding those who want to provide a space without users?
I hear what you're saying about low barrier. I think
you're just creating a high barrier for someone else. That's
who you worship. I mean, they still have to meet
safety requirements. In those spaces. Um. Using drugs or having
drugs does not automatically make you a risk to those
other people that don't use drugs. Um, but if they're
creating unsafe situations, then those need to be addressed and
handled. So that those that are looking for a space
where they can feel safe and not be pestered and
offered drugs that they can get that as well. Uh,
and those that are showing up with drugs, this drive,
uh, we're trying to put this in place. That they
still contribute to a safe environment. We're not trying to
create more hoops for people to jump through. People that
are having addiction or don't have an addiction are all
entitled to housing. Um, and some may be closer to
that housing goal than others. Uh, and if somebody can
commune to an emergency shelter, uh, and, and receive that
support, or that's not the right space for them. It's
triggering. It's threatening. It's whatever. Then we look to the
system to start to find ways to get them into
a different space. Maybe into some of those other salvation
army base or emission services - based services or to
the micromodular shelter where they have their own independent living
or into some type of housing where they could have
some follow along support. So it's not a, in order
to access our shelter, you must be an act of
drug user. And I know that's not what you're saying,
but we're not trying to create more hoops for people.
If somebody comes in and they are free of addiction
and they're in recovery, we want to make sure we
get them on that pathway, stay on that pathway as
quick as we can. And there are examples when that
goes horribly wrong. This, this is true. And there are
examples when it goes really, really well. And so we
are trying to make a policy that is reflective of
2026 of the prevalence of drugs in our community and
trying to create some type of standard that is consistent
with well over a dozen other municipalities in this province.
Go ahead. All right. Um, I appreciate those responses. Um,
I'll see what others have to say. I will say
for me that we would preclude, um, somebody who wants
to provide, uh, drug - free space from applying through
this is a problem. Um, I'm not saying that I,
because I recognise the problem. I know it's out there.
It's very prevalent. But I'm disappointed to hear, and this
may influence how I vote on a couple of these
clauses. I'm just pointed to hear that if an agency
came forward and wanted to run a space that was
drug - free, that staff are saying, we wouldn't come
forward and say notwithstanding our guidelines. This agency should still
be allowed to apply. And that's what I've heard. So
I just want to confirm with staff if that's accurate
that you would not come forward with a notwithstanding the
guidelines. This organisation should be considered that you would just
preclude them. 30 seconds. So I'm just looking for a
very clear yes or no. Would you bring fortunate notwithstanding
or would they be precluded? Okay, that answer.
Yes, there is a provision for those operators to be
able to offer those programs that are entirely abstinent space.
We wouldn't, um, immediately preclude them from being able to
put forward a program like that that particular program would
be independent of these guidelines or provider can still very
much do that. And we would consider them just like
we would consider any other provider or any other, um,
shelter modality. Okay. Other speakers.
Go ahead, Councillor Farrah. Thank you for that. Um, okay.
Follow up to the Deputy Mayor's questions. Um, I do
know of some providers. They wouldn't be necessarily considered shelter.
I'm not going to name them. That are, um, bringing
forth, uh, sober living environments to help people recover and
move forward and get involved into the housing pathways. Would
provider like that be able to, um, tap into this
procurement these guidelines.
Through you worship, I believe you're talking about a recovery
treatment program. Which would not fall under emergency shelter guidelines.
If it fall under, uh, what in a, what an
accredited treatment program would have to fall under. Go ahead.
Okay. I know that, uh, I don't want to go
beyond the scope of, uh, the item at hand. Um,
so I guess the question would be, are there any
other guidelines that we're going to be expecting coming forward
under the procurement framework that would be able to cover
something like that. Go ahead. The Rear worship. Yes, there
is precedent and other municipalities across the province. They do
have multiple sets of guidelines for different types of programs.
Um, this is not something we're considering particularly for this
particular phase. Um, a program like that, that you're suggesting
could very much exist in the city of London. They
could come through a procurement framework and absence of specific
guidelines about that program. It would be considered in their
contract. Um, and that's what we're hoping to bring forward
to Council and Committee through the Procurement Process that we
would lay out a number of different shelter modalities, including
absence and recovery - based programs. There's nothing within our
current processes that preclude that type of service from existing.
These particular guidelines are speaking to very specific subsect of
shelters. Um, we don't have other guidelines for other service
providers, but that would be included in their contracts. Okay,
thank you. That's how I read it. Uh, that's why
I just wanted to ask the question. Cause you know
the one that I'm talking about that we've been working
on for a while. Appreciate it. That's all my questions.
Okay. Other speakers to the amendments before us.
Okay. I've been asked to do them all separately. So,
uh, we're just let me make sure we've got that
lined up.
Okay. So we're going to start. We're just going to
do them in order. So we'll do, uh, first.
End the vote. Motion fails. Seven to eight. Okay. And
now I, I.
M closing a vote. Motion fails six to nine. And
I, I, I.
M closing the vote, motion carries. 15 to zero. Okay.
So now we're back to the main, but it's an
as amended motion now, uh, cause one of those parts
passed. So I'll look to the chair. Good for the
azimended motion. I need a seconder on that. I'll second
it. Okay. Discussion on the as amended motion, which is
all the pieces, including the addition of the III part
that we just debated. Go ahead, Councillor Privileg. Thank you,
Chair. Just want to make some comments. And thanks for
the staff for updating these skylines procedures. A couple of
things that I want to, uh, address, uh, I do
have, I do have issues, which I mentioned before to
have them, uh, at the premises. I do understand, I'm
talking about the point, of course, the substances and the
premises. I totally understand BXED individuals who are under, visit
the premises there. I don't, I think. Yes. Go ahead.
Sorry. Uh, Mayor Morgan, um, my apologies. Um. But on
I. Um, I voted incorrectly. And that would change the
outcome. So I'm looking for a motion to reconsider.
Okay. You are on the winning side of that vote.
So you can move reconsideration yourself. So, and then I'm
moving reconsideration. Okay. Reconsideration needs a second Councillor Cutty. One
sec. I just want to make sure I follow the
rules and reconsideration.
Okay. So yes, it's moved a second. It's requires two
thirds of whole Council and it's not debatable. So we'll
just get the motion to reconsider up.
Okay. We're going to open that.
Closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to two.
Okay. We're good to go. So we're going to open
that for voting.
Council Privil. The vote. Motion carries nine to six. Okay.
So now I need to make sure, cause that's a
different asm ed motion that you're still okay on the
azimed. I'm still okay to second it. Now we'll go
to debate on the main as a minute motion. I'll
look to speakers. Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. Yeah. Thank you.
I just wanted to say thank you to my colleagues
for supporting some of those amendments. Oh, sorry Councillor Stevenson.
I don't mean to cut you off. But Councillor Purple
was actually speaking, I think, to the guidelines when Jeff
D. Mary Lewis jumped up and said, I needed to
reconsider. So I don't want to let Council Privil make
his comments because I have him. Partially spoken there. My
apologies. Go ahead, Council. Okay. Thank you. So actually, uh,
I was the one who actually together with the Peter
Mary, Louis V, I changed my vote as well. Uh,
my concern was legal. Uh, but what I'm trying to
say is this. I do think that based on this,
we really need the agencies to have very strict safety
protocols. Very strict safety protocols because it is an issue
for me. It really honestly is just unfortunately or as
I said before, it's very difficult for them to stop
the individuals or let's put this way. It's impossible. And
I don't want Londoners to have a, to give them
a perception that actually they have a hundred percent tools
to stop them to enter. They don't. Should they try?
Absolutely. Should they steer them away? Yes. Absolutely. I really
ask and I don't know how I said it at
the committee meeting how our staff to really make sure
that a safety protocols are very strict, very tight. So,
so we minimize such incidents. Uh, the pre - maritalism,
when he mentioned the guidelines, and let's say drug -
free environment. I really took this only as low barrier.
Having said that, we do, we are missing again, we
are missing certain parts in our system. Why are we
missing it? Not of even know it that the organisations
agencies or our staff. We just don't have the funding
for it. And this is my issue that these we
should have the process of step up, step up, step
up, step up. Unfortunately, our steps are too high because
we are missing the ones in between. But I took
this as only low barrier. I really do think that
we should have for organisations, what was mentioned before, if
someone wants to go there and they don't want to
be in such environment that we should have certain guidelines
and funding associated with these premises. Again, going back to
it, again, comes to the money and comes to the
funding. I do think that when I look at our,
when I look at our system, it needs to be
improved. We need to have these individuals for each individual
at every stage. We do need to have the promises.
But as I said, I took this as low barrier.
If I look at how many people we have homeless,
we don't even have enough low barriers spots to accommodate
them. So again, and that's going back, I know that's
coming back to us again with the additional money that's
coming in September. I mentioned it last meeting as well.
But again, just like Maslow's, here are curve needs. If
you look at the bottom step, even though we consider
those minimal things, we need to have them. We need
to have the system retake it out. Our system breaks
down. So please do consider that. And I think that's
all I had. Thank you. Okay. Now I can go
to you Councillor Stevenson. Okay. Councillor Farra. Thank you. Um,
I guess I got some questions then just because we
have significantly changed the direction of the procurement policy. Uh,
for funding sources to the agencies, we're not the only
source of funding for agencies, correct? The agencies have their
own sources of funding. Go ahead. Through your worship, that's
correct. The agencies either can sell fund through donations or
other levels of government or private sector foundations. Yes. And
in some cases through you, in some cases, we're not
the primary source of funding when I say primary, I
mean like the majority funding source. Is that correct as
well? Go ahead.
Through your worship, for the emergency shelters, we are the
majority funder for the operators that are in the City
of London. That's correct. Thank you, through you. So follow
- up question. If the board of directors are making
these decisions, and as it was said previously by staff,
uh, some of the, um, the policies in this new
framework have already been implemented. By the shelters, specifically with
the item one, to remove the provision of, uh, legal
substances. Um, they have decided those directors and the management
there have decided to do it that way. And now
us as a primary source of funding for many of
the services or the agencies are now saying, um, you're
prohibited to do that. How does that reconcile between the
two? Councillor, that's not what was passed. It's not a
prohibition. It's just a removal of the language. The guidelines
would be silent on it. So people could boards could
make their own choices. I just want to be clear
on what that vote was. So, but our staff can
answer your question. But no prohibition. Okay. Let me just
reframe the question. With it being silent on that. And
like still, how does it reconcile between the two? Like
is it up to the agencies or is it up
to the service providers now. To make that decision on
their own accord and the funding, if it comes from
the city, it's still up to the provider, the shelter
to make that decision? Is that, that's, I guess, a
clarification question then.
