Good evening, everyone. Good. Welcome to the Arts Recreation Committee Policies Committee. On today Thursday, April 23rd. A little bit technically. I will call Meaning Door. First, we need an approval for the agenda. Council Ridge. Council Ramos. All those in favor. It passes unanimously. Now for our confirmation of the minutes, and you also need to move around a seconder. Councillor Sanic, Council Rich. All those in favor. Pastor's unanimously. Are there any disclosures pecuniary interest. Councillor Sanek. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Hi, Lisa Sanek of the Council of the Corporation of the City of Kingston declare my pecuniary interest in the matter of, in our report tonight, 2026 - 03, motion one, because I am employed by the province of Ontario that funds the consumption and treatment surface sites, and also the homeless and addiction recovery. Treatment hubs. And I've submitted it to the clerk. Thank you, Uneded. Before I proceed any further, I just want to remind everyone, if you have any cell phones or devices, if you could put down in silent or turn them off, please. And we will move to delegations. Our first delegations, Ms. Pamela Grey. Just a reminder, you will have five minutes. Afterwards, the members of the committee could ask questions. Whenever you're ready. Good evening, Chair. Committee members. Staff, and all our wonderful fellow citizens and volunteers. With all the groups. My name's Pamela Grey. I'm the co - founder of Threads of Hope Kingston. And for the past four years, I've worked directly with our Unhoused Community and collaboration with our consumption treatment services group. Over that time, we've seen the human impact. Of system gaps in the city. Almost every single day for the past four years. We live downtown. And we serve people from our warehouse. At Railway and Division Street. It's 4, 000 square feet, where we take care of all of the shelters in the city. And 572 people on the by names list. And the balance of the homeless, which we believe to be in the hundreds. At our last Council meeting, you heard directly from Dr. Russia Tuca. Dr. Adam Newman. And Dr. Henry Swoboda. They were asked a direct question. By the Council members. If we close the CTS, will people die. They answered, yes. This is not just a medical issue now, it's a legal issue. There's a constitutional challenge before the Ontario Superior Court. Lived experience on our streets. In Kingston, today we have over 572 people in the by names list and hundreds more, not captured. We have 60 shelter spaces and one that's called for 30 more. That requires application a very high barrier almost impossible for our citizens. And I know the argument is often made that shelter beds are available. But we need to be very clear. For many of the people we serve, those living with severe mental illness, trauma, PTSD, child adverse reactions. Our shelters are not appropriate. And they're not accessible. They can feel unsafe. They can be overwhelming for our people. They can re - trigger trauma. And so even when a bed is technically available, it does not mean it's usable by our people. Last week, we were working closely with police when they brought a young man to us. Because there was nowhere else for him to go. The CTS directed us to him directly, and we worked with the police very collaboratively. And hear from him almost every day. He was deaf. He was nonverbal. And he was mentally ill. And Barefoot in the snow. Remember a couple of weeks ago at Snow. That's when he came to us. We couldn't find a place for him. That's the gap we're talking about. And we're all ready unable to support someone like that today, removing the CTS. We'll only make that gap wider. Can you bring my water? 30 seconds. CTS is not just a site. It's a lifeline. It's a community where people connect with each other. And connect to care. They connect to nurses and doctors and psychiatry. In its assist and it's a community. We want to work in collaboration with hard hubs. We want to work in collaboration with housing. We want to work in collaboration with The Continuum that will serve our people. Ok. Thank you. That's your time. Thank you. Are there any members of the committee that have any questions for our delegation. Great. Oh, do I get to say that? No, you don't. Sorry. Council Ridge. Richard. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and through you. Thank you, Pamela, for your delegation and presentation, and I agree with you on a number of fronts. Specifically that this is a legal issue. And of course, the humanitarian costs that you've so aptly detailed. Can you please describe for me to the best of your knowledge? What is required for a CTS to operate in Ontario. What is required for CTS to operate on Ontario? It was a 56 - 1 exemption from the federal government. It's an application that can be applied to through our MP. And it's a very important exemption because it allows the CTS to run. On the other aspect, there was some recognition that a CTS may not be able to operate through the provincial government because the Sylvia Jones. What is her title, please help me? Minister of Health. Yes, Minister of Health, Sylvia Jones has put a piece in place where we cannot keep a CTS running, but it looks as though we're grandfathered from that. So we can continue our CTS. Okay, thank you. And one follow - up question. In the case of injunctions that have happened in the past from community organisations that have filed against the provincial government. Have they been successful in keeping provincial funding going. Well, I would say not, even though we did application to the Ontario Human Rights Commission through Patricia DeGuire and the Ontario legislative assembly, where we asked for a report on Justice Carter's order, where Justice Cardiza was being violated. That did not stop anything from that kept us going. And the Ontario Human Rights Commission was very clear. Patricia DeGuire in her note that that would need to continue. But as far as our work up to now, we haven't necessarily been lobbying for funds from our provincial government, but we are now, and we're working very hard on that. And we're not just looking at the provincial government. We're looking at some high - level thinking where we need to look at our social services groups and our provincial providence continuing care and our KHSC and our police and all of the partners that work with this, because it will only be through leadership of the city and leadership of the people that can get a little higher in the aeroplane and out of the boxes that they sit in with the unilateral thinking that's happening that we can't solve this. I cannot allow and think that we cannot challenge this, and we can all work together and solve this problem, because the CTS must stay open. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Any other questions. C and none? Thank you, Ms. Grey. I will call upon our next speaker, Andrew Aculler, and again, a reminder you have five minutes. I have props. Good evening. As long as you don't set off the fire alarms. Thank you. No, it's an automatic candle. Councillor shaves, members of the committee, staff members and members of the public. My name is Andrea Keller. Hope this works. That's sort of. Would you take this umbrella out in the rain. Probably not, because it's broken and it's ineffective. Junkie. Methead, loser, low life. Deserve what they get. These are awful terms that I hear frequently to describe people who have substance use disorder. But I see it in a different light. These people are human beings. There's somebody's family member, someone who's suffering, someone who doesn't want to be in their position, but doesn't have a lot of options to turn to. When we talk about people with substance use disorder, this umbrella is currently what's offered in terms of services. Broken and ineffective. There's clear and substantial evidence that substance use disorder is a treatable medical condition that affects the brain and involves impulsive and continuous use despite the negative impacts to a person, their family and friends. Many of these people also suffer from mental illness, homeless, miss, and poverty. So where does our responsibility lie. There's so much money and time wasted on the many levels of government tossing the ball around on whose court it should be in. But you know what? It is the responsible ability of the federal, provincial and municipality. And each of us from a human perspective. These people are citizens. They are people we have welcomed into our country. They are in our neighbourhoods, honour streets, in our workplaces, and are people who have an illness, or many illnesses, that deserve the same treatment as anyone with any chronic illness has, yet this is not the case. Imagine if you were diagnosed with cancer, and the doctor said to you, well, we have one drug. It doesn't matter what kind of cancer you have or what stage it's in, this is the drug. That's essentially what we're doing to people who suffer with substance use disorder. Do you realise that people with addictions are chronically ill and need treatments that are individualized to them. This is what cancer patients get. And I know because I'm a breast cancer survivor. I was offered options that suited my individual needs. And I got to decide which path I would take to recovery. CTS is an integral part of opening the door to treatment. It is a nonjudgmental space where people can use safely and be introduced to services that can lead to recovery and a productive life. These sites are not giving people drugs and letting them go to town, as was suggested by our premier. They are keeping people alive and hoping every day that they will be able to offer complete services to those individuals so they can be on a path to a purposeful life of wellness that they can choose. CTS is only one segment of the umbrella. But if that segment is missing, the umbrella will not be effective. The new heart hub proposed is a small band - aid on a large gaping wound, and it's only one piece of the umbrella. Of course, not everyone will recover or choose to recover, but substance users deserve and have the right to the same individualized services that are offered to anyone with the chronic illness. On March 18, 2017, I was at work at KGH when I received an urgent call from my boyfriend to meet him in the main lobby. As I entered the main lobby, I saw him in standing beside him was the Kingston Police Officer. They were there to tell me that my oldest son, Tyler, was dead. He had died of a toxic drug poisoning at the age of 26 alone in a hotel room. This was the most devastating and unimaginable news that a mother could receive. My son's death was preventable. People are dying. Young lives are gone and families are suffering. And no one in this room is immune to it. It's not only about substance use disorder now, but we're dealing with a very toxic drug supply. If you have children, grandchildren, Mises, nephews, friends. Those children could go to a party or out with their friends and never come home. As a municipality, I urge you to examine how we are facing this crisis. This emergency that was declared by our Mayor in 2023. We need the whole umbrella to be effective. I hope you will bring together the resources we already have. Tap into the expertise that we have fast expertise and expand the services to really address the needs. 