Okay, thank you. Please be seated. Okay, this is the 13th uh meeting of municipal council in this session. Um going to start with a land acknowledgement. Uh we are acknowledging that we are gathered today on the traditional lands of the Anesnavic Hoden Shoni Len Paywok and Adawandron peoples. We honor and respect the history, language, languages, cultures of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. We acknowledge all of the treaties that are specific to this area. The two row wampen belt treaty of the Hodnon Confederacy civil covenant chain. The beaver hunting grounds treaty of the Hodnoson Nanfan Treaty of 1701. The McKe treaty of 1790, the Lenin Township Treaty of 1796, the Huran track treaty of 1827 with the Anesnavic and the Dishwith with one spoon covenant wampam of the Anesnavic and Hodnoni. The three indigenous nations uh that are neighbors to London are the Chipoas of the Temps First Nation, Onida Nation of the Temps and the Muny Delaware Nation who all continue to live as sovereign nations with individual and unique languages, cultures and customs. Uh, the city of Lenn is also committed to making every effort to providing alternative formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. If you'd like to make a request specific to this meeting, you can contact council agenda atlondon.ca or 519661-2489 extension2425. All right. Uh with that uh it brings me great pleasure to move to the national anthem section of the agenda. Uh Rachel Rachel Genders Boyd is a traditional English singer from a musical family who spent her childhood surrounded by the rich tradition of the Midlands singing. She grew up performing in folk clubs around Bingham and Derby and has performed with various groups at the Shrewsbury Folk Festival, Warchester Folk Festival and Lichfield Folk Festival. She has been in Canada for 12 years and and nowadays can be found uh helping a host of traditional Irish host uh helping host a traditional uh Irish session at the Scots Corner, leading workshops and singing sessions as part of the Forest City. Uh how do I say this? Kus >> Khaltis Kultis. I've never seen that word. That's excellent. Oh, as well as as well as working with the artistic as the artistic director for the new Four City Irish Fest. Please rise and join me in welcoming Rachel who will now perform the national anthem for us. Oh Canada, our home and native land. True patriot love in all of us command. With glowing hearts we see thee rise the true north and free. From far and wide our Canada we stand on God for thee. God keep our land. Glorious and free. Oh Canada, we stand on God for thee. Oh Canada, we stand on God for thee. Okay. Never had a photo bomb of uh the singer photo, but uh that was uh that was interesting. Thanks for doing that. Uh all right, we're on to disclosures of pecunary interest. I'll look to see if colleagues have any disclosures for today. Okay, seeing none, we'll move to recognitions. I have none. I don't know if colleagues on council have any. No. Okay. Seeing none. Review of confidential matters to be considered in public. There are none. We have council in close session. There are two items on the agenda. I'll look for a motion to move into close session. Moved by councelor Catty. Seconded by councelor Mallister. Any discussion? Okay, we'll open that vote. Closing the vote. Motion carries. 140. >> Okay. So, we'll be moving to committee room 5. The members of the public can stay here. Finished. Okay, please be seated. Okay, that brings us on to confirmation and signing of the previous minutes. We have the minutes from the uh 12th meeting of council held on July 21st. I'll look for a mover and a seconder for those minutes. Moved by councelor Cuddy, seconded by councelor Ramen. Any discussion or amendments to the minutes? Seeing none, we'll open that for voting. Council Torso, Council Prebble. We're >> voting on the option. >> I'm not here yet. Council Prebble. Yes. >> Both verbally noted. Closing the vote. Motion carries. 150. >> Okay. Thank you. We're on to communications and petitions. There are uh 6.1 through 6.5, including addeds. These all refer to items at various points in the agenda. There's a consolidated motion to refer all those items to the points where we'll be discussing them. So I'll look for someone who's willing to move that. Councelor PL is seconded by councelor Virburgen. Any discussion on that? Seeing none, we'll open that for voting. >> Trust votes. Yes. >> Council approval. Noted. Thank you. Closing the vote. Motion carries. 15-0. All >> right. Item seven, uh, motions to which notice was given, we have none, which means we're on to item number eight, reports. Uh, the first report we'll receive is the report from the planning and environment committee. I'll turn it over to the chair, councelor Layman, to present the report. >> Thank you, mayor. Please present the 12th report of the planning and environment committee. We've had um item number 11 requested to be pulled. and also uh item number seven, Councelor Hillier. Yes. Thank you. Through the chair, if you could also please pull item number 10 uh 1047, 1055 Duners Drive so I can remain consistent. Thank you. >> Absolutely. We can do that separate. So that so far that's 7, 10, and 11. Anyone else? Okay. Councelor Layman, I'll let you move a motion. >> Thank you. So I'll move uh items 1 through 6, 8, and nine. Okay. Okay, 1 through 6, 8 and nine are on the floor. I'll look for any discussion on those matters. Go ahead, councelor Troau. >> Was I'm sorry, was nine deferred or is nine as it was at the committee. >> Uh nine is as it was at the committee. Um it's part of the the group of motions. So, whatever the committee did is what is happening with nine and that was referred at committee. So, that referral is essentially part of the consolidated motions. Okay. >> Sorry, Council Ky, you had your hand up, too. Thank you, chair. I'd like to uh thank staff for the work you've done on Kalle Road. We've turned a country road into a it's going what's going to be a a virtual bike path with um lots of mobility. Um and uh it's just an exciting project. This has been a road that has required uh attention for many years. When um I first came to council, uh this was an issue that my client my constituents had discussed with me and uh with the help of and the aid of staff with our mobility team, we've been able to turn this road or it will be turned into a really great transit um for active transit for not only for motorists but also for pedestrians and for cyclists. So, this is an exciting project. I'm looking forward to seeing it finished next year. And uh I appreciate again staff the work you've done. Thank you >> councelor Hopkins. >> Yeah. Thank you uh your worship. I'd like to make a comment on number five which is the report of the community advisory committee on planning. I did have a letter um attached to the advisory uh report. I know um having a um development in Ward Nine uh with a heritage designation and an opportunity of a developer taking advantage of um some um incentives that we offer. Uh I could see the results of how we can protect some of our heritage and as we address the number of heritage designations that will be coming to us. Uh I am very supportive of uh the CAC's request to explore and report back on tax and other financial incentives or programs. I know at planning uh the uh vice chair put forward a motion to look at a incentive for just uh heritage property tax relief program which I'm very supportive but I would have uh just liked a further opportunity for staff to explore more opportunities and report back to us. So those are my comments. >> Any other comments on the matters before us? Okay, seeing none, we'll open that for voting. >> Closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. >> Council layman. >> Thank you. So, I'll put uh seven on the floor. This is a small housekeeping amendment. Um so, I guess we would have to move the amendment. Is that correct? Yes. So, you put the original staff recommendation on the floor and then you can move the the technical amendment the staff. Um >> Okay. So, I'll put that the floor and I'll move the uh the amendment. >> Okay. So, the uh main items on the floor. Um councelor Layman has moved an amendment. Uh I need a seconder for the amendment. Councelor Pelosa on the amendment. >> Okay. See none. We'll open that for voting. Yes, councelor Farah. >> Uh, thanks, Mayor Thu. Can we just get an update on the housekeeping amendment? Just some of the details on that. >> Sure. >> Uh, I think it's Miss O'Hagen who will update us on that. >> Hi. um through your worship. So, the housekeeping amendment is to recognize that the Southwest Area Secondary Plan has been repealed. At the time of the planning committee, um it was still in force because the appeal period hadn't gone through. We didn't receive any appeals to the Southwest area plan um being repealed. So, now all of the special policies will go directly into the London plan. >> Councelor Ferrer. Okay. Thank you for that. And just to follow up, uh, when did we get that information? >> Go ahead. >> Um, through your worship. Um, the appeal period ended on August, uh, 20th. >> Counselor. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Uh, anyone else on the amendment? Okay. We'll open that up for voting. closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. >> Uh and now the as amended motion. Councelor Layman, you're willing to move. >> I'll move a second for that. Councelor Hopkins. Any discussion on the as amended motion now? Councelor Hopkins, go ahead. Sorry. >> Yeah. Thank you uh your worship. This is a development in Ward 9 and I want to thank the committee uh for adding an amendment given that uh we there's a potential of seeing up to 9,000 people living in this development to look into uh future transit through the master mobility plan. So want to thank the committee for adding that to the recommendation. >> Okay. Anyone else on the asmened motion? Seeing none, we'll open that up for voting. >> Closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. >> Go ahead, counselor. >> So, I'll put uh item number 10 uh on the floor. This was requested to be pulled by councelor Hillier. >> Okay. Uh so, this one's on the floor by the uh chair. Any discussion on this? Okay, seeing none, then we'll open that for voting. >> Closing the vote. Motion carries 13-2. >> Go ahead, Council Layman. >> Thank you. I'd like to put uh item number 11 on the floor. This was requested to be pulled by councelor Stevenson. Okay, this is on the floor. I'll look for any discussion. Yep. Go ahead, Councelor Stevenson. Thank you. Yes, I pulled this one after discussions with the uh developer. The concern is I believe um the the derogatory implications on the developer without us looking at both sides of the situation and what happened. So what I wanted to know a couple of questions through you to staff. Um, is was this a really unusual situation where this uh kind of a condition was put in place? And if if not, could you just tell me how this usually goes in terms of uh compliance around the conditions? >> Mr. uh through your worship. So there was a a direction at committee to add recommendation to approval authority to uh work with the the owner of the property to be able to come up with a an accommodation uh opportunity. So we did that. Unfortunately, there's no way for us to put that into an agreement. So that's why we don't have a a provision to actually require this uh accommodation to happen. But we do have of course through our normal processes um our run eviction related bylaw and that is are the main way and usual way or how we would address a situation like this. So it is a bit of a different situation than we usually have um uh compared to other areas in the city. >> Councelor Stevenson. >> Thank you. So um when we're when we're looking at this motion and what's being requested in terms of uh a report back on the status whether uh conditions have been satisfied and what authority can I just ask through you to staff um like well I'm I'm just really wondering how worthwhile this is given that there is a uh the OLT process and we seem to be like getting in there and causing potentially some issues in the process in a jurisdiction that isn't ours. And so I'm just looking through you to staff for some uh your thoughts on this motion currently before us and the concerns of the developer that we're uh we're creating some issues potentially in another jurisdictional process. >> Go ahead, Mr. Mathers. uh through your worship, we're of course always happy to to bring back information reports. Um we were able to provide the bulk of the information at committee, just noting that there there isn't uh we're very restricted for what we can do to be able to enforce this matter. There is other bylaws that do cover um uh these types of situations that we will ensure that we continue to enforce. Um but uh we can provide that further information, but there's not a lot of additional detail be that I think will be helpful for you making a different decision. Okay, councelor Stevenson. >> Uh, thank you. Actually, that just that last reference to making a decision like what what decision will be before council after getting this report, >> Mr. Mayers? Uh, through your worship. So, that there isn't any action to take at this time. There was of course uh the the the letter that was brought forward and uh the delegation um requesting for council to consider this matter, but there isn't any tangible action that that you could take related to a planning matter uh because that's already a decided matter of council. So there it would just be to receive that information and to receive that report if you um uh