[23:12] Okay, thank you, please be seated. Okay, this is the
[23:18] 13th meeting of municipal Council in this session. Going to
[23:23] start with Atlanta acknowledgement. We are acknowledged that we are
[23:25] gathered today on the traditional lands of the Anastronomab Hodden
[23:28] Shoni Lene Paywack in Attawan Drawn Peoples. We honour Respect
[23:31] the History Language's Cultures of the Diverse Indigenous people who
[23:35] call this territory home. We acknowledge all of the treaties
[23:38] are specific to this area. The two Row - Wump
[23:40] - Belt Treaty of the Hodenoshoune Confederacy, civil governance chain,
[23:43] the Biver Hunting Grounds Treaty of the Hodenoshoni Nanfan Treaty
[23:46] of 1701. The McKee Treaty of 1790, the Lennon Township
[23:50] Treaty of 1796, the Huron Track Treaty of 1827 with
[23:54] the Anishinaabek, and the Dish - With One Spoon Covenant
[23:57] Wampum of the Anishabab and Hodenoshone. The three Indigenous nations
[24:01] that are neighbours to London are the triple Oz of
[24:03] the Thumbs First Nation, Oneida Nation of the Thames, and
[24:05] the Monci - Delaware Nation, who all continue to live
[24:07] as sovereign nations with individual and unique languages, cultures, and
[24:10] customs. The City Atlanta is also committed to making every
[24:15] effort to providing alternative formats and communications supports for meetings
[24:19] upon Request if you'd like to make a request specific
[24:21] to this meeting. You can contact Council Agenda at London.
[24:25] ca or 519 - 661 - 2489 extension 2425.
[24:40] All right, with that, it brings me great pleasure to
[24:43] move to the National Anthem Section of the Agenda. Rachel
[24:49] Gender's Boyd is a traditional English singer from a musical
[24:52] family who spent her childhood surrounded by the rich tradition
[24:55] of the Midlands singing. She grew up performing in Folk
[24:59] clubs around Bingham and Derby and has performed with various
[25:02] groups at the Schrew - Berry folk festival, Rochester -
[25:06] Folk Festival, and Lich Field - Folk Festival. She's been
[25:09] in Canada for 12 years, and nowadays can be found
[25:13] helping a host of traditional iris helping host a traditional
[25:18] Irish session at the Scotts Corner, leading workshops and singing
[25:21] sessions as part of the Forest City, how do I
[25:25] say this, come haltus. I've never seen that word, that's
[25:29] excellent. As well as working with the artistic director for
[25:34] the new Forest City Irish Fest. Please rise and join
[25:37] me in welcoming Rachel, who will now perform the National
[25:39] Anthem Forest.
[26:00] Land. True Patriot Love. In. All of us. Coming.
[26:12] With glowing. Hearts. We see. The rise. The. True North
[26:19] Strong. And. Free. From. Far and. Whiter. Canada. We
[26:29] stand on. God. For. God. Keep our. Land.
[26:40] Glory. Us and. Free. O. - Canada. We stand on
[26:50] God. For. Thee.
[27:02] God.
[28:00] Okay. Never had a photo bomb of the singer photo,
[28:03] but that was interesting. Thanks for doing that. All right.
[28:09] We're on to disclosures of pecuniary interest. I'd look to
[28:11] see if colleagues have any disclosures for today. Okay, sing
[28:17] - none, we'll move to Recognitions. I have none. I
[28:19] don't know if colleagues on Council have any. No. Okay,
[28:22] seeing none. Review of Confidential Matters would be considered in
[28:25] public. There are none. We have Council and Closed Session.
[28:28] There are two items on the Agenda. I'll look for
[28:31] a motion to move into closed session. Move by Councillor
[28:34] Catty, seconded by Councillor McAllister. Any discussion? Okay, we'll open
[28:38] that vote.
[28:57] Closing the vote. Motion carries 14. 0. Okay, so we'll
[29:02] be moving to Committee Room 5, the members of the
[29:03] Public can stay here. And finished.
[39:42] Okay, please be seated. Okay, that brings us
[39:52] on to confirmation and signing of the previous minutes We
[39:55] have the minutes from the 12th meeting of Council held
[39:58] on July 21st. I look for a mover in a
[40:00] seconder for those minutes moved by Councillor Cutty seconded by
[40:03] Councillor Rahman Anytime to the minutes. Seeing none will open
[40:09] that for voting.
[40:37] Councillor Council Pribble. Voting on the. Council of Pearl Bowl.
[40:43] Yes. Both verbally noted closing the vote motion carries 15
[40:49] - 0. Okay, thank you. We're on to Communications and
[40:54] Petitions there are 6. 1 through 6. 5 including addeds
[40:59] These all refer to items at various points in the
[41:02] agenda There's a consolidated motion to refer all those items
[41:05] to the points where we'll be discussing them So I'll
[41:08] look for someone who's willing to move that Councillor Plo's
[41:10] a second by Councillor Van Meerbergen Any discussion on that.
[41:14] Singing none will open that for voting. Farsel votes yes.
[41:28] Council Privileg, yes. Noted thank you closing the vote motion
[41:31] carries 15 - 0. Right item 7 motions to which
[41:36] notice was given we have none which means Ron 2
[41:38] item number 8 Reports The First Report will receive is
[41:42] the report from the Planning Environment Committee I'll turn it
[41:44] over to the chair Councillor Lehmann to present the report
[41:47] Thank you Mayor please present the 12th report of the
[41:50] planning and environment Committee. Number 11. Requested to be pulled.
[42:19] And also item number 7. Councillor Hillier. Yes, thank you
[42:29] to the chair If you could also please pull item
[42:31] number 10 1047 1055 Junior's Drive so I can rank
[42:35] inconsistent. Thank you. Absolutely we can do that separate. So
[42:39] far that 710 and 11 Anyone else. Okay Councillor Layman
[42:45] I'll eat move a motion. Thank you so I'll move
[42:49] items one through 68 and 9. Okay 1 through 6
[42:55] 8 9 are on the floor I look for any
[42:57] discussion on those matters. Go ahead Councillor Trosa. Was I'm
[43:02] sorry was 9 deferred or is 9 as it was
[43:04] at the committee. 9 is as it was at the
[43:07] committee It's part of the group of motions So whatever
[43:11] the committee did is what is happening with 9. And
[43:15] I was referred at committee so that referral is essentially
[43:18] part of the consolidated motions. Okay. Sorry Council Cutty you
[43:22] had your hand up to. Thank you chair I'd like
[43:28] to thank staff for the work you've done on Khaleeli
[43:31] Road We've turned a Country Road into a what's going
[43:34] to be a virtual bike path with lots of mobility.
[43:41] And it's just an exciting project This has been a
[43:43] road that has required attention for many years. When I
[43:48] first came to Council Uh, this was an issue that
[43:51] my client my constituents had discussed with me And with
[43:55] the help of an aid of staff Uh, with our
[43:58] mobility team. We've been able to turn this road or
[44:01] it will be turned into a really great transit Um,
[44:05] for act of transit. For not only for motorists, but
[44:08] also for pedestrians and for cyclists So this is an
[44:12] exciting project I'm looking for to see and get finished
[44:14] next year. And, uh, I appreciate again staff the work
[44:18] you've done Thank you. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, your
[44:24] worship I'd like to make a comment on number 5,
[44:28] which is the report of the Community of the ISRE
[44:31] Committee on planning I did have a letter attached to
[44:35] the advisory Report I know having a development inward 9
[44:44] Uh... With a heritage destination and an opportunity of a
[44:48] developer taking advantage of... Some... incentives that we offer I
[44:56] could see the results of how we can protect some
[44:59] of our heritage And as we address a number of
[45:02] heritage designations that will be coming to us Uh... I
[45:05] am very supportive of... The CAC's request to explore and
[45:11] report back on tax and other financial incentives or programs
[45:15] I know at planning Uh... The vice chair put forward
[45:19] emotion to look at a incentive for just... Heritage Property
[45:25] tax relief program Which I'm very supportive But I would
[45:28] have... Just like further opportunity for staff to explore more
[45:34] opportunities and report back to us So those are my
[45:37] comments. Any other comments in the matters before us. Okay,
[45:43] sing none will open that for voting.
[45:57] Closing the vote Motion carries 15 to 0. Council Lehman.
[46:01] Thank you so I'll put 7 on the floor This
[46:04] is a small housekeeping amendment Um... So I guess we
[46:08] would have to move the amendment Is that correct? Yeah
[46:12] So you put the original staff recommendation on the floor
[46:15] And then you can move the technical amendment, the staff.
[46:18] Um... Okay, so I'll put that before and I'll move
[46:21] the amendment. Okay, so the main items on the floor
[46:25] Um, Council Layman has moved an amendment Uh... I need
[46:28] a seconder for the amendment Councillor Colosa. On the amendment.
[46:36] Kept Cine - animal Open that for voting. Yes, Councillor
[46:43] Farra. Thanks Mayor 3U Can we just get an update
[46:49] on the housekeeping amendment to some of the details on
[46:51] that. Sure. Oh I think it's Ms. O'Hagen who will
[47:00] update us tonight Um Through your worship So the housekeeping
[47:04] amendment is to recognise that the Southwest area Secondary Plan
[47:08] has been repealed at the time of the planning Committee
[47:11] Um, it was still in for Enforce because the appeal
[47:14] period hadn't gone through We didn't receive any appeals to
[47:17] the southwest... Area plan, uh... Being repealed So now all
[47:21] of the special policies will go directly into the LUD
[47:24] plan. Councillor Farrah Okay, thank you for that And just
[47:31] follow - up Uh... When did we get that information?
[47:34] Go ahead. I'm Through your worship Um... The Peel Period
[47:37] ended on August 20th. Council Council. Thank you. Okay. Uh...
[47:47] Anyone else on the amendment. Okay, we'll open that for
[47:51] voting.
[48:08] Closing the vote Motion carries 15 - 0. Uh And
[48:12] now The Az - amended motion Council Layman You're willing
[48:14] to move I'll move as a second after that Councillor
[48:16] Hopkins Anytion on the AS amended motion now. Councillor Hopkins,
[48:20] go ahead. So. Yeah, thank you. You worship This is
[48:28] a development inward 9 And I want to thank the
[48:31] committee Uh... For adding an amendment given that There's a
[48:36] potential of seeing up to 9, 000 people living in
[48:39] this development To look into future transit through the master
[48:43] mobility plan So I want to thank the committee for
[48:46] adding that to the Recommendation. Okay Anyone else on the
[48:50] ASMIND motion. Seeing none will open that for voting.
[49:02] Closing the VOD motion carries 15 to 0. Go ahead
[49:06] Councillor So I'll put item number 10 Uh... On the
[49:09] floor This was requested to be pulled by Councillor Hillier.
[49:15] Okay Uh... So this one's on the floor by the
[49:19] chair Any discussion on this? Okay. Seeing none, then we'll
[49:25] open that provoting.
[49:36] Closing the vote Motion carries 13 - 2. Go ahead
[49:42] Council Lehman. Thank you I'd like to put Item number
[49:46] 11 on the floor This was request to be pulled
[49:48] by Councillor Stevenson. Okay This is on the floor I'll
[49:52] look for any discussion. Yep, go ahead Council Stevenson. Thank
[50:00] you Yes I pulled this one after discussions with the
[50:04] developer. The concern is I believe Um... The derogatory
[50:14] implications on the developer without us Looking at both sides
[50:19] of the situation And what happened So What I wanted
[50:23] to know a couple of questions through you to staff
[50:26] Um...
[50:39] Was this a really unusual situation Where this... kind of...
[50:44] Contition was put in place... And if not, could you
[50:48] just tell me how this usually goes in terms of
[50:52] compliance around the conditions? Mr. Mathers. After your worship So
[50:58] there was a direction that committee to add Recommendation to
[51:02] approval authority to work with the owner of the Property
[51:07] to be able to come up with an accommodation Uh...
[51:10] Opportunity So we did that Unfortunately There's no way for
[51:14] us to put that into an agreement So that's why
[51:16] we don't have a provision to actually require this accommodation
[51:20] to happen But we do have of course through our
[51:23] normal processes Um... Our run Eviction - related by law
[51:27] And that is the main way and usual way How
[51:30] we would address the situation like this. So it is
[51:32] a bit different Situation Then we usually have... Compared to
[51:37] other areas in the city. Council Stevenson. Thank you So
[51:44] when we're looking at this motion and what's being requested
[51:46] in terms of Uh Report back on the status Whether
[51:50] conditions have been satisfied and what authority. Can I just
[51:55] ask through you to staff? Um... Like I'm just really
[52:01] wondering how worthwhile this is given that There is a...
[52:07] The OLT process. And we seem to be like getting
[52:12] in there and causing potentially some issues in the process
[52:15] in a jurisdiction That isn't ours And so I'm just
[52:18] looking through you to staff for some... Your thoughts on
[52:22] this motion currently before us... And the concerns of the
[52:25] developer that... We're creating some issues potentially in another jurisdictional
[52:31] process. Go ahead Mr. Mailers After your worship We're of
[52:38] course always happy to bring back information Reports Um... We
[52:41] were able to provide the bulk of the information AD
[52:43] Committee Just noting that there isn't... For what we can
[52:48] do to be able to Enforce this matter. There is
[52:50] other bylaws that do cover Um... These types of situations
[52:54] that we will ensure that we continue to enforce Um...
[52:58] But we can provide that further information But there's not
[53:01] a lot of additional DDL will be that I think
[53:04] will be helpful for you making a different decision. Okay
[53:07] Councillor Stevenson. Uh, thank you Actually... Just that last reference
[53:13] to making a decision Like what decision will be... Before
[53:17] Council after getting this report? Mr. Maithers Uh... Through your
[53:25] worship So that there isn't any action to take at
[53:27] this time There was of course Uh... The letter that
[53:30] was brought and the delegation Um... Requesting for Council to
[53:36] consider this matter But there isn't any tangible action That
[53:39] you could take related to a planning matter Because that's
[53:42] already decided Matter of Council So there were... It would
[53:45] just be to receive that information and to receive that
[53:47] report If you... Decided to do so. Council Council Stevenson.
[53:54] Thank you This is the reason why I've pulled this
[53:56] and I'm gonna be voting against it Is we're asking
[53:58] for a report on information that isn't going to lead
[54:01] to any kind of a decision That is... You know,
[54:06] we've got written correspondence from the developer saying Um... As
[54:10] outline in the attached letter My actions were publicly misrepresented
[54:14] before the planning and environment Committee Without anyone First Contacting
[54:19] me from my position... Or requesting the supporting documentation. I
[54:23] consider it fundamentally unfair and unreasonable For conclusions about my
[54:29] conduct to be stated publicly without giving the affected party
[54:33] any opportunity to respond Particularly where the documentary record contradicts
[54:38] the assertion that replacement units were never offered Elected officials
[54:42] should exercise appropriate care before making factual statements that can
[54:46] affect an individual's reputation. This is the uh... The Communication
[54:52] on the public record from the developer We're hearing from
[54:55] staff that asking for this report isn't going to do
[54:57] anything at all. It's... We could... Like I don't want
[55:02] to go into legal session or anything to know How
[55:05] Council might be implicated in the misrepresentations and the injurious
[55:11] Reputational harm here. Point a point of order Now she's
[55:19] clearly making legal conclusions here that she's not in a
[55:21] position Council. A point of order would be on Procedural
[55:25] order. It's not on rebutting Uh... The statements the Councillor
[55:31] is making She's not... She's not a lawyer She's not
[55:34] providing legal advice It's not our solicitor She's making comments
[55:37] on a matter before us You're more than welcome to
[55:39] debate those comments and refute them in your own course
[55:42] in time But I have to let the Councillor continue
[55:45] with her Discussion There's no point of order related to
[55:48] the content of the Councillors Unless it's a point of
[55:51] personal privilege Which I don't think the Council is moving
[55:54] into She's providing her opinion here. Thank you and I
[55:58] wasn't implying any legal knowledge on my behalf I just
[56:01] said to me this doesn't even warrant going in to
[56:04] find out whether the legal implications I don't see why
[56:07] we would support emotion and take time Uh... For staff
[56:11] to prepare a report on something that isn't going to
[56:14] lead to any kind of decision isn't going to do
[56:15] anything and has been You know fairly clearly objected to
[56:20] by the developer in question here So I will not
[56:25] be supporting this. And I would encourage Council as well
[56:30] not to support it Because I'm not sure what we're
[56:32] doing here other than You know looking like we're doing
[56:35] something And there are always two parties And that's the
[56:38] thing I think we have to be careful when we
[56:40] take one side or the other without having Uh... Considered...
[56:45] Both parties and given them an opportunity to speak and
[56:48] be represented Um... I also... Have other concerns around. Some
[56:54] of this But I'm going to leave it for. Offline
[57:00] In terms of future... Future ways of handling this. And
[57:07] maybe understanding the implications that we might be causing Uh...
[57:12] Either party in terms of OLT Um. LTB matters. 30
[57:19] seconds. I guess You know we all want more housing
[57:27] options in this city And we're also looking to protect
[57:31] existing tenants And I think that's a good thing But
[57:33] I think we have to be careful about how this
[57:35] is done And when things are brought forward in this
[57:37] manner Uh... The implications and the way other parties are
[57:42] affected So I'm just going to leave it there And
[57:45] just say that I won't be supporting this. Okay Any
[57:48] other speakers to this. Go ahead Councillor Trossa. We often
[57:57] We often find her through the chair We often find
[57:59] ourselves in a situation where This jurisdiction is operating under
[58:03] a variety of different provincial laws. And sometimes they can
[58:07] flick with each other Sometimes there are boundaries that are
[58:09] not clear Sometimes Uh, maybe a better job could be
[58:13] done by the provincial government in terms of legislating A
[58:17] harmonious Relationship between these different policy pieces But I think
[58:22] this suggests that the Council is not in a position
[58:26] to try to find some kind of harmony. Between different
[58:30] pieces of legislation And actually to try to do that
[58:34] Constitute some type of meddling into a place that we
[58:38] don't belong. Yes, there might be implications if we do
[58:42] something here But then again There might be implications If
[58:46] we don't do something here And I'm real clear that
[58:50] the implications for not doing anything here are tenets are
[58:54] going to suffer potential prejudice. And I'm not I'm not
[58:58] litigating that question right now And I'm not issuing an
[59:02] opinion on how a court would deal with deal with
[59:04] this But I think that we are under an obligation.
[59:07] To try to do as much information seeking as we
[59:10] can And the fact that something arises under the planning
[59:12] Act doesn't mean we can't take into account a whole
[59:17] variety. Of other public policies That we're bound to observe
[59:23] So I welcome this resolution I probably would have drafted
[59:29] a little stronger But this is fine This is good
[59:34] And I think that the information that comes back to
[59:36] us Will be useful for us to set a course
[59:41] And ask the question What next. What can this Council
[59:45] be doing in order to avoid these types of conflicts
[59:49] between different Um, different parts of our Of our laws?
[59:53] So I think this is a very important exercise And
[59:55] to say that this is just going to lead This
[59:57] is just a road to nothing That is going to
[59:59] lead to us not being able to do anything We
[1:00:02] can always amend our bylaws. We can always amend the
[1:00:06] bylaws that are within the City of London's jurisdiction Which
[1:00:10] by the way is very broad. It's very bright. And
[1:00:15] we've stepped into in many other cities have stepped into
[1:00:19] the jurisdiction Of looking at What rights tenants might have.
[1:00:25] Uh.... With respect to their units in situations where the
[1:00:28] owner decides to exercise remedies under the Provincial landlord Tenant
[1:00:32] Law... And this is a good development It's shows that
[1:00:37] our relationship between the province. And cities is developing. And
[1:00:43] is not rigid and stale So this is exactly the
[1:00:46] kind of motion that we should be Um... Using to
[1:00:50] get ourselves some more information If for no other reason
[1:00:53] To help inform our future policy - making So I
[1:00:55] will be supporting this motion And I thank the Councillor
[1:00:58] for bringing it And I think I think the objections
[1:01:01] to it are not well taken So thank you very
[1:01:04] much. And any other speakers to this matter Councillor Frank
[1:01:07] Go ahead. Thank you Yes And I just wanted to
[1:01:12] speak to the rationales to why the letter was submitted
[1:01:15] Uh And the main reason I'm bringing this Ford is
[1:01:17] to gain a greater understanding of if there are other
[1:01:19] legal implications in regards to the commitments that were made
[1:01:22] And not specifically in regards to the planning matters As
[1:01:25] we've already heard from planning staff That there is not
[1:01:27] a lot that they can do through the site plan
[1:01:29] authority Um, for example Some of the information I'd be
[1:01:32] interested in is if there's any recourse for the city
[1:01:34] Um, be given any kind of incomplete or false information
[1:01:38] that influences Project Summons in the same way We have
[1:01:41] a list of businesses that we won't procure from if
[1:01:44] they violate contracts Is there something similar for developers who
[1:01:46] do not make commitments This is the kind of information
[1:01:49] that I would like to understand and know more of
[1:01:52] And in addition to the Comments made earlier about claims
[1:01:55] made by the developer I've repeatedly asked for additional information
[1:01:58] from the developer That proves the claims that they're making
[1:02:01] included in the letter Um... I've never seen them They're
[1:02:04] never sent to me Despite being asked repeatedly And if
[1:02:07] there are documents I don't know if anyone has seen
[1:02:09] them Um... I'd be interested in those And I do
[1:02:12] want to read an excerpt Um... From the submission that
[1:02:14] we had from the Tenance Legal Retion In regards to
[1:02:18] the accommodation And so ultimately at the tribunal They acknowledge
[1:02:22] two letters from the contractor from the Landlord's Contractor Both
[1:02:26] indicating temporary units cannot be safely serviced or occupied due
[1:02:29] to construction difficulties over winter Noting that they anticipated Completing
[1:02:33] the work by the end of the month Uh... That
[1:02:35] said The letters were corroborated by the author and the
[1:02:38] Landlord's Contractor by way of background The tenants were offered
[1:02:42] Who were offered a temporary unit An off - road
[1:02:44] that went out to two of five units who were
[1:02:46] remaining at the time Had submitted pictures of the unit's
[1:02:49] proposed for relocation showing the units to be uninhabitable. This
[1:02:52] was backed up at the landlord's witness Uh... By the
[1:02:55] landlord's witness at the April 9th hearing Also notable The
[1:02:59] two notices of temporary units that went outstated that the
[1:03:01] tenants would have access to those units effective in February
[1:03:04] Which was confirmed at the April 9th hearing to be
[1:03:06] not true. So there are, you know As we heard
[1:03:09] some various opinions on this matter Um... But I think
[1:03:12] that's an example of why we would get some information
[1:03:14] from staff to be able to make informed decisions moving
[1:03:17] forward and have a great understanding of what our limitations
[1:03:20] are And I also think it's a great example as
[1:03:22] to why we desperately need a tenant relocation assistance Program
[1:03:26] that would require temporary accommodations and that would legally bind
[1:03:30] the developers to something And again I think that this
[1:03:33] information would provide that context for Councillors and the future
[1:03:36] Council moving forward So I seek your support in getting
[1:03:40] that information back. Any other speakers to this matter. Council
[1:03:47] your times actually up Not speaking Just saying I'd like
[1:03:50] to vote on C separatelys It's the non - address
[1:03:54] specific one I'll support that one But not the address
[1:03:57] specific one Sure We can we can divide it with
[1:03:59] motion.
[1:04:21] Uh I apologise I'll take that back They're all address
[1:04:24] specific So I'm going to vote note everything. Makes it
[1:04:29] actually a little bit easier We don't have to recraft
[1:04:31] the motion. So I look for other speakers though before
[1:04:34] we move to that Council for our go ahead. Thanks
[1:04:38] Mayor I don't have too much to add I just
[1:04:39] wanted to say to the questions Um first I appreciate
[1:04:42] the motion come from the Councillor I appreciate the comments
[1:04:45] that were made But the question to what are we
[1:04:46] doing here? We are bringing some form of accountability to
[1:04:51] developers with a specific case study That shows that this
[1:04:55] is needed Um, is it worthwhile? Yes It's worthwhile You
[1:04:58] know if we can save at least one person to
[1:05:01] be staying within their home That is worthwhile If we
[1:05:04] can save 100 That is worthwhile We have a big
[1:05:07] crisis here when it comes to homelessness We have a
[1:05:10] big crisis here when it comes to people at risk
[1:05:12] of becoming homelessness This is not something that we should
[1:05:14] be looking at in isolation This is something that spreads
[1:05:16] across Um... A lot of different service areas A lot
[1:05:19] of different actions that Council is doing We should look
[1:05:21] at that in a holistic way We should look at
[1:05:23] this in something that it involves our homelessness response It
[1:05:28] involves our preemptively Seeing if we can keep people in
[1:05:30] their home This is a motion That is basically a
[1:05:34] case study that tells us that we should be looking
[1:05:36] at more preemptive actions when it comes to mitigating individuals
[1:05:40] who are at risk of losing their housing So I'm
[1:05:44] going to be full supportive of this I totally agree
[1:05:46] with Councillor Frank's Um direction when it comes to replacement
[1:05:50] When it comes to relocation When it comes to assistance
[1:05:53] for moving If we have to have some kind of
[1:05:55] repairs or renovations I totally support that So I think
[1:05:58] that's really where we need to start looking at We
[1:06:00] need to start looking at preemptive movements of what we
[1:06:03] can do to preempt individuals who are at risk of
[1:06:06] becoming homeless and to keep people in their homes So
[1:06:08] I'm going to fully support this And I think Council
[1:06:10] should fully support this as well. Any other speakers. Okay
[1:06:16] then it's the full motion before us And we're going
[1:06:18] to open that for voting.
[1:06:29] Close in the vote motion carries 13 to 2. Council
[1:06:33] Lehman. Thank you Mayor that completes 12th reporter of the
[1:06:36] Planning Environment Committee. Okay we're on to the 12th report
[1:06:41] of Community Texas Services Committee I'll turn it over to
[1:06:43] Chair Ramen to present that report. Thank you and through
[1:06:48] you I'd like to present the 12th Report of the
[1:06:50] Community and Protective Services Committee I've been asked to pull
[1:06:53] items 3 and 4 And I'll just look around the
[1:06:56] room See if the pull Okay 3 and 4 separate
[1:07:00] Anything else. Okay now you go ahead. Thank you I'll
[1:07:10] put on the floor items 1, 25 and 6. Okay
[1:07:14] 1, 2, 5 and 6 are on the floor Any
[1:07:16] discussion on those matters Go ahead to Council Approval. Thank
[1:07:19] you Mayor And through you to the staff I have
[1:07:22] a question regarding the 4. 1 from the committee or
[1:07:25] 6 on the agenda today I know we're talking about
[1:07:28] coming back Future to the Committee Uh... And I was
[1:07:31] just wondering which one in September are replanting to receive
[1:07:34] it back Thank you Mr. Dickens Go ahead. Uh Thank
[1:07:38] you your worshipping through you Uh we will be coming
[1:07:41] to the second CAPS meeting in September Uh, we wanted
[1:07:44] to see how Council as a whole voted on this
[1:07:47] item Today noting that the deadline for the first caps
[1:07:51] Uh... Meeting to submit our reports would be this week
[1:07:53] to the clerk's office We'll be aiming for the second
[1:07:56] CAPS in September. Council Priviley Thank you Mayor No more
[1:08:00] questions Thank you. Okay Any other questions in the matters
[1:08:04] before us. Okay Nunn will open that promoting.
[1:08:23] Close in vote motion carries 15 to 0. Council Ramen
[1:08:28] Thank you I'll put item 3 2. 2 on the
[1:08:30] floor The proposed winter response for 2627. Okay that's on
[1:08:35] the floor I look for speakers and discussion. Alright Go
[1:08:41] ahead Councillor Stevenson. Thank you just clarifying procedure I have
[1:08:50] an amendment But I have some questions that might add
[1:08:52] to this amendment So can I ask those or do
[1:08:55] I have to do it right away.
[1:09:35] So as you're speaking now It's going to count towards
[1:09:39] your time on the main motion Uh... If at the
[1:09:42] point that you move an amendment What you would need
[1:09:44] to do during your first time for speaking Uh you
[1:09:48] could move the amendment if it's seconded That would be
[1:09:50] a new motion You could speak to the amendment at
[1:09:52] that point So the answer is yes. Okay perfect Thank
[1:09:56] you So through you Uh to staff I just want
[1:09:59] to follow up on a question that I have been
[1:10:02] asking about and that is the 30 spaces at 696
[1:10:07] Dundest Street operated by ARC AD that are part of
[1:10:10] this proposed winter response. I'm still trying to understand how
[1:10:14] this has come forward as a staff recommendation with the
[1:10:20] Alder Council Proved policy that there won't be resting spaces
[1:10:23] on the Mai Street of a B. I. A.
[1:10:39] Mr. Dickens Uh thank you And through you your worship
[1:10:43] Um yes that is That is the case or had
[1:10:47] been the case Uh... We've gone back through to look
[1:10:49] at Uh, some extensive digging on various Council resolution resolutions
[1:10:53] and Council directions And there was a point in time
[1:10:55] where Council actually voted to suspend that requirement Uh... They
[1:10:58] did set a date of April 30th There were... A
[1:11:02] meeting held in February of 2026 Uh... Where it was
[1:11:06] discussed Um... That there would be changes made and that...
[1:11:11] Oversight or that provision B... Be eliminated for the winter
[1:11:15] Um... So what you... Have also directed staff to do
[1:11:19] was to go out and... Engage with the community to
[1:11:23] find as many spaces Uh... As needed to go out
[1:11:26] in canvas Uh... What was available... Uh... For those winter
[1:11:30] months Uh... So we came back Uh... With what the
[1:11:34] Community has offered and what they proposed that they can
[1:11:37] deliver So before Council would be a decision of endorsing
[1:11:41] or supporting Uh... Those spaces Which would mean therefore supporting
[1:11:46] the location in which they are provided Uh, what kind
[1:11:50] of muddies this in throughout is that Council supported a
[1:11:53] two - year winter response plan Uh... With that... Uh...
[1:11:56] Provision that they could exist and then modified it throughout
[1:12:00] and sent us to do a different approach in year
[1:12:04] two of the two - year approved plan So all
[1:12:07] of that to say Uh... We are before you with
[1:12:10] Here's what the community said they could offer you for
[1:12:13] the winter Uh... And these are the locations in which
[1:12:15] they can be provided Should Council wish to have those
[1:12:18] locations You would in fact be endorsing that they're permitted
[1:12:21] to be there. Councillor Stevenson Thank you not to belabor
[1:12:27] this But I have sent emails about this since the
[1:12:30] beginning That committee meeting where we waive that requirement until
[1:12:35] April 30th was done by Committee and Council That was
[1:12:38] us I had a motion brought forward with Counselor's Frank
[1:12:42] Trosso Uh... Ferreira regarding the immediate need that we were
[1:12:46] in in that winter And I agreed to waive the
[1:12:51] provision and Committee and Council obviously supported But it was
[1:12:56] me that had pushed It's my B. I. A. Main
[1:13:00] Street award where the oversaturation continues to occur three and
[1:13:04] a half years later Ten years later However long this
[1:13:06] has been going on. So I understand that Council can
[1:13:10] override their own policies But what brought was brought forward
[1:13:14] by staff. Seem to not take into account the policy
[1:13:19] that had been passed by this Council so that they
[1:13:22] wouldn't be on the main street of a B. I.
[1:13:23] A. And the First Communication that I got back said
[1:13:27] that staff were going to be looking at the clerk
[1:13:30] working with the clerk to see if there was going
[1:13:31] to be some kind of motion required to make this
[1:13:35] go through And I spoke with senior leadership yesterday as
[1:13:40] well to follow up on how did this come forward
[1:13:43] from staff because my understanding throughout this term account has
[1:13:47] been that staff have to operate under the Council policies
[1:13:50] but Council can make different changes. So what I'm hearing
[1:13:54] right now, and I just want to confirm is that
[1:13:56] we don't need to acknowledge the way we did in
[1:13:59] February that notwithstanding the Because I believe that was the
[1:14:03] motion notwithstanding the current policies we made an exception until
[1:14:07] April 2026 under the assumption that we were all still
[1:14:11] committed to moving forward with addressing the oversaturation issues and
[1:14:15] that in the immediate emergency We were going to allow
[1:14:17] it, but hoping that something better trusting that there were
[1:14:20] other options for the city than one particular street. Within
[1:14:26] a few block radius So I just want to confirm
[1:14:29] that the last motion was and notwithstanding the policy and
[1:14:33] I'm still and I would like an answer as to
[1:14:36] how this gets brought forward to this right now. Uh,
[1:14:40] acting as though we didn't have that policy that Council
[1:14:43] has said not on the mean street of a B.
[1:14:44] I. A. Thank you through you and I appreciate the
[1:14:50] question being asked I think it's probably fair to say
[1:14:52] that a staff we bring forth advice to Council and
[1:14:55] as Mr. Dick Contest said we have brought forward a
[1:14:59] suggestion that this be considered We absolutely appreciate that Council
[1:15:03] made a different decision before it doesn't mean that we
[1:15:05] don't have an opportunity to come back to you and
[1:15:07] say we're in a housing crisis We have an issue
[1:15:09] for the winter We have a provider who's willing to
[1:15:12] do this if it is Council's direction we didn't want
[1:15:15] to eliminate or not provide to you all of the
[1:15:18] information on this issue. We acknowledge that Council has a
[1:15:22] different decision It doesn't keep us though from asking you
[1:15:25] to reconsider that decision It's not to change your decision
[1:15:28] It's just to ask you to reconsider it and that's
[1:15:31] why it's being brought back to you today If the
[1:15:33] choices to go a different way We're happy to take
[1:15:35] that and go back with the existing policy. Councillor Stevenson
[1:15:42] Thank you so then through the clerk do we not
[1:15:44] need something in there that says notwithstanding the current policy
[1:15:48] We're making another exception like are we I was just
[1:15:51] surprised that that wasn't in the report asking for Council's
[1:15:54] reconsideration. Give me one second on that.
[1:17:12] Okay I'm gonna just try to give an answer and
[1:17:15] then I might have to go to staff or the
[1:17:17] clerks again So If I understand correctly What I've heard
[1:17:23] is the previous decision of Council about Uh not on
[1:17:27] the Main Street of a B. I. A. is suspended
[1:17:29] as part of a two year winter response Program Uh...