30 seconds. As a retired nurse and a grieving parent, I ask you to start treating this like a real emergency. So families don't have to suffer pain and loss that we have. Let's work together. Cool our resources and be the city that effectively addresses the crisis head on. This candle is lit for those who died. That they might find peace. For those of us who mourn, that wave me a flying comfort. And for those of you who have the power to make change, that you can see the light. Thank you. Any questions from the committee. Councillor Amos. Thank you, Mr. Chair, through you. I don't really have a question. I just want to make a quick statement. And Miss Keller? I will pose a question. Thank you. I am so sorry for your loss. Thank you. Can you tell me, um. What an extension that the CTS would mean to you. It would mean lives saved. It would mean more effective treatment. It would mean equal treatment. People with chronic illnesses, like cancer. How many different specialties are there are in cancer. But we don't have that. For people who use substances. We do have some in the city. We have a lot of expertise. We have a lot of organisations in each organisation deals with a specific set of people who use substances. And we need to all work together so that each person can, um, each organisation can use their specialty, deal with that section of people. But we need more. There's not enough mental health help. There's not enough shelter beds. And shelter beds again are just a band - aid. We need to offer housing employment training. Follow - up care after rehab. If you send somebody to rehab, like they're talking forced rehab, you force them into rehab. And then what happens when they come out? They have no place to go. They're back on the streets. So of course they're going to start using again. Thank you. Thank you very much. Move on to our third speaker, delegation Melissa Reed. And again, I'll remind you of five minutes and I'll start the timer when you're ready. Good evening. On March 24th, the Community packed this gallery. Let us make one thing very clear. It was not to advocate for a heart hub. It was to demand the preservation of the life - saving services currently keeping our neighbours alive. On that same night, the city clerk was formally provided a membrandum of evidence. The first official notice of a catastrophic risk associated with defunding the CTS. Today is April 23rd, one month. Is passed. Thank. You. Thank you. Um. The city in the motion, the city was asked to produce reports on the feasibility of an injunction and then assess of an injunction and an emergency declaration. Since those reports were not completed by the city, I did. I submitted them to the city clerk and all of the city council members earlier. I am formerly filing my findings of that to the city clerk, which I did. This is not a suggestion. It's a notice of forensic effect. The city, if it was to claim fiscal restraint, that's legally new. On April 7th Council authorized 400, 000 dollars for taxi commission to settle unpaid CRA taxes. And a toxic work environment lawsuit. Or something to that extent. Under the balance of convenience test, the city has proven it possesses discretionary liquidity to settle administrative negligence. Legally, you cannot prioritize the third party tax rears over section seven and section 15 charter rights of your residents. The majority of the clients at 661 Montreal Street are recipients of ODSP. For severe addiction and mental health. For these individuals, supervised consumption is not a lifestyle choice. It is the life sustaining accommodations required for their specific disability. By replacing a zero barrier CTS with the heart hub, you are our practicing systematic discrimination. Finding health care for those who are well enough, well withdrawing the right to survive to those who are too sick. Furthermore, the city's own April 10th state and emitted that they are only now working with partners to come up with the plan. Historical data shows that it takes 11 months for these hubs to become operational. By closing the CTS on September 30th without a functional replacement at the same location, you are initiating a clinical gap. Because the city perceived is proceeding with this bait and switch. My proposal also includes, or my delegation also includes a proposal for the poet mobile outreach pilot. This is a requirement to bridge the mortality gap and to provide the duty of accommodation required under section 15. I am asking the committee to recommend that Council immediately directed city solicitor defiled for the injunction to put the emergency brake on the closure of the CTS. And to consider funding the poet outreach if you don't. By bailing out tax debts over human lives, this is a failure. The report that was not produced is now on the table. The issue is not of awareness. It is of action. We will continue to escalate until it matches the risk. Thanks. Okay. Anyhows are rich. Thank you Mr. Chairman for you. Thank you so much for your delegation and for your advocacy. Um, you had mentioned several times about decisions that have been made with regards to funding. For example, ODSP, Ontario works. Um, the provision of the CTS services. Can you please clarify for me whether or not you, what level government makes those decisions. In which respect into the violations of the charter or in respect to the closure of the CTS? In respect to the provision of Ontario Disability Support Program Ontario Works and the CTS funding. What level of government makes this decisions? I would assume the provincial government. Thank you. Um, so then my, my follow - up question is there has been to my knowledge, my research, no history of a municipality directly filing an injunction against the provincial government. For continuation of the CTS services, whether it be through charter rights violations or otherwise. And so I just want to take a step back for a moment, Mr. Chair, if you'll allow me and look at the broader political context here. We're dealing with a provincial government that is capricious. Um, has made policy decisions such as the one that we are discussing right now. Um, on with minimal notification for people, um, our member of provincial parliament, Mr. Ted Shu was talking in question period recently about the lack of funding and the provincial budget for what may be a potential hospital expansion. Do you have any reservations or thoughts about the potential of a municipality filing an injunction against provincial government when there may be ongoing talks around hospital funding. If there's an, if city was defiled for an injunction that brought extra funding to provide life - saving services to the members of the city, it's supposed to have a duty of care to. Then I would totally support that, obviously, as to what my thoughts are towards specific aspects. If the hospital was going to implement something that provided proper care to people that were on ODSP that require certain aspects, then yes, obviously we would advocate for that as well. Okay, thank you. Anyone else. You see none? Thank you very much. Our next delegation is River Stone. My understanding hasn't logged in virtually yet, but just wondering, are they here in person. No. Okay then. We will give her some, give them some time to log in. We'll just move to our next delegation. Robert Gibson, a reminder, you have five minutes and I'll start when you're ready. Thank you, Chair Polson. The clousal of the consumption treatment in Hamilton has been documented to cause issues. As well as other places. But I found Hamilton as an example. There have been reports of increased overdoses since the closer of the CTS. And we placement of the halt tub. And I know that the hot hub does not have a needle exchange. It does not chuck drugs. And. Those other things that does not do. That the CTS does. So there is a gap in services. I also know that since there would be no needle exchange, there is a possibility that there would be increased needles. In environmentally sensitive areas. As though would no longer be safe disposal at the CTS. Uh, this can cause issues. And. The hub was closed. So we have that... The city has data and what happens when the CTS closed. As well? Councils have also recognised that there is a risk of death. As a result of the CTS clousal. And one council. Said consumption treatment centres definitely save lives. This means that without the funding for the CTS. Section 7 of the Canadian Toronto would apply because everyone has a white to life, liberty, and security of Potions. In college, I learned about the drug poisoning emergency. Which happened over Ducky Dill. Yes, it's been that long since the drug poisoning. And people have died. As a result of drug poisoning. That. They might not have over 10 years ago. So we need. The CTS site to chuck drugs so that people stay alive. And people do live. With this disability. The addiction. And... They do. They do advocacy. They improved their lives. But if they're not given the chance, because there's no CTS. Then they can't do that. They can't do that. And I don't want anyone to receive a call about the death of the loved ones. Especially on a young age. And as I said in my previous delegation. I used to live in the city of Peterwell. And I found an article from The Peterborough Examinal. Which has a CTS. And it was called noticeable drop in this Colorado Needles found impedable following opening of safe consumption site. And this was backed up by a quote. Quote, I've certainly noticed a decline in public use in this Colorado Needles in and around the downtown. I've noticed nothing that could be tied to the site in any negative way. 30 seconds. Does anyone have any questions. Any questions from the committee. Seeing none, thank you very much. Thank you. I'll give one final call to River Stone. See if she's logged up. Okay, and in that case, we'll move on through the agenda. Uh, we have no briefings. We have no business. Which brings us to motions. Um, guardian, the consumption and treatment services sites. And before we move on, these circumstances surrounding the CTS and the hard hub has changed since the deferral of this motion. With the recent provincial announcement. And as such, I would like to go through this motion cause by clause with staff, determine if the clauses and to verify if they're still relevant. Due to the announcements and or other actions. So on that note, I will pass the chair to the vice chair. I have the chair and recognise you. Thank you. Um. Okay. I'm going to move scooch over here. Apparently I have in front of me. So the first clause. Not sure if staff have it in front of them. Basic states, whereas the Ministry of Health issued a 90 day closure, or notice on March 13th to 2026. To operations of remaining provincially funded consumption treatment services, CTS, sites across Ontario. Cooling Kingston CTS. At the Integra Care Hub, ICH 661, Montreal Street. With provincial funding June 13, 2026. Miss Marley. Thank you and through you, Mr. Vice Chair. Uh, this recital is no longer accurate on April 10th, the province announced that the CTS will now close on September 30th. Thank you. Um, second. Shall we just move to the VAT. Yes, we'll just move to that. Sorry. Okay. Therefore, we'll resolve the city of Kingston, formerly opposes the interior government's decision to defund. The King Conception and Treatment Services Effective June 13th, 2026, and calls on the province to reverse the decision. I'm going to probably presume that's going to be the same answer. Three, you Mr. Vice Chair, that's correct. Thank you. Uh, that Council Direct, the Chief Administrative Officer to contact the help contact health candidate to inquire whether any feature ETF call for proposals is anticipated and want harm reduction continual activities. Short of Direct Supervisual Consumption, site operations would be eligible for funding. Through you, Mr. Vice Chair, the recent provincial announcement does not impact this clause. Thank you. That Council further direct, the Chief Administrative Officer to contact Kingston Health Services Centre. Other local health institutions and Kingston Police Services requesting they each issue a formal public statement on the health, safety, and committee impacts of the CTS closure. In formal public and government decisions making. You, Mr. Vice Chair, staffer of the view that this is beyond the scope of the CAO's role is this is a political function. Thank you. Um, the Council Direct, the Chief Administrator Officer to report back to Council, no later than April 15th, 2026 on. Legal in operational options. For the city to support continual of harm reduction services during the federal exemption window June to October. A recommendation. Three, you Mr. Vice Chair. As a matter of correction, this window's now only 31 days as provincial funding will end September 30th. Thank you. Recommendation allocation up to 350, 000 dollars from the working reserve fund funds confirmed by staff. As no longer required for the tragically hip anniversary celebration toward CBridge funding for CTS operational continuing. During the federal exemption window, legal costs associated with the injunction application to freeze the June 13th provincial funding withdrawal or both proportional based on the need and legal advice. Through you, Mr. Vice Chair, as was confirmed by staff at the March 24th Council meeting, the tragically hip funds were never allocated to a budget, therefore there is no result in cost savings. Also the federal exemption window, as I mentioned, is now only 31 days. Thank you. Uh, the results of the Direct Consultation with KCH. On whether Casey HC intends to apply to health can for renewal of its section 56. 