decided to do so. >> Councelor Stevenson, >> thank you. So, this is the reason why I've pulled this and I'm going to be voting against it is we're asking for a report on information that isn't going to lead to any kind of a decision that is, you know, we we've got written correspondence from the developer saying, um, you know, as outlined in the attached letter, my actions were publicly misrepresented before the planning and environment committee without anyone first contacting me for my position or requesting the supporting documentation. I consider it fundamentally unfair and unreasonable for conclusions about my conduct to be stated publicly without giving the affected party any opportunity to respond, particularly where the documentary record contradicts the assertion that replacement units were never offered. Elected officials should exercise appropriate care before making factual statements that can affect an individual's reputation. This is the the uh communication on the public record from the developer. We're hearing from staff that asking for this report isn't going to do anything at all. It's we we could like I don't want to go into legal session or anything to know how council might be implicated in the misrepresentations and the uh injurious uh reputational harm here. >> I'm going to point of point of order. Now, she's she's clearly making legal conclusions here that she's not in a position. >> A a point of order would be on procedural order. It's not on rebutting uh the statements the counselor is making. She's not she's not a lawyer. She's not providing legal advice. She's not our solicitor. She's making comments on the matter before us. You're more than welcome to debate those comments and refute them in your own course and time, but um I have to let the counselor continue with her discussion. There's no point of order related to the content of the counselors unless it's a point of personal privilege, which I I don't think the counselor is moving into. She's providing her opinion here. >> Thank you. And I wasn't implying any legal knowledge on my behalf. I just said to me, this doesn't even warrant going in to find out whether there's any legal implications. I don't see why we would support a motion and take time uh for staff to prepare a report on something that isn't going to lead to any kind of decision, isn't going to do anything and has been, you know, fairly clearly objected to by the developer in question here. So my recom I will not be supporting this and I would encourage council as well not to support it cuz I'm not sure what we're doing here other than you know looking like we're doing something and and there are always two parties and that's the thing I think we have to be careful when we take one side or the other without having uh considered both parties and given them an opportunity to speak and be represented. Um, I also have other concerns around some of this, but I'm going to leave it for offline in terms of future future ways of handling this and maybe understanding the uh implications that we might be causing uh either party in terms of OOLT um or uh LTB matters. 30 seconds. >> I guess you know we all want more housing options in this city and we're also looking to protect existing tenants and I think that's a good thing but I think we have to be careful about how this is done and when things are brought forward in this manner uh the implications and the uh the way other parties are affected. So, I'm just going to leave it there and just say that I won't be supporting this. >> Okay. Any other speakers to this? Go ahead, councelor Troa. >> We often we often find our through the chair. We often find ourselves in a situation where this this jurisdiction is operating under a variety of different provincial laws and sometimes they conflict with each other. Sometimes there are boundaries that are not clear. sometimes uh maybe a better job could be done by the provincial government in terms of legislating a harmonious relationship between these different policy pieces. But I I think this suggests that the council is not in a position to try to find some kind of harmony between different pieces of legislation and actually to try to do that constitutes some type of uh uh meddling into a place that we don't we don't belong. Yes, there might be implications if we do something here, but then again, there might be implications if we don't do something here. And I'm real clear that the implications for not doing anything here are tenants are going to suffer potential prejudice. And I'm not I'm not litigating that question right now. And I'm not issuing a uh an opinion on how a court would deal would deal with this. But I think that we are under an obligation to try to do as much information seeking as we can. And the fact that something arises under the planning act doesn't mean we can't take into account a whole variety of other p public policies that we're bound to uh observe. So I I welcome this uh this resolution. I I probably would have drafted it a little stronger, but this is this is fine. This is this is good. And I think that the information that comes back to us will be useful for us to uh set a course and ask the question what next what can this council be doing in order to avoid these types of conflicts between different um different parts of our of our of our laws. So I think this is a very important exercise and to say that this is just going to lead this is just a road to nothing that is going to lead to uh us not being able to do anything. We can always amend our bylaws. We can always amend the bylaws that are within the city of London's jurisdiction, which by the way is very broad. It's very broad. And we we we've stepped into and many other cities have stepped into the jurisdiction of looking at um what rights tenants might have uh with respect to their units in situations where the owner decides to uh exercise remedies under uh under the provincial landlord tenant law. And um this is this is a good development. It it shows that our relationship between the province and cities is developing and is not rigid and stale. So this is exactly the kind of motion that we should be um using to get ourselves some more information if for no other reason to help inform our future policym. So I will be supporting this motion and uh I thank the counselor for bringing it and I think uh I think the objections to it are not well taken. So uh thank you very much. Any other speakers to this matter? Councelor Frank, go ahead. >> Thank you. Yes. And I just wanted to speak to the rationale as to why the letter was submitted. Uh, and the main reason I'm bringing this forward is to gain a greater understanding of if there are other legal implications in regards to the commitments that were made and not specifically in regards to the planning matters as we've already heard from planning staff that there is not a lot that they can do through the site plan authority. Um, for example, some of the information I'd be interested in is if there's any recourse for the city, um, having been given any kind of incomplete or false information that influences project submissions. In the same way, we have a list of businesses that we won't procure from if they violate contracts. Is there something similar for developers who do not make commitments? This is the kind of information that I would like to understand and know more of. And in addition to the comments made earlier about uh claims made by the developer, I've repeatedly asked for additional information from the developer that proves the claims that they're making included in the letter. Um I've never seen them. They're never sent to me despite being asked repeatedly. And if there are documents, I don't know if anyone has seen them. Um I would be interested in those. And I do want to read an excerpt um from the submission that we had from the tenants legal representation in regards to the accommodation. And so ultimately at the tribunal, they acknowledged two letters from the contractor, from the landlord's contractor, both indicating temporary units could not be safely serviced or occupied due to construction difficulties over winter, noting that they anticipated completing the work by the end of the month. Uh that said, the letters were corroborated by the author and the landlord's contractor. By way of background, the tenants were offered who were offered a temporary unit. An offer that went out to two of five units who were remaining at the time had submitted pictures of the units proposed for relocation showing the units to be uninhabitable. This was backed up at the landlord's witness uh by the landlord's witness at the April 9th hearing. Also notable, the two notices of temporary units that went out stated that the tenants would have access to those units effective in February, which was confirmed at the April 9th hearing to be not true. So there are, you know, as we heard, some various opinions on this matter. Um, but I think that's an example of why we would get some information from staff to be able to make informed decisions moving forward and have a greater understanding of what our limitations are. And I also think it's a great example as to why we desperately need a tenant relocation assistance program that would require temporary accommodations and that would legally bind the developers to something. And again, I think that this information would provide that context for counselors and the future council moving forward. So, I seek your support in getting that information back. >> Any other speakers to this matter? >> Um, council, your time's actually up. >> Not not speaking, just saying I'd like to vote on C separately. It's the non uh address specific one. I'll I'll support that one, but not the address specific one. >> Sure, we can we can divide out the motion. Uh, I apologize. I'll take that back. They're all address specific. So, I'm going to vote note everything. >> Makes it actually a little bit easier. We don't have to recraft the motion. So, I'll look for other speakers though before we move to that. Councelor Ferrer, go ahead. >> Uh, thanks, Mayor. I don't have too much to add. I just wanted to say to the questions um first I appreciate the motion coming from the counselor. I appreciate the comments that were made. But the question to what are we doing here? We are bringing some form of accountability to developers with a specific case study that shows that this is needed. Um is it worthwhile? Yes, it's worthwhile. You know, if we can save at least one person to be staying within their home, that is worthwhile. If we can save 100, that is worthwhile. We have a big crisis here when it comes to homelessness. We have a big crisis here when it comes to people at risk of becoming homelessness. This is not something that we should be looking at in isolation. This is something that spreads across um a lot of different service areas, a lot of different actions that council is doing. We should look at that in a holistic way. We should look at this in something that it involves our homelessness response. It involves our preemptively seeing if we can keep people in their home. This is a motion that is basically a case study that tells us that we should be looking at more preemptive actions when it comes to mitigating individuals who are at risk of losing their housing. So, I'm going to be full support of this. I totally agree with Councelor Frank's um direction when it comes to replacement, when it comes to relocation, when it comes to assistance for moving if we have to have some kind of repairs or renovations. I totally support that. So, I think that's really where we uh need to start looking at. We need to start looking at preemptive movements of what we can do to preempt individuals who are at risk of becoming homeless and to keep people in their homes. So, I'm going to fully support this and I think council should fully support this as well. >> Any other speakers? >> Okay, then it's the full motion before us and we're going to open that for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to2. Councelor Layman. Thank you, Mayor. That completes the 12th report of the planning environment committee. Okay. Uh we're on to the 12th report of Community Texas Services Committee. I'll turn it over to Chair Ramen to present that report. >> Thank you. And through you, I'd like to present the 12th report of the Community and Protective Services Committee. I've been asked to pull items three and four and I'll just look around the room, see if there's anything else to pull. >> Okay, three and four separate. Anything else? >> Okay, seeing none, you go ahead. >> Thank you. I'll put on the floor items 1, two, five, and six. >> Okay, one, two, five, and six are on the floor. Any discussion on those matters? Go ahead to council approval. >> Thank you, mayor. answer through you to the to the staff. I have a question regarding the 4.1 from the committee or six on the agenda today. I know we were talking about the coming back future to the committee. Uh and I was just wondering which one in September are we planning to receive it back. Thank you >> Mr. Dickens. Go ahead. >> Uh thank you. You're worshiping through you. Uh we will be coming to the second caps meeting in September. Uh we wanted to see how uh council as a whole voted on this item today, noting that the deadline for the first caps uh meeting to submit our reports would be this week to the clerk's office. So we'll be aiming for the second caps in September. >> Councelor Privile. >> Thank you, Mayor. No more questions. Thank you. >> Okay. Any other questions on the matters before us? Okay. See none, we'll open that for voting. closing vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. >> Council Ramen. >> Thank you. I'll put item 3 2.2 on the floor. The proposed winter response for 2627. >> Okay, that's on the floor. I'll look for speakers and discussion. Uh, go ahead, Councelor Stevenson. >> Thank you. Just clarifying procedure. I have an amendment, but I have some questions that that might add to this amendment. So, can I ask those or do I have to do it right away? So, as you're speaking now, it's going to count towards your uh time on the main motion. Uh if at the point that you move an amendment, which you would need to do during your first time for speaking, uh you could move the amendment if it's seconded, that would be a new motion, you could speak to the amendment at that point. So, the answer is yes. >> Okay, perfect. Thank you. So through you uh to staff, I just want to follow up on a question that I have uh been asking about and that is the 30 spaces at 696 Dundas Street operated by Arcade that are part of this proposed winter response. I'm still trying to understand how this has come forward as a staff recommendation with the um already council approved policy that there won't be resting spaces on the main street of a BIA. >> Mr. Dickens. >> Uh thank you. and through you your worship. Um, yes, that's that is uh that is the case or had been the case. Uh, we've gone back through to look at uh some extensive digging on various council resolutions and council directions and there was a point in time where council actually voted to suspend that requirement. Uh they did set a date of April 30th. there were um a meeting held in February of 2026 uh where it was discussed um uh that there would be uh changes made and and that uh oversight or that provision be uh be eliminated for the winter. Um, so what you uh have also directed staff to do was to go out and um engage with the community to find as many spaces uh as needed to go out and canvas uh what was available uh for those winter months. Uh so we came back uh with what the community has offered and what they propose that they can deliver. So before council would be a decision of endorsing or supporting uh those spaces which would mean uh therefore supporting the location in which they are provided. Uh what kind of muddies this in in throughout is that council supported a 2-year winter response plan uh with that uh provision that they could exist and then modified it uh throughout and sent us uh to do uh a different approach in year two of the 2-year approved plan. So, all of that to say, uh, we are before you with here's what the community said they could offer offer you for the winter. Uh, and these are the locations in which they can be provided. Should council wish to have those locations, you would in fact be endorsing that they're permitted to be there. >> Councelor Stevenson, >> thank you. Not to belabor this, but I have sent emails about this since the beginning. the the that committee meeting where we uh waved that requirement until April 30th was done by committee and council that was us. I had a motion brought forward with counselors Frank Trosau uh Ferrer regarding the immediate need that we were in in that winter and uh I agreed to wave the the provision and and committee and council obviously supported but it was me that had pushed it's my BIA main street ward where the oversaturation continues to occur three and a half years later 10 years later however long this has been going on. So, I understand that council can override their own policies, but what brought was brought forward by staff seemed to not take into account the policy that had been passed by this council that there they wouldn't be on the main street of a BIA. And the first communication that I got back said that uh staff were going to be looking at the clerk, working with the clerk to see if there was going to be some kind of uh motion required to make this go through. And um I spoke with uh senior leadership yesterday as well to follow up on how did this come forward from staff because my understanding throughout this term of council has been that staff have to operate under the council policies but council can make different changes. So what I'm hearing right now and I just want to confirm is that we don't need to acknowledge the way we did in February that notwithstanding the because I believe that was the motion notwithstanding the current policies we made an exception until April 2026 under the assumption that we were all still committed to moving forward with addressing the oversaturation issues and that in the immediate emergency we were going to allow it but hoping that something better trusting that there were other options for the city than one particular street within a few block radius. So I just want to confirm that the last motion was and notwithstanding the policy and I'm still and I would like an answer as to how this gets brought forward to this right now uh acting as though we didn't have that policy that council has said not on the main street of a BIA. >> Miss Sters Bear. >> Thank you through you. Um and I appreciate the question being asked. I think it's probably fair to say that as staff we bring forward advice to council and as Mr. Dickens has said, we have brought forward a a suggestion that this be considered. We absolutely appreciate that council made a different decision before. It doesn't mean that we don't have an opportunity to come back to you and say we're in a housing crisis. We have an issue for the winter. We have uh a provider who's willing to do this. If it is council's direct, we didn't want to eliminate or not provide to you all of the information on this issue. We acknowledge that council has a different decision. It doesn't keep us though from asking you to reconsider that decision. It's not to change your decision. It's just to ask you to reconsider it. And that's why it's being brought back to you today. If the the choice is to go a different way, we're happy to take that and go back with the existing policy. >> Councelor Stevenson. >> Thank you. That so then through the clerk, do we not need something in there that says notwithstanding the current policy, we're making another exception? Like are we I I was just surprised that that wasn't in the report asking for council's reconsideration. >> Give me one second on that. Okay, I'm going to just try to give an answer and then I might have to go to staff or the clerks again. So, um, if I understand correctly, the, uh, what I've heard is, uh, the previous decision of council about, um, uh, not on the main street of a BIA, uh, is suspended as part of a 2-year winter response program. uh council makes uh an adjustment halfway through that two years that had a notwithstanding attached to it, but council makes an adjustment between halfway through the two years to say um bring us some other options. We want to look at this staff brings back a report. You know, I guess it depends on if staff feel it's substantially different from the um previous winter response uh and and would require an updated notwithstanding or whether uh or whether it can just stand with the previous one. Regardless, it's been more than 12 months and council can essentially decide uh how to proceed at this point in time. Um but I I would have to go to staff on the whole piece about, you know, which way you went and why you went uh that way on it. >> Thank you. And three-year worship, when we initially brought the winter response, it was a two-year response. It was funded for two years. Uh earlier this spring, you asked us to come back with an enhanced response, more beds. uh in particular looking at tier three and and that's what we did. Uh we came back because we didn't have sufficient beds. We came back with a proposal because we knew uh opening a community center again was not the right decision in tier three. So we knew we had to look for beds. So we went out to our community to look for where are the options? where can we have beds enhancing our current winter response that we brought uh forward with you for 2526 and 2627. So we brought forward and enhanced the the the original response by enhancing tier three and by seeking additional funds and the and the most important change is that you asked us to look at um do we look at the minus15 threshold or do we look at opening our doors 24/7 from December to March 31st. So those are the change recommended changes based on community and based on our evaluation and learnings from the initial first year of the winter response and that's what we brought forward for council to make decision on. >> Okay. Councelor Stevenson. >> Thank you. I just say to my colleagues, I've been working on this since committee. So this isn't like a last minute thing that I'm doing here today. The 2-year winter response did not include the spaces on at 696 Dundas Street. That was something that we as counselors brought forward as an emergency response that ended April 2026 uh that said notwithstanding our current policy. So um I I find this very frustrating. I'll admit that uh that it's like this. I find it really frustrating. Um I'm going to and that's why I wasn't sure what else I was going to add onto this amendment. So, I do have an amendment that I'm going to move and I am going to add one more section. >> Um, I'll read out the one that's been circulated. >> Yeah, if if that's one you're moving, you can read it out. But if you're adding something to it, you can read it all out together. if so >> I'm still making it up my head here because we're on the fly. I I assumed that this was drafted by staff already. I've followed up as as early as yesterday. So, um the answer to my colleague who's speaking to me beside me is the answer staff would draft it is because uh that there should be a requirement to move something that council had already >> I'm going to say you don't have to respond to your colleague deciding. Your colleague decides you should not be talking to you where you're presenting your debate. So, I'll ask the colleague who was talking to please allow the counselors to ask their questions and make their points. If you'd like to speak, you can put your hand up and speak to the motions before us. Um, >> so, councelor Stevenson, maybe just read out that and then we'll we'll add to it with what you're adding to. >> I'm just trying to do this efficiently as well. Um, how much time do I have right now? So she's got you spoke for about 3 minutes and 50 seconds before you started introducing the amendment. So >> Okay. And if I can I do two amendments or do I have to do it all in one? Okay. So, if you've submitted some some language, you want to put that on the floor, you've got something substantially different that you want to add to it. I mean, not contrary, but but substantially different that you want to add to it, you can subsequently make an amendment to the amendment like all members of council can. uh if they're pretty much the same thing, you're just adding to it. Like if it's not a distinct part, then you know it probably should go al together. So there's really two options before you. >> Okay. Thanks. I think it is distinct. I'm going to move forward with this so that I can think about the uh other piece. So my amendment is that the motion be amended to include a new part that reads as follows. The implementation of the proposed winter response for 2026 27 be subject to the following. I council approval of the proposed to be determined arcade location be required prior to the execution of any contract related to that location. I I all contracts related to the proposed winter response be placed on a public agenda immediately following their execution. and I I I all proposed locations be subject to fire and bylaw compliance review and sign off by the appropriate city officials prior to the execution of any related contract. Okay, I'll look for a seconder for that. Councelor Hillier is willing to second. Okay, give us just one sec. Okay. So, we've got that. It's moved and seconded. Um, now, if you want to speak to the amendment now, I'll just remind you, you got to move the amendment to the amendment the first time you speak because you only get to speak once at council. So, just early heads up on that. >> Yeah. Um going okay, you can still speak to the amendment cuz all you did was put on the floor move and seconded. So, but you're going to see if other colleagues want to speak first. We can do that. Okay. Does anybody else want to speak to the moved and seconded amendment as it's on the floor? I don't see anyone. Councelor Prible, go ahead. Thank you, sir. And to the staff, I do have a question. Let's go for the I part and proposed arcade locations the way it is right now. Would 696 would be included in it or would it be just the additional one? If you can please confirm that to be based what's in front of us. >> Thank you. And through you your worship, this would be for the new location. It would not include 690 the proposed location 696 Cron and Warner. This would be for their third location that they are currently uh searching for. >> Okay. Thank you for the confirmation. And for the II uh sorry subject if I can I get a from legal in terms of the placing those on the public agenda if I can get a feedback from the legal department please >> go ahead. >> Thank you. and three or worship. Once the contract's been executed, there should be no issue with uh public disclosure subject to um any information that had been agreed to be kept confidential. >> Council Po, >> thank thank you for that. And for the III, if I can get a feedback from our B law enforcement team, >> go ahead Mr. Mathers. >> Three worship. So we would we would undertake the same protocol as we do for all buildings. We ensure