[1:17:32] Council makes an adjustment halfway through that two years That
[1:17:36] had a notwithstanding attached to it But Council makes an
[1:17:38] adjustment between halfway through the two years to say Um,
[1:17:41] bring us some other options We want to look at
[1:17:43] this staff brings back a report You know I guess
[1:17:46] it depends on if staff feel it's substantially different from
[1:17:49] the previous winter response Uh, and would require an updated
[1:17:55] notwithstanding or whether or whether it can just stand with
[1:17:59] the previous one Regardless it's been more than 12 months
[1:18:01] in Council can essentially decide Uh to proceed at this
[1:18:04] point in time Um, but I'd have to go to
[1:18:08] staff on the whole piece about You know which way
[1:18:11] you went and why it went that way on it.
[1:18:17] Thank you and for your worship when we initially brought
[1:18:19] the winter response It was a two - year response
[1:18:22] It was funded for two years Uh, earlier this spring
[1:18:25] you asked us to come back with an enhanced response
[1:18:28] more beds Uh... In particular looking at tier three and
[1:18:32] that's what we did Uh, we came back because we
[1:18:35] didn't have sufficient beds We came back with a proposal
[1:18:38] Because we knew opening a community centre again was not
[1:18:42] the right decision in tier three So we knew we
[1:18:45] had to look for bed So we went out to
[1:18:47] our community to look for where the options Where can
[1:18:50] we have beds enhancing our current winter response that we
[1:18:54] brought forward with you for 2526 and 2627 So we
[1:18:59] brought forward an enhanced the original response by enhancing tier
[1:19:04] 3 and by seeking additional funds and the most important
[1:19:08] change is that you asked us to look at Um,
[1:19:11] do we look at the minus 15 threshold or do
[1:19:13] we look at opening our doors 24 - 7 from
[1:19:17] December to March 31st So those are the change recommended
[1:19:20] changes based on Community and based on our evaluation and
[1:19:24] learnings from the initial First year of the winter response
[1:19:28] and that's what we brought forward for Council to make
[1:19:30] decision on. Okay Councillor Stevenson Thank you I just say
[1:19:36] to my colleagues I've been working on this since committee
[1:19:39] So this isn't like a last minute thing that I'm
[1:19:40] doing here today. The two - year winter response did
[1:19:45] not include the spaces on at 696 10DAS Street That
[1:19:49] was something that we as councillors brought forward as an
[1:19:52] emergency response that ended April 2026 Uh, that said notwithstanding
[1:19:57] our current policy So. Um I find this very frustrating
[1:20:04] I'll admit that That it's like this I find it
[1:20:08] really frustrating. Um I'm going to and that's why I
[1:20:12] wasn't sure what else I was going to add onto
[1:20:14] this amendment So I do have an amendment that I'm
[1:20:15] going to move And I am going to add one
[1:20:17] more section.
[1:20:29] I'll read out the one that's been circulated. Yeah If
[1:20:39] that's one you're moving you can read it out But
[1:20:41] if you're adding something to it You can read it
[1:20:42] all out together. I'm still making it up my head
[1:20:46] here because we're on the fly I assumed that this
[1:20:49] was drafted by staff already I've followed up as early
[1:20:52] as yesterday So The answer to my colleague who's speaking
[1:20:58] to me beside me is the answer staff would draft
[1:21:00] it is because Uh that there should be a requirement
[1:21:04] to move something that Council had already I'm going to
[1:21:07] say you don't have to respond to your colleague beside
[1:21:09] you your colleague beside you should not be talking to
[1:21:10] you where you're presenting your debate So I'll ask the
[1:21:13] colleague who was talking to please allow the Councillors to
[1:21:17] ask their questions and make their points if you'd like
[1:21:18] to speak You can put your hand up and speak
[1:21:20] to the motions before us Um. So Councillor Stevenson maybe
[1:21:25] just read out that and then we'll add to it
[1:21:27] with what you're adding to. I'm just trying to do
[1:21:34] this efficiently as well Um, how much time do I
[1:21:37] have right now?
[1:21:52] You spoke for about three minutes and 50 seconds before
[1:21:55] you started introducing the amendment Okay And if I can
[1:21:59] I do two amendments or do I have to do
[1:22:01] it all in one.
[1:22:46] Okay so if you've submitted some to some language. You
[1:22:51] want to put that on the floor You've got something
[1:22:54] Substantially different that you want to add to it I
[1:22:57] mean not contrary But substantially different that you want to
[1:23:00] add to it You can subsequently make an amendment to
[1:23:03] the amendment Like all members of Council can If they're
[1:23:06] pretty much the same thing You're just adding to it
[1:23:08] Like if it's not a distinct part. Then it probably
[1:23:11] should go altogether So there's really two options before you
[1:23:14] Okay Thanks I think it is distinct I'm going to
[1:23:16] move forward with this so that I can think about
[1:23:18] the other piece So my amendment is that the motion
[1:23:22] be amended to include a new part that reads as
[1:23:24] follows The implementation of the proposed winter response for 2026
[1:23:28] - 27 be subject to the following I Council approval
[1:23:33] of the proposed to be determined arcade location be required
[1:23:38] prior to the execution of any contract related to that
[1:23:41] location. I all contracts related to the proposed winter response
[1:23:45] be placed on a public agenda immediately following their execution
[1:23:49] And III all proposed locations be subject to fire and
[1:23:54] bylaw compliance Review and sign off by the appropriate city
[1:23:57] officials prior to the execution of any related contract. Okay
[1:24:07] I'll look for a seconder for that. Councillor Hillier is
[1:24:11] willing to second. Okay give us just one sec.
[1:24:32] Okay, so we've got that it's moved in seconded Um,
[1:24:35] now if you want to speak to the amendment now
[1:24:37] I'll just remind you you've got to move the amendment
[1:24:40] to the amendment. The first time you speak because you
[1:24:42] only get to speak once it council So just early
[1:24:45] heads up on that. Yeah.
[1:24:58] Going.
[1:25:10] You can still speak to the amendment because all you
[1:25:12] did was put on the 4 movement 2... But you're
[1:25:14] going to see if other colleagues want to speak first
[1:25:16] We can do that. Okay. Does anybody else want to
[1:25:19] speak to the moved in 2nd an amendment. As it's
[1:25:23] on the floor. I don't see anyone. Ou Councillor Pripple
[1:25:31] go ahead Thank you so much I do have a
[1:25:34] question Let's go for the eye part. And Propose Harricade
[1:25:39] locations The way it is right now Wood 696 would
[1:25:42] be included in it? Or would it be just the
[1:25:44] additional one if you can please confirm that we base
[1:25:47] what's in front of us. Thank you Andrew Yuu your
[1:25:51] worship This would be for the new location It would
[1:25:53] not include 690 the proposed location 696 Coronan - Warner
[1:25:58] This would be for their third location that they are
[1:26:00] currently Uh, searching for. Okay Thank you for the confirmation
[1:26:06] And for the II If I can get from legal
[1:26:14] in terms of the placing those on the public agenda
[1:26:18] If I can get a feedback from the legal department
[1:26:20] Please. Go ahead. Thank you and through your worship Once
[1:26:27] the contract's been executed There should be no issue with
[1:26:32] public disclosure Subject to any information that had been agreed
[1:26:38] to be kept confidential. Councillor Privileg Thank you for that
[1:26:45] and for the III If I can get a feedback
[1:26:47] from our By - Law Enforcement team.
[1:27:04] Go ahead Mr. Maithers. Three worships So we would undertake
[1:27:10] the same protocol as we do for all buildings We
[1:27:12] ensure we follow up after By - law compliant For
[1:27:14] unably By - law compliance perspective to make sure that
[1:27:17] they're Biden by the city's by - laws. Dwight Council
[1:27:24] Priviley Thank you to all three of you for your
[1:27:26] answers. Have Council Ramen and then Councillor Pelosa. Thank you
[1:27:35] and through you and on the amendment. Um part three
[1:27:40] of the amendment I'm just wondering if staff are aware
[1:27:43] of any potential issues around the fire and By -
[1:27:47] Lock compliance Review and how they anticipate or read that.
[1:27:56] Go ahead. Thank you Andrew your worship in conversation with
[1:28:01] Fire Chief Uh... AT Noon today I shared this with
[1:28:05] her And we ensure all buildings follow the fire code
[1:28:08] So depending on how its own It would be no
[1:28:10] different than any other building following the fire code That
[1:28:13] we have That we have across the city. Council Rahman
[1:28:22] Thank you and through you So I just I want
[1:28:25] to make sure I understand that any current location that
[1:28:28] was included in the report. Has met fully all fire
[1:28:32] and Bylaw Compliance so far to date So therefore they
[1:28:37] would not be excluded in the future Because of some
[1:28:41] outstanding matter or potential emergency order that was given to
[1:28:45] be able to establish said location. Thank you
[1:28:55] and through your worship. That is my understanding I can
[1:28:58] confirm with the Lennon Fire Department But I have not
[1:29:01] been aware of any buildings that have not Uh that
[1:29:06] are included in this list Noting that one is to
[1:29:08] be determined So we would have to ensure that that
[1:29:11] met the fire code And remember warming spaces are different
[1:29:14] than emergency shelters when it's looked at through the fire
[1:29:18] code For example. Go ahead Thank you and through you
[1:29:24] But the language in the winter response includes both And
[1:29:28] so I'm just wanting to confirm Because we may have
[1:29:31] some warming spaces that aren't Uh potentially or may potentially
[1:29:36] have some challenges. Thank you and through your worship Both
[1:29:42] spaces not the one that's not determined Acted as warming
[1:29:45] spaces in the past winter response And there were no
[1:29:48] concerns at that time with respect to the code or
[1:29:51] the zoning. Council Ramon. Thank you and through you and
[1:29:56] I'd like to move an amendment. To the amendment. Or
[1:30:03] an amendment to the main motion Whichever you perceive to
[1:30:05] be better.
[1:30:21] So Councillor you kind of ask a question of me
[1:30:24] there at the end. Which way you could do it?
[1:30:26] You can move an amendment to the amendment now Um...
[1:30:29] That's no problem If it's related to the amendment If
[1:30:31] it's more related to the general provision You've not spoken
[1:30:33] yet to the main motion You could also move an
[1:30:36] amendment to the Azimed Motion or the main motion Depending
[1:30:40] on that this passes or not. To change a component
[1:30:43] of it So I guess I'm in your hands on
[1:30:46] Is it related to these clauses or is it related
[1:30:48] to another piece. Or if you feel like it has
[1:30:51] to be attached to this Then I would say do
[1:30:53] it now if you feel like it's more independent Um,
[1:30:55] then you could do it. At the main motion. Thank
[1:30:58] you Andry It's variable So the first part of this
[1:31:01] motion reads the implementation of the proposed winter response And
[1:31:06] part D also reads that B directed to implement So
[1:31:09] it's the implementation piece that I'm trying to amend. So
[1:31:15] it's either.
[1:31:56] Councillor I think I know what you're going for So
[1:31:59] it says in this piece The implementation that proposed winter
[1:32:02] Response be subject to the following. Um When we go
[1:32:05] back to the main motion You can change the top
[1:32:08] level implementation piece. Because if you did it now and
[1:32:15] then this failed Then you might have to do it
[1:32:17] again But you could just have it applied all because
[1:32:20] the Counselor's main pieces of the clauses are 1, 2
[1:32:22] and 3 Um, and the B subject 2 piece But
[1:32:26] you can I mean you could adjust the implementation piece
[1:32:30] in the main. Clause Which I think was D. And
[1:32:39] then depending on where this lands Is this landing under
[1:32:42] D.
[1:33:37] You could do it after You could change the word
[1:33:39] implementation in its forms throughout the has amended motion or
[1:33:44] the main motion. After this is passed. But we don't
[1:33:48] know what you're trying to do So you might need
[1:33:50] to give us more context We could probably rule a
[1:33:52] little bit better on this Okay Thank you Um so
[1:33:55] my context I guess is this I would like to
[1:33:57] amend this motion to include part D Notwithstanding Council Policy
[1:34:01] regarding the existence of resting spaces on the main street
[1:34:04] of BIA.
[1:36:25] Okay, so our advice after some discussion is do it
[1:36:28] now because given the context of your emotion, the support
[1:36:33] or not for clauses, these new classes that Councillor Stephen
[1:36:38] has proposed may be subject to the clause that you
[1:36:42] want to put link to the implementation. If this passes
[1:36:46] in the asm - ended motion, the implementation piece would
[1:36:49] need to be cleaned up because you can't implement it
[1:36:52] without doing these things. And so we will have changed
[1:36:55] the subject two piece on the implementation. So now is
[1:36:59] the time to do it. And then it will link
[1:37:04] in with the main motion. We'll have to do something
[1:37:06] later because it'll be part of it. Okay? All right.
[1:37:21] Could you just read it out. And then you can
[1:37:27] provide some more rationale because it'll be as amended motion.
[1:37:30] Thank you. That the motion be amended to be further
[1:37:33] amended to add a new part IV that reads as
[1:37:37] follows, notwithstanding a Council policy regarding the existing resting spaces
[1:37:42] on Main Street of BIA. Is there a seconder for
[1:37:47] that? Councillor Trosow. Okay, so now we're only going to
[1:37:53] debate that edition to the amendment. So we're not debating
[1:37:58] the amendment. We're debating that additional clause onto the amendment.
[1:38:04] Go, would you like to speed now? Okay, go ahead.
[1:38:07] Thank you, Andrew. So I want to thank Councillor Stevenson
[1:38:10] for pointing out what was missing from our discussion. And
[1:38:13] I think it's important that this discussion beframed correctly and
[1:38:19] that the information be put in this light. I know
[1:38:22] there was support for this last year when we were
[1:38:27] looking at resting spaces. And part of the reason for
[1:38:30] that support to allow resting spaces on the Main Street
[1:38:33] of a BIA was because we didn't have a lot
[1:38:36] of options for where else people could go. And so
[1:38:40] here we are. We've received staff's report, staff of outlined
[1:38:44] the locations that were possible for, uh, overnight spaces. And
[1:38:49] this was one that was put forward. And I want
[1:38:52] to make sure that non - technicality, uh, but purposefully
[1:38:57] we're addressing the issue so that there is those spaces
[1:39:00] available. Or for this upcoming winter. So appreciate that we're
[1:39:05] having this discussion here. I'm sorry that it didn't happen
[1:39:09] at committee. Um, and hope that this helps us to
[1:39:13] move forward on this matter. Okay. Other speakers on the
[1:39:18] further amendment. Go ahead, Councillor Tro. Just on the amendment,
[1:39:26] because I'll come back to the, um, just on the
[1:39:28] amendment to the amendments. I'll come back to the amendment.
[1:39:32] Um. I think it's a good amendment to the amendment.
[1:39:35] I think it's a reasonable amendment to a bad amendment.
[1:39:39] So I'm going to support the amendment to the amendment.
[1:39:41] I'm not going to support the amendment, but we'll get
[1:39:43] to that later. Um, for now, what I want to
[1:39:45] say is I hope that was clear. Yeah. Okay. Uh,
[1:39:50] for now, what I want to say is I, I've
[1:39:53] always felt that this whole prohibition against having, uh, these
[1:39:59] activities that are, that are, that are lawful activities that
[1:40:03] are within, that are within the appropriate zoning that are
[1:40:07] things that are being, uh, controlled and monitored by the
[1:40:11] property owner probably was a bit of an overreach. And
[1:40:17] should they be challenged? There could be substantial issues. Now,
[1:40:22] I'm not, I'm not asking the solicitor for an opinion
[1:40:26] as to whether or not this framework is subject to
[1:40:29] a successful attack. All I'm saying is when we come
[1:40:32] back and make these. Amendments, we're just showing a level
[1:40:37] of flexibility that, that shows we're trying to ameliorate the
[1:40:43] potential harshness of the underlying rule. And I think, should
[1:40:48] we find ourselves in a situation where we're trying to
[1:40:50] defend our, um, our work that would help us a
[1:40:54] lot. So that's why I'm supporting Council Raman's. Amendment. Does
[1:41:01] the underlying measure say you can't do this on the
[1:41:05] street or does it say you can't do it on
[1:41:07] any premises with an address on the street. I don't
[1:41:11] have that in front of me. Mr. Dickens.
[1:41:22] Thank you, your worship. I need a moment to pull
[1:41:24] up the exact wording, but it was tied to city
[1:41:27] funding only. So not self - funded or funded through
[1:41:30] other parties, but any municipal funded service, uh, on the
[1:41:34] main street of a B. I. A. It did not
[1:41:36] specify whether it was in a dwelling out of a
[1:41:38] dwelling or anything like that. And if I understand the
[1:41:41] situation, they are not housing people on the street, are
[1:41:43] they? Go ahead, Mr. Dickens. Through your worship, that is
[1:41:51] correct understanding. Um, hence one more level of ambiguity in
[1:41:56] this underlying, uh, measure that could create problems for us
[1:42:00] if it was challenged. Now I'm not, I'm not going
[1:42:02] to, uh, make a further motion that we, we, uh,
[1:42:07] we, we do some major changes to what we already
[1:42:10] agreed to. But I just, I just think that given,
[1:42:13] given that ambiguous language, which could be problematic. Because for
[1:42:18] me, being on the street means being on street. Um,
[1:42:23] I just, I just think that this kind of, um,
[1:42:25] amendment just sort of gives us the kind of, uh,
[1:42:29] flexibility that could really assist this later if we got
[1:42:33] into, uh, legal, legal trouble. So I'm going to vote
[1:42:35] against the entire thing, but, well, the entire amendment. But
[1:42:39] if the amendment passes, it's much stronger and much better
[1:42:42] with this. So thank you for, thank you for bringing
[1:42:46] that, Councillor. Okay. I have Councillor McAllister next. Uh, thank.
[1:42:55] Thanking through the mayor. Uh, I do appreciate the discussion
[1:42:58] today. Um, I think Councillor Stevenson had mentioned this earlier,
[1:43:02] but, um, I do take a bit of issue in
[1:43:05] terms of when we have these discussions in terms of
[1:43:07] the notwithstanding, the Council policy, um, I think back to
[1:43:10] the time when we had this debate, uh, and it
[1:43:13] is predominantly the two B. I. that are constantly impacted
[1:43:17] by this. I do recognise in terms of the time
[1:43:20] restriction we've put on this. Also recognising we have limited
[1:43:24] options as Council Ramen said, um, but when I look
[1:43:27] ahead to the, um, the budget ask that we'll be
[1:43:31] made on the next cycle. I think that that is
[1:43:33] the time where we need to have those discussions in
[1:43:35] terms of locations and where we see these things long
[1:43:39] term. Because right now I think it is incredibly unfair.
[1:43:42] Even when we say B. I. it's not. It's two
[1:43:46] B. I. A's. Um, I experienced this with the coffee
[1:43:48] house, OAV has experienced this for a number of years.
[1:43:52] And so I'm just expressing the frustration that I'm hearing
[1:43:54] from the B. I. A. A. members from the community
[1:43:56] members that we are constantly putting in on the shoulders
[1:43:59] of two communities. And that is why I'm trying to
[1:44:02] state a Council that when this discussion comes back for
[1:44:05] those, um, budget discussions, then we need to recognise that
[1:44:09] we have repeatedly asked two areas of the city to
[1:44:13] shoulder the responsibility. And that is grossly unfair. When we
[1:44:19] say the notwithstanding this policy, I was very serious in
[1:44:22] that discussion that these are the two B. I.'s. And
[1:44:25] if I have to change the language to explicitly say
[1:44:28] Hamilton Road and OEV, which will eventually become one, or
[1:44:31] not one, but they will be in one ward. Uh,
[1:44:34] I will change the language accordingly if I have to,
[1:44:36] to call out those B. I. A. s because they
[1:44:38] have shouldered this for far too many years. So I'm
[1:44:40] just calling it out. I recognise again, the situation we're
[1:44:43] in. We do have some lead time. But this is
[1:44:46] absolutely the last time that I am willing to support
[1:44:50] an extension of this sort. Because we have no other
[1:44:53] options right now. I am looking forward to, uh, with
[1:44:56] this amendment in terms of, well, this is the amendment
[1:44:58] to the amendment, but having that location discussed because I
[1:45:02] don't, I think it would be unfair to once again,
[1:45:05] ask those areas, uh, to take on this responsibility. So
[1:45:09] I'm understanding where we're at. I do very much feel
[1:45:11] like this is again, um, no win situation. Um, the
[1:45:16] same areas are going to unfortunately bear the brunt. But
[1:45:20] I do think that this plan, as it's been laid
[1:45:23] out is better than what we previously had. We're not
[1:45:25] giving up a community centre. Uh, and we are trying
[1:45:28] to accommodate smaller numbers and not have large facility, which
[1:45:32] would be a very difficult to manage. So I'm just
[1:45:35] trying to say, I recognise all the considerations have gone
[1:45:37] into this. Appreciate the amendment to the amendment that we're
[1:45:42] now discussing. Um, but these are some considerations that we
[1:45:45] absolutely need to take into account when we have these
[1:45:47] discussions. So thank you. Okay. On this, go ahead Councillor
[1:45:55] Stevenson and then Councillor Ferreira. Thank you. Um, I just
[1:46:00] will point out that I said that to move things
[1:46:02] along, I was going to let people speak so that
[1:46:06] I could work on the amendment that I was bringing.
[1:46:11] Councillors are allowed to bring another one. But of course
[1:46:13] it's contrary to the direction that I was going, but
[1:46:17] that's okay. It's consistent with the way this has been
[1:46:20] at this during this term of Council. The 696 Dandas
[1:46:27] Street location. Is a problem. It is a big problem
[1:46:31] for that neighbourhood and for the neighbouring businesses who pay
[1:46:35] a levy and have a B. I. A. because this
[1:46:39] Council had it as one of their strategic objectives to
[1:46:42] make that a viable, livable, vibrant business district with the
[1:46:47] way that area deserves. The same as every other area
[1:46:50] of the city. To say that there's no other locations
[1:46:57] is counter to our whole objective of 12 to 15
[1:47:00] hubs around the city. How did we all get behind
[1:47:04] that. Well, not all of us. But this Council got
[1:47:07] behind that. And yet just says there's nothing we can
[1:47:11] do about poor old East Village. So my motion would
[1:47:17] have been to say we're going to exclude taxpayer funding
[1:47:20] from the 690 6nd Street location. And I will move
[1:47:24] that if this fails. The overnight spaces at 696 Dundes
[1:47:30] Street have continued to operate under donations as they should.
[1:47:35] We should not be using the property tax dollars or
[1:47:38] the, uh, the tax dollars, whether they're federal, provincial or
[1:47:42] municipal of the residents of that neighbour, neighbourhood and the
[1:47:47] business owners and property owners of that area to fund
[1:47:51] the spaces to which they have been crying out for
[1:47:55] help. If it's done on donations and property that's owned
[1:47:59] by a charitable organisation, that's for them to do. But
[1:48:03] for this Council to support in the fourth year of
[1:48:07] this term to continue to use their taxpayer money, to
[1:48:12] fund these services when they have cried out in despair
[1:48:16] for four years. And their Councillor has advocated for help
[1:48:20] that we just stop using their money to cause the
[1:48:24] problem. So I would encourage Council to say no to
[1:48:29] this. They the overnight spaces will continue. They haven't stopped,
[1:48:33] but they were used by charitable donations. And at half
[1:48:38] the cost I must add, because when you see it
[1:48:40] on Facebook, it's 50 dollars a night. So I'm asking
[1:48:45] Council to say no to this. Allow the organisation to
[1:48:48] do it with donations. And then at least we're not
[1:48:50] guilty of using their money. To do the service. It's
[1:48:55] going to continue anyway. Let's just honour our strategic objectives
[1:49:02] and the voice of that neighbourhood. And the pleas of
[1:49:06] that neighbourhood to say, please don't do it with our
[1:49:08] tax money. Councillor. Thank you Mayor.
[1:49:18] Um, so like the conversation here, lots of ideas, um,
[1:49:24] and this discussion has been going on for, I think
[1:49:27] three and a half years or however long council has
[1:49:29] been here since I've been here. Um, like when we
[1:49:33] first discussed, um, restricting resting spaces in the OEV, uh,
[1:49:38] that was very politically driven. And it was not really
[1:49:42] a conversation that focused on what would be the consequences.
[1:49:46] It was a motion to try to remove service providers
[1:49:50] and shelters within, um, the OEV and within B. I's.
[1:49:56] The anticipated result of that was to see, to push
[1:50:01] these providers outside. Hopefully, I believe, and this is my
[1:50:05] opinion, it was to push outside of the OEV. That
[1:50:07] didn't translate into reality. What really happened was individuals are
[1:50:13] just left out on the street. And there was more
[1:50:15] individuals out on the street. And the reason that I
[1:50:19] was against that initial motion was because of exactly that.
[1:50:23] And today a lot of individuals are saying our homelessness
[1:50:27] crisis is that, you know, is through the roof. And
[1:50:30] some of the reasons of that is because we have
[1:50:32] been systematically shutting down spaces with motions like this. I
[1:50:36] was against this motion at the time. Um, because of
[1:50:39] that, I'm still against that because I understand that the
[1:50:42] capacity that we have is really within these areas. However,
[1:50:47] I also see that there is a truth, a reality
[1:50:52] that we do have service providers within a small area.
[1:50:57] And I do not see the city providing citywide anyways,
[1:51:01] providing such providers. So there is some merit with some
[1:51:06] of the things that are being said. Now I am
[1:51:08] going to vote for this notwithstanding amendment because I understand
[1:51:13] that we have to work with what we have right
[1:51:16] now because we do have a crisis. But I would
[1:51:20] also suggest we put an amendment to this amendment. Can
[1:51:23] I put another amendment on this. Word. There are already
[1:51:26] two amendments deep. You can't do another one yet. Okay.
[1:51:27] Well on the main motion, we need to put some
[1:51:31] priority. To look at all locations citywide. To help us
[1:51:36] when it comes to the homelessness crisis. We need to
[1:51:40] have specific language. And I think this might be the
[1:51:43] time to do it. To also look citywide of where
[1:51:46] capacity can also be increased. Because there is a debate
[1:51:49] and it has turned into a battle of the wards
[1:51:52] back and forth. Who is going to put spaces out
[1:51:56] to help people in need out on the street? Who
[1:51:59] is not this conversation has gone off again and again
[1:52:03] and again and again. And there is merit to some
[1:52:08] of the arguments I see here. But I will say
[1:52:11] the motion originally to shut down or not approve city
[1:52:17] funded resting spaces in the areas of the B. I.
[1:52:20] A. has led to more crisis. Has led to more
[1:52:23] people on the street. That is a reality. If we
[1:52:26] didn't do that, more people would be in on the
[1:52:28] street. Now service providers that do this work would still
[1:52:32] be in that area, but there'd be less people out
[1:52:34] on the street. That would be for sure. So I'm
[1:52:38] going to support this because I understand that our capacity
[1:52:42] right now is existing where it is. But I would
[1:52:44] also say we do need to start figuring out. How
[1:52:48] do we place locations elsewhere. This motion should be in
[1:52:53] coordination with another set of language that says we need
[1:52:56] to start prioritizing other spaces outside the core. That provide
[1:53:02] these services that provide shelter, that provide housing that provide
[1:53:06] all the services resting spaces, whatever the language is. We
[1:53:10] need to start putting that explicitly into this language too,
[1:53:13] because not only do we need to recognise what we
[1:53:15] have, the crisis that we're in, what we've learned on
[1:53:19] this type of direction, but also how do we mitigate
[1:53:24] these issues that are arising? Because there's some realities here,
[1:53:28] but we need to start really looking at the data.
[1:53:29] We need to start looking at what has really transpired
[1:53:32] in the last three years. With this direction. And we
[1:53:35] need to start really understanding that there is only a
[1:53:38] couple areas in the city that have really put, you
[1:53:41] know, all hands in. To respond. We need the rest
[1:53:45] of the city to be responding with us. 30 seconds.
[1:53:48] So I guess I'm going to have to move an
[1:53:51] amendment. So it's coming. You can't on the main motion.
[1:53:59] Okay. Other speakers to the amendment that is before us.
[1:54:02] Go ahead, Depreer Lewis. Thank you, Chair. So in listening
[1:54:08] to this conversation, I think we need to draw a
[1:54:12] colleagues attention back to some realities. First of all, I'm
[1:54:16] going to support the amendment. I think it's, it's the
[1:54:18] appropriate amendment to clean up the language, make sure that
[1:54:20] that's in there. Um, reality one. The ARK and the
[1:54:28] unity project. Own their buildings. So if you want to
[1:54:34] talk about moving them, then you better talk about a
[1:54:36] multi - year budget business plan for property acquisition to
[1:54:39] then do land swaps with them because that is what
[1:54:42] you're talking about. I would also remind colleagues. That the
[1:54:47] core is not the only location where we have homelessness
[1:54:49] services. On Clark Road in the East End, I have
[1:54:53] the YOU Youth Shelter. I also have the Innova Women's
[1:54:56] Shutter. South of the 40 - 1 is where we
[1:55:01] put the micromoduler shelter because we weren't going to put
[1:55:04] it. Again in the downtown. And I heard colleagues argue
[1:55:07] against that because it was too far away because it
[1:55:09] wasn't in the core. So respectfully to say that all
[1:55:14] the services are in the core is not accurate. There
[1:55:17] are services in multiple words across the city. Um, and
[1:55:22] the last time we brought something forward as a council,
[1:55:25] the micromoduler shelter, which I think has been very successful
[1:55:28] so far. Was deliberately put outside the core. Because there
[1:55:34] are a range of needs in our homeless population. There
[1:55:38] are, uh, folks who do need to be away from
[1:55:42] the core area. So that they can, uh, go through
[1:55:46] their journey towards, uh, recovering from addiction, from dealing with
[1:55:50] their mental health crisis, from whatever the situation might be.
[1:55:53] In some cases, just to reconnect with family to get
[1:55:55] back up on their feet, to get back up to
[1:55:56] working and be back out on their own. And I
[1:55:58] know we've had people at the micromodular shelter who have
[1:56:00] seen that progress and have actually moved out of the
[1:56:03] micromodulator shelter and are now, uh, in rental units elsewhere.
[1:56:07] Some of whom I know are back to work. That's,
[1:56:09] that's a success. And we know that we've seen the
[1:56:12] arc with its cronin warner, uh, project do the same
[1:56:15] thing. They have shown us numbers of people who have
[1:56:18] been in those beds who have been able to reconnect
[1:56:22] with family who've been able to get health services who've
[1:56:25] been able to get, uh, help with employment services and
[1:56:27] have been able to get back out on their own.
[1:56:30] I also think we have to be practical that. Say
[1:56:34] this every time we have this discussion to hundreds of
[1:56:37] people, I've said it on the doorstep hundreds of times
[1:56:39] too in the last couple of months. The city's not
[1:56:41] going to solve this problem alone. We're not. Ladies and
[1:56:46] gentlemen, without a serious effort by the province. And we
[1:56:50] could, we could talk about ODSP rates and O. Rates
[1:56:53] and how the shelter allowances are not nearly adequate, uh,
[1:56:57] we could talk about the need for the federal government
[1:56:59] to invest more affordable housing. As well as the province
[1:57:03] investing in healthcare beds, uh, in addiction and mental health
[1:57:05] recovery. We can talk about all of those things. We
[1:57:08] can't do them. There are MPPs and MPs whose job
[1:57:12] it is to address those issues. So we can only
[1:57:14] do our part. And I think with what we've got
[1:57:17] here before us in the winter response, this is the
[1:57:20] best option we have for the moment. I'm going to
[1:57:24] support the amendment. Uh, I will actually just for the
[1:57:28] clerk's sake so that they can, uh, perhaps separate out
[1:57:32] some language. On the amendment from Councillor Stevenson, uh, and
[1:57:36] I'll speak to this when we get back to that.
[1:57:37] But if we could separate out part one. Cause I
[1:57:40] want to vote on that differently than the other parts.
[1:57:42] Um, so if we could do that, that would be
[1:57:44] appreciated. But that's my comments on the, on the amendment
[1:57:48] from Council Rahman. I'm absolutely going to support it because
[1:57:50] I think we do need to recognise that notwithstanding, we
[1:57:53] have two providers who are stepping up. Who own buildings
[1:57:56] in the area. And until we are willing to spend
[1:58:00] money to acquire properties, that's going to continue to be
[1:58:03] a reality. Okay. Other speakers to Council Ramen's
[1:58:12] Amendment. All right. Singe Nummer going to open just Council
[1:58:19] Ramens amendment for voting.
[1:58:36] Closing the vote, motion carries 14 to one. Okay. Now
[1:58:43] I need an as amended motion. Um, for the amendment,
[1:58:48] uh, which I assume Councillor Stevenson, you don't want to
[1:58:50] move anymore. Council Ramen, you're willing to move. I need
[1:58:53] a seconder for the as amended motion, Deputy Mary Lewis.
[1:59:08] Okay. So now we're going to start debate on the
[1:59:11] as amended amendment. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. Um, so I
[1:59:18] just want to go through the first part is the
[1:59:21] approval of the proposed 40 space location that is listed
[1:59:25] currently as to be determined. And, uh, I know that
[1:59:28] the residents that I speak want to have a say
[1:59:30] in where that goes and they want it to be
[1:59:32] done publicly and not just find out after the fact.
[1:59:36] So I think that's important, especially given the, what the
[1:59:40] confirmation. And I just want to confirm through you to
[1:59:42] staff that the emergency shelter guidelines, if we pass them
[1:59:46] today with the illegal substances allowed inside that that does,
[1:59:51] uh, apply to these warming spaces as well. Like I
[1:59:54] confirmed at committee, but I just want to reconfirm here
[1:59:56] at Council. Go ahead. Three of your worship. Um, yes,
[2:00:02] the emergency shelter guidelines do prioritize bringing people indures when
[2:00:06] there's risks to them being outside. And so in the
[2:00:08] winter season, this would be further exacerbated. Um, leaving people
[2:00:11] outdoors in the cold. And so those same shelter guidelines
[2:00:14] would still apply to the winter spaces. Um, the staff
[2:00:17] are still responsible for ensuring safe, um, premises on the
[2:00:20] ground. They're regardless of the client that are in the
[2:00:22] space. Thank you. So again, because illegal substances are most
[2:00:27] likely to be allowed inside if this next motion passes
[2:00:31] or the next, uh, agenda item passes. I think it's,
[2:00:34] uh, something that Londoners want to know and they want
[2:00:37] there to know where their Council members stand when these
[2:00:39] locations are decided. Number two is that all contracts be
[2:00:43] placed on the public agenda. Uh, there's no reason why
[2:00:46] these contracts aren't placed on the public agenda. We've done
[2:00:49] it before. We want to see the details on it.