1 exemption prior to October 31st, 2026. Weather Casey HC's legal council considers KCHC subject to section three of the Community Care and Recovery Act. As non - municipal entity and what level of the city financial commitment would be required for KECHC on sustaining operations to the exemption renewal period. Cities listener to report the Council no later than April 15, 2026. On the legal feasibility and estimate cost of the city of Kingston joining sporting and funding and application to the Ontario Supreme Court for an injunction to freeze the June 13, 2026 provincial CTS funding. Withdrawal and the grounds that Kingston's unique, no hard hub status means closure will cause irreparable harm with no adequate alternative available and direct violation of section 7 of the Canadian charge of rights and freedom. And that documentation interlocking federal and provincial policy exclusions confirmed there is no alternative funding pathway absent city actions. Through you Mr. Vice Chair, this paragraph Directs at Legal Opinion specifically on the grounds of Kingston's unique no - heart hub status. This ground no longer exists as the province has announced that the city will receive a heart hub. Staff cannot respond to this paragraph as it is written. Wather Kingston's no hard - heart status creates a mutually stronger legal position than the 2025 neighbourhood group injunction. And whether it's supports a standalone, Kingston application rather than relying solely on the existing provincial charged challenge. Through you Mr. Vice Chair, this paragraph once again relies on the city of Kingston's unique, no heart hub situation. The province has announced that the city will receive a heart hub, staff can't respond to this paragraph as it is written. Whether a full constitutional challenge or damage claim against the province is warranted to assess separately and substantially to the province is warranted. Okay. Injection operation with recommendation to Council since once the federal exemption status and injunction outcome are known. Through you Mr. Vice Chair staff notes that there is already an injunction application that has been approved in respect of a constitutional challenge to the community care and recovery act. In this case, the closure of the Kingston CTS is not impacted by the community care and recovery acts. It's impacted by a lack of provincial funding. What are KCHC is as a community health centre rather than a municipality or local board is subject to section three of The Community's CARE and recovery Act 2024 when applying to health Canada for exemption. Renewal and what the city can do to support the application ahead of October 31st, 2026. Three of you, Mr. Vice Chair. Municipalities are expressly prohibited under the community care and recovery act from supporting any application made to health Canada by any person for an exemption or renewal to the CDSA for the purposes of operating CTS. That the mayor be directed to formerly assess the inconsultation with the city solicitor and the community emergency management coordinator. Whether a declaration of emergency under section four of the emergency management and civil protection act is warranted given the documented interlocking policy gap created by provincial defunding and federal program ineligibility to be reported that assessed that assessment to Council no later than April 15, 2026. Through you Mr. Vice Chair, there is no mechanism by which the mayor could report back directly to Council. Staff note that the motion seems to put institutional pressure on the mayor to exercise a statutory discretion that is meant to be independent. And finally that a copy of this motion before to the honourable Doug Ford MPP premier of Ontario, the honourable Sylvia Jones, MPP Minister of Health. Tattoo MPP Kingston and the islands, John Jordan, MPP Lanark and Faunik Kingston. Mark Ederson, M. P. Kingston, and the islands. The Southeast Public Health Board of Health, Kingston Community Health Centre, and all ICH Consortium Partners. Through you, Mr. Vice Chair, the recent provincial announcement does not impact this paragraph. Thank you. I return the chair. Thank you. Due to the responses from staff and overwriting circumstances, I am going to rule this motion out of order. And to further, I would like to request add a new motion onto the agenda. And for that, I'll have to pass the chair. I accept the chair. And recognise you. Thank you. Thank you for bringing. The... There it is. Up on the screen. I'm not going to take long. To speak. First, I would like to recognise and thank everyone in attendance. And for those with the passion of the delegations. As we are now aware Kingston will be receiving a hard tub on October 1st. And thank you to all the staff who work on getting that done. And the CTS will remain operation until the end of us October. I believe, and I thank the rest of the committee does as well. It would actually be best to have both the CTS and the hard hub. The CTS has saved numerous lives. Reduce the impact on our emergency services. And for that, I would like to thank all the CTS staff for all they have done over the these last several years. However, as a fellow colleague has stated many times, we have a parent - child relationship with the province. The province very clarity has stated their opinion regarding CTSs and is not very unlikely they're going to change their minds anytime soon. Due to the above and their recent overriding circumstances. Are the reasons why I ruled the motion out of order and I'm introducing this motion to be added to the agenda tonight. As there are some relevant points and there would be allow members of the public who are here today the ability to ask questions unlike if it was added directly to the next Council meeting. Thank you. Mr. Clerk, could you walk us through this, please? Certainly. So, thank you through you, Mr. Vice Chair. So this is a procedural motion. So we've included the motion that we'll be added by passing this procedural motion. So this is added under section 13. 34, the Council Procedure bylaw, which allows a motion or an agenda item to be added to the agenda without it bringing previously added to the agenda. We did it this way as by doing this, we can then have this motion be treated like motion one was going to be treated. So we'll have the committee asked questions, then we'll have visiting Councillors to be able to ask questions on this motion. And then we'll have the members of the public be able to ask questions on this motion. Assuming the procedural vote, which is before the committee today, passes, the motion will then be on the agenda as a new motion number two. And then we'll be proceed as normal. If the motion passes or fails, um, I'm referring to motion number two, not this one. It will be reported up to Council as per the other motion number one that was ruled out of order. Sorry. Long day. Right in front of us is just the procedural question to get onto the floor, on to the agenda. We're actually not yet discussing the motion there. Um, that will put up the motion once everyone is done and wants this vote is up. So everyone can see the motion as if it was on the agenda. Thank you. Okay. I believe we need two thirds vote. To pass this to bring it onto the floor. So I will now call the vote Point Point of Order Point of Order or Point of Procedure. Probably. So they're both out there. Uh, I don't believe everyone can see this motion. Perhaps it should be read aloud before we begin discussion on this. Absolutely. Moved by Councillor Shays, seconded by Councillor Amos that the following motion be added to the arts and recreation community policies committee agenda under the rules of section 13. 34 of the Council Procedure by Law. Whereas the Kingston consumption and treatment services, CTS has operated since 2018 serving hundreds of vulnerable residents annually diverting hundreds of emergency room visits. And preventing opioid overdose deaths. And whereas the province of Ontario announced on April 10th, 2026, that new homelessness and addiction recovery treatment, heart hub, will be established in Kingston. And at the provincially funded consumption and treatment services site at the Integrated Care Hub 661 Montreal Street, you closed effect of September 30, 2026. With services to transition to the new Kingston hard hub and where I was harm reduction services or evidence - based policies and programs designed to reduce the health, social, and economic harm is associated with the substance use, including the provisions of safer use supplies overdose prevention and response, health education and connections to treatment and social supports without requiring absessence as a condition of access. And therefore be it resolved that Council Direct staff to work with the Kingston Community Health Centres, trellis HIV Community Care, Addiction of Mental Health Services. Home - based housing, Southeast Community Health, other Integrated Care ICH Consortium Partners, and other community groups to share information on the public about harm reduction services. And where these supports can be assessed following the closure of the consumption and treatment services CTS. And a Council Direct, the Chief Administrative Officer to report back to Council on the Implications of the Provincial CTS closure for the ICH Lease. The ICH programming and the city's 500, 000 annual shelter - bed contribution and the Council Direct the City Solicitor in consultation with the mayor - and - chief administrative officer to formerly assess whether a declaration of emergency under Section 4 of the emergency management and civil protection act be warranted given the documented interlocking policy gap created by provincial defunding and federal program ineligibility and to report this assessment to Council no later than the end of Q3 2026. Okay. We will now call the vote. On moving forward with motion number two. All in favor. And it passes. I hand the chair over. Or back. Thank you. Okay. Due to. The lack of timing. Of sharing this motion. I want to declare a five minute recess. To allow people to read this, think about it, and see if they have any questions. Excuse me? I ran. Out of time to print something. I will go downstairs, try it. Okay, thank you. We may make that 10 minutes. It is now 650, so we'll reconvene at 7 o'clock. Hello everyone. I'm going to ask everyone to take their seats please. It is 7 o'clock. On us. Okay, just confirming procedurals here. We are going to be treating us like a business report. So first opportunity to be given to committee members. If you have any questions or comments. Regards to this new report. Councillor Ridge. Point of clarification. So just through you, Mr. Chair. So I just want to understand, because this is relatively novel for our committee procedure. In the past. Is this an opportunity both to speak to the motion or simply to ask questions about it? Both? Okay, thank you. I'm not speaking to it yet. I'm just, I just wanted that question clarified. Thank you. Yeah, maybe correct it on this. But procedure will be committee members. You can ask questions and comments in regards to the new motion, then visiting councillors. And then members of public, including those who spoke at a delegation. Okay, just to confirm that. And then there will be debate. Motion onto the floor. Second year and