On the treaty and traditional territory of the Mississauga, the
Ashenabic, we offer our gratitude to the First Peoples for
their care for. It teaches a boat. Our earth and
our relations. May we honor those teachings. Our next Edmo
Business is 30 seconds. Of silent reflection.
I'd ask those that are able to remove your hats
to please stand for the singing of the Canadian National
Anthem.
Or. Strong and. Free.
The Council of the City of Peterborough recognizes the principles
contained in our Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms. The next type of business is approval of
minutes of December 8th, 2025. And January 12th, 2026. Councillor
Beamer, conference your question, Councillor pronounced Senator. Comments or questions.
We're going to vote.
And that is Carried Councillor's Basiliatus, the Councillor Dude are
both online, Mr. Clerk. Is that correct? Thanks, your worship.
We have Councillor Vassi Addis online at the moment. And
we're just waiting for Councillor Dugay. Thank you. Zarade Decoration
Pecurity Interest at this particular time. Decorations Councilor Burke, please.
Merrill, thank you. I think I have an interest. On
7B official plan and zoning bylaw amendment for 223 crescent
street. I have a business relationship with RP with the
applicant. I have a business relationship with the African. Thank
you. We have that flag, Councillor Burke, 10. Aye. Any
other declarations at this time. Declarations. I don't see any
more decorations. Our next item versus register delegations. Our first
delegation that the CD was going to be Martha Sullivan
on 362 Queen Street. Peterborough, Ontario, report IPGPL 25 -
009. Her concerns have been addressed, so she won't be
delegating this evening. Our next series of delegations deals with
the procedure bylaw report, LSCLK26 - 007, and our first
presenter would ask Diane Terry inhale to come forward. Diane,
please. If we could have your name and address for
the public record, you know, the root five minutes to
make a delegation after the end of four, we'll let
you know you have one minute left. And as I
said, if we could have your name and address for
the public record. Sure. Four minutes and 15 seconds, the
time did. So good evening, Mayor Leal and members of
council. My name is Dianetarian Hale. I live at 626
Romain Street in Peterborough. I am here to speak to
the draft changes to the procedure bylaw. I fully understand
the mandate of council to review the bylaw each term
and update as needed. Some of the proposed changes are
valid and necessary. Although others seem to be at odds
with the municipality that despite the efforts of some counselors
and staff, continues to face criticism about being somewhat archaic
and a council that has often been accused of lacking
and transparency and forward thinking decision making. First, I do
support the proposed change to orally record closed session meetings.
I believe that having oral recordings of in - camera
meetings is important, particularly with reference to potential investigations regarding
conduct in those meetings. I understand there are concerns from
some counselors about this change. However, I fully trust the
city clerk in their office to maintain those records securely
and inconfidence. Second, I do not support the change regarding
the banning of electronic devices, including cell phones and council
chambers. In closed session, absolutely. But an open session, such
a ban is an outright overreach of authority and something
that literally know other municipality in the province has enacted.
Passing the bylaw with this ban will only serve to
further the city and this council's reputation as being stuck
in the 20th century, unable and or unwilling to adapt
to the current technological reality of how the world works
in 2026. I take particular umbridge with some members of
council who spoke in support of this change by making
unfounded accusations towards other members and contributing their own state
of desire to elect respect. Such cognitive dissonance continues to
be disappointing, but not surprising. Moreover, implementing such a ban
three months before the May 1st nomination period opens for
the October Municipal Election seams as the kids would say
highly sus. While the explicit purpose of this ban might
not be to further alienate young people from the political
process, I can tell you that that will be one
of the outcomes. If you personally don't want to use
or learn to use a cell phone, that's fine. But
do not police the rest of council and the incoming
council was such unnecessary and regressive measures. Lastly, with regards
to limiting public delegations, I truly believe that further work
should be done to ensure fairness and equitable access of
residents to be able to speak before council. Limiting delegations
to a maximum of 10, regardless of the number of
agenda items is deeply problematic. There are often cycles of
council where there are multiple highly contentious issues on the
agenda and restricting the public's ability to delegate on those
issues is not helpful in building trust and confidence between
the public and our elected officials, which at all levels
of government seems to be at an all - time
low. Allowing only 10 delegations means that the ability of
people to register depends entirely on their quick access to
reliable technology and internet. Their ability to navigate the website
or their ability to physically attend the clerk's office to
fill out the delegation forms. I would argue that this
is unfair and borders on discriminatory to people with out
reliable technology and to folks who rely on transit or
other forms of transportation to physically get to city hall,
to register in time to be one of the first
and only 10. I would suggest that perhaps as a
compromise, the number of delegations be changed back to per
item. And you could reduce it from 10 to between
three and five, which is something that other municipalities have
done and is quite in line with how other municipalities
and Eastern Ontario have handled this issue. In conclusion, while
it is council's prerogative to review the procedure bylaw each
term, there is nothing binding saying that multiple changes must
be made. That is at your discretion. And I implore
you to use that discretion to consider what is best
for the residents of Peterborough and our democratic process at
large. Thank you. And I'm happy to take any questions.
Thanks very much Diane. There may be some questions, questions
real and counselor Baldwin. Councillor Real, please. Through the chair
to Ms. Hale, Diane, thank you very much for being
here. I know when you were the mayor of the
city of Peterborough, you brought some changes to the procedural
bylaw. And one of them was the amount of delegates
that we could have to ten. Could you give me
a little bit of a thought, your thought process? You
spoke about here about the changes that are made and
overall delegates for the complete meeting. Can you give me
your thought process when you looked at that procedure bylaw
and came to the number of 10? Sure. Uh, through,
through the chair, Mr. Mayor, when I was the chair
of Easter Ontario Mayor's caucus, there was a time where,
um, we had unlimited delegation. Some of you will remember
those days. And there were changes brought forward to, uh,
to put some limitations around it, uh, there were, of
course, nights where, uh, you know, the vast majority of
the time was taken up with, with delegations that can
get repetitive, fair enough. Um, and other municipalities, Eastern Ontario
thought that, uh, the city of Peterborough having no limits
was just like wild and unheard of. So, uh, I
know that other municipalities, Kingston, Belleville Cornwall have some limits,
um, although going from what we have now, 10 per
item to 10 overall, regardless of what the agenda looks
like to me is just going to be problematic down
the road. Because as you know, some agendas are quite
light. Some cycles, the agenda is super heavy and you
have a ton of different issues that people want to
speak to. Um, and then like I said, for people
to be able to be one of the first 10
to register, they need to be on the website or
at the clerk's office or on the phone, like immediately
to try to be one of those, those 10. Like
to me, that's, uh, it does border on discriminatory for
folks who don't have the access to be able to
do that or who perhaps, um, aren't inclined to speak
right away like some of us who don't mind coming
here and, you know, stirring the pot a little bit,
I guess. So I think that there, you know, is
a way to do it. I think going by agenda
is problematic. I think having limits per item makes more
sense. And certainly there could be discussion about, uh, bringing
that down from 10. There's, you know, few items. I
think that you generally would have 10 or more. It
does happen. But there are of course other ways for
folks to express concerns to council. Um, so I hope
that sort of answers a little bit of your question.
Thank you very much for coming tonight. Thank you.
Thanks, your worship is for you. Diana. It's good to
see you. Um, I can recall four years ago, uh,
you and I working on the procedure of bylaw trying
to bring some changes in and you're exactly right. Uh,
I can recall one meeting when, um, there were probably
40 or 50 delegates talking about BXWT. And we didn't
finish the delegation till almost 1130 at night. The council
business completed at 3 a. m. There were a number
of us, I think including yourself at the time said
that, you know, councillor couldn't make great decisions after midnight.
Um, and so that's, I think that was part and
parcel for one of the things that we worked on
to try and get that limit down to 10. Um,
the clerk can probably, correct me if I'm wrong, but
I wanted to ask your opinion, Diane. If, if the
procedural bylaw restricts the number of delegates speaking to 10,
I believe a counselor could move a motion to suspend
the order, the rules of order, which would allow unlimited
numbers of delegates to come on a particular issue. You've
referenced that in your comments. So let's say it's perhaps,
let's say it's the, um, knocking down the buildings at
general electric, let's say. True. I can see that being
a situation where we might want to have or there
may be more than 10 people who want to come.
I suspect one of the councillors could make a lotion
to suspend the order of operate so we can, we
can have more people delegate. Is that a compromise in
your opinion as well? Um, I think that, you know,
well, a good suggestion, I don't know how that would
play out because again, that motion would have to be
made at the general committee meeting. I believe, unless, you
know, you're telling you're making the motion at council when
people have already been told they can't delegate counsel any
cause that's what they, so, you know, if there already
is a cap on 10 delegates for the whole meeting
to then suspend it, well, people have already been told.
Cause I know that I've tried to, uh, registra as
a delegate before when there was already 10 people on
an item. And it was like, there's already 10 people
on this item. So, um, I, I don't think that
that would solve the issue. Um, uh, because again, people
would have already thought, well, I'm not allowed to delegate.
So why, you know, they might not, um, take the
pains to come be here. Yeah. Yeah. Fair enough. And
I guess the other, the other comment. I like to
make Mr. Chair is that there are no limits on
statutory meetings like planning or on budget. So, you know,
if we had 35 or 40 people that wanted to
come and talk about the budget, they are not limited
there or on a planning issue. So it's just these
other items. So I just wanted to kind of have
that put out there. And Diana, it's great to see
you again. Absolutely. You too. Yeah. And I know those,
um, legislated, you know, the, by the province, obviously there,
you know, you can't cap those delegates, uh, but I
think again, for some of those other issues that fall
just under the municipal mandate, it still is important to,
um, make constituents feel like they're able to come and
express concerns, you know, they can do it through email,
but, you know, some people like to come up and
actually speak face to face. So counselor Chica, please. Uh,
thank you very much through your worship to Diane Tyrion.
And thank you for being hell. Thank you for being
here. And, um, it's, it's interesting to hear your remarks
regarding different scenarios that one could come up with, uh,
regarding, um, number of speakers, length of speaking, all of
that. Um, from your experience as a counselor and as
a mayor, um. Do you feel that it's a short
window of time to make decisions such as what has
come forth in this particular, particular procedural, uh, proposal. And
secondly, in your experience, what is the best case scenario,
uh, for implementing these ideas and proposals, um, should, should
there be consultation with other counselors or the public? What
would in your experience have been the best case scenario,
uh, to come up with procedural bylaw changes. Thank you
very much. Diane, please. Okay. Thank you very much to
the chair. Um, the few in there. So I'll try
to answer them, but, um, again, I know that there
is sort of like a procedural bylaw subcommittee that meets,
um, I think that having consultation, uh, beyond that, that
group, uh, would have been helpful, whether or not that
occurred, I'm not, I'm not privy to that. Um, I
think again, that the, uh, the way that the council
cycles are working where it's committee and then council immediately
the next week without that week in between, um, has
sort of changed, uh, the vibe a little bit for
a long time. There was sort of that, uh, well,
used to have planning committee committee the whole and then
council, over the years, uh, as things evolved. Um, so
I think that that sort of short window between general
committee and council, uh, is something that, uh, is a
bit tricky for people, uh, to navigate and certainly for
all of you to read like the vast amounts of
materials that come before you, each cycle, uh, never mind
having to respond to all the constituent requests and all
the other things that go on behind the scenes that
folks, um, might not realize as part of being an
elected official. There's so much more than just this meeting
that happens on Monday nights. Um, so, you know, I
think the comparison and looking at what other municipal councils
have done, that's good, but that, you know, you don't
necessarily need to, uh, take that as a blueprint. You
can tailor it to our very unique community and the
needs that we have here. Um, I forget if there
was probably another question in there, but. Thank you. No,
that answered. Okay. Anything further counselor Chico. Council work, please.
I'm here, Leo. Thank you through you to Ms. Terry
and Hale. Diane, thank you for coming. Um, I sort
of agree with, I think a lot of focus has
been put on, um, the personal device issue from this,
but I believe that, um, the more concerning change being
implemented is the limitation of public input. And I agree
with your suggestions. And also in my own research agree
with, um, what you said about how other municipalities are
addressing, um, what this is trying to address. Um, but
my question is back to the personal electronic communication devices.
Um, I had a, I had a sort of idea
on the fly last week as a compromise where it
would enable staff, um, to look at how, how communication
besides speaking as I am could be problematic. Um, like
it would take that into heart and also address, um,
our autonomy to be able to follow the rules. Um,
so I just suggested to change the wording from not
being possession of to not use, um, your personal device
for these reasons. Do you think that is a more
reasonable approach if staffs, um, if the outcome that staff
wants is for us not to do city business, uh,
or communicate around this table besides in this way. Damn,
please. Sure. And through you, Mr. Mayor, uh, I think,
yeah, it's, it's an interesting issue that, you know, the
use of personal cell phones. I can understand, uh, folks
feeling like there's, you know, business being done. Uh, the
flip side is that a lot of folks in the
general public feel like the business is being done sort
of behind closed doors, which isn't out in the open
anyways. And so there has to be sort of a
balance between, uh, what the procedure bylaw says and, you
know, what is happening, um, around, around the horseshoe. And
to, you know, you can have a cell phone. I'm
not sure how that, you know, is going to be
policed, you know, like, are you going to, you know,
because it sounds very punitive like I've heard folks in
elementary school saying like, we don't, or high school saying
we don't even have these kinds of rules for our
students. So, you know, are you all going to get
sent to the hallway if you have your cell phone?
Like what, you know, that's, uh, that's going to be
tricky to navigate. And I just don't, uh, I just
don't see how that's the best use of, of council
time, uh, I don't think that, uh, that, as you
said, I think a couple of folks made the point
last week that it's trying to solve a problem that
hasn't really been pointed to actually being a problem. Um,
if that were the case, then, then sure. Um, but
I think, I think it's an overreagent. And again, my
concern too is that the impact that it will have
on, uh, folks who hear about it and are like
considering wanting to get involved in municipal politics, particularly younger
folks, um, to be told that, you know, they do
all their emails and business on, on, on cell phones.
And so certainly you don't want folks being distracted, you
know, while they're in council chambers, but having been around
this, that table for eight years, uh, I know folks
use their cell phones around that table. Um, whether you
voted forward or not, uh, some of you still do
use those cell phones. And that's okay. Um, as long
as we're paying attention paying attention and making the best
decisions for the community. Um, thank you. And one final
question, Mr. Chair. If you read as I'm reading the
bylaw, um, the paragraph about our personal electronic communication device
is actually pursuant to the bullet point above it, which,
which really is in reference to how at this table
we communicate and how that has to be done through
the chair. Um, so as someone who's had experience at
this horseshoe, is it absurd to you like it is
to me. That these devices are electronic devices that have
all of the same ways in which we can communicate
to each other and the public embedded in them. They
have access to the internet. They have access to any
app that I have on my phone. They're only this
computer's only personally accessible by me via password. Is it
not kind of, uh, illogical to say that I can't
have a phone in my pocket, but I'm allowed to
maybe or maybe not communicate through this device that we
rely on. Yeah. I mean, I again, I think as
long as things are done through, through the chair and,
you know, folks are, you know, abiding by all the
other guidelines that this council abides by, uh, I just,
I feel like it's sort of an unnecessary overreach. And
again, something that just seems to be again, taking up
time and energy when the other more pressing issues in
the community. Yeah. Thank you very much. And it's nice
to see you. Councillor Chica, please. Thank you through you.
Thank you. Uh, something else just came to mind a
question. So thank you, your worship. Um, I had a
labor lawyer this week to me about, uh, the scope
of a procedure bylaw that a procedure bylaw really is
about the rules of debate. Uh, and that the purview
of the, of the, of that around the cell phone,
uh, possession, um, would have more, it seems implicit from
the debate last week to do with, um, code of
conduct. Um, and so, you know, why is this coming
up in a procedure bylaw when that has to do
with the rules of debate? Um, your thoughts or reflections
on that. Do you have any? Thank you. Through the
chair, uh, I'm not a labor lawyer. So, uh, but
I do think that, uh, indeed, if somebody was using
their personal cell phone for what turned out to be,
you know, an inappropriate ways or ways that we're not
conducive to the business of council, certainly that would be
something that in my mind would, would make more sense
to be covered under the Code of Council, sorry, Code
of Conduct, um, rather than the procedure bylaw, because, you
know, in my experience, the procedure bylaw is to govern
sort of like how these meetings are run. And so.