we follow up after bylaw compliant for unapplying a bylaw compliance perspective to make sure that they're abiding by the city's bylaws. >> Go ahead, councelor Prible. >> Thank you to all three of you for your answers. I have councelor Ramen and then councelor Pelosa. >> Thank you. you and through you and on the amendment. Um on part three of the amendment, I'm just wondering if staff are aware of any potential issues around the fire and bylaw compliance review and how they anticipate or read that. >> Go ahead. >> Interpret that. Sorry. >> Thank you. you enter through your worship in conversation with the fire chief uh at noon today. I uh I shared this with her and we follow we ensure all buildings follow the fire code. So depending on how it's zone, it would be no different than any other building following the fire code that we have uh that we have across the city. >> Council Roman. >> Uh thank you and through you. So, I just uh I I want to make sure I understand that any current location that was included in the report has met fully all fire and bylaw compliance so far to date. So therefore, they would not be excluded in the future because of some outstanding matter or potential emergency order that was given to be able to establish said location. Thank you. And through your worship, that is my understanding. I can confirm with the London Fire Department, but I have not been aware of any buildings that have not uh that are that are included in this list, noting that one is to be determined. So, we would have to ensure that that met the fire code. And remember, warming spaces are different than emergency shelters when it's looked at through the fire code. for example. >> Go ahead. >> Thank you. And through you, but the language in the winter response includes both. And so I'm just wanting to confirm because we may have some warming spaces that aren't uh potentially or may potentially have some challenges. >> Thank you. And through your worship, both uh both spaces, not the one that's not determined, acted as warming spaces in the past winter response. And there were no concerns at that time with respect to the code or the zoning. >> Council Ronin. >> Uh thank you. and through you and I'd like to move an amendment to the amendment or an amendment to the main motion whichever you perceive to be better. So councelor, you kind of ask a question of me there at the end which way you could do it. You can move an amendment to the amendment now. Um that's no problem. If it's related to the amendment if it's more related to the general provision, you've not spoken yet to the main motion. You could also move an amendment to the as amended motion or the main motion depending on that this passes or not to change a component of it. So I guess I'm in your hands on is it related to these clauses or is it related to another piece or is if you feel like it it has to be attached to this then I would say do it now. If you feel like it's more independent um then you could do it um at the main motion. >> Thank you. And three it's variable. So the first part of them this motion reads the implementation of the proposed winter response and part D also reads that be directed to implement. So it's the implementation piece that I'm trying to amend. So it's either councelor. I think I know what you're going for it. So, it says in this piece the implementation of the proposed winter response be subject to the following. Um, when we go back to the main motion, you can you can change the top level implementation piece because if you did it now and then this failed, then you might have to do it again. But you could just have it apply to all because the counselor's main pieces of the clauses are 1, two, and three. Um, uh, and the be subject two piece, but you can I mean you could adjust the the the implementation piece in the main clause, which I think was D. Um, and then depending on where this lands, is this landing under D You could do it after you could change the word implementation in in its in its forms throughout the as amended motion or the main motion after this is passed but we don't know what you're trying to do. So you might need to give us more context. We could probably rule a little bit better on this. >> Okay. Thank you. Um so I'll my context I guess is this. I would like to amend this motion to include part D notwithstanding council policy regarding the existence of resting spaces on the main street of a BIA. Okay. So, our advice after some discussion is do it now because given the context of your motion, um this the support or not for clauses, you know, these new clauses that councelor Steven Hassan has proposed may be subject to the the clause that you want to put linked to the implementation. If this passes um in the as amended motion the implementation piece would need to be cleaned up because you can't implement it without you know doing these things and so we will have changed the subject two piece on the implementation. So now is the time to do it um and then it will it will it will link in with the main motion. You won't have to do something later because it'll it'll be part of it. Okay. All right. Could you just read it out and then I'll seek a seconder and then you can provide some more rationale because it'll be an as amended motion. >> Thank you. Uh that the motion be amended to be further amended to add a new part IV that reads as follows. Uh notwithstanding a council policy regarding the existing resting spaces on the main street of the BIA. >> Is there a seconder for that? Councelor Fro. Okay. So now we're only going to debate that addition to the amendment. So we're not debating the amendment. We're debating that additional uh clause onto the amendment. Go. Would you like to speak now? Okay. Go ahead. >> Uh thank you. two and three. So, I want to thank councelor Stevenson for pointing out what was missing from uh our discussion and I think it's important that uh that this discussion u be framed correctly and that the information be put in this light. Um, I know there was support for this uh last uh last year when we were looking at resting spaces and part of the reason for that support to allow resting spaces on the main street of a BIA was because we didn't have a lot of options for where else people could go. And so here we are. We've received staff's report. Staff have outlined the locations that were possible for uh overnight spaces. And this was one that was put forward. uh and I want to make sure that not on the technicality uh but purposefully we're addressing the issue so that there is those spaces available or for this upcoming winter. Um so appreciate that we're having this discussion here. I'm sorry that it didn't happen at committee. Um and hope that this uh helps us to move forward on this matter. >> Okay. Other speakers on the further amendment. Go ahead, council Tro just on the amendment because I'll come back to the um just on the amendment to the amendment. I'll come back to the amendment. >> Um I think it's a good amendment to the amendment. I think it's a reasonable amendment to a bad amendment. So, I'm going to support the amendment to the amendment. I'm not going to support the amendment, but we'll get to that later. Um for now what I want to say is um I hope that was clear. Yeah. Okay. Uh for now what I want to say is I I've always felt that this whole prohibition against having uh these activities that are that are that are lawful activities that are within that are within the appropriate zoning that are things that are being uh controlled and uh monitored by the property owner. probably was a bit of an overreach and should they be challenged there there could be substantial issues. Now, I'm not I'm not asking the the uh solicitor for an opinion as to whether or not this framework is subject to a successful attack. All I'm saying is when we come back and make these amendments, we're just showing a level of flexibility that that shows we're trying to amilarate the potential harshness of of the underlying rule. And I think should we find ourselves in a situation where we're trying to defend our um our work, that would help us a lot. So, uh, that's why I'm supporting Council Ramen's, uh, amendment. Does does the underlying measure say, uh, you can't do this on the street or does it say you can't do it on any premises with an address on the street? I don't have that in front of me. >> Mr. Dickens, >> thank you, your worship. I I need a moment to pull up the exact wording, but it was tied to city funding only. So, not self-funded or funded through other parties, but any municipal funded service uh on the main street of a BIA. It did not specify whether it was in a dwelling, out of a dwelling or anything like that. >> And if I understand the situation, they are not housing people on the street, are they? >> Go ahead, Mr. Diggins. through your worship. That is that is correct understanding. >> Um, hence one more level of ambiguity in this underlying uh measure that that could create problems for us if it was challenged. No, I'm not I'm not going to uh make a further motion that we we uh we we do some major changes to what we already um uh agreed to, but I just I just think that given given that ambigu ambiguous language, which could be problematic because for me being on the street means being on the street. Um, I just I just think that this kind of um amendment just sort of gives us the kind of uh flexibility that could really assist us later if if we got into uh legal legal trouble. So, I'm not I'm going to vote against the entire thing, but well, the entire amendment, but if the amendment passes, it's much stronger and much better with this. So, thank you for thank you for bringing that, counselor. Okay, I have councelor McAllister next. >> Uh, thank thank you through the mayor. Uh, I do appreciate the discussion today. Um, I think councelor Stevenson had mentioned this earlier, but um, I do take a bit of issue in terms of when we have these discussions in terms of the notwithstanding the the council policy. Um, I think back to the time when we had this debate uh, and it is predominantly the two BAS that are constantly impacted by this. I do recognize in terms of the time restriction we've put on this also recognizing we have limited options as councelor Ramen said um but when I look ahead to the um the budget ask that will be made in the next cycle I think that that is the time where we need to have those discussions in terms of locations and where we see these things long term because right now I think it is incredibly unfair even when we say BIA it's not it's two BAS u I experienced this with the coffee house. OEV has experienced this for a number of years. And so I'm just expressing the frustration that I'm hearing from the BIA members, from the community members that we are constantly putting it on the shoulders of two communities. And that is why I'm trying to say to council that when this discussion comes back for those um budget discussions that we need to recognize that we have repeatedly asked two areas of the city to shoulder the responsibility and that is grossly unfair. When we say the notwithstanding this policy, I was very serious in that discussion that these are the two BAS and if I have to change the language to explicitly say Hamilton Road and OEV which will eventually become one or not one but they will be in one ward. Uh I will change the language accordingly if I have to to call out those BAS because they have shouldered this for far too many years. So I'm just calling it out. I recognize again the situation we're in. We do have some lead time, but this is absolutely the last time that I am willing to support an extension of this sort because we have no other options right now. I am looking forward to uh with this amendment in terms of well, this is the amendment to the amendment, but having um that location discussed because I don't I think it would be unfair to once again ask those areas uh to to take on this responsibility. So, I'm understanding where we're at. I do very much feel like this is again um a no-win situation. Um the same areas are going to unfortunately bear the the brunt. Um but I do think that this plan as it's been laid out is better than what we previously had. We're not giving up a community center. Uh and we are trying to accommodate smaller numbers and not have large facility which would be uh very difficult to manage. So I'm just trying to say I recognize all the considerations have gone into this. appreciate the the the amendment to the amendment that we're now discussing. Um but these are some considerations that we absolutely need to take into account when we have these discussions. So thank you. >> Okay. On this go ahead councelor Stevenson and then councelor Ferrer. >> Thank you. Um, I I just will point out that I said that to move things along, I was going to let people speak so that I could work on the amendment that I was bringing. Counselors are allowed to bring another one, but of course, it's contrary to the direction that I was going, but that's okay. It's consistent with the way this has been at this during this term of council. Um the 696 Dundas Street location is a problem. It is a big problem for that neighborhood and for the neighboring businesses who pay a levy and have a BIA because this council had it as one of their strategic objectives to make that a viable, livable, vibrant business district the way that area deserves the same as every other area of the city. To say that there's no other locations is counter to our whole objective of 12 to 15 hubs around the city. How did we all get behind that? Well, not all of us, but this council got behind that and yet just says there's nothing we can do about poor old East Village. So my motion would have been to say we're going to exclude taxpayer funding from the 696 Dundas Street location and I will move that if this fails. The overnight spaces at 696 Dundas Street have continued to operate under donations as they should. We should not be using the property tax dollars or the uh the tax dollars whether they're federal, provincial, or municipal of the residents of that neighbor neighborhood and the business owners and property owners of that area to fund the spaces to which they have been crying out for help. If it's done on donations and property that's owned by a charitable organization, that's for them to do. But for this council to support in the fourth year of this term to continue to use their taxpayer money to fund these services when they have cried out in despair for four years and their counselor has advocated for help that we just stop using their money to cause the problem. So I would encourage council to say no to this. They the overnight spaces will continue. They haven't stopped, but they were used by charitable donations and at half the cost, I must add, because when it when you see it on Facebook, it's $50 a night. Our bill is hundred. So, um, I'm asking council to say no to this, allow the organization to do it with donations, and then at least we're not guilty of using their money to to do the service. It's going to continue anyway. Let's just honor our strategic objectives and um the voice of that neighborhood and the pleas of that neighborhood to say please don't do it with our tax money. >> Councelor Ferrer. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um so like there's a lot of conversation here, lots of ideas. Um, and this discussion has been going on for I think 3 and 1/2 years or however long council has been here since I've been here. Um, like when we first discussed um restricting resting spaces in the OEV, uh, that was very politically driven and it was not really a conversation that focused on what would be the consequences. It was a motion to try to remove service providers and shelters within um the OEV and within BAS. The anticipated result of that was to see to push you know these providers outside hopefully I believe and this is my opinion it was to push outside of the OEV that didn't translate into reality. What really happened was individuals were just left out on the street and there was more individuals out on the street. And the reason that I was against that initial motion was because of exactly that. And today a lot of individuals are saying our homelessness crisis is at, you know, is through the roof. And some of the reasons of that is because we have been systematically shutting down spaces with motions like this. I was against this motion at the time um because of that. I am still against that because I understand that the capacity that we have is really within these areas. However, I also see that there is a truth there is a reality that we do have service providers within a small area and I do not see the city providing citywide anyways providing such providers. So there is some merit with some of the things that are being said. Now I am going to vote for this notwithstanding amendment because I understand that we have to work with what we have right now because we do have a crisis. But I would also suggest we put an amendment to this amendment. Can I put another amendment on this? >> We're there are already two amendments deep. You can't do another one yet. >> Okay. Well, on the on the main motion, we need to put some priority to look at all locations citywide to help us when it comes to the homelessness crisis. We need to have specific language and I think this might be the time to do it to also look citywide of where capacity can also be increased because there is a debate and it has turned into a battle of the wards back and forth. Who is going to put spaces out to help people in need out on the street? Who is not? This conversation has gone up again and again and again and again. And there is merit to some of the arguments I see here. But I will say the motion originally to shut down or not approve city-f funded resting spaces in the areas of the BIA has led to more crisis, has led to more people on the street. That is a reality. If we didn't do that, more people would be in on the street. Now, service providers that do this work would still be in that area, but there'd be less people out on the street. That would be for sure. So, I'm going to support this because I understand that our capacity right now is existing where it is. But I would also say we do need to start figuring out how do we place locations elsewhere. This motion should be in coordination with another set of language that says we need to start prioritizing other spaces outside the core that provide these services that provide shelter that provide housing that provide all the services resting spaces whatever the language is. We need to start putting that explicitly into this language, too. Because not only do we need to recognize what we have, the crisis that we're in, what we've learned on this type of direction, but also how do we mitigate these issues that are arising because there's some realities here, but we need to start really looking at the data. We need to start looking at what has really transpired in the last 3 years with this direction. And we need to start really understanding that there is only a couple areas in the city that have really put, you know, all hands in to respond. We need the rest of the city to be responding with us. >> 30 seconds. >> So, I guess I'm going to have to move an amendment. So, it's coming. >> You can't on the main motion. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Other speakers to the amendment that is before us. Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, chair. So, in listening to this conversation, I think we need to draw uh colleagues attention back to some realities. First of all, I'm going to support the amendment. I think it's it's the appropri appropriate amendment to clean up the language. Make sure that that's in there. Um, reality one, the Ark and the Unity Project own their buildings. So, if you want to talk about moving them, then you better talk about a multi-year budget business plan for property acquisition to then do land swaps with them because that is what you're talking about. I would also remind colleagues that the core is not the only location where we have homelessness services. On Clark Road in the east end, I have the YOU youth shelter. I also have the Anova uh women's shelter. South of the 401 is where we put the microo shelter because we weren't going to put it again in the downtown. And I heard colleagues argue against that because it was too far away because it wasn't in the core. So respectfully to say that all the services are are in the core is not accurate. There are services in multiple wards across the city. Um, and the last time we brought something forward as a council, the micro modular shelter, which I think has been very successful so far, was deliberately put outside the core because there are a range of needs in our homeless population. There are uh folks who do need to be away from the core area so that they can uh go through their their journey towards uh recovering from addiction from dealing with their mental health crisis from whatever the situation might be in some cases just to reconnect with family to get back up on their feet to get back up to working and be back out on their own. And I know we've had people at the micro modular shelter who have seen that progress and have actually moved out of the micromodular shelter and are now uh in rental units elsewhere. some of whom I know are back to work. That's that's a success. And we know that we've seen the Ark with its Cronin Warner uh project do the same thing. They have shown us numbers of people who have been in those beds, who have been able to reconnect with family, who've been able to get health services, who've been able to get uh help with employment services and have been able to get back out on their own. I also think we have to be practical that say this every time we have this discussion to hundreds of people. I've said it on the doorstep hundreds of times too uh in the last couple of months. The city's not going to solve this problem alone. We're not ladies and gentlemen without a serious effort by the province and we could we could talk about ODSP rates and OW rates and and how the shelter allowances are not nearly adequate. Uh we could talk about the need for the federal government to invest more in affordable housing as well as the province investing in healthcare beds uh in addiction and mental health recovery. We can talk about all of those things. We can't do them. There are MPPPs and MPs whose job it is to address those issues. So we can only do our part. And I think with what we've got here before us in the winter response, this is the best option we have for the moment. I'm going to support the amendment. Uh, I will actually just for the clerk's sake so that they can uh perhaps separate out some language uh on the amendment from councelor Stevenson uh and I'll speak to this when we get back to that, but if we could separate out part one cuz I want to vote on that differently than the other parts. Um, so if we could do that, that would be appreciated. But that's my comments on the on the amendment from councelor Ramen. I'm absolutely going to support it because I think we do need to recognize that notwithstanding, we have two providers who are stepping up who own buildings in the area and until we are are willing to spend money to acquire properties, that's going to continue to be a reality. Okay. Other speakers to Council Ramen's amendment. All right. Seeing none, we're going to open just Council Ramen's amendment for voting. >> Closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to1. >> Okay, now I need an as amended motion. um for the amendment u which I assume councelor Stevenson you don't want to move anymore councelor ramen you're willing to move I need a seconder for the as amended motion deputy mayor Lewis okay so now we're going to start debate on the as amended amendment councelor Stevenson Thank you. Um, so I just want to go through the the first part is the approval of the proposed 40 space location that is listed currently as to be determined and uh I know that the residents that I speak want to have a say in where that goes and they want it to be done publicly and not just find out after the fact. So, I think that's important, especially given the the confirmation, and I just want to confirm through you to staff that um the emergency shelter guidelines, if we pass them today with the illegal substances allowed inside, that that does uh apply to these warming spaces as well. I I confirmed at committee, but I just want to reconfirm here at council. >> Go ahead. Through your worship. Um, yes, the emergency shelter guidelines do prioritize bringing people indoors when there's risk to them being outside. And so in the winter season, this would be further exacerbated. Um, leaving people outdoors in in the cold. And so those same shelter guidelines would still apply to the winter spaces. Um, the staff are still responsible for ensuring safe um, premises on the grounds there regardless of the clients that are in the space. >> Thank you. So again, because illegal substances are most likely to be allowed inside if it this next motion passes or the next uh agenda item passes, I think it's uh something that Londoners want to know and they want their to know where their council members stand uh when these locations are decided. Number two is that all contracts be placed on the public agenda. Uh there's no reason why these contracts aren't placed on the public agenda. We've done it before. We want to see the details on it. We've seen the contracts for the ark that we say daytime spaces, but we've seen the hours shrink from 11 to 7 to uh 9 to 4 to 3 to 7 or whatever it is. I'm not sure what the hours are, but they've been shrinking each contract. And those details aren't in the staff report. They are in the contracts. I do think that they should be publicly uh available. And the last one is that uh all proposed locations be subject to fire and bylaw compliance review. So, uh, I heard yesterday that fire inspections have not been done at these locations and that 30 mattresses on a floor is not something that they've seen and inspected. I may have misunderstood that, but maybe if staff have anything to add. This is the reason why I've added this in is uh rather than me just send an email asking for fire inspections that we just make it a matter of course. Thank you. And and I would have to consure confirm with uh the the chief on that because I I don't understand the I don't understand the context of what he said. So we would want to confirm from London Fire Department. Okay. Thank you. And I understand and uh like I said what I heard yesterday was that uh and from a fire Iish official but I I I may have misunderstood but I don't think it hurts to double check even if I misunderstood that that if we have 30 mattresses or 25 mattresses or CS on the floor of a a basement or in a a in a building that didn't have isn't regulated for sleeping. Um, I heard that there's some particular things that do and need to be done for safety and nobody here wants to be part of any kind of tragedy where we've got a bunch of people where we haven't met complete uh fire code inspections. It's one of the things we haven't really talked about is the fact that emergency shelters, warming spaces, all these locations, there's no