Thank you, your worshiping through you. I think that remains
to be determined. Quite frankly. With this change in the
guidelines. We will go through and we will follow whatever
the Council recommendation is, is to remove, um, any of
those provisions, uh, it will probably create, uh, some questions
or confusions for shelter providers. And we'll have to, uh,
sort out what that looks like. Go ahead. Um, so
I don't, we don't know how this will translate in.
Like, what are we making a decision on here then.
Um, I thought we are giving direction. And now we
don't know how that direction is going to land. So
if it was up to the shelter service provider to
decide that is one direction. But if we are being
mute now on that provision and we don't know how
that's going to translate, I am confused on what the
decision is that we're going to be making here today
with this new framework. Go ahead. Thank you, your worship,
through you. It does create confusion. It's why we brought
it forward with language in there to reflect, um, that
it's an occurrence that they encounter frequently. Uh, we had
a delegation submission as part of the CAPS agenda that
spoke to the many iterations of this policy and, and
how having language in or out, uh, often created some
ambiguity, created challenges with upholding it, uh, with or without.
So, um, where we're at now is, is needing to
understand. I wouldn't be able to answer the question for
you, Councillor. You know, what are you going to do
if somebody shows up at a shelter and they have,
um, they use drugs or they have drugs on their
possession. What is every shelter stance on that? That is
to be determined now as we change course. Okay. Thank
you. Um, you know, with that, like we're not making
a decision here. We're making confusion and we're making confusion
on a serious crisis we have in the city. I
thought that we had a data driven evidence based report
that was very well done. It was specifically made and
meant to capture everybody to put them into the system
to be able to put them on pathways to housing
through stability to make sure that we meet everybody where
they're at low barrier because the ultimate goal is to
get people off of the street regardless. Of where they
stand right now, whether it's struggling with substance use, whether
it's being unsheltered because they can't afford it. We are
trying to create a pathway, a system that is able
to capture everybody because the ultimate goal is to get
people off the street. The report came back. It was
very clear, very well done too. And I made those
comments at committee. Now we are deviating from the data,
from that evidence. And now we're making a decision that's
going to create confusion. And this is not an area
where we need to be confused. If I'm confused because
of this direction, we don't even have a clear direction
of what this is now leading to from staff. There's
going to be confusion with the shelters. There's going to
be confusion on how this system is supposed to work.
There's going to be confusion amongst the city. And there
are once again, going to say, what are you guys
doing. So with this, like I can't support this at
this point because there's no decision here. It's a confusing.
It's, you know, there's nothing that's really being done here.
There's no changes. And if I can't get a direct
answer on how this is going to translate, this is
just going to lead to more spitting of the wheels.
Um, and I would like to have some decisive direction
here. So, so I guess I can't support it anymore.
Which is a shame. To the city manager. Thank you,
worship. And I certainly appreciate through you to the members
of Council. A decision bike elected officials to make an
amendment to something that's put on the floor. We don't
have an issue with that. The challenge though is that
we have a scenario where we actually need to consider
what this means. And I appreciate their questions about, can
we answer the questions? It requires us a little bit
of time to think about what this means. And that's
not because we don't want to answer the questions. We
just have to think about it from a standpoint of
what actually will we say to providers? What does it
mean for us in terms of delivery of essential services
in our community? So I think our intention is not
to try to be difficult and not answer the questions.
We need to think through this process and be able
to be sure when we give advice back to you
about the change, what that actually means. And so I
just wanted to be clear about that. It's not, it's
not our intention to be difficult. It's just about there's
this is now a change. Came on the floor today.
I just want to be clear about that. And thank
you for the time for that. Okay. Council Rahmen. Thank
you and through you. So I was supportive of the
language change because the way that I interpreted it was
that on page 41 of the shelter guideline where it
says emergency shelter operators will have a policy regarding alcohol
cannabis illegal substances and medications without a prescription. The policy
will include. And then it has a bullet and it
says to ensure the safety and security file residents emergency
shelter operators staff regarding alcohol cannabis or legal substance participants
are allowed to have it in the emergency shelter, but
not allowed to use it in the building that that
is where it becomes now silent. So that for me
was the reason why I could support it because as
we were entering and debate on this topic as we
were considering the amendment, we heard different scenarios where this
could be considered differently. The rest of the documents still
reads as it reads. It still reads as this is
a low barrier approach. It still reads as a guideline
that supports what we have continued to support here at
Council. So I think that this helps to address the
issue of whether or not, uh, we were allowing these
things in, but not allowed allowing people to use them
inside as well as, I think there will be interpretion
and discussion from shelter providers. We have a long procurement
process and timeline before this is in place. So I
do believe there is time for us to get further
clarity and go back and have further discussions. So that's
why it remains supportive. Uh, Councillor Hopkins and then McAllister.
Yeah. Thank you. And, um, appreciate, um, committee chair's comments,
but, uh, for me, we're a Council, we make a
decision here. I am not clear. Uh, based on city
managers comments about where we are and the confusion, I
need to make a, I have to make it this
decision here. And I'm not ready to do that. So,
uh, given the comments I've heard, I would like this
to go back to committee for better understanding as to
exactly what we have done here. Because I'm not clear.
I was a committee. We had the conversations at committee
where Harry Council and now you have changed the direction,
I think in a different way. So, um, I don't
think this is where we should be doing committee work
to start off with. But if we can refer this
back to get further clarification on these changes, I'm not
sure what else to do, maybe a vote. And then
if, depending on what happens with the vote, I'll ask
for a referral PAC. Just looking at process. So does
the referral start now. Yeah, you only get to speak
once. There's no other amendments. This is the, we're to
the main motion now. So I'd like to have this
referred back to committee. Okay. For what reason? For clarification
on what we're doing here. I have no idea. The
implications of what we've just decided. I don't think staff
are clear. And I'm not sure if the agencies are
clear.
Okay. So what the clerk heard you say was for
basically referral back four further consideration and clarification. Are you
good with that language? Uh. And I wonder. I wonder
if we need legal advice as well. I'm just very
concerned here, you worship. That doesn't need to be part
of a referral if staff feel we need legal advice.
They'll schedule it that way. If a councillor feels when
it comes back, they want that. They can ask to
go on a camera. Okay. Seconder for the referral Councillor
Trosa is willing to second. With legal avent, I would
like. With legal added, I would be happy to second
that.
You want to just add including any relevant legal advice.
Okay. Is that good for you Councillor Hopkins? Okay.
Okay. On the referral, I'll start a speaker's list. I
don't know if you want to start Councillor Hopkins, you
get speed once to the referral. It's up to you.
Yeah. Based on, uh, what I've heard from staff and
from my colleague and from my own understanding on exactly
what I am voting on here, I would like further
information. Uh, Councillor Farra. Thank you. Thank you for the
referral. I will support it. Even though I don't want
to referral. I want to put this to bed. This
has been going on and on and on. And I
wish that we could just come up with a decision
here and take a very well written report with a
lot of data. And the staff will answer your questions
too. If you reach out, if you're confused or if,
but they obviously can't answer this because this is a
significant change. We want to ask, will this cut people
off from supports, from pathways, the amendment that has been
approved. Will it ultimately lead to more people on the
street. Will it ultimately. Avoid or I guess remove our
direction of what we're doing? Like ultimately we want to
be capturing as many people. So I think some of
the questions that you don't have to answer now, but
I would like to see in the Report Back, are
those, are those. Like will this, is this a significant
deviation. From the framework. Will it mean less people are
captured within the system for support? Will it mean less
people are put on those supportive pathways with stability workers
or housing? Will it mean more people on the street?
Those are the kind of things that I would like
to see with the change that we saw here today.
So I don't want to have, I know you can't
give me an answer, but that's ultimately why I'm going
to be supporting this referral, which I will be. And
like I said, I'd like to decide on this now.
This is, this has been going on way too long.
I want to see some decisive decisions here, but the
direction that we have seemed to be going, um, if
it's going to have to be referral, it's going to
have to be a referral. So I'm going to support
it. And I think we should also put it because
those questions need to be answered.
On the referral. Dr. Mary Lewis, then Councillor McAllister. Thank
you, Chair. Uh, so I'm not going to be supporting
the referral. I don't think this is confusing at all.
We've reverted back essentially to the policy being silent and
allowing the operators to decide for themselves what their policy
is going to be around possession. It's very simple. And
they can do that. They can provide the individual shelter
providers can provide Mr. Dickens their own policy, which can
be posted on the website along with the emergency guidelines.
It's not hard. And I think to, to make statements
about what this is going to mean for more people
on the streets turned away from services, et cetera. I
think it's highly speculative at that point. I think we've
heard from the shelter providers we have active right now
that they're prepared. To move ahead. With the policy of
allowing possession as long as the active use. They're not
saying that they're going to pull out. Uh, because it's
going to be up to them. So I think it's
really highly speculative to say that's going to cut people
off. It's just simply going to be up to the
shelter providers. And if someone chooses to come forward through
the process and offer a space that is possession free,
then that will be their choice. I'm not sure that
we have anybody who's interested in doing that right at
this moment. But we did hear from the delegates that
they were comfortable with the policy. They can pursue that
policy. Nothing we have done today prohibits. It simply removes
the permissive language. And says nothing and leaves it up
to the shelter providers. So I think we need to
step back from the speculative. And it's not that confusing
folks. It's very, to me, it's very straightforward. We will
leave it up to the individual to providers to establish
their own policy around drug possession in their spaces. Otherwise,
the rest of the guidelines are in place. Nothing has
changed. So, uh, I encourage colleagues to not support the
referral. Let's get this passed and move on. Council McAllister.
Uh, thank you and through the mayor. I have a
different take, I think. And I just said, uh, I
mean, for me, this whole discussion was going from a
place of, um, ambiguity to some clarity. Uh, and even
the answers that were provided today, uh, I thought we
were moving to a space where the emergency shelters had
the guidelines. I understand in terms of the drug use
that it's being problematic across the board, uh, and we
could have other streams. It was never precluding. And we
heard that a number of times today was not precluding
other types of supports. Uh, and I would have been
fine in terms of if other people wanted to be
designated a certain way, that was fine. And we could
have developed guidelines that way. I think what this is
doing, it's muddying the waters. And we're returning to a
place of ambiguity. And I think Councillor Farr said this
earlier, but to me, it just, I think you just
revert back to 2011. I think it's a lack of
an acknowledgement of what we're experiencing currently on the streets.