Thank you. Any further questions. Thank you very much, Diane.
Thank you very much. Our next delegate is Danielle Turpin.
Mr. Pi, please. If we could have your name and
address for the public recorded at five minutes to make
a presentation. Welcome. Welcome. Thank you. I'm Danielle Turpin 1288
Bridal Drive. Please proceed. Thank you. Mayor and members of
council. I'm here tonight because I don't think this council
is being honest with the public or maybe even with
itself about what this vote is really about and who
is going to be most affected by it. This isn't
just about how meetings run. It's about how democracy is
exercised in this city who gets heard and whether public
participation is something this council truly values and protects. I'm
a founder of a worker - owned cooperative. I spend
my life inside democratic decision - making. And one thing
I have learned over and over again is that when
governance gets quieter or gets smoother, it's rarely because things
are working better. Usually it's because people have stopped believing
it's worth speaking up. So a board with no friction
is an unhealthy board. Fiction doesn't mean chaos. It means
people are engaged. It means decisions are being tested instead
of rushed. It means power isn't just flowing from one
direction without challenge. And when I read this report, what
stood out to me wasn't clarity, transparency or efficiency, it
was how many of these changes are designed to reduce
that friction. Limits on delegations, limits on counselors questions. Titan
response times shoulder debate. More decisions that are bundled together.
So we take all this together and all of that
points in one direction. Less space for people, less time
to think and less room for challenge. And this doesn't
just affect the public. This affects every single one of
you. And your ability to do your job properly and
meaningfully as we elected you to do. If counselors are
being rushed, if questions are capped, if answers are forced
into these short timeframes, then decisions are being made without
fully understanding their real impact. Complex issues don't resolve themselves
with two questions and 90 second answers. Real impact surface
through conversation and disagreement and with time. At the last
meeting about this, several counselors actually tried to engage in
this good faith discussion. They suggested reasonable solutions and amendments
to the cell phone band, for example, changing the word
to focus on use rather than possession. They asked what
problems were actually being solved with all of these changes.
Those are basic governance questions, yet no one could really
answer them clearly. And this should concern all of us
because it shows that decisions here are moving forward without
meaningful collaboration without reason and without explanation. And without the
willingness to just slow down and listen. And it shows
exactly why debate matters because the person with the last
word isn't always right. We're seeing our democratic rights being
played with here under the guise of process, through rules,
through changing or through decisions framed as reasonable. And well
power is becoming more centralized and democratic spaces are getting
smaller and less accessible. That erosion doesn't start in a
vacuum. It starts with people like you. In rooms exactly
like this with decisions exactly like this. And it starts
with leaders who believe that efficiency is more important than
democracy. If these procedural changes were truly small and technical
as this report was implying, they wouldn't be worth talking
about publicly. Yet Councillor Parnell went on CBC's Ontario morning
to talk about them. She was able to have her
voice heard and her position heard unchecked and unchallenged. Yet
Councilor Parnell will likely vote in favor of minimizing all
of our voices tonight. So it's hard to accept the
idea that this is just procedural. While at the same
time debate with the people who actually live with the
consequences of these votes are going to be restricted. As
elected officials, you don't get to make decisions that affect
people's housing services, neighborhoods and dailies lives, and then treat
public input is something just to manage. We aren't an
inconvenience. We are actually the reason this room exists. Tonight's
vote is an about procedure. It's a values test for
each and every one of you. If residents start to
feel that meaningful input is always rushed, capped or quietly
sidelined, we don't just get frustrated. We're going to push
back. And once people start believing this room in here
belongs to them, trust slowly doesn't erode. It breaks completely.
So yes, how you vote tonight will tell us exactly
how you value democracy and how you value us as
the real stakeholders and all of these decisions. And to
those of you who are running again, please know this.
If people feel shut out of democracy inside these chambers,
they're going to find another way in. And that way
is going to be at the ballot box in October.
So please vote tonight as if you're a political career
depends on it because it does. Thank you. Sturman, thank
you very much for your presentation. Uh, there could be
some questions. Questions. Councillor, please. Through the chair to Ms.
Turpin Danielle. Thank you very much for being here. And
I, I believe you poverty answered my question at the
end. Um, if this procedural bylaw change goes through. Um,
and your ability to come and present at council. What
is your last resort. Being heard in the community. It's
going to be media. It's going to be social media.
It's going to be media or it'll be depending on
what the topic is that our voice is going to
be, uh, shut out from. It'll be rallies on front
in, you know, in city hall. There's other recourses. I
just don't understand why the people who are really being
affected by this because it's all of us here do
not have a right to be able to be heard
on every single agenda item that is going to be
discussed. These aren't your items. These aren't your decisions solely.
They have to be made in partnership with the stakeholders
here. And that's us, right? So we are in a
position right now where I'm feeling the political climate everywhere
is a little bit crazy. And I think we all
can appreciate that. People are feeling that our voices every,
you know, everywhere we look, we are being shut out
from decisions that are affecting our lives. This is such
a simple decision for you guys, really. And especially because
it's only a few months before this next election, I
don't understand why any of you would risk this, to
be honest. There's no real reason for it. No one
could give a proper explanation on why any of these
decisions actually had to be made right now. And then
make any of these decisions. So I implore you all
to really just take a step back, really think about
this and think about the message that each and every
one of you is sending about what you value. Because
that's what we're going to take away tonight. Cause we
have it. Thank you. Another question. Okay. Any other counselor
burnt, please. Um, thank you Marilyl. Mr. Pin, thank you
so much for coming. Um, my personal belief in terms
of what makes a good leader is someone that understands,
um, uh, and listens to the people that have opposing
views. And so that's why it was important for me
last week to try to, even though personally I felt
differently to try to find some sort of middle ground
between what was being proposed. Um, versus how I feel.
And, you know, I do understand where, where some of
these changes are coming from. So my question to you
through the chair is around, um, Miss Terry and Hale's
suggestion, which I think is a good example of that
compromise. And Diane suggested, um, that maybe we could limit,
um, because she was, she was bang on some nights
our agendas are very, very light and other nights we
have a heavy agendas with a multitude of different, um,
issues that are important to different groups of people. So,
um, Diane suggestion was a great one. I hope, I
hope we talk more about it, but it was to
limit the amount of delegates per agenda item between, I
think she said between three and five. Would that be
a sort of compromise that, um. That you could handle,
please? Yeah. Thank you. Through you. Um, I think, uh,
that's a really important compromise. And I think that word
is really important compromise. It has to be about different
perspectives and coming together and finding a solution that works
for everyone. I firmly believe that in most times there
are solutions that work for everyone if time is put
into this. I know for a fact that if this
law was or this bylaw was passed and voted for
prior to this meeting, there's four of us right now
who are speaking on this very important agenda item. So
you guys look around and tell me who you don't
want to speak or who shouldn't have a right to
speak because that's exactly what's going to happen every single
time. So yeah, we have to have a limit. And
if we go over and we have a really long
agenda item, I think counselor Baldwin, you had mentioned that,
that some have gone into like one in the morning
or whatever. You guys know what your agendas are going
to look like. Is there any reason why you can't
spread that out over two days? Or, you know, or
shorten the agenda down and break it down. That's on
you guys. That's not on the public's responsibility to manage
that. Right. Um, so I do think it's important that
we look at that compromise. I would fully support that
at five people per agenda item. Um, Mr. Chair, thank
Danielle, thank you so much. Um, it is incorrect though.
We do not absolutely do not know what our agendas
are going to look like. We receive our agendas the
day before the public does. And we are just, um,
we are as in the dark as the public is
in terms of what is going to be on that
agenda. Who creates the Jedpa staff. Okay. So they would
be able to maybe manage that a bit better than.
Yeah through the chair possibly. Yeah. That'd be my suggestion.
Anything further counselor Burke. Thank you Mr. Chairman Chica, please.
Thank you very much. So you, your worship to Ms.
Turpin. Thank you for coming. And, um, for your articulate
presentation, uh, there's a great deal of thought analysis. You
provided on each of the points you raised. And it's
much appreciated. Thank you for reminding us who this house
belongs to. And, and who it is that have elected
us, and the importance of voice. Um, the issue of
length seems to be the impetus behind reducing the, the
number of speakers in delegations. And given that, and you've
already mentioned and endorse the idea that, uh, counselor Burke
and Ms. Tierra Hale had mentioned earlier, is there anything
else that you can think of, you know, when we're
reaching one o'clock in the morning on a long agenda
with many delegations, um, what, what do you think as
a thoughtful politico that you are might be a helpful,
um, approach or a different approach to address that particular
issue so that we're not fatigued so that length isn't
the big issue. Thank you very much, your worship. Mr.
Pippen. Thank you for you. Um, I would say, I
guess I would be speaking to the city staff who
are making these agendas and seeing if they can maybe
make them a little bit more concise, separate them into
different days if possible. If the one that's going to
be more fulsome, um, I also believe that staff and
council are very aware of some of these contentious items
where you may get some, you know, a lot of
delegates coming to, um, and so maybe if the little
bit of forethought into that and planning ahead of time,
then folks might not be here until one of the
morning, but I'm going to, uh, just add one more
thing to that because. Democracy is not supposed to be
efficient. Democracy isn't supposed to be clean and neat. It's
supposed to be messy. And it's supposed to be about
listening. And it's supposed to be about multiple personalities. Most
importantly through the people who are the stakeholders of every
single decision you make. So yep. When you're going to
have to listen to us. And that's what you're elected
for. So I understand that you guys have a job
and you have lives and you have all of that.
And I'm pretty sure one AM meetings don't go and
don't happen all the time. But I need to know
that our city council who's making really important decisions about
our daily lives are doing that with the best intentions,
not because they want to get in and out very
quickly. Right. And that's what I'm seeing here with this.
So I'm hoping that tonight you guys will vote better.
Um, and realize that the people who really, really matter
in these decisions are the ones that the decisions affect.
And that's, that's us. Here. Thank you. Councillor Baldwin, please.
And thanks, uh, Mr. Chair Danielle. It's good to see
you again. You too. Um. One of the things that's
been done at council, um, over the last 12 years
when I've had the privilege of sitting here is that
one person or a couple of people will take a
variety of different inputs from, uh, from a community. And
they'll be the speaker. And they'll come. I can recall,
let's just use one person in average, for example. He
would come and he would express or give a presentation
for councils consideration on behalf of a certain organization. Would
you concur with that as an option of presenting information
to counselor? For sure. If it's for a group of
people or a certain organization, um, but again, I'm going
to put the onus back on council in city staff
because we're not here to accommodate you to make your
job easier. You guys are here to be listening to
us and to really get that input from us. So
absolutely I would try to prioritize and maybe encourage public
to, if you're a part of an organization or a
group of people, um, to have that one person to
speak. That makes perfect sense. But, um, that's not something
that we should be forced to organize, you know, for
ourselves. But I would definitely encourage it. Second. Share. Danielle,
I know each of the counselors works a little bit
differently. Certainly, uh, counselor reality are quite often dealing with
individuals, uh, one - on - one or one on
three or one on two. At a coffee shop. We
do some of our best work. I would say Keith
on the grassroots level. Um, I can count on my
hand this year, the number of people I've conversed with
who've actually come to council, made it to delegation. Um,
but this means it's right or wrong. That's just the
reality of it. So I'm assuming you do reach out
to counselors in a different way as opposed to coming
to council after we council chambers. Uh, yeah, I am
very engaged with council. Um, I would like to believe
that some would be engaged with me. Sadly, I don't
get the responses via email. As I should through my
own counselors, um, so yes, but I do. And I
hear what you're saying. So maybe there could be a
way to have some sort of campaign to really talk
and highlight, um, different ways to communicate with your counselors
and encourage that because one to one is definitely the
best way I think. Right. And then they don't have
to come and speak because you guys are already answering
that. Like the one person who had today, right? Her
issue was already solved. That's perfect, um, but, uh, yeah.
And unless we can rely on getting that really decent
response back from the city councillors, um, this might be
sometimes people's last resort. We also don't know how every
council learner communicates with others. Right. So, and even though
I speak to my counselors regularly and many others, um,
I don't know if they're communicating my views to everyone
else and their vote also is important and their vote
affects me as well. So I think that there needs
to be multiple avenues for people to express their concerns.
Lastly, uh, your worship, one of the reasons I do
communicate with, um, my constituents and members across the city,
um, we are city councils. This is not war counselors
quite often when you send back an email response. You
lose proprietary over that. You don't know where it goes
to whom it goes. So quite often I don't teeth
and I work this out a lot. We'll send back
a response. Thank you very much for your, uh, for
your correspondence. Would be happy to converse and meet and
talk about this because I don't know, um, how you
infer response from me, for example. And if I'm talking
to someone, uh, just like you and I are now,
uh, across the desk. I think you've got a much
better opportunity to make a conversation that's authentic. And it's
between two or three people. It doesn't go wildfire across
the city. I have no idea where it goes and
what's that and what's inferred. So my method of dealing
with people, um, is to converse absolutely by email, but
let's have a conversation list sit down and have a
conversation one - on - one or a small group.
I. e. coffee with the counselor. I have two or
three becomes sit down with a counselor. And have a
good dialogue and discussion. You get a lot of good
things done that way. Sure. Can I, can I answer
or not? I don't, I know it wasn't really a
question for you. Thank you. Um, yeah, and I guess
maybe my, my response to that. And I think what
I'm hearing here is excellent. That's exactly what I think
we would want. Right. If you were my counselor and
I reached out to you and you did exactly what
you said and then you asked, you know, Hey, would
you like to meet? And I would if I could.
What do you do with that information? Do you bring
it back to council? Do you speak to my issue
at council? So everyone else gets to hear my concerns.
Because if you don't, then the onus again is on
the constituents to reach out to every single one of
you guys sit down and have a coffee because you
don't want to respond by email. And I understand why,
um, it's not, it doesn't work as well. You want
to have these personal conversations. So in order to make
sure that my voice is being heard by every single
council person here, the expectation would be that I set
up meetings with every single person because I'm not too
sure what you do with that at, at, at that
time. So me, I don't know. Maybe you can clarify.
Do you say I had a meeting with somebody and
these were some of the concerns. And I want all
of these council members to know that, um, cause I
don't hear that often here, but. Danielle, that would, that
would be a conversation between you and I. Could I
share some of our conversations with my counselor colleagues. Um,
I wouldn't just automatically do that without getting your permission.
Okay. Because it may seem maybe some things that you
and I are discussing on a personal level that you
don't want to go anywhere any further. But certainly if
you're saying, Gary, would you please share these conversations with
your counselor colleague or the mayor or anybody else. I
would have no problem doing that. So I do have
one response through you, Mayor. So I, I'm hearing what
you're saying and I'm not opposed to any type of
engagement with constituents. That's what has to happen. But I'm
also hearing that to make things easier for counselors, um,
that they onus is on the constituents to organize themselves
to be able to reach out maybe several times, right
through email or through a coffee or whatever. So that
brings back accessibility issues, childcare issues. It brings up when
we can work, when we count work. They're important and
they are absolutely part of that process. But they can't
be the only or the most private, like the priortized
one. Right. So I think it's important that we really,
really focus on different avenues accessible avenues for everybody. And
most importantly and lastly, we cannot limit. From 10 to
one per item. The amount of people who have to
speak. I can promise you we are going to have
problems. Not we, not us, but it's going to be
a problem. People are not going to be happy with
that. We're not going to have a problem. We are,
we've had problems. I know. Where is. Thanks. Yeah. It
was my son's principal. So yeah, any further questions for
disturbance. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next Mr. Heyllman,
please. Stay hell, but if we could have your name
address. For the public record, you have five minutes to
make a presentation. Sure thing. Thank you. Awesome. My name
is Rob Hellman. My address is 500 Murray Street in
Peterborough. Please proceed, sir. Great. Thank you. So I'm here
to expect my concerns about the bylaw. Most importantly about
the changes to the delegations and to the debate, the
time of debate for counselors. But first I want to
make a very brief comment about the ban on personal
electronic devices. It is nonsensical on its face for precisely
the reason the counselor Park mentioned. You have computers on
your desks. Um, there may be our concerns about communication
and information outside of the public record and the rules
of debate. But banning personal devices does not resolve it.