[2:00:52] We've seen the contracts for the ARC that we say
[2:00:55] daytime spaces, but we've seen the hours shrink from 11
[2:00:58] to 7 to, uh, 9 to 4, 3 to 7
[2:01:03] or whatever it is. I'm not sure what the hours
[2:01:04] are, but they've been shrinking each contract. And those details
[2:01:07] aren't in the staff report. They are in the contracts.
[2:01:10] I do think that they should be publicly, uh, available.
[2:01:14] And the last one is that, uh, all proposed locations
[2:01:17] be subject to fire and bylaw compliance review. So, uh,
[2:01:21] I heard yesterday that fire inspections have not been done
[2:01:26] at these locations. And that 30 mattresses on a floor
[2:01:29] is not something that they've seen and inspected. I may
[2:01:33] have misunderstood that, but maybe if staff have anything to
[2:01:36] add, this is the reason why I've added this in.
[2:01:40] Is rather than me just send an email asking for
[2:01:43] fire inspections that we just make it a matter of
[2:01:45] course. Thank you. And, and I would have to confirm
[2:01:54] with the chief on that. Because I don't understand the
[2:02:00] context of what he said. So we would want to
[2:02:03] confirm from London fire department. Okay. Thank you. And I
[2:02:08] understand. And like I said, what I heard yesterday was
[2:02:12] that, uh, and from a fireish official, but I may
[2:02:18] have misunderstood. But I don't think it hurts to double
[2:02:21] check, even if I misunderstood that, that if we have
[2:02:24] 30 mattresses or 25 mattresses are caught on the floor
[2:02:27] of a basement or in a building that didn't have.
[2:02:33] Isn't regulated for sleeping, um, I heard that the need
[2:02:38] to be done for safety and nobody here wants to
[2:02:41] be part of any kind of tragedy where we've got
[2:02:43] a bunch of people where we haven't met complete fire
[2:02:47] code inspections. It's one of the things we haven't really
[2:02:50] talked about is the fact that emergency shelters, warming spaces,
[2:02:53] all these locations, the, I'll confirm through you to staff.
[2:02:57] There's no licensing requirements. There's no, you know, you have
[2:03:00] to open up a coffee shop. Something the things you
[2:03:03] need to do. But for these, my understanding is there's
[2:03:06] no requirements for this type of, of, of thing that
[2:03:11] usually would be required if you ran a boarding house
[2:03:13] or something like that or a tendency arrangement. Mr. Maithers.
[2:03:21] Three of your worship, I can confirm the specific license
[2:03:23] related to these type operations. Yeah. So I don't see
[2:03:28] any harm in making sure as a Council that we've
[2:03:31] got, you know, fire inspected locations and that everything everybody's
[2:03:36] safe and compliant. And so that's my reason for adding,
[2:03:39] uh, that to the amendment today, uh, is just to
[2:03:42] ensure that when we are bringing people in out of
[2:03:46] the cold, that the fire inspectors have been there and
[2:03:48] ensured that we've got a safe location for people to
[2:03:51] stay. So it's simply knowing the location representing our, our
[2:03:57] residents to ensure that, you know, if and when it
[2:03:59] comes to any of our awards that we have a
[2:04:02] say in it and that the public's involved, contracts transparent
[2:04:06] and accountable to the public for taxpayer funding and fire
[2:04:10] inspection and bylaws seems a pretty basic thing that any
[2:04:12] one of us would want to support. But I leave
[2:04:14] that to my colleagues. Okay. Um, we're on the asthmated
[2:04:24] motion. I know Councillor Ploughs, I had you on the
[2:04:26] original amended, but so if you want to go now,
[2:04:28] you can. Go ahead. Thank you noting the Deputy Mare
[2:04:33] also has his hand up. Uh, just ever so briefly.
[2:04:37] Oh, and Councillor Fair too. Um, Eversa briefly, uh, threw
[2:04:40] you to staff, um, looking at the motion specifically, uh,
[2:04:44] for the timing of it, um, for the original part,
[2:04:50] I, I, I'd all propose locations be subject to fire
[2:04:53] and Bylaw compliance review and sign off by the appropriate
[2:04:56] city officials prior to the execution of, uh, related contract.
[2:05:00] Wondering about timing that perhaps the service provider will find
[2:05:05] a building and need to do modifications to it to
[2:05:08] make it appropriate for the purposes of a side contract,
[2:05:11] but they don't have the money to do it until
[2:05:12] side contract is executed. So I just feel some concerns
[2:05:16] about the inspections that they can't inspect the work to
[2:05:19] give the contract and they can't do the work until
[2:05:21] they have the money from subcontract. Just looking through you
[2:05:24] to staff for that, that one's just a process question
[2:05:26] and I'm just having some concerns with it.
[2:05:38] Mr. Dickens. Thank you worshipping through you. So there is
[2:05:43] one property that's to be determined. I think what the
[2:05:45] organisation is looking for is a commitment coming out of
[2:05:48] today's meeting that there would be a funding allocation set
[2:05:51] aside for them, which gives them the opportunity to go
[2:05:53] and seek an appropriate location. Uh, and I think they're
[2:05:56] aware of the context of the conversation today about where
[2:05:59] that location might be. But also it would then, uh,
[2:06:03] require that whatever this location is. It is safe and
[2:06:06] suitable for the intended use. The other locations that are
[2:06:10] in this report are spaces that are used now and
[2:06:14] today. So the language being, uh, all proposed locations be
[2:06:18] subject to fire inspection or sign off. These organisations already
[2:06:21] have fire safety plans in place. Uh, the fire department
[2:06:26] does visit, uh, from time to time. Uh, last year
[2:06:29] when we ran Boyle, we, uh, we're using it for
[2:06:31] a very different purpose than what it's intended. And the
[2:06:34] fire department was very helpful in coming in doing a
[2:06:36] walkthrough, giving us suggestions and recommendations. When we launched a
[2:06:40] micromoder shelter site, which we have never done before in
[2:06:43] a location that had never intended for that use, the
[2:06:47] fire department was very instrumental in the site plan design,
[2:06:50] doing walkthroughs and making suggestions and recommendations around our fire
[2:06:54] safety plan. So, uh, yes, the timing may be, um,
[2:06:59] complicated when you look at, uh, we need a confirmation
[2:07:03] of funding. So we can go find a confirmation of
[2:07:04] space. We need it to be a suitable space. So
[2:07:07] we can execute that lease agreement. Um, but here we
[2:07:10] are. And I think that's a reality. We're going to
[2:07:12] have to manage the best as we can. And then,
[2:07:14] uh, when all the, uh, agreements are executed, uh, we
[2:07:18] would certainly bring all of those agreements forward, uh, at
[2:07:21] one time to committee. Go ahead. Uh, thank you. Uh,
[2:07:28] I'm fine with, uh, part, uh, part I with the
[2:07:32] reports being public, uh, afterwards. I still have concerns about
[2:07:36] I that if we pass it based on the public
[2:07:38] perception of what they think is going to happen, um,
[2:07:41] and what actually happens might be different or that at
[2:07:44] that time when things are getting implemented, timeline. It might
[2:07:47] be a different council here. Not sure of what parameters
[2:07:50] we set. So those are my main concerns about that.
[2:07:54] And just want to thank the surface provider for watching
[2:07:55] in person today. And joining us. Great. And you said
[2:07:59] Councillor Hillier had his hand up or no. Oh. Oh.
[2:08:03] Okay. I didn't. Oh, David. Okay. Perfect. Um, go ahead,
[2:08:07] Deborah Lewis and then Council Farra. Thank you, Chair. And
[2:08:12] through you, uh, as I said, I'd like item one
[2:08:15] pulled separately, uh, because I believe it actually presents a
[2:08:20] timing problem as well, similar to what Councillor Plosa was
[2:08:23] referencing on, on the fire inspection. So through you to
[2:08:26] staff, uh, the last meeting of this Council is October
[2:08:31] 14th, I believe. The new Council does not meet again,
[2:08:37] uh, until late into November. Uh, subjecting this to Council
[2:08:41] approval, uh, from a timeline perspective, uh, be a barrier
[2:08:47] to implementing this for the beginning of December. Dickens. Thank
[2:08:56] you. Your worship and through with the Deputy Mayor is
[2:08:59] highlighting is real world challenges. So the way it's laid
[2:09:02] out and to our understanding and correct us, if civic
[2:09:05] administration has us wrong, um, the organisation would, uh, receive,
[2:09:12] uh, decision today that there's funding that is allocated to
[2:09:15] them. They would then use that, um, understanding that they
[2:09:19] have funding available to go and secure to the best
[2:09:22] of their ability, a location. But that location that they
[2:09:26] find would need to come back to committee, uh, for
[2:09:30] it to be discussed and debated a committee and council
[2:09:33] for Council to agree on that location being the right
[2:09:36] location. Uh, only then would we be able to then
[2:09:39] enter into, uh, an agreement to have the organisation provide
[2:09:44] the service in that location. Noting we can't execute the
[2:09:48] agreement until the fire inspection and any other applicable sign
[2:09:51] off. Um, when you look at it from that perspective
[2:09:55] of here's the money, go find a location. If you
[2:09:57] find a location, we'll take it to Council of Council.
[2:10:01] OKs the location. Then we'll have fire and Bylaw. And
[2:10:03] then we'll execute the agreement. It's going to create a
[2:10:07] real problem for the organisation on when do you start
[2:10:09] to recruit staff? Uh, when do you start to train
[2:10:13] any new staff you may hire? Uh, when do you
[2:10:16] make sure that the space is suitable for occupancy. So
[2:10:20] long story long, uh, absolutely. This is going to push
[2:10:23] us well into the winter. And we try to our
[2:10:26] best to come to you, uh, before summer really kicked
[2:10:29] off so that we wouldn't be in this position. Thank
[2:10:33] you. And that's my concern. We're talking about one location.
[2:10:38] Uh, we're talking about, uh. Six week window at the
[2:10:43] most for that location to not only be identified, but
[2:10:47] then come back through a committee and Council cycle for
[2:10:50] our approval. And assuming that it's not referred at Council
[2:10:54] and Committee because we want to look for a different
[2:10:56] location again. Then we're talking at the earliest. Council could
[2:11:00] approve a location being the new Council on the 24th
[2:11:03] of November. Uh, for a winter response that, uh, is
[2:11:08] supposed to start on December 1st. So I can't support
[2:11:12] part one. Uh, I think that our staff have demonstrated,
[2:11:16] uh, that they listen. I think we saw that with
[2:11:19] the micro modular site when they came back with a
[2:11:21] location, uh, that they will do their best to work
[2:11:24] with our service partners, uh, but we do have limited
[2:11:27] options here. And we are also on a time crunch.
[2:11:31] And we have repeatedly heard from the public. We've had
[2:11:36] a discussion around this horseshoe. It's certainly been a discussion
[2:11:40] in the media in years past. Why is this not
[2:11:43] happening sooner? Why are we not opening beds until January.
[2:11:48] This proposal is to open beds in December. And in
[2:11:53] November 24th, deadline for Council Approval is simply not enough
[2:11:56] time to do that. So I can't support section one
[2:11:59] of this. I do think that bringing back the public
[2:12:03] information on the contracts on an agenda, um, that's fine.
[2:12:10] It's just to me, it's a transparency piece. That's fine.
[2:12:12] Um, working with the fire and By - law compliance.
[2:12:16] I mean, we've heard Mr. Dickins say that would be
[2:12:17] part of the process anyway. So I'm okay with parts
[2:12:20] two and three. Uh, but I need part one called
[2:12:23] separately because I don't believe that that is a realistic
[2:12:25] timeline, uh, for Council to make approvals on a location.
[2:12:35] I have Councillor Ferreira and then Councillor Hopkins. Thanks, Mayor,
[2:12:40] through you. Um, yeah, I agree with Deputy Mayer on
[2:12:44] part one. Everything that he said there. Um, you know,
[2:12:47] the location is definitely going to be, and always is
[2:12:50] the biggest discussion point. It's not, not necessarily the money
[2:12:53] or the funds or the location of the source. It's
[2:12:55] the location. Of the, of the, of where the facility
[2:13:04] or where the service will be provided. So I'm not
[2:13:07] going to be voting for that. And I think that
[2:13:08] that this will push us into a really tight crunch
[2:13:10] time and could lead to, um, situations that may not
[2:13:14] be within our favor within the city, the greater cities'favor.
[2:13:18] So I'm going to be voting against, uh, part I.
[2:13:23] S the contracts. Yeah. I think I agree as well.
[2:13:25] It's a transparency piece. So I'll be supporting that part
[2:13:28] three. Now I do understand, especially from Councillor Peloso's questions
[2:13:31] that we already do this. So, uh, I feel like
[2:13:35] it's a little redundant because we do do this. I
[2:13:37] have seen, I've had, had, have, had these questions with
[2:13:40] staff prior in our past responses and the staff have
[2:13:44] answered me that yes, we do, we do this work.
[2:13:47] So I'm not going to be supporting that because that
[2:13:48] is already done and I'm worried about the perception of
[2:13:50] the public that it may show that we haven't done
[2:13:52] this before, but this is exactly what we do. Um,
[2:13:55] and then, um, with the Council Rahman's motion, like I
[2:13:58] said, I'm going to be supporting that. And I won't
[2:14:01] be moving my amendment now. I'm going to move it
[2:14:02] on the main motion. So, um, so those are, those
[2:14:05] are my comments. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah. Thank you. Your worship.
[2:14:14] And I want to thank the, um, Award Councillor's advocacy
[2:14:17] for her work in the community. Uh, but I won't
[2:14:21] be supporting, um, the motion. I in particular the ever
[2:14:26] two parts of it. I don't want to get into
[2:14:29] the weeds. I'm pretty sure we already do it. I'm
[2:14:32] satisfied with that. But being on the committee when this
[2:14:36] winter response report came to us, I was so pleased
[2:14:40] that we were getting ahead of the curve a little
[2:14:43] bit when it came to making decisions for our winter
[2:14:47] response program. I think we've all seen this throughout the
[2:14:50] past number of years. We're always doing catch up. We're
[2:14:54] always trying to make decisions as the snow starts to
[2:14:57] fall. So there is no way I'm going to get
[2:15:00] in the way of making decisions to move forward with
[2:15:03] our winter response program. And that's the main reason why
[2:15:07] I won't be supporting eye. So if that could be
[2:15:10] pulled and again those are my comments. Other speakers
[2:15:20] to the amend of amendment Council Troso. I'll make this
[2:15:25] short because, um, through the chair, I'm going to repeat
[2:15:27] a lot of the things that others, including the Deputy
[2:15:29] Mayor. Have said part one absolutely not that will get
[2:15:35] in our way. Part two, my senses, those are going
[2:15:39] to be available anyway, but sure, let's, let's, let's put
[2:15:42] that in there. Um, part three, I'm going to not
[2:15:45] vote for because it suggests that, um, well, let me
[2:15:48] put this in the form of a question. We're enacting
[2:15:51] that all proposed locations be subject to fire and Bylaw
[2:15:55] compliance review in sign - off. Without this passing, without
[2:16:00] that clause passing, aren't these properties subject to such compliance
[2:16:05] and review anyway? And I hear, could somebody say yes?
[2:16:10] No, we'll have staff responding. Okay. I'm sorry. They're just
[2:16:12] shaking their heads in. No, I'm going to have them
[2:16:14] respond if that's your request. Go ahead, Mr. Mayors. Through
[2:16:24] your worship, absolutely that's accurate. It would apply to all
[2:16:26] premises in the City of London. So, um, this is
[2:16:32] clearly redundant. And I think it's also a little bit,
[2:16:37] it's calling into a question whether or not this is
[2:16:39] going to happen. This is, it's not only redundant, but
[2:16:42] it's, it suggests that it's necessary and it's not. So
[2:16:45] I absolutely am not going to vote for three. And
[2:16:48] I think with that, um, yeah, I'll support part two,
[2:16:54] but I think that's, this whole thing's pretty superfluous. But,
[2:16:58] um, let's just get on with it. And, um, I'm
[2:17:01] glad that the whole thing is moving along. Taking a
[2:17:04] little longer than I would have liked. But all in
[2:17:08] all, I think some really good work has been some
[2:17:12] really good work has been done here under very, um,
[2:17:15] difficult circumstances. So that, that's that in terms of the,
[2:17:20] uh, Council Ramen's amendment that passed is, is that, did
[2:17:25] I cover that that's I already said I was supporting
[2:17:27] that. Is that, is that a separate number or is
[2:17:30] that under two.
[2:17:40] Okay. Given what everybody said, Councillor, yes, it's part of
[2:17:43] the azimut emotion, but these, all these pieces are going
[2:17:45] to be voted on separately now. Because pretty much everybody's
[2:17:49] asked to have them all pulled apart. So. I'm done.
[2:17:52] Thank you. Okay. Other speakers.
[2:18:06] Okay. So, um. Okay. So we're going to
[2:18:16] vote on these. We're going to vote on them in
[2:18:20] just order, uh, sorry, I, I, I, I and I
[2:18:23] V. And we'll do them in that order. And then
[2:18:29] we'll just proceed with each of the votes individually. And
[2:18:32] then I'll need a mover, assuming one part passes for
[2:18:37] the as amended main motion. And we'll be back to
[2:18:39] that as amended. Okay. So we're going to open part
[2:18:43] i first for voting.
[2:19:25] Motion carries five to 10. Sorry. Motion fails five to
[2:19:29] 10. It's like, that'd be a different way of doing
[2:19:32] things. It's, uh. Okay. So I, so that one fails,
[2:19:39] uh, as an amendment, um, we're going on to II
[2:19:41] now.
[2:20:23] Council Ketty. Noting verbal vote of yes. Closing the vote.
[2:20:34] Motion carries. 15 to zero. Okay. And now I, I,
[2:20:40] I. Ll open that for voting.
[2:21:11] Councillor. Apologies. My eScribe's not working. I vote no.
[2:21:21] Verbal vote. Note is noted. Closing the vote motion carries
[2:21:26] 10 to five. Okay. And now I V.
[2:21:47] Votes, yes. No, to thank you.
[2:21:59] Closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to one.
[2:22:27] Okay. I now need a mover for the as amended
[2:22:30] main motion Councillor Romans willing to move it. Councillor Ploza's
[2:22:34] willing to second it. Um, which includes all the changes
[2:22:37] we made with the exception of I. Okay. We're back
[2:22:41] to the main motion, but it's as amended. So I
[2:22:44] will start the speaker's list. Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. Thank
[2:22:49] you and thank you, colleagues. I know this has been
[2:22:52] long. Um. But this is, um. You know, this
[2:23:02] impacts my ward dramatically. And when we had the issues
[2:23:06] on Richmond Street, those were dealt with the issues on
[2:23:11] DUNDAS East or not being dealt with. And this isn't
[2:23:16] about no one said anything about moving organisations who own
[2:23:20] property. I was very clear that we just not use
[2:23:24] taxpayer funded money to provide the services there. I have
[2:23:28] never said that we as a council need to move
[2:23:31] charitable organisations who own property. It's about what we are
[2:23:36] doing here as a Council that we are funding. What
[2:23:41] many in that area believe is a large part of
[2:23:46] the problem. It's not 24 - 7. You can't compare,
[2:23:51] we're comparing apples and oranges when we talk about different
[2:23:53] shelters. These are not 24 - 7 spaces. These are
[2:23:57] come and go, or they're just overnight and then out
[2:24:01] onto the street during the day. Or it's just in
[2:24:04] for a meal and then out. So I just want
[2:24:07] to, I need to confirm through you to staff when
[2:24:10] we talk about warming spaces. Are these tables and chairs
[2:24:14] where people are sitting and coming and going throughout the
[2:24:17] night or are these mattresses or caughts where people are
[2:24:20] sleeping? Or does it vary based on location? Okay. You
[2:24:29] whisp. In my. Go ahead, Mr. Dickens. Uh, thank you,
[2:24:36] your worshiping through you. Um, this is really more, uh,
[2:24:41] warming spaces. So tables, chairs, blankets, very similar to what
[2:24:45] we provided at, uh, Boyle, where we created space for
[2:24:49] people to come in. People, well, absolutely reshift their belongings
[2:24:54] and create, makeshift, uh, sleep areas. Um, but this is,
[2:24:58] this is really more creating indoor space for people to
[2:25:01] come in out of the, out of the cold, uh,
[2:25:03] and stay warm throughout the night. And those that choose
[2:25:06] to sleep can and those that donor supported in other
[2:25:08] ways. Councillor Stevenson. Uh, thank you. Those who choose to
[2:25:13] sleep at the table is 17 minutes. Mr. Dickens. Through
[2:25:19] your worship, yes, that's quite common. People come in quite
[2:25:21] exhausted and we'll often sit at a table, lay their
[2:25:24] head down, uh, get some sleep. Or some will curl
[2:25:29] up on the floors. They did in boil, finding a
[2:25:32] quiet spot wherever they can. Councillor Stevenson. Yeah. Thank you
[2:25:36] for the clarification. So I just want to confirm then
[2:25:38] that the 30 spaces at Undundas Street, the 30, well,
[2:25:48] it's really the 30 on dendust street, I guess, because
[2:25:50] London cares. I want to confirm that all those warming
[2:25:53] spaces then will not have caught or mattresses. It will
[2:25:56] be table and chairs. I think it was confirmed, but
[2:25:58] I'm just not sure. Mr. Dickens. Through your worship. Pause
[2:26:04] for not having every detail on what some of these
[2:26:06] spaces are going to be using at the end state
[2:26:09] based on what's proposed. But, uh, for example, one provider,
[2:26:13] uh, uses gravity chairs. Zero gravity chairs. So folks can
[2:26:16] recline. Um, others will use, I don't know, normal chairs,
[2:26:20] uh, like we did at Boil. So it'll be a
[2:26:22] combination. We're not seeing any bed frames or anything set
[2:26:26] up like that. Uh, they're, um, it's primarily, uh, some
[2:26:30] form of, uh, of seeding, uh, the folks can use
[2:26:34] to rest. Councillor Stevenson. Yeah. Thank you. And I don't
[2:26:38] mean to belabor it at 696 DUNDAS what I thought
[2:26:44] happened there were mattresses were caught. Is this going to
[2:26:49] be a change where 696 10S will no longer have,
[2:26:53] um, the sleeping beds, if you call them, I mean,
[2:26:56] they're not beds here, but will they be, is this
[2:26:59] a change that now it will be table and chairs
[2:27:01] at that location. Mr. Dickens. Uh, three year worship. The
[2:27:06] organisation at 696 DUNDAS uses zero gravity chairs and they
[2:27:09] may have, um, like some nylon cots perhaps. Like we
[2:27:14] have in our emergency response that we used at THOC,
[2:27:17] uh, two years prior. Um, I do not believe that
[2:27:20] that organisation uses mattresses though. There's no mattresses. Okay. Thank
[2:27:28] you. So.
[2:27:40] There's a bunch of problems that I have with this.
[2:27:43] And it is that in the very end of our
[2:27:46] term, we still have so many of these spaces within
[2:27:51] a very short distance. Many of them, all of the
[2:27:57] identified. Warming spaces. Are within a few blockadius. They're not
[2:28:06] 24 seven. They're going to be come and go, uh,
[2:28:10] you know, people to get warm and then go back
[2:28:12] out again. Into the neighbourhood and into the business district.
[2:28:17] The biggest concern that I have with this is that
[2:28:20] we're talking about multi - year budget proposals and about
[2:28:23] extending this incontinuity. This has been very clearly stated to
[2:28:30] be unsustainable for that neighbourhood. And when we look at
[2:28:39] these things, none of us want to see people outside
[2:28:41] in the cold, which is why I have supported those
[2:28:45] spaces in the past. But we have to address the
[2:28:49] issues in that area. And to be continuing to just
[2:28:55] say to one community, sorry too bad, uh, this, you
[2:29:00] know, this is the best we can do. It's just
[2:29:04] unacceptable for many who live in that area and who
[2:29:07] are experiencing this on a day in day out basis.
[2:29:11] Many of whom are vulnerable themselves. We tried to do
[2:29:16] a good neighbour agreement. That was just, uh, not even
[2:29:19] considered by these agencies. In fact, they saw it as
[2:29:22] some sort of an insult. And now we're talking about
[2:29:27] allowing illegal substances inside. Into these neighbourhoods, into these business
[2:29:33] districts. So I'm going to have trouble supporting a good
[2:29:37] portion of this. Um, I do want to reiterate that
[2:29:40] the, um, the thing with the resting spaces, this was
[2:29:44] not about telling organisations they need to move. This was
[2:29:47] about respecting the wishes of the taxpayers to say, uh,
[2:29:52] please don't do it on a business district. Main Street
[2:29:55] where it competes with what this Council has, um, has
[2:30:00] said that matters. And we're asking these property owners to
[2:30:03] pay a levy. And yet, what are we doing for
[2:30:05] them? We have core area vacancy issues. And yet we
[2:30:08] continue to move motions like this now with multi your
[2:30:12] budgets and continuity issues. So I'll be asking for some
[2:30:15] of these to be called separately. Councillor McAllister. Thank you.
[2:30:25] And through the mayor, I do have an amendment for
[2:30:28] E. Can read that if you like. Oh, yes, please.
[2:30:35] Okay. So this is on part E Civic Administration be
[2:30:38] directed to proceed with the preparation of a business case
[2:30:41] for the 2027 annual budget update for winter response funding
[2:30:45] for 2027 to 2028 and beyond. One slight edition is
[2:30:50] including but not limited to potential property acquisitions to accommodate
[2:30:55] future shelter locations outside of ward one and 13.
[2:31:05] Okay. Just give me one sec. All right. That's a
[2:31:09] knee scribe. I look for a second to that. I
[2:31:17] don't see a seconder for your motion, Councillor. Okay. Um,
[2:31:23] I'll use this time then for my comments. Um, what
[2:31:26] I was suggesting with my amendment was in no way
[2:31:28] a prohibition, uh, it was to my earlier point that
[2:31:32] we are not being presented with options outside of the
[2:31:35] two wards. Um, that was also in keeping in mind
[2:31:38] that Lord I would then grow to accommodate OEV. That's
[2:31:41] why it said word one 13, which do currently have
[2:31:44] all of our, uh, shelters. I would still hope that,
[2:31:49] uh, future councils would take that into consideration. I think
[2:31:52] it would have been appropriate for this Council to have
[2:31:55] put some, um, options in terms of property acquisitions on
[2:31:57] the table. We hear that time and time again from
[2:32:00] shelter providers. I think obviously the province has the role
[2:32:04] to play. I had earlier, um, brought four to motion
[2:32:07] to ask the province for more money for that. Um,
[2:32:10] I do think the city we have a role to
[2:32:11] play though in property acquisitions outside. I don't want to
[2:32:14] say the core area because I think, uh, it extends
[2:32:17] past the core area. Um, but I do think there
[2:32:19] are in the future two awards that will be predominantly
[2:32:22] impacted. In terms of what we have for for us,
[2:32:26] um, I know last winter was very challenging. I think
[2:32:28] staff have done their best to create something, um, that
[2:32:32] will serve us in the short term. But again, I
[2:32:35] am looking more to the future in terms of what
[2:32:38] a sustained, um, shelter, um, system will look like through
[2:32:42] the future winters. Um, I think it's disappointing. This Council
[2:32:46] is not willing to consider other options, uh, because it
[2:32:50] leads me to believe that they would like to keep
[2:32:52] them in the same areas, which I don't think is
[2:32:54] particularly fair, but that's just my opinion. Um, I think
[2:32:57] what's before us is the best that we can hope
[2:32:59] for right now. Um, I will support it. Um, but
[2:33:02] I do hope with future considerations, um, not just as
[2:33:06] Council, ex Council, um, really do take, um, the words
[2:33:10] of the words that are being impacted seriously. They have
[2:33:13] done their part. And I think other awards need to
[2:33:15] step up. Thank you. Councillor Frank. Thank
[2:33:25] you. I just want to take a quick moment to
[2:33:27] thank staff for getting this work done well ahead of
[2:33:28] winter. Most of the residents I speak with in my
[2:33:31] area, uh, the main priority for them was making sure
[2:33:33] that people are inside over winter and making sure it's
[2:33:37] done well in advance so that we are not kind
[2:33:40] of scrambling around in November and December to lock up
[2:33:42] some spots. So I just want to say thank you.
[2:33:44] I, um, I've already heard from residents that they're really
[2:33:47] happy to see us being done in the summer. And
[2:33:48] I also am really happy we're moving away from a
[2:33:51] temperature - based approach to every single night from 9
[2:33:54] p. m. to 9 a. m. throughout the winter months.
[2:33:57] Uh, I think that it's really great that we don't
[2:33:59] have this threshold to try and meet because it did
[2:34:01] create some confusion. Uh, I also want to thank staff
[2:34:06] for working with the agencies to increase the overall number
[2:34:08] of spaces for people to come inside. Uh, I think
[2:34:11] we saw, especially with the Boyle Community Centre that we
[2:34:14] were exceeding expectations and unfortunately, um, until I see otherwise,
[2:34:19] I think we might be in a similar boat this
[2:34:21] winter. Uh, and just as well to our agencies, thank
[2:34:25] you very much for being a great, uh, member of
[2:34:27] our community and great partners to work with. We wouldn't
[2:34:29] be able to do this work without you. So, uh,
[2:34:31] I really appreciate the work that you do and that
[2:34:34] your staff do. And I think ultimately we can all
[2:34:36] agree that no one should have to sleep outside, especially
[2:34:38] in the winter. Um, but until we have enough, uh,
[2:34:41] apartments and units for everybody across the city, unfortunately, sometimes
[2:34:45] we have to rely on emergency shelters and spaces. So
[2:34:50] again, appreciate the work that staff and our community partners
[2:34:53] are doing to bring this forward. Councillor. Thank you,
[2:35:02] Mayor. Um, I guess I'm going to start with the
[2:35:05] reason I didn't support or second that motion from Council
[2:35:08] McAllister is it because I want to avoid any prescriptive
[2:35:11] language that could, uh, be regarded as a battle of
[2:35:16] the wards. Cause that is, I think, a big issue
[2:35:18] that we have. I don't want any battling of the
[2:35:20] words. I just want everyone in the city to understand
[2:35:22] that this is a citywide issue. People are unhoused citywide
[2:35:27] and we need all hands on deck. I've said this
[2:35:30] countless countless times again and again. I know that, uh,
[2:35:33] many of us want to also have that all hands
[2:35:35] on deck approach, but I don't want to be prescriptive
[2:35:37] in a way that kind of really outlines the ward
[2:35:40] one, VIII. So that's why I didn't support that. But,
[2:35:43] um, like I said, I am hearing here, you know,
[2:35:46] this impacts my words significantly. We have issues that are,
[2:35:50] you know, in certain areas. And that there's a reality
[2:35:52] there. Now I understand that yes, word one has a,
[2:35:56] why O she shelter. Word 13 does as well. And
[2:35:58] I hear that, uh, award four currently as it is,
[2:36:01] you know, has 696 location. Ward 13 has the chronon
[2:36:06] - Warner location. I'm not saying no to spaces in
[2:36:09] my ward. I have actually said yes to spaces in
[2:36:12] my word because I understand that the crisis is, is
[2:36:14] the more people that on the street, the more suffering
[2:36:16] you have, the more suffering you have, the more people
[2:36:19] house, who are watching individuals out on the street are
[2:36:21] unhappy with the directions that they may foresee counsel making.
[2:36:25] So ultimately, if we bring people indoors, if we expand
[2:36:29] those services in that capacity, you will have less crisis
[2:36:32] and you will have less people coming to our emails
[2:36:36] calling us on our phone, coming to us and saying,
[2:36:37] what are you doing when it comes to homelessness? What
[2:36:39] are you doing when it comes to the crisis that
[2:36:42] is very evident out on the street. So that's why
[2:36:45] I supported the knotwithstanding. Motion. Um, I, I did not
[2:36:50] support the original motion as it came to us a
[2:36:52] couple of years ago because I knew what would happen
[2:36:54] and it did transpire that way. More people were on
[2:36:56] the street, period. It was, it was worse. And we
[2:37:01] could have made some decisions that would have made it
[2:37:03] less worse. So I like the direction we're going because
[2:37:06] that is going to set up the next Council very
[2:37:07] well. When it comes to where the locations are, I
[2:37:12] don't want to be prescriptive, like I said. Now I
[2:37:14] did make the argument already on the amendment to the
[2:37:16] amendment or wherever that came through. Um, and I said
[2:37:19] I was going to move a motion and I am.
[2:37:21] Now I don't want to say in word one or
[2:37:24] word 13. And I don't want to say within a
[2:37:26] two mile radius of an existing location. All I want
[2:37:31] to say is to give explicit instructions to staff to
[2:37:34] say, consider this. Consider citywide. Now I know staff do
[2:37:38] that. Already. But I want to have that language there
[2:37:42] so that when you are speaking with your teams, you
[2:37:44] have it up on the whiteboard saying, this is an
[2:37:47] explicit direction from Council. So I have a motion. An
[2:37:51] amendment. That I've already sent to the clerk to have
[2:37:53] clerked up. And I want to move that. And I
[2:37:58] can read it. If you want me to. Okay, go
[2:38:01] ahead. Okay. And I clerked the, I wrote this on
[2:38:05] the fly. And I know I always criticize doing that,
[2:38:07] but I'm sorry. I had to. That the motion be
[2:38:10] amended to add a new part that reads as follows.
[2:38:13] Priority be given to locations citywide rather than being limited
[2:38:17] to locations where current services exist and that all required
[2:38:21] actions to implement this direction be considered and recommended when
[2:38:25] reporting back to Council.
[2:38:36] Okay. Uh, I'll look to see if the seconder for
[2:38:40] that. Okay. I don't see second or Councillor. It's unfortunate.