Um, I understand the concerns, but I honestly think it
just poses the question back to the public. Where do
we want people who are suffering with addiction to go?
And I think it's not going to resolve in what,
uh, people want, unfortunately. I think you're still going to
see them on the street. And the mayor spoke to
this. And I know we've all kind of wrestled today
with, you know, where we go with this. But one
of the things I want to make clear on this
vote is I think we all care about this issue.
We're all struggling with it. But I don't like how
it has been used for political posturing purposes. We're not
debating the war on drugs here. This is not a
pro and anti drug vote. This is more us trying
to have guidelines that allow opers to work in a
difficult space with people who are struggling with addiction, which
is a very challenging space in itself. And I think
we can all acknowledge we don't have a lot of
access points right now. And so we have all also
witnessed the capacity issues with the shelter. We want people
to be able to come to a shelter, uh, and
this again, I think it just returns us to a
place of ambiguity. I am supportive of the referral just
because I would like a report back for staff to
now see what this might do to the system that
we were trying to, um, help in terms of offering
that clarity. So I think it just puts us back
to a grey area. And I need further understanding in
terms of what that grey area looks like and how
the people who are actually working in that space will
operate. Um, and so again, I appreciate the discussion. I
know we're kind of on different sides of this. I
think we're all grappling with it. But, uh, I'm saying
it now because I just know the way this is
interpreted in the public and I'm really tired of this
war on drugs thing coming up where that's not what
we're debating. I think we're debating where people can get
help and where they can seek shelter. And the guidelines
for that in terms of, um, allowing them a place
to go, even if they're struggling with addiction. I think
that was an important thing we needed to talk about,
but this is not a debate about drugs. It's a,
it's debate about the shelter space and the guidelines, which
would have allowed people to come in inside regardless of
what they're experiencing. So I'm going to leave it there,
but I'm supportive of the referral. Councillor Tro Sam.
Thank you through you. Does this shift in our decision?
And this is directed to the solicitor. Um, does this
shift in decision create any legal challenges for us in
terms of human rights legislation?
Go ahead. Thank you. And through your worship all say
publicly about that is that we know that addiction is
a protected human rights ground. And so a person cannot
be denied entry on that basis subject to a potential
human rights complaint. And I presume through you, um, that
means we'll be getting more information about this presumably in
a closed session at a subsequent point. And you can't
answer that now. Go ahead.
Thank you, Andrew, your worship. Um, additional information could be
provided as part of the referral. Okay. I won't go
through each grounds of legal objection that I could see
arising here and ask you individually. I'll just assume that
we'll get a thorough report. What bothers me so much
about this. Is we were just on the verge. Of
being able to have some, a victory. In terms of
clarity. Certainty. And at least, at least the road that
is legally, in my view, sustainable, but also ethically and
practically sustainable from the point of view of administration. I
believe that we have, um. Well, I won't say that
that way, but I will say that what's important to
me here is that we distinguish between stealth, person's status.
Which can be very broadly construed. To include things that
they're in possession of and things that they often, often
have on their person. Or on their body. But we're,
we're making a distinction here now between status and conduct.
And what I thought was so, um, beautiful. What I
thought was so brilliant. What I thought was so sustainable.
Was the way staff persistently told us. People can be
deported. People can be removed from the premises. But it's
based on, it's going to be based on behaviour. Not
going to be based on what we think they're going
to do. With something that they persistently. Have on their
person. Which is part of their. Underlying problem that we're
trying to cure. We're going to be pushing people away.
Who are in the most need of the kind of
help that we were just on the verge. Of being
able to enact. And I believe that like once again,
we backtrack. Once again, we are, we are standing on
the door, doorstep. Of coherence. And what do we do.
We worry. We worry. And we're allowing posturing. And political
considerations to affect our judgment here. And that is not
something that is acceptable. I find it reprehensible. That we're
doing this. So I look forward to getting a further
staff report. And I also think that, um, this backtracking
that we're doing here today is going to have some
implications in terms of a lot of other people who
have a lot of knowledge about drug policy. To come
forth. And I hope we get some good advice. Because
we were so close, so close. And here we are
again. Okay. We'll get another staff report. I will be
supporting. I will be supporting this referral, of course. And
should the referral fail. Sadly. Because most of what's in
the report is good. Sadly, I'll have to be voting
though. On the main motion. Cause I can't, I can't
support this. I cannot, in good conscience, as a councillor
who is not only bound to represent the interests of
people in our community, but also the interests of the
corporation. Which I think is going to be, in my
opinion, just my opinion, severely. Compromise. By this move. Plus
I think all of the goodwill. But run that is
built up. Through the outstanding staff work. Over this Council
term. This is what people are going to remember. That
we were on the doorstep of doing something important. But
we made a last minute change on a reconsideration. Vote.
This is not acceptable. And that's why I'll be voting
no. And I'll be urging everyone else voting voting now
on the, uh, on the matter. But please, please, please
vote yes on this referral because we need some more
information in front of us now because this, this seems
to be people are of various minds here. So I
think my time is up. And, uh, I appreciate your
indulgence, but I'm very, very disturbed about the, uh, the
turn that this is taken. Thank you. Um, other speakers.
Okay. Seeing that we're on the referral, um, this Councillor
Hopkins referral. So we'll open that for voting.
Closing the vote. Motion fails. Seven to eight. Okay. So
that puts us back on the main motion.
Okay. I think Council McDowell Straw was next on the
list. I think. Cause. We're back to the main motion.
And I don't know if you remember, but you were
on a list. You don't have to be on it
now if you don't want, but you were on it
if you want to speak now. If someone else wants
to speak, they can go first. Cause I got like
my train of thought again. Just so people know
Councillor's pribble, Ferreira, Ramen and Hopkins have spoken on the
main motion. So I'll start a speaker some. Ken. Sorry
for our Councillor. What. No, you can't. You spoke already.
He spoke before the referral. Okay. So speakers who haven't
spoken yet to the. Azimated motion. Go ahead, Councillor McAllister.
Thank you through the mayor. Yeah. Just some clothing thoughts
for me on this. Yeah. To the point I made
in terms of supporting the referral. I just think this
puts us back in a place that's more of a
grey area. I think it defeats the purpose in terms
of updating the guidelines. Um, I'll be voting no just
because at this point, I don't see, I think it
takes away from what we were trying to achieve. And
at this point reverting to what we had, it's pretty
much the same as what we'll go with. Either way,
I think you go to 2011 or 2026. We're now
just existing in the grey area. And I think, uh,
it doesn't really offer the clarity that we were looking
to see by doing this exercise in the first place.
So, uh, as it stands, uh, I won't be supporting
it. I think, um. It just doesn't do what we,
uh, wanted to, uh, in terms of, uh, offering those
avenues and those pathways for support that we were looking
to provide. So I'll be voting no on it.
Okay. I'll turn the chair to Depomer Lewis. I only
have myself on the list. I'll take the chair. Please
go ahead, Mayor Morgan. So I just want to say
a few words. First off, I think the colleagues who
are projecting a whole lot on to, uh, the one
change that we made. The existing shelters are operating as
the contemplated guidelines were operating. Removing references from the guideline.
Does not change the way that the shelter operators can
operate today. They can operate as they're operating. They can
make decisions of their boards. They can integrate with other
programs. Um, we have not changed or impacted fundamentally the
way that they can operate today. So I just want
to be clear because a lot of people are saying
that. I would also remind people that everybody has to
follow the human rights code. I know there's going to
be questions about that. But being silent on something doesn't
preclude you from having to follow the rules of the
provincial and federal governments and the human rights commission. So
if there are things to apply to the operation of
emergency shelters or shelters or any aspect of the work
we do as a corporation, those are still going to
apply. Uh, you know, our staff could have given us
legal advice on that, but it's very clear. We have
to follow the rules of the land. Everybody swore that
when they took their oath of office, this is something
we have to uphold. So there's nothing that we're making
a decision on by being silent on something that precludes
us. From our obligations to follow any human rights provisions
in the provision of services that we provide at the
cortion or in the contracts that we provide to people
or their board's obligations to follow the rules and the
laws that they have. So, um, I think colleagues should
support the guidelines. I think there are a number of
good things in there. Uh, I don't think you should
move towards, um, removing all of the other changes because
you're unhappy that we're being silenced on one provision where
in my opinion, it's not going to fundamentally change in
any sort of way the way that the shelters are
operating today. And we should proceed and should clarity be
required in the future again, uh, which I don't think
it will be. That's a change that can be made.
Down the road by a subsequent Council in the future,
but the work that our staff have done on all
the other aspects of the guidelines. I would hate to
see staff throw it out. I would also remind colleagues
that if you vote no on the motion, you're voting
no to like just all of the pieces of implementing
and directing all the other aspects of the guidelines that
were updated. So I would say pass this, it may
be silent on a part that you wanted to speak
to, but being silent on that part doesn't preclude an
operator from continuing to operate that way.
You can give me back the chair if you want.
I'm debating whether or not to do that, but. Then
go ahead and share the meeting. Looking for any other
speakers. I see Councillor Ploso on the list. I'll return
the chair to Mayor Morgan recognising Councillor Pelosa. Okay. Go
ahead, Councillor. Thank you. Uh, not rising to move adjournment,
but, uh, it's quite the discussion tonight. I appreciate the
work stuff done. Uh, the long conversation to get here.
And the concerns, colleagues are raising about if we're silent
on something. And if we do something, is it going
back to this version, a prior version where are we
landing? That's why I support the referrals. So we could
have got some feedback from operators if they were saying
what they wanted to do. Uh, for me. We always
say we don't think someone's going to come back and
then it comes back. Maybe not this council, but a
future council. Like sometimes therations. Sometimes it's just the timing.
Um. I was interested in a transparency of clarity. Of
if those wordings are in there. The public knew what
we're going for. Service providers knew what we're going for.
People trying to seek help new clarity should they search
it of what we were going for. I learnt my.
I learned from prior councils when they thought removing something.
It would just default to what the powers were out
there. People can decide. I hate to use the words
reptilia. It gets Paul too excited. Um, but that was
it. A Council removed words. Some it became silent on
it. And it reverted back to something that was provincially
mandated. That Council, I believe, hadn't attended when they made
that small change. It ended up being a really big
change. And that was my fear with this, that if
we're silent, what are we actually reverting back to and
what will actually fill the space in the void of
us actually being very clear in our intentions. Thank you.