In this term, we've seen counselors make intimations about others
that there have been information or even specific texts of
motions and things brought forward that were conducted by unseen
actors. To my knowledge, this has always been baseless. There
is evidently distrust and disrespect amongst this council, but that
does not need to be enshrined in a bylaw. The
limits on delegations, uh, are inappropriate and non - democratic.
In the time that I've been involved in political life
computer, bore, I've seen the scope of public demigrations being
progressively weakened over, over 20 years. The reduction in speaking
time, the institution of a cap on the number of
delegates. The restriction that you can only speak to one
agenda item, the removal of unregistered delegates. Unreal delegations. We
can debate the wisdom of those changes, but the current
change, I think, goes far much too far. The staff
report names a number of municipalities that were taffed for
best practices. Um, as my friend David King noted in
Article Hero for Arthur, none of those municipalities have a
restriction on delegations as restrictive as the one proposed today.
Moreover, many provide greater opportunities for participation by delegates, allowing
more time the opportunity to speak to more than one
item or the opportunity for delegates themselves to ask questions.
I've similar concerns about the reduction in speaking time from
counselors in meetings. This would reduce the time to speak
to a total of 10 minutes per counselor per item
in general committee. And just six minutes in council. To
be honest, I'm bewildered as to what makes that necessary.
I can see the reasoning in a municipality with a
large council such as Toronto with 26 members of council
and a restriction of five minutes per counselor per agenda
item or an auto always 25. But I don't see
the reason in a council of 11. Both of these
changes directly serve to undermine the purpose that council is
here to serve. I've heard many people say publicly and
privately throughout this term of counsel that it seems like
decisions are made behind closed doors that by the time
reports come to cancel, uh, and to these meetings, votes
are already decided and that delegations and debate of council
itself is a little more than pageantry. Perhaps I'm a
fool, but I'm not convinced of that. But the changes
of this bylaw do point to a future without certainly
could be the case if it is not already. I
can't make the case plainly enough that public comment and
debate by elected officials are not just an important part
of democracy. They are democracy itself. And yet general committee
has already endorsed a plan to restrict them in the
name of efficiency. As we've heard from other delegates this
evening, there is attention between efficiency and the work of
governance. Ensuring that voices are heard and that hard decisions
are given consideration and debate on the record and in
public is time consuming. It can be painstaking. It can
be profoundly unexciting. It is also the work that you
are elected to do. If efficiency means doing that work
less than we should welcome and celebrate our inefficiency together.
Once again, there is evidently distrust and disrespect amongst this
council, but that distress does not need to be enshrined
in a bylaw. I won't labor the point by talking
about the bigger issues here, but the importance of fighting
for democracy right here in a world where fascism is
climbing back faster and faster every day. But if hearing
from the public and from each other is a burden
to onerous for any of you to bear, there is
a simple solution. And one that does not require putting
a bylaw end office. There's an election this year and
you are welcome to end your public service then. If
that is too untoweight, there is a door right there
and you are welcome to walk through it and not
return. And I'm not, I'm not joking. That is a
you do not have to do this work. So let
me offer a few solutions to wrap up. First and
foremost, tonight either remove these couple of items from the
procedure bylaw before adopting it. Or perhaps based on what
we've heard this even being deferred until such time that
aversion, that respects the principles of democracy can be prepared.
A recent editorial in the examiner made some very valuable
suggestions. And pointed that these issues can be addressed in
the consideration of how council agendas are prepared. It is
very seldom as a surprise by the time we get
to a meeting what item will spur a great number
of delegations or what Adam will score a great deal
of debate. This should be taken into account when drafting
agendas to avoid the situation we've seen too many times
when meetings are six, eight, 10 hours long. And then
in the next cycle they're 45 minutes long. We could
also consider strengthening rules and processes around multiple delegations from
individuals representing the same group. I think we've all been
at meetings where a group which has great deals passion
a lot to say about an issue. My register five
or six delegates. Um, there could be consideration or some
processes put in place to prioritize people who are not
representing those groups. But any such change we need to
be drafted with great care. Let's finish this slide. Um,
to ensure that, sir, great. Thank you. So just those
rules need to draft it with great care to make
sure that they do not, that they are balanced themselves
and do not exclude people participating in a good faith.
So that would also be a reason to defer. So
more than anything for the sake of democracy itself, I
ask that the bylaw has written not be adopted this
evening. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Hillman. There could be
some questions, questions. Thank you very much, sir. Thank you.
Mr. Brady, please, Roy.
If we could have your David address for the public
record, of course, uh, Roy Brady wear street. Okay. Also
on delegations with a few extra points really. Um, I
was caught sleeping last week and thanks others were too
because of the report did state in it. Quote that
a maximum of 10 delegations be permitted at a council
meeting, uh, unquote. Then it was justified quote in order
to support efficient agenda management. Unquote. As if the public
speaking as part of the Democratic process breeds inefficiency and
is not so necessary. That was my impression. City Council
meetings are, are held not only for municipalitics to debate
and vote. But so importantly for residents to address city
council themselves or have other people do it. Do realize
that the audience includes more than the residents in this
gallery, but also at homes on live stream. This is
sharing input. And the central part of the whole Democratic
process as much as need as much as needs to
be communicated. Otherwise the public input, according to this report,
is to be undemocratically restricted to as few opportunities as
possible. And as short a period of time as possible,
all in the name of efficiency. Hathaben serious problems. With
delegations. I haven't heard it expressed by you. There's been
no particular public Oakrai or any Ocry around the council
people here. So, uh, if it hasn't been expressed publicly
or democratically, the problem. You can find it easy to
drop this one, that part. Because of restrictions toward delegations,
there would at times, uh, be a lively competition to
get on that proposed magic 10 list such as apply
on Tuesday, or maybe on Wednesday, you wouldn't be eligible.
Imagine. To speak or not to speak at a mandated
political form. Being restricted. For this particular proposal, and for
some others, um, cheering me, I'm sure. Yes. There are
separate parts. They're all important. That need to be addressed,
such as in this case, there's delegations, cell phones, notices,
emotion, deferrals, other businesses and so on. Such occasions require
additional delegations because all these challenges can't be crammed into
one short delegation. Another problem affecting use of delegations is
the city's regularity of having overloaded agenda items at one
city. Often. Number, yes. And also complexities. This problem affects
counselors to read study further than debate. So much and
devote so much attention. But residents thus experience related problems
such as overload that would likely increase the need and
opportunity to address so much in such a certain time
delegations then are even more necessary as part of the
democratic process. Also, please do try to stop directly involving
the non - political staff to assert political discourse and
decision - making decision making. They have enough responsibilities that
workload. They've got problems of provincial interference research. So much
detailed changing issues. Staff could still speak to counselors. But
as residents. As residents. In general, deferring proposals allows for
further serious study and reaction to public input and then
return with an improved version. Reduce contents perhaps. And even
at times withdrawals, withdrawal of it. So from me, of
course, the delegation section of this report needs to be
removed. Absolutely. And realizing other contentions in the report deferring
the report in its entirety should be considered. Seriously considered.
Oh, and here's a novel idea. To examine these issues,
important issues further. How about involving the public. Who weren't
previously involved. And that would be real democracy. Thank you.
Thanks very much, Roy. There could be some questions. Questions
for Mr. Brittany, Councillor Baldwin, please. Mr. Chair, just a
comment first. Royce, always great to have you here in
making a delegation to city council. What's that story? It's
always nice to have you making a W. Thank you.
Thank you. Last year you weren't here nearly enough. You
were missed. Last year you weren't here nearly enough. You
were missed. Well, I'll do something about that. Don't worry.
Now the question Mr. Chairish, well you made a, made
a statement. About staff. Either making saying things. But I
know that they're not casting a vote. And I refer
to staff as subject experts. So, and the other point
I want to make about that and I'll ask you
the question in a minute. Some of our staff are
not city of Peterborough residents. So you say they are
residents. They are residents, but they may not be residents
of the city of Peterborough. Um, how do we go
about getting information from them if we don't ask. Well,
great. Of course. They are to provide information. But this
was a committee that did a lot more than that.
It made very serious suggestions for, Oh, we could duck
ourselves around this table and how people conduct themselves. So
I'm not too sure that's what we're the staff should
be involved. And I don't think they want to be.
Fair enough. Thank you. Thank you.
Welcome Philip. If we get out of here, David addressed
for the public record. And you'll have five minutes, sir,
to make a presentation. Thank you. It's a Philip Jolliker
37 York drive. Beautibor on Zero. Of course. Thanks Mary
Leo counselors and city staff. Thank you for the opportunity
to speak today. I'm here as someone who has had
the privilege of working alongside Dr. Peggy Shaunesty and the
team at Righte the Heel and Red Path Wellness Center
over the past couple of years. I initially came into
this work through marketing support, but very quickly it became
something much more personal. Through this work, I have met
people who are the success stories of Red Bath. I've
heard their words have listened to where they were, where
they are now. These are not abstract outcomes or statistics.
These are people who were once written off and are
now showing up for their lives. Their families and their
community because someone believed in them. And that believed them
in them when it mattered most. This issue is also
personal to me beyond my professional involvement. I have family
in this community who struggle with addiction and her on
the streets. I've watched the impact ripple through families, relationships
and generations. And I've also lost close family members to
a drug overdosed in several to alcoholism. Those losses stay
with you. It changes how you hear these conversations. It
changes how you view responsibility, urgency and compassion. We often
talk about meeting people where they're at. Red path does
exactly that. This program is a proven piece that the
recovery puzzle. It meets people who are ready for recovery
where they are through accountability structure and depersonal work. It
helps them rebuild their lives. This is not a quick
fix and is not a band - aid. It's a
model with a proven track record. Grounded indignity, wellness, and
long - term healing. An essential part of this work
in one that many of you already acknowledged is the
critical gap in our community. Uh, for the need of
transitional beds. All councillors agree that PETABO does not have
enough transitional housing options, particularly for people moving from treatment
into stability. This funding request directly supports the planning of
transitional beds at the red path location. These beds are
not about warehousing people. They are both continuity of care,
stability, accountability, and giving people a real chance to sustain
recovery during the most vulnerable stage of their journey. Last
week has cancelled discussed. Meeting this funding request forward. Something
stood out to me. Every one of you that took
the time to visit the new red path facility. Ask
questions and listen directly to Dr. Shaughnessy voted in favor
of moving this request to the next step. Those who
did not visit expressed hesitation and asked for a deferral
or did not support at all. That is not criticism.
It's simply telling. See in the work matters, listening matters.
Understanding the scope of the heart of the program matters.
I also want to acknowledge a moment that moved me
emotionally. Councillor Parnell thanked Councillor Crowley for bringing Dr. Shaughnessy
and write to heel to the table for discussion and
support from the city. That moment mattered because I know
how long and how hard Dr. Sean is he has
been fighting for this community. This did not start yesterday.
This has been years of persistence, advocacy, and showing up
when it would have been easier just to walk away.
Let me be clear. This is not about investing in
one person. This is about investing in our community. It's
about investing in a solution, not a temporary response. It
is about recognizing that addiction is a growing complex issue
that touches housing, mental health, safety, and families across the
city. It was said during council discussions that addiction services
and transitional houses fall under provincial responsibility. And although I
understand that perspective, and I agree that provincial and federal
governments must be due more. At the same time, our
city has stepped up before. We have supported Brock Mission.
We've supported one city and others. We recognize that while
jurisdiction matters, so does leadership. Addiction does not wait for
funding silos to be resolved. It lands in our community
whether we like it or not. People who struggle with
addiction are often abandoned. Long before they find help. Families
burn out. Friends lose hope, system spail them, communities unintentionally
give up. Dr. Sean is he has not given up.
She shows up day after day, year after year, often
outside the system. Always judgment - free always focused on
healing and always caring. And how are we without failed,
offering a warm hug as people walk out the door?
That human connection is not incidental. It is part of
why this works succeeds. Like and or not, this is
part of our shared responsibility as a community. Supporting those
who suffer, supporting those who have knowledge, the heart, and
rely of the experience to help in choosing to be
proactive rather than reactive. And on a final note, as
a board director of the Peterborough Core at the Chamber
of Commerce and has a co - host of the
Upcoming Chamber AM on Tuesday, February 10th at 8 a.
m. I'd like to personally buy all members of city
council to join us for copy, networking, and a tour
of the new red path wellness center alongside some of
our city's business leaders. I truly believe that teams work
firsthand and hear indirectly from Rosenthal continues to be one
of the most powerful ways to understand its impact. Thank
you for your time and thank you for considering this.
Thank you very much, Mr. Jolliker. There could be some
questions. Councillor Crowley, please. Um, thank you Chair through you.
So, HiFil, thanks for coming. That was really great. I
loved listening to that. That was fantastic. Thank you so
much. But you also do a lot of work. I
mean, I didn't know that you were coming at all
games tonight, but you do things to help the community
directly to with your harmony for healing. That's right. Right.
When is that? Because I think that's important because that's
also helping. Yeah. So through you mayor, um, that's February
19th. It's in support of the assertive. I reached suicide
prevention program. It's a sold I'd show at Marco Hall,
but it's a five year initiative to help raise awareness
around suicide. Beautiful. And I'm waiting for my invites that
I can come and sing at it. But that's fine.
Whatever film. Thanks Phil. Thanks. Councillor Dugay has joined us
online. We've just confirmed that Councillor Beam release. Thank you
Mayor. Phil, thanks for being here through you. Uh, Bill,
can you just talk quickly about, um, how Red Path
is or can be a good neighbor. Um, needless to
say the concerns this term around Trinity and Wolf Street
and the challenges in those neighborhoods. Um, can you just
talk about your experience with, uh, with red path being
a good neighbor or what the plan will be moving
forward, please? Uh, three, you married. Yeah. Of course. I've
had many, many visits at the red path building, both
at their old location and their new location. Now once
has there ever been an ambulance there? No one's has
there ever been police there. Everybody that they treat has
been respectful, kind. And they're there for a reason. They're
there at a point in their life when they're ready
to get better. And that's what Dr. Peggy Shaunesty's there
to do. And that's what Red Pat does. Of course
any additional questions were filled. Thank you very much, sir.
Thank you. Our next delegation is George Horton. And if
the deputy clerk, we want to reach them online, uh,
Natalie. Sorry.
Seed, Mr. Hort, please. Oh, is this on speaking to
council now? Uh, sir. Uh, hello everybody. I hope everybody.
Okay. Hi. Um, hear me. Okay. My name's. Ok. Okay.
My name's George Horton. I live on four or five
five Stewart Street. I spoke to council before when the
one city was, uh, municipal funding, um, and, uh, this
is a similar organization, uh, red path. Um, and I
just wanted to bring to everybody's attention to ensure there's
consideration for people that live in the neighborhood. Um, I
think that's a very important aspect of these types of
things and how these organizations affect people that live in
the neighborhood. Um, that sometimes gets overlooked. Um, uh, red
path, uh, moved into its current location, I think at
the beginning of last summer. Um, and I, in fact,
have to say that it has been pretty positive with
them there. That corner summer prior, summer 2024 was pretty
negative. There's a lot of prostitution around that area. Um,
drug use and all sorts of things. But the, uh,
red PAC center seem to be very positive. So I
actually think, um, I want to say the council should
support them because I like the idea that they're focused
on rehabilitation healing. Um, you know, I sort of noticed
that that property was becoming more active, like more cars
or parks there. Um, people coming and going, um, I
never saw anyone around there like smoking drugs. Half doubt
on the grass. As I'd seen over at the other
places, it just generally seemed like, uh, improvement in the
neighborhood. Um, so I thought that was very positive. I
have, I don't know much about, um, the organization itself
other than following the money on Instagram. And I understand.