I'll confir confirm through you to staff there's no licensing requirements. There's no, you know, you have to open up a coffee shop, something there's all kinds of things you need to do. But for these, my understanding is there's no requirements um for this type of of of thing that usually would be required if you ran a boarding house or something like that or a a tenency arrangement. >> Mr. Mathers, >> uh through your worship, I can confirm there's no specific license related to these type operations. >> Yeah. So, I don't see any harm in in making sure as a council that we've got, you know, fire inspected locations and that everything everybody's safe and compliant. And so, that's my reason for adding uh that to the amendment today. Uh is just to ensure that when we are bringing people in out of the cold that the fire inspectors have been there and ensured that we've got a safe location for people to stay. So, it's it's simply knowing the location, representing our uh our residents to ensure that, you know, if and when it comes to uh any of our awards that we have a say in it and that the public's involved. Contracts transparent and accountable to the public for taxpayer funding. And uh fire inspection and bylaw seems a pretty basic thing that any one of us would want to support, but I leave that to my colleagues. >> Okay. Okay. Um, we're on the as amended motion. Uh, I know councelor close I had you on the original amended, but I so if you want to go now, you can go ahead. >> Thank you. Uh, noting that deputy mayor also has his hand up. Uh, just ever so briefly Oh, and councelor Ferrer too. um ever so briefly uh through you to staff um looking at the motion specifically uh for the timing of it that um for the original part I I I that all proposed locations be subject to fire and bylaw compliance review and sign off by the appropriate city officials prior to the execution of any uh related contract. wondering about timing that perhaps the service provider will find a building and need to do modifications to it to make it appropriate for the purposes of a said contract, but they don't have the money to do it until said contract is executed. So, I just feel some concerns about the inspections that they can inspect the work to give the contract and they can't do the work until they have the money from said contract. Just looking through you to staff for that. That one's just a process question and I'm just having some cons concerns with it. Mr. Dickens. >> Uh thank you worship and through you. So there is one property that's to be determined. I think what the organization is looking for is a commitment coming out of today's meeting that there would be a funding allocation set aside for them which gives them the opportunity to go and seek an appropriate location. uh and I think they're aware of the context of the conversation today about where that location might be. Um but also it would then uh require that whatever this location is, it is safe and suitable for the intended use. The uh other locations that are in this report are spaces that are used now and today. So the language being uh all proposed locations be subject to fire inspection or sign off. These organizations already have fire safety plans in place. Uh the fire part fire department does visit uh from time to time. Uh last year when we ran boil we uh were using it for a very different purpose than what it's intended and the fire department was very helpful in coming in doing a walk through giving us suggestions and recommendations. When we launched a microo shelter site, which we have never done before in a location that had never intended for that use, uh the fire department was very instrumental in the site plan design, doing walkthroughs and making suggestions and recommendations around our fire safety plan. So, uh yes, the timing may be um uh complicated when you look at uh uh we need a confirmation of funding so we can go find a confirmation of space. We need it to be a suitable space so we can execute that lease agreement. Um but here we are and I think that's a reality we're going to have to manage the best as we can. Uh and then uh when all the uh agreements are executed uh we would certainly bring all of those agreements forward uh at one time to uh to committee. >> Go ahead. Uh thank you. Uh I'm fine with uh part uh II with uh the reports being public uh afterwards. I still have concerns about I I that if we pass it based on the public perception of what they think is going to happen um and what actually happens might be different or that at that time when things are getting implemented there could be changes in timeline and it might be a different council here and not sure of what parameters we set. Um so those are my main concerns about that and just want to thank the service provider for watching in person today and joining us. >> Great. And you said councelor Hillier had his hand up or no? Oh >> okay. I didn't Oh, David. Okay, perfect. Um, go ahead, Deputy Lewis and then councelor Ferrer. >> Uh, thank you, Chair, and through you. Uh, as I said, I'd like item one pulled separately, uh, because I believe it actually presents a timing problem as well, similar to what councelor Ploa was referencing on on the fire inspection. So, through you to staff, uh, the last meeting of this council is October 14th, I believe. the new council does not meet again uh until late into November. Uh so subjecting this to council approval uh would that from a timeline perspective uh be a barrier to implementing this for the beginning of December. >> Mr. Dickens, >> thank you. You're worshiping through what the deputy mayor is highlighting is is real world challenges. So the way it's laid out and and to our understanding and correct us if civic administration has this has this wrong um the organization would uh receive uh a decision today that that there is funding that is allocated to them. They would then use that um understanding that they have funding available to go and secure to the best of their ability a location. But that location that they find would need to come back to committee uh for it to be discussed and debated at committee and council for council to agree on that location being the right location. Uh only then would we be able to then enter into uh an agreement to have the organization provide the service in that location. Noting we can't execute the agreement until there's been a fire inspection and any other applicable sign off. Um, when you look at it from that perspective of here's the money, go find a location. If you find a location, we'll take it to council. If council uh okays the location, then we'll have fire and bylaw and then we'll execute the agreement. It's going to re create a real problem for the organization on when do you start to recruit staff? Uh when do you start to train any new staff you may uh hire? Uh when do you make sure that the space is suitable for occupancy? Um, so long story long, uh, absolutely this is going to push us well into the winter and we tried our best to come to you uh, uh, before summer really kicked off so that we wouldn't be in this position. >> Thank you. And and that's my concern. We're talking about one location. Uh we're talking about uh a 6 week window at the most for that location to not only be identified but then come back through a committee and council cycle for approval. And assuming that it's not referred at council and committee because we want to look for a different location again, then we're talking at the earliest council could approve a location being the new council on the 24th of November uh for a winter response that uh is supposed to start on December 1st. So I can't support part one. Uh I think that our staff have demonstrated uh that they listen. I think we saw that with the micro modular site when they came back with a location uh that they will do their best uh to work with our service partners. Uh but we do have limited options here and we are also on a time crunch and we have repeatedly uh heard from the public. We've had a discussion around this horseshoe. Uh it's certainly been a discussion in the media in years past. Why is this not happening sooner? Why are we not opening beds until January? Uh, this proposal is to open beds in December. Uh, and a November 24th deadline for council approval is simply not enough time to do that. So, I can't support section one of this. I do think that bringing back the the public information on the contracts on an agenda, um, that's fine. It's it's just to me it's a transparency piece. That's fine. um working with the fire and bylaw compliance. I mean, we've heard Mr. Dickens say that would be part of the process anyway. So, I'm okay with parts two and three. Uh but I need part one called separately because I don't believe that that is a realistic timeline uh for council to make approvals on a location. >> I have councelor Ferrer and then councelor Hopkins. >> Thanks, Mayor. Through you. Um yeah, I agree with Deputy Mayor on part one. Uh everything that he said there. Um you know, the location is definitely going to be and always is the biggest discussion point. It's not not necessarily the money or the funds or the location or the source. It's the location of the of the of where it's where the facility or where the service will be provided. So, I'm not going to be voting for that. And I think that that this will push us into a really tight crunch time and could lead to um situations that may not be within our favor or within the city the greater city's favor. So I'm going to be voting against uh part I part uh two the contracts. Yeah, I think I agree as well. It's a transparency piece. I I'll be supporting that part three. Now I do understand especially from councelor Pelos's questions that we already do this. So, I feel like it's a little redundant because we do do this. I have seen I've had had have had these questions with staff prior in our past uh responses and staff have answered me that yes, we do we do uh this work. So, I'm not going to be supporting that because that is already done and I'm worried about the perception of the public that it may show that we haven't done this before, but this is exactly what we do. Um and then with um councelor Ramen's motion, I'm like I said, I'm going to be supporting that. Um and I won't be moving my amendment now. I'm going to move it on the main motion. So um so those are those are my comments. >> Councelor Hopkins. >> Yeah. Thank you your worship and I want to thank the um word counselor's advocacy for her work in the community. Uh but I won't be supporting um the motion. I in particular the other two parts of it I have I don't want to get into the weeds. I'm pretty sure we already do it. I'm satisfied with that. But being on the committee, when this winter response report came to us, I was so pleased that we were getting ahead of the curve a little bit when it came to making decisions for our winter response program. I think we've all seen this throughout the past number of years. We're always doing catchup. We're always trying to make decisions as the snow starts to fall. So there is no way I'm going to get in the way of making decisions to move forward with our winter response program and and that's the main reason why I won't be supporting I uh so if that could be pulled and uh again those are my comments other speakers to the amended amendment councelor Troau I'll make this short because um through the chair I'm going to uh repeat a a lot of the things that others including the deputy mayor have said. Uh part one absolutely uh not that that will get in our way. Part two, my sense is those are going to be available anyway. But sure, let's let's let's put that in there. Um part three I'm going to not vote for because it suggests that um well, let me put this in the form of a a question. We're enacting that all proposed locations be subject to fire and bylaw compliance review and sign off without without this without this passing without that clause passing. Are aren't these properties subject to such compliance and review anyway? And I I hear could somebody say yes? >> No, we we'll have staff respond to >> Okay, I'm sorry. They're just shaking their heads and >> No, I'm going to have them respond if that's your request. Go ahead, Mr. Mayers. through your worship. Absolutely. That's accurate. It would apply to all premises in the city of London. So, um, this is clearly redundant, and I think it's also a little bit, uh, it's it's calling into a question whether or not this is going to happen. This is it's not only redundant, but it's it suggests that it's necessary, and it's not. So, I absolutely am not going to vote for for three. And I I think with that um yeah, I'll uh support part two, but I I think that's this whole thing is pretty superolous, but um let's just get on with it. And um I'm I'm glad that the whole thing is moving along, taking it's taking a little longer than I would have liked, but uh all in all, I think some really good work has been some really good work has been done here under very um difficult circumstances. So that that's that. In terms of the uh council ramen's uh amendment that passed, is is that did I cover that? That's I already said I was supporting that. Is that is that a separate number or is that under two? >> Okay. Given what everybody said, councelor, yes, it's part of the as amended motion, but these all these pieces are going to be voted on separately now because pretty much everybody's asked to have them all pulled apart. So, >> Oh. Oh, okay. That's it. >> I'm done. Thank you. >> Okay. Okay. Other speakers. Okay. So, um, okay. So, we're going to vote on these. Uh, we're going to vote on them in just order. Uh, one, I'm sorry. I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I I I, I I I, and, and, I. Um, and we'll do them in that order. And then we'll just proceed with each of the votes individually. and then then I'll need a mover assuming one part part passes for the as amended main motion and we'll be back to that as amended. Okay. So, we're going to open part I first for voting Closing the vote. Motion carries. Five to 10. Sorry. Motion fails. 