Okay. Councillor Troso, you can speak to the main.
I hope I don't sound like a broken record here.
But I need to repeat something. I said before. And
that is, um, I have some very serious legal concerns
through the chair. I have some very legal, serious legal
concerns about where we're going. And it was very happy
to, um, have this come up later in a staff
report. But I must ask the question again in light
of the referrals being defeated. Um, to the, to the
solicitor. Do we run some any appreciable risk here. Of
charter challenges. Uh, of human rights code violations and other
potential legal issues that, that could, um, plague this Council.
And I really do not like putting you on the
spot like this, which is why I thought the referral
was appropriate, but I have no choice right now to
ask you that question. Go ahead. Uh, thank you. In
addition to my earlier comments, any commentary on risk would
have to occur in camera. I move that we adjourn.
To go into camera for the purpose of getting legal
advice. On the issues I had raised as just responded
to by the city solicitor. I think we have to
do that now. And I so move that we go
into camera. Um, and I hope I get a second
and I hope, I hope at the very least. You'll
support this. And, um, we can get the best information
that we can because we're not, we're not operating on
good up information now. And this is a very perilous
direction we're going in. Okay. So.
Okay. So that's a motion to go into camera to
receive advice on the matter before us. There's some language
that we have kind of always ready for that. Just
need a seconder for that. Councillor Hopkins willing to second.
So going into camera's move to second and any discussion.
Yeah. Councillor Ramen and then Deputy Mary Lewis. Uh, thank
you. I'm just looking for clarity on what are we
going in camera for. I'm happy to lay it out
in greater detail if you want me to. Speed. The
reason because. This is. What everybody
understands what it is. Okay. Uh, Council convenes in closed
session for the purpose of considering the following. A matter
of the subject is solicitor client privilege, including communications necessary
for that purpose. With respect to the staff report dated
August 10th, 2026 related to the housing stability procurement and
delivery framework emergency shelter guidelines, 2011 versus 2026. Comparative analysis
and the proposed emergency shelter guidelines. So all those pieces.
There's the staff report. And the proposed guidelines. That's good.
And that would cover all of the. So Council, you
don't have the four. Council Rahman was asking a question
and I'm just clarifying. Uh, thank you, three. So, um,
we're getting legal advice on components of which we're not
even debating technically at this point. The 2011 and the
2026 comparative analysis piece. We've received. We've already went past
that in this part of the discussion. So I'm not
sure what we're going in camping. So. This listener was
given a heads up that there might be a quest
to go into camera. Uh, I think some broad -
based parameters assist the solicitor in being able to bring
up anything that, uh, she, or they may need in
the discussion. I can't really comment on the rest of
the language. But that's the title of the item that
is before us. And so it's basically what we're talking
about now. But I would just go and buy the
language that clerks develop for this based on their conversation.
Okay. Thank you. I'm still unclear as to the question
as to why we're going to camera. So I won't
be part of. The. Mayor, Lewis. Well, I'll say I
won't be supporting it either. I think I've heard clearly
what I need to hear. However, um, as a point
of order, it's a good thing. There's no SPPC report
because we still have ICSE to go and it is
20 minutes to six. And while I won't be supporting
it, I would suggest that your worship may want to
call for an extension past 6 p. m. before moving
in camera.
Yeah. So, um, can be made in camera to go
past 6. But I think it's more transparent to do
it now. So we'll just do it now. Um, so
you want to, I need someone to move. Councillor Stevenson
Moose. Councillor Hopkins second. We're going to open that for
voting.
Closing the vote, motion carries 11 to 4.
Okay. Now we're on the close session. Piece. Any other
discussion. Okay. We're going to vote on the motion to
go into closed session.
Closing the vote. Motion carries 9 to 6. Okay. We'll
move to Committee Room 5.
Okay, please be seated.
Okay, we're back in public session. Councillor Trosow has to
go on camera. We went in camera. Councillor Trosow, he
had the floor. I don't know if you have any
final comments. Before, but you hold the floor now, now
that we've come back from main camera. Yes, how much
time do I have. I honestly have no idea. And
I was, so let's call it three. And I'm sorry
for that, but the timer got cleared when we timed
camera. I'll be brief. Okay. So. I thought that the
questions that I was raising were legitimate questions. I'm not
gonna talk about what went on in closed sessions, because
I can't do that. But I will say I'm not
walking out of here tonight. Feeling good about the process
or our prospects. And I'm still very worried about this.
I think that the excellent work that was done by
the step, and I went. I wanna look.
I really want addressed, I went to look senior staff
in the face and address this right now. The work
that was done by the staff on directly to staff,
speaking through the chair, and you can make comments on
the debate. Okay, so I just wanna let the senior
staff, now when everybody that worked on this file, that
in my view, this was excellent staff work. It was
very difficult, staff work. And you took on some very
difficult questions that were known to be controversial. And we
made a significant, and I think it's a significant departure.
From the staff recommendation. I don't think this was a
minor change. I've heard it said that this was just
a minor change from the staff report. This is a
fundamental shift in direction that I think raises a whole
panel of issues that are gonna need to be addressed.
And if they're not addressed to discouncil table, they will
be addressed. Elsewhere. Now, in closing, I just want to
say that it is not my intention. To help people
smuggle drugs or use drugs or get drugs into these
facilities. My intention here is to assist as many people
as possible to get the type of treatment and support
and help that they need. And we have to be
the situation from the lens of the clientele who will
be using this service. And I worry sometimes that we're
looking at it from more of an administrative lens. We
have to look at this from the point of view
of people who are not gonna come into these facilities.
30 seconds. They're scared. And I think that that is
going to have an appreciable effect. On the effectiveness of
this program. And again, it's too bad, as I said
before than too bad, it's tragic. What I said before,
my closing thought, heroic, and very, very valuable, not just
for London, but for the other communities watching. And it's,
I think it's very unfortunate that we chose not to
do that. And I hope that at some point this
or the next Council will reconsiderate. Thank you, Colin. This
direction. Thank you. Other speakers.
Okay, there's been a request to separate one part for
the final vote, and that's part. B, which is the
directly implementation. That's the only part I've been asked to
have addressed separately. So. Okay, so we'll do that first,
and then we'll do all the other pieces. Okay, so
we'll open B for voting.
Closing the vote motion carries nine to four. Okay, and
all the other clauses. Will open that for voting.
Councillor Traso. Of president, I vote yes on receiving the
report. Do we have your microphone councillor, Triso. Noted, closing
the vote, motion carries 11 to 2. That concludes my
report. Thank you for your report. All right, we're on
to infrastructure and corporate services committee. It's a four item
report. I will turn it over to the chair to
present that. So four iron reports. Whereas half bean pulled,
so, sorry, but, uh, we, uh, this is 13th report
of infrastructure and corporate services committee. Um, and I've had
requests for item two and four to be pulled. So
I will look to move one and three unless there
are other pull requests. So looking for those four. I'll
give you one's disclosures. I think we could just do
one in three together. Even if people wanted debate it.
Um, I guess if you want to amend three, it
has to be separate. Does anybody want to men three.
No, okay, then you can put one in three on
the floor. Okay, I'll put one in three on the
floor. Okay, that's on the floor, any discussion. All right,
we're going to open that promoting.
Closing the vote, motion carries 13 to zero. Go ahead,
Councillor. Okay, I will put item two on the floor.
This is the school crossing guard program Councillor Trosso has
an amendment. He'd like to repord. That's on the floor.
Councillor Trosso. Go ahead. Um, thank you. Thank you very
much. And through you, I submitted a slight amendment. Which
I hope will be, um, less difficult as the less
one, uh, but I, what, what I'm looking for here
is the addition of the words, um, and other information.
No. Including accidents reported near accidents and other information reported
from school principals, teachers, staff, students, and adjoining residents. And
that's the motion and I'll wait to see if there's
a second before I talk about why I think that's
a good addition. I'll second it for you. So go
ahead. Thank you. I'll go, I'll go right into it
then. Um. This staff report really, I got into some
very interesting questions about the feedback from principles. And the
thing about the feedback from principles was they didn't, they
didn't go into a lot of detail. Um, counting the
responses from principles, but it was going at a particular
direction. And that was there were a lot of concerns
about the safety around the schools. And of course, that's,
that's not much of a surprise. Now, um, the reason
I'm doing this amendment is I don't want this to
just be, um, accounting exercise. In terms of doing the
traffic study and counting cars. I want to make sure
that this, that this, uh, that this exercise takes into
account also the qualitative aspect of what the principles, the
students, the staff, and, uh, the crossing guards themselves and
the, um, adjacent residents have, have to say about this.
And I think that'll just make it a more complete,
better report to continue along the lines of doing the,
uh, exposure index, um, analysis. So I think this is
a very, very small, small - es - and. And
we've seen this question come up quite a bit with
respect to, um, some of the requests that we've had
in neighbourhoods for either additional crossing guards or for additional
traffic mitigation. Measures, we just went through a very, very
fullsome exercise in Old North. Where we looked at, yes,
we looked at the data. We looked at the numbers,
but we also looked at a lot of qualitative feedback
from the residents. And I think that that was a
benefit. To the staff. So I hope that I'm not,
um, indicating the staff that I don't think their work
was good. I think it was fine. I just think
by making it explicit that we're going to also look
at this qualitative data, I think we'll have a more
fulsome report. In the end, and I'm hoping that the,
uh, I know the traffic department is quite capable of
doing that. And, um, I hope that this, this, um,
this minor amendment, uh, pass this. So thank you very
much. Okay. Any discussion on the amendment. Okay.
See none. We'll open that for voting.
Closing the vote. Motion carries 12 to one. And, um,
Councillor Chair, are you willing to move the as a
mented motion. Yes on there. Okay. Councillor Trosa, your second.
Deal. Second it. Yes. Okay. Um, and a discussion on
the as amended motion. Caseeing none, we will open that
for voting. Cousin Vowel Motion carries 13 to zero.