then. It goes on the floor. Yeah. Council Ridge. Thank you. And through you, Mr. Chair. Can you, Mr. Chair, is the mover. Detailed the material differences between the previous motion that was presented in this one, please? I'll speak and maybe staff my way to jump in as well. Um, as mentioned earlier, uh, we went through the new motion, the first motion, clause by clause was staff. And they indicated, well, we're still relevant, well, we're still not. And I had done this earlier with staff and confirmed with them what was still relevant and asked our staff, clerk staff. To write a new motion. With what was still relevant. According to staff. Thank you very much and through you. So then is it safe to see a point of summary that this is the clauses that we're not ruled out of order with some modification of the language. That would be a probably a good way to put it. Yes. Okay. Thank you very much. And so then my question, and again, I apologise. Uh, through you, Mr. Chair, we all have the opportunity to debate this further once it is on the floor. Is that correct? Yes, we will. Okay. Thank you. So then I'll keep my questions merely to the language of the motion and, okay. All right. So let me see here. Um. Okay. Has there been any other consideration or consultation with regards to the community groups that are listed in this, uh, motion. Commissioner Campbell. Thank you and through you. No, not specifically to the clauses of the motion as we had no direction from Council to pursue that. Um, however, we are in consultation with a number of those community entities already in regard to the heart hub CTS services ICH services and other sector supports. Thank you. And for, uh, understanding of for people to understand, what are the current gates or nodes of approval for the running of a CTS as per dysmotion? Oh, I heard somebody said I didn't, I can speak much latter. What are the current gates or nodes of approval, uh, to the running of a CTS? Like how do you get to running a CTS. Miss Mary? Thank you. And through you, Mr. Chair, what is required currently is a federal exemption from the CDSA in order to operate. Thank you very much. And presumably that would be complimented with, uh, provincial funding or some sort of operational funding. Miss Marley. Thank you. And through your Mr. Chair. Yes, that's correct. Thank you very much. And, uh, while we are debating a language at the motion as it currently exists, uh, delegations and, uh, general discourse about privately funded CTSs, um, in Ontario, uh, three, all three of which are based in Toronto, um, is there any updates as to what their status is with regards to this, uh, the provincial decisions. Miss Marley. Thank you. And through you, Mr. Chair. It's our understanding that privately operated CTSs would continue to operate so long as they complied with the provisions in the community care and recovery act. Okay. Thank you. And, um, we've discussed the injunction piece, um, so we're not going to go there. Is it standard practice through jurisdiction for a municipality to bypass the provincial ministry of health and advocate directly to health Canada, for example, for an exemption. Miss Marley. Uh, through you, Mr. Chair, no, not in our experience. Okay. Thank you. Do we have an idea of how much a cost to actually run the CTS. Make sure our Campbell. Uh, thank you. And through you, um, no, we do not have a specific discussion of the cost. Um, we've understood that the funding that has been removed is somewhere in the order of 700, 000 dollars We have also understood, though not received official documentation to this effect, that that funding is used to support a number of consumption services, um, as well as additional health and harm reduction strategies, some of which could be supported through hard hub funding, um, but many of which, as has been discussed, would be removed as part of that loss of exemption and funding. Thank you. Are there any municipalities currently funding directly funding NECTS sites in Ontario? Commissioner Campbell. Uh, thank you and through you. I'm not familiar of any, but I can't say that with a hundred percent certainty. Okay, thank you. Anyone else. Any other committee members. See none. Okay any are visiting councillors. Councillor Glenn. Thank you and through you, Mr. Chair. So I do have a few questions So my first one what services are offered by the CTS. Commissioner Campbell. Thank you and through you as I am not Casey H. Will transition to the new Kingston Hart Hub. Given that we are unclear on which services are being provided by CTS, which ones are exempt, which ones are not exempt, and we are not clear yet on what the Hearth Hub will do, that clause does not work. So I have issue with that, and I'm putting that out to the members of this committee, because I'd like to see it corrected. And that leads me to my comments with regards to this motion. So thank you. I appreciate that we've had a lot of things change politically. So coming here this evening, I knew that there would be massive changes, because at the time when we went through this, we weren't going to get a hard hub. So Miracles do happen. We have a hard hub. And I don't, for one minute, think that that is an important. Expanding access to treatment and recovery is a good step forward. But what we need is a complete system, and we need clarity about what that looks like. We've had community members all talking about this. And I think that we're missing things in this motion, is that we aren't actually identifying those gaps so we can have a clear discussion about who's going to fill those gaps. How they could be filled. Whether we can play any role in filling them or not. So I think one of the things we have to look at here is we do need a gap analysis of some sort. And that includes, how do we do low barrier access overdose prevention outreach services that actually meet people where they are. So we need a clear understanding of how the system is going to function as a whole. What services are being replaced? What is changing? What won't be there. And this doesn't get to that. So although I appreciate you preserving as much as you could out of the original direction, now that we are in a change situation, I think we need to go further. From there, we need a targeted plan. We need to understand how we ensure continuity. So no one falls through the cracks during transition. We also need transparency on timing, capacity, access. Because if the system isn't ready, the impacts won't be theoretical. We're talking about them like we have an idea what's going to happen. We've seen some of them in other municipalities who have lost their CTS. So we may not be able to have exemption status, but there are other critical services that will be lacking in our community. And that will lead to overdose. That will lead to load on our emergency medical services. That will lead to people in the community and more disruption. So I think this motion doesn't go far enough. We need to ensure that any local response is really focused and that what we're doing is filling the gaps and not duplicating them. So there's a lot of work that I think has to be done in the meantime. And the time frame is short. So we had a delegation that spoke to the fact that typically it's about 11, 12 months before we had hard hubs operational. And we have a much shorter timeframe. Now we're a great community. I think we'll step up and do the best we can. I think we need to understand that right now we're being forced to accept one model. And this isn't about one model over another. It's about a continuum of care about that continuity. And it's about making sure that the system works to end - to - end and for everyone that is involved. So what I'd like to see is clarity on the services provided at CTS. What's going to be replaced, modified, not provided, what gaps there are in service, particularly with respect to those low barrier access overdose prevention outreach and homeless reduction supports. I'd like to see a targeted continuity plan with those GAPS identified options for interim supports and funding that could potentially be allocated. I'd also like to see monitoring reporting in some form of a framework in collaboration with our health care providers in the community and emergency response providers to track what's going on, to track what the community impact is. So we need to understand what kind of overdoses we're starting to see ER visits public health indicators, community safety things. And I'd like to see legal consideration related to service continuity, including weather, The Identified Service Gaps may give rise to potential legal challenges. And any sort of advocacy that we might be able to do. Thank you. So thank you. Council McLaren. Thank you. Quick question to staff. The way I read that first, whereas resolved clause, it's only asking us to share information with. The named groups. Do you see anything more than that. How is staff going to interpret that first, be resolved clause, please? Ms. Marley. Thank you. And through you, Mr. Chair, to me it reads to share information with the public, not with those groups. It's to work with those groups to share information to the public. Sorry, absolutely right. So all I see is actually before going further, if I can ask staff, is that clause, the same closet was in the original. It appears to be the first one. I believe it is. Thank you. I believe it's not actually since I wrote it. Part of what was taken out was that we were to work with the community groups that are mentioned there, as well as the community. And the reason for that is that we have an interactable problem here. Homelessness is getting worse, mental health addiction is getting worse. This is a sign that the existing Institutions that we have out there are not able to solve these problems. And this is the critical point that I wanted to make with this in the original one is that we're working with other groups that are facing these challenges. We can find new ways of doing it. Many of those groups are here right now. There's feed the people. There's threads of hope. There's peer outreach empowerment. Team. These groups have been doing this work at a far lower cost than the city. Diverting people from emergency rooms. Keeping them alive, nourishing them with food and clothing, keeping them warm. In the wintertime at a fraction. Of the cost, doing it in many cases a lot better than the city has. For example, peer - out reach empowerment team, the warming centre during the winter was at 18 degrees below zero. They were operating many more opportunities and the cities warming centre did. At no cost to the city. That clause in the original motion was meant to help these groups work with the city, not in opposition to the city. Work with the city. That's what it meant to bring the people together to find better solutions. A few hours ago, we got an email from a representative of a poet who spoke today. With the plan to reduce. The costs to the city and improve the continuum of care. We heard from a delegation today with a very broken umbrella that there are holes in it. The metaphor there is very apt. We're trying to close those holes as much as possible. Work lets us work with the city and work with the community that are coming up with new ways of doing things. So what I'm asking this community is to take a look at some of the options that are being done by the community, the good work. I'm asking you guys put into this motion. That the city look at the programs put forth by these groups. The email that we got today, if you've read it, and I hope you do, ask staff to look at that because that looks like it can be doing something that we haven't been doing. Reducing the amount of harm that is out there. The hard hub is great at the very high levels of the continuum of care, but the one that we are missing, the one that the CTS used to have or will have starts with that trust where people can actually feel safe seeking the very first steps in that continuum of care. That proposal is proposing a way to do that, to increase the trust among the most vulnerable without breaking the law if we don't get that