5 to 10. >> It's like that'd be a different way of doing things. It's uh >> Okay, so I So that one fails as an amendment. Um we're going on to II now. Council Cuddy, I'm noting verbal vote of yes. Closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. >> Okay. And now I I I we'll open that for voting. Council Ferrer. >> Apologies, my escribe is not working. Uh, this is I vote no. Verbal vote no is noted. Closing the vote. Motion carries 10 to five. >> Okay. And now IV Kville. Yes. Noted. Thank you. Closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to 1. Okay, I now need a mover for the as amended main motion. Councelor Ramen's willing to move it. Councelor uh PLO is willing to second it. Um which includes all the changes we made with the exception of I. Okay, we're back to the main motion, but it's as amended. So I will start a speaker list. Go ahead, Councelor Stevenson. >> Thank you. And thank you, colleagues. I know this has been uh long. I um but this is um you know, this impacts my ward dramatically. And when we had the issues on Richmond Street, those were dealt with. The issues on Dundas East are not being dealt with. And this isn't about no one said anything about moving organizations who own property. I was very clear that we just not use taxpayer funded money to provide the services there. I I have never uh said that we as a council need to move charitable organizations who own property. It's about what we are doing here as a council that we are funding, what many in that area believe is uh a large part of the problem. It's not 247. You can't compare. We're comparing apples and oranges when we talk about different shelters. These are not 247 spaces. These are come and go or they're just overnight and then out onto the street during the day or it's just in for a meal and then out. So I I just want to I need to confirm through you to staff when we talk about warming spaces. Are these tables and chairs where people are sitting and coming and going throughout the night or are these mattresses or cotss where people are sleeping or does it vary based on location? >> Step. Okay. Uh you whispered in my Go ahead, Mr. Dickens. >> Uh thank you. Uh you're worship and through you. Um this is is really more uh warming spaces. So tables, chairs, blankets, very similar to what we uh provided at Boil where we created space for people to come in. people will absolutely reshift their belongings and create makeshift uh sleep areas. Um but this is this is really more creating indoor space for people to come in out of the out of the cold uh and stay warm throughout the night and those that choose to sleep can and and those that don't are supported in other ways. >> Councelor Stevenson. >> Uh thank you. Those who choose to sleep at the table. Is that what you mean, >> Mr. Dickens? >> Through your worship. Yes. That's quite common. People come in quite exhausted uh and will often sit at a table, lay their head down, uh get some sleep or some will curl up on on the floor as they did in boil finding a quiet spot uh wherever they can. >> Councelor Stevenson. >> Yeah, thank thank you for the clarification. So, I just want to confirm then that the 30 spaces at on Dundas Street um the the 30 Well, it's really the 30 on Dundas Street. I guess cuz London Cares I want I want to confirm that all those warming spaces then will not have CS or mattresses. It will be table and chairs. I I think it was confirmed but I'm just not sure. >> Mr. Dickens, >> through your worship, apologies for not having every detail on what some of these spaces are uh going to be using at the end state uh based on what's proposed, but uh for example, one provider uh uses gravity chairs, zero gravity chairs, so folks can recline. Um, others will use, I don't know, normal chairs, um, like we did at Boil. So, it'll be a combination. We're not seeing any bed frames or anything set up like that. Uh, they're um, it's primarily, uh, some form of, uh, of seating uh, that folks can uh, use to rest. >> Councelor Stevenson. >> Yeah, thank you. And I don't mean to belabor it. at 696 Dundas. What I thought happened there were mattresses or CS uh is this going to be a change where 696 Dundas will no longer have um the sleeping beds if you call them I mean they're not beds here but will will they be is this a change that now it will be table and chairs at that location? >> Mr. Dickens >> uh through your worship. The organization at 696 Dundas uses zeroravity chairs and they may have um like some nylon cs perhaps like we have in our emergency response that we used at chalk uh 2 years prior. Um I do not believe that that organization uses mattresses though. There's no mattresses. >> Okay. Thank you. So there's there's a bunch of problems that I have with this and it is that you know in the the very end of our term we still have so many of these spaces within a very short distance many of them all of the identified side warming spaces are within a few block radius. They're not 24/7. They're going to be come and go uh you know people to get warm and then go back out again into the neighborhood and into the business district. The biggest concern that I have with this is that we're talking about multi-year budget proposals and about extending this in continuity. This has been very clearly stated to be unsustainable for that neighborhood. And when we look at these things, none of us want to see people outside in the cold, which is why I have supported those spaces in the past. But we have to address the issues in that area and to be continuing to just say to one community, "Sorry, too bad. Uh this, you know, this is the best we can do is just unacceptable for many who live in that area and who are experiencing this on a day in dayout basis, many of whom are vulnerable themselves. We tried to do a good neighbor agreement that was just uh not even considered by these agencies. In fact, they saw it as some sort of an insult. And now we're talking about allowing illegal substances inside into these neighborhoods, into these business districts. So, I'm I'm going to have trouble supporting a good portion of this. Um I do want to reiterate that the um the thing with the resting spaces, this was not about telling organizations that they need to move. This was about respecting the wishes of the taxpayers to say uh please don't do it on a business district main street where it competes with what this council has um has said that matters and where these we're asking these property owners to pay a levy and yet what are we doing for them? We have core area vacancy issues and yet we continue to move motions like this now with multi-year budgets and continuity issues. So I'll be asking for some of these to be called separately. >> Council McAllister. >> Uh thank you. And through the mayor uh I do have an amendment uh for E. >> I can read that if you'd like. >> Oh yes, please. >> Okay. So this is on part E. Uh civic administration be directed to proceed with the preparation of a business case for the 2027 annual budget update for winter response funding for 2027 to 2020 and beyond. Um one slight addition is including but not limited to potential property acquisitions to accommodate future shelter locations outside of Ward 1 and 13. Okay, just give me one sec. >> All right, that's an ecribe. I'll look for a second to that. I don't see a second for your motion, counselor. Okay. Um, I'll use this time then for my comments. Um, what I was suggesting with my amendment was in no way a prohibition. Uh it was to my earlier point that we are not being presented with options outside of the two wards. Um that was also in uh keeping in mind that ward one would then grow to accommodate OAV. That's why it said ward 1 and 13 which do currently have all of our uh shelters. Um I would still hope that uh future councils would take that into consideration. I think it would have been appropriate for this council to have put some uh options in terms of property acquisitions on the table. We hear that time and time again from shelter providers. Um I think obviously the province has a role to play. I had earlier um brought forward a motion to ask the province for more money for that. Um I do think the city we have a role to play though in property acquisitions outside I don't want to say the core area because I think uh it extends past the core area. Um but I do think there are in the future two wards that will be predominantly impacted. Um, in terms of what we have before us, um, I know last winter was very challenging. I think staff have done their best uh, to create something um, that will serve us in the short term, but again, I am looking more to the future in terms of what a sustained um, shelter um, system will look like through the winter, the future winters. Um, I think it's disappointing this council is not willing to consider other options. Uh, because it leads me to believe that they would like to keep them in the same areas, which I don't think is particularly fair, but that's just my opinion. Um, I think what's before us is the best that we can uh hope for right now. Um, I will support it. Um, but I do hope with future considerations um, not just this council, next council um, really do take um, the words of the wards that are being impacted seriously. They have done their part and I think other wards need to step up. Thank you. >> Councelor Frank, >> thank you. I just wanted to take a quick moment to thank staff for getting this work done well ahead of winter. Most of the residents I speak with in my area, uh the main priority for them was making sure that people are inside over winter and making sure it's done well in advance so that we are not kind of scrambling around in November and December to lock up some spots. So, I just want to say thank you. I um've already heard from residents that they're really happy to see this being done in the summer. And I also am really happy we're moving away from a temperature-based approach to uh every single night from 9:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. throughout the winter months. Uh I think that it's really great that we don't have this threshold to try and meet because it it did create some confus confusion. Uh I also want to thank staff for working with agencies to increase the overall number of spaces for people to come inside. Uh I think we saw especially with the boil community center that we were exceeding expectations and unfortunately um until I see otherwise I think we might be in a similar boat this winter. uh and just as well to our agencies. Thank you very much for being a great uh member of our community and great partners to work with. We wouldn't be able to do this work without you. So uh I really appreciate the work that you do and that your staff do. And I think ultimately we can all agree that no one should have to sleep outside, especially in the winter. Um but until we have enough uh apartments and units for everybody across the city, unfortunately sometimes we have to rely on emergency emergency shelters and spaces. So again, appreciate the work that staff and our community partners are doing to bring this forward. >> Councelor Ferrer. >> Uh thank you, Mayor. Um I guess I'm going to start with the reason I didn't support or second that motion from councelor Mallister is because I want to avoid any prescriptive language that could uh be regarded as a battle of the wards because that is I think a big issue that we have. I don't want any battling of the wards. I just want everyone in the city to understand that this is a citywide issue. People are unhoused citywide and we need all hands- on deck. I've said this countless countless times again and again. I know that uh many of us want to also have that all hands-on deck approach, but I don't want to be prescriptive in a way that kind of really outlines the Ward 1, Ward 13. So that's why I didn't support that. But um like I said, I am hearing here, you know, this impacts my ward significantly. um we have issues that are you know in certain areas and that there's a reality there. Now I understand that yes Ward 1 has a YOU shelter. W 13 does as well and I hear that uh Ward 4 currently as it is you know has 696 uh location. W 13 has the Cronin Warner location. I'm not saying no to spaces in my ward. I have actually said yes to spaces in my word because I understand that the crisis is is the more people out on the street, the more suffering you have. The more suffering you have, the more people housed who are watching individuals out on the street are unhappy with the directions that they may foresee council making. So ultimately, if we bring people indoors, if we expand those services in that capacity, you will have less crisis and you will have less people coming to our emails, calling us on our phone, coming to us and saying, "What are you doing when it comes to homelessness? what are you doing when it comes to the crisis that is very evident out on the street? So, that's why I supported the notwithstanding motion. Um, I I did not support the original motion as it came to us a couple years ago because I knew what would happen and it did transpire that way. More people were on the street, period. It was it's it was worse and we could have made some decisions that would have made it