Peggy's honestly, which I haven't seen yet. But just as
somebody that lives slip in a much directly across the
street from where they're wanting to set up, um, for
me, it's been, they have seemed pretty positive, um, and
if they continue down that path, um, I think that's
generally a good thing, but yeah. So that's all I
wanted to say to ensure everybody's just taking concern for
how these things affect people that live in the neighborhood.
So yeah, thanks very much. Mr. Hort for your presentation.
There could be some questions. Questions for Mr. Wharton. No
questions for you, sir. Thank you so very much. Next,
uh, Dr. Peggy Shaudy. Have a good day. Bye. Welcome
by Dr. Shotacy if we could have your name and
address for the public record, please. Um, Peggy Shauna see.
Stuart Croft Crescent. You worship. I'm here through worship to
counsel for any questions. For Dr. Shawsny. Councillor Bigger, please.
Through you mayor to Dr. Shaughnessy. Thank you for being
here. Um, similar to my first question and Mr. Horton
mentioned it as well. I'm always very cognizant of neighborhoods.
And when we look at facilities like this, I don't
think I have to get into it, but Trinity and
Wolf Street have not been positive for those neighborhoods, high
crime, low property values, vandalism. Can you just talk about
how you'll work with the neighborhood with Red Path and
what the history is working with the neighborhoods you're located
in. Dr. Shauty, please. Do your worship. Um, yeah, we
like, so prior to the location at 271 Brock Street
where we are right now, we were at the old
St. Andrews Church. We were there for three years. So
we never had a needle, an ambulance of police officer
other than a coffee. Um, when people come to our
center, they have like, you might come in and you
might be high at that time, but you're only going
to do it once. And then you have to commit
that you're going to start, start your healing journey. So
we don't do harm reduction. I'm not against harm reduction.
We do not do harm reduction at the center. And
we've never had any problems whatsoever for overdoses. And we
have total, people have total respect of our property or
they wouldn't be invited back. Thank you, Peggy. Appreciate you
being here. Okay. Thanks. Councillor Burke, please. I'm merely a
three of you to Dr. Sean and Stepeggy. Thank you
so much for being here. This is awesome. Um, I
believe you received close to unanimous support at the last
meeting for this funding. And that's a great thing. Um,
definitely aware of the program at St. Andrews. I haven't
been to the new site. Um, one of the questions
I had was around, um, you know, I understand your
program well enough to know that there is a healing
component, but in this pitch, there was a, uh, there
isn't affordable housing component. And, um, the question I had,
and I assume that part of this funding will allow
you to explore the capacity for what that looks like.
Um, but can you just share with council, please, what
the vision is, um, in terms of the affordable housing
portion of the project, like what, what is your preliminary
vision for that to look like, sorry. Thanks for your
worship. Councillor Burke, um, just as I spoke with Brock
Mission, I watched your council meeting last week, um, and
I spoke with them on their process when they came
in front of council for the 250, 000. That just
like they said, this is a vision. Um, this is
totally separate from what we're discussing how wonderful we are
here tonight, because we already know that what we're trying
to move forward is transitional housing. So we need the
funding in order to start the process of the preliminary
parts of the vision. And then, um, from there, see
one thing that we've never really had was the support
from council. So as a support from council, then you,
that shows that the government wants to get behind you
as well. So the more that we come in front,
the more of people we come with new ideas and
innovations such as this and add to what we need
is a transitional housing. We can bring more funding to
the city. Thanks. And through the mayor there, but there
definitely is an affordable, like a living component to this
that differs from the old models where people that are
taking your programming will also live, like live on scent.
Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Councillor Baldwin, please.
Yeah. Thanks, your worship. Peggy, uh, good evening. How many
clients do your service in a year. Does it vary
or do you have a finite number there that you
can speak to. Well, they do fifty three hundred, maybe
more. They know by when my staff, I could get
that number for you. I'm just guessing right now, but
when we put in our Frontaria, how do we get
funding through Ontario House? So we do reports back to
them how many people come through. You worship. Peggy, how
long, how long does it take for your, your clientele
to no longer require your service? Or do they always
require your service. Well, I guess through your worship, um,
I guess that's a really difficult question because we're building
community and we're building support. And I should never end
in your life. So, um, once you start coming to
us, you have us for life. If you need us,
but like, you know, we have people come, they just
do program, they go off and do their work or
get their life back or whatever. And then you might
have someone out set really loves because we have so
many other things other than just addiction treatment program. Right.
So that is an even part of what we get
funded for we just do. Okay. Thank you very much.
And Peggy, thank you for what you're doing. Thank you.
Councillor, please. Chair to Ms. Shaughnessy, uh, Peggy. Thank you
very much for being here. Uh, a couple of questions.
There are two streams of money. Um, on affordable housing
and homeless streams and social services. If you have build
yourself to apply for either one of those, um, funding
streams for portable housing towards social service at the department
through your worship to Councillor Real. Uh, so. It looks
like there might be two questions there. I'm not sure.
But, um, I did speak with Sheldon. We did sit
down. Um, I had then I spoke to a few
other councillors that on the invitation came to visit us.
And we had chats on that I should probably come
in front of council. So that's how this all started.
And then we realized that it would be best to
go to for transitional housing. And but we needed the
sort of this money in order for to start to
make it beyond division. I really hesitated during that. I
don't even know if that's what you asked me. That's
real. Keep going. I'm through the chair to Mishawn. Let's
see. There's also, um, the heart fund, the eight million
dollars that is alligated to city Peterborough that is from
the forecast is the agency that's responsible that of you
made your, uh, if you're trying to make an application
or talk to forecast about, uh, applying for some missing
that, um, a lot of your things that you're doing
addiction mentally health, um, certainly that, uh, the work that
you do of you reached out to them to see
if you might be applicable of an applicant, uh, for
some of that money, uh, Peter Housing Corp. Certainly we're
a partner there and writing some of the housing. So
have you, um, have you reached out to them to
see if there's any funding available, uh, for right to
heal. Dr. Shauna State, please. The Ontario Health Heart Hub,
they call for proposal was issued to organizations already receiving
Ontario Health Funding. It was a highly detailed and competitive
process with only a small number of hubs funded across
to province. For this application, a group of established service
providers, including forecast, the Canadian Mental Health Association, the city,
and the office of the MP Dave Smith. Came together
to submit a proposal. As with any Ontario Health proposal,
the application required details on how funding would be used
and which organizations were formerly involved. The discussion we are
having now about possible transitional beds is part of a
future vision. Those beds do not currently exist as a
program service or funded initiative. Because there is no defined
project yet. There has been no basis to seek formal
support or funding partnerships for that idea at the time.
So if you ask me whether I approach forecasts for
support. No forecast was not asked to support this concept.
And they are not in the position to fund other
organizations unless they have current beds now. They are, like
others, other table, a service provider that receives funding for
their own programs. In short, this is an early stage
idea being explored. Not inactive funding proposal or partnership request.
The chairman is trying to see perhaps my question was,
um, it's confusing. It's not, if you're making an application
to be the proponent for the heart fund, it was
an application for a part of what the heart fund
in. And part of that is transitional housing. Which we
were housing court has been a player or providing some
of the housing. And I asked you if the proposal
you're doing with the traditional beds that you're hoping to
apply for, if you applied through forecast, who is the
agent for the heart fund in the city of Peterborough.
And I asked if you had made applications through forecasts.
For money for that program. Of supplying traditional housing housing
under that application of the hard fund. Dr. Shaughnessy, please.
To your wife, um, my understanding on what I'm coming
in front of council once again is for the first
section. Once I'm there, I'd be more than willing to
speak with broadcast. Thank you. Any further questions for Dr.
Shaughnessy. Councillor Burke, please. Um, yeah, through you, Marilyal and
the Dr. Sean, as you please, this is just like,
this is just, this question is not at all. It's
just for my own personal clarity as the counselor that
is in charge of homelessness and housing and whereby we
deal with a lot of requests similar, similarly to this,
which I do, I would support either way, but I
just, for my own self, I just need to get
some sort of clarity around because the motion specifically speaks
to affordable housing. Like the ask is attached to the
idea that there will be affordable housing produced. Um, and
I understand that it's just division right now, but, um,
council, by support by council supporting this, um, the goal
is to get you closer to that vision. Um, which
does include a certain number of units. Do you have
any sense of how many units the building has capacity
for or would you be applying for capital funding to,
to build, uh, to build out the building, um, can
you give us a sense of how many units, uh,
best case scenario could be provided. Please. Dr. Shaughnessy, please.
To your worship. Um, that, that's really hard. I'd like
to, I'd like to say, and it's transitional housing that
I would really like to say 20 units. Um, but
then I might be just BS union. I've been known
to do that before. So, um, I'm not really sure.
But, you know, we have to work with the city
like we don't know what the foundation of that building
is. Like we need engineers. We need the support of
the city who have the expertise to say, no, you're
not going that high or yes, you can. So like
I said, I'd love to say I could have, um,
20 beds. But like I said, you can come and
yell at me later. Thank you so much. Any, oh,
Councillor Faciliatis, you have a question. Thank you, Mayor, through
you and thank you to Dr. Shawnese for being here
tonight. And thank you for explaining to me, uh, when
I came to visit you, what you do. Um, yeah,
I get it. And, uh, I understand as much as
I can definitely. And so again, just to clarify, and
from this is I mentioned this and a few remarks
that I made, um, during general committee. Again, this is,
this is not, uh, grant or money for construction is
to complete planning preparatory work. And, you know, required to
unlock, you know, greater previncial federal capital funding is probably
what you're looking for. So if people are asking, you
know, what's the plan, what's the plan? Is this the
money basically is to develop the plan. Right? Fewership. Yes,
it is. Okay. No, I just, no, I just wanted
that clarification too. I understand. And, uh, no, I'm, I'm,
uh, I'm happier here tonight. And thank you very much.
Thanks. Thank you. Any further questions. Thank you very much,
Dr. Shaw. This is for being with us this evening
and thanks to you. That concludes our register delegations. Uh,
the next, um, item is, uh, consent agendas, uh, 10A.
Anybody want to speak to 10A. 10A. 10B. 10B.
Can see. Oh, Kevin Dugay. NC, Councillor Dugan.
Your worship. I trust you're able to hear. I'm sorry.
Sorry, Councillor Duge. We can't hear you. Are you able
to hear me now. Yes. Thank you. Your worship. I
spoke prematurely. I just wanted to, uh, advise counsel that
I have a conflict with item 10i. I jumped the
gun in part in this queue, but I just want
to ensure that was identified as part of the, uh,
agenda and moreover, I have a funary interest on them's
10i and 14. If they are interrelated. Thank you. Uh,
but nothing on 10 C. No, that is correct. No
10 D. 10 E. 10 F.
10 G. 10 H. 10 Eyes have been separated out
because of the two decorations. 10 J. 10 K.
Okay. 10 K. Sorry, been separated out. Council Rail 10
K. Okay. 10 L. 10 L separated. Out.
10 M.
Q. 10 Q. 10 are. 10. R. Okay. So if
I get somebody to move 10 A B C D
E F G H L or sorry M N O
P O P. Councillor Purnell a seconder. Councillor Crowley. We'll
go to a vote. No 10 K. Is on the
consent list. Yeah. Correct. That's correct. It's Bill dually move.
We'll go to a vote. We got a seconder Wisconsin
Crowley. Councilor Purnell Councillor Crown.
Carried. 10 eye. Someone separated that one out. That's. Okay.
It's been we have a declaration of purely interest there
has been separated out. Somebody like to move in second
at Councillor Purdown. Councillor Baldwin will go to a vote.
And that's carried with the, uh, two conflicts duly noted.
The next item is 10 J. Councillor Hankey, please. Thank
you very much for worship. Um, I have a feeling
we're going to discuss this a lot, but I'd like
to propose an amendment that I'd like to get out
so we can discuss it and then talk to it
afterwards. Um, it's to change the number of speakers or
item on the registered agenda. I could do in need
a seconder for that. You do. Councillor Burke. Are you.
Four. Discussion. Uh, thank you very much. It was interesting
to hear one of the common themes tonight. Was I
don't think so much as timing as speaking to a
specific issue. Um, I happen to agree that I think
limiting it to 10 delegations across the board. I find
a bit too restrictive. I'd like to propose limiting it
to or opening it to four per item. Now we
all know as counselor sitting here that you're not going
to get a discussion on every item every night. Um,
it was, uh, Diane, Terry and Hale that had mentioned
it. And subsequent speakers also. And I think that it
is important, um, for the public to have their say.
I understand streamlining things. I think most of us do.
But on different items, I think it is very important
that the public does have their say. So I'd like
to throw it out there for discussion. And see where
we end up. It was between three and five. I
pick four the middle ground. It's up to all of
us. Okay. I have Councillor Burke on the amendment and
then Councillor Crowley. And amendment. Um, yeah, Merit. You're fine.
Marley through you. Thank you. And my counselor Crowley was
also going to move something similarly. And I think that
this is all just to demonstration around how good governance
works. You know, we're presented with some changes and we're
able to sort of, um, make those changes. And look
what happened tonight. Look what happened tonight. We're actually adopting
a change that was presented to us by one of
the delegates. That came to speak to this. So that's
a beautiful thing. Um, it, it shows that the process
does work. And it feels to me like a good
compromise. And it doesn't, it doesn't freeze anyone out from
a specific item. Um, I'd like to also stick up
a little bit for our staff because it was implied
that, um, they're the sole reason that our agendas can
be heavy. Some nights and not heavy other nights. I
do believe that we could do some work to sort
of organize the cycle of what is on our agenda.
So we don't have such a misbalance. But I would
believe, and I understand that Stafford much in the same
position as we are as counselors, which is they're doing
their day - to - day work and then things
come up like five, five alarm thing fire type situations
come up. And they're also just doing their best to
respond, um, to the issues and the changes in policy,
the best that they can. Um, I do agree that
we could better streamline that process so that there isn't
such a misbalance. Um, but, um, this is, this is
just the culture we're in. And I think, uh, I
support counselor Heyckey's motion from, um, the delegates idea and,
uh, I think that's a great compromise. And it will
allow, it will allow, it will allow for items on
our agenda not to go without public input, which is
an important part of our process. So thank you, Mr.
Chair. I support the, uh, the amendment. Counselor beamer to
the bend of police. Thank you, Mayor Lowell supported as
well. I think it's a good compromise. The genesis here's
last term as Councillor Baldwin alluded to. It was unlimited.
And you would get 20, 30, 40 delegates. Sometimes you'd
have to go two full nights. At the end of
the day, we do have a duty to have efficient
meetings and move the city's business along in a timely
manner. However, the balance that we do need to, uh,
listen and give the constituents an opportunity. So I think
this is a good compromise. Kingston, just as an example,
has three delegates, period. Not three in agenda, three the
whole night, period. I think that's a little extreme. Um,
10 was what we came up with. But I think
this is a good compromise just through you to a
CO ray and a CORena. There's been some talk tonight
about the agendas and staff working to sort of balance
the agendas out and balancing contentious issues out. I know
it's easier said than done. And I think staff do
that anyway, but just to get you on the record
is that stat. Is that something staff will continue to,
uh, focus on to try to have balanced agenda. So
the contentious issues followed by a 20 minute meeting. Mr.
Rada, please. Through you, Mr. Mayor, absolutely. We will be
working on that. Thank you, CR. Renaissance. So Marilyn, I
think a fair compromise. It's what, uh, former mayor Terrion
came up with a great idea Diane. And we're here
to listen. Thank you. Further comments on the, uh, amendment.
Councillor Rial, please, to the amendment. Through the chair, um.
It's interesting that here were cherry picking stuff out of
a procedural bylaw. That was not written. Or any input.
From counselors. And I made it a furl last week.