[2:38:50] I thought this Council was making the discussion. That we
[2:38:55] want these services. Citywide. So I know this Council has
[2:39:03] made decisions to shut down services in certain locations without
[2:39:06] the decisions. To see what then, what happens then. I
[2:39:12] don't understand. We have a direction that I have seen
[2:39:15] coming time and time again to shut down services. Put
[2:39:20] people back out on the street. Make things worse. Get
[2:39:24] the city completely divided. But when a direction comes to
[2:39:29] say look city wide, see what we can do. We
[2:39:32] don't. That's telling. So I would like. Council to just
[2:39:40] consider that. Because things won't get better unless we have
[2:39:45] all hands on deck in the city. Okay. Other speakers
[2:39:55] to the main motion.
[2:40:11] Yes, we're, we've had some requests to pull some things
[2:40:14] a little bit separately. So what I'm going to speak
[2:40:20] to give the court time to do that. So I'll
[2:40:21] turn the chair over to Deppy Mary Lewis. Thank you,
[2:40:26] worship all assumed with the chair. And please go ahead.
[2:40:29] Uh, yeah, so I'll say a couple of things. Um,
[2:40:33] one, just through the presiding officer Council Pereira, um, I,
[2:40:38] I know you didn't get support on your amendment. I
[2:40:40] think when you had in your comments said, consider option
[2:40:43] citywide. I think you probably would have got more support.
[2:40:45] But you actually put your most from prioritize, which is
[2:40:48] a more definitive decision to say. I think in the
[2:40:53] search for space, I've got to be as open as
[2:40:55] possible to locations, including locations across the city, which is,
[2:40:59] as it would stand now and how staff would, uh,
[2:41:01] would look at it. Um, I want to, the couple
[2:41:04] of things through the debate that wasn't mentioned first, uh,
[2:41:06] I want to say thank you to the federal government,
[2:41:09] uh, for making decision and executing, um, the, uh, the
[2:41:14] new program that allowed for, uh, 2. 5 million dollars
[2:41:18] to come to the city of London 2. 1 million
[2:41:20] of which, with part of this motion is being allocated
[2:41:22] to support the winter response. This is something that we
[2:41:24] cannot do, uh, on the backs of taxpayers, uh, in
[2:41:28] the City of London. And we require levels of government
[2:41:31] who have the capacity and responsibility for this issue. Um,
[2:41:36] to chip in and do their part. And so I
[2:41:38] want to recognise, uh, and thank those who helped advocate,
[2:41:41] including our local MPs, fragile scados and kayabaga. I want
[2:41:46] to thank my fellow mayor colleagues who advocated vigorously at
[2:41:50] multiple sessions and give specific credit to the mayor of
[2:41:53] Montreal on this issue. Um, who advocated for the renewal
[2:41:56] of this funding. And then of course for it to
[2:41:59] flow in time for municipalities, it actually utilise it. Uh,
[2:42:02] in and before the winter period as one of the
[2:42:04] options. So, um, those two pieces. At the end of
[2:42:07] the day, I raccored the comments that were made. Uh,
[2:42:10] I've heard the same thing for members of the public.
[2:42:12] They want to see, uh, these spaces dealt with, uh,
[2:42:16] well in advance of winter so that, uh, there's clear
[2:42:18] expectations of what is happening to bring people indors through
[2:42:21] the coldest months. I think I want to also thank
[2:42:23] our staff for the work they did in pulling this
[2:42:26] together. I want to thank the service agencies and partners
[2:42:30] because essentially we don't have spaces if people don't step
[2:42:32] up. And then we are using things like Community Centres.
[2:42:34] So for those who said they could provide spaces, uh,
[2:42:37] in their spaces or across the city or any of
[2:42:40] the locations that they've offered, you know, thank you for
[2:42:42] doing so. That, that takes pressure off of us to
[2:42:44] continue to fluoride Community Services and Community Centres rather than
[2:42:48] converting those into winter responses when we don't have the
[2:42:51] capacity to, uh, meet the demand across the system. So
[2:42:54] this is a good plan that brings people indoors. I
[2:42:57] remind you when we bring people indoors, we have the
[2:42:59] ability in those times to connect them with services, to
[2:43:02] connect them with services to help them make their lives
[2:43:04] better. Whether those are people with mental health and addiction
[2:43:06] issues, people looking to connect with employment or housing, uh,
[2:43:09] having people in spaces where we've got, uh, people who
[2:43:12] know how to help them when they can connect with
[2:43:15] individuals and talk with people, uh, that is always a
[2:43:18] good thing for addressing people who are unsheltered in our
[2:43:22] community or are facing significant housing challenges. Um, finally, I
[2:43:26] do want to thank our staff for the incredible work
[2:43:29] they did with the last winter response. Um, we used
[2:43:33] a community centre. We had an expectation that we'd use
[2:43:35] it for maybe five to 10 days. We used it
[2:43:39] for way more than that. Uh, a staff volunteered that
[2:43:41] went above and beyond. Um, and I wanted to recognise
[2:43:43] that as we approve this next iteration of winter response,
[2:43:46] the tremendous amount of volunteering and commitment that our staff
[2:43:51] did to make the last winter response work through, uh,
[2:43:54] very difficult conditions and a very long, uh, stretch of
[2:43:58] cold days through the winter. I think this is a
[2:43:59] better plan because of the consistency through the winter. We
[2:44:02] won't be ramping up and down. Um, but I recognise
[2:44:04] last year was difficult, but it worked because both providers
[2:44:07] in our city and our municipal staff made it work.
[2:44:09] And to the residents of the areas that were impacted
[2:44:11] by the use of the community centres, you know, we
[2:44:13] also thanked them. We know that that was, uh, definitely
[2:44:15] an inconvenience when you can't do all the programming you
[2:44:18] expect in your local community centre. You know, we certainly
[2:44:20] heard your concerns last year and we have a winter
[2:44:23] response plan that does not use those spaces in the
[2:44:25] same way. So, um, with that, I'll be supporting the
[2:44:28] motion for. Thank you, worship. I will return the chair
[2:44:34] to you and I have only myself on the speaker's
[2:44:36] list. Well, you go ahead then. Thank you. So I'm
[2:44:41] going to be supporting the motion. Um, but I think
[2:44:44] it's important to also, uh, set the record straight on
[2:44:49] some of what we heard today. Since. The term of
[2:44:55] this Council began. We have more overnight beds in our
[2:44:59] city. Than we've ever had. We've heard a lot about
[2:45:05] cuts. We have reallocated, uh, resources to other things. But
[2:45:10] we actually have more overnight beds, whether it's Cronin Warner,
[2:45:15] whether it's the Atlosa and YOU hubs, whether it is
[2:45:20] the modular shelters out at Cheese Factory Road. Whether it's
[2:45:25] the new heart hub that was the result of a
[2:45:29] lot of advocacy with the province after we essentially provided
[2:45:32] them the blueprint. Uh, for a hub, um, this Council
[2:45:38] has added beds and capacity to the system. It is
[2:45:44] unfortunate that we have policies from the senior levels of
[2:45:46] government, uh, that continued to put people into homelessness. And
[2:45:50] I know, uh, Ms. Moss is in the gallery. I
[2:45:54] heard her on the Craig Needles podcast not long ago
[2:45:57] referencing as much as we are fishing people out of
[2:45:59] the water and trying to get them dried and helped
[2:46:02] out. Uh, upstream more people are being pushed into the
[2:46:05] river. And that analogy is true. So yes, there is
[2:46:08] still a lot of homelessness in the city, but it
[2:46:10] is not from lack of effort from our service providers
[2:46:13] or from these Council. To address the problem. In fact,
[2:46:18] your worship - e - referenced at your state of
[2:46:20] the city address that through this term of Council, uh,
[2:46:23] there are 1, 500 fewer people on the streets because
[2:46:27] through this four - year term, they have been moved
[2:46:29] through systems, whether it's through the Cronin - Warner beds,
[2:46:32] whether it's through help at London cares, whether it's through
[2:46:34] help with the Salvation Army. They've been moved through the
[2:46:36] system and they are no longer on the street. They
[2:46:38] might be in an end well. Site. Which we have
[2:46:42] added three locations during this term of Council 2. They
[2:46:46] might be at the new home's Unlimited Buildings that we've
[2:46:49] opened on pawn Mills Road or over on Dufford through
[2:46:54] an office to residential conversion. But there is more support
[2:46:58] and more spaces than there have ever been. In our
[2:47:02] city. So we haven't been cutting spaces. We may not
[2:47:05] agree on the allocations. And that's okay. That's part of
[2:47:09] the process. And that's why we have debate and that's
[2:47:11] why we vote on TS. But it's not factually true
[2:47:15] to say we have cut services. We have actually increased
[2:47:18] services over the hospital years. So I will be supporting,
[2:47:22] uh, the main motion before us. Is it perfect? No.
[2:47:25] Would I like other options? Yes. We also experienced, uh,
[2:47:31] less than a year ago. Uh, tasking our staff, uh,
[2:47:35] with standing up a micromodular site. Uh, that when we
[2:47:39] gave them all the criteria we wanted, there was not
[2:47:43] really anything to choose from. They came back to us
[2:47:45] with one site because that was the only one that
[2:47:47] they had available that was in our ownership. That could
[2:47:50] match the criteria we had set out. So I think
[2:47:56] there has been a demonstrated desire. I think the, uh,
[2:48:00] the hubs right now are both located. I think they're
[2:48:03] on a dividing line. So they might be inward 12
[2:48:05] or word 14. And I apologise to the two word
[2:48:08] councillors for, for not knowing exactly where the dividing line
[2:48:11] is, uh, Councillor Frank has a new indwell building in
[2:48:14] her ward. Um, these are things that are happening around
[2:48:17] the city, uh, and so I think we need to
[2:48:19] be mindful of that when we speak to these sorts
[2:48:21] of motions, um, it's not perfect, but we have to
[2:48:25] work with what we've had. And we as a Council
[2:48:28] collectively have made progress on this issue. Uh, the fact
[2:48:32] that we are talking about winter response in August this
[2:48:34] year rather than October, I think continues to demonstrate that
[2:48:38] this is an issue that while we may have disagreements
[2:48:41] about particulars on, every single one of us around this
[2:48:44] horseshoe cares a vote.
[2:48:56] Okay. Any other speakers Council Priviley. Thank you. I know
[2:49:00] I mentioned it to all of you during the meeting,
[2:49:02] but during the, uh, CAPS meeting by just one I
[2:49:04] reiterated one more time and mayor lady said it as
[2:49:07] well. Great. Thank you to our staff for last winter.
[2:49:10] And I visited a place three times. And to how
[2:49:12] our staff came together and I'm not talking, I'm talking
[2:49:15] about management, middle height, executive management, management, staff, life level
[2:49:19] staff. Everyone came together and it was absolutely amazing how
[2:49:23] our staff helped our community. Uh, I mentioned this one
[2:49:27] as well before. All the initiatives that we've introduced, I've
[2:49:32] been talking to some other municipalities and certainly not just
[2:49:35] in Canada outside. And everyone is telling me that based
[2:49:38] on our funding model, it doesn't matter if it's provincial
[2:49:40] or federal or municipal the way decide they honestly don't
[2:49:45] see the light at the end of the tunnel and
[2:49:48] they say it's going to be a deja vu for
[2:49:50] staff and the organization's all the time. Because the funding,
[2:49:53] there was one of my fellow councillors said it's not,
[2:49:56] it's not really about money and about the funding. It
[2:49:59] is. That's all it's about actually. That's the number one
[2:50:02] thing because we have to know how we know what
[2:50:04] we want to do. We could deliver. It doesn't matter.
[2:50:06] If you look at our spectrum of housing, it's absolutely
[2:50:08] great. Guess what? We don't have the funding. We don't
[2:50:11] have the money. But there's the thing that if the
[2:50:13] higher levels of government don't come with a sustainable model
[2:50:17] with a long - term vision, I truly believe that
[2:50:19] discouncil will have to come with a multi - year
[2:50:22] budget, which will include this. Because right now this is
[2:50:25] the most expensive, most nonproactive way. How we are addressing
[2:50:31] it as a Council, as a staff, as the agencies.
[2:50:35] But guess what? None of us want to do that.
[2:50:38] None of us. We want to have a perfect vision.
[2:50:40] We want to see where we want to be in
[2:50:41] 5, 10, 15, 20 years. But guess what? We don't
[2:50:44] have money funding. If you don't have the commitments. But
[2:50:47] thank you, Tole Greer with the mayor mayor, what he
[2:50:51] stated. Are we where we are? Am I glad improving
[2:50:54] this winter response? Of course I'm not. I want something
[2:50:57] with a bigger vision, more bad, more sustainable. But based
[2:51:00] on the funding model we have, and we can always
[2:51:04] be better. Everyone can always be better. But I really
[2:51:07] see that we moved it forward. Forward as much as
[2:51:11] I would like to, not. But again, I'm not going
[2:51:14] to repeat what I already said. Thank you again. Okay.
[2:51:24] Uh, so any other speakers first. Okay. We're going to
[2:51:31] separate this as has been requested.
[2:51:58] So I've had Councillor request to do D. Part three.
[2:52:07] And E separate. So D part III. And E separate
[2:52:12] of the main potion that was Councillor Stevens for that.
[2:52:15] I don't have anybody asking to do anything else separate.
[2:52:18] So yeah. I asked for IV, but maybe it's changed.
[2:52:23] Okay. Yeah. It's, it's incorporated now. You'll see when we
[2:52:28] put it up, but, uh, the clerk took what you
[2:52:30] asked for an email and put it together. So that's,
[2:52:35] that'll be done first. I just need to know if
[2:52:37] anybody else wants it. Then we'll do everything else after.
[2:52:40] No one has any other way they want to do
[2:52:41] it. Okay. Good. We'll proceed that way. So. If you're
[2:52:51] in eScribe, we're going to be doing vote 11. Which
[2:52:55] is just those pieces. And then we'll do the remainder
[2:52:58] of them. Okay. Okay. We're going to open that for
[2:53:05] voting.
[2:53:22] Closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to one.
[2:53:31] Okay. And now we're going to do the remainder of
[2:53:33] the motion. We'll open that for water.
[2:53:59] The vote. Motion carries. 15 to zero. Okay. I know
[2:54:07] the next one probably gets debated a bit. It's been
[2:54:10] two and a half hours. I wonder if colleagues want
[2:54:12] to take a 10 minute break at this point. Councillor
[2:54:15] Farr, you want to move 10. Or people are going
[2:54:18] to boat against it because it's not 15. Like, yeah,
[2:54:20] I think we should amend that 15, let's be honest,
[2:54:23] by the time we get upstairs and back down, we're
[2:54:25] never back in 10. Uh, motion two, take a break
[2:54:27] for 15 minutes. Move by Council Farrak, second of a
[2:54:30] Deputy Mayor Lewis. Let's do it by hand. All those
[2:54:33] in favor. Any opposed. Motion carries. Okay. We'll do 15
[2:54:40] minutes.
[3:16:13] Okay, thank you, please be seated. We're back to Council
[3:16:18] Ramen to continue with that committee's report. Thank you. I'd
[3:16:22] like to put item 4, 2. 3 housing, stability services,
[3:16:25] procurement, and delivery framework emergency shelter guidelines 2011 versus 2026
[3:16:30] comparative analysis on the floor. Okay, that's on the floor
[3:16:33] for discussion. I'll look for speakers. Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson.
[3:16:38] Thank you, I circulated an amendment for this one as
[3:16:40] well. That the motion be amended to add a new
[3:16:44] part that reads as follows. D, the Civic Administration be
[3:16:48] directed to amend the emergency shelter guidelines as appended to
[3:16:51] the above - noted staff report as Appendix A to
[3:16:55] I remove any provision that permits illegal substances to be
[3:16:58] brought into or possessed within emergency shelter locations. And I
[3:17:04] remove any provision that prohibits the discharge of or service
[3:17:07] restrictions being imposed on, an individual for the use of
[3:17:11] illegal substances within an emergency shelter location. And III ensure
[3:17:17] that the current version of the emergency shelter guidelines is
[3:17:20] made publicly available on the City of London's website and
[3:17:23] maintain thereon for an ongoing basis. Okay, so secondative for
[3:17:29] that. A Councillor Hillier is going to second it. Okay,
[3:17:33] so we can start discussion on the amendment. It should
[3:17:35] be in eScribe and available for colleagues to read. Which
[3:17:41] I'd like to go ahead and speak. Oh wait, and
[3:17:44] go after my colleagues. Any speakers to this. Councilman Callister,
[3:17:49] go ahead. Thank you for the chair. Just, I listened
[3:17:55] to the committee discussion on this. No, they went through
[3:18:01] a lot of things. I think the question that still
[3:18:03] is on my mind, and I think this was brought
[3:18:04] up a committee as well. But I just still don't
[3:18:08] understand, in terms of enforcement, how this would be enforced.
[3:18:11] My understanding from what was discussed a committee was, you
[3:18:15] know, shelter staff do not have search and seizure powers.
[3:18:18] And so I'm just wondering if staff can maybe add
[3:18:21] anything further to that. Or if this is something in
[3:18:24] terms of the police having to deal with illegal substances.
[3:18:28] Because my understanding that they do not have the power
[3:18:31] to do anything of this, so the staff can comment.
[3:18:34] Mr. Dickens, go ahead. Thank you, and through you, your
[3:18:38] worship. That is correct. This would be very difficult to
[3:18:42] enforce. I think the delegation submission is part of the
[3:18:45] CAPS agenda was really clear. This community has had several
[3:18:48] policies in place for emergency shelters. Uh, long before some
[3:18:53] of my colleagues and I were here, uh, the same
[3:18:55] issues were persistent when there was a prohibition, as there
[3:18:59] is now under a harm reduction framework. And as we
[3:19:03] point out, um, in the report, uh, we're simply just
[3:19:08] trying to modernize our guidelines to reflect that what is
[3:19:12] in your pocket is not the sole grounds for being
[3:19:15] denied entry to an emergency shelter bed in one of
[3:19:18] our low - barrier emergency shelters. Um, shelter providers still
[3:19:24] have the ability. To, uh, remove someone from the building
[3:19:29] to, uh, put in service restrictions, um, and it's looking
[3:19:33] at the whole experience. So a person comes in and
[3:19:37] if they are, you know, trafficking or using, or, uh,
[3:19:41] disruptive or the behavioral issues, absolutely that shelter provider has
[3:19:45] a responsibility to keep the place safe. And they may
[3:19:49] lay service restrictions. They may ask that person to leave.
[3:19:52] That is what happens now. And I assume that's what
[3:19:54] would happen going forward. Council, sir. Thank you. Through the
[3:20:00] mayor, and yeah, that was my understanding. I did some
[3:20:03] research on this as well. And, um, I know a
[3:20:06] number of municipalities struggle with it. And whether you explicitly
[3:20:08] say not allowed or you allow, um, their response is
[3:20:12] essentially the same where they do have to call police
[3:20:15] services in to manage it. Uh, I would imagine that
[3:20:17] would be the same thing with any sort of like
[3:20:19] weapons, uh, charges. Uh, there'd be a number of issues,
[3:20:22] not just listed substances, but my understanding is that the,
[3:20:25] um. The way of dealing with this would be through
[3:20:28] the police. Um, I understand in terms of what the
[3:20:31] Councillors trying to achieve here, but, uh, I don't think
[3:20:35] it matters one way or the other. I think Enforcement,
[3:20:37] uh, is going to be handled by the same service
[3:20:39] regardless of what you have in your policy, uh, the
[3:20:42] laws would supersede any shelter policy depending on what they're
[3:20:46] dealing with in that situation is my understanding. So with
[3:20:50] that in mind, I think updating this policy is appropriate.
[3:20:54] Um, I do think regardless of what you have, uh,
[3:20:57] written, uh, you're still going to have those challenges. Uh,
[3:21:00] and I understand in terms of where the shelter staff
[3:21:02] were coming from that this is not a task that
[3:21:05] there feel comfortable to handle or can actually enforce. Um,
[3:21:09] so with that, I'll leave my comments there. But curious
[3:21:11] to hear what other colleagues have to say because I
[3:21:13] know if there was a lengthy debate at committee as
[3:21:15] well. Okay. Other, uh, colleagues.
[3:21:28] Right. Councillor Privileg and Councillor Stevenson. Thank you very similar
[3:21:31] to what Council Mcroll Lister said. I love what's in
[3:21:35] front of us what's proposed. But it's actually based on
[3:21:40] the play, based on the city province we live unfortunately
[3:21:44] legal. If you are not able to do it. So
[3:21:47] this I see, I love it. As I said, uh,
[3:21:50] at the committee meeting when I discuss their visor, I'm
[3:21:52] a jurisdiction outside this country. They said absolutely. They would
[3:21:56] support it. They were not allowed. Having said that, that
[3:21:59] they have the tools how to address it, how to
[3:22:02] adjust it right at the entrance with private security guards
[3:22:06] with actually even, uh, detectors. So the weapons don't go
[3:22:09] into places. They have it at every virtual place. And
[3:22:13] they can, they have actually the tools. And they have
[3:22:16] the teeth to actually, uh, to actually implement it and
[3:22:21] to make such decisions. We don't. And based on that,
[3:22:25] I will not be supporting it. We had things before
[3:22:27] us before that we were discussing in other areas. And
[3:22:32] we said, great idea of you actually cannot act on
[3:22:35] it. And I believe, I feel that this is the
[3:22:37] same way if I hear otherwise that we can. I
[3:22:41] would be willing to change my mind. But as I
[3:22:43] said, I just, if it's various people, organisations, uh, in
[3:22:48] our province. And I always got the same answer. There's
[3:22:51] nothing you can do about it. And even if you,
[3:22:54] if you put this forward, you won't be able to
[3:22:56] act on it. Having said that, speaking with the agencies,
[3:23:01] they do, they don't have to, they don't have the
[3:23:05] individuals can enter. But if they do use it, they
[3:23:08] do act on it. So it's not kind of like
[3:23:10] it's a green light. Go ahead to do this. No,
[3:23:13] that's not the case. Thank you. Councillor Stevenson. Uh, thank
[3:23:20] you. We did have a long discussion about this at
[3:23:22] committee. I'm bringing this forward because, uh, it's illegal. And
[3:23:30] so we have a sentence that says allowed illegal substances.
[3:23:36] I could not find that in any other cities guidelines.
[3:23:39] Many of the other stuff we have in our guidelines
[3:23:41] I saw, but not a sentence that allows illegal substances.
[3:23:46] That's what I'm asking to be removed here. I'm not
[3:23:49] even saying go back to the prohibition of 2011. I'm
[3:23:52] saying, how about we just not say that they're allowed
[3:23:55] to bring in illegal substances. We'll let staff work that
[3:23:58] out the guidelines can be published. It already says there
[3:24:03] that they can make amendments and changes. So maybe they
[3:24:06] can find another way to address this without this Council
[3:24:10] endorsing guidelines that allow illegal substances. I know for me,
[3:24:17] we heard what the agency said. We understand the concerns.
[3:24:21] There's always a straw man argument put out there. Like,
[3:24:23] Oh, so who's going to strip search them to make
[3:24:25] sure that there's nothing in there. There's a far cry
[3:24:28] between that and saying they're allowed. So. I feel strongly
[3:24:38] that I need to bring this forward. I heard what
[3:24:40] the agency's had to say. It certainly wasn't all of
[3:24:43] the agencies through you to staff. Did mission services and
[3:24:46] salvation army? Have they both explicitly said that they support
[3:24:50] this change. Go ahead. Three worship. The
[3:25:00] consultation sessions that were developed and carried out in result
[3:25:03] of creating these shelter guidelines that include all the organisations
[3:25:06] that were offering shelter services. We've connected with those organisations
[3:25:10] that you've mentioned. They offer, um, unique programs within those,
[3:25:13] those spaces that are recovery oriented programs. These guidelines do
[3:25:16] make provision for the nuances that come with a recovery
[3:25:20] - oriented program. The low barrier emergency shelters that we're
[3:25:23] talking about in consultation with the other shelter operators, including
[3:25:26] those, those organisations, like this would align with the harm
[3:25:29] reduction practices that they do have in their shelters. Go
[3:25:36] ahead, Council. Uh, thank you. Um, and through you, uh,
[3:25:41] the emergency room at the hospital, do they make allowances
[3:25:44] like this as well, given that they deal with a
[3:25:46] lot of the same clientele. Go ahead. Throw you worship.
[3:25:53] I think I should point out that that is well
[3:25:55] beyond our jurisdiction here as municipal staff to comment on
[3:25:58] the hospital. That's better answered by the hospital. Go ahead,
[3:26:03] Councillor. Yeah. Thank you. I understand that it's just the
[3:26:06] same premise that services are needed by a particular clientel.
[3:26:15] To me, it would be useful to know if they
[3:26:16] were doing that at the hospitals. The R code of
[3:26:22] conduct says that we, uh, are supposed to uphold both
[3:26:26] the letter and the spirit of federal and provincial laws.
[3:26:31] So again, endorsing this policy that allows illegal drug use
[3:26:36] or illegal substances to be brought inside, um, is a
[3:26:40] concern to me. I'm representing the residents in my ward.
[3:26:46] And I've heard very clearly from them that they don't
[3:26:48] support this, that they do not want, uh, illegal substances
[3:26:52] to be explicitly allowed inside taxpayer funding shelters anywhere in
[3:26:58] the city, uh, particularly not in the neighbourhood, uh, that
[3:27:02] they live in. Um, I've also heard concerns, you know,
[3:27:05] there was a letter submitted by the OEV B. I.
[3:27:08] A. Executive Director with a lot of, uh, various questions
[3:27:14] and concerns in here around, uh, insurance possibility of insurance.
[3:27:20] Possibility of, uh, legal liability potentially or workplace and safety
[3:27:25] regulations have through you to staff. Has that exhaustively been
[3:27:31] explored in terms of, will there be insurance, you know,
[3:27:35] no general insurance liability concerns for these agencies with the
[3:27:39] change in policy workplace safety, no concerns there. And I
[3:27:44] don't know if we need to go, uh, into closed
[3:27:46] for legal, but I would want to know if something
[3:27:49] were to happen. Uh, would we be legally liable. For
[3:27:53] the change. Mr. Jins. Um, through you, your worship. Very
[3:28:01] fair question. We did see the communication on the Council
[3:28:04] Agenda, uh, we have lots of, uh, responses to it
[3:28:08] if needed. These organisations have been operating in this way
[3:28:12] now. Um, I want to make it clear. The inclusion
[3:28:15] of the language harm reduction or, you know, removing the
[3:28:20] piece of, of, uh, suspicion of substance use or possession
[3:28:26] of substances is a requirement to, uh, deny you entry
[3:28:30] to a shelter. It's not suddenly introducing this activity to
[3:28:34] our community. These organisations that currently operate this way all
[3:28:38] have board of governors board of directors. They all have
[3:28:41] their own independent legal advice. And they all have their
[3:28:44] own independent insurance. If this had been a problem up
[3:28:47] to this point, it would have been flagged. In the
[3:28:50] consultations by their boards or by their leadership teams. Or
[3:28:55] it would have been a practice. They had not been
[3:28:56] carrying out up until this point. Councillor Stevenson. Um, thank
[3:29:04] you.
[3:29:14] I understand that many people want the laws to be
[3:29:18] different than they are, but the laws are what they
[3:29:21] are. And this is a sentence that clearly states that
[3:29:26] we're allowing illegal substances without setting parameters on other illegal
[3:29:30] activity. As I said, representing the residents in my ward,
[3:29:35] I just can't support having that in there, which is
[3:29:39] why I bring forward this motion for Council to consider
[3:29:43] what their residents, uh, how and how they would want
[3:29:46] them to vote on this amendment. The publishing of the
[3:29:52] guidelines, I think is really important because we delegate the
[3:29:55] authority to make changes. So I think having that accessible
[3:29:58] for anybody to be able to look at is really
[3:30:00] important. And the other one is about 30 seconds, you
[3:30:04] know, discharging, restricting, not being able to discharge people or,
[3:30:09] uh, do service restrictions for people who actually use the
[3:30:13] illegal substances inside, which is still prohibited. Um, that is
[3:30:18] a concern for me as well. And I wonder too,
[3:30:22] if, you know, the other statements in there that say
[3:30:25] people can't be discharged or service restrictions just because they
[3:30:28] have a substance use disorder, that all makes sense. But
[3:30:31] to say that they can't do it if people use
[3:30:34] inside has at least the perception that there's no consequences
[3:30:37] if they do. Your time is up. Councillor Franklin, then
[3:30:46] Councillor Cotty. Thank you. Uh, first off, I just want
[3:30:52] to say thank you to staff for bringing this fort.
[3:30:54] I think it's good for us to have, uh, a
[3:30:57] framework that accurately reflects what is happening within our shelter
[3:31:01] guidelines and to have it updated to 2026. I think
[3:31:04] that's good again for the Community to know what our
[3:31:07] standards are and what's the expectation and what's going on.
[3:31:10] And to again, reflect what is currently happening within our
[3:31:13] services. Uh, I do want to flag that it's my
[3:31:16] understanding it's not illegal for someone to enter facility and
[3:31:21] for this specific example shelter provider. If they're under the
[3:31:24] influence or if they have drugs in their body. So
[3:31:26] I hear there's some discussion about whether or not, you
[3:31:29] know, we're following legislation, but it's not illegal for someone
[3:31:32] to enter that building. Additionally, it's my understanding that shelters
[3:31:36] also have human rights considerations. And as addiction is protected
[3:31:39] as a disability under the Ontario Human Rights Code for
[3:31:43] shelter providers to deny people access to their services because
[3:31:46] they might have an addiction actually puts that at jeopardy
[3:31:49] as well. And I don't think that we want to
[3:31:51] have any claims about not being able to accommodate disabilities
[3:31:54] within our community. Uh, so again, just want to say
[3:31:57] thank you to staff for updating these guidelines. And I
[3:31:59] think they'll be, um, despite some folks not perhaps agreeing
[3:32:03] with a harm reduction approach. I think they'll be helpful
[3:32:06] for the Commute to understand what staff are doing and
[3:32:09] what our providers are doing as well. Council Ketty. Thank
[3:32:14] you worship and through you. Um, question for staff. Mr.
[3:32:17] Dickens, do we have any information on if this is
[3:32:21] an ongoing problem or is isolated cases where people are
[3:32:24] consuming drugs while they're into shelters? Because if it's not,
[3:32:27] it may be nice. If it's isolated, maybe it's a
[3:32:30] tempest and a teapot and it's something we really don't
[3:32:32] need to be concerned with. But if it is more
[3:32:36] than that, perhaps it is something we need to discuss.
[3:32:38] Thank you. Mr. Dickens. Thank
[3:32:48] you. And through your worship, I would, um, I would
[3:32:52] adventure to say that, uh, this is a problem that's
[3:32:55] widespread across the province emergency shelters, uh, from Niagara, uh,
[3:32:59] through, uh, through northern Ontario, uh, especially northern Ontario are
[3:33:03] dealing with these same challenges. Um, trying to manage a
[3:33:06] drug crisis, um, and I want to make sure I'm
[3:33:10] very clear. Organisations can discharge people. They can restrict people,
[3:33:16] uh, for a number of reasons. Uh, it's just coming
[3:33:20] in, uh, with suspected possession of drugs or under the
[3:33:25] influence would not be the sole grounds. If that person
[3:33:28] again is, is trafficking or disruptive or using, um, it
[3:33:33] may lead to a discharge. It may lead to service
[3:33:35] restrictions. What we're really trying to ask service providers to
[3:33:38] do, which they are essentially doing now, is we want
[3:33:41] to create a point of intervention. Uh, to provide someone
[3:33:46] a therapeutic path or recovery. And we can't do that,
[3:33:49] uh, if we keep locking the doors on them and
[3:33:51] asking them not to come in because they have an
[3:33:53] act of addiction. If we can get them in the
[3:33:55] door, um, we can work with them. And if they're
[3:33:58] under the influence, shelter providers can try to provide them,
[3:34:02] uh, a safe space and try to work with them,
[3:34:04] uh, time and time again to get to that point
[3:34:06] where we can make referrals. As it talks about in
[3:34:09] our report, refers to therapeutic services and recovery services and
[3:34:14] addiction and mental health services. We want to get people
[3:34:16] on a path to recovery. Um, we talk about the
[3:34:19] drug problems. We're really focusing at the front door of
[3:34:22] an emergency shelter. As being the pain point. Uh, in
[3:34:26] a community that has a drug crisis, it would be
[3:34:28] great to stem the flow of drugs into our community.
[3:34:32] The police would be a great resource to do that.
[3:34:35] Or to stem the trafficking activity that happens within our
[3:34:38] community. Um, upstream versus just focusing on someone looking for
[3:34:43] a place to sleep. So to answer your question, this
[3:34:45] is a very pervasive problem, not just in London, across
[3:34:49] Ontario, across Canada, uh, regardless of what policy is in
[3:34:54] place. Go ahead, Councillor. You good? Okay. Thank you. I
[3:35:01] have, uh, Councillor Hopkins next. Yeah. Um, I know we've
[3:35:08] got the amendment in front of us. So I will
[3:35:11] speak to the amendment and I'll make my comments to,
[3:35:14] to the main motion. I won't supporting the amendment. Um,
[3:35:17] even though I do appreciate the conversation here, uh, I
[3:35:21] do want to say though, first of all, thanks to
[3:35:26] staff for modernizing our guidelines, I think that is what
[3:35:30] we needed to do here. I really do appreciate the
[3:35:35] focus being more on housing focused. Getting people into places.
[3:35:42] And I want to thank the agencies I know you
[3:35:45] had a delegation at committee from unity project. It was,
[3:35:50] uh, them sharing their experience. And one of the things
[3:35:53] I got out of that, uh, delegation was the understanding
[3:35:58] that compassion and the ability to, uh, still be accountable.
[3:36:06] I think that is where the focus is going. And
[3:36:10] I get that, um, there needs to be still accountability,
[3:36:15] but we can still do with compassion. And my third
[3:36:18] point, while I'm standing, I just want to say the,
[3:36:22] the challenges that we have as a municipality as much
[3:36:25] as we can update a guidelines modernize the need for,
[3:36:30] uh, funding, uh, from the provincial government, I think when
[3:36:33] it comes to not only mental health, but addiction, um,
[3:36:37] supports the other part is the, uh, Affordability. We see
[3:36:43] it in our guidelines. We want people in places. We
[3:36:46] need these buildings built and the operational, uh, dollars that
[3:36:53] go with that to, to make them successful. So many
[3:36:56] thanks to staff. Council Rahman. I thank you and through
[3:37:04] you to staff. Um, I'm just wondering if I can
[3:37:06] get some answers on the amendment for part I'm just
[3:37:13] wanting to clarify what house staff interpret this.