injunction. To step out and actually outreach to people in the park. Who would not trust other institutions, especially new ones that they have no relationship with. This is part of the continuum of care that is being failed right now by the government's actions to cut this. So the question before us that I'm asking you to consider is can we improve. The harm reduction capabilities without necessarily having a CTS. I get it. I've heard the backroom conversations. We're not going to support the CTS. We got a depth out of here. But what is left? We can still support groups that are building trust. The very first step in that continuum of care. That leads to greater results all around. So what I'm asking is committee is that one of you who is here, Councillor Bohm, Councillor Amos, Councillor Ridge. Add one more clause Councillor Shaves. Add one more clause. Work with the community. Consider what they are doing. Consider the proposal from the poet group and any others that might come from the community to reduce the harm in a legal way and support groups that are already doing good work here. That's my ask of this committee. Thank you. Okay. Just forbing one thing. Um, so this brings us to our public portion of asking questions. Just a reminder, you will have five minutes. There will be no back and forth as with the Councillors. You will have to ask all your questions and comments at the same time. And then we will move on to more than one speaker at a time. We'll be using those desk right behind Councillor Ridge with the mics. They have reserved on them. So is there anyone in the gallery would like to speak. Ask questions. If you do, please make a way up. And a reminder you will have, like I said, five minutes. And you'll have to state your name. Just have a seat. Gonna wait. On the cells. Over there. For that. Side. Very useless? Yep. Okay. Alternate. So I guess we have some on the right and some on the left. We'll go back and forth. Uh, please state your name. You have five minutes. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, my name is Nika. Um, I would like to ask a question more for the public and other members of this reunion. Are you aware that the medications that in Kingston are prescribed when you have pain for something as common as shingles. Are opioids. That's the best practice in Kingston. So I believe that it's really easy to just fall into addiction without knowing it without intending it. It's not just bad choices. It's also a systemic issue on the health department. You will have to travel to Toronto to get non - opioid pain medications, for example and know which ones, uh, will not have that particular risk. For one for second. For a second, saying, uh, therefore be it result that Council Director staff to work with Kingston Committee Health Centre, Sturlice Community Care Adiction Mental Health Services Home Base Housing, Southeast Public Health, other Integrated Care Hub Consortium Partners, etc. That very much feels like the city is saying we don't want to do this work. We do not want to put in the effort. Even if we may find ourselves in that situation later on. There is people from different groups, volunteers, uh, members of the public search as myself. Who do not want the people who sometimes stake at the entrance of your home who are homeless and addicted. To be there. But I personally don't want to continue feeling that if you call the police on them or they are removed forcibly by city services, you basically allowing them to die in your doorstep. So please reconsider find the humanity in your heart. And work to oppose and amend, I'm sorry for lacking the technical language. But generally if money is a problem, we have people who are great at doing budgets. There are people who are willing to do the manual labour to go out in the streets to help reach out, et cetera. There are Council Member, pardon, forgetting the name mentioned. Work with the community. The work is possible. And just because there is a provincial law, etc. Just because it's legal doesn't make it right. So I'm just urging you members of the Council and Community. Members of the public. Administrative staff, etc. Good work. Keep it up. And please just know that because there is a lot that says, no, you can't doesn't mean you shouldn't. There are things human lives at the stake. And it's something that you need to consider really heavily. Because the emergency services also affect parents. If the emergency services are floated by people in Obrados is that could have been attended by CTS services, outreach, et cetera. Your kid who just has a fever that can be fatal. We'll take longer to be seen precisely because the services are fluided. Those are the examples that people have mentioned in much better technical terms, but I hope, uh, this hates a little closer to home. Thank you very much. Thank you. We'll go over the right. Miss Greg. Leave your only one there. You have five minutes and please state your name. Full name. My name's Pamela Grey. Thank you. For having me ask questions. I'd like to know if the staff have the statistics on the number of mentally ill we have. Unhost and not registered. In the city. At this time. When we're in our work at our warehouse, we are consistently dealing with psychotic breaks. Schizophrenia. Severe mental illness. Disassociative disorders, bipolar disorders, depression, anxiety. All untreated because we don't have a centralized system to care and housing system. That works. So in the proposal, we're working on, we want to work with this city. We look forward to working with the city where we have this intensive support of housing supportive housing CTS detox, heart hub, supportive housing. That's a beautiful plan on a continuum. A heart hub just does not provide us. Thank you. Appreciate that. A heart hub just does not provide the services that a CTS provides. So I'm just wondering, do we have an idea? Do we have the statistics on how many mentally ill? I don't think this is a responsibility of the city at all because we are bringing in the hospitals as well to work with us. Because the number of mentally ill that are restricted from our shelters for behaviour problems when they're completely psychotic. Is just not acceptable. Do we have that information? As a reminder, you have to say at all your questions, comments within your five minutes. It's not, it's not a back and forth. Oh, I have to keep going. I'm sorry. Okay. Um, thank you. The other question I have is in the last clause where it states that the provincial and defunding federal program ineligibility. The 561 exemption remains eligible. So are we talking about 561 in that clause or are we talking about something I'm not familiar with. Um, I'd also like to ask the staff if they're aware when we talk about our people, if we're aware of the number of people that actually come through our CTS, we're talking about hundreds of visits when we have thousands of visits. The CTS sees 150 to 200 people a day. Interactions and visits. And these numbers. Are not accurate. Sorry. There's a lot of information here. Um. Is this, is the city staff willing to explore partnerships to explore this because it is clear under the curtain injunction. That we're at the Supreme Court of Ontario. Where they're saying that these people will suffer irreparable harm. Our doctors came forward and said people will die. I don't know that anyone in this room would feel qualified to allow people to die. And what are the comprehensive programming that we need in place to work with us. Um, hundreds of lives that are saved every month through the overdose. The CTS doesn't overdose for 70 dollars. Our emergency room will cost seven to 10, 000 dollars a visit. Is this what we want to see for our emergency policing will go up by 69 percent of police department will escalate. Are we aware of all of that? Or are we aware of what will happen with these issues. Is the committee willing to explore partnerships as Connie pointed out with all of the members that can serve our people. The budget. Um, and all the services at the CTS. I'll leave that to, of course, as Jen pointed out, that would be up to KCHC. But we need to get a clear understanding of the budget. And what we're saying here where the community will be advised where the harm reduction supports will be with those particular partners. We're very familiar with all of them and they're wonderful. 30 seconds. But they do not serve substance use. And they will not be drug testing. Maybe the drug testing might move to them. But we certainly won't be allowing substance use. So we need to be aware of that. But thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Please. Name in five minutes. Jalen Roth. That's okay. Thanks. Jill Ann Rothwell. And I'm here tonight, uh, to represent Kingston, Frontenek, Public Library Workers, QP Local 2202, The Consensus was that we'd like to state publicly our support for the programs of the CTS and the staff who do amazing work in our community, as well as appreciation for all the various community agency staff and volunteers who make a difference in the lives of library patrons every day. As public library workers, we know intimately the impacts of the toxic drug supply crisis in our workplace. We watch patrons. We care about navigate housing instability, profound poverty and a toxic drug supply. As our consumption and treatment service site is set to close, we strongly believe that people who use substances will turn to other public places as a way to use drugs privately. And with these closures, we are convinced we will see more substance use and drug poisonings in our libraries. Daily, we are called upon to provide life - saving care to patrons experiencing overdose to handle sharps and biohazardous materials found in and around our library branches. We perform wellness checks in our public washrooms every 20 minutes due to the rise in drug poisonings, exposing both staff and patrons to the toxic drug supply. We find individuals unconscious in our public washrooms in our branches. We provide life - saving care that is well outside the scope of our scope as library workers. We are not safe consumption sites. We don't have the training, expertise or knowledge that is required to handle the complexities of the opioid crisis. The CTS does. In addition to these expanded job duties, we are experiencing trauma from seeing and responding to the patrons we know and care about experiencing medical emergencies. Our experiences as public sector workers help us identify that the source of this challenge is not the people who use substances, but the governmental approach to public health. Responding to drug poisonings is not an anomaly. We strongly believe it is a reality soon - to - be intensified by the closure of our CTS and will not be resolved with the opening of the heart hub. The network of harm reduction services in our community saves lives, provides resources to library workers on the front lines of the crisis, and it allows us to do our jobs as library workers. The toxic drug supply crisis will not disappear as of October 1st. It will show up in our continue to show up in our public libraries. And we fear that a lack of social and health supports in the community will mean that library funds will be diverted to crisis intervention security instead of Cora Library Services. So when institutions that provide valuable access to harm reduction, healthcare, and community for our patrons are threatened, The Impact Reverberates in our libraries. And we recognise the necessity of spaces like our CTS. A safe place to use substances and dispose of drug paraphernalia. Harm reduction keeps individuals who use substances safe, and we greatly appreciate it, and we support the CTS and the hard hub. Thank you. Thank you. Um, before I move on to our next speaker, I'm going to ask again, does anyone else want to speak to this motion? Because please come up to one of the seats, the mics. It's trying to keep this rolling. So, um, if I can, please state your name and you have five minutes. Thank you very much. My name is Omar Shraf, citizen of Kingston. Uh, hello first. I would like to bring up what Melissa