Councillor McAllister. Thank you. And I will put item four
on the floor. This is the amendment to the Council
Procedure By - Law of the Striking Committee and Councillor
Farrer had an amendment for this one. Okay. That's on
the floor. Council Ferrari. Thank you Mayor. I circulated a
referral on this one. I did circulate it, but if
you want me to read it out, I can. Yes,
please. All right. I just have to find it. I'll
have it in front of me. Can the clerks put
that on eScribe so I can read that. All right,
here it is. Oh, wait. That's not it. If you're
a frash, it's sir. Okay. So, uh, moving to refer,
uh, in the referral is that the staff report dated
August 12th, 2026 related to amending the Council procedure bylaw
A61 by removing the requirement for the appointment of a
striking committee for initial citizen appointments to boards and commissions
following a municipal election be referred to the next meeting
of the infrastructure and corporate services committee for further consideration.
Is there a seconder for that? Councillor Troso. Okay, on
the. All right. Well, the reason I move in this
referral is because, um, I have some obviously some issues
with it. Like I do appreciate that independent community based
layer, um, that goes over all the ABC appointments. And
I would say that this Council and Past Councils have
seen some issues coming up with some of the ABC
appointments. And I feel like if we were to have
that extra striking committee, um, going over everything, bringing recommendations,
that would ensure that we have the knowledge, the experience,
um, and the expertise, uh, for the overall skills, uh,
needed. Because otherwise, and I do understand that the SPPC
will be the ultimate decider. But to have those recommendations
come through, if we didn't have that, then otherwise, um,
you would have, you wouldn't really have the qualifications really,
uh, be focused on for the composition. It would be
really kind of attuned to the Council of Preferences. And
I'm trying to depoliticize this as much as we can.
Because in the end, our ABCs are supposed to be
providing that greater benefit, that greater good and that smooth
operation for whatever the ABC is. So this is really
kind of something that I think that we should really
have, um, here we should have that extra level of
insight. It will help us make our decisions. And it
will help us really understand of, you know, after that
review from a striking committee that, you know, that citizen
layer, that community layer of, um, just giving us kind
of that recommendation to show that, you know, this, this
candidate has, you know, these qualifications, this candidate has these
qualifications. Otherwise, it's just going to be a matter of,
of Councillor preference when it comes to that. And I
would say, you know, I do understand that Council should
retain the appointment, but we should at least have that
extra guiding, um, factor. Because we have seen, um, in
this term, you know, some issues that could come up.
And I feel like we need to be able to
use as much resources as possible that will help us
make those considerations. Because I don't want to have this
overly political. I would say that, um, I understand that
there were some issues with the striking committees and the
compositions of maybe some members not being able to show
up or having issues with quorum. But I think taking
a sledgehammer approach and just removing the striking committee altogether
is not the prudent approach. If we have some issues,
we should look into how we can recompose or how
we would set the striking committee, um, amount of members
that comes through. But I don't think just removing it
all together is the right answer. Because in the end,
you know, like you've heard this term before, but the
definition of insanity is doing the same thing again and
again and again. And I feel like we see some
of the issues that have arisen and now we're taking
away that insurance mechanism that could help us not repeat
some of the same issues we saw, um, in the
past. So I think it would be a wise choice
to refer this and not remove this striking committee. So
I would like to have some details back from staff
on how we could recompose or we could mitigate some
of the issues we saw in this last Council's striking
committee that was brought to me by the clerks rather
than just remove it entirely. Go ahead to the clerk.
Thank you, your worship. Uh, just before I begin my
substantive answer, I just want to flag that even if
a referral is supported given the timeline in order to
provide Council the full option. We would likely advertise and,
uh, seek members to comprise the striking committee given the
timelines. The reason we would do that is to provide
that option should Council choose to disband the striking committee
than we would advise the members that had put their
names forward. I just wanted to flag that if you
do see, uh, outreach from the clerk's department. It's not
going contrary to whatever is decided here. It's simply to
ensure that you have that option before you. Uh, the
other part I just wanted to mention is, uh, quite
rightly the Councillor has indicated some issues that were experienced
at the start of the term, um, there was only
one citizen at large applied for five positions. And then
resigned just prior to the meeting. So we had no,
uh, citizens at large. These standard advertisement, recruitment approach, which
is very broad, was undertaken by the city clerk's office.
Certainly, uh, we would endeavour to make it as broad
as possible. Uh, as we always do, um, there is
no guarantee that we would get that engagement from members
of the public. We also had some regrets from, uh,
other striking member composition. Um, and those are the kind
of the standing organisations. Uh, we would endeavour to encourage
particition should Council go in that direction. But that said,
uh, given the timing, uh, the appointments to the striking
committee pursuant to the existing Council procedure bylaw would need
to be done no later than they last regular Council
meeting of this term. So I just wanted a flag
a few of those issues. Thank you. Okay, just some
clarification questions from the clerk's comments on, not just to
make sure I understand this correctly. Um, so if Council
were to approve this referral from what the clerk is
telling me, considering the timelines you would still proceed with
the current mechanism of the striking committee. Because you don't
have sufficient time to make that, um, that report back.
However, in time, this would be, I guess, for the
next Council term, you would be able to look into
the composition. We'd have a report back. Is that just
to clarify the first part.
Okay. So what the clerk said was. If we referred
it, we will have not made a decision. To keep
all the options on the table. The clerk would be
required to advertise for the striking committee. Uh, through the
referral Council decided to keep the striking committee. There would
not be sufficient time to advertise at that point on.
So they would be preemptive in that if they decided
not to, we'd be telling the people who applied actually
where we've decided not to proceed. So the reason why
the clerk said that is didn't want Councillors to think
that they were proceeding in the absence of a Council
decision. Um, given the, if the referral passed, um, but,
but wanted to reserve Council's right to populate that committee.
Thank you. That fits my understanding then. Um, and I
would also say if we did proceed to do this
referral, we could learn, I guess, from another round of
the striking committee. Um, so I like that. I understand
that. I think that's fine. But I'd also, I guess
follow up with if we were to not proceed with
the referral and vote it down and vote with the
recommendation from committee, there would be no striking committee, um,
appointments being sought after. And we wouldn't see anything like
that. We'd be following the committee's recommendation, which would be
to not proceed with a striking committee. Okay. Thank you
for that. Okay. Councillor Frank on the referral. Thank you.
And I'll be quick. Um, I won't be supporting the
referral. I sat on the Strang Committee in 2019 and
Council ignored about 80 percent of our recommendations and it
kind of felt like a waste of time. Um, my
time, the Clark's time, other members on the string committee.
And that's fine because Council at the end of the
day chooses who they put on all these committees. I
think we saw the same thing happen most recently. And
I think that Council will ultimately end up choosing who
they want to put on the various ABCs. Um, and
of course I think we all are able, all council
members are able to go and ask for advice and
input from experts and from nonprofits in the community on
who they think should be sitting on and serving on
our ABCs. But, um, I, from personal experience, did not
find the striking committee to be a good use of
time. Any other speakers on the referral? Uh, Deputy R.
Lewis. Yes, I agree with Councillor Frank. I don't think
the Striking Committee is a good use of time. I
won't be supporting the referral. Uh, the timing from, as
we've heard from the clerk, is really short now anyway.
Uh, we need to make a decision tonight. Um, I
will say in two terms, the input from the striking
committee with no offence to Councillor Frank was not something
that is Councillor. I really considered. The Councillors are the
ones elected to make the decisions. And the Councillors need
to be free to speak to or not speak to
whomever they want to seek advice from. Um, the striking
committee does not bear any more weight for me than
the input from anyone else in the entire community. Including
colleagues around this horseshoe who might know somebody on the
striking or on the, um, resumes that come in who
they might say, Hey, that's a really good person. And
they, they come and speak to it when we're making
those appointments. And I appreciate that feedback from Councillors, uh,
because it does help. Um, I think it's a frankly,
in my opinion, not a good use of the clerks
time. Uh, to have, uh, submit all of the, uh,
advertising, get that out there, review the appointments if there
are, even any, uh, as we've heard, we didn't attract
anyone last time. Uh, then circulate all the resumes to
those committee members. Be there to assist with meeting oversight,
uh, and then put all of that information into a
package for the new Council that, as Councillor Frank has
indicated, many councillors, um, didn't follow when she was on
the Striking Committee. Certainly hasn't had an impact on my
decision. Uh, this to me is just. Not a value
to it. I'm prepared to say, uh, it is gone.
The decision does rest with Council. The Councillors are the
one who are elected to make decisions, um, and you
can consult whoever you want, but we don't need to
have a formal committee to do that. Any other speakers.
Councillor Tross Sa. Thank you. Thank you very much. May
I ask the clerk to the chair? Not an exact
number, but rough estimate. And I'm not talking about, um,
advisory committees. I'm just talking about the boards and commissions.
Approximately how many applications, um, approximately. Came in for review
during the period at the beginning of the last council.
Roughly. The answer is that was four years ago. We'd
be totally ballparking in. So sorry. Um, I guess it
doesn't help, but I think it was about this much.
In terms of the thickness of the packet, but it
was, it was a lot, but, um, maybe she's. Okay,
let me move on to the next question. And what
is the time period that Councillors, that the SPPC members
will have from the time that they received the packet
to the day of the SPPC edition. I wouldn't have
the clerk cancer that. So through your worship, we did
delay some of the appointments. And certainly, uh, SPPC can
refer certain appointments. Should it choose? There are some timelines
with some of the ABCs that they may find critical.
Uh, the turnaround time would be the typical turnaround time
for, uh, agendas, uh, so you would receive it. And
you would, uh, you would have it on the agenda.
And, uh, that, that's the amount of time that you
would have. That said, SPPC can refer matters. They can
make some appointments, refers some other appointments. For example, say
some positions only have a handful of applicants. Some positions
may have, uh, the number of applicants that are required
to fill that position and that's it. Some may have
a lot. So I'll just end it there. So, um,
if I, if I may, um, add to that typically,
tell me if I'm wrong, typically we'll get the packet
Thursday, maybe Wednesday. Uh, and it would be typically a
Tuesday meeting. Is that correct? But that's correct. Okay. Um,
so my, my feeling about this is, um, and that
would take place at the first SPPC meeting. No, I
can answer that. Um, we passed a motion to delay
a number of the citizens appointments by extending their terms
into, I can't remember the date, but it would certainly
not be the first SVVC. It would be into the
new year. Okay. That's good to know. So my feeling
is we should keep the striking committees. And the reason
why I think we should keep the striking committees is
I think that we need to do more to talk
to our residents about civic participation. Because I think civic
participation is at an overall low right now. It's, it's,
it's reflected in what was said about the committee's last
time. And it's also reflected in the voter turnout. Last
time. Um, it's reflected by a lot of things. And
I think just to say that, well, we're going to
make the decisions anyway. So let's not have the striking
committee. It's, it's a little analogous to saying we're going
to make the decisions anyway. So maybe we don't need
so many, um, citizen advisory committees. And I'm not talking
about advisory committees, but I think it's the same thinking.