[3:38:13] Okay, go ahead. The rear worship. Um, this would actually
[3:38:16] breed differently from what we're proposing in the current shelter
[3:38:19] guidelines that are before you're proposing that if clients do
[3:38:23] have possession or substances in their possession at the time
[3:38:26] of their intake that they are not, uh, to be
[3:38:28] immediately denied access to the shelter, um, this particular, um,
[3:38:34] phrase reads almost conversely to that, that if they do
[3:38:37] have, um, any substances in their possession during the time
[3:38:41] of the intake that they would be prohibited from accessing
[3:38:44] shelter, which would be, uh, and contravention to what we're
[3:38:46] proposing into just the research behind harm reduction policies. Thank
[3:38:53] you, three, that my question is for the chair. This
[3:38:56] motion then appears to be contrary. To what was brought
[3:38:59] forward by the committee. Okay, give me a sec.
[3:40:35] Okay Councillor, let me just, uh, do a ruling on
[3:40:39] this. So I understand your question about, um, within the
[3:40:43] shelter guidelines, uh, the counselor's direction may be counter to
[3:40:47] some of the pieces within the guidelines. The motion that's
[3:40:51] before us is ABC update the emergencies shelter guidelines as
[3:40:56] appended. Direct them to implement the guidelines, be authorized to
[3:40:59] make further administrative updates. In the motion to amend. It
[3:41:05] needs to not propose a direct negative to the main
[3:41:09] motion. Given the main piece of this is to implement
[3:41:12] the guidelines. I don't see it as counter to make
[3:41:16] some adjustments to the internal proceedings of the guidelines and
[3:41:20] the document, even if it's something that may be different.
[3:41:24] So I think it's probably important for Council to have
[3:41:27] this debate and have clarity on the components of the
[3:41:31] guidelines. And so I'm going to, I would rule that
[3:41:35] the amendment can stand based on the components of the
[3:41:38] main motion before us. Um, but I would recognise that
[3:41:42] this is a different direction than what staff put in
[3:41:45] the emergency guidelines and Council could amend it to take
[3:41:48] a different direction. So, um, I'm happy to be challenged
[3:41:51] on that if someone feels they should, but I'm going
[3:41:53] to, I'm going to allow the motion to proceed. Thank
[3:41:57] you and through you. And I do feel it's an
[3:41:59] important discussion. And so, um, I'm not going to challenge
[3:42:02] the chair on it. But I will say that I
[3:42:05] think what is interpreted versus what is written is two
[3:42:09] different things. I read this asking that the guideline be
[3:42:14] silent on the matter. And so if it's an issue
[3:42:17] of being silent, I could be supportive of it being
[3:42:21] silent. But if it's interpreted as now no longer, as
[3:42:27] sorry, the 2011 version now, then I have a different
[3:42:32] opinion. So that's what I'm trying to understand and make
[3:42:35] my decision on. And so I read this as remove
[3:42:41] what's in the 2026 guideline, but don't go back to
[3:42:45] the 2011. Is that fair?
[3:43:04] Thank you, worship. I don't know if it's as clean
[3:43:06] cut as what we're hoping for here. Um, we're trying
[3:43:10] to talk about admissions into an emergency shelter. And this
[3:43:12] is focusing on possession of illegal drugs. And if we're
[3:43:16] silent on it, I worry that every shelter provider is
[3:43:20] going to have a different interpretation of it. Um, and
[3:43:23] we might run a foul of inconsistencies or discrepancies and
[3:43:28] be right back before you, but why everyone's doing it
[3:43:30] differently. Um, and so I wish I had a more
[3:43:32] clear answer, but this seems to focus more on permitting
[3:43:37] illegal substances when we're talking about, um, grounds and requirements
[3:43:42] for, for bringing people indoors and admitting them into event.
[3:43:49] Okay. Thank you. Uh, I will mull that over for
[3:43:52] part two, um, I'm just wondering again, how to staff
[3:43:56] interpret this. Because again, from a human rights perspective, this
[3:44:00] reads differently for me than perhaps, um, some of the
[3:44:04] other guidelines around, or sorry, some of the other things
[3:44:08] in the guidelines around restricting access. This, I just, I
[3:44:12] need some clarity on how this is being interpreted. Go
[3:44:21] ahead. Through your worship, yes, this would again speak to
[3:44:26] that admission piece that we're making it clear to shelter
[3:44:29] operators that when it comes to admission that based on
[3:44:33] the fact that someone may have substances in their possession,
[3:44:36] potentially for substance use disorder or managing withdrawal symptoms as
[3:44:40] it was mentioned earlier, a potential disability that's code protected,
[3:44:44] um, we're making it clear to shelter operators that that
[3:44:47] alone, um, isn't necessarily grounds for denial to the shelter.
[3:44:53] Um, and the way we have it currently worded in
[3:44:55] the shelter guidelines would provide clarity to that, that section.
[3:44:59] Um, this particular, um, phrase that we're looking at would,
[3:45:03] um, just leads to the other point that we spoke
[3:45:04] about with ambiguity for shelter operators. Council Rahmen. Okay. Thank
[3:45:11] you. And through you, I think I'll listen to the
[3:45:13] rest of the discussion, but, um, I'm hoping that, uh,
[3:45:16] these can all be called separately. Okay. Um, other speakers,
[3:45:26] uh, to this matter.
[3:46:18] Okay. Um, now I have some questions. So I'm going
[3:46:20] to turn the show over to De Mary Lewis. Uh,
[3:46:25] thank you, your worship. I will take the chair and
[3:46:27] please go ahead. Yes. So just I want to go
[3:46:33] off of what Council Ramen said because I, I'm still
[3:46:36] a little unclear on the question. Um. Part, but my
[3:46:42] question is more about part two. Part two seems to
[3:46:46] suggest that within the guidelines, um, that there's no ability
[3:46:52] to discharge for use. And my reading of the guidelines
[3:46:57] was that that's not the case. Um, you can discharge
[3:47:01] for using my conversation with some of the shelter providers
[3:47:04] is they do do that. Um, and so at part
[3:47:08] two, doesn't make a lot of sense to me because
[3:47:11] it, I believe it's already possible within the guidelines. I
[3:47:13] think there is a line in there about, you know,
[3:47:16] try to help the person first. Perhaps connect them with
[3:47:20] services or something rather than discharge right away. I know
[3:47:23] some providers have that right in, but just some clarification
[3:47:26] on what is like actually happening. If someone uses in
[3:47:30] a shelter, can they be discharged by the provider? Mr.
[3:47:34] Dickens. Thank you through you, Mr. President Officer. Um, yes,
[3:47:38] they can be. They can be discharged. Uh, what this
[3:47:41] is updating is to recognise the prevalence and the, uh,
[3:47:46] number of occurrences in which that can happen in daily
[3:47:49] life. Uh, you would spend all day discharging people and
[3:47:52] no time supporting people. And that's a wide generalization and
[3:47:56] broad stroke just to give you some context of the
[3:47:58] scale of the problem that's affecting shelters across Ontario. Uh,
[3:48:03] what we are saying is you, you can still discharge
[3:48:06] a person. Absolutely. And if there's, uh, reason to, uh,
[3:48:12] discharge a person, we expect that it's well documented. Uh,
[3:48:16] that it has come from every attempt to support that
[3:48:19] person first. And again, the, the more that shelter providers
[3:48:23] can engage with a person in that moment, uh, provide
[3:48:26] them pathways to better options, better supports, um, the better
[3:48:30] we are off as a community. And that person is
[3:48:33] better off. Uh, whereas, uh, discharging at the first site
[3:48:38] of a suspected, uh, addiction or someone who may be
[3:48:41] under the influence. If they're posing no harm to anyone,
[3:48:45] um, would be in our minds a little bit callous
[3:48:48] to, to, uh, discharge the moat to the streets when
[3:48:50] they're posing no harm. So we're asking folks, uh, that
[3:48:55] can't be the sole criteria that you're asked to leave
[3:48:57] a shelter. It could, you could be discharged. Again, if
[3:49:01] you're showing up in your trafficking and you're disruptive and
[3:49:04] you're violent and there's concerns and you're using repeatedly, you're
[3:49:07] going to be asked to leave. However, if you're in
[3:49:10] the door and you're in the building and you're under
[3:49:12] the influence, we want staff to safely engage with you.
[3:49:15] And if it's a repeated occurrence, they better be putting
[3:49:18] safety plans in place, care plans in place, start talking
[3:49:22] about referral pathways. And the addiction's world, folks need to
[3:49:25] be at least pre - contemplative that they want help.
[3:49:28] Uh, and so when they're in our care or in
[3:49:31] the care of a shelter provider, we want to get
[3:49:32] them to that state where they start to contemplate the
[3:49:35] idea that they might want help. And we do that
[3:49:37] best. If they're permitted in to have a spot to
[3:49:41] sleep than if we tell them to go away. That
[3:49:43] is what this guidelines is trying to communicate. We're here
[3:49:46] to help people. We want to help as many people
[3:49:48] as possible. And asking them to leave at the first
[3:49:51] sight of an addiction is not conductive to doing that.
[3:49:58] Councillor Stevenson. This amendment is very clear about its substance
[3:50:06] use inside the shelter. So this, you know, the all
[3:50:10] kinds of stuff in it that talks about people have
[3:50:12] substance use. You can't be discharged for that reason. All
[3:50:16] that kind of stuff. I'm not touching that. This is
[3:50:19] one sentence. And I can tell you it's on page
[3:50:22] 176 or the back or the bottom of page 44
[3:50:26] within the shelter guidelines. And it says emergency shelter, uh,
[3:50:31] providers will not discharge participants or impose service restrictions based
[3:50:37] on substance use on or off site. I didn't even
[3:50:41] put the offsite into this. I just don't want to
[3:50:46] restrict the discharge or service restrictions for somebody using those
[3:50:50] illegal substances inside the taxpayer funded shelter. All of the
[3:50:55] other stuff that's being mentioned here is part of the
[3:50:57] guidelines and I'm not touching that at all. Okay. Councillor.
[3:51:02] I know you said point of whatever. Um, I'm going
[3:51:05] to rule that as a point of personal privilege. Um,
[3:51:07] not as a point of order because it's not a
[3:51:09] procedural matter. Um, you're calling a point of personal privilege
[3:51:13] because you believe that you your intent was being misrepresented.
[3:51:17] And so, uh, I'm going to rule that as a
[3:51:19] point of personal privilege. You have made your statement to
[3:51:22] correct your intention. So I'm going to deal deem that
[3:51:25] dealt with. And I'm going to return to Mayor Morgan.
[3:51:34] Okay. Appreciate that. Um. So I'm going to say a
[3:51:38] few things on this. So first, um, I did take
[3:51:42] the time to speak to all the shelter providers. Pretty
[3:51:44] easy to give them a call and ask some questions
[3:51:47] about how they operate. Currently and their engagement on the
[3:51:51] guidelines and whether or not they're supportive of them and
[3:51:53] the answer that I got was yes. Uh, it is
[3:51:55] how they operate today. Um, you know, one of the
[3:51:58] interesting things that came up in my discussions with them
[3:52:00] was the challenge with being silent on. Letting someone know
[3:52:06] that they can come in the door. If the one
[3:52:10] who uses. Gets away from the opportunity to intervene in
[3:52:15] those individuals'lives. The Salvation Army, for example, co - locate
[3:52:19] services. They have low barrier shelter services, but they also
[3:52:22] have withdrawal management recovery community centre. Uh, and they have
[3:52:27] the hard hub. And my discussion with them was they
[3:52:32] see the Lowry shelter as an entry point into connecting
[3:52:35] people with services. So sometimes people do have a drug
[3:52:38] addiction. They will come in the doors. Uh, they may
[3:52:41] be a user. And then they intervene with them. In
[3:52:43] some cases that person decides to go into the draw
[3:52:46] management program. In some cases, it works for them. In
[3:52:48] some cases, they don't. And they might return to low
[3:52:50] barrier shelter. In some cases, they connect into the recovery
[3:52:52] centre because they progressed along through the withdrawal program. In
[3:52:56] some cases, they may be connected with the hard hub.
[3:52:58] There are some abstinent space programs working alongside other programs
[3:53:03] to try to bring people in the doors and capture
[3:53:05] them. The problem that the challenge with this motion is
[3:53:09] I'd like, I totally understand the Councilor's intent. Um, it's
[3:53:13] a, it's a politically challenging motion because it's really easy
[3:53:17] to box it into a space and say, this is
[3:53:21] what we're doing. But the consequences, I'm concerned about it.
[3:53:24] If we don't particularly on I, if we don't let
[3:53:30] people know that they can come in and get help.
[3:53:32] And if we can't engage with them, there's probably going
[3:53:35] to be more people out on the street. Like more
[3:53:37] people who will just, you know, what I'm not going
[3:53:39] to show up to the shelter. Less people to intervene
[3:53:41] with. This is the, these are the concerns that I
[3:53:43] heard from some of the shelter providers. They want to
[3:53:45] engage with people. They want to try to connect them
[3:53:47] with services. Some people are ready for that. Some people
[3:53:50] aren't. To the residents in the area. Might not be
[3:53:55] supportive of the guidelines. If people don't feel they can
[3:53:59] go indoors into a shelter, they're going to stay outdoors
[3:54:02] in parks and doorways. And on the street. And I
[3:54:06] think ultimately we want is to connect people with services.
[3:54:08] I think we're relatively, you know, on the same page
[3:54:12] on that. You know, it's part of the reason why,
[3:54:14] you know, the calls for the province to invest in
[3:54:16] more, you know, voluntary treatment services to be available so
[3:54:20] that when people are ready, they don't have to wait
[3:54:21] for a long period, you know, that they could have
[3:54:24] that. Like the challenges we don't have some of those
[3:54:26] referral points. So people are going to be indoors or
[3:54:29] they're going to be outdoors. They're going to be connected
[3:54:30] with people or they're not. Um, we have some challenges
[3:54:33] here. So it's very difficult to figure out, you know,
[3:54:36] what to do with all the parts of this motion.
[3:54:38] Because again, I think there are the actual practices that
[3:54:41] the shelters are doing. We don't want to create through
[3:54:46] the, we don't want to create the perception that people
[3:54:48] shouldn't be coming and asking for help coming indures, getting
[3:54:51] emergency shelter. Um, protecting themselves from all elements or whatever
[3:54:55] else sleeping outdoors. All the things that emergency shelter provides
[3:54:58] them with because they may have a possession substance on
[3:55:03] them. If they're tracking, if they're doing the things that
[3:55:07] Mr. Dickens said, yeah, for sure they should be considered
[3:55:09] to be banned, right? You've got to protect the other
[3:55:11] people in the shelter. But for me, I have a
[3:55:15] challenge with I because I don't want to put, I
[3:55:18] don't want to give people the impression that they can't
[3:55:19] get help. When they need it. And if they need
[3:55:21] to come indorst to get help, because again, they need
[3:55:23] to be in a shelter. And then we can connect
[3:55:25] with services. I'd rather them be there than I would
[3:55:28] on the streets. So, uh, the other pieces I'm thinking
[3:55:30] about I want to hear colleagues thoughts on, but, um,
[3:55:34] but I think I is moving the wrong direction because
[3:55:37] I think it leaves people outdoors. Uh, thank you Mayor
[3:55:42] Morgan and that was right on your time. I will
[3:55:44] return the chair to you. I don't have any other
[3:55:48] speakers at the moment, but I'm happy to put my
[3:55:51] own name on the speaker's list because I have a
[3:55:53] question now resulting from some other comments. Sure. Well, you
[3:55:57] know what? Then you're on the list and you can
[3:55:58] go ahead. Okay. So I'm going to focus. I was
[3:56:04] interested in what Council Ramen said about remaining silent on
[3:56:06] some things. And I heard Mr. Dickens'answer. But I do
[3:56:10] wonder why. We couldn't allow different emergency shelter providers to
[3:56:15] have different guidelines. Uh, so if a service provider, uh,
[3:56:20] and I'm not saying that they, they want to do
[3:56:21] this, but I'm using, I'm going to use the arc
[3:56:24] as an example because Ms. Campbell is in my line
[3:56:26] of sight here. So, uh, let's say the arc wanted
[3:56:29] to say the first, you know, the beds at Bishop
[3:56:33] Cronin. Were zero tolerance for illegal substances, but the emergency
[3:56:41] beds, uh, they sometimes set up in the basement. They're
[3:56:44] more flexible on or at 696 Dundas. They're more flexible
[3:56:47] on. Um, why could we not allow shelter providers to
[3:56:51] choose their own approach to this and then simply have
[3:56:53] them communicate that to us as part of their contract.
[3:56:56] And list these are the shelters that allow, uh, possession.
[3:57:00] These are the shelters that are zero tolerance for possession.
[3:57:09] Go ahead. Thank you, Richard. B. Fair question. Uh, these
[3:57:14] guidelines are meant to apply to a low barrier emergency
[3:57:16] shelters. And so we have recovery services. The marriage is
[3:57:20] highlighted a couple through emission services, salvation army. In your
[3:57:24] example would prove to be another one where you would
[3:57:26] have, uh, the low barrier emergency shelters following these guidelines,
[3:57:31] uh, and there may be other recovery oriented programs that
[3:57:35] would follow whatever, uh, their mandated service would be. So,
[3:57:39] uh, it is possible, but we were looking, if the
[3:57:42] arc were to be contracted and said, I want to
[3:57:44] be an emergency shelter, we would ask them to follow
[3:57:46] the emergency shelter guidelines. Go ahead. So I
[3:57:54] wonder. And Mr. Dickens will know the individual that I'm
[3:57:58] referring to because we both interacted with that individual over
[3:58:01] the years. Uh, but I've certainly heard from, uh, an
[3:58:05] outspoken letter who's experienced homelessness. Um, that one of the
[3:58:09] reasons she didn't access shelter services is because she didn't
[3:58:14] want to be around users. She wanted an emergency shelter
[3:58:18] bed that was in an absence based, uh, location. And
[3:58:24] instead, uh, her choices ended up being things like couch
[3:58:28] surfing in less than, uh, ideal circumstances, um, and perhaps
[3:58:33] potentially exposing to, uh, intimate partner violence in a couple
[3:58:39] of cases. And so. This is where I struggle because
[3:58:43] I don't know why we couldn't have both. Prohibited spaces
[3:58:48] and spaces where we're not going to private. And I
[3:58:53] don't know if the related to, uh, our own requirements
[3:58:58] with province von staff can provide as to why we
[3:59:03] can't have some of both. And that's presuming that a
[3:59:07] shelter operator wants to do that, um, perhaps all of
[3:59:10] our shelter operators in the city are fine with this.
[3:59:13] But if we had one that wants to provide an
[3:59:17] abstinence - based space so that those who don't want
[3:59:20] to be exposed to users, uh, can feel safe. Like
[3:59:25] how would that agency even approach us. Mr. Dickens. Absolutely.
[3:59:32] Uh, three years absolutely. Uh, that would be done for
[3:59:34] our procurement framework when we go to procure the shelter
[3:59:37] system. Um, often, uh, it can be deterrent could be
[3:59:41] the funding that's required. So you go abstinence - based
[3:59:44] shelter. You often require detox services. Often those type of
[3:59:51] absence - based or recovery - based shelters come with
[3:59:53] medical staff. So there is a cost prohibition there that
[3:59:58] can factor into this. But when we go to procure
[4:00:00] the shelter system, if Council says we want a mix
[4:00:03] of absence - based and low barrier, or we want
[4:00:06] all recovery - based, we can do that work through
[4:00:09] the procurement process and come back and show you what
[4:00:12] the various models would cost and what that would look
[4:00:14] like. So I guess to perhaps frame my question a
[4:00:20] little more tightly under these guidelines. If we had a
[4:00:27] service provider approach us. And say, I've read your guidelines,
[4:00:32] I'd be interested in being a provider. But I don't
[4:00:34] want to allow any possession in our space. Like, I
[4:00:39] want to know from our staff if a provider could
[4:00:42] come forward themselves rather than it being part of a
[4:00:45] procurement thing that we do. Um, and say, we want
[4:00:49] to offer this. It's our choice. We want to offer
[4:00:52] it as an abstinence - based space for emergency shelter.
[4:00:55] Wood staff then bring that forward to us as an
[4:00:57] option to consider, um, voluntarily or with these guidelines in
[4:01:01] place, would our procurement process automatically preclude them. From being
[4:01:09] a potential tender for shelter spaces.
[4:01:26] Through your worship, yes, if a provider did want to
[4:01:29] offer recovery - based abstinence - based program, these guidelines
[4:01:33] wouldn't apply to them. This is for emergency shelter, low
[4:01:35] barrier programs, programs that are outside of that aren't specifically
[4:01:38] spoken to in these guidelines, and that would be considered
[4:01:41] to their contract process if they were deciding to run
[4:01:43] a recovery - based program would build specific parameters within
[4:01:46] their contract. I'm sorry, I'm not asking about recovery -
[4:01:52] based. We have homeless folks who are not drug users
[4:01:57] out on our streets who do not want to be
[4:01:59] in the same space as those using drugs. So the
[4:02:02] question is not about recovery - based programs. It's not
[4:02:04] about detox. It's about what if a provider came forward
[4:02:07] and said, I want to provide emergency shelter beds, but
[4:02:10] I will only take folks off the street who are
[4:02:12] not currently using. And would they then be able under
[4:02:17] these guidelines to apply. Go ahead. Throw your worship. Those
[4:02:22] would not be low barrier emergency shelter programs. The premise
[4:02:26] behind a low barrier program is that for folks that
[4:02:29] are not in a pre - contemplative stage to decide
[4:02:31] about substances or any life circumstances that we limit the
[4:02:36] amount of barriers that prevent them from coming indures. And
[4:02:39] so, um, the guidelines are presented in a way that
[4:02:41] they can come inside, provided that they contribute to safe
[4:02:44] space. If there are exclusionary criterios or things that people
[4:02:48] have to meet to enter the doors, then that wouldn't
[4:02:51] be a low barrier program. And this guideline is specifically
[4:02:54] speaking solely to low - barrier programs. Anything outside of
[4:02:57] a low barrier program, that would be considered in a
[4:03:00] procurement, um, framework, or within the contract with the service
[4:03:03] provider. Go ahead. So through you, Chair, then, are we
[4:03:09] not creating a high barrier to access for those who
[4:03:12] are not users and don't feel safe around users by
[4:03:15] precluding those who want to provide a space without users?
[4:03:20] I hear what you're saying about low barrier. I think
[4:03:22] you're just creating a high barrier for someone else. That's
[4:03:31] who you worship. I mean, they still have to meet
[4:03:32] safety requirements. In those spaces. Um. Using drugs or having
[4:03:38] drugs does not automatically make you a risk to those
[4:03:41] other people that don't use drugs. Um, but if they're
[4:03:47] creating unsafe situations, then those need to be addressed and
[4:03:49] handled. So that those that are looking for a space
[4:03:54] where they can feel safe and not be pestered and
[4:03:56] offered drugs that they can get that as well. Uh,
[4:04:00] and those that are showing up with drugs, this drive,
[4:04:03] uh, we're trying to put this in place. That they
[4:04:05] still contribute to a safe environment. We're not trying to
[4:04:09] create more hoops for people to jump through. People that
[4:04:14] are having addiction or don't have an addiction are all
[4:04:16] entitled to housing. Um, and some may be closer to
[4:04:20] that housing goal than others. Uh, and if somebody can
[4:04:22] commune to an emergency shelter, uh, and, and receive that
[4:04:26] support, or that's not the right space for them. It's
[4:04:29] triggering. It's threatening. It's whatever. Then we look to the
[4:04:32] system to start to find ways to get them into
[4:04:35] a different space. Maybe into some of those other salvation
[4:04:38] army base or emission services - based services or to
[4:04:41] the micromodular shelter where they have their own independent living
[4:04:45] or into some type of housing where they could have
[4:04:48] some follow along support. So it's not a, in order
[4:04:52] to access our shelter, you must be an act of
[4:04:54] drug user. And I know that's not what you're saying,
[4:04:57] but we're not trying to create more hoops for people.
[4:04:59] If somebody comes in and they are free of addiction
[4:05:03] and they're in recovery, we want to make sure we
[4:05:05] get them on that pathway, stay on that pathway as
[4:05:08] quick as we can. And there are examples when that
[4:05:10] goes horribly wrong. This, this is true. And there are
[4:05:15] examples when it goes really, really well. And so we
[4:05:19] are trying to make a policy that is reflective of
[4:05:22] 2026 of the prevalence of drugs in our community and
[4:05:25] trying to create some type of standard that is consistent
[4:05:29] with well over a dozen other municipalities in this province.
[4:05:35] Go ahead. All right. Um, I appreciate those responses. Um,
[4:05:40] I'll see what others have to say. I will say
[4:05:43] for me that we would preclude, um, somebody who wants
[4:05:47] to provide, uh, drug - free space from applying through
[4:05:52] this is a problem. Um, I'm not saying that I,
[4:05:58] because I recognise the problem. I know it's out there.
[4:06:01] It's very prevalent. But I'm disappointed to hear, and this
[4:06:07] may influence how I vote on a couple of these
[4:06:10] clauses. I'm just pointed to hear that if an agency
[4:06:13] came forward and wanted to run a space that was
[4:06:16] drug - free, that staff are saying, we wouldn't come
[4:06:19] forward and say notwithstanding our guidelines. This agency should still
[4:06:23] be allowed to apply. And that's what I've heard. So
[4:06:26] I just want to confirm with staff if that's accurate
[4:06:28] that you would not come forward with a notwithstanding the
[4:06:31] guidelines. This organisation should be considered that you would just
[4:06:35] preclude them. 30 seconds. So I'm just looking for a
[4:06:38] very clear yes or no. Would you bring fortunate notwithstanding
[4:06:42] or would they be precluded? Okay, that answer.
[4:07:03] Yes, there is a provision for those operators to be
[4:07:05] able to offer those programs that are entirely abstinent space.
[4:07:08] We wouldn't, um, immediately preclude them from being able to
[4:07:11] put forward a program like that that particular program would
[4:07:15] be independent of these guidelines or provider can still very
[4:07:18] much do that. And we would consider them just like
[4:07:19] we would consider any other provider or any other, um,
[4:07:22] shelter modality. Okay. Other speakers.
[4:07:32] Go ahead, Councillor Farrah. Thank you for that. Um, okay.
[4:07:37] Follow up to the Deputy Mayor's questions. Um, I do
[4:07:40] know of some providers. They wouldn't be necessarily considered shelter.
[4:07:43] I'm not going to name them. That are, um, bringing
[4:07:47] forth, uh, sober living environments to help people recover and
[4:07:52] move forward and get involved into the housing pathways. Would
[4:07:56] provider like that be able to, um, tap into this
[4:08:00] procurement these guidelines.
[4:08:15] Through you worship, I believe you're talking about a recovery
[4:08:17] treatment program. Which would not fall under emergency shelter guidelines.
[4:08:22] If it fall under, uh, what in a, what an
[4:08:24] accredited treatment program would have to fall under. Go ahead.
[4:08:32] Okay. I know that, uh, I don't want to go
[4:08:33] beyond the scope of, uh, the item at hand. Um,
[4:08:38] so I guess the question would be, are there any
[4:08:41] other guidelines that we're going to be expecting coming forward
[4:08:43] under the procurement framework that would be able to cover
[4:08:45] something like that. Go ahead. The Rear worship. Yes, there
[4:08:52] is precedent and other municipalities across the province. They do
[4:08:55] have multiple sets of guidelines for different types of programs.
[4:08:58] Um, this is not something we're considering particularly for this
[4:09:01] particular phase. Um, a program like that, that you're suggesting
[4:09:05] could very much exist in the city of London. They
[4:09:07] could come through a procurement framework and absence of specific
[4:09:10] guidelines about that program. It would be considered in their
[4:09:13] contract. Um, and that's what we're hoping to bring forward
[4:09:15] to Council and Committee through the Procurement Process that we
[4:09:19] would lay out a number of different shelter modalities, including
[4:09:22] absence and recovery - based programs. There's nothing within our
[4:09:25] current processes that preclude that type of service from existing.
[4:09:30] These particular guidelines are speaking to very specific subsect of
[4:09:33] shelters. Um, we don't have other guidelines for other service
[4:09:37] providers, but that would be included in their contracts. Okay,
[4:09:41] thank you. That's how I read it. Uh, that's why
[4:09:43] I just wanted to ask the question. Cause you know
[4:09:44] the one that I'm talking about that we've been working
[4:09:46] on for a while. Appreciate it. That's all my questions.
[4:09:53] Okay. Other speakers to the amendments before us.
[4:10:05] Okay. I've been asked to do them all separately. So,
[4:10:09] uh, we're just let me make sure we've got that
[4:10:12] lined up.
[4:10:31] Okay. So we're going to start. We're just going to
[4:10:33] do them in order. So we'll do, uh, first.
[4:11:15] End the vote. Motion fails. Seven to eight. Okay. And
[4:11:21] now I, I.
[4:11:43] M closing a vote. Motion fails six to nine. And
[4:11:50] I, I, I.
[4:12:09] M closing the vote, motion carries. 15 to zero. Okay.
[4:12:18] So now we're back to the main, but it's an
[4:12:20] as amended motion now, uh, cause one of those parts
[4:12:22] passed. So I'll look to the chair. Good for the
[4:12:27] azimended motion. I need a seconder on that. I'll second
[4:12:30] it. Okay. Discussion on the as amended motion, which is
[4:12:36] all the pieces, including the addition of the III part
[4:12:39] that we just debated. Go ahead, Councillor Privileg. Thank you,
[4:12:46] Chair. Just want to make some comments. And thanks for
[4:12:48] the staff for updating these skylines procedures. A couple of
[4:12:51] things that I want to, uh, address, uh, I do
[4:12:55] have, I do have issues, which I mentioned before to
[4:12:58] have them, uh, at the premises. I do understand, I'm
[4:13:02] talking about the point, of course, the substances and the
[4:13:05] premises. I totally understand BXED individuals who are under, visit
[4:13:09] the premises there. I don't, I think. Yes. Go ahead.
[4:13:17] Sorry. Uh, Mayor Morgan, um, my apologies. Um. But on
[4:13:25] I. Um, I voted incorrectly. And that would change the
[4:13:30] outcome. So I'm looking for a motion to reconsider.
[4:14:10] Okay. You are on the winning side of that vote.
[4:14:12] So you can move reconsideration yourself. So, and then I'm
[4:14:17] moving reconsideration. Okay. Reconsideration needs a second Councillor Cutty. One
[4:14:26] sec. I just want to make sure I follow the
[4:14:28] rules and reconsideration.
[4:15:12] Okay. So yes, it's moved a second. It's requires two
[4:15:16] thirds of whole Council and it's not debatable. So we'll
[4:15:20] just get the motion to reconsider up.
[4:15:43] Okay. We're going to open that.
[4:15:59] Closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to two.
[4:16:35] Okay. We're good to go. So we're going to open
[4:16:36] that for voting.
[4:17:08] Council Privil. The vote. Motion carries nine to six. Okay.
[4:17:17] So now I need to make sure, cause that's a
[4:17:20] different asm ed motion that you're still okay on the
[4:17:22] azimed. I'm still okay to second it. Now we'll go
[4:17:25] to debate on the main as a minute motion. I'll
[4:17:30] look to speakers. Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. Yeah. Thank you.
[4:17:37] I just wanted to say thank you to my colleagues
[4:17:38] for supporting some of those amendments. Oh, sorry Councillor Stevenson.
[4:17:43] I don't mean to cut you off. But Councillor Purple
[4:17:45] was actually speaking, I think, to the guidelines when Jeff
[4:17:49] D. Mary Lewis jumped up and said, I needed to
[4:17:51] reconsider. So I don't want to let Council Privil make
[4:17:55] his comments because I have him. Partially spoken there. My
[4:17:59] apologies. Go ahead, Council. Okay. Thank you. So actually, uh,
[4:18:03] I was the one who actually together with the Peter
[4:18:06] Mary, Louis V, I changed my vote as well. Uh,
[4:18:09] my concern was legal. Uh, but what I'm trying to
[4:18:11] say is this. I do think that based on this,
[4:18:15] we really need the agencies to have very strict safety
[4:18:19] protocols. Very strict safety protocols because it is an issue
[4:18:23] for me. It really honestly is just unfortunately or as
[4:18:27] I said before, it's very difficult for them to stop
[4:18:31] the individuals or let's put this way. It's impossible. And
[4:18:34] I don't want Londoners to have a, to give them
[4:18:38] a perception that actually they have a hundred percent tools
[4:18:42] to stop them to enter. They don't. Should they try?
[4:18:46] Absolutely. Should they steer them away? Yes. Absolutely. I really
[4:18:49] ask and I don't know how I said it at
[4:18:51] the committee meeting how our staff to really make sure
[4:18:54] that a safety protocols are very strict, very tight. So,
[4:18:58] so we minimize such incidents. Uh, the pre - maritalism,
[4:19:06] when he mentioned the guidelines, and let's say drug -
[4:19:09] free environment. I really took this only as low barrier.
[4:19:14] Having said that, we do, we are missing again, we
[4:19:17] are missing certain parts in our system. Why are we
[4:19:20] missing it? Not of even know it that the organisations
[4:19:23] agencies or our staff. We just don't have the funding
[4:19:25] for it. And this is my issue that these we
[4:19:28] should have the process of step up, step up, step
[4:19:31] up, step up. Unfortunately, our steps are too high because
[4:19:34] we are missing the ones in between. But I took
[4:19:37] this as only low barrier. I really do think that
[4:19:41] we should have for organisations, what was mentioned before, if
[4:19:45] someone wants to go there and they don't want to
[4:19:47] be in such environment that we should have certain guidelines
[4:19:52] and funding associated with these premises. Again, going back to
[4:19:56] it, again, comes to the money and comes to the
[4:19:59] funding. I do think that when I look at our,
[4:20:03] when I look at our system, it needs to be
[4:20:06] improved. We need to have these individuals for each individual
[4:20:11] at every stage. We do need to have the promises.
[4:20:15] But as I said, I took this as low barrier.