That we do exactly that. So here we are going
to start picking apart. Gets in pieces of this procedural
bylaw, which should have been done before. And it became
here. And every one of us had an input. On
what we think the new procedure bylaw should be. I
didn't have any input. There was five people from staff
and two chairs. Well, the two chairs, their counselors don't
speak for me. I happen to be a participant in
this. This is my workplace right here. Why don't I
get a right to tell you what I think how
you should run this house. Or the people. So I'm
hearing the counselor making. Bits and pieces where we're going
to go instead of three and five, I'm going to
pick four. This all should have been discussed before it
ever came here by us. I'm having a problem this
because I was going to resubmit my deferral again to
go back and maybe we as counselors. Could find me
look at the procedure bylaw that we want. To run
our house. Not cherry picking and looking at this and
picking that apart and whether you should have a cell
phone or shouldn't you have a cell phone or you
should have instead of three and five, we'll have four.
All this stuff. That should have been long done debate
should have happened before it ever come here by us.
Not by senior staff. On my two representative enough picking
on them, but you don't represent me. My represent the
taxpayers would pay myself. So I'm going to reintroduce. And
I get a chance to deferral that I brought back.
I think there was six to five vote. And see
if I can pull it and go the other way
six, five in favor of a different. Councillor facility, please.
Yeah. I'm going to speak to the amendment and just
the amendment that that's okay. Yeah. Just to be amendment.
Thank you. Um, no, I, uh, you know this idea
was brought forward by a delegate tonight. And we're having
the discussion tonight and from everything I've heard tonight, this
is when we were to have these discussions too. So
I think, uh, four is a compromise. Uh, I think
it's reasonable compromise. And I'll, I'll definitely support it. I
mean, we all, I think are haunted by the BWXT
delegations. I think it was 54. I've tried to look
that up the other day. Uh, delegations. And yeah, that
becomes a little, uh, one extreme. And this other with
just 10 is, is another extreme. So I think this
is a reasonable compromise. And certainly willing to support it.
Thank you. Scounser facilities, Councillor Corley to the amendment. Um,
uh, thank you, Chair. And, uh, like, uh, my counselor
to the right had mentioned I was going to bring
something like this. So thank you, Dave, or we're doing
this counselor Yankee. And just, just to, just to quickly
address the, the, um, uh, contention that we have, um,
that we didn't all get input. And I, um, one
of the former speakers, Councillor Real made a fantastic point
that we didn't all get input on this. We didn't
all get direct input. We were all consulted and we
didn't come together as a big group and work on
this and try to mold this into what we want.
I do sort of, we did have a subcommittee that
looked at it. I did speak with, uh, counselor beamer
briefly, not anything official, but certainly like anything that you'd
like to see in the, in the procedural bylaw, we
had, you know, short conversation about it. Um, I think
that sort of how a subcommittee works. And I think
the fact that we are city council, I think this
is our opportunity to then look at this document brought
to us by a subcommittee that did fantastic work on
it, by the way. Maybe we don't agree on some
things. This is our opportunity to change it. Um, I
think that, uh, it's, it's the perfect time for us
to look at it. And maybe Cherry pick the odd,
um, the odd, um, line in the bylaw that we
don't agree with. Maybe we want more delegates. We want
less, whatever we decide, but that's why we're here. And
that's what we're doing right now is to talk about
that. So if we, if we want to fix things,
if the broken, then we have the opportunity now. This
is our meeting for it. So, um, thank you, Chair.
Thanks, Yorley. Councillor Letchica to the amendment. Uh, thank you
very much. You worship through you and to the amendment.
Um, I'd like to say that I appreciate, um, that
the tone and the thoughtfulness that, um, Councillor Heyckey has
used in bringing this forward that the listening and appreciating
with the public delegations to have, to have brought it
forward. And I really do the idea of compromising to
something like this. Um, is appealing. And I support that
idea. However, it resonates with me what counselor real estated,
um, around the idea of consultation on some level, you
know, at the beginning of our term and annually, we,
we meet about our strategic plan. We regroup about the
things that, that impact, um, how we're going to govern.
Well, this has a significant impact on how we're going
to govern. And it sits in a similar place. And
so the fact that counselor, um, Crowley has stated that
he had a consultation with one of the committee. That's
great. But where we know that transparency is something that's
really important. I will transparently say that no one consulted
with me. I didn't know I was to reach out
to be able to do that. And I was surprised
by the, by the proposed procedure bylaw changes when they
came out in the agenda. We only had days to
look at this with a very meaty agenda to be
able to reflect, to be able to do our own
research. It's not adequate time. We haven't had the time
to talk together even about what the priorities are for
changes to our procedure bylaw. That is something that is
the purview of this whole council. And we didn't ever
take that opportunity. So the great deal that needs to
be done around inclusiveness. And consultation on, on common sense
things, like something that is so significant to our public,
to public voice is our procedure bylaw. If we want
to be a future prepared city, we need to talk
to each other. We need to trust each other. And
we need not to be impugning. By some of the
things that are coming forward in a proposed procedure bylaw.
So, um, you know, as much as I do support
what counselor Heyckey has proposed, I agree with the idea
that Council Real is saying, let's look at this together
for a short time. But to be able to have
the conversations given that we've heard from some of the
public. And we appreciate that in informing our decision making.
Thank you very much, your worship. Councillor Chica, I have
counselor Dugay Baldwin and Crowley. On the amendment. Councillor Dugay,
please, Councillor Dugan. Thank you. Thank you, your worship. And,
uh, fellow council members. Um, I, um, I've inclined to
support Heyke's, um, uh, recommendation. I do not, uh, note
that, uh, the four delegates that spoke this evening, um,
are very, very well versed in municipal procedures, municipal protocol,
delegation, uh, delegation related matters. What was it present this
evening. Were the other 80, 2000 members of our public?
But I do respect and listen very closely through the
input provided by the, uh, for dialogue. I have considered
the bylaw, um, in its entirety. I have no issues
with the mayor and the two committee chairmans who have
met with staff who have collectively advanced to procedural bylaw.
They have considered, uh, for example, the way our meetings
operate, um, efficiencies, effective communications that are like, and I
respect the outcome of their work and its evidence in
our proposed procedural bylaws. So I have no issue with
how we got here. And I do not, would not
support a deferral, but I do support Councillor Hankey's recommendation.
For delegates per item, um, is important. And what I
did here this evening, I believe is that, um, related
to delegates on statutory and budgetary items. There are no,
there is no limit on delegations. And that's very important
distinction to make. So I will support Councillor Hackey's recommendation,
your worship. Thank you. Thanks Councillor Gate. Councillor Baldwin to
the amendment. Two things. You worship. I will be supporting
the amendment and thank Councillors, um, Heyckey and Crowley for
bringing it forward. I'm wondering, uh, your worship of I
could ask the clerk a question. By all means, um,
as I referenced earlier in the meeting, um, uh, Diane
Tyrion and I had been, uh, on the procedural bylaw
committee meeting Mustafa four years ago, um, and we'd made
a few minor changes, one of which was to limit
the number of delegates to 10 per item. And that
was referenced earlier by Councillor Beamer. I'm wondering, Mr. Clerk,
um, could you explain for the viewing audience and those
in the chamber? And for those who are on council,
we're sitting here, what the process was for the working
group. To be able to come up with the procedural
bylaw recommendations that you have. Just a general overview of
the amount of work that was done. The research that
was done into other communities and other, um, uh, councils.
I just think that would be important information to share.
Mr. Clerk, if you could respond, please. Uh, thank you,
Mr. Chair. Yes. Um, typically the working group, uh, may
have met several times to convene and discuss procedural matters
as indicated. Uh, there was a number of staff conducted
research among our, uh, municipal peers just to understand their
procedure bylaws understand how they conduct business and to try
to get a sense of, uh, some best practices out
there. And those were, um, those were shared with the
working group. To then, uh, assist, uh, coming forward with
what you see this even. Thank you, uh, your worship.
I'd be, um, again, I'm going to support the amendment
and thank the councillors bring it forward. Thanks, Councillor Bellman.
Councillor Crowley to the amendment. Thank you, Chair. I just
wanted to clarify that my discussions with counselor beamer weren't
official consultations. It was just in the midst of an
unrelated conversation about who knows what. And it was in
passing. So thank you, Chair. Thanks, Councillor Carley. Any further
speakers, the amendment. We'll go to a vote. On the
amendment.
I just worried about the point of, uh, point of
information. Yes. Councillor Berg. I just, is there a, is
there an error in the, in the wordsmithing here? Because
it says that it will exceed for. Mr. Potts, please.
Thank your worship. Actually, uh, if I could take counsel
to section 33 of the draft proposed bylaw, 33 reads,
the city clerk made a client to include a delegation
on an agenda if. And so the proposed wording, uh,
actually matches the intent of the amendment. Thank you. Thank
you very much. Just wanted to make sure. The vice
counsel Burke. We're good. We'll go to a vote. On
the amendment.
And it's carried. The amendment carries Councillor Beamer. You're next.
To. The amended. That's 10J and a seconder for that.
Counselor Hickey. And we'll start the debate. Councillor Burke. Um,
yes, Marilyal. In terms of efficiency, I won't repeat what
I've said to speak out against what I feel is
not. Um, aligned with any sense or reason. Um, so
I'd like to move an amendment. Um, on the member
section of the bylaw to change the wording from being
possession of to communicate through. And I'll just try to
walk. Do I need a second turn for that? Well,
we'll look see what we have. We eat one. Councillor
Crowley, seconder. Yeah. And so this is this, this is
also just in the spirit of, um, of, of trying
to make sense of something and considering the other side
and making some compromises. And what this language does is
it's very important. I believe that the, the debate and
the talk around how we communicate has been not very
focused actually. And you have to really read the bylaw.
Like Commissioner Potts just corrected me on what, what we
voted on is, is, is also about what precedes it.
Right. So in this section that we're voting on, that
bans, the possession of electronic devices bans the possession of
them, um, it's, it's really in the section about members
conduct at a meeting. And it's really in a section
that helps us to find that we as members of
council need to have our discussions be done properly and
through the chair. Meaning that it's out of order for
me to text Mary Leal right now and say, Hey,
can you come to me first on, on item 10
J, you know, that should be done. When he gets
to that item 10J on the agenda. And I can
put my hand up. That's the fair way to do
it. So my stipulation and my changing of the wording,
um, is really about the whole section on how we
as members are supposed to function. And is changing the
final caveat section E. To say, which currently says not
being a possession of any electronic device that could facilitate
a communication. It says much like the, the, the sentence
before it, which says not communicate, accept and pursuant to
direction of the chair. Until it's his turn. It gives
me the option as a grown man to understand the
rule. And so I am changing the wording, which would
allow us if we need to have our personal cell
phones on us, but it will very clearly and straightforwardly
stipulate that we are not to communicate. On that device
to facilitate a communication that does not comply with paragraph
D. Straightforward. I think it solves the problem that that
staffer trying to solve in a much more realistic way
that we're able to follow. We have proven this whole
term that we're able to follow the rules here. We
have no, we have no open files from the ombudsman
on our conduct in terms of how we function at
a meeting. And if, if staff wants to stipulate how
we use our, our personal devices at the meeting, then
this is also accomplished with my change. It just limits
the very awkward thing of, of the chairs having to
police, what I'm going to do with my phone. And
that will be an awkward situation. I'm telling you, that
will be an awkward situation. So this negates all of
that. It is just, it is putting the onus on
us to follow the rules. And it doesn't take these
drastic steps that are being proposed that no other municipality,
including the municipalities that were consulted in the report are
taking this wording alliance much more closely with how other
municipalities govern communications out of meeting. So just to be
clear, I'm changing, I'm taking out the idea of not
to be in possession of. And I'm asking for us
to not communicate through an electronic device. And that includes
this electronic device. Which I'm still unclear how that's going
to be police. Because to me, that this, this falls
under the definition as the bylaw is written as an
electronic device. So. I'll take a breath. So what does
the microphone? So, um, so listen. What I'm, what I'm
proposing is just a simple word change that allows us
to follow. What is in this section, which relates to
how we conduct ourselves at this meeting and advises us
to communicate through the chair when it's our turn. Thank
you very much. Mr. Potts, please. And then counselors Crowley
Lachico Ria. Mr. Pods, please. Sir, Mr. Lee, I don't
have a question for Mr. Paws. Thank you very much.
But he put his hand up to provide some clarity,
Mr. Potts. No. In assist if the question, your worship.
Okay. Councillor Crowley. Then. Um. Thank you, Chair. I think
one of the delegates, they came up and I apologies.
I'm not sure who said it, but they were, uh,
mentioning how they think that the council business that's done
behind the scenes. And they were saying, Oh, I, you
know, people come out and they're all they come out
and they already have their minds made up and they're
already talking. And I think that part of, I can
understand part of the reason that, that this bylaw is,
is proposed. Because just like there's people in the community
that think counsel is, is colluding behind the scenes, behind
closed doors. Well, if I have my phone and I'm
texting counselor Baldwin and I'm saying you got to go
with me on this vote. Or I'm saying to Councillor
Beamer, yeah, are you, are you going to vote with
me on this? Or I'm talking to one of the
staff members and I'm saying, Hey, I'm going to ask
you this question. So this question is going to, this
will really help me out with that's all stuff that's
done behind the scenes. It shouldn't be happening on a
phone. I agree with counselor Burke that it does seem
like a little bit much that maybe we shouldn't be
in possession of it. Having it in my co -
pocket, having in my pants pocket, I mean really we
shouldn't be using it. At the same time. It's not,
um, there's no ability to FY that. If I'm doing
something that I shouldn't be doing with council business on
my phone and somebody in the gallery says, Oh my
gosh, you know what? I think what counselor Crowley did
was way offside. And I'm going to go to the
integrity commissioner. And we have to get FOI his phone.
Well, I did it on my personal cell phone. So
you're all out of luck. We need to ensure the
integrity of what we're doing here in council chambers and
doing it on my personal cell phone doesn't do it.
And I don't care if the young person out there
that won't run for council because, Oh my God, I
can't up my phone and with me in council. That's
not the point. We do council business here. We do
it in public. So everybody can see exactly what we're
doing exactly what we're talking about. They can hear the
questions that I'm asking staff. They can hear the questions
that I am asking of other counselors. That being said.
The proposed change that the counselor Burks making here still
doesn't let me use my iPad, which kind of irks
me because I use that for all my reports and
it saves paper and stuff, but still. It's a minor
inconvenience at worst. So I'm going to support counselor Burke.
I think that it's a worthy, um, uh, notation here.
I think it's a worthy change. But let's not fool
ourselves that this is not fascism run rampant by saying
we can't have a cell phone on our desk during
a meeting. Or it can't be using it during a
meaning. Excuse me. So anyway, that's my, uh, what I
get some clarity on what the amendment you're proposing. The
clerk has to, if you could just. Yeah. So, um,
Mr. Cleric, thank you on page 83 of the draft
bylaw. There's the section called members, which dictates are as
members, how we're supposed to speak. How are we supposed
to speak to one another. At a meeting. And there's
a paragraph E or subsection E, which says that we're
not to be in possession of electronic, an electronic device
that could facilitate a communication that does not comply with
paragraph D. Paragraph D talks about how we're only supposed
to communicate through the chair. So I am proposing that
we change. Um, the phrase not being possession of and
replace that phrase with not communicate through. So we're taking
out not to be in possession of and we're changing
that to not communicate through. Thank you. Thanks. And you
have a sector. Okay. Uh, counsel and her chica to
this amendment, please. Councillor Chico. Thank you very much. Your
worship. I have, um, an amendment to the emotion that,
uh, counselor Burke has put forward to the use of
the language. I'd like to add except for emergency. Or
family reasons. And, and I say that genuinely and from
the bottom of my heart, there are people that want
to engage in, uh, perhaps a campaign to run for
council in upcoming years who may have children who may
have a very ill or close to death parent. Or
loved one. Or someone who might be in crisis or
in need. And it is family status issue not to
be able to have two way communication for emergency purposes.