said. Hi Melissa. Uh, she made a great, I think, case that not only is it a moral obligation to fight for a safe consumption site, but also that you are legally required to due to ODSP and this being case of legal discrimination. And then what happened was that the speaker and staff, when they were reading the original, what was it, motion. Uh, there was a rapid fire exchange where you seemed to explain why you couldn't do that. And I would like to sort of ask questions about that. So for one, the child parent relationship of the province was stated as sort of being just like a thing that we all know. Is a province, not an assembly of cities, is a city, is it not your job. Oh no. Great, okay. Is it not your job as, this is a real question, uh, representatives of the people of Kingston. To share our concerns with the provincial and federal government. If not, if it's not your job to make a case for us, then whose is it? Also, we're talking about cutting the safe consumption sites. What if the provincial, as you all repeatedly stated, the case of politics today is crazy. Their cutting safe consumption sites today. What if the premier decided to cut funding for hospitals or schools. Right now you are showing that you cannot add the kit for us now. How can we know that you can trust you to advocate for things more members of the population care about. Three. So. Yeah, so again, just to bring attention to last point, it's great that there's going to be a heart hub, uh, but Donaldson? Donaldson, I think that's the guy with the mustache. That's his name, Donaldson. Okay. Uh, one of the delegation brought up a great point, which is that, uh, part hubs do not have, uh, testing for the drugs. And they do not have any sort of, uh, supervisory capacity. So it is still very clearly, even if we are getting a hard hub, which is great. It still clearly leaving a gap. And there's nothing in the new motion to really address that aside from sharing with us how bad the gap is going to be. Uh, all right. I think, I think that's it. Thank you very much. Thank you. You have five minutes. Please state your name. I only need like two. So just to emphasize on the gap, for instance, can you hear me now. So, um, when research has shown that it's from 2025 to 2026, um, EMS calls for opioid, detoxicity typically rises 70 percent after the CTS closes. Um, even in cities that have a hard tub. When they're become operational. My other point that I just want to make very clear is that one of the aspects that will be leaving the CTS, regardless of where the funding comes from and less an injunctions put through is that they will lose the supervised consumption. That's what keeps people alive. If they're supervised, then they can be narcanned before they die. The other part, just make mention is, is the city aware that there are 10 year olds using crystal methamphetamine in the city. That would be another reason to make sure supervised consumption and overdose prevention is active. And available immediately. Instead of a neighbour possibly finding an arcan in their car. Okay. I will go to staff now. If you want to answer any of those questions. We're going to do five. And then do a question. Thank you and through you, Mr. Chair. Before we begin to respond to the questions, I do want to reiterate that, uh, this is a motion of the committee. It is not a recommendation of staff. Staff do not have any council direction on this matter at this time. And therefore we can't respond to a lot of the questions that have been posed, particularly those asking for very specific statistical information. Uh, I will go to, uh, Ms. Gray's question about the last paragraph in the motion and the reference to federal program ineligibility. This was in the original motion that was put to Council. So I hesitate to speculate about the movers intent, but I believe what he was speaking to in terms of federal program ineligibility is the fact that the current federal exemption for the Kingston CTS expires on October 31st. Uh, with respect to Omar's question about municipal powers, um, it's a matter of law that municipalities are creatures of the province. Municipalities can only exercise the powers that have been specifically given to them by the province. And that is well established law. Commissioner Campbell. Uh, thank you. And through you, um, just echoing what Ms. Morley just shared. We will do our best to address the questions. I apologise to those who raised the questions. I was taking notes furiously and also trying to pull data. So I didn't actually get the names of everyone who brought questions forward. Um, so I will attempt to answer as many of them as I can in no particular order. Um, there were a number of comments and questions about gap in transition planning. Um, I do want to share for the benefit of this committee, uh, that AMHS as the consortium lead at the ICH has pulled together a transition table. It includes consortium members as well as members of KCHC, which oversees the CTS services. Providence CARE. Kingston Health Sciences and the Front ANAC paramedics, as well as the city of Kingston. We are working with that group to look at where the transition gaps will occur when the CTS closes and attempt to develop strategies to address them. I know the motion does speak as several have noted to a communications and public directed campaign around that. The ID, I believe, as staff would implement the motion if it were to be passed by council is that we would be working to share some of that transition planning, those service opportunities with the community when we were able to do so. The next item, sorry, just on that expanded consortium approach, um, with those additional mental and health support, um, and, and health service tables present, um, the goal in the ambition of that group is not only to plan for the immediate needs, excuse me, related to the CTS closure, um, but it is to also address something that I believe Councillor Glenn mentioned earlier, which is about, um, determining how the partner organisations can work together to inform the creation of the heart hub in line with the services that are allowed to be delivered there. There was a question about how we track or are able to speak to the mental health addictions or physical conditions of individuals who are homeless within our community. Most specifically. I've lost access to my data point. So, um, we actually are able to, through the by names list, um, to track what is considered trimorbid, um, conditions. This is the intersection of health, physical health with mental health and substance involvement. These are mechanisms by which we're able to prioritize individuals through the by names list, seek supportive services within our community. That can include referrals to immediate emergency housing that can include and will include moving forward referrals to the heart hub. And that will and does include referrals to mental health and addiction support services. BACTS AMHS led or other. City willing to explore partnerships where a budget impacts with no CTS and if we're aware of who actually uses a CTS. Thank you and through you the city is always open to partnerships in particular partnerships with service agencies and those with expertise in the areas within which we work. We take direction from Council around forming specific or funded partnerships. We would need to bring those considerations back to Council, but we often receive and assess proposals, particularly when we make calls for services through things like homelessness prevention funding, for example. We put a call out and request for services and then make decisions through procurement processes about who will deliver those services within community. So partnership is something the city does every day across a number of different service areas. The next question I'm so sorry, Mr. Chair. Project impacts of no CTS. The budget impacts of no CTS to the city of Kingston. Correct. The city of Kingston currently does not fund the CTS. So there is no immediate budget impact to us. Okay, so for clarification, budget impacts on other services such as the police emergency services paramedics, emergency services and such. At this time and through you, Mr. Chair, we would not be able to address that. It requires us to predict what the service load changes would look like moving forward and obviously to work with those agencies. I do expect as part of that expanded consortium that those are the sorts of conversations that will be had as health and hospital and paramedic and emergency response members are present at that table. We have been provided by the ICH Consortium, CTS Data from The Last several years. So I can comment that from 23 to 2024. There were 211 unique individuals who accessed the CTS services from 24 to 25. There were 280. And from 25 to 26 year to date to December, sorry this was last year's report. There were 246. We know that in terms of visits, not unique individuals. In 23 to 24, 000 visits, 24 to 25, 000 visits. And at the time we receive this report. There were 18, 500 approximate visits in 25 to 26. So, sorry, I'm just checking if there's irrelevant to that discussion in this data. So on the whole, I think what we are receiving back from the ICH, including the services offered by CTS, is that engagement in the CTS certainly remains high over its existence within the ICH consortium. And that the utilization intensity from CTS operations has been deemed to be intensifying in terms of the nature and the presentation of individuals seeking services. Thank you. Before we move on, I'm going to ask the clerk, do we have anyone or virtual gallery? No one. Okay. Unask one more time, the one else who wants to come down. Please, we'll get to you. If there's anyone else in the gallery, yes, I see CR, Peter. Please come down. We'll start first with Miss Molka. And please state your name in F5 minutes. Thank you very much. Vicky Schmalka. Let me know if I'm not sure about distance here. I find this very confusing because it seems to me the city has made a decision to close the Integrated Care Hub and the services that offers on Montreal Street. And I want some clarification, please, as has that building being, has the owner of that building being told that the building is being vacated. As of October 1st, is the Integrated Care Hub on Montreal Street actually closing. So because my understanding is that the legislation that allows safe use of drugs in that location requires an address. And I think what I'm hearing staff say is the place is going to close, there can't be a CTS. Regardless of the funding and everything else. And yes, the legislation has a piece that's expiring on September 30th, but there's new legislation that controlled substances regulations that are coming into effect on October 1st. So. Is the city being forced to close the CTS because of changes in legislation. Not talking about funding, but is this a choice the city is making. And if it's a choice, the city is making then it's really, I mean, you're hearing 20, 000 visits, an average of 250 people. You've got a lot of responsibility on your hands as councillors to make sure those people are safe. And I think we've heard very clearly from the library that if they don't have a safe place to go, they will go somewhere else. And they will demand services from somewhere else, or you will have residents demanding services from somewhere else. And I'm just really concerned that we're thinking that the heart hub is going to solve all the problems. And the second clause in the Whereas Clause says with services to transition to the new Kingston Heart Hub. When is that heart hug going to be open? Is it going to provide emergency beds for people as the Integrated Care Hub now does, like those 30 beds? Are they going to be at the heart hub? We know very clearly from a presentation, a Council a few weeks ago from Jamie, who said very clearly, and you are hearing it tonight from a lot of people that it's the heart service is not going to replace safe in the CTS. It's just not. Because people need the CTS as a first stop. And I'm not in any way trying to repeat any of the excellent