[4:20:17] If I look at how many people we have homeless,
[4:20:21] we don't even have enough low barriers spots to accommodate
[4:20:25] them. So again, and that's going back, I know that's
[4:20:29] coming back to us again with the additional money that's
[4:20:31] coming in September. I mentioned it last meeting as well.
[4:20:35] But again, just like Maslow's, here are curve needs. If
[4:20:38] you look at the bottom step, even though we consider
[4:20:40] those minimal things, we need to have them. We need
[4:20:43] to have the system retake it out. Our system breaks
[4:20:46] down. So please do consider that. And I think that's
[4:20:49] all I had. Thank you. Okay. Now I can go
[4:20:53] to you Councillor Stevenson. Okay. Councillor Farra. Thank you. Um,
[4:21:03] I guess I got some questions then just because we
[4:21:05] have significantly changed the direction of the procurement policy. Uh,
[4:21:09] for funding sources to the agencies, we're not the only
[4:21:12] source of funding for agencies, correct? The agencies have their
[4:21:16] own sources of funding. Go ahead. Through your worship, that's
[4:21:23] correct. The agencies either can sell fund through donations or
[4:21:26] other levels of government or private sector foundations. Yes. And
[4:21:30] in some cases through you, in some cases, we're not
[4:21:33] the primary source of funding when I say primary, I
[4:21:36] mean like the majority funding source. Is that correct as
[4:21:39] well? Go ahead.
[4:21:49] Through your worship, for the emergency shelters, we are the
[4:21:52] majority funder for the operators that are in the City
[4:21:54] of London. That's correct. Thank you, through you. So follow
[4:22:00] - up question. If the board of directors are making
[4:22:03] these decisions, and as it was said previously by staff,
[4:22:06] uh, some of the, um, the policies in this new
[4:22:09] framework have already been implemented. By the shelters, specifically with
[4:22:16] the item one, to remove the provision of, uh, legal
[4:22:19] substances. Um, they have decided those directors and the management
[4:22:25] there have decided to do it that way. And now
[4:22:29] us as a primary source of funding for many of
[4:22:31] the services or the agencies are now saying, um, you're
[4:22:35] prohibited to do that. How does that reconcile between the
[4:22:37] two? Councillor, that's not what was passed. It's not a
[4:22:41] prohibition. It's just a removal of the language. The guidelines
[4:22:45] would be silent on it. So people could boards could
[4:22:48] make their own choices. I just want to be clear
[4:22:49] on what that vote was. So, but our staff can
[4:22:53] answer your question. But no prohibition. Okay. Let me just
[4:22:57] reframe the question. With it being silent on that. And
[4:23:01] like still, how does it reconcile between the two? Like
[4:23:03] is it up to the agencies or is it up
[4:23:05] to the service providers now. To make that decision on
[4:23:08] their own accord and the funding, if it comes from
[4:23:12] the city, it's still up to the provider, the shelter
[4:23:16] to make that decision? Is that, that's, I guess, a
[4:23:19] clarification question then.
[4:23:33] Thank you, your worshiping through you. I think that remains
[4:23:38] to be determined. Quite frankly. With this change in the
[4:23:43] guidelines. We will go through and we will follow whatever
[4:23:46] the Council recommendation is, is to remove, um, any of
[4:23:50] those provisions, uh, it will probably create, uh, some questions
[4:23:56] or confusions for shelter providers. And we'll have to, uh,
[4:23:58] sort out what that looks like. Go ahead. Um, so
[4:24:07] I don't, we don't know how this will translate in.
[4:24:10] Like, what are we making a decision on here then.
[4:24:12] Um, I thought we are giving direction. And now we
[4:24:18] don't know how that direction is going to land. So
[4:24:23] if it was up to the shelter service provider to
[4:24:27] decide that is one direction. But if we are being
[4:24:32] mute now on that provision and we don't know how
[4:24:36] that's going to translate, I am confused on what the
[4:24:39] decision is that we're going to be making here today
[4:24:41] with this new framework. Go ahead. Thank you, your worship,
[4:24:50] through you. It does create confusion. It's why we brought
[4:24:52] it forward with language in there to reflect, um, that
[4:24:57] it's an occurrence that they encounter frequently. Uh, we had
[4:25:01] a delegation submission as part of the CAPS agenda that
[4:25:05] spoke to the many iterations of this policy and, and
[4:25:09] how having language in or out, uh, often created some
[4:25:12] ambiguity, created challenges with upholding it, uh, with or without.
[4:25:17] So, um, where we're at now is, is needing to
[4:25:20] understand. I wouldn't be able to answer the question for
[4:25:23] you, Councillor. You know, what are you going to do
[4:25:25] if somebody shows up at a shelter and they have,
[4:25:28] um, they use drugs or they have drugs on their
[4:25:31] possession. What is every shelter stance on that? That is
[4:25:35] to be determined now as we change course. Okay. Thank
[4:25:41] you. Um, you know, with that, like we're not making
[4:25:44] a decision here. We're making confusion and we're making confusion
[4:25:47] on a serious crisis we have in the city. I
[4:25:51] thought that we had a data driven evidence based report
[4:25:55] that was very well done. It was specifically made and
[4:25:59] meant to capture everybody to put them into the system
[4:26:04] to be able to put them on pathways to housing
[4:26:06] through stability to make sure that we meet everybody where
[4:26:10] they're at low barrier because the ultimate goal is to
[4:26:12] get people off of the street regardless. Of where they
[4:26:16] stand right now, whether it's struggling with substance use, whether
[4:26:20] it's being unsheltered because they can't afford it. We are
[4:26:24] trying to create a pathway, a system that is able
[4:26:28] to capture everybody because the ultimate goal is to get
[4:26:30] people off the street. The report came back. It was
[4:26:34] very clear, very well done too. And I made those
[4:26:36] comments at committee. Now we are deviating from the data,
[4:26:43] from that evidence. And now we're making a decision that's
[4:26:45] going to create confusion. And this is not an area
[4:26:47] where we need to be confused. If I'm confused because
[4:26:52] of this direction, we don't even have a clear direction
[4:26:56] of what this is now leading to from staff. There's
[4:27:00] going to be confusion with the shelters. There's going to
[4:27:03] be confusion on how this system is supposed to work.
[4:27:05] There's going to be confusion amongst the city. And there
[4:27:07] are once again, going to say, what are you guys
[4:27:09] doing. So with this, like I can't support this at
[4:27:12] this point because there's no decision here. It's a confusing.
[4:27:17] It's, you know, there's nothing that's really being done here.
[4:27:19] There's no changes. And if I can't get a direct
[4:27:22] answer on how this is going to translate, this is
[4:27:24] just going to lead to more spitting of the wheels.
[4:27:28] Um, and I would like to have some decisive direction
[4:27:31] here. So, so I guess I can't support it anymore.
[4:27:36] Which is a shame. To the city manager. Thank you,
[4:27:42] worship. And I certainly appreciate through you to the members
[4:27:45] of Council. A decision bike elected officials to make an
[4:27:49] amendment to something that's put on the floor. We don't
[4:27:51] have an issue with that. The challenge though is that
[4:27:53] we have a scenario where we actually need to consider
[4:27:56] what this means. And I appreciate their questions about, can
[4:27:59] we answer the questions? It requires us a little bit
[4:28:01] of time to think about what this means. And that's
[4:28:03] not because we don't want to answer the questions. We
[4:28:05] just have to think about it from a standpoint of
[4:28:06] what actually will we say to providers? What does it
[4:28:09] mean for us in terms of delivery of essential services
[4:28:11] in our community? So I think our intention is not
[4:28:14] to try to be difficult and not answer the questions.
[4:28:16] We need to think through this process and be able
[4:28:18] to be sure when we give advice back to you
[4:28:21] about the change, what that actually means. And so I
[4:28:23] just wanted to be clear about that. It's not, it's
[4:28:25] not our intention to be difficult. It's just about there's
[4:28:28] this is now a change. Came on the floor today.
[4:28:31] I just want to be clear about that. And thank
[4:28:33] you for the time for that. Okay. Council Rahmen. Thank
[4:28:38] you and through you. So I was supportive of the
[4:28:42] language change because the way that I interpreted it was
[4:28:46] that on page 41 of the shelter guideline where it
[4:28:49] says emergency shelter operators will have a policy regarding alcohol
[4:28:53] cannabis illegal substances and medications without a prescription. The policy
[4:28:57] will include. And then it has a bullet and it
[4:28:59] says to ensure the safety and security file residents emergency
[4:29:02] shelter operators staff regarding alcohol cannabis or legal substance participants
[4:29:06] are allowed to have it in the emergency shelter, but
[4:29:08] not allowed to use it in the building that that
[4:29:10] is where it becomes now silent. So that for me
[4:29:14] was the reason why I could support it because as
[4:29:17] we were entering and debate on this topic as we
[4:29:20] were considering the amendment, we heard different scenarios where this
[4:29:23] could be considered differently. The rest of the documents still
[4:29:27] reads as it reads. It still reads as this is
[4:29:30] a low barrier approach. It still reads as a guideline
[4:29:34] that supports what we have continued to support here at
[4:29:38] Council. So I think that this helps to address the
[4:29:42] issue of whether or not, uh, we were allowing these
[4:29:47] things in, but not allowed allowing people to use them
[4:29:50] inside as well as, I think there will be interpretion
[4:29:57] and discussion from shelter providers. We have a long procurement
[4:30:01] process and timeline before this is in place. So I
[4:30:05] do believe there is time for us to get further
[4:30:07] clarity and go back and have further discussions. So that's
[4:30:11] why it remains supportive. Uh, Councillor Hopkins and then McAllister.
[4:30:19] Yeah. Thank you. And, um, appreciate, um, committee chair's comments,
[4:30:26] but, uh, for me, we're a Council, we make a
[4:30:30] decision here. I am not clear. Uh, based on city
[4:30:36] managers comments about where we are and the confusion, I
[4:30:42] need to make a, I have to make it this
[4:30:46] decision here. And I'm not ready to do that. So,
[4:30:49] uh, given the comments I've heard, I would like this
[4:30:54] to go back to committee for better understanding as to
[4:31:00] exactly what we have done here. Because I'm not clear.
[4:31:06] I was a committee. We had the conversations at committee
[4:31:10] where Harry Council and now you have changed the direction,
[4:31:14] I think in a different way. So, um, I don't
[4:31:20] think this is where we should be doing committee work
[4:31:22] to start off with. But if we can refer this
[4:31:26] back to get further clarification on these changes, I'm not
[4:31:34] sure what else to do, maybe a vote. And then
[4:31:38] if, depending on what happens with the vote, I'll ask
[4:31:41] for a referral PAC. Just looking at process. So does
[4:31:48] the referral start now. Yeah, you only get to speak
[4:31:51] once. There's no other amendments. This is the, we're to
[4:31:54] the main motion now. So I'd like to have this
[4:31:57] referred back to committee. Okay. For what reason? For clarification
[4:32:04] on what we're doing here. I have no idea. The
[4:32:09] implications of what we've just decided. I don't think staff
[4:32:14] are clear. And I'm not sure if the agencies are
[4:32:18] clear.
[4:32:41] Okay. So what the clerk heard you say was for
[4:32:44] basically referral back four further consideration and clarification. Are you
[4:32:49] good with that language? Uh. And I wonder. I wonder
[4:32:54] if we need legal advice as well. I'm just very
[4:32:57] concerned here, you worship. That doesn't need to be part
[4:33:01] of a referral if staff feel we need legal advice.
[4:33:05] They'll schedule it that way. If a councillor feels when
[4:33:07] it comes back, they want that. They can ask to
[4:33:08] go on a camera. Okay. Seconder for the referral Councillor
[4:33:16] Trosa is willing to second. With legal avent, I would
[4:33:19] like. With legal added, I would be happy to second
[4:33:25] that.
[4:33:41] You want to just add including any relevant legal advice.
[4:33:44] Okay. Is that good for you Councillor Hopkins? Okay.
[4:33:55] Okay. On the referral, I'll start a speaker's list. I
[4:33:58] don't know if you want to start Councillor Hopkins, you
[4:34:00] get speed once to the referral. It's up to you.
[4:34:04] Yeah. Based on, uh, what I've heard from staff and
[4:34:08] from my colleague and from my own understanding on exactly
[4:34:12] what I am voting on here, I would like further
[4:34:15] information. Uh, Councillor Farra. Thank you. Thank you for the
[4:34:21] referral. I will support it. Even though I don't want
[4:34:24] to referral. I want to put this to bed. This
[4:34:26] has been going on and on and on. And I
[4:34:29] wish that we could just come up with a decision
[4:34:30] here and take a very well written report with a
[4:34:35] lot of data. And the staff will answer your questions
[4:34:37] too. If you reach out, if you're confused or if,
[4:34:40] but they obviously can't answer this because this is a
[4:34:41] significant change. We want to ask, will this cut people
[4:34:48] off from supports, from pathways, the amendment that has been
[4:34:53] approved. Will it ultimately lead to more people on the
[4:34:55] street. Will it ultimately. Avoid or I guess remove our
[4:35:03] direction of what we're doing? Like ultimately we want to
[4:35:05] be capturing as many people. So I think some of
[4:35:07] the questions that you don't have to answer now, but
[4:35:10] I would like to see in the Report Back, are
[4:35:12] those, are those. Like will this, is this a significant
[4:35:16] deviation. From the framework. Will it mean less people are
[4:35:22] captured within the system for support? Will it mean less
[4:35:25] people are put on those supportive pathways with stability workers
[4:35:29] or housing? Will it mean more people on the street?
[4:35:32] Those are the kind of things that I would like
[4:35:34] to see with the change that we saw here today.
[4:35:37] So I don't want to have, I know you can't
[4:35:38] give me an answer, but that's ultimately why I'm going
[4:35:40] to be supporting this referral, which I will be. And
[4:35:43] like I said, I'd like to decide on this now.
[4:35:45] This is, this has been going on way too long.
[4:35:48] I want to see some decisive decisions here, but the
[4:35:51] direction that we have seemed to be going, um, if
[4:35:54] it's going to have to be referral, it's going to
[4:35:56] have to be a referral. So I'm going to support
[4:35:57] it. And I think we should also put it because
[4:35:59] those questions need to be answered.
[4:36:11] On the referral. Dr. Mary Lewis, then Councillor McAllister. Thank
[4:36:16] you, Chair. Uh, so I'm not going to be supporting
[4:36:19] the referral. I don't think this is confusing at all.
[4:36:22] We've reverted back essentially to the policy being silent and
[4:36:25] allowing the operators to decide for themselves what their policy
[4:36:28] is going to be around possession. It's very simple. And
[4:36:31] they can do that. They can provide the individual shelter
[4:36:34] providers can provide Mr. Dickens their own policy, which can
[4:36:38] be posted on the website along with the emergency guidelines.
[4:36:40] It's not hard. And I think to, to make statements
[4:36:44] about what this is going to mean for more people
[4:36:46] on the streets turned away from services, et cetera. I
[4:36:49] think it's highly speculative at that point. I think we've
[4:36:51] heard from the shelter providers we have active right now
[4:36:54] that they're prepared. To move ahead. With the policy of
[4:36:58] allowing possession as long as the active use. They're not
[4:37:02] saying that they're going to pull out. Uh, because it's
[4:37:06] going to be up to them. So I think it's
[4:37:08] really highly speculative to say that's going to cut people
[4:37:11] off. It's just simply going to be up to the
[4:37:12] shelter providers. And if someone chooses to come forward through
[4:37:16] the process and offer a space that is possession free,
[4:37:21] then that will be their choice. I'm not sure that
[4:37:23] we have anybody who's interested in doing that right at
[4:37:26] this moment. But we did hear from the delegates that
[4:37:30] they were comfortable with the policy. They can pursue that
[4:37:34] policy. Nothing we have done today prohibits. It simply removes
[4:37:39] the permissive language. And says nothing and leaves it up
[4:37:43] to the shelter providers. So I think we need to
[4:37:47] step back from the speculative. And it's not that confusing
[4:37:51] folks. It's very, to me, it's very straightforward. We will
[4:37:54] leave it up to the individual to providers to establish
[4:37:57] their own policy around drug possession in their spaces. Otherwise,
[4:38:01] the rest of the guidelines are in place. Nothing has
[4:38:04] changed. So, uh, I encourage colleagues to not support the
[4:38:08] referral. Let's get this passed and move on. Council McAllister.
[4:38:17] Uh, thank you and through the mayor. I have a
[4:38:19] different take, I think. And I just said, uh, I
[4:38:23] mean, for me, this whole discussion was going from a
[4:38:27] place of, um, ambiguity to some clarity. Uh, and even
[4:38:34] the answers that were provided today, uh, I thought we
[4:38:36] were moving to a space where the emergency shelters had
[4:38:41] the guidelines. I understand in terms of the drug use
[4:38:45] that it's being problematic across the board, uh, and we
[4:38:48] could have other streams. It was never precluding. And we
[4:38:51] heard that a number of times today was not precluding
[4:38:53] other types of supports. Uh, and I would have been
[4:38:57] fine in terms of if other people wanted to be
[4:38:58] designated a certain way, that was fine. And we could
[4:39:00] have developed guidelines that way. I think what this is
[4:39:03] doing, it's muddying the waters. And we're returning to a
[4:39:07] place of ambiguity. And I think Councillor Farr said this
[4:39:10] earlier, but to me, it just, I think you just
[4:39:14] revert back to 2011. I think it's a lack of
[4:39:18] an acknowledgement of what we're experiencing currently on the streets.
[4:39:22] Um, I understand the concerns, but I honestly think it
[4:39:26] just poses the question back to the public. Where do
[4:39:30] we want people who are suffering with addiction to go?
[4:39:33] And I think it's not going to resolve in what,
[4:39:36] uh, people want, unfortunately. I think you're still going to
[4:39:39] see them on the street. And the mayor spoke to
[4:39:41] this. And I know we've all kind of wrestled today
[4:39:43] with, you know, where we go with this. But one
[4:39:46] of the things I want to make clear on this
[4:39:48] vote is I think we all care about this issue.
[4:39:50] We're all struggling with it. But I don't like how
[4:39:55] it has been used for political posturing purposes. We're not
[4:39:58] debating the war on drugs here. This is not a
[4:40:01] pro and anti drug vote. This is more us trying
[4:40:04] to have guidelines that allow opers to work in a
[4:40:08] difficult space with people who are struggling with addiction, which
[4:40:11] is a very challenging space in itself. And I think
[4:40:13] we can all acknowledge we don't have a lot of
[4:40:15] access points right now. And so we have all also
[4:40:19] witnessed the capacity issues with the shelter. We want people
[4:40:21] to be able to come to a shelter, uh, and
[4:40:24] this again, I think it just returns us to a
[4:40:26] place of ambiguity. I am supportive of the referral just
[4:40:29] because I would like a report back for staff to
[4:40:31] now see what this might do to the system that
[4:40:35] we were trying to, um, help in terms of offering
[4:40:38] that clarity. So I think it just puts us back
[4:40:41] to a grey area. And I need further understanding in
[4:40:44] terms of what that grey area looks like and how
[4:40:46] the people who are actually working in that space will
[4:40:49] operate. Um, and so again, I appreciate the discussion. I
[4:40:53] know we're kind of on different sides of this. I
[4:40:54] think we're all grappling with it. But, uh, I'm saying
[4:40:57] it now because I just know the way this is
[4:40:59] interpreted in the public and I'm really tired of this
[4:41:01] war on drugs thing coming up where that's not what
[4:41:03] we're debating. I think we're debating where people can get
[4:41:06] help and where they can seek shelter. And the guidelines
[4:41:09] for that in terms of, um, allowing them a place
[4:41:12] to go, even if they're struggling with addiction. I think
[4:41:14] that was an important thing we needed to talk about,
[4:41:16] but this is not a debate about drugs. It's a,
[4:41:19] it's debate about the shelter space and the guidelines, which
[4:41:23] would have allowed people to come in inside regardless of
[4:41:27] what they're experiencing. So I'm going to leave it there,
[4:41:28] but I'm supportive of the referral. Councillor Tro Sam.
[4:41:38] Thank you through you. Does this shift in our decision?
[4:41:44] And this is directed to the solicitor. Um, does this
[4:41:49] shift in decision create any legal challenges for us in
[4:41:52] terms of human rights legislation?
[4:42:25] Go ahead. Thank you. And through your worship all say
[4:42:29] publicly about that is that we know that addiction is
[4:42:33] a protected human rights ground. And so a person cannot
[4:42:36] be denied entry on that basis subject to a potential
[4:42:41] human rights complaint. And I presume through you, um, that
[4:42:46] means we'll be getting more information about this presumably in
[4:42:49] a closed session at a subsequent point. And you can't
[4:42:52] answer that now. Go ahead.
[4:43:25] Thank you, Andrew, your worship. Um, additional information could be
[4:43:29] provided as part of the referral. Okay. I won't go
[4:43:35] through each grounds of legal objection that I could see
[4:43:39] arising here and ask you individually. I'll just assume that
[4:43:41] we'll get a thorough report. What bothers me so much
[4:43:45] about this. Is we were just on the verge. Of
[4:43:51] being able to have some, a victory. In terms of
[4:43:55] clarity. Certainty. And at least, at least the road that
[4:44:01] is legally, in my view, sustainable, but also ethically and
[4:44:06] practically sustainable from the point of view of administration. I
[4:44:10] believe that we have, um. Well, I won't say that
[4:44:16] that way, but I will say that what's important to
[4:44:19] me here is that we distinguish between stealth, person's status.
[4:44:27] Which can be very broadly construed. To include things that
[4:44:30] they're in possession of and things that they often, often
[4:44:33] have on their person. Or on their body. But we're,
[4:44:37] we're making a distinction here now between status and conduct.
[4:44:41] And what I thought was so, um, beautiful. What I
[4:44:45] thought was so brilliant. What I thought was so sustainable.
[4:44:52] Was the way staff persistently told us. People can be
[4:44:56] deported. People can be removed from the premises. But it's
[4:45:00] based on, it's going to be based on behaviour. Not
[4:45:05] going to be based on what we think they're going
[4:45:06] to do. With something that they persistently. Have on their
[4:45:12] person. Which is part of their. Underlying problem that we're
[4:45:19] trying to cure. We're going to be pushing people away.
[4:45:24] Who are in the most need of the kind of
[4:45:27] help that we were just on the verge. Of being
[4:45:31] able to enact. And I believe that like once again,
[4:45:37] we backtrack. Once again, we are, we are standing on
[4:45:41] the door, doorstep. Of coherence. And what do we do.
[4:45:48] We worry. We worry. And we're allowing posturing. And political
[4:45:54] considerations to affect our judgment here. And that is not
[4:45:58] something that is acceptable. I find it reprehensible. That we're
[4:46:02] doing this. So I look forward to getting a further
[4:46:05] staff report. And I also think that, um, this backtracking
[4:46:09] that we're doing here today is going to have some
[4:46:12] implications in terms of a lot of other people who
[4:46:14] have a lot of knowledge about drug policy. To come
[4:46:18] forth. And I hope we get some good advice. Because
[4:46:22] we were so close, so close. And here we are
[4:46:27] again. Okay. We'll get another staff report. I will be
[4:46:31] supporting. I will be supporting this referral, of course. And
[4:46:35] should the referral fail. Sadly. Because most of what's in
[4:46:39] the report is good. Sadly, I'll have to be voting
[4:46:42] though. On the main motion. Cause I can't, I can't
[4:46:45] support this. I cannot, in good conscience, as a councillor
[4:46:50] who is not only bound to represent the interests of
[4:46:54] people in our community, but also the interests of the
[4:46:56] corporation. Which I think is going to be, in my
[4:46:59] opinion, just my opinion, severely. Compromise. By this move. Plus
[4:47:08] I think all of the goodwill. But run that is
[4:47:11] built up. Through the outstanding staff work. Over this Council
[4:47:15] term. This is what people are going to remember. That
[4:47:20] we were on the doorstep of doing something important. But
[4:47:24] we made a last minute change on a reconsideration. Vote.
[4:47:28] This is not acceptable. And that's why I'll be voting
[4:47:31] no. And I'll be urging everyone else voting voting now
[4:47:37] on the, uh, on the matter. But please, please, please
[4:47:41] vote yes on this referral because we need some more
[4:47:44] information in front of us now because this, this seems
[4:47:47] to be people are of various minds here. So I
[4:47:50] think my time is up. And, uh, I appreciate your
[4:47:54] indulgence, but I'm very, very disturbed about the, uh, the
[4:47:58] turn that this is taken. Thank you. Um, other speakers.
[4:48:14] Okay. Seeing that we're on the referral, um, this Councillor
[4:48:17] Hopkins referral. So we'll open that for voting.
[4:48:37] Closing the vote. Motion fails. Seven to eight. Okay. So
[4:48:45] that puts us back on the main motion.
[4:49:10] Okay. I think Council McDowell Straw was next on the
[4:49:12] list. I think. Cause. We're back to the main motion.
[4:49:18] And I don't know if you remember, but you were
[4:49:19] on a list. You don't have to be on it
[4:49:22] now if you don't want, but you were on it
[4:49:23] if you want to speak now. If someone else wants
[4:49:28] to speak, they can go first. Cause I got like
[4:49:30] my train of thought again. Just so people know
[4:49:40] Councillor's pribble, Ferreira, Ramen and Hopkins have spoken on the
[4:49:45] main motion. So I'll start a speaker some. Ken. Sorry
[4:49:51] for our Councillor. What. No, you can't. You spoke already.
[4:49:57] He spoke before the referral. Okay. So speakers who haven't
[4:50:03] spoken yet to the. Azimated motion. Go ahead, Councillor McAllister.
[4:50:13] Thank you through the mayor. Yeah. Just some clothing thoughts
[4:50:18] for me on this. Yeah. To the point I made
[4:50:24] in terms of supporting the referral. I just think this
[4:50:28] puts us back in a place that's more of a
[4:50:31] grey area. I think it defeats the purpose in terms
[4:50:34] of updating the guidelines. Um, I'll be voting no just
[4:50:38] because at this point, I don't see, I think it
[4:50:42] takes away from what we were trying to achieve. And
[4:50:46] at this point reverting to what we had, it's pretty
[4:50:49] much the same as what we'll go with. Either way,
[4:50:51] I think you go to 2011 or 2026. We're now
[4:50:53] just existing in the grey area. And I think, uh,
[4:50:56] it doesn't really offer the clarity that we were looking
[4:50:58] to see by doing this exercise in the first place.
[4:51:01] So, uh, as it stands, uh, I won't be supporting
[4:51:05] it. I think, um. It just doesn't do what we,
[4:51:09] uh, wanted to, uh, in terms of, uh, offering those
[4:51:12] avenues and those pathways for support that we were looking
[4:51:14] to provide. So I'll be voting no on it.
[4:51:24] Okay. I'll turn the chair to Depomer Lewis. I only
[4:51:26] have myself on the list. I'll take the chair. Please
[4:51:33] go ahead, Mayor Morgan. So I just want to say
[4:51:37] a few words. First off, I think the colleagues who
[4:51:41] are projecting a whole lot on to, uh, the one
[4:51:46] change that we made. The existing shelters are operating as
[4:51:53] the contemplated guidelines were operating. Removing references from the guideline.
[4:51:59] Does not change the way that the shelter operators can
[4:52:02] operate today. They can operate as they're operating. They can
[4:52:08] make decisions of their boards. They can integrate with other
[4:52:11] programs. Um, we have not changed or impacted fundamentally the
[4:52:17] way that they can operate today. So I just want
[4:52:19] to be clear because a lot of people are saying
[4:52:20] that. I would also remind people that everybody has to
[4:52:23] follow the human rights code. I know there's going to
[4:52:24] be questions about that. But being silent on something doesn't
[4:52:26] preclude you from having to follow the rules of the
[4:52:29] provincial and federal governments and the human rights commission. So
[4:52:33] if there are things to apply to the operation of
[4:52:35] emergency shelters or shelters or any aspect of the work
[4:52:38] we do as a corporation, those are still going to
[4:52:40] apply. Uh, you know, our staff could have given us
[4:52:45] legal advice on that, but it's very clear. We have
[4:52:47] to follow the rules of the land. Everybody swore that
[4:52:49] when they took their oath of office, this is something
[4:52:51] we have to uphold. So there's nothing that we're making
[4:52:53] a decision on by being silent on something that precludes
[4:52:56] us. From our obligations to follow any human rights provisions
[4:53:01] in the provision of services that we provide at the
[4:53:03] cortion or in the contracts that we provide to people
[4:53:07] or their board's obligations to follow the rules and the
[4:53:09] laws that they have. So, um, I think colleagues should
[4:53:13] support the guidelines. I think there are a number of
[4:53:15] good things in there. Uh, I don't think you should
[4:53:17] move towards, um, removing all of the other changes because
[4:53:22] you're unhappy that we're being silenced on one provision where
[4:53:24] in my opinion, it's not going to fundamentally change in
[4:53:27] any sort of way the way that the shelters are
[4:53:29] operating today. And we should proceed and should clarity be
[4:53:33] required in the future again, uh, which I don't think
[4:53:36] it will be. That's a change that can be made.
[4:53:40] Down the road by a subsequent Council in the future,
[4:53:44] but the work that our staff have done on all
[4:53:46] the other aspects of the guidelines. I would hate to
[4:53:48] see staff throw it out. I would also remind colleagues
[4:53:51] that if you vote no on the motion, you're voting
[4:53:55] no to like just all of the pieces of implementing
[4:53:59] and directing all the other aspects of the guidelines that
[4:54:02] were updated. So I would say pass this, it may
[4:54:06] be silent on a part that you wanted to speak
[4:54:07] to, but being silent on that part doesn't preclude an
[4:54:10] operator from continuing to operate that way.
[4:54:21] You can give me back the chair if you want.
[4:54:25] I'm debating whether or not to do that, but. Then
[4:54:29] go ahead and share the meeting. Looking for any other
[4:54:32] speakers. I see Councillor Ploso on the list. I'll return
[4:54:36] the chair to Mayor Morgan recognising Councillor Pelosa. Okay. Go
[4:54:40] ahead, Councillor. Thank you. Uh, not rising to move adjournment,
[4:54:46] but, uh, it's quite the discussion tonight. I appreciate the
[4:54:52] work stuff done. Uh, the long conversation to get here.
[4:54:55] And the concerns, colleagues are raising about if we're silent
[4:54:59] on something. And if we do something, is it going
[4:55:02] back to this version, a prior version where are we
[4:55:06] landing? That's why I support the referrals. So we could
[4:55:08] have got some feedback from operators if they were saying
[4:55:11] what they wanted to do. Uh, for me. We always
[4:55:16] say we don't think someone's going to come back and
[4:55:18] then it comes back. Maybe not this council, but a
[4:55:20] future council. Like sometimes therations. Sometimes it's just the timing.
[4:55:26] Um. I was interested in a transparency of clarity. Of
[4:55:31] if those wordings are in there. The public knew what
[4:55:34] we're going for. Service providers knew what we're going for.
[4:55:38] People trying to seek help new clarity should they search
[4:55:41] it of what we were going for. I learnt my.
[4:55:47] I learned from prior councils when they thought removing something.
[4:55:52] It would just default to what the powers were out
[4:55:56] there. People can decide. I hate to use the words
[4:55:58] reptilia. It gets Paul too excited. Um, but that was
[4:56:02] it. A Council removed words. Some it became silent on
[4:56:05] it. And it reverted back to something that was provincially
[4:56:08] mandated. That Council, I believe, hadn't attended when they made
[4:56:12] that small change. It ended up being a really big
[4:56:15] change. And that was my fear with this, that if
[4:56:17] we're silent, what are we actually reverting back to and
[4:56:21] what will actually fill the space in the void of
[4:56:23] us actually being very clear in our intentions. Thank you.
[4:56:32] Okay. Councillor Troso, you can speak to the main.
[4:56:42] I hope I don't sound like a broken record here.
[4:56:45] But I need to repeat something. I said before. And
[4:56:49] that is, um, I have some very serious legal concerns
[4:56:52] through the chair. I have some very legal, serious legal
[4:56:55] concerns about where we're going. And it was very happy
[4:56:59] to, um, have this come up later in a staff
[4:57:02] report. But I must ask the question again in light
[4:57:04] of the referrals being defeated. Um, to the, to the
[4:57:09] solicitor. Do we run some any appreciable risk here. Of
[4:57:14] charter challenges. Uh, of human rights code violations and other
[4:57:20] potential legal issues that, that could, um, plague this Council.
[4:57:26] And I really do not like putting you on the
[4:57:28] spot like this, which is why I thought the referral
[4:57:31] was appropriate, but I have no choice right now to
[4:57:34] ask you that question. Go ahead. Uh, thank you. In
[4:57:42] addition to my earlier comments, any commentary on risk would
[4:57:47] have to occur in camera. I move that we adjourn.
[4:57:55] To go into camera for the purpose of getting legal
[4:57:59] advice. On the issues I had raised as just responded
[4:58:04] to by the city solicitor. I think we have to
[4:58:07] do that now. And I so move that we go
[4:58:09] into camera. Um, and I hope I get a second
[4:58:14] and I hope, I hope at the very least. You'll
[4:58:17] support this. And, um, we can get the best information
[4:58:21] that we can because we're not, we're not operating on
[4:58:23] good up information now. And this is a very perilous
[4:58:26] direction we're going in. Okay. So.
[4:58:36] Okay. So that's a motion to go into camera to
[4:58:39] receive advice on the matter before us. There's some language
[4:58:42] that we have kind of always ready for that. Just
[4:58:46] need a seconder for that. Councillor Hopkins willing to second.
[4:59:08] So going into camera's move to second and any discussion.
[4:59:11] Yeah. Councillor Ramen and then Deputy Mary Lewis. Uh, thank
[4:59:16] you. I'm just looking for clarity on what are we
[4:59:20] going in camera for. I'm happy to lay it out
[4:59:28] in greater detail if you want me to. Speed. The
[4:59:31] reason because. This is. What everybody
[4:59:40] understands what it is. Okay. Uh, Council convenes in closed
[4:59:43] session for the purpose of considering the following. A matter
[4:59:45] of the subject is solicitor client privilege, including communications necessary
[4:59:48] for that purpose. With respect to the staff report dated
[4:59:51] August 10th, 2026 related to the housing stability procurement and
[4:59:54] delivery framework emergency shelter guidelines, 2011 versus 2026. Comparative analysis
[5:00:01] and the proposed emergency shelter guidelines. So all those pieces.