And, and, and there are single parents with infants who
should not be excluded for participating in municipal government because
they are not allowed to have a cell phone on
their body. Should there be some reason that they need
to be reached. So this is, this is an issue
that has to do with, uh, the occupational health and
safety act. I mentioned the labor code last week. This,
this is on that level. And it's a human rights
issue based on family status. And I think that language
would be really important. I agree. If we want to
lift up professionalism and communication. And that's the mode of
behind this, then let's just change the language from not
being possession of. And I can support what, uh, Councillor
Burke is bringing forward around communication. Uh, of a nature
that is work related. Thank you very much. Councillor Burke,
Councillor Crowley. There is an amendment. Are you, uh, okay
with the, uh, proposed word counselor La Chica just to
include it in a. Cancer. Yes. Go ahead.
Yeah. We're dealing with the amendment to the amendment. So
I have a new speakers list to the event. You'll
want to speak to the amendment. Okay. Just one moment,
Councillor, Kelsey Real. Do you want to speak to the
amendment to the amendment? I don't want to lose anybody
here. Well, this is around about way. Of supporting him.
The comments I'm going to make is if we would
have gathered together to talk about this and cell phones,
I have to declare a disability. Because my cell phone
is hooked to my hearing aids. So nobody asked me
and nobody that made this motion or this procedural bylaw
here. But I have to declare that I have a
disability. That's, I shouldn't have to do that. If we
would have all collectively got together and talked about the
changes that pleasure bylaw, I just want to get back
to the amendment. But I mean, he's making another cherry
picking something and making amendment. The I have to wear.
My cell phone or my hearing aids because it is
a device for me for volume control and other things
with my hearing aid. We're therefore. The cell phone should
be allowed in this room. I don't know if anybody
else has that. But it's on mine and I'm not
going to ask you and I'm not going to ask
the chairs if it's all right for me to have
a cell phone. We're just speaking to the amendment to
the amendment. Yeah. But the whole thing, the debate here
about cell phone. We're going to order. If I may
your worship. Yes. Um, thank you. Um, to, to counselor,
um, Riel's point. And I meant to add this as
well accessibility. Absolutely. Family status and accessibility issues. Thank you.
Mr. Clerk, we just. Did you have a. We got
a counselor Burke moved amendment to the amendment. And Councillor
Crowley second, the amendment to the amendment. Earn Councillor, sorry,
Councillor Chico. Okay. Okay. You want to speak to the
amendment to the amendment. Mr. Mayor, I'll just be brief,
but this is what I was trying. This is just
what I was trying to say when I feel like
we're getting off track because we're talking about how we're
supposed to do city business. We're really talking about stuff
that, that falls under our code of conduct. We have
a separate code of conduct that governs what Howard's supposed
to act as city councillors in terms of how we're
supposed to do business. This is the procedural bylaw. Okay.
This is the procedural bylaw, which is about the procedure
of how these meetings are run. General committee and council.
And so therefore, I kind of did a hot second
take here. I think the line that we're all up
in arm is about only applies to this meeting and
how we communicate with each other in the chair because
that's how the previous, that's what the previous bullet points
reference. So I support the amendment to the amendment, but
I actually don't think it's necessary because I believe it's
just not asking us. I believe my solution to say
not communicate through would be enough. It would still allow
us to do what we need to do for personal
reasons or for note taking or for preparation in a
meeting on an iPad. Um, I believe that this section
is very specifically about how we're supposed to communicate with
one another at a council meeting. And as, as making
sure that we don't communicate with one another at a
council meeting, besides through the chair. And in the way
that the subsequent bullet points in that member section lay
it out. So I think that I will support the
amendment to the amendment, but I don't, I don't actually
think it's necessary in reading the whole subsection. Um, because
it's very specifically around how we're supposed to communicate with
each other in the chair. Thank you. To the amendment
to the amendment, please amendment. Um, I'm, I'm, I'm also
going to agree with, um, Councillor Burke that I don't
think it's necessary because I think it sort of encapsulates
how we conduct meetings with each other. However, if I
may ask staff a question, go ahead. Um, Ms. McFarlane.
Hi, welcome. Um, regarding assistive devices, it's a really great
point that, that Councillor La Chica made, um. Does Ontario,
or sorry, is there already city legislation in place or
Ontario legislation in place that were super, that would supersede
anything in our procedural bylaw that would allow somebody with
a disability to not have to publicly state that they
have a disability. Somebody who's a counselor maybe who might
have a disability who is running for council and comes
on board and has an assistive device. Uh, they would
just be able to use it and not have to
go through any sort of hoops with the chair. They
would be taken care of through sort of some sort
of legislation. The farmer, please. Through the chair, there is,
uh, the GD2 accommodate under the Ontario human rights code.
There is a process involved in that. So they would
have to, um, disclose a disability of what the accommodation
needs are, but not publicly in this type of forum.
It would probably be between, um, them in the chair
or I'm not sure what the process with council would
be, but, um, if the bona fide, you know, medical
reason or family status issue or something that is under
the grounds under human rights, we would have to explore
accommodations. So that would not need to be in the
procedure bylaw. That's fair. And I don't think I'll, I
don't think it's required. Um, and I think having it,
having that amendment to the amendment for that. Yes. I'm
a little getting confused here. Um, having that specific wording
in this, this would, would maybe be, um, unneeded. It
would be a duplication of effort. And I don't think
it's required because I think legislation supersedes this. So thanks,
Jose Girley. Councillor Purnell to the amendment to the amendment.
Yes. Thank you. Uh, the previous speaker did ask, um,
an important question I was going to just confirm, uh,
through, through you, your worship, uh, two staff, you know,
how we would indeed handle, um, accessibility, which we must
do. Um, you know, that, that's a given. And if
there was a family emergency through you, I would totally
expect a simple communication with the chair and accept could
be made in such a situation. Um, but I also,
I mean, that's just, that would be the right thing
to do in that situation. Um, and there are ways
to reach us. There are ways to reach us for
sure. Uh, but through you, um, perhaps Mr. Potts, um,
or the clerk. I'm not sure who want, but what,
how would we handle an emergency situation? If something, if
somebody came to a meeting and that they had a
family member who was not well, and they actually still
came to the meeting, how would that work. Spots, please.
Uh, thank you, your worship. Um, that's specific. I think
I need to start with the, how one reads paragraphy
of section 18 and Councillor Burke has actually made the
point quite well, uh, and that is that, um, everything
about paragraph E, uh, related to electronic devices is subject
to the chair's directions. And so, um, I think this
point was discussed amongst the working group. I'm not sure
that it's been adequately made in, in this discussion. But
the intent of the bylaw, at least the way it's
been drafted is that the presiding chair may make a,
um, a direction of specific to a meeting or may
even have a standing direction that is published in the
agenda to the effect that, um, electronic devices provided at
the meeting may be used for the purposes of the
eScribe and for communicating with the city clerk. And I
think, uh, I'm not going to be specific, but my
understanding of previous term of council, uh, that, uh, a
member with a need was accommodated by means of electronic
means for, um, a differently abled reason. Uh, so the
chair's directions, um, uh, can extend, well, first of all,
there's nothing precluding a member from providing the city clerk's
contact information to be, uh, contacted in any manner of
emergency or urgency during, during a properly constituted meeting. And
members also have the right. If the, if the urgent
need that arises without of being inspired from an incoming
communication, a motion to recess is also, is always available.
But I think the most important point, having listened to
the debate is to go to paragraph 18d. The intent
is that the, that the presiding chair gives directions that
actually enable the use of electronic devices. But scopes how
there to be used. Thank you. Thank you, uh, very
much, uh, your worship and commissioner pots. Um, that, that's
exactly what we all need to understand. Um, is the,
the procedural bylaw is an overriding document, uh, on how
we will run our meetings in a very open transparent,
clear, uh, way. Um, with communications going through the chair,
any exception, um, or emergency or accessibility can still all
be handled, uh, those have all been contemplated and would
be accommodated without having to publicly disclose things or what
have you, um, there's no reason to, you know, throw
the whole body of work that's, you know, taken a
couple of years and significant, um, significant consultation with through
legal through the clerk's office, through the embudsmen, uh, consulting
with other municipalities. Um, and by the way, three members
of council on the working group and the two portfolio
co - chairs, um, so the, the procedural bylaw covers
all of that, anything exceptional that comes up can be
accommodated. Thank you. Um, I have Councillor Heyckey speaking to
the amendment to the amendment. Councillor Chica for a second
time to the amendment to the amendment. Councillor Hickey on
the amendment of the amendment. Yes. Thank you, your worship.
Um, we heard accessibility act as covered, but, uh, through
you to Mr. Potts, would we human rights was mentioned
in the labor code would be contravening any of those
policies with this spots, please. I think the director of
people and culture, uh, referenced a duty to accommodate, uh,
the need to identify the need for an accommodation. And
the example that's been provided, uh, that the city has
in fact done that for the purposes of, um, the
meetings that it conducts for a differently abled person. Uh,
so that, that would be the, the context for accommodation,
which is something that's contemplated by the Ontario human rights
code. Thank you. Uh, thank you, Mr. Potts. And Mr.
Chair comment, um, this term of council, um, my father
- in - law passed away when I was attending
a council meeting. And if you remember, I spoke to
you beforehand saying that I may have to run. I
didn't disclose it publicly. Um, and I had my phone
and my wife had said to me, I better get
there. And I left the meeting early. So the counselor
La Chica's point, it is a very legitimate situation that
can arise. Um, but I think I'm okay with me
going to the chair and mentioning it. And that's the
accommodation I would expect. And that appears to be the
accommodation that this bylaw does address. Thank you. Thanks, Her
Cherokee. Councillor Chica, second time on the amendment to the
amendment. Thank you very much, your worship. Through you, I
absolutely believe this language should be here. And, and I've
spent a lot of time this week researching, and I
mentioned earlier that I did call a Labor lawyer, very
renowned Toronto Labor lawyer who said there is indeed a
family status concern about something like this being written into
a bylaw. Because there are minors who cannot contact the
clerk by phone. Who may have had an accident, who
who may be in need of their parent for some
reason. And if I do not have a phone, the
child knows to phone my number. Not a clerk, not
through the red tape and administravia of what it would
take to get through to a parent. It is discriminatory.
To a counselor to not be able to have on
their body, uh, two way means of communication. And that
stated, if you read the language in the interpretation of
the Ontario, um, health and safety act, that language is
there. It must be two way communication. Paramedics are meeting
very acute needs. And this is what the labor lawyer
told me. Very acute needs of people in life and
death situations. And cannot be distracted, but they are allowed
to have a phone on their body in case they
have a personal emergency in their family or a need
of a child that's trying to reach them. This language
needs to be explicit. I'm not sure. And I wasn't
told by the procedures committee whether this was even vetted
through our accessibility office or through our accessibility staff. There
is not to have to disclose. A personal ability issue.
Publicly because we're being recorded to the chair is not
something. It's a privacy issue and it's not something we
should need to do. We don't have working phones for
counselors because we don't have offices or desks that are
two way communication. Nobody's answering phones in this building when
a council meeting is happening at 10 p. m. at
night. And we need for safety reasons as human beings
and a citizens of Ontario, like every other worker to
be able to have access to two - way communications,
direct communications from a family member or someone in crisis
that we take care of. And that issue was not
addressed earlier. Accessibility was mentioned and differently abledness. But family
status is a legitimate issue. We, I also contacted the
ombudsman this week. And the ombudsman absolutely told me with
the utmost clarity that there is no vetting. For procedural
bylaws, including any item like this that happens through the
ombudsman's office or has happened through the ombudsman's office. It
is beyond their scope. They don't provide legal recommendations or
bylaw creation recommendations to municipal councils. They only can give
information about what exists in other municipalities. We heard last
week that there is no other municipality that has overreach
to the point of saying the counselors are not allowed
to have a cell phone on their body. If we
need to have trust and more respect for each other
than let's just have it and agree that that will
happen. But let's not take away the human rights that
we have as individuals. And for those who will run
for council in the future, we don't need to overreach
like this. Let's build trust. Let's build optimism for those
who want to participate. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Dugas. Speaking of the amendment to the amendment. Yes, thank
you, your worship and colleagues. Um, I appreciate the comments
from, uh, director and Farlane and Safaris. The duty to
consult. I appreciate the context of the, of that legislation.
Uh, colleagues, I haven't witnessed throughout this council term and
like Councillor Heyckey, I had a family emergency involving my
mother's health. Which, uh, I had to deal with while
attending council meetings. But my family in this case know
how to reach me not only through my first cell
phone, but if necessary, while some might view it as
being archaic, but they certainly could still send me an
email directly to, uh, by Cid email and staring in
front of each of one of you this evening. Is
a monitor in which those emails could be received. And
there are mechanisms for emergency procedures. I'm not making light
of the matter. But other than Councillor Hackey's incident, um,
I, there was a moment where I thought I might
have to also leave for emergency purposes. Um, I'm not
certain, I think we are over speaking the issue. Uh,
now. The fundamentally your worship, I know we're talking about
an amendment to the amendment. But I'm still struggling with
why. Any other than if it is associated with the
disability, why any counselor, when, why any elected official would
need to have a personal cell phone at their disposal
during a council meeting, I could see no reason for
it. For example, this evening your worship colleagues, I'm able
to attend your meeting virtually. I'm working from a city
assigned laptop. I'm working from printed agenda material. And I
was able to send a Microsoft note to the clerk
indicating that I was available for this meeting. That's all
public information. I did not need at all during this
for purposes meaning to make use of a personal device.
For any reason. I just don't know why. Um, why
it is appeared to be such an obstruction or an
impediment for other counselors to be able to carry out
their office. Those are my comments. Dein of order. Uh,
but I do recognize that there are circumstances where persons
with disabilities may need such a device. Thank you. Thank
you, Jerry. Thank you, your worship. My point of order
is that, uh, the previous speaker has just stated. That
it is an impediment. The use of the word impediment
to have a family status issue with, I explained in
detail that some of us, our parents of minors, young
children. And there may be future counselors that have babies
or toddlers or babysitters taking care of their children. And
I feel that that was disregarded and the use of
the word impediment for anything that has to do with
family status and accessibility is inappropriate. Thank you very much,
Mr. Chair. Point of order duly noted. Councillor Purnell to
the amendment to the amendment. And I have a question
Mr. Potts on the ombuds when Councillor pronounced that amendment
to the amendment. First, sir, um, Councillor Dugay was interrupted.
Well, he was speaking. Did he finish concluded? Okay. Okay.
Thank you very much. I got. Ok. So, so very
quickly, uh, where we are getting into the weeds here
that we need not enter into. One of the major
points of this new procedural bylaw is to really streamline
things down from 23 pages to 12. Um, we have
removed a lot of the references that were in there
before that really did duplicate other, uh, other legislation, including
the municipal act, um, the code of conduct, um, accessibility
legislation, F we've, we've heard, those things do not need
to be in the procedural bylaw. They are covered by
other legislation, uh, that is already there. Um, and would
override the procedural bylaw anyway. Um, so that's, I mean,
at the points are well taken. I understand that. But
all of these, um, all of these points can be
easily handled. We're not on an island in the middle
of nowhere. Um, and we, we do have to try
and remember one of the main focuses was to make
the procedural bylaw easier for everybody. Make our meetings more
transparent for everybody in the public to see what, what
is being said and what questions are being asked. And
the answers and all of that and not through any
type of, uh, devices, um, so I'll leave it at
that, but that is those are the, um, the important
points. Thanks. Thank you. Mr. Pods, I have a question
on the role. The ombudsman and his review of the
procedure bylaw, if you could respond, please. Thank you. Your
worship. We didn't ask the embudsman nor with the umblitzman
to offer to review a draft of a procedure bylaw.
Um, I will say that I reached out to wearing
my city solicitor hat, a colleague. I know several of
the senior colleagues in the office of the emblismen. It
was a consultation, uh, that shared with, uh, with Mr.
Kennedy, uh, it was under the heading of what I
would say informal, uh, it was a discussion about the
risk of the perception. Which is as important as reality.
And by that, I mean, uh, the discussion that, that
we have had internally here at the city, includes, and
this is for council to decide because the procedure bylaw
and how council conducts its meetings is not about its
relationship with staff. It's about council's relationship to the citizens
that it serves. And those citizens, the open meeting rules.