presentations for members of the public. But I think they've said something very important for you to hear. And I just, I'm not sure about all these assumptions about the CTS closing. I don't know why it has to close. I know the provinces said it can't be funded, but we know the location in the city that works. It's not close to a school. It's not close to a nursery. It's not close to any of the places the city is identified. The province is identified as problematic. Um. We have a responsibility to people in this community. To keep them safe. And yes, they're the people of the community that are struggling the most as we've heard. We can't turn our backs. And I think if this council decides to turn its back, you will find that that is not going to be very popular come October 26th because we're going to see a lot of trouble in the streets that could be prevented if you do the right things now. And one of the right things is to acknowledge that the heart hub is not the solution to this problem. The heart hub is welcome. Great to have the funding. But it's not going to close the gap that you've heard described very clearly. And I'm just going to have a little check. So I do very much want to know how the new legislation coming into on October 1st changes anything and whether the city is giving something up by not having a location to provide to the federal government as to where there might be a safe injection site here. And whether we really have done everything we can as a city to make sure a service that is vital is continued. And, um. 30 seconds. There's missing information here for us. And maybe Councillors know it because they've been talking to staff, but we don't know it as the public. We don't know the future of that Integrated Care Hub building. We don't know why the provincial, the federal legislation is really going to force the closure of that place. We don't know what applications have to be made to keep it operating. And I think the residents of the city need to know the answers to that. Thank you. Thank you. Now just five minutes. You have an opportunity to state your name. You have five minutes. I'm Michelle Schwartz. I'm the coordinator of Feed the People. Uh, first of all, I'd like to thank Counsel's Glenn and McLaren for, uh, acknowledging that we exist. Uh, that threads exist and poet exists because we, for the most part are ignored by the city. Uh, and we save lives every day. And we got no support for manybody. We ask, um, we got a lot of really, uh, uninformed responses and rude responses. And I'm caring responses. We need you. I know it's going to be a hard pill to swallow to accept what Councillor McLaren proposed in an amendment to the new motion. So my first question is, will there be a committee member that will support that, um, amendment to the emotion and include our three groups. No one knows better than us other than CTS. About the struggles of these people. And when CTS closes, guess who your first responders are going to be these people right here. It's time. It's time for change. It's time to embrace us. It's time to acknowledge us. And it's time to give us a little bit of darn credit. Because what we do is hard. What we do is hard. And if the doubt people will be dropping like flies in the park, we know that. You need to know that. You need to come out and see what's going on in the park. That would be my final remark. Please. Work with us when CTS closes. Thank you. Robert. You got five minutes. You state name. Thank you. My name is Robert Gibson. Through trail. I have a few questions. In, clause one. I am wondering if another interpretation of staff that other community groups includes, uh, indigenous racialized and people with disabilities. I didn't have time to resort. So I can't say studies. But I do know that, um, disproportionate amount of people with addictions. That are indigenous visualized or have disabilities. Um, and that's a result of, um, colonialism. And at least in Paul. And medical system. And my second question is for the staff is Q3 before the September 30th date. And is the state, the Oliest that report could come to Council and that's dealing with, uh, the cause three. Uh, and then stain with clause three is only does another mortal city management and civil protection act. Is the only person with authority male Paterson. And as does a male have the authority to declare an emergency prior to receiving this report on Q3. And those are the questions that I have. Thank you for allowing me to ask the questions. Thank you. Okay. File call for anyone who wants to speak. Or ask questions. Going once. Going twice. Three times. Okay. We'll move on. Staff going to, uh, answer the questions put forward in the second round. Commissioner Campbell. Uh, thank you and through you. Um, so I will try to create, I've lost the speaker, but, um, I will try to clarify the timelines, um, and, and address the questions around, um, what's occurring in terms of the timing that has been imposed by the province, um, as well as the timing related to ICH operations and clarify as well, uh, the role of the city or non - role of the city in those directions or timelines. Um, so first ICH operations, uh, are led by AMHS with a consortium of partners. CTS is a specific service offered within the same facility funded by KCHC. At present, ICH operations continue with CTS services in place. The province has now directed the funding that supports those CTS services to be terminated, effective, the end of September. When CTS services are unfunded, KCHC is no longer able to continue to supply or support them in that location unless an alternate funding source is determined. It is not allowed by the municipality to be the alternate funding source to support those services. So in that gap, uh, the CTS or KCHC could continue to offer those services until the exemption from the federal government is removed. So private funding could come forward to allow the continuation of the CTS to operate at its ICH location until the end of October when the federal exemption will be lost. When the federal exemption is lost, KCHC could, if it was to continue to have private funding, made available to it. Request to further extension, which is how three privately operated CTSs are currently operable within the city of Toronto. Those exemptions, as we understand them, are set determinate within the next year and would be subject then. We believe to renewals and requests for renewal. Those are outside of municipal governance or processes. So with the CTS is defunded as we have understood it will be by the direction of the province at the end of September and presuming that they are not able to secure private funding to allow them to continue to operate for 31 days. They will stop operations. At the same time that the end of September is reached. The service is currently offered at the ICH. Those are those that are not the CTS services. Our currently funded through Ministry of Health funding. The Direction provided to AMHS is to prepare to transition. There are services at the ICH into a heart hub model that sees almost a doubling of the funding made available to the ICH for an expansion of services. The city of Kingston currently contributes about, well, not about exactly 500, 000 dollars annually in support of the overnight rest and shelter spaces offered within the ICH. We have spoken directly with the ICH through AMHS's lead. There is no risk to those beds being removed at the end of September. They would be continually operated through the funding cycle, which would take them to March of 2027. In March of 27, and this was shared through a public report to Council last year in a public report to Council, we did confirm that we understand the current lease. It is a privately owned building that the ICH currently operates within. But that lease, which ends at the end of March in 27, is not expected to be renewed and that the emergency zoning provisions that have allowed for the operation of both the ICH and the CTS in that location, in the current structure, will also end. Again, that is not a municipal decision. That is an emergency funding provision that would be lost, um, at the end of a program by the government. So what we have understood from AMHS and have continued to have confirmed to us as heart hub funding has been made available to them, that it remains the ICH's intent to transform into a heart hub, to relocate those services March of 27 to an alternate location, such that they can continue to provide the services that are provided by the ICH today in an expanded capacity and in an alignment with the heart hub direction they've received. The city has made it clear. This was issued publicly in a news release. Um, sorry, I have the date of that news release. A news release, The date of the announcement on April 10 of 26. The city was clear, as was, uh, AMHS as the consortium lead, as was a news release issued by the CTS that we are working together to try to anticipate the impacts of the CTS disclosure. To speak and plan for the opening of a heart hub and to also ensure that the city's commitment to having associated rest areas and overnight shelter beds continue to operate out of the ICH until its closure. In March, or sorry, transition to a heart hub and then beyond that until the closure of the ICH at its current location. And again, at whatever location to which it will transfer. I hope that that helps. Address some of the timing questions. Um, and, uh, so then I will move. I think there are some questions in here from Ms. Morley as well. Um, but if I may, I will move, um, to the gentleman who spoke last and asked some questions. I think there was, um, Michelle had asked some questions specific to Council. So I will, I will leave those to Council on who would support, um, amendments. Uh, the question about equity deserving groups, indigenous engagement and the like, uh, certainly something that we would anticipate and expect to be included within the clauses of those community engagements. Um, that is already occurring, though we may not name them specifically as entities. Um, but we do work with a number of, um, of marginalized and equity sequing, uh, representative community members and groups. And would expect that that would continue. Um, and then to the final one, uh, which I believe was around the date of the report. And I know the city solicitor will comment on the authority of the mayor and the like, um, but the decision or the recommendation to bring a report back to Council know later than the end of Q3 does open up a breadth of opportunity for staff to try to accelerate that reporting back. And certainly we would aspire to do so. Uh, we do need to return to council with reporting on the continued funding for the ICH. We do that annually in the spring. And I imagine that we would be able to include some information, uh, within that report. So Q3 is a very long timeline. And I can't commit to the specific date. We would expect to report back on it this time. But I do anticipate there are opportunities to bring that report back much sooner than the end of Q3. Miss Marley. Thank you. And through you, Mr. Chair. With respect to the final question on the emergency management and civil protection act. It is only the head of Council under that legislation that is able to declare an emergency. I also wanted to build on Commissioner Campbell's comment that municipalities cannot fund or support the funding of a CTS beyond the expiry of the current federal exemption. And perhaps it's most impactful for the public if I read the specific legislation. Section three of the community care and recovery act states as follows. A municipality does not have the power without the approval of the Minister to do any of the following. One, apply to health Canada for an exemption or renewal of an exemption to the controlled drugs and substances act for the purpose of operating a supervised consumption site. Two, apply to health Canada for funding under health candidate substance use and addictions program or any other health candidate program in respect of safer supply services or enter into an agreement with the government of Canada