[5:00:08] There's the staff report. And the proposed guidelines. That's good.
[5:00:11] And that would cover all of the. So Council, you
[5:00:14] don't have the four. Council Rahman was asking a question
[5:00:16] and I'm just clarifying. Uh, thank you, three. So, um,
[5:00:22] we're getting legal advice on components of which we're not
[5:00:26] even debating technically at this point. The 2011 and the
[5:00:31] 2026 comparative analysis piece. We've received. We've already went past
[5:00:40] that in this part of the discussion. So I'm not
[5:00:42] sure what we're going in camping. So. This listener was
[5:00:47] given a heads up that there might be a quest
[5:00:49] to go into camera. Uh, I think some broad -
[5:00:52] based parameters assist the solicitor in being able to bring
[5:00:55] up anything that, uh, she, or they may need in
[5:00:58] the discussion. I can't really comment on the rest of
[5:01:01] the language. But that's the title of the item that
[5:01:05] is before us. And so it's basically what we're talking
[5:01:08] about now. But I would just go and buy the
[5:01:11] language that clerks develop for this based on their conversation.
[5:01:18] Okay. Thank you. I'm still unclear as to the question
[5:01:20] as to why we're going to camera. So I won't
[5:01:21] be part of. The. Mayor, Lewis. Well, I'll say I
[5:01:31] won't be supporting it either. I think I've heard clearly
[5:01:33] what I need to hear. However, um, as a point
[5:01:36] of order, it's a good thing. There's no SPPC report
[5:01:38] because we still have ICSE to go and it is
[5:01:40] 20 minutes to six. And while I won't be supporting
[5:01:43] it, I would suggest that your worship may want to
[5:01:45] call for an extension past 6 p. m. before moving
[5:01:48] in camera.
[5:02:28] Yeah. So, um, can be made in camera to go
[5:02:30] past 6. But I think it's more transparent to do
[5:02:32] it now. So we'll just do it now. Um, so
[5:02:35] you want to, I need someone to move. Councillor Stevenson
[5:02:40] Moose. Councillor Hopkins second. We're going to open that for
[5:02:46] voting.
[5:03:20] Closing the vote, motion carries 11 to 4.
[5:03:32] Okay. Now we're on the close session. Piece. Any other
[5:03:36] discussion. Okay. We're going to vote on the motion to
[5:03:39] go into closed session.
[5:04:11] Closing the vote. Motion carries 9 to 6. Okay. We'll
[5:04:16] move to Committee Room 5.
[5:36:39] Okay, please be seated.
[5:38:00] Okay, we're back in public session. Councillor Trosow has to
[5:38:04] go on camera. We went in camera. Councillor Trosow, he
[5:38:07] had the floor. I don't know if you have any
[5:38:10] final comments. Before, but you hold the floor now, now
[5:38:14] that we've come back from main camera. Yes, how much
[5:38:18] time do I have. I honestly have no idea. And
[5:38:27] I was, so let's call it three. And I'm sorry
[5:38:29] for that, but the timer got cleared when we timed
[5:38:32] camera. I'll be brief. Okay. So. I thought that the
[5:38:42] questions that I was raising were legitimate questions. I'm not
[5:38:45] gonna talk about what went on in closed sessions, because
[5:38:48] I can't do that. But I will say I'm not
[5:38:51] walking out of here tonight. Feeling good about the process
[5:38:56] or our prospects. And I'm still very worried about this.
[5:38:59] I think that the excellent work that was done by
[5:39:04] the step, and I went. I wanna look.
[5:39:13] I really want addressed, I went to look senior staff
[5:39:16] in the face and address this right now. The work
[5:39:20] that was done by the staff on directly to staff,
[5:39:25] speaking through the chair, and you can make comments on
[5:39:26] the debate. Okay, so I just wanna let the senior
[5:39:30] staff, now when everybody that worked on this file, that
[5:39:33] in my view, this was excellent staff work. It was
[5:39:35] very difficult, staff work. And you took on some very
[5:39:37] difficult questions that were known to be controversial. And we
[5:39:44] made a significant, and I think it's a significant departure.
[5:39:48] From the staff recommendation. I don't think this was a
[5:39:50] minor change. I've heard it said that this was just
[5:39:53] a minor change from the staff report. This is a
[5:39:56] fundamental shift in direction that I think raises a whole
[5:40:02] panel of issues that are gonna need to be addressed.
[5:40:06] And if they're not addressed to discouncil table, they will
[5:40:08] be addressed. Elsewhere. Now, in closing, I just want to
[5:40:13] say that it is not my intention. To help people
[5:40:18] smuggle drugs or use drugs or get drugs into these
[5:40:21] facilities. My intention here is to assist as many people
[5:40:26] as possible to get the type of treatment and support
[5:40:31] and help that they need. And we have to be
[5:40:36] the situation from the lens of the clientele who will
[5:40:40] be using this service. And I worry sometimes that we're
[5:40:43] looking at it from more of an administrative lens. We
[5:40:47] have to look at this from the point of view
[5:40:49] of people who are not gonna come into these facilities.
[5:40:53] 30 seconds. They're scared. And I think that that is
[5:40:56] going to have an appreciable effect. On the effectiveness of
[5:41:00] this program. And again, it's too bad, as I said
[5:41:03] before than too bad, it's tragic. What I said before,
[5:41:10] my closing thought, heroic, and very, very valuable, not just
[5:41:20] for London, but for the other communities watching. And it's,
[5:41:24] I think it's very unfortunate that we chose not to
[5:41:27] do that. And I hope that at some point this
[5:41:30] or the next Council will reconsiderate. Thank you, Colin. This
[5:41:32] direction. Thank you. Other speakers.
[5:41:47] Okay, there's been a request to separate one part for
[5:41:50] the final vote, and that's part. B, which is the
[5:41:56] directly implementation. That's the only part I've been asked to
[5:42:00] have addressed separately. So. Okay, so we'll do that first,
[5:42:06] and then we'll do all the other pieces. Okay, so
[5:42:09] we'll open B for voting.
[5:42:27] Closing the vote motion carries nine to four. Okay, and
[5:42:32] all the other clauses. Will open that for voting.
[5:43:00] Councillor Traso. Of president, I vote yes on receiving the
[5:43:05] report. Do we have your microphone councillor, Triso. Noted, closing
[5:43:13] the vote, motion carries 11 to 2. That concludes my
[5:43:22] report. Thank you for your report. All right, we're on
[5:43:30] to infrastructure and corporate services committee. It's a four item
[5:43:33] report. I will turn it over to the chair to
[5:43:36] present that. So four iron reports. Whereas half bean pulled,
[5:43:41] so, sorry, but, uh, we, uh, this is 13th report
[5:43:45] of infrastructure and corporate services committee. Um, and I've had
[5:43:49] requests for item two and four to be pulled. So
[5:43:53] I will look to move one and three unless there
[5:43:55] are other pull requests. So looking for those four. I'll
[5:43:58] give you one's disclosures. I think we could just do
[5:44:00] one in three together. Even if people wanted debate it.
[5:44:02] Um, I guess if you want to amend three, it
[5:44:05] has to be separate. Does anybody want to men three.
[5:44:08] No, okay, then you can put one in three on
[5:44:10] the floor. Okay, I'll put one in three on the
[5:44:12] floor. Okay, that's on the floor, any discussion. All right,
[5:44:16] we're going to open that promoting.
[5:44:45] Closing the vote, motion carries 13 to zero. Go ahead,
[5:44:49] Councillor. Okay, I will put item two on the floor.
[5:44:53] This is the school crossing guard program Councillor Trosso has
[5:44:56] an amendment. He'd like to repord. That's on the floor.
[5:45:02] Councillor Trosso. Go ahead. Um, thank you. Thank you very
[5:45:07] much. And through you, I submitted a slight amendment. Which
[5:45:16] I hope will be, um, less difficult as the less
[5:45:20] one, uh, but I, what, what I'm looking for here
[5:45:23] is the addition of the words, um, and other information.
[5:45:29] No. Including accidents reported near accidents and other information reported
[5:45:34] from school principals, teachers, staff, students, and adjoining residents. And
[5:45:41] that's the motion and I'll wait to see if there's
[5:45:44] a second before I talk about why I think that's
[5:45:47] a good addition. I'll second it for you. So go
[5:45:50] ahead. Thank you. I'll go, I'll go right into it
[5:45:52] then. Um. This staff report really, I got into some
[5:45:59] very interesting questions about the feedback from principles. And the
[5:46:04] thing about the feedback from principles was they didn't, they
[5:46:09] didn't go into a lot of detail. Um, counting the
[5:46:12] responses from principles, but it was going at a particular
[5:46:15] direction. And that was there were a lot of concerns
[5:46:17] about the safety around the schools. And of course, that's,
[5:46:21] that's not much of a surprise. Now, um, the reason
[5:46:23] I'm doing this amendment is I don't want this to
[5:46:27] just be, um, accounting exercise. In terms of doing the
[5:46:31] traffic study and counting cars. I want to make sure
[5:46:35] that this, that this, uh, that this exercise takes into
[5:46:39] account also the qualitative aspect of what the principles, the
[5:46:45] students, the staff, and, uh, the crossing guards themselves and
[5:46:49] the, um, adjacent residents have, have to say about this.
[5:46:52] And I think that'll just make it a more complete,
[5:46:56] better report to continue along the lines of doing the,
[5:47:00] uh, exposure index, um, analysis. So I think this is
[5:47:04] a very, very small, small - es - and. And
[5:47:07] we've seen this question come up quite a bit with
[5:47:10] respect to, um, some of the requests that we've had
[5:47:13] in neighbourhoods for either additional crossing guards or for additional
[5:47:17] traffic mitigation. Measures, we just went through a very, very
[5:47:22] fullsome exercise in Old North. Where we looked at, yes,
[5:47:27] we looked at the data. We looked at the numbers,
[5:47:29] but we also looked at a lot of qualitative feedback
[5:47:32] from the residents. And I think that that was a
[5:47:34] benefit. To the staff. So I hope that I'm not,
[5:47:38] um, indicating the staff that I don't think their work
[5:47:41] was good. I think it was fine. I just think
[5:47:44] by making it explicit that we're going to also look
[5:47:47] at this qualitative data, I think we'll have a more
[5:47:50] fulsome report. In the end, and I'm hoping that the,
[5:47:54] uh, I know the traffic department is quite capable of
[5:47:56] doing that. And, um, I hope that this, this, um,
[5:48:00] this minor amendment, uh, pass this. So thank you very
[5:48:03] much. Okay. Any discussion on the amendment. Okay.
[5:48:13] See none. We'll open that for voting.
[5:48:28] Closing the vote. Motion carries 12 to one. And, um,
[5:48:33] Councillor Chair, are you willing to move the as a
[5:48:36] mented motion. Yes on there. Okay. Councillor Trosa, your second.
[5:48:41] Deal. Second it. Yes. Okay. Um, and a discussion on
[5:48:43] the as amended motion. Caseeing none, we will open that
[5:48:49] for voting. Cousin Vowel Motion carries 13 to zero.
[5:48:59] Councillor McAllister. Thank you. And I will put item four
[5:49:05] on the floor. This is the amendment to the Council
[5:49:07] Procedure By - Law of the Striking Committee and Councillor
[5:49:10] Farrer had an amendment for this one. Okay. That's on
[5:49:14] the floor. Council Ferrari. Thank you Mayor. I circulated a
[5:49:19] referral on this one. I did circulate it, but if
[5:49:23] you want me to read it out, I can. Yes,
[5:49:26] please. All right. I just have to find it. I'll
[5:49:31] have it in front of me. Can the clerks put
[5:49:33] that on eScribe so I can read that. All right,
[5:49:36] here it is. Oh, wait. That's not it. If you're
[5:49:41] a frash, it's sir. Okay. So, uh, moving to refer,
[5:49:51] uh, in the referral is that the staff report dated
[5:49:53] August 12th, 2026 related to amending the Council procedure bylaw
[5:49:57] A61 by removing the requirement for the appointment of a
[5:50:02] striking committee for initial citizen appointments to boards and commissions
[5:50:06] following a municipal election be referred to the next meeting
[5:50:09] of the infrastructure and corporate services committee for further consideration.
[5:50:17] Is there a seconder for that? Councillor Troso. Okay, on
[5:50:24] the. All right. Well, the reason I move in this
[5:50:26] referral is because, um, I have some obviously some issues
[5:50:29] with it. Like I do appreciate that independent community based
[5:50:33] layer, um, that goes over all the ABC appointments. And
[5:50:36] I would say that this Council and Past Councils have
[5:50:39] seen some issues coming up with some of the ABC
[5:50:41] appointments. And I feel like if we were to have
[5:50:44] that extra striking committee, um, going over everything, bringing recommendations,
[5:50:48] that would ensure that we have the knowledge, the experience,
[5:50:51] um, and the expertise, uh, for the overall skills, uh,
[5:50:56] needed. Because otherwise, and I do understand that the SPPC
[5:50:59] will be the ultimate decider. But to have those recommendations
[5:51:02] come through, if we didn't have that, then otherwise, um,
[5:51:06] you would have, you wouldn't really have the qualifications really,
[5:51:11] uh, be focused on for the composition. It would be
[5:51:13] really kind of attuned to the Council of Preferences. And
[5:51:15] I'm trying to depoliticize this as much as we can.
[5:51:19] Because in the end, our ABCs are supposed to be
[5:51:21] providing that greater benefit, that greater good and that smooth
[5:51:25] operation for whatever the ABC is. So this is really
[5:51:29] kind of something that I think that we should really
[5:51:31] have, um, here we should have that extra level of
[5:51:35] insight. It will help us make our decisions. And it
[5:51:38] will help us really understand of, you know, after that
[5:51:40] review from a striking committee that, you know, that citizen
[5:51:43] layer, that community layer of, um, just giving us kind
[5:51:47] of that recommendation to show that, you know, this, this
[5:51:50] candidate has, you know, these qualifications, this candidate has these
[5:51:53] qualifications. Otherwise, it's just going to be a matter of,
[5:51:56] of Councillor preference when it comes to that. And I
[5:51:59] would say, you know, I do understand that Council should
[5:52:01] retain the appointment, but we should at least have that
[5:52:05] extra guiding, um, factor. Because we have seen, um, in
[5:52:10] this term, you know, some issues that could come up.
[5:52:13] And I feel like we need to be able to
[5:52:15] use as much resources as possible that will help us
[5:52:18] make those considerations. Because I don't want to have this
[5:52:21] overly political. I would say that, um, I understand that
[5:52:26] there were some issues with the striking committees and the
[5:52:29] compositions of maybe some members not being able to show
[5:52:31] up or having issues with quorum. But I think taking
[5:52:34] a sledgehammer approach and just removing the striking committee altogether
[5:52:38] is not the prudent approach. If we have some issues,
[5:52:41] we should look into how we can recompose or how
[5:52:45] we would set the striking committee, um, amount of members
[5:52:49] that comes through. But I don't think just removing it
[5:52:51] all together is the right answer. Because in the end,
[5:52:54] you know, like you've heard this term before, but the
[5:52:57] definition of insanity is doing the same thing again and
[5:53:00] again and again. And I feel like we see some
[5:53:04] of the issues that have arisen and now we're taking
[5:53:06] away that insurance mechanism that could help us not repeat
[5:53:10] some of the same issues we saw, um, in the
[5:53:13] past. So I think it would be a wise choice
[5:53:15] to refer this and not remove this striking committee. So
[5:53:19] I would like to have some details back from staff
[5:53:21] on how we could recompose or we could mitigate some
[5:53:24] of the issues we saw in this last Council's striking
[5:53:27] committee that was brought to me by the clerks rather
[5:53:31] than just remove it entirely. Go ahead to the clerk.
[5:53:39] Thank you, your worship. Uh, just before I begin my
[5:53:43] substantive answer, I just want to flag that even if
[5:53:46] a referral is supported given the timeline in order to
[5:53:49] provide Council the full option. We would likely advertise and,
[5:53:53] uh, seek members to comprise the striking committee given the
[5:53:58] timelines. The reason we would do that is to provide
[5:54:01] that option should Council choose to disband the striking committee
[5:54:06] than we would advise the members that had put their
[5:54:09] names forward. I just wanted to flag that if you
[5:54:11] do see, uh, outreach from the clerk's department. It's not
[5:54:14] going contrary to whatever is decided here. It's simply to
[5:54:18] ensure that you have that option before you. Uh, the
[5:54:21] other part I just wanted to mention is, uh, quite
[5:54:24] rightly the Councillor has indicated some issues that were experienced
[5:54:29] at the start of the term, um, there was only
[5:54:31] one citizen at large applied for five positions. And then
[5:54:38] resigned just prior to the meeting. So we had no,
[5:54:41] uh, citizens at large. These standard advertisement, recruitment approach, which
[5:54:45] is very broad, was undertaken by the city clerk's office.
[5:54:50] Certainly, uh, we would endeavour to make it as broad
[5:54:53] as possible. Uh, as we always do, um, there is
[5:54:57] no guarantee that we would get that engagement from members
[5:54:59] of the public. We also had some regrets from, uh,
[5:55:04] other striking member composition. Um, and those are the kind
[5:55:09] of the standing organisations. Uh, we would endeavour to encourage
[5:55:13] particition should Council go in that direction. But that said,
[5:55:18] uh, given the timing, uh, the appointments to the striking
[5:55:22] committee pursuant to the existing Council procedure bylaw would need
[5:55:25] to be done no later than they last regular Council
[5:55:28] meeting of this term. So I just wanted a flag
[5:55:30] a few of those issues. Thank you. Okay, just some
[5:55:34] clarification questions from the clerk's comments on, not just to
[5:55:37] make sure I understand this correctly. Um, so if Council
[5:55:41] were to approve this referral from what the clerk is
[5:55:44] telling me, considering the timelines you would still proceed with
[5:55:48] the current mechanism of the striking committee. Because you don't
[5:55:52] have sufficient time to make that, um, that report back.
[5:55:56] However, in time, this would be, I guess, for the
[5:56:00] next Council term, you would be able to look into
[5:56:03] the composition. We'd have a report back. Is that just
[5:56:06] to clarify the first part.
[5:56:19] Okay. So what the clerk said was. If we referred
[5:56:23] it, we will have not made a decision. To keep
[5:56:27] all the options on the table. The clerk would be
[5:56:30] required to advertise for the striking committee. Uh, through the
[5:56:37] referral Council decided to keep the striking committee. There would
[5:56:42] not be sufficient time to advertise at that point on.
[5:56:44] So they would be preemptive in that if they decided
[5:56:46] not to, we'd be telling the people who applied actually
[5:56:50] where we've decided not to proceed. So the reason why
[5:56:53] the clerk said that is didn't want Councillors to think
[5:56:56] that they were proceeding in the absence of a Council
[5:56:59] decision. Um, given the, if the referral passed, um, but,
[5:57:04] but wanted to reserve Council's right to populate that committee.
[5:57:08] Thank you. That fits my understanding then. Um, and I
[5:57:11] would also say if we did proceed to do this
[5:57:14] referral, we could learn, I guess, from another round of
[5:57:17] the striking committee. Um, so I like that. I understand
[5:57:21] that. I think that's fine. But I'd also, I guess
[5:57:23] follow up with if we were to not proceed with
[5:57:27] the referral and vote it down and vote with the
[5:57:30] recommendation from committee, there would be no striking committee, um,
[5:57:35] appointments being sought after. And we wouldn't see anything like
[5:57:38] that. We'd be following the committee's recommendation, which would be
[5:57:42] to not proceed with a striking committee. Okay. Thank you
[5:57:45] for that. Okay. Councillor Frank on the referral. Thank you.
[5:57:54] And I'll be quick. Um, I won't be supporting the
[5:57:56] referral. I sat on the Strang Committee in 2019 and
[5:57:59] Council ignored about 80 percent of our recommendations and it
[5:58:03] kind of felt like a waste of time. Um, my
[5:58:05] time, the Clark's time, other members on the string committee.
[5:58:07] And that's fine because Council at the end of the
[5:58:09] day chooses who they put on all these committees. I
[5:58:12] think we saw the same thing happen most recently. And
[5:58:15] I think that Council will ultimately end up choosing who
[5:58:18] they want to put on the various ABCs. Um, and
[5:58:22] of course I think we all are able, all council
[5:58:25] members are able to go and ask for advice and
[5:58:28] input from experts and from nonprofits in the community on
[5:58:31] who they think should be sitting on and serving on
[5:58:33] our ABCs. But, um, I, from personal experience, did not
[5:58:37] find the striking committee to be a good use of
[5:58:40] time. Any other speakers on the referral? Uh, Deputy R.
[5:58:44] Lewis. Yes, I agree with Councillor Frank. I don't think
[5:58:50] the Striking Committee is a good use of time. I
[5:58:51] won't be supporting the referral. Uh, the timing from, as
[5:58:56] we've heard from the clerk, is really short now anyway.
[5:58:59] Uh, we need to make a decision tonight. Um, I
[5:59:01] will say in two terms, the input from the striking
[5:59:06] committee with no offence to Councillor Frank was not something
[5:59:08] that is Councillor. I really considered. The Councillors are the
[5:59:14] ones elected to make the decisions. And the Councillors need
[5:59:17] to be free to speak to or not speak to
[5:59:19] whomever they want to seek advice from. Um, the striking
[5:59:22] committee does not bear any more weight for me than
[5:59:26] the input from anyone else in the entire community. Including
[5:59:31] colleagues around this horseshoe who might know somebody on the
[5:59:34] striking or on the, um, resumes that come in who
[5:59:37] they might say, Hey, that's a really good person. And
[5:59:39] they, they come and speak to it when we're making
[5:59:41] those appointments. And I appreciate that feedback from Councillors, uh,
[5:59:45] because it does help. Um, I think it's a frankly,
[5:59:50] in my opinion, not a good use of the clerks
[5:59:53] time. Uh, to have, uh, submit all of the, uh,
[5:59:58] advertising, get that out there, review the appointments if there
[6:00:02] are, even any, uh, as we've heard, we didn't attract
[6:00:04] anyone last time. Uh, then circulate all the resumes to
[6:00:08] those committee members. Be there to assist with meeting oversight,
[6:00:14] uh, and then put all of that information into a
[6:00:16] package for the new Council that, as Councillor Frank has
[6:00:20] indicated, many councillors, um, didn't follow when she was on
[6:00:24] the Striking Committee. Certainly hasn't had an impact on my
[6:00:27] decision. Uh, this to me is just. Not a value
[6:00:31] to it. I'm prepared to say, uh, it is gone.
[6:00:35] The decision does rest with Council. The Councillors are the
[6:00:38] one who are elected to make decisions, um, and you
[6:00:41] can consult whoever you want, but we don't need to
[6:00:42] have a formal committee to do that. Any other speakers.
[6:00:47] Councillor Tross Sa. Thank you. Thank you very much. May
[6:00:53] I ask the clerk to the chair? Not an exact
[6:00:57] number, but rough estimate. And I'm not talking about, um,
[6:01:00] advisory committees. I'm just talking about the boards and commissions.
[6:01:03] Approximately how many applications, um, approximately. Came in for review
[6:01:10] during the period at the beginning of the last council.
[6:01:13] Roughly. The answer is that was four years ago. We'd
[6:01:22] be totally ballparking in. So sorry. Um, I guess it
[6:01:27] doesn't help, but I think it was about this much.
[6:01:31] In terms of the thickness of the packet, but it
[6:01:34] was, it was a lot, but, um, maybe she's. Okay,
[6:01:41] let me move on to the next question. And what
[6:01:44] is the time period that Councillors, that the SPPC members
[6:01:47] will have from the time that they received the packet
[6:01:51] to the day of the SPPC edition. I wouldn't have
[6:02:00] the clerk cancer that. So through your worship, we did
[6:02:05] delay some of the appointments. And certainly, uh, SPPC can
[6:02:11] refer certain appointments. Should it choose? There are some timelines
[6:02:16] with some of the ABCs that they may find critical.
[6:02:22] Uh, the turnaround time would be the typical turnaround time
[6:02:25] for, uh, agendas, uh, so you would receive it. And
[6:02:29] you would, uh, you would have it on the agenda.
[6:02:33] And, uh, that, that's the amount of time that you
[6:02:34] would have. That said, SPPC can refer matters. They can
[6:02:39] make some appointments, refers some other appointments. For example, say
[6:02:44] some positions only have a handful of applicants. Some positions
[6:02:48] may have, uh, the number of applicants that are required
[6:02:52] to fill that position and that's it. Some may have
[6:02:54] a lot. So I'll just end it there. So, um,
[6:02:58] if I, if I may, um, add to that typically,
[6:03:02] tell me if I'm wrong, typically we'll get the packet
[6:03:06] Thursday, maybe Wednesday. Uh, and it would be typically a
[6:03:10] Tuesday meeting. Is that correct? But that's correct. Okay. Um,
[6:03:17] so my, my feeling about this is, um, and that
[6:03:21] would take place at the first SPPC meeting. No, I
[6:03:25] can answer that. Um, we passed a motion to delay
[6:03:28] a number of the citizens appointments by extending their terms
[6:03:31] into, I can't remember the date, but it would certainly
[6:03:33] not be the first SVVC. It would be into the
[6:03:36] new year. Okay. That's good to know. So my feeling
[6:03:40] is we should keep the striking committees. And the reason
[6:03:42] why I think we should keep the striking committees is
[6:03:45] I think that we need to do more to talk
[6:03:50] to our residents about civic participation. Because I think civic
[6:03:55] participation is at an overall low right now. It's, it's,
[6:03:59] it's reflected in what was said about the committee's last
[6:04:01] time. And it's also reflected in the voter turnout. Last
[6:04:05] time. Um, it's reflected by a lot of things. And
[6:04:08] I think just to say that, well, we're going to
[6:04:11] make the decisions anyway. So let's not have the striking
[6:04:14] committee. It's, it's a little analogous to saying we're going
[6:04:18] to make the decisions anyway. So maybe we don't need
[6:04:20] so many, um, citizen advisory committees. And I'm not talking
[6:04:24] about advisory committees, but I think it's the same thinking.
[6:04:27] It's the same kind of thinking. We need to engage
[6:04:31] the public much better than we do right now. And
[6:04:34] I think that like eliminating the striking committees is going
[6:04:37] to be sending the wrong signal. To our, our, our
[6:04:42] residents at a critical, at a critical time. So I
[6:04:45] would strongly urge, just encouraging you on the referral, right?
[6:04:49] Right now we're referring it. So, um, well, and without
[6:04:53] the referral, we're just not going to have it. Yeah,
[6:04:56] I can come back and explain why I would vote
[6:04:58] no on the, on the motion. But the referral will
[6:05:01] at least give us the chance to look this over
[6:05:04] again. And the good reasons why. We should have these
[6:05:09] striking committees. And at the, at the meeting to which
[6:05:12] this is referred, people would be able to address that
[6:05:17] in better detail than we can. At this late hour.
[6:05:21] Thank you. Any other speakers to this. Okay. We're voting
[6:05:26] on the referral. And we'll open that for voting.
[6:05:43] The vote. Motion fails three to 10. And on the
[6:05:49] committee recommendation, any other speakers. Out. Well, once again, I'm
[6:05:56] sorry to say that since the referral lust, um, I
[6:06:01] sadly, I'm not going to be able to support this
[6:06:03] committee recommendation. Because basically the committee recommendation is saying, let's
[6:06:08] not worry about getting more citizen impact feedback into this.
[6:06:13] Let's just go ahead and do it ourselves. We'll have
[6:06:15] the weekend. We'll have the weekend. That's a FIC packet.
[6:06:19] I'm sorry we don't have the exact number of people.
[6:06:21] People apply to the library board. I mean, I mean,
[6:06:24] people want to be on the, a number of these
[6:06:26] boards. It's very important. And I think that by, um,
[6:06:30] by just sort of pushing this through, uh, and there's
[6:06:35] only so much spoutiny, uh, even the most diligent SPPC
[6:06:39] member can devote to this, to this file over the
[6:06:43] weekend, I presume that that's, that's not going to be
[6:06:45] the only thing in the SPPC pack at that early
[6:06:49] in the term. So I think we're sending a very
[6:06:52] negative signal. At a time when we really need to
[6:06:55] be increasing civic particition. And not only do we need
[6:07:00] to be increasing civic participation. We need to look back
[6:07:05] and understand why these instances of civic participation failed in
[6:07:10] the past. And rather than to say. They failed in
[6:07:14] the past wasn't a good use of my time, uh,
[6:07:17] let's just not do it. I think we need to
[6:07:20] critically accept what was the dynamic that led people to
[6:07:25] think this wasn't something they wanted to do. So I
[6:07:28] very much, I'm very keen to go ahead and try
[6:07:31] to recruit people for these striking committees. We used to
[6:07:34] have them, uh, we used to have a good, we
[6:07:37] have, we used to have a big, uh, sort of
[6:07:40] cross section of different groups. I remember we had, we
[6:07:43] had the Chamber of Commerce. We had the labour council.
[6:07:46] We had a variety. We had a variety of groups.
[6:07:49] And it was, it was very useful. And I think
[6:07:51] we're giving up something very important. If we just push
[6:07:54] this, uh, throughout regard to how this is going to
[6:07:58] view how the public. Have the public is going to
[6:08:05] view, um, cutting out of one of the few opportunities
[6:08:09] they have to engage in this meaningful decision making. So
[6:08:12] please vote no on this. Thank you. Okay. Any other
[6:08:17] speakers. All right. We're going to open that for voting.
[6:08:46] Councillor Hillier, Council of Traso. Oh, there it goes.
[6:08:58] Thank you closing a vote. Motion carries 10 to three.
[6:09:03] That's recount my report. Okay. Thank you. Um, added reports.
[6:09:10] I just handed you the added report from the closed
[6:09:12] session. Um, you'd be happy with this one. Usually you
[6:09:15] read a long time last time. So I'll let you
[6:09:17] do this one though. Uh, thank you. Yes. This is
[6:09:20] the 13th report of Council and Closed session. I think
[6:09:22] this is the shortest one I ever got. So thank
[6:09:23] you for that. That progress is made with respect to
[6:09:26] items 4. 1 and 4. 2 as noted on the
[6:09:29] public agenda, which was 6. Uh, 12 PEC 6. 1
[6:09:36] slash 13 slash Ics. And that, uh, progress was made,
[6:09:42] uh, for the added, um, added matter that we went
[6:09:44] into closed session for. Okay. And you know what? We
[6:09:48] don't even have to vote on that because they're just
[6:09:51] a reporter progress. It's just a verbal statement. Uh, point
[6:09:56] of personal privilege. Sure. Um, I would, on that last
[6:09:59] matter for the closed session that we just went through,
[6:10:02] I do want to dissent the progress was made. I
[6:10:04] don't, I just want to, I just want to indicate
[6:10:07] my, um, dissent to that perspective. Okay. Okay. That's not
[6:10:12] a thing in our procedure bylaw. So we're, we're going
[6:10:15] to move on. Um. Deferred matters. I need to forget
[6:10:18] matters. Okay. Inquiries. Any inquiries. Emergent motions. None. Okay. Bylaws.
[6:10:48] This is going to take a moment because people are
[6:10:49] telling the clerks now that they want things pulled, which
[6:10:52] is not as helpful as before. Councillor Frank. Yes, as
[6:10:58] circulate via email, I would like to refer one of
[6:11:00] the bylaws. We're not there yet.
[6:11:30] Okay. I'm going to read out how we can do
[6:11:32] this. We're going to do Bill 302 first, which is
[6:11:35] the striking committee item. 306.
[6:11:48] 306, which is the one that Councillor Frankie wanted to
[6:11:51] fur. But I'll just note that until second reading. So
[6:11:55] we have to deal with first reading. Doesn't come into
[6:11:58] effect. He can refer and debate at second rating. Uh,
[6:12:02] that's the appointment of Deputy Mayor and budget chair. Um,
[6:12:06] 308. Counts. I don't know what one that is, but
[6:12:11] a Councillor asked for that separate. It's the street spy
[6:12:15] law. Uh, 305 and 324, which is the PEC motion
[6:12:21] related to DRNess. And then everything else. Does that sound
[6:12:29] OK? To everybody.
[6:12:50] Okay. Is anybody supportive of all the things that I
[6:12:52] can just use the same move in section or deputy
[6:12:55] Lewis Encounter Ke. Always so agreeable. I appreciate it. It
[6:12:59] makes, uh, makes it a little quicker. Um, okay. So
[6:13:02] that's how we're going to proceed. Unless I just want
[6:13:05] to make sure people had time to look at them.
[6:13:13] All right. We're going to start with 302, which is
[6:13:15] the striking committee item. Um, moved by Deffy Murray Lewis,
[6:13:18] seconded by Councillor Ketty. This is first reading. So we'll
[6:13:21] open that for voting.
[6:13:31] Motion carries 11 to two. And second reading, any discussion.
[6:13:39] Okay. Seeing none, we'll open that. Motion carries 11 to
[6:13:48] two. And third and final reading. We'll open that for
[6:13:51] voting. Motion carries 11 to 2.
[6:14:09] Okay. 306 is the next one we'll do. We got
[6:14:12] to move our in secondary. We'll do first reading. Open
[6:14:15] that for voting.
[6:14:29] Motion carries eight to five. Okay. Second reading. Any discussion.
[6:14:34] Councillor Frank. Thank you. Yes. I would like to refer
[6:14:39] this by law to a future meeting of SPPC. I
[6:14:43] believe we have one in September to include provisions regarding
[6:14:46] the nomination process of Deputy Mayor, including that where nominee
[6:14:50] is not confirmed by Council. The mayor may continue to
[6:14:52] make nominations until nominee is confirmed by Council. Second year
[6:15:02] for that Councillor Farra. It's a referral. So that's debatable.