It's the same kind of thinking. We need to engage
the public much better than we do right now. And
I think that like eliminating the striking committees is going
to be sending the wrong signal. To our, our, our
residents at a critical, at a critical time. So I
would strongly urge, just encouraging you on the referral, right?
Right now we're referring it. So, um, well, and without
the referral, we're just not going to have it. Yeah,
I can come back and explain why I would vote
no on the, on the motion. But the referral will
at least give us the chance to look this over
again. And the good reasons why. We should have these
striking committees. And at the, at the meeting to which
this is referred, people would be able to address that
in better detail than we can. At this late hour.
Thank you. Any other speakers to this. Okay. We're voting
on the referral. And we'll open that for voting.
The vote. Motion fails three to 10. And on the
committee recommendation, any other speakers. Out. Well, once again, I'm
sorry to say that since the referral lust, um, I
sadly, I'm not going to be able to support this
committee recommendation. Because basically the committee recommendation is saying, let's
not worry about getting more citizen impact feedback into this.
Let's just go ahead and do it ourselves. We'll have
the weekend. We'll have the weekend. That's a FIC packet.
I'm sorry we don't have the exact number of people.
People apply to the library board. I mean, I mean,
people want to be on the, a number of these
boards. It's very important. And I think that by, um,
by just sort of pushing this through, uh, and there's
only so much spoutiny, uh, even the most diligent SPPC
member can devote to this, to this file over the
weekend, I presume that that's, that's not going to be
the only thing in the SPPC pack at that early
in the term. So I think we're sending a very
negative signal. At a time when we really need to
be increasing civic particition. And not only do we need
to be increasing civic participation. We need to look back
and understand why these instances of civic participation failed in
the past. And rather than to say. They failed in
the past wasn't a good use of my time, uh,
let's just not do it. I think we need to
critically accept what was the dynamic that led people to
think this wasn't something they wanted to do. So I
very much, I'm very keen to go ahead and try
to recruit people for these striking committees. We used to
have them, uh, we used to have a good, we
have, we used to have a big, uh, sort of
cross section of different groups. I remember we had, we
had the Chamber of Commerce. We had the labour council.
We had a variety. We had a variety of groups.
And it was, it was very useful. And I think
we're giving up something very important. If we just push
this, uh, throughout regard to how this is going to
view how the public. Have the public is going to
view, um, cutting out of one of the few opportunities
they have to engage in this meaningful decision making. So
please vote no on this. Thank you. Okay. Any other
speakers. All right. We're going to open that for voting.
Councillor Hillier, Council of Traso. Oh, there it goes.
Thank you closing a vote. Motion carries 10 to three.
That's recount my report. Okay. Thank you. Um, added reports.
I just handed you the added report from the closed
session. Um, you'd be happy with this one. Usually you
read a long time last time. So I'll let you
do this one though. Uh, thank you. Yes. This is
the 13th report of Council and Closed session. I think
this is the shortest one I ever got. So thank
you for that. That progress is made with respect to
items 4. 1 and 4. 2 as noted on the
public agenda, which was 6. Uh, 12 PEC 6. 1
slash 13 slash Ics. And that, uh, progress was made,
uh, for the added, um, added matter that we went
into closed session for. Okay. And you know what? We
don't even have to vote on that because they're just
a reporter progress. It's just a verbal statement. Uh, point
of personal privilege. Sure. Um, I would, on that last
matter for the closed session that we just went through,
I do want to dissent the progress was made. I
don't, I just want to, I just want to indicate
my, um, dissent to that perspective. Okay. Okay. That's not
a thing in our procedure bylaw. So we're, we're going
to move on. Um. Deferred matters. I need to forget
matters. Okay. Inquiries. Any inquiries. Emergent motions. None. Okay. Bylaws.
This is going to take a moment because people are
telling the clerks now that they want things pulled, which
is not as helpful as before. Councillor Frank. Yes, as
circulate via email, I would like to refer one of
the bylaws. We're not there yet.
Okay. I'm going to read out how we can do
this. We're going to do Bill 302 first, which is
the striking committee item. 306.
306, which is the one that Councillor Frankie wanted to
fur. But I'll just note that until second reading. So
we have to deal with first reading. Doesn't come into
effect. He can refer and debate at second rating. Uh,
that's the appointment of Deputy Mayor and budget chair. Um,
308. Counts. I don't know what one that is, but
a Councillor asked for that separate. It's the street spy
law. Uh, 305 and 324, which is the PEC motion
related to DRNess. And then everything else. Does that sound
OK? To everybody.
Okay. Is anybody supportive of all the things that I
can just use the same move in section or deputy
Lewis Encounter Ke. Always so agreeable. I appreciate it. It
makes, uh, makes it a little quicker. Um, okay. So
that's how we're going to proceed. Unless I just want
to make sure people had time to look at them.
All right. We're going to start with 302, which is
the striking committee item. Um, moved by Deffy Murray Lewis,
seconded by Councillor Ketty. This is first reading. So we'll
open that for voting.
Motion carries 11 to two. And second reading, any discussion.
Okay. Seeing none, we'll open that. Motion carries 11 to
two. And third and final reading. We'll open that for
voting. Motion carries 11 to 2.
Okay. 306 is the next one we'll do. We got
to move our in secondary. We'll do first reading. Open
that for voting.
Motion carries eight to five. Okay. Second reading. Any discussion.
Councillor Frank. Thank you. Yes. I would like to refer
this by law to a future meeting of SPPC. I
believe we have one in September to include provisions regarding
the nomination process of Deputy Mayor, including that where nominee
is not confirmed by Council. The mayor may continue to
make nominations until nominee is confirmed by Council. Second year
for that Councillor Farra. It's a referral. So that's debatable.
So go ahead. Thank you. Yes. Um, I'll remind folks
that we had discussed this policy at a previous governance
working group committee meeting, believe, uh, mid last year. And
we had discussed having clarity around the nomination process. Right
now, uh, in the policy, it just states that, uh,
the mayor will nominate a deputy mayor who will be
confirmed by Council. And I asked at the time what
happens if they're not confirmed. Um, and I just wanted
some clarity around that just so that, you know, in
the future, if for whatever reason happens, that Council does
not agree with the mayor's position, uh, we know what
direction to take. And, uh, this one seems to be,
um, somewhat easy. And at the point that the nominees
confer by Council, uh, then we can move forward with
that position. So just seeking, um, a referral so that
we can have that added before, uh, new Council is
elected. Any other speakers to the referral? Depreence. Thank you,
Chair. So, uh, Setting aside, uh, my own bias, uh,
well, I think that this is sort of a, and
I said this, this isn't a DIG at Councillor Frank
because I said this at governance working group two. I
think this is a bit of a problem or a
solution in search of a problem. Um, I don't think
in the entire history of the City of London, a
council hasn't affirmed the mayor's appointment to the deputy mayor
position. Nonetheless, um, I appreciate Councillor Frank's desire for some
clarity of language. I just don't think we need to
go through whole committee cycle. I think the language you've
suggested is very clear. However, I realised that clerks need
time to edit the bylaw. Um, so I'd like to
amend this to just have it brought back to the
October 14th Council. And I will share that at this
point, uh, the SPPC meeting in September does not have
any staff reports yet. On the agenda. That doesn't mean
that there may not be some, uh, because I know
staff are working on a couple, but, um, that might
not fall. Like that meeting might not occur. So I
think the language Councillor Frank has suggested could simply be
written into the By - on brought back to us
on October 14th. So I'm going to move an amendment
that this be referred to the October 14th Council meeting.
And that, uh, civica administration, the clerks in this case
be directed to amend the Bylaw to reflect the language
from the Councillor. Can Councillor Cuddy wants to second that
amendment. So we're amending just the part on the reporting
back from SPPC to Council. And then you're picking the
specific meeting. Okay. So the only one more Council meeting
of this term. Okay. Well, that's probably a good one
to do it at then. Okay. Um. Yeah, that's that's
okay. The set amendments on the Ford Council Cutty seconded
it. Uh, so we're on the amendment now. I'll look
for speakers on the amendment. Go ahead, Councillor TroSile. I
think my question though, it's relevant to the main motion.
It's also relevant to the amendment. So I'm going to
ask it now. How did something get onto the stage
13 agenda where we do three readings of typically that
have been done previous in the meeting. I've never seen
an instance where this Council or any previous council that
I've been watching. Has done three readings of a bylaw
if it wasn't something that was on that Council agenda.
And I actually went back and looked. It's hard to
figure out, but I thought I'd also talk to some
of the former councillors. Nobody has any recollection. Of something
making it onto the stage 13, three reading. Of agenda
that hadn't previously been on that same Council agenda. So
I guess my question is how did this get on
this agenda. In stage 13? If it wasn't on the,
um, Agenda previously on this meeting, how did that happen?
Okay. That's the question for the clerk. I'll let the
clerk answer. Certainly on the current agenda, there are a
number of bills that, uh, are on the agenda, for
example, Bill 308 through. 20. At least, uh, that are
on the agenda. Those are related to dedications of public
highways. Uh, those relate to active city business, uh, but
they wouldn't go through a typical process. For items where
there's a clear direction from Council, where the new decision
to be made where there's, uh, direction, for example, the
referral before, um, before Council right now, that would be
the October 14th change to bring it back to Council.
It would appear on a Bylaw list. Thank you. Councillor
Trosa. Well, um, I would like to say I'm going
to save my, I'm going to save my other comments.
But if the referral pass is that's at it tonight.
So I'm going to say I'm going to be voting
Noah in the referral. Because I think the, uh, there's
more to the controversy here. Then this is not just
cleanup language. This is, this is not housekeeping. There's some
substantive changes that are being made here. And to have
this appear at the stage 13, three reading, uh, agenda.
With, I'm sorry, I'm trying. For this to appear on
the stage 13 part of the agenda without any indication
on the rest of the agenda, what this is from.