with respect to funding under such a program. And three, a municipality cannot support, including by passing a bylaw or making a resolution any application made to health candidate by any other person in respect of an exemption or a renewal of an exemption to the controlled jugs and substances act. Just going over my notes. Good. Okay. Are there other locations, the CTS could move to. Believe that was one of the questions. Sure, Campbell. It is our understanding through KCHC and prior conversations before we knew that the CTS was being unfunded. So I speak of a kind of pre - direction that the funding is ending. When we had these conversations with Casey HC, um, relative to the lease ending at the current property about where the CTS may be able to move at that time, it was explained to us that the province was not approving new consumption treatment service sites. And as such, there would be no ability to move the funding to a new location. Now since the funding has been removed and an exemption ends at the end of October from the federal government, the ability to move the CTS to a new location would require an additional exemption from the federal government, which we understand is requiring as well a sustainable funding source, which is morally has spoken to as well cannot be from the municipal government. So there are certainly sites within our city that I believe a CTS could operate out of from a sheer building and zoning position. Uh, the question would remain, can they receive an exemption beyond October 31st? And can there be a securing of private funding to continue to support that operation? Thank you. And just confirm the city is forced to close the CTS due to new legislation. Uh, thank you and through the city does not operate the CTS or approve its operation as such. We were not forced to close the CTS. Casey HC is losing the funding that they use to support that operation. Um, at the end of September and at the end of October, they will lose the federal exemption that currently allows that CTS operation. And I believe there's one question as well in regards to the report coming Q3. Is demand only one that's going to receive that report. Sorry. Thanksgiving through you. The question is, is the mayor the only one who would be receiving that report? I believe that was the question. Yeah. Miss Marley. Through you, Mr. Chair, no, that would be a report to Council. Thank you. Um, I guess that's ends this portion. Debate or motion. Floor. Okay. So now we have to put this motion on the floor. Uh, I need him over in a secondary place. I will move this motion. Councillor Amos will move. Council Ridge will second. And now debate is allowed for the members of committee. Councillor Ramos. Thank you, Mr. Chair, through you. Um, I have two amendments that I would like to bring forward to add to the, um, to the current motion number two. And we'll introduce the motions or the amendments first. Oh, one motion. Okay. Thank you. Would stop people put up that motion? Okay. So motion to amend, moved by Councillor Amos, sech McLesh. That motion two be amended by adding the following additional clauses. That Council considers up to 350, 000 dollars as a one - time funding from the working fund reserve. Just support new proposals from new committee groups that introduce pilot projects to reduce harm to the public at potential lower cost to the city. And that staff develop a process with partner expertise for the allocation of funds. And that Council Direct staff to request that Kingston Committee Health Centre collect all consumption treatment services and harm reduction information. And data and report back to city council. Is there a timeline to that? Uh, to keep it with the existing motion timeline. Thank you. And yeah, five minutes to speak to that. Or five or three. Five. I won't take three. Um, listening to the community groups, uh, tonight listening to my fellow colleagues, um, I think this captures everything. I appreciate my colleagues bringing this forward. I worked with staff and behind the scenes as the guest speakers were talking. And I appreciate their support as well through this. Um, I think this captures and gives opportunity for the groups that are here. Um, you can see we're trying to set some money aside, uh, for you to, uh, basically keep doing what you're doing. And helping, helping our community out. And the other aspect is working with KCHC. We don't have that data. At the end of the day, KCHC has that data. And in order for our staff to work, uh, and understand, uh, little bit more. We need that information. And then we can go from there. Pretty straightforward. Anyone else want to speak Councillor Ridge. Thank you Mr. Chairman for you. I also will not take that much time. No, I think that this is a very good amendment. Thank you Councillor Mr. putting this forward. And thank you for the conversation with my colleagues here on the table that has generated this as well as all of the numerous comments and good hard work that's being done by Community Organisations. So yes, I'm happy to support this. Happy to second it. And I look forward to any discussion about it. Anyone else. I have one question for staff considering what we heard earlier. I guess it would depend on how much what information data gets received from. Is there limitation of that. As in private information. Councillor Campbell. I will stay commissioner if I may. Okay. They may remain as commissioner Campbell. Thank you. As Cachc cannot report directly to Council that reporting would be facilitated via a staff report. And in the creation of that staff report, staff would ensure that anything that was being shared that was, uh, confidential or required, um, to be restricted would be either removed or if deem necessary perhaps reported onto Council through an accompanying closed section disclosure, excuse me. But yes, we would work to bring as much of that data forward that we could, um, presuming it was presented to us as requested. Okay. Thank you for confirming. Councillor Ramos. Any further words. No. Okay. All those in favor of the amendment put forward. Councillor Bo. Are you in favor or against. Favor. Okay. The Pastor Dynamislay. So now we have the new motion with the amendment. Put forward. And. Any further discussion. As amended. Council Ridge. Thank you Mr. Chairman through you. Uh, can I just have the motion up so I can see it again, please. I gave out all of my printed copies to everybody in the audience. So I just liked. Uh, thank you very much, Mr. Clerk. I will try my best. Mr. Chair, please don't count this against my time. I'll think about it. Yeah. Thank you very much. Oh. Happy with this motion. I want to say there were a couple of comments that were made during delegations and which not and which speak somewhat to the previous motion. In an ideal world, we would have CTS and hard hub. Like herd hub. We would have both. As has been made, I hope has been made clear. The decision to remove the CTS funding was made by the province. It was not made by the city. It was made by the province. And as municipality, we ourselves cannot fund to CTS services. So there are questions about, or there was a comment that was made earlier, which I loved, which is this isn't about what's legal. This is about what's right. And I agree with that, but I also say that as a city, we have an obligation to follow. The laws that are put out for us as a result of the province. I actually have a meeting with our member Financial Parliament, Mr. Ted Schu tomorrow morning to discuss the results of this meeting. And the motion. And I highly encourage everybody here to reach out to their provincial representative and to other members of the provincial government, specifically the Office of the Minister of Health. In the past, they've advocated repeatedly both of the ministers deputy ministers of health, Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, and other senior government representatives about having a continuum of healthcare. That includes CTS that includes hard hub funding. As per the previous meeting, when I had put forward the motion about The Hart Hub and preserving the shelter beds, the intention there was to acknowledge the direction the government is going so that we would have some resources to help people as opposed to none. Because he had made a very clear about what their position was with regards to CTS. A shocking as it was that the announcement for the cancellation was made. So I'm glad to see that there's some positive steps here in terms of what it is that we can do, figuring out what we can do, and addressing some of those gaps in terms of Councillor Amos's amendment. In community organisations. Is this adequate? Is this moral? Those are questions, I'll just say it. It's not moral. The CTS taking away a funding, I don't believe it is. Everybody has made here, has made arguments as to whether or not it is the right thing to do to remove that funding or remove those services. But we did not make that decision, and we are not able to. Change that. So what can we do as a municipality to fill the gaps. And I understand that's unsatisfactory, and it makes people upset. I mean, I'm not happy about it either. I'm very upset as well. And I was one of the first people to talk to staff from KCHC as soon as the announcement was made. They're one of the first people that they called. So we have to do what we can within the systems that the city is set for us, or sorry, that the province is set for us as representatives of a municipality. We are agents, our creatures of the province. It's not, it's not a good situation to be in. I would not pretend otherwise, but that is the position that we are in. And we need to be realistic about that. And we need to acknowledge that if you have issues with this, which I've clearly heard that you have, that you need to take that up with our provincial representative, and you need to take that up with the provincial government. That's where these decisions have been made. And so we are bound by those decisions. We can try to find other ways to work around that, and we are trying with this, and I'm sure there will be future motions and discussions about this. I'm hearing about the drug testing. There's some conversations going on about that right now. But yeah, so that's where we are. I support this motion. And I just wanted to make sure in my comments to reiterate that for clarity and to, for people to understand that this is not a decision that was made by the city. We cannot fund these services as per the decisions made by the province. And that the province ultimately made the decision. This is a health care - related issue. This is the Ministry of Health. It is not the city. The city is not the ministry of health. And finally, one last thing too. There was a point that was made about the hospitals. What would happen if the province defunded hospitals. The hospital, Kingston Hill Science Centre has an 890 million dollar budget. The city of Kingston has a 520 million dollar budget, and when we raise approximately 240 to 250 million dollars in terms of tax revenue, the rest is from provincial of federal subsidies. So the question that I had at the Last meeting is, why does the hospital. Fund this. And I never got an answer. So if you ever happen to speak to a representative from the hospital, please feel free to ask that question. Thank you very much. Council Ridge, I appreciate those comments. Anybody else. Okay, then I'll call the vote. All those in favor of new motion number two as amended. Okay, this passes unanimously. As a reminder, I'm going to add that this new motion will be going to the May 5th Council meeting. Uh, to be approved by Council. And on that note, I will continue on with the regular business, which is not much. Notice as a motion. There are none other business, there are none. Uh, added correspondence was in the addendum. Uh, the date of the next meeting is scheduled for of the Arts Recreation Community Policies Committee. It's scheduled for Thursday, June 25th, 2026 at 6 p. m. Now for a German. Council Ridge, Council Ramos, all those in favor. Thank you very much. Please have a good night.