Uh, that included, um, after, uh, amendments to the municipal
act to make very clear about the specific grounds upon
which council could have closed meetings, but conversely the general
rule being that they must be open meetings and the
assignment to the Umboodsman a number of years ago now
of closed meeting investigations. The first foray by the embudsment
into municipal affairs, which is now broadened as council knows.
And the overriding policy objective and the drafting of the
bylaw being that the citizens that this council serves should
be able to believe their eyes and their ears when
they watch decisions being made. And that means that an
agenda that has to be published, it means open session
reports unless you're a specific reason to be able to
have a reporting camera. The procedure bylaw has implemented measures.
The council knows I've recommended previously. And that the emblizon
celebrates, uh, and that is, for example, the recording of
closed meetings. All of which is intended to give the
citizens that you serve, the council serves, uh, confidence that
they can believe their eyes and their ears in terms
of how decisions are made. So the consultation with the
embudsman, uh, was a brief written exchange. It was, uh,
it was, um, uh, it addressed the possibility. I mean,
we know this, but the embutment's office legal counsel also
observed that, for example, a series of communications could result
in, uh, in illegally closed meetings. If it involves the
majority of members of council, uh, a quorum, sorry, uh,
and a quorum could be something less than a majority.
If there's a declarations of interest. Not discussed with the
emblismen, but discuss with Mr. Kennedy as a related issue
that I don't think is being considered. And that is
that, uh, any device, personal or otherwise used during a
properly constituted meeting could produce electronic records that would be
the subject of a records request. Um, and, uh, there
is precedent. It comes from a municipality that I used
to serve. Where an individual member of council's personal email,
uh, was, was found to be in the custody and
controlled municipality. And that email happened outside of a properly
constituted meeting. Frankly, electronic messages during a properly constituted meeting.
I think would make the better case. But all of
these issues were within the contemplation of the consultation that
did happen with the Inglisman's office. Thank you. Thank you
very much. Mr. Boss, is there any more speakers? The
amendment to the amendment. We'll now go to a vote
on the amendment to the Christian Kennedy. Can you just
walk us through here, please? Cause I don't want to
visit anything. Uh, thank you, your worship. So just at
the moment, it's been, uh, moved by Councillor Chica and
seconded by a counselor Burke. That the amendment be amended
as follows. If it's my understanding correctly, it's to add
the wording to section. 18 E.
And the words are as follows except for family status
or accessibility purposes. So if that's the, that's the
correcting. Hold on. Is that correct. Okay. That's correct. Thank
you. Mr. Baldwin, please. At this point of order, but
I just like point of order. What counselor Parnell just
did whisper to you off Mike is exactly what we're
talking about here. This whole sec. Well, this whole section
is about how we communicate with one another around the
table. And then that needs to be done through the
chair. So. I didn't hear any wish break. So just
for the record councilburn. Councillor Baldwin, I did see your
hand. Councillor Baldwin. Yeah. Thanks. Thanks, your worship. Um, the
question I have is, um. Are we to take this
whole procedural bylaw. The first amendment, the amendment. And then
there's going to be another one. Amendment. Um, are there
going to be any, is there going to be any
more cherry picking as we go along. Um, because I'm
reluctant to vote positively on this if it's going to
have an impact on the next piece. Or vice versa.
So it would be easier for me to see all
of the amendments and then vote on it as opposed
to doing this one. Then another one and then another
one. This is just from the personal perspective. So I
guess I'm asking the clerk. Is it better to do
that way or do we have to jump procedurally do
it this way? Mr. Clerk. Uh, thank you, uh, your
worship current procedure by law would direct that there's, uh,
one amendment permitted tune amendment. I'll go ahead and both
then. Thank you. And just for the record council work,
I was listening to the clerk because I asked him
for some clarification. It wasn't Councillor pronounced. Anything further on
this. We'll go to a vote on the amendment to
the amendment.
Councilor Dugay, we have an hour. We don't have a
vote for Bion. I'm having tech difficulties, but I will
return to eScribe momentarily. Okay.
And that's carried. Now we're going back to the amendment.
Mr. Clerk, please. Uh, thanks your worship. It's been moved
by Councillor Burke and seconded by Councillor Crowley. That section
18E be amended to replace the words. Not be in
possession of with not communicate with any. And of course
that's been subject to the amendment. We just, uh, just
voted on. Perhaps I can just clarify that wording with
the, uh, the mover. Councillor Berkeley. As soon as I
see it cast. All.
That seems, that seems fine. Thank you.
Sorry, Brescourt, uh, your worship. Would you like us to
then cast the vote for this. Is there any further
comments on this one? Most people probably spoke twice. Yeah.
Just, I'll just say quickly that to me, the real
game changer to this was reading, uh, page 82, the
section about members. And it's pretty self - explanatory. Thank
you. Thank you. We'll go to a vote.
And that amendment is lost. So now the main motion
as amended was moved by Councillor Bieber at Secretary Councilor
Aki comments your questions. Councillor Real, please. The main motion
that's 10J as amended. I am deeply concerned with the
recent changes to the council's procedural bylaw. While efficiencies in
council meetings is important. It should never come of the
expense of transparency accountability. Or meaningful public participation. What is
particularly troubling is the, that these changes were developed by
city staff without meaningful input from all of city council.
Despite the fact that the procedural bylaw governed, I would
like the officials conductor business and council chambers. Decisions about
how council function should be shaped first and foremost. By
those elected to represent the public. These changes restrict the
public's ability to engage with their elected representatives and limit
the opportunity for residents to be heard on matters that
directly affect their lives. Public participation is not an inconvenience
to be managed. It is the cornerstone of democracy and
local government. Council chamber should be a place where residents
feel welcome respected. And encouraged to participate. Reducing public input
rest eroding trust in municipal government and creates a perception.
The decisions are being made about the community rather than
with it. I believe good decisions. I believe good decisions
making is strengthening, not weakening by public scrutiny and engagement.
Any procedural changes that diminish the engaged engagement deserve careful
reconsirption broader consultation with council and meaningful input from the
public. So I will not be supporting the procedural bylaw
changes on that. And I think this, what's happened tonight
is cherry picking this. And Cherry picking that. And if
we would have had, and that's all of council at
open dialogue and how the procedure bylaws or how we
conduct our business on behalf of the public here in
our workplace, then we wouldn't be going through this. We
would have some procedural bylaws that account for everybody and
make this work. So thank you very much. Councillor Baldwin,
please. To the, uh, to the main motion as amended.
Yeah. As a minute, your worship. Thank you very much.
Um. Worship, I want to thank the committee and staff
or their work on this. I think Councillor Parnell alluded
to the number of meetings and the clerk to a
question I'd mentioned. Uh, listening to my, uh, my award
made here, um, I think the, the concern that the
counselor might have with respect to listening to the public,
um, we've demonstrated tonight that we have listened to the
delegates. And as a result of their delegation. Council sitting
tonight has made a change on the fly. Because we
have heard that. Um, with respect to the communication devices,
I believe we're in the, in the throes of making
that decision tonight. So, um, all the work that's been
done given the changes we've made and the dialogue we've
had tonight to worship. I feel comfortable in supporting the
procedure of I want. Motion as a medic counselor Burke
plays. Three Marilyla, a question to staff, please. You know,
the, the report, the staff report is fine. It's one
thing that goes in detail. It goes into detail around
the sort of justification and rationalization around creating the bylaw.
I'm looking at a draft bylaw that says, I'm not
to be in possession of any electronic device that could
facilitate a communication. That's the bylaw. That's his plan as
day. So how does staff justify us being able to
have this electronic device. And not another electronic device? Councillor
Burke, who do you want to post a question to.
No idea. Whoever can answer it. Well, we'll go with
Mr. Potts. Um, your worship. Thank you. Uh, probably a
version of a, of an answer I gave previously. But
you have to read you one should read paragraph E
in conjunction with paragraph D. It comes back to the
presiding chair's directions. It's contemplated that the chair will give
a direction. That members of council obviously should be able
to use microphones. The equipment on a desk. Microsoft Outlook
for the sole and eScribe for the purpose of, you
know, casting votes and participating in the meeting for communicating
with the city cleric electronically. And that's all accommodated. It
could be on a per meeting basis or probably more
efficiently and effectively if it were just built into the
agenda, uh, and that, you know, subject to the chairs,
different direction from time to time or additional directions as
circumstances warrant. Thank you. Councillor Burke further. I mean, I'm
just, I'm just, I understand that answer, but the answer
is not in the bylaw. So 10 years from now,
you know, it would be very tricky for a whole
new group of people and city staff to interpret the
bylaw, which clearly states all electronic advice devices. You know,
this is some of the nuance where, where, you know,
on one hand, we want transparency, um, and this is
a movement towards transparency. But on the other hand, um,
you know, the real gray area with this bylaw and
it reminds me of the gray area we experience with
our portfolio chairs bylaw. Which, uh, which guides your no
sort of referenced a couple meetings ago in his interpretation
of it. And he's a lawyer. So it's fine that
we have, it's fine that we have some clarification on
the fly. But to me, the thing that we're passing
tonight and the thing that's going to be said in
stone is the bylaw. And no matter how you package
it up, um, and no matter how you justify it,
at the end of the day, we're, we're putting forward
something here that says, uh, any electronic device. And it's
just, it confounds me. That, um, that this is happening
when it's really specifically talking about one thing to me
when I read this, it says all any electronic device.
To the main motion design. That counselor Baldwin. Councillor Chica,
please. Thank you very much. Your worship, Peth, for you
to counsel. We just, we just passed an amendment to
an amendment with a seven to four in favor of
acknowledging accessibility and family status as issues for having a
personal device. And so the conundrum is how then can
we turn the other way and then say you can't
have any personal devices, period. It's just, it's just oxymoronic
to me. I don't understand. And to me, it just
shows, shows us that we are not prepared to go
through and go forward with this proposed bylaw as it
is because there's conflict, um, in terms of the understanding
of, of, of what exists on the page of this
report. And what we desire in order to be equitable
and not discriminate against counselors. I would ask us, you
know, each one of us, how would we feel if
we could not be reached by our loved one if
one of them had a heart attack, God forbid. Or
had a fatal accident. This is not a situation where
we can expect others who would be dealing with that
situation to, to reach out to the chair of this
meeting, which changes as to whether it's general committee meeting
and planning meeting, that this is just unprecedented. It doesn't
happen anywhere. It defies the human rights code. And the
labor code of Ontario. So do we want to have
people appealing to those bodies because it's unfair. Every staff
member, every journalist in this room is allowed to have
one, two, whatever devices they want, but the counselors who
are doing the work of this municipality for their constituents
can't look up an article or can't look at their
notes that they took a couple of weeks ago because
they keep it on their iPad. This is ludicrous. This
is not the future of what a municipal government should
be. So I support the deferral because this is not
done. And this is not appropriate in how it's been
analyzed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Councillor Zinker, there
on the, uh, on the floor. Uh, the main motion
as amendment was moved by Councillor against the main motion.
Thank you. Thanks. That's quite a counselor Baldwin to the
made motion as a bend. Yeah. Your worship, this is
the second time just in case you're keeping track. So,
um, I'm keeping very close. Okay. So my question, uh,
with respect to the concern that Councillor Burkitt raised previously,
uh, I'd like to ask, um, Commissioner Putts, David, um.
There would be time, time, times, um, for counselors to
receive educational training. I suspect that given the debate that
we've had, um, I think the counselor had referenced, you
know, 10 years from now. We won't even know what
the bylaw means. Would it be something that. The CEO
and in conjunction with your office might think about doing
an educational topic at the beginning of every term with
a new council with respect to the procedure to bylaw.
So those who are sitting here, um, would have an
understanding of the bylaw. And I guess like a goal
to see a reign of rather than Commissioner Bosnies. Mr.
Rato, please. Thank you through you, Mr. Mayor. So we
are having every year, a council workshop. So we are
planning one in the march. So then we'll be a
standard protocol. We'll be reviewing it and discussing it with
the council. Hey, to the main motion as amended. Sure.
Good. Councilor Hankey. Uh, thank you very much, your worship.
Um, as you know, I chair, uh, finance, one of
the things that I guarantee I will do is before
the meeting, I will be asking people if there's any
accommodations that they require and they can come to me
and speak to me about them, uh, again, having, having
been in that situation, I understand the importance of it.
The other thing that, uh, I just wanted to say
is, um, Councillor La Chica referred to, it's against the,
I believe you said the human rights code. And the
labor code, but we determined that that is not the
case. Um, here earlier, Oh, I'm sorry. I misunderstood then
counselor Lachica. Maybe you could. There are different legal opinions.
And I sought the legal opinion of two lawyers outside
of the city offices this week. And they, they told
me contrary to the advice that we've had today. Thank
you. Okay. Thank you very much for hanging out the
floor. Thank you very much, your worship. Um, and our
city solicitor has said that that is not the case.
And I'm going to go with our city solicitor. But
again, getting back to, um, the main motion, I'm glad
I was explained to me properly because I do understand
that the chair has full discretion to make any adjustments
that are required. At that meeting. Again, for me, I'm
going to state up front. Earlier than the meeting begins
and ask people if there's any accommodations that they need
and I'd be happy to, happy to make them. Um,
so I don't. I don't have an issue actually, um,
my phone's been off all night and it's been a
treat. Uh, because it's not ringing, um, my family knows
where to get a hold of me. If there is
an issue, um, and if I thought that I had
a need for a phone, I would speak with the
chair tonight and ask for the permission. Um, I'm okay
the way that it is written. We've made some changes.
And again, and I don't think I was really clear,
but there was four speakers in particular tonight that spoke
very well that made me realize that we do, uh,
have to make some changes. And we not only did
we make the changes. They were the right changes based
on the input from the public. So, um, contrary to
what some people may believe, I do listen. Um, not
necessarily at home all the time, but I do listen
at council. And I think that it was a what
we've done tonight is a good compromise. We've extended questions
from one to two last week. And we can be
concise. And that's one of the issues we all can
speak very short and very concisely if we're required to.
And I think that that's important for the, uh, for
the speakers to understand also when they're up here. So
thank you very much. Thank you very much, Councillor Hickey.
Councillor Burke for a second time. Thank you, Marilyn. And
this is just in response to Councillor Baldwin. It is
my personal belief that a bylaw should not need to
be translated and that a bylaw should not need an
education session. It should be clear to everyone involved. And,
you know, I'm just raising a point to me that's
very unclear. You know, maybe it's just the fact that
I'm the youngest on council. I understand how I can
use this thing in the exact same way as I
can use my phone. And it's like absurd to me
that this is allowed when the bylaws explicitly says any
electronic device. Thank you. Thank you. It's a work any
further comments. It's been booed by Councillor Beamer. Segway counselor
Heggie. We'll go to a vote.
And that is Carried eight to three. The next item
is 10L. 10L. 10L. Sorry, Kelsey, I think it was
Ted Alu. You flagged for me. So you don't want
to discuss it. Now somebody would like to move Teddy
Councillor Bieber. Councillor Pernell. We'll go to a vote.
10M, 10M Councillor Parnell and M. Councillor Baldwin, your second
10M. Any further commerce or questions? We'll go to vote.
That's carried. Councillor Crowley 10Q. You want to speak to
RedPath. That was a notice of motion. Yes. Um. Thank
you, Chair. Um, I, I just wanted to say that
there's, there's just for the notice of motion for red
path. I mean, there's awe of. And I think, um,
Dr. Sean, as he actually falls in that category. And
I know that my, um, my mother was, was, um,
absolutely love Peggy and supported everything she did and followed
her, uh, religiously, uh, I know Peggy did so much
for me, um, during March of last year when I
was going through stuff with my mom. I think that
this is really great. And I think it was touched
on that, that the potential for this funding to open
up other avenues of funding for red path is really
important. And I think for someone like Peg, who has,
um, has Dr. Sean, excuse me, who has been sort
of shown the door, um, time and time again by,
uh, different organizations. And even, you know, the city in
the past, she's had trouble trying to get funding from
the city. And I think that this is a really
great thing that we're doing. Uh, and I think that
it'll, it'll benefit the city in a really great way.