I think it's very confusing. The councillors. I also think
it's very confusing to members of the public. I think
it's bad practice. It's hard enough to go through and
be diligent reading all of the, um, staff reports and
reading all of the things that are on the agenda
proper. But now apparently we also have to plough through
all of the bylaws in detail without any age of
staff report or context to see if there is to
see if the change. And I think, uh, again, legally
we can do that. There's nothing in the procedural bylaw
that says we can't do it. But in terms of
again, going back to my, um, uh, the plea for
more transparency and civica engagement, I think this is a
real bad idea. So I'm not saying that that'll turn
out different in the end, but I think this is
an important enough question. That it should come to a,
it should come to an SPPC meeting properly. On the
agenda with the step report. Where people can actually make,
um, at the SPPC, if people have objections to the
text of the, um, of the By - law change.
And there are serious changes. They can, they can, they
can send in and add it. They could also ask
for delegation. And I don't think we should cut off
the public's right to do that. Now, of course, if
we put this on the next Council agenda, we'll get
a report back. People can still do their, people can
still do their, uh, added. But we do cut off
the ability for people to make delegations. I think it's
a bad precedent. For us to be cutting out. The
typical, um, standard process of going through committees. And I'm
not asking for this to go back to governance. I
said, I don't even think we're having another governance meeting.
I don't know. But, uh, I do think they should
go back to SPPC. So I'm going to be voting
against the referral and should the referral pass. I'll be,
I'll be making more comments at Council about why I
think this is a very bad process. Thank you. Okay.
I'm going to have the clerk respond to that because
you, uh, you made some comments there about controversy and
process and procedure, um, I want to clerk to answer
clearly, uh, why they put this particular item on the
agenda and the way they did. Thank you, your worship.
There was a resolution passed by Council where the rules
and responsibilities as well as the appointment process be clarified.
So there's clear direction for us to already do the
work. We did the work. We put it on the
By - law list. And absolutely Council can refer. They
can do whatever, uh, Council would like, including amendment or
debate at second reading. Okay. Strike Council, go ahead. Yeah.
Well, just to briefly respond to that, this is just
going to create a situation where we're doing committee work
at Council again. And yeah, this is what we'll do.
We'll get the reported Council and the, uh, my view
is there are substantive differences. And, um, those will be
raised, those will be raised at Council and we'll get
into a discussion with amendments and maybe the amendments to
amendments. I really would like to have that kind of
discussion. Done at standing committees, not at city council, but
here we'll go again. So please vote, please vote to
refer this. Please vote no if the referral path does
not happen. So thank you very much. Okay. Other speakers
to the amendment. Go ahead Councillor Stevenson. Uh, thank you.
I mean, I have seen bills come through in the
past that aren't, uh, outlined. And I've learned to go
through the Bills carefully. I do think it would be
better to have some sort of a cover sheet to
let us know. We do, it would help. Um, to
Councillor Tross, I was point though if we don't, if
this referral doesn't pass, then the bills likely to pass
as it is. So I would encourage, uh, supporting the
referral if you don't want this to pass tonight. Um,
and there would be other ways to potentially make other
changes through a notice of motion or something before the
next Council Council. Okay. Anywhere else to the amendment. Oh,
go ahead Council Farra. Uh, thanks Mayor. Um, can I
just get, uh, procedurally from the clerk. The amendment here
to refer be amended to bring back to the October
14th meeting. Why is that? Could we just, if, if
the intention is to bring it back, if we were
to not support the referral. Then this would pass as
it is now. I just wanted to know procedurally. Is
there a reason why we have, uh, this amendment brought
by the Deputy Mayor and Councillor Cuddy. Just procedurally, is
there procedural reason why we have to have the motion
to refer to be amended to come back to October.
Because the Depreamer and Councillor Cuddy are asking it to
come back to Council for approval at the Council meeting
on that date. So we can direct things to committee.
We could drag things to Council. They're just making a
change to direct it to the Council. So procedurally, it's,
it's no procedural reason to do this. So I don't
want to get into a cross debate, but, um, I'll
let the mover explain the reason. Because procedurally, the clerks
cannot rewrite the By - law tonight. Councillor Frank has
provided language to amend the bylaw. Uh, with the clerks
can't rewrite the bylaw and have it reviewed by legal.
And have the language in E - Scribe for us
to vote on. Tonight. They need time to go back
and put the proposed amendment that Councillor Frank has put
forward, uh, which I'm supportive of into the bylaw. So
it doesn't need to go back to committee. It can
just come back to Council with the amended language once
the clerks have drafted it up. That's the next opportunity
really for them to do so if we're going to
give legal time to review it and make sure that,
uh, meets all of the legal language requirements as well.
Okay. Councillor Farrah. Thank you. I was just reminded that
the motion to refer does say to the next strategic
priorities and policy committee. So we wouldn't necessarily need a
by - law to be drafted up before the next
Council. Um, I do think that something like this, as
substantive as this, especially when we are going to be
removing kind of the discretion of the mayor to rotate
between the skills and experiences, depending on Councillors for Deputy
Mayor and everything else that Councillor Frank is asking about,
including clear provisions regarding the nomination process, um, I think
we should be bringing that to committee. Now, I guess
next question, and Councillor Trusso kind of alluded to this.
Can I amend this amendment to send it to committee
rather than sending it to? No, you got to defeat
the amendment. And then it goes to committee. So you
vote no, if you want to do that. You wouldn't
amend it again. Okay. So I would just clarify. I
understand the deputy mayor saying that we need the bylaw
to be drafted up. Um, and they would, the clerks
would need time for that. But this referral motion is
to committee, which does not require a bylaw to be
drafted up at that time. And there is time after.
Yes, by last come to the committee, uh, as well.
So the clerks would bring this by a lot to
the committee, uh, or they'd bring it to Council. So
it's still a bylaw. It's still at the actual, but
we can still have that discussion at committee where this
discussion belongs at SPPC. So, um, I would say vote
no to this amendment. There's no reason why this amendment
needs to be here. And support Councillor Frank's referral. We
need to have this discussion at the proper. Um, forum,
which is the strategic priorities and policy committee. Other speakers
to the amendment. Okay. Seeing none, then we're going to
vote on the amendment.
Closing the vote. Motion carries seven to six. Okay. So
on. The, so now it's as amended. I need as
amended. We have the, so same by - law mover,
same Bylaw Seconder. As amended this time.
Okay. So now on the referral. So it's not as
amended. Sorry, my mistake. The azimated referral. We can still
vote on. But Council Frank, are you still okay with
the referral moving it? Okay. So Councillor Frank still the
mover of the referral. I don't remember who the second
year was. But Council. Okay. Well, Council Rahman put up
her hand first. So she's the secondary. No, I wasn't
second anymore. Oh, he weren't. Okay. Councillor Deputy Mary Lewis
consecutive. Text. Is now on this. The referral as amended.
So it's Councillor Frank's referral. With the direction for it
to go to Council on the 14th. Not SVPC. No,
that's been amended now based on the last vote. Okay.
So discussion on the referral now. Head Council
Ferrari. Okay, thank you. I hear, I heard your comments
about, uh, the referral to go to strategic priority policy
committee has been amended. To the October 14th Municipal Council
meeting. Um, but then it says the referral as amended
be approved. We still have the words phishing priorities and
policy committee in there. Is there like a conflict in
the language here? Is are they counter to each other
first of all. No, it's just the way we do
it. We do this all the time. So the motion
16, uh, motion 16 was amended by motion 17. Motion
18 is that the referral as a method be approved.
Um. So it's basically the same thing as 16. Just
going to the place that was passed in 17. And
then 18 just captures both those things. It's not in
conflict. It's the way that this is what we do
a lot of as a mended motions if you read
through. Okay. Thank you. So this is a referral. To
take everything that was done here, but put it back
into the October 14th Municipal Council meeting. Which we'll just
go to a by - law reading, just as we
are now. So the changes. We're just putting it into
the next Council meeting. No, Councillor Frank added some changes
to the by - line motion 16. To change the
language there. So. So she's made a change. It'll come
back with the language with that change. But including clear
provisions regarding the nomination process, when do we see the
clear provisions if it's just a bylaw. That would be
in the By - law that came back. So the
direction is tell staff to go make those changes. Bring
back a bylaw that has those provisions. Because those provisions
would be in the by - log. And we don't
know what they would be. Yes, it's in motion 16.
They would be. Including clear provisions regardless of the nomination
process. That include where the nominee is not confirmed by
Council that the mayor may continue to make nominations until
anominee is confirmed by Council. So that's what Councillor Frank
has asked to come back with those changes. So the
new by - law would have that incorporated into it
in detail. Okay, detail, which again, you know, I don't
want to be beaten a dead horse here, but we
should have the discussion at SPPC. And the other changes
there that we saw on the Spy - Law as
well. So I guess I'll vote how I do when
the vote time comes in a couple of minutes. Council
Ramen. Uh, thank you in through you. I know everyone's
getting tired. Um, uh, the first thing I wanted to
bring up is that October 13th is the Council meeting,
not the 14th. Is a far as I understand our
calendar that way. It's on our calendars and our outlook
that way. Oh, in the official Councillor Agenda, because the
Monday is a Thanksgiving holiday. And previously when we mended
it, people move things around to make sure that it
wasn't like a holiday and Council. I don't know, the
clerk's got the calendar here. I'm just going by the
clerk. Wednesday. It says she, and he says it's the
Wednesday at 1 p. m. Perfect. We'll mender calendars then,
because they all say the 13th. Oh, is this the
calendars at your staff? Bilton? Oh. Yes. Okay. Yeah. Okay.
So. Okay, so you may let them, their staff know
that they've got to fix that. I threw the 13th
or the 14th. Either way, so because we, this was
amended, we can't refer to another SPPC meeting late October
the 6th. Because the way that the amendment was done.
I just want to be clear.
So I think that would be contrary to the amendment
we just made that was sent to SPPC. And then
through that vote, it was a no, send it to
Council. So I don't think we can mend it back
to the thing that was just changed, regardless of which
SPPC meeting, it was a future meeting of SVPC. That
is a future meeting of SVPC. So I think from
the advice I got from the clerks, that's, that's been
decided now. Thank you. And what if it was for
different reason? So for me, the issue isn't that I
wanted to refer the matter for just this change that
Councillor Frank has proposed. Uh, my reason is actually because
I was looking to get the budget chair policy brought
forward. Um, I think that we require a discussion as
a Council as to which roles and how we see
Council should be best supported in the future. And so
my reason would be for that exact reason. So I
would like a discussion at SVP for that reason.