[6:15:09] So go ahead. Thank you. Yes. Um, I'll remind folks
[6:15:12] that we had discussed this policy at a previous governance
[6:15:17] working group committee meeting, believe, uh, mid last year. And
[6:15:22] we had discussed having clarity around the nomination process. Right
[6:15:26] now, uh, in the policy, it just states that, uh,
[6:15:29] the mayor will nominate a deputy mayor who will be
[6:15:31] confirmed by Council. And I asked at the time what
[6:15:33] happens if they're not confirmed. Um, and I just wanted
[6:15:36] some clarity around that just so that, you know, in
[6:15:38] the future, if for whatever reason happens, that Council does
[6:15:42] not agree with the mayor's position, uh, we know what
[6:15:45] direction to take. And, uh, this one seems to be,
[6:15:48] um, somewhat easy. And at the point that the nominees
[6:15:52] confer by Council, uh, then we can move forward with
[6:15:54] that position. So just seeking, um, a referral so that
[6:15:58] we can have that added before, uh, new Council is
[6:16:02] elected. Any other speakers to the referral? Depreence. Thank you,
[6:16:11] Chair. So, uh, Setting aside, uh, my own bias, uh,
[6:16:18] well, I think that this is sort of a, and
[6:16:20] I said this, this isn't a DIG at Councillor Frank
[6:16:22] because I said this at governance working group two. I
[6:16:24] think this is a bit of a problem or a
[6:16:26] solution in search of a problem. Um, I don't think
[6:16:28] in the entire history of the City of London, a
[6:16:31] council hasn't affirmed the mayor's appointment to the deputy mayor
[6:16:34] position. Nonetheless, um, I appreciate Councillor Frank's desire for some
[6:16:39] clarity of language. I just don't think we need to
[6:16:41] go through whole committee cycle. I think the language you've
[6:16:43] suggested is very clear. However, I realised that clerks need
[6:16:46] time to edit the bylaw. Um, so I'd like to
[6:16:50] amend this to just have it brought back to the
[6:16:52] October 14th Council. And I will share that at this
[6:16:55] point, uh, the SPPC meeting in September does not have
[6:16:59] any staff reports yet. On the agenda. That doesn't mean
[6:17:02] that there may not be some, uh, because I know
[6:17:05] staff are working on a couple, but, um, that might
[6:17:08] not fall. Like that meeting might not occur. So I
[6:17:11] think the language Councillor Frank has suggested could simply be
[6:17:14] written into the By - on brought back to us
[6:17:16] on October 14th. So I'm going to move an amendment
[6:17:21] that this be referred to the October 14th Council meeting.
[6:17:27] And that, uh, civica administration, the clerks in this case
[6:17:31] be directed to amend the Bylaw to reflect the language
[6:17:33] from the Councillor. Can Councillor Cuddy wants to second that
[6:17:38] amendment. So we're amending just the part on the reporting
[6:17:41] back from SPPC to Council. And then you're picking the
[6:17:46] specific meeting. Okay. So the only one more Council meeting
[6:17:50] of this term. Okay. Well, that's probably a good one
[6:17:55] to do it at then. Okay. Um. Yeah, that's that's
[6:17:59] okay. The set amendments on the Ford Council Cutty seconded
[6:18:01] it. Uh, so we're on the amendment now. I'll look
[6:18:04] for speakers on the amendment. Go ahead, Councillor TroSile. I
[6:18:09] think my question though, it's relevant to the main motion.
[6:18:13] It's also relevant to the amendment. So I'm going to
[6:18:14] ask it now. How did something get onto the stage
[6:18:19] 13 agenda where we do three readings of typically that
[6:18:24] have been done previous in the meeting. I've never seen
[6:18:27] an instance where this Council or any previous council that
[6:18:31] I've been watching. Has done three readings of a bylaw
[6:18:36] if it wasn't something that was on that Council agenda.
[6:18:39] And I actually went back and looked. It's hard to
[6:18:43] figure out, but I thought I'd also talk to some
[6:18:45] of the former councillors. Nobody has any recollection. Of something
[6:18:50] making it onto the stage 13, three reading. Of agenda
[6:18:55] that hadn't previously been on that same Council agenda. So
[6:18:59] I guess my question is how did this get on
[6:19:04] this agenda. In stage 13? If it wasn't on the,
[6:19:09] um, Agenda previously on this meeting, how did that happen?
[6:19:13] Okay. That's the question for the clerk. I'll let the
[6:19:15] clerk answer. Certainly on the current agenda, there are a
[6:19:18] number of bills that, uh, are on the agenda, for
[6:19:24] example, Bill 308 through. 20. At least, uh, that are
[6:19:33] on the agenda. Those are related to dedications of public
[6:19:36] highways. Uh, those relate to active city business, uh, but
[6:19:42] they wouldn't go through a typical process. For items where
[6:19:45] there's a clear direction from Council, where the new decision
[6:19:49] to be made where there's, uh, direction, for example, the
[6:19:53] referral before, um, before Council right now, that would be
[6:19:59] the October 14th change to bring it back to Council.
[6:20:03] It would appear on a Bylaw list. Thank you. Councillor
[6:20:10] Trosa. Well, um, I would like to say I'm going
[6:20:13] to save my, I'm going to save my other comments.
[6:20:18] But if the referral pass is that's at it tonight.
[6:20:21] So I'm going to say I'm going to be voting
[6:20:22] Noah in the referral. Because I think the, uh, there's
[6:20:27] more to the controversy here. Then this is not just
[6:20:30] cleanup language. This is, this is not housekeeping. There's some
[6:20:33] substantive changes that are being made here. And to have
[6:20:36] this appear at the stage 13, three reading, uh, agenda.
[6:20:43] With, I'm sorry, I'm trying. For this to appear on
[6:20:48] the stage 13 part of the agenda without any indication
[6:20:52] on the rest of the agenda, what this is from.
[6:20:54] I think it's very confusing. The councillors. I also think
[6:20:57] it's very confusing to members of the public. I think
[6:20:59] it's bad practice. It's hard enough to go through and
[6:21:03] be diligent reading all of the, um, staff reports and
[6:21:06] reading all of the things that are on the agenda
[6:21:08] proper. But now apparently we also have to plough through
[6:21:11] all of the bylaws in detail without any age of
[6:21:15] staff report or context to see if there is to
[6:21:18] see if the change. And I think, uh, again, legally
[6:21:22] we can do that. There's nothing in the procedural bylaw
[6:21:26] that says we can't do it. But in terms of
[6:21:28] again, going back to my, um, uh, the plea for
[6:21:32] more transparency and civica engagement, I think this is a
[6:21:36] real bad idea. So I'm not saying that that'll turn
[6:21:39] out different in the end, but I think this is
[6:21:41] an important enough question. That it should come to a,
[6:21:45] it should come to an SPPC meeting properly. On the
[6:21:48] agenda with the step report. Where people can actually make,
[6:21:53] um, at the SPPC, if people have objections to the
[6:21:57] text of the, um, of the By - law change.
[6:22:00] And there are serious changes. They can, they can, they
[6:22:03] can send in and add it. They could also ask
[6:22:07] for delegation. And I don't think we should cut off
[6:22:09] the public's right to do that. Now, of course, if
[6:22:12] we put this on the next Council agenda, we'll get
[6:22:14] a report back. People can still do their, people can
[6:22:17] still do their, uh, added. But we do cut off
[6:22:20] the ability for people to make delegations. I think it's
[6:22:23] a bad precedent. For us to be cutting out. The
[6:22:28] typical, um, standard process of going through committees. And I'm
[6:22:32] not asking for this to go back to governance. I
[6:22:36] said, I don't even think we're having another governance meeting.
[6:22:38] I don't know. But, uh, I do think they should
[6:22:40] go back to SPPC. So I'm going to be voting
[6:22:42] against the referral and should the referral pass. I'll be,
[6:22:46] I'll be making more comments at Council about why I
[6:22:48] think this is a very bad process. Thank you. Okay.
[6:22:53] I'm going to have the clerk respond to that because
[6:22:55] you, uh, you made some comments there about controversy and
[6:22:58] process and procedure, um, I want to clerk to answer
[6:23:01] clearly, uh, why they put this particular item on the
[6:23:06] agenda and the way they did. Thank you, your worship.
[6:23:09] There was a resolution passed by Council where the rules
[6:23:13] and responsibilities as well as the appointment process be clarified.
[6:23:17] So there's clear direction for us to already do the
[6:23:21] work. We did the work. We put it on the
[6:23:25] By - law list. And absolutely Council can refer. They
[6:23:29] can do whatever, uh, Council would like, including amendment or
[6:23:34] debate at second reading. Okay. Strike Council, go ahead. Yeah.
[6:23:41] Well, just to briefly respond to that, this is just
[6:23:44] going to create a situation where we're doing committee work
[6:23:47] at Council again. And yeah, this is what we'll do.
[6:23:51] We'll get the reported Council and the, uh, my view
[6:23:54] is there are substantive differences. And, um, those will be
[6:23:57] raised, those will be raised at Council and we'll get
[6:24:00] into a discussion with amendments and maybe the amendments to
[6:24:05] amendments. I really would like to have that kind of
[6:24:09] discussion. Done at standing committees, not at city council, but
[6:24:14] here we'll go again. So please vote, please vote to
[6:24:18] refer this. Please vote no if the referral path does
[6:24:23] not happen. So thank you very much. Okay. Other speakers
[6:24:26] to the amendment. Go ahead Councillor Stevenson. Uh, thank you.
[6:24:33] I mean, I have seen bills come through in the
[6:24:36] past that aren't, uh, outlined. And I've learned to go
[6:24:39] through the Bills carefully. I do think it would be
[6:24:43] better to have some sort of a cover sheet to
[6:24:45] let us know. We do, it would help. Um, to
[6:24:50] Councillor Tross, I was point though if we don't, if
[6:24:53] this referral doesn't pass, then the bills likely to pass
[6:24:55] as it is. So I would encourage, uh, supporting the
[6:24:59] referral if you don't want this to pass tonight. Um,
[6:25:02] and there would be other ways to potentially make other
[6:25:06] changes through a notice of motion or something before the
[6:25:09] next Council Council. Okay. Anywhere else to the amendment. Oh,
[6:25:18] go ahead Council Farra. Uh, thanks Mayor. Um, can I
[6:25:22] just get, uh, procedurally from the clerk. The amendment here
[6:25:28] to refer be amended to bring back to the October
[6:25:32] 14th meeting. Why is that? Could we just, if, if
[6:25:34] the intention is to bring it back, if we were
[6:25:38] to not support the referral. Then this would pass as
[6:25:41] it is now. I just wanted to know procedurally. Is
[6:25:44] there a reason why we have, uh, this amendment brought
[6:25:47] by the Deputy Mayor and Councillor Cuddy. Just procedurally, is
[6:25:51] there procedural reason why we have to have the motion
[6:25:53] to refer to be amended to come back to October.
[6:26:00] Because the Depreamer and Councillor Cuddy are asking it to
[6:26:04] come back to Council for approval at the Council meeting
[6:26:07] on that date. So we can direct things to committee.
[6:26:11] We could drag things to Council. They're just making a
[6:26:13] change to direct it to the Council. So procedurally, it's,
[6:26:17] it's no procedural reason to do this. So I don't
[6:26:23] want to get into a cross debate, but, um, I'll
[6:26:27] let the mover explain the reason. Because procedurally, the clerks
[6:26:36] cannot rewrite the By - law tonight. Councillor Frank has
[6:26:39] provided language to amend the bylaw. Uh, with the clerks
[6:26:43] can't rewrite the bylaw and have it reviewed by legal.
[6:26:48] And have the language in E - Scribe for us
[6:26:49] to vote on. Tonight. They need time to go back
[6:26:51] and put the proposed amendment that Councillor Frank has put
[6:26:54] forward, uh, which I'm supportive of into the bylaw. So
[6:26:59] it doesn't need to go back to committee. It can
[6:27:02] just come back to Council with the amended language once
[6:27:04] the clerks have drafted it up. That's the next opportunity
[6:27:07] really for them to do so if we're going to
[6:27:09] give legal time to review it and make sure that,
[6:27:11] uh, meets all of the legal language requirements as well.
[6:27:26] Okay. Councillor Farrah. Thank you. I was just reminded that
[6:27:29] the motion to refer does say to the next strategic
[6:27:32] priorities and policy committee. So we wouldn't necessarily need a
[6:27:34] by - law to be drafted up before the next
[6:27:36] Council. Um, I do think that something like this, as
[6:27:41] substantive as this, especially when we are going to be
[6:27:43] removing kind of the discretion of the mayor to rotate
[6:27:47] between the skills and experiences, depending on Councillors for Deputy
[6:27:50] Mayor and everything else that Councillor Frank is asking about,
[6:27:53] including clear provisions regarding the nomination process, um, I think
[6:27:58] we should be bringing that to committee. Now, I guess
[6:28:01] next question, and Councillor Trusso kind of alluded to this.
[6:28:04] Can I amend this amendment to send it to committee
[6:28:07] rather than sending it to? No, you got to defeat
[6:28:12] the amendment. And then it goes to committee. So you
[6:28:18] vote no, if you want to do that. You wouldn't
[6:28:20] amend it again. Okay. So I would just clarify. I
[6:28:23] understand the deputy mayor saying that we need the bylaw
[6:28:27] to be drafted up. Um, and they would, the clerks
[6:28:30] would need time for that. But this referral motion is
[6:28:32] to committee, which does not require a bylaw to be
[6:28:35] drafted up at that time. And there is time after.
[6:28:40] Yes, by last come to the committee, uh, as well.
[6:28:42] So the clerks would bring this by a lot to
[6:28:44] the committee, uh, or they'd bring it to Council. So
[6:28:47] it's still a bylaw. It's still at the actual, but
[6:28:50] we can still have that discussion at committee where this
[6:28:52] discussion belongs at SPPC. So, um, I would say vote
[6:28:58] no to this amendment. There's no reason why this amendment
[6:29:00] needs to be here. And support Councillor Frank's referral. We
[6:29:05] need to have this discussion at the proper. Um, forum,
[6:29:08] which is the strategic priorities and policy committee. Other speakers
[6:29:16] to the amendment. Okay. Seeing none, then we're going to
[6:29:23] vote on the amendment.
[6:29:51] Closing the vote. Motion carries seven to six. Okay. So
[6:29:59] on. The, so now it's as amended. I need as
[6:30:05] amended. We have the, so same by - law mover,
[6:30:08] same Bylaw Seconder. As amended this time.
[6:30:21] Okay. So now on the referral. So it's not as
[6:30:24] amended. Sorry, my mistake. The azimated referral. We can still
[6:30:29] vote on. But Council Frank, are you still okay with
[6:30:32] the referral moving it? Okay. So Councillor Frank still the
[6:30:35] mover of the referral. I don't remember who the second
[6:30:38] year was. But Council. Okay. Well, Council Rahman put up
[6:30:43] her hand first. So she's the secondary. No, I wasn't
[6:30:46] second anymore. Oh, he weren't. Okay. Councillor Deputy Mary Lewis
[6:30:51] consecutive. Text. Is now on this. The referral as amended.
[6:30:58] So it's Councillor Frank's referral. With the direction for it
[6:31:04] to go to Council on the 14th. Not SVPC. No,
[6:31:09] that's been amended now based on the last vote. Okay.
[6:31:17] So discussion on the referral now. Head Council
[6:31:27] Ferrari. Okay, thank you. I hear, I heard your comments
[6:31:30] about, uh, the referral to go to strategic priority policy
[6:31:34] committee has been amended. To the October 14th Municipal Council
[6:31:37] meeting. Um, but then it says the referral as amended
[6:31:39] be approved. We still have the words phishing priorities and
[6:31:42] policy committee in there. Is there like a conflict in
[6:31:47] the language here? Is are they counter to each other
[6:31:49] first of all. No, it's just the way we do
[6:31:53] it. We do this all the time. So the motion
[6:31:57] 16, uh, motion 16 was amended by motion 17. Motion
[6:32:03] 18 is that the referral as a method be approved.
[6:32:06] Um. So it's basically the same thing as 16. Just
[6:32:11] going to the place that was passed in 17. And
[6:32:14] then 18 just captures both those things. It's not in
[6:32:18] conflict. It's the way that this is what we do
[6:32:20] a lot of as a mended motions if you read
[6:32:22] through. Okay. Thank you. So this is a referral. To
[6:32:24] take everything that was done here, but put it back
[6:32:27] into the October 14th Municipal Council meeting. Which we'll just
[6:32:31] go to a by - law reading, just as we
[6:32:34] are now. So the changes. We're just putting it into
[6:32:36] the next Council meeting. No, Councillor Frank added some changes
[6:32:41] to the by - line motion 16. To change the
[6:32:45] language there. So. So she's made a change. It'll come
[6:32:48] back with the language with that change. But including clear
[6:32:55] provisions regarding the nomination process, when do we see the
[6:32:58] clear provisions if it's just a bylaw. That would be
[6:33:06] in the By - law that came back. So the
[6:33:10] direction is tell staff to go make those changes. Bring
[6:33:13] back a bylaw that has those provisions. Because those provisions
[6:33:16] would be in the by - log. And we don't
[6:33:20] know what they would be. Yes, it's in motion 16.
[6:33:27] They would be. Including clear provisions regardless of the nomination
[6:33:32] process. That include where the nominee is not confirmed by
[6:33:35] Council that the mayor may continue to make nominations until
[6:33:37] anominee is confirmed by Council. So that's what Councillor Frank
[6:33:41] has asked to come back with those changes. So the
[6:33:45] new by - law would have that incorporated into it
[6:33:47] in detail. Okay, detail, which again, you know, I don't
[6:33:52] want to be beaten a dead horse here, but we
[6:33:55] should have the discussion at SPPC. And the other changes
[6:33:57] there that we saw on the Spy - Law as
[6:33:59] well. So I guess I'll vote how I do when
[6:34:04] the vote time comes in a couple of minutes. Council
[6:34:11] Ramen. Uh, thank you in through you. I know everyone's
[6:34:17] getting tired. Um, uh, the first thing I wanted to
[6:34:21] bring up is that October 13th is the Council meeting,
[6:34:24] not the 14th. Is a far as I understand our
[6:34:29] calendar that way. It's on our calendars and our outlook
[6:34:34] that way. Oh, in the official Councillor Agenda, because the
[6:34:40] Monday is a Thanksgiving holiday. And previously when we mended
[6:34:46] it, people move things around to make sure that it
[6:34:49] wasn't like a holiday and Council. I don't know, the
[6:34:53] clerk's got the calendar here. I'm just going by the
[6:34:55] clerk. Wednesday. It says she, and he says it's the
[6:34:57] Wednesday at 1 p. m. Perfect. We'll mender calendars then,
[6:35:00] because they all say the 13th. Oh, is this the
[6:35:04] calendars at your staff? Bilton? Oh. Yes. Okay. Yeah. Okay.
[6:35:08] So. Okay, so you may let them, their staff know
[6:35:11] that they've got to fix that. I threw the 13th
[6:35:14] or the 14th. Either way, so because we, this was
[6:35:18] amended, we can't refer to another SPPC meeting late October
[6:35:23] the 6th. Because the way that the amendment was done.
[6:35:29] I just want to be clear.
[6:35:51] So I think that would be contrary to the amendment
[6:35:53] we just made that was sent to SPPC. And then
[6:35:57] through that vote, it was a no, send it to
[6:36:00] Council. So I don't think we can mend it back
[6:36:02] to the thing that was just changed, regardless of which
[6:36:05] SPPC meeting, it was a future meeting of SVPC. That
[6:36:09] is a future meeting of SVPC. So I think from
[6:36:11] the advice I got from the clerks, that's, that's been
[6:36:13] decided now. Thank you. And what if it was for
[6:36:17] different reason? So for me, the issue isn't that I
[6:36:20] wanted to refer the matter for just this change that
[6:36:25] Councillor Frank has proposed. Uh, my reason is actually because
[6:36:29] I was looking to get the budget chair policy brought
[6:36:32] forward. Um, I think that we require a discussion as
[6:36:36] a Council as to which roles and how we see
[6:36:41] Council should be best supported in the future. And so
[6:36:44] my reason would be for that exact reason. So I
[6:36:48] would like a discussion at SVP for that reason.
[6:37:52] Okay. So we just need a little bit of clarity
[6:37:54] because I'm asking the clerks. So. The bylaws about the
[6:38:01] appointment process, but you want to have a separate policy
[6:38:04] on Deputy Mayor. Thank you. I want to discuss the
[6:38:08] policy. We're incorporating both positions into a policy. As a
[6:38:14] decision as we move forward. I want to have that
[6:38:16] discussion on the roles. That we're considering in the policy.
[6:38:22] Therefore, I need an SPPC meeting to do so.
[6:40:47] Totally get it. S not complex as it sounds. Okay.
[6:40:55] So. There's no decided matter of Council today. We can't
[6:41:03] change the backdest PPC because it's that vote was made
[6:41:08] You've got a different reason that you want to make
[6:41:09] some other changes. There's there's nothing precluding you from writing
[6:41:17] a communication. To an SBPC meeting or I think that's
[6:41:21] the relevant Council Committee. Having a discussion on that and
[6:41:27] then subsequently that would land at Council at the same
[6:41:31] time, but it would be with the other direction because
[6:41:34] Council will have not made a decision on the policy
[6:41:36] at all. And then it'll be before us with the
[6:41:39] direction further By - lot and then whatever other thing
[6:41:41] came through SPPC and we'd have to reconcile the pieces
[6:41:44] there. Because I guess the clerks aren't exactly sure what
[6:41:49] changed you want to make and maybe it's part of
[6:41:50] a discussion. But that's that's an avenue of pathway Forward
[6:41:53] for you that would involve a discussion at an SVP
[6:41:56] - C meeting. Thank you and so by signalling today
[6:42:00] that the intention to bring a letter to the October
[6:42:05] 6th SPPC meeting There is in a way that that
[6:42:08] SPPC meeting doesn't happen because we don't have enough items.
[6:43:27] So I I can't guarantee that because the chair can
[6:43:30] in consultation with what's on the agenda and the workload
[6:43:33] decide to have a meeting or not. There is one
[6:43:39] scheduled. I don't know the load of that yet. Go
[6:43:47] ahead Thank you and therefore that's the reason why I'd
[6:43:50] like to make this an amendment.
[6:44:10] I'm going to call a point of order sure on
[6:44:11] the process here. Yes. Okay. The clerks have brought this
[6:44:17] forward because of a previously adopted Resolution of Council. That
[6:44:25] was passed after an SPPC meeting. The got a report
[6:44:29] from a governance working group meeting. There was no direction
[6:44:36] from that SPPC meeting or that Council Resolution to move
[6:44:40] into discussions about rotating Deputy mayors and how many were
[6:44:46] going to have or how many budget chairs or rotating
[6:44:49] people in anything like that Which I've heard some people
[6:44:52] refer to there's actually already a decided matter of Council
[6:44:56] on that to have the clerks provide direction In a
[6:45:02] bylaw to clarify some of the language around the nomination
[6:45:05] process and confirmation by Council. The rest of those things.
[6:45:13] Were already in the last 12 months debated at an
[6:45:17] SPPC dispensed with Forward into Council and the resolution from
[6:45:22] Council was clerk sprang - forwards and clarifying language. The
[6:45:28] piece that Councillor Frank brought forward tonight was actually not
[6:45:32] only part of the discussion at governance working group. But
[6:45:36] it was part of the discussion at that SPPC as
[6:45:39] well and just wasn't captured in the Council Resolution Which
[6:45:42] is why I'm supportive of having that come back with
[6:45:44] an amended by - law in October. If colleagues want
[6:45:51] to bring something else forward and I'll remind you Um,
[6:45:55] that we are at the end of our term. So
[6:45:57] you have the policy in front of you. There's not
[6:46:02] a need to go through another committee cycle if you
[6:46:04] have a very specific change you want to make You
[6:46:06] could provide a notice of motion on Council before the
[6:46:10] October 14th meeting You could simply write a letter and
[6:46:14] submit it to the clerk and it would be on
[6:46:15] the agenda Related to Bylaws Well, it won't be 306
[6:46:19] at that point in time Uh... The number will change
[6:46:21] I assume. Saying that you want to make another change
[6:46:25] But keep in mind that the scope of the change
[6:46:28] is very much around the by - law we have
[6:46:33] and The already decided matters of Council through SPPC and
[6:46:37] the Council Resolution that was previously passed So there might
[6:46:40] be some minor amendments to language or proposed change to
[6:46:45] And I don't know what Councillor Ramon's Amendment might be
[6:46:47] But maybe she wants to say You know the budget
[6:46:50] chair should also be on You know another border Commission
[6:46:55] because of how it relates to the budget or something
[6:46:57] like that Um... Which would fit into the job description.
[6:47:01] But it's not changing the process of the mayor nominate
[6:47:04] someone and then Council confirms it It's not changing the
[6:47:07] number of budget chairs or the number of deputy mayors
[6:47:11] It's really focused on what is the job description in
[6:47:13] the bylaw So again. There's no. Thing... There's no peace
[6:47:21] of the process that prevents a member of Council from
[6:47:23] just giving that some thought Consulting with our clerks team.
[6:47:27] And putting an amendment on the October 14th Council Agenda.
[6:47:32] So given that we've already passed an amendment to Ford
[6:47:35] This by - law not just a portion of it
[6:47:37] But this bylaw with some specific amended language to the
[6:47:40] October 14th meeting I would suggest that that is the
[6:47:44] process colleagues have to follow They have to put an
[6:47:47] amendment on that agenda of Council. Any Sending it to
[6:47:53] break it up at this point and send it to
[6:47:55] a committee Would I believe be contrary to the motion
[6:47:57] we've ever passed? That's your point of That's the point
[6:47:59] of order And I've already pretty much said that we
[6:48:02] give me a second.
[6:48:29] So. Yes that is what we're doing I mean the
[6:48:33] context there that was unnecessary for this decision. But I
[6:48:37] have to as sharing the meeting with the procedure by
[6:48:40] - law. The motions the Council has made including the
[6:48:43] motion Um... Which I was in the minority on. The
[6:48:48] last motion to amend. And so that's... So but the
[6:48:52] referral is still on the floor as amended. Which can
[6:48:55] be... Pastor defeated... Um... And then I've outlined the Avenue's
[6:49:03] account would have But I just can't make those guarantees
[6:49:06] about the meeting Because I again I don't I don't
[6:49:08] share that meaning And I don't know the workload of
[6:49:10] the agenda So. But we can't... Unless you're going to
[6:49:16] make an amendment to say Bring - Forward... Some more
[6:49:20] language like some other changes that council Like similar to
[6:49:22] what Councillor Frank did. Um I don't think I have
[6:49:27] an avenue besides the one that I've outlined with you
[6:49:30] going through committee Committee to do anything different than what
[6:49:32] Council's already decided tonight. Um... So far. Which... Again, I
[6:49:39] wish I could give you a different answer But going
[6:49:42] by the advice that I'm given and how we're trying
[6:49:44] to proceed. Okay Thank you.
[6:49:56] Okay, so we're on the referral as amended. Any other
[6:49:59] speakers to that. Council Trump
[6:50:08] Salt to the referral as amended. No. Okay let me
[6:50:14] start by sort of a point of procedure And that
[6:50:17] is Let's not overblow What the effect of the previous
[6:50:21] discussion that we had at Council. Uh... Last year when
[6:50:24] I brought Ford Uhr that request for a staff report.
[6:50:28] All Council voted on was rejecting the request for the
[6:50:30] staff report Council did not vote on any of the
[6:50:33] substantive matters that could have been contained therein with respect
[6:50:37] to the process for the selection of the Deputy Mayor
[6:50:40] The only decided matter of Council was there was a
[6:50:43] request for a further staff report and that was voted
[6:50:45] down. So I think it would be open to Council
[6:50:48] members And I'm willing to vote for this if it's
[6:50:51] if it's clear that Council members coming into this meeting
[6:50:55] I'd rather it be an SP - PC meeting But
[6:50:57] if it's a Council meeting That's okay too But that
[6:51:01] there's not going to be a decided matter of Council
[6:51:04] now or today or with respect to that last thing
[6:51:07] we did That is going to cut Councillors off from
[6:51:10] being able to make other ways of looking at this
[6:51:14] Why are we afraid of looking at other options? I
[6:51:17] don't understand it It's so like we're so set and
[6:51:22] just keeping the status quo with minor tweaks And again
[6:51:25] this goes to the inability of the public to be
[6:51:29] able to actually weigh in to how we're running this
[6:51:33] allegedly well - run city And I just think we're
[6:51:35] going to be a much better well - run city
[6:51:37] if we allow people clear. Chance to be able to
[6:51:41] come to a committee meeting Where they can actually delegate
[6:51:45] and say what they want to say. Now if they
[6:51:47] can't come and delegate they can add a Council meeting
[6:51:50] they can at least submit a letter But why are
[6:51:54] we not giving the public the opportunity to weigh in
[6:51:57] on this? And yes, it's the end of the Council
[6:51:59] term. But all the more reason why we want people
[6:52:03] to be engaged I don't want to send yet another
[6:52:05] signal. To the public. That we're precluding Uh, uh, public
[6:52:10] participation because it's convenient. We shouldn't do that. We should
[6:52:14] be going out of our way to give the public
[6:52:17] the opportunity to come to a meeting And if the
[6:52:20] NSP - PC meeting that's scheduled And this is on
[6:52:23] the agenda It shouldn't be cancelled. And I'll leave it
[6:52:27] at that I'm still very confused about the effect of
[6:52:30] the motion that's on the floor right now in terms
[6:52:33] of everything I've just said Maybe that maybe the American
[6:52:38] explain that But my main goal tonight is to keep
[6:52:42] open the opportunity for members of this Council and members
[6:52:45] of the public to weigh in on this question. And
[6:52:50] I guess maybe that's a question to the mayor or
[6:52:53] the clerk. I don't know. Solicitor.
[6:53:08] So if it is referred to the Council meeting and
[6:53:11] the regular process for communications of the Council Meeting would
[6:53:14] exist. If someone writes a letter to an SVPC meeting
[6:53:19] and has a discussion there that would land at the
[6:53:21] same Council meeting Uh, if councillors brought notice of motions
[6:53:27] or road letters about amendments to the By - Lat
[6:53:29] They intend to do at that meeting Like those are
[6:53:31] all options before you Um. The only option I don't
[6:53:35] have at this moment is undoing the vote that was
[6:53:38] just done. Um, about the meeting where this is going
[6:53:43] to land to if the referral passes. I appreciate that
[6:53:51] response It does leave me just as confused as I
[6:53:53] was when I started But that's my fault And I
[6:53:59] want to hear what other people think. I'm hesitant to
[6:54:03] sit down because then I'm done But I'm going to
[6:54:04] sit down. Okay Councillor Hopkins go ahead Yeah, thank you
[6:54:10] And I do have a question not sure. Uh... Who
[6:54:14] can respond to it? But if this amendment. Is not
[6:54:22] supported What happens next? So it's a referral. If it's
[6:54:29] not supported We would continue with the second reading of
[6:54:32] the bylaw. That's before us. Thank You for that clarification
[6:54:38] And I'll be supporting it. Other comments. Councillor Stevenson.
[6:54:49] Uh Just a couple of things One is I heard
[6:54:52] that there was no items on the next SPPC So
[6:54:55] I just sent an email because I did have something
[6:54:57] that I'd sent to ICSC That was... I was told
[6:55:00] should be SPPC It doesn't seem to be there So
[6:55:03] I'm going to get that done tonight The other Just
[6:55:06] a question If the bill Just say this referral fails
[6:55:12] And then we vote on the bill and it passes
[6:55:14] Is it considered a decided matter of Council such that
[6:55:18] Uh... The these potential changes can't be brought forward. So
[6:55:26] that By - a - law would be passed. Um...
[6:55:28] Like many by - laws. Uh... You can amend bylaws.
[6:55:33] After their past. And so I guess it would depend
[6:55:36] on... It would depend on Well, give me one. I
[6:55:42] Just want to know if it needs a two -
[6:55:43] thirds majority or just a simple majority.
[6:55:56] So you don't need two - thirds Majority to amend
[6:55:58] an existing existing bylaw You can amend the bylaw Like
[6:56:00] so you can change a bylaw And that's the regular
[6:56:03] same process Okay Thank you I'm going to be supporting
[6:56:05] the referral But I appreciate the clarity. Okay Anyone else
[6:56:15] on the referral. Okay let's open that for voting.
[6:56:42] Noting Councillor McAllister Uh... is no longer present Closing the
[6:56:46] vote Motion carries 11 - 1. I just want to
[6:56:51] say Thank you Encire That took so long. Hey Wiz
[6:56:55] Relight It's the first rare referral of a by -
[6:56:57] law It's just not a quick process So okay So
[6:56:59] we don't have to do any more readings on that
[6:57:00] Because it's been referred So we're going to go to
[6:57:02] the next By - law on the list.
[6:57:20] Okay We're going to do in the dearness Bylaws now
[6:57:22] There's two of them Uh 305 And 324 So move
[6:57:27] to 2nd First Reading for voting.
[6:57:43] Carries 9 - 2. Second reading Any discussion. Okay C9
[6:57:49] will open that for voting.
[6:58:17] Council Pelosa.
[6:58:28] Council McAllister. Elfo Yes. AD - reading of the items
[6:58:36] referring to the Dearness Addresses Okay. Yes. Closing the vote
[6:58:41] Motion carries 10 to 2. Okay. Greeting Will open that
[6:58:46] for voting. Otian
[6:58:55] Carries 10 - 2. Okay Bill 308 Um... And
[6:59:05] Councillor Hopkins asked for this to be both So we'll
[6:59:07] do First reading on that.
[6:59:24] S Okay We're doing 308 now because we didn't do
[6:59:25] it yet So we'll do it. We're doing it now.
[6:59:38] Council McD. S carries 12 - 0. Okay and
[6:59:48] second reading of this Any discussion. Seeing none will open
[6:59:50] that for voting.
[7:00:01] Otian Carries 12 - 0. Um. Third reading on this
[7:00:07] By - we'll open that for voting.
[7:00:17] Council Prebel Councillor Trosso. Carries 12 - 0.
[7:00:29] Okay now it's everything remaining. We'll open First Reading for
[7:00:33] voting. Carries 12 - 0.
[7:00:43] And second reading of these items. Any. Okay. Sign 9
[7:00:47] will open that for voting.
[7:00:58] Carries 12 - 0. Third reading We'll open that for
[7:01:03] voting. Otian CARES 120.
[7:01:19] Okay that's it for Bylaws So it's just a motion
[7:01:21] to adjourn I'll look for a motion to John Council
[7:01:24] McAllister Second divide Council Cuddy We'll do that by hand
[7:01:26] All those in favor. Okay We're Djourn Thank you.