So I just wanted to say thank you to her.
Thank you to Liz and thank you to Red Path.
And thank you for everybody involved. And thank you for
everyone who's been here tonight. So thank you colleagues. Next
year early. Councillor Dugay, please on Red Path. Your worship.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Uh, the general
committee meeting and prior, um, I had expressed a knee,
a potential need for a business plan to be produced
in support of Dr. Shaughnessy's, um, proposal for some transitional
housing, um, at her Brock Street property. I have, um.
Uh, consider, uh, this evening's delegations plus, um, reflect upon
some of the initial meetings I had. With Dr. Shaughty.
I also reflect upon in 2014 Dr. Shaughnessy Peggy at
the time. She and I were both, uh, core sponsors
of Clary Hughes, big blue bike ride, which dealt with
mental health issues and related matters in our city. He
has been. Firmly committed to helping people dealing with a
various, uh, dealing with addictions and needing to heal self.
And what I see, what has been requested this evening
is a reasonable, um, a reasonable request to have the
city provide some. Seed funding to allow, uh, Dr. Shaughty
and her group to advance a proposal that will, uh,
and, uh, referred to better her, her business model. And
as noted to introduce necessary housing that potentially conserve a
transitional means persons dealing recovering from addiction. So I'm in
full support of our allocation of funds, uh, given these,
uh, this background in these circumstances. Thank you. Councillor Weber,
please. Thank you Mayor Ale counseling real alluded to it
last week. And I don't know if he's speaking or
not, but I just wanted to make some comment. Are
you on the list? Okay. Um, is, um, certainly right
the, I support this. I supported last week. And thank
you, Dr. Shaughnessy, for all your great work. It's a
great organization. They do great work. Um, it's important to
point out the great organizations in the community who are
doing great work. I've met with rising above. And, uh,
I think they're all also going to be looking for
some financial support. Many great organizations doing great work in
the community who will be looking for financial support. But
we do have to keep in mind Merrill as we
all know the taxpayer. And we have to keep that
in mind moving forward. This termic council, we've been very,
um, we've invested significantly in Wolf Street. In Trinity, uh,
Brock, both capital and operating. Yes. Cameron House, approximately 13
million dollars municipally and provincially on homelessness services. Um, that's
increased significantly this term. So a lot of great services
and programs and providers out there. A lot of them
coming to council looking for some seed funding or for
some support for capital and operating. Um, and I don't
want to be sort of the downer mayor allele, but
there's only so much the property taxpayers can pay a
lot of the property taxpayers are struggling them, themselves right
now. And although we want to be generous and the
property taxpayers want to be generous, uh, many of them
are, are tapped out. Many of them are tax wary.
And many of them are saying we just can't afford
higher property taxes. So, um, something this council and next
council will just have to keep in mind Merrill. There
is a limit to the amount that we can spend
on homelessness and all those of these services and organizations
are great. Uh, they're, there is a limit where property
taxpayers are saying there's only so much that I can
afford myself. Thank you, Mayor Lil. I know it was
moved by a councillor Crowley a secondary for Councillor Burke.
Councillor pronounced that you want to speak. I just want
to say something on a personal basis. My late mother
who was a nursing supervisor at St. Joseph Hospital actually
helped a higher peaking when she was an O'Reilly in
those days. And I said this at the pathway of
aim introduction that my mom always thought Peggy was going
to have a special mission in life. So I, I
just wanted to reiterate this tonight. Council Rial, please. Through
the chair. I will not be supporting this. I want
to be very clear at the outset. I fully support
the work of right to heal does and the people
they serve. Addiction and mental health challenge are real complex
and deserve serious sustainable sustained support. My concern is not
about the value of the program. It's about the appropriate
role of the city of Peterborough as a funder. Write
to heel is an aftercare treatment recovery program. While traditional
housing is important component of that work, it remains fundamentally
health and social services mandate, not a municipal one. These
types of programs are probably funded by senior levels of
government, which have both the jurisdiction. And the long -
term funding capacity to support them. The city already contributes
through two established affordable housing and homeless funding streams within
our social services department. Those programs are designed to access
need and share fairness and allotment funding in a transparent
and accountable way. Bypassing those processes set a difficult presidence
and undermines the integrity of an existing system. In addition,
the province has committed 8 million dollars through the heart
fund specifically for initiative addressing homelessness, addiction and mental health.
Precisely the type of work that right to heal does.
Those funds exist. So municipalities are not forced to back
fail responsibilities that belong elsewhere. At a time when the
city is facing significant financial pressures and rising property taxes,
we must be disciplined and consistent. Every dollar we allocate
outside of our core mandate is a dollar. We cannot
spend on housing. Infrastructure transit for emergency services areas where
the city has clear responsibility. So I think I pointed
out tonight and I asked questions of Dr. Shaughnessy. If
she has applied to these funding. And I guess the
answer is null. Well, that's where the buck stops with
me. She should have applied there. Instead of coming to
city council looking for 150, 000 dollars. Taxpayers money. Councilor
Basiliatus, please. The council of Chica and the Councillor Parnell.
Councillor, please. Oh, thank you Mayor. Um, yeah, I'm happy
to support this. Um, you know, with this, uh, support
from the city, it will open up another streams of
revenue, uh, for Dr. Sean and see, you know, I
like that she didn't take the traditional, uh, route to
this. It's when you have the door shut on you
quite a few times, you have to look at a
different way of getting the funding. Um, we, we've seen
the results that she's been able to produce. And, uh,
we always talk about those results and different levels of
government and, and even with the city. And so, um,
I'm happy to support it. And, um, I know that
being a good neighbor was brought up. And, you know,
we deal with that and all of our awards of
being a good neighbor. And she's proven to be that
too. So when, when you have all these things that
are working for you, why wouldn't you support something like
this. To me, it's, uh, it sure is a different
approach. It's not your traditional approach. But it's effective and
it's, and she's very effective on what she does. And
I think a part of being a good neighbor is
holding people accountable. And it's pretty clear that she does
that too. So again, very happy to support this, uh,
I wish you're well in the future. Thank you. Councillor
Chica, please. Well, thank you very much. Your worship through
you. I just would like to say, and I spoke
last week, um, just how much belief, um, I have
and Dr. Shauna C, and, um, everything that happens at
Red Path. There's clearly, um, a nucleus there of, of
strength, of support, um, and it's one of the tools
that we need here in our toolkit in Peterborough. And
as a downtown Ward Counselor, this is a force that,
that is, is so important for our downtown. And this
is a special place. Second to none. And we've heard
tonight from Dr. Shaunacy that support of the city is
necessary for further scaffolded funding from other sources and from
the government. So it was great to hear all that
explained very clearly. We need this. It's contagious. When, when
you do go inside red path to see the vision
that's, that's at work. And to hear, um, Philip Jolie
Coast testimonial today. Such a powerful thing. So thank you
for your presence here today, Red Path. And I fully
support this. Thank you. Please. Thank you, your worship. Um,
I will, I did speak to this last week. And
of course, I will be supporting a red path tonight.
Um, if you'd seen my hand first, I would, I
would have moved it. Uh, but I will definitely be
voting for it. Um, first I do want to clarify
that we, we heard very specifically from Dr. Shaughnessy that
they were not eligible for the heart funding. And that
is a very, uh, prescribed amount of funding that is
going through forecast, um, there's no access there. Um, this,
this is funding for transitional housing specifically the planning for
transitional housing. The wraparound services that we keep going on
about that we absolutely need is people seek to improve
their lives and get away from addiction. They need these
wraparound services. And that's exactly what this does. And we
have done this very same thing before the precedent has
been set where we do a municipal contribution that shows
confidence in the organization and the program. Uh, and that
does leverage other, uh, grant opportunities provincially federally quite often,
as we've seen in other programs, significant private money will
come in when that confidence is expressed in such an
important program and other ones out there. We did the
exact same thing for the Brock mission on Murray Street.
I was personally involved in a fundraiser for that six
months selling raple tickets. Uh, we also, uh, contributed to
the new Brock mission, transitional housing. And I'm sure and
then that will be also the relocation of the women's
shelter. And then we also supported the, um, incredible, affordable
housing, uh, apartment on Monagan Road. And all of those
things really depended on the council of the day. And
this council, um, supporting them through the planning application and,
uh, securing that vision and actually making it, um, happen
and into a building permit. So I will be supporting
it based on all of those points. Thank you. Thank
you, Councillor Perdell. Any further speakers. Councillor Baldwin, please. Thank
you, your worship. First of all, I'd like to thank
Councillor Crowley for bringing forth a notice of motion. I'd
also like to thank Dr. Shanasi for reaching out to
all the counselors, uh, with their correspondence via email. I
did respond to her and I still haven't made it
to the red path, but make it committed this evening.
And I will be visiting, um, sometime in February, if
I can pull that together. So absolutely will be supporting
Councillor Crowley's motion here and happy to do so. Thank
you, your worship. Thank you, Elsa Baldwin. Anything further.
And that's scary.
The next time in business is bylaws, and I know
Councillor Dugay won a couple separated out, I believe. Sorry,
thanks for your worship. Yeah, just the next item would
be recommendations from this evening's general committee meeting. Oh, I'm
sorry, yes. There's two items you're worship. The first one,
if you would like, I could just paralyze. Please do.
I'm sorry. Mr. Hork. Thanks for your worship. So from
this evening's general committee meeting, there was a recommendation regarding.
Collective bargaining. That council approved the recommendations that the dining
report, CAO, PC 26 - 001, dated February 2nd, 2026
of the Chief Administrative Officer as follows. That council direct
staff to proceed as recommended in closed session report, CAO
PC26 - 001, dated February 2nd, 2026. Of the Chief
Administrative Officer, respecting the collective bargaining process. We have a
mover to that. I do have a point of order,
and maybe I missed something, if I may. Yes. 10R,
did we move that on consent. Because I don't see
that we moved on. Did we move it on consent?
I didn't send. Oh, TEDR. Senior snow clearing program? Point
of order. Oh, okay, go ahead. Councillor Burke, if you
want to talk about it. Oh yeah, we'll, uh, the
chair always has a degree of discretion. Take care with
the chair likes the program. And if you don't have
that discussion now, you'll definitely have it after this bylaw.
Um, Mr. Mayor, this is sort of a self -
serving, uh, more self - serving than usual speech. Um,
but I just wanted to say, I had a long
talk today with the resident Ingrid Buck, whom you know.
And I just wanted to sort of clarify my support
of your motion, Mr. Mayor. Um, I wholeheartedly agree with
it. Um, I think that, uh, Ingrid Buck was saw
an article in the examiner where they, they pulled out
just a quote where I was trying to have the
public understand the reality of the cost. Um, in terms
of, and investing in the infrastructure to have those machines
that, that sweep each driveway, whatever it's called, um, and
I just wanted to have, uh, sort of reality checked
because a lot of people ask me as a counselor
about, Hey, can you just do this? Like I've seen
a real, like assuming that it's just a simple, uh,
cheap effective thing to do. And many of us on
council have actually tried to investigate that because I'm sure
we all get those emails. And my, um, acknowledgement of
the cost of that strategy, um, does not at all
mean that I don't support a program like you're suggesting,
which looks into subsidies, um, for people I wholeheartedly support
that and definitely have many, um, residents, um, who are,
aren't able bodied, uh, in my award. This, especially this
winter, um, could use that support. So I, I support
this. And I think, um, Miss Buck for reaching out
today. Just for the record, those that may subscribe to
the Toronto star. There was a lengthy, uh, story yesterday's
version of a gentleman who's disabled in Toronto had a
windrow in his driveway of 76 centimeter. It's been isolated
for a week because they can't get out. By the
way, very popular program in discussion I had at the
Legion last Friday, very popular counselor beaver, please. Well, just
a shout out to Ingrid Buck. She's a North and
residentist, strong, strong supporter of Councillor Burke is moving at
counselor quality second. Strong counselor Hakis and I, um, it's
interesting. All the important and big issues, uh, we dealt
with tonight. This was the one I got the most
cause of this week. And they were all positive from
residents and seniors in North Crest Ward. And, uh, it's
because it affects people. It's potentially allow seniors to stay
in their homes longer. And it is an issue that
we all get a lot of calls about. So when
we talk about, uh, important issues tonight, this is one
that really resonated with a lot of, a lot of
seniors, Marily also, so kudos on you for bringing this
up. I do have to say counselor Heyckey brought it
up in 2014. But counsel wasn't ready at the time,
but I think this needs to be look at in
a really, really good program that a lot of people
appreciate Merrill. So I fully support it. Thanks very much
Councillor Beamer. I think we've had a good discussion. We'll
go to a counselor Purnell. I would like to try
and add on a little public service announcement to this
if I may, uh, because you had recommended that we
read was at the Toronto Star yesterday. Yesterday's Toronto Star.
So, uh, those of you who don't have subscriptions, this
is a plug for our library. If you have a
city of a payroll library card, which is of course
this free to our taxpayers, uh, that includes press reader,
which gives you free access to over 10, 000 publications
magazines and newspapers, um, so I would have to double
check with Commissioner Laidman if the Toronto Stars actually one
of them, but it probably is, Oh, I'm getting the
nod. So there you go. Get your library card and
then you can have access. And I provided Commissioner Seminewski
with the story. So he has all that background for
a part of his extensive and comprehensive research that he'll
be doing on this topic. Any further comments. We'll go
to a vote.
Carcoi Bisting against Councillor Fasiliac. Councilor Dugay, we're just waiting
for your vote.
Your worship, a question procedurally. Am I permitted to a
vote because I did not attend that closed session, uh,
meeting. Yeah. Unless you have a pecuniary interest, Kevin.
I do not. I will vote. And that's Carrie 11B
314 Carnegie Avenue. Councillor Burke, Secretary Counselor Beamer. I will
go to a vote.
And there's a couple that we have to, uh, because
of your getting interest. Uh, thanks your worship. Um, bylaws
25 or 26 - 010 through to 26 - 016
or before council this evening for consideration, uh, bylaws 26
- 015 and 016, uh, we're, we're the subject of,
uh, Crescent Street, the rezoning, the official plan and counselors,
uh, Burke and Dugay declared interest on those matters. So
if I could, I get what's up and do.
And that's carried. If someone could move 26015 at 2606,
the ones that counselor Dugue Council Burke have declared a
beginner interest. Councillor Pronoun, Secretary Councilor Baldwin. We'll go to
a vote.
Councillor Dickey, have you voted? Or sorry, you don't vote
on this one. S Parnell in Baldwin.
And Councillor's Dugain Burke have the confidence.
Cheap enough, we could vote there.
Tell service Elias who are waiting for you to vote.
Yeah. Highbone favored. It didn't pop up, but I'm in
favor definitely. And that's Carrie. Next item is other business.
Other business counselor pronoun, please. Thank you, Mayor Leel. Uh,
Mr. Chair, um, a little public service announcement. It is
that time of year where we are seeking nominations from
the community for the 2025 Civic Awards. Uh, so we
absolutely encourage people to nominate somebody in your life that
you know has been an exemplary in arts, in sports,
in music and community betterment and environment, uh, also please
self - nominate. We know we have absolutely amazing people
in our community mayor doing all kinds of great projects
and programs. And they deserve to be thanked publicly and
acknowledged by us at a very special event in May.
The deadline to get your nominations into the clerk's office.
It's all run through the clerk's office. Um, is March
13th, I believe. So please get, go to paper. ca,
check out the civic awards, um, fill out the application
and let us know about the wonderful people in your
life, even if it's yourself. We want to know about
you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Councillor
Pernell and any other business. Next item is confirmation bylaw.
Someone like to move 26017 Councillor Crowley, Councillor Hickey. We'll
go to a vote.
Councilor Basiades, uh, on the confirmation bylaw. Yes. Thank you.
That's Carrie. Motion to adjourn Councillor Crowley. Councillor Hickey. We'll
go to a vote.
Councilor Faciliatus. Yes. Yes. Definitely.
And that's carrying. Take your colleagues. Thank you staff. Thank
you audience.