Okay. So we just need a little bit of clarity
because I'm asking the clerks. So. The bylaws about the
appointment process, but you want to have a separate policy
on Deputy Mayor. Thank you. I want to discuss the
policy. We're incorporating both positions into a policy. As a
decision as we move forward. I want to have that
discussion on the roles. That we're considering in the policy.
Therefore, I need an SPPC meeting to do so.
Totally get it. S not complex as it sounds. Okay.
So. There's no decided matter of Council today. We can't
change the backdest PPC because it's that vote was made
You've got a different reason that you want to make
some other changes. There's there's nothing precluding you from writing
a communication. To an SBPC meeting or I think that's
the relevant Council Committee. Having a discussion on that and
then subsequently that would land at Council at the same
time, but it would be with the other direction because
Council will have not made a decision on the policy
at all. And then it'll be before us with the
direction further By - lot and then whatever other thing
came through SPPC and we'd have to reconcile the pieces
there. Because I guess the clerks aren't exactly sure what
changed you want to make and maybe it's part of
a discussion. But that's that's an avenue of pathway Forward
for you that would involve a discussion at an SVP
- C meeting. Thank you and so by signalling today
that the intention to bring a letter to the October
6th SPPC meeting There is in a way that that
SPPC meeting doesn't happen because we don't have enough items.
So I I can't guarantee that because the chair can
in consultation with what's on the agenda and the workload
decide to have a meeting or not. There is one
scheduled. I don't know the load of that yet. Go
ahead Thank you and therefore that's the reason why I'd
like to make this an amendment.
I'm going to call a point of order sure on
the process here. Yes. Okay. The clerks have brought this
forward because of a previously adopted Resolution of Council. That
was passed after an SPPC meeting. The got a report
from a governance working group meeting. There was no direction
from that SPPC meeting or that Council Resolution to move
into discussions about rotating Deputy mayors and how many were
going to have or how many budget chairs or rotating
people in anything like that Which I've heard some people
refer to there's actually already a decided matter of Council
on that to have the clerks provide direction In a
bylaw to clarify some of the language around the nomination
process and confirmation by Council. The rest of those things.
Were already in the last 12 months debated at an
SPPC dispensed with Forward into Council and the resolution from
Council was clerk sprang - forwards and clarifying language. The
piece that Councillor Frank brought forward tonight was actually not
only part of the discussion at governance working group. But
it was part of the discussion at that SPPC as
well and just wasn't captured in the Council Resolution Which
is why I'm supportive of having that come back with
an amended by - law in October. If colleagues want
to bring something else forward and I'll remind you Um,
that we are at the end of our term. So
you have the policy in front of you. There's not
a need to go through another committee cycle if you
have a very specific change you want to make You
could provide a notice of motion on Council before the
October 14th meeting You could simply write a letter and
submit it to the clerk and it would be on
the agenda Related to Bylaws Well, it won't be 306
at that point in time Uh... The number will change
I assume. Saying that you want to make another change
But keep in mind that the scope of the change
is very much around the by - law we have
and The already decided matters of Council through SPPC and
the Council Resolution that was previously passed So there might
be some minor amendments to language or proposed change to
And I don't know what Councillor Ramon's Amendment might be
But maybe she wants to say You know the budget
chair should also be on You know another border Commission
because of how it relates to the budget or something
like that Um... Which would fit into the job description.
But it's not changing the process of the mayor nominate
someone and then Council confirms it It's not changing the
number of budget chairs or the number of deputy mayors
It's really focused on what is the job description in
the bylaw So again. There's no. Thing... There's no peace
of the process that prevents a member of Council from
just giving that some thought Consulting with our clerks team.
And putting an amendment on the October 14th Council Agenda.
So given that we've already passed an amendment to Ford
This by - law not just a portion of it
But this bylaw with some specific amended language to the
October 14th meeting I would suggest that that is the
process colleagues have to follow They have to put an
amendment on that agenda of Council. Any Sending it to
break it up at this point and send it to
a committee Would I believe be contrary to the motion
we've ever passed? That's your point of That's the point
of order And I've already pretty much said that we
give me a second.
So. Yes that is what we're doing I mean the
context there that was unnecessary for this decision. But I
have to as sharing the meeting with the procedure by
- law. The motions the Council has made including the
motion Um... Which I was in the minority on. The
last motion to amend. And so that's... So but the
referral is still on the floor as amended. Which can
be... Pastor defeated... Um... And then I've outlined the Avenue's
account would have But I just can't make those guarantees
about the meeting Because I again I don't I don't
share that meaning And I don't know the workload of
the agenda So. But we can't... Unless you're going to
make an amendment to say Bring - Forward... Some more
language like some other changes that council Like similar to
what Councillor Frank did. Um I don't think I have
an avenue besides the one that I've outlined with you
going through committee Committee to do anything different than what
Council's already decided tonight. Um... So far. Which... Again, I
wish I could give you a different answer But going
by the advice that I'm given and how we're trying
to proceed. Okay Thank you.
Okay, so we're on the referral as amended. Any other
speakers to that. Council Trump
Salt to the referral as amended. No. Okay let me
start by sort of a point of procedure And that
is Let's not overblow What the effect of the previous
discussion that we had at Council. Uh... Last year when
I brought Ford Uhr that request for a staff report.
All Council voted on was rejecting the request for the
staff report Council did not vote on any of the
substantive matters that could have been contained therein with respect
to the process for the selection of the Deputy Mayor
The only decided matter of Council was there was a
request for a further staff report and that was voted
down. So I think it would be open to Council
members And I'm willing to vote for this if it's
if it's clear that Council members coming into this meeting
I'd rather it be an SP - PC meeting But
if it's a Council meeting That's okay too But that
there's not going to be a decided matter of Council
now or today or with respect to that last thing
we did That is going to cut Councillors off from
being able to make other ways of looking at this
Why are we afraid of looking at other options? I
don't understand it It's so like we're so set and
just keeping the status quo with minor tweaks And again
this goes to the inability of the public to be
able to actually weigh in to how we're running this
allegedly well - run city And I just think we're
going to be a much better well - run city
if we allow people clear. Chance to be able to
come to a committee meeting Where they can actually delegate
and say what they want to say. Now if they
can't come and delegate they can add a Council meeting
they can at least submit a letter But why are
we not giving the public the opportunity to weigh in
on this? And yes, it's the end of the Council
term. But all the more reason why we want people
to be engaged I don't want to send yet another
signal. To the public. That we're precluding Uh, uh, public
participation because it's convenient. We shouldn't do that. We should
be going out of our way to give the public
the opportunity to come to a meeting And if the
NSP - PC meeting that's scheduled And this is on
the agenda It shouldn't be cancelled. And I'll leave it
at that I'm still very confused about the effect of
the motion that's on the floor right now in terms
of everything I've just said Maybe that maybe the American
explain that But my main goal tonight is to keep
open the opportunity for members of this Council and members
of the public to weigh in on this question. And
I guess maybe that's a question to the mayor or
the clerk. I don't know. Solicitor.
So if it is referred to the Council meeting and
the regular process for communications of the Council Meeting would
exist. If someone writes a letter to an SVPC meeting
and has a discussion there that would land at the
same Council meeting Uh, if councillors brought notice of motions
or road letters about amendments to the By - Lat
They intend to do at that meeting Like those are
all options before you Um. The only option I don't
have at this moment is undoing the vote that was
just done. Um, about the meeting where this is going
to land to if the referral passes. I appreciate that
response It does leave me just as confused as I
was when I started But that's my fault And I
want to hear what other people think. I'm hesitant to
sit down because then I'm done But I'm going to
sit down. Okay Councillor Hopkins go ahead Yeah, thank you
And I do have a question not sure. Uh... Who
can respond to it? But if this amendment. Is not
supported What happens next? So it's a referral. If it's
not supported We would continue with the second reading of
the bylaw. That's before us. Thank You for that clarification
And I'll be supporting it. Other comments. Councillor Stevenson.
Uh Just a couple of things One is I heard
that there was no items on the next SPPC So
I just sent an email because I did have something
that I'd sent to ICSC That was... I was told
should be SPPC It doesn't seem to be there So
I'm going to get that done tonight The other Just
a question If the bill Just say this referral fails
And then we vote on the bill and it passes
Is it considered a decided matter of Council such that
Uh... The these potential changes can't be brought forward. So
that By - a - law would be passed. Um...
Like many by - laws. Uh... You can amend bylaws.
After their past. And so I guess it would depend
on... It would depend on Well, give me one. I
Just want to know if it needs a two -
thirds majority or just a simple majority.
So you don't need two - thirds Majority to amend
an existing existing bylaw You can amend the bylaw Like
so you can change a bylaw And that's the regular
same process Okay Thank you I'm going to be supporting
the referral But I appreciate the clarity. Okay Anyone else
on the referral. Okay let's open that for voting.
Noting Councillor McAllister Uh... is no longer present Closing the
vote Motion carries 11 - 1. I just want to
say Thank you Encire That took so long. Hey Wiz
Relight It's the first rare referral of a by -
law It's just not a quick process So okay So
we don't have to do any more readings on that
Because it's been referred So we're going to go to
the next By - law on the list.
Okay We're going to do in the dearness Bylaws now
There's two of them Uh 305 And 324 So move
to 2nd First Reading for voting.
Carries 9 - 2. Second reading Any discussion. Okay C9
will open that for voting.
Council Pelosa.
Council McAllister. Elfo Yes. AD - reading of the items
referring to the Dearness Addresses Okay. Yes. Closing the vote
Motion carries 10 to 2. Okay. Greeting Will open that
for voting. Otian
Carries 10 - 2. Okay Bill 308 Um... And
Councillor Hopkins asked for this to be both So we'll
do First reading on that.
S Okay We're doing 308 now because we didn't do
it yet So we'll do it. We're doing it now.
Council McD. S carries 12 - 0. Okay and
second reading of this Any discussion. Seeing none will open
that for voting.
Otian Carries 12 - 0. Um. Third reading on this
By - we'll open that for voting.
Council Prebel Councillor Trosso. Carries 12 - 0.
Okay now it's everything remaining. We'll open First Reading for
voting. Carries 12 - 0.
And second reading of these items. Any. Okay. Sign 9
will open that for voting.
Carries 12 - 0. Third reading We'll open that for
voting. Otian CARES 120.
Okay that's it for Bylaws So it's just a motion
to adjourn I'll look for a motion to John Council
McAllister Second divide Council Cuddy We'll do that by hand
All those in favor. Okay We're Djourn Thank you.