less worse. So, I like the direction we're going because that is going to set up the next council very well. When it comes to where the locations are, I don't want to be prescriptive, like I said. Now, I did make the argument already on the amendment to the amendment or wherever that came through. Um, and I said I was going to move a motion and I am. Now, I don't want to say in W one or W 13 and I don't want to say within a two mile radius of an existing location. All I want to say is to give explicit instructions to staff to say, "Consider this. Consider citywide." Now, I know staff do that already, but I want to have that language there so that when you are speaking with your teams, you have it up on the whiteboard saying this is an explicit direction from council. So, I have a motion, an amendment that I have already sent to the clerk to have clerked up and I want to move that and I can read it if you want me to. >> Okay, go ahead. >> Okay. And I clerked that I wrote this on the fly and I know I always criticize doing that, but I'm sorry I had to. Um, that the motion be amended to add a new part that reads as follows. priority be given to locations citywide rather than being limited to locations where current services exist. And that all required actions to implement this direction be considered and recommended when reporting back to council. Okay. Uh I'll I'll look to see if there's a second for that. Okay. I don't see a second or counselor. >> It's unfortunate. I thought this council was making the discussion that we want these services citywide. So I know this council has made decisions to shut down services in certain locations without the decisions to see what then what happens then I don't understand we have a direction that I have seen coming time and time again to shut down services put people back out on the street make things worse get this city completely divided but when a direction comes to say look citywide see what we can do we don't that's telling so I would like council to just consider that cuz things won't get better unless we have all hands on deck in the city okay other speakers to the main motion Oh, okay. Yes, we're we've had some requests to pull some things a little bit separately. Um, so I'm you know what? I'm going to speak to give the clerk time to do that. So, I'll turn the chair over to Deputy Mayor Lewis. >> Thank you, worship. I'll assume the chair and please go ahead. >> Uh yes. So I'll say a couple of things. Um uh one um just uh through the presiding officer, Council Ferrer, um I I I know you didn't get support on your amendment. I think when you had in your comments said consider options citywide, I think you probably would have got more support, but you actually put in your motion prioritize, which is a more definitive decision to say we're going to exclude possible locations. I think in in the search for space, I we've got to be as open as possible to locations, including locations across the city, which is as it would stand now, and how staff would uh would look at it. Um I I want to there's a couple of things through the debate that wasn't mentioned. First, uh I want to say uh thank you to the federal government uh for making the decision and um executing um the uh the new program that allowed for uh $2.5 million to come to the city of London. 2.1 million of which with part of this motion is being allocated to support the winter response. This is something that we cannot do uh on the backs of taxpayers uh in the city of London and we require uh levels of government who have the capacity uh and responsibility for this issue um to to chip in and do their part. And so I want to recognize uh and thank uh those who helped advocate including uh our local MPs Fraoscatos and Kaabaga. Uh I want to thank my fellow mayor colleagues who advocated vigorously uh at multiple sessions and and give specific credit to the mayor of Montreal on this issue um who advocated for the renewal of this funding uh and then of course for it to flow in time for municipalities that actually utilize it uh in and before the winter period as one of the options. So um those two pieces uh at the end of the day I I've echoed the comments that were made. Uh I've heard the same thing from members of the public. They want to see uh these spaces uh dealt with uh well in advance of winter so that uh there's clear expectations of what is happening to bring people indoors through the coldest months. I think I I want to also thank our staff for the work they did in in pulling this together. I want to thank the service agencies and partners because uh essentially we don't have spaces if people don't step up and then we are using things like community centers. So for those who said they could provide spaces uh in their spaces or across the city or in any of the locations that they've offered, you know, thank you for doing so. That that takes pressure off of us to continue to provide community services and community centers uh rather than converting those into winter responses when we don't have uh the capacity to uh meet the demand across the system. So this is a good plan that brings people indoors. I'll remind you when we bring people indoors, we have the ability in those times to connect them with services to connect them with services to help them make their lives better. Whether those are people with mental health and addiction issues, people looking to connect with employment or housing. Uh having people in spaces where we've got uh people who know how to help them when they can connect with individuals and and talk with people. Uh that is always a good thing for addressing uh people who are uh unsheltered in our community or facing significant housing challenges. Um, finally, I I I do want to thank our staff for the incredible work they did with the last winter response. Um, we used a community center. We had an expectation that we'd use it for maybe 5 to 10 days. We used it for way more than that. Uh, a staff volunteered that went above and beyond. Um, and I wanted to recognize that as we approve this next iteration of winter response. The tremendous amount of volunteering and commitment that our staff uh our staff did to make the last winter response work through uh very difficult conditions and in a very long uh stretch of cold days through the winter. I think this is a better plan because of the consistency through the winter. We won't be ramping up and down. Um, but I recognize last year was difficult, but it worked because both providers and our city and our municipal staff made it work. and to the residents of the areas that were impacted by the use of the community centers. You know, we also thank them. We know that that was uh definitely an inconvenience when you can't do all the programming you expect in your local community center. You know, we certainly heard your concerns last year and we have a winter response plan that does not use those spaces in the same way. So, um with that, I'll be supporting the motion for >> Thank you, worship. I will return the chair to you and I have only myself on the speaker list. Will you go ahead then? Thank you. So, I'm going to be supporting the motion. Um, but I think it's important uh to also uh set the record straight on some of what we heard um today since the term of this council began. We have more overnight beds in our city than we've ever had. We've heard a lot about cuts. We have reallocated uh resources to other things, but we actually have more overnight beds, whether it's Cron and Warner, whether it's the Atloa and YOU hubs, whether it is the uh modular shelters out at uh Cheese Factory Road, whether it's the new heart hub, uh that was the result of a lot of advocacy with the province after we essentially provided them the blueprint uh for a hub. Um, this council has added beds and capacity to the system. It is unfortunate that we have policies from the senior levels of government uh that continue to put people into homelessness. And I know uh Miss Moss is in the gallery. Uh I heard her on the Craig Needles podcast uh not long ago uh referencing as much as we are fishing people out of the water and trying to get them dried and helped out uh upstream more people are being pushed into the river and and that analogy is true. So yes there is still a lot of homelessness in the city but it is not from lack of effort from our service providers or from this council to address the problem. In fact, your worship, you referenced at your state of the city address that through this term of council, uh, there are 1,500 fewer people on the streets because through this 4-year term, they have been moved through systems, whether it's through the Cron and Warner Beds, whether it's through help at London Cares, whether it's through help at the Salvation Army, they've been moved through the system, and they are no longer on the street. They might be in an Inwell site, which we have added uh, three locations during this term of council to. They might be at the new homes unlimited buildings that we've opened on uh Pawn Mills Road or over on Duffern through an office to residential conversion, but there is more support and more spaces than there have ever been in our city. So, we haven't been cutting spaces. We may not agree on the allocations and that's okay. That's part of the process and that's why we have debate and that's why we vote on things. But it's not factually true to say we have cut services. We have actually increased services over the last four years. >> So I will be supporting uh the main motion before us. Is it perfect? No. Would I like other options? Yes. But we also experienced uh less than a year ago uh tasking our staff uh with standing up a micro modular site uh that when we gave them all the criteria we wanted there was not really anything to choose from. They came back to us with one site because that was the only one that they had available that was in our ownership that could match the criteria we had set out. So, I think there has been a demonstrated desire. Uh I I think the uh the hubs right now are both located. Uh I think they're on a dividing line. So, they might be in Ward 12 or Ward 14. And I apologize to the two ward counselors for for not knowing exactly where the the dividing line is. Uh Councelor Frank has a new Inwell building in her ward. Um these are things that are happening around the city. Uh and so I think we need to be mindful of that when we speak to these sorts of motions. Um it's not perfect, but we have to work with what we've had and we as a council collectively have made progress on this issue. Uh the fact that we are talking about winter response in August this year rather than October, I think continues to demonstrate uh that this is an issue that while we may have disagreements about particulars on, we every single one of us around this horseshoe cares about. Okay, any other speakers? Uh, councelor Prible, thank you. I know I mentioned it already during the meeting, but uh during the uh CAPS meeting, but I just want to reiterate one one more time and mayor already said it as well. Great. Thank you to our staff for last winter and I visited the place three times and how our staff came together and I'm not talking I'm talking of management middle high executive management management staff line level staff everyone came together and it was absolutely amazing how our staff helped our community uh I mentioned this one as well before I uh all the initiatives that we've uh we've introduced I've been talking to some other municipalities and certainly not just in Canada outside and everyone is telling me that based on our funding model. Doesn't matter if it's provincial or federal or municipal. The way decide they honestly they honestly don't see the light at the end of the tunnel and they say it's going to be a deja vu for staff and the organizations all the time because the funding there was one of my fellow counselors said it's not it's not really about money and about the funding. It is that's all it's about actually. That's the number one thing because we have the knowhow. We know what we want to do. We could deliver it. Doesn't matter. If you look at our spectrum of housing, it's absolutely great. Guess what? We don't have the funding. We don't have the money. But there's the thing that if the higher levels of government don't come with a sustainable model with a long-term vision, I truly believe that this council will have to come with a multi-year budget which will include this because right now this is the most expensive, most nonproactive way how we are addressing it as a council, as a staff, as as the agencies. But guess what? It's none of us want to do that. None of us. We want to have a perfect vision. We want to see where we want to be in 5, 10, 15, 20 years, but guess what? It's we don't have the money, funding, and we don't have the commitments. But thank you. Uh totally agree with the P uh mayor what he stated. Are we where we are? Am I glad improving this winter response? Of course, I'm not. I'm on something with a bigger vision, more bad, more sustainable, but based on the funding model we have and we we we can always be better. Everyone can always be better. But I really see that we moved it forward. Forward as much as I would like to not. But again, I'm not going to repeat what I already said. Thank you again. Okay. Uh so any other speakers first? >> Okay. We're going to separate this as has been requested. So I have Okay. So, I've had council request to do D uh part three and E separate. So D part I I I and E separate of the main motion that was councelor Stevenson asked for that. I don't have anybody asking to do anything else separate. So >> I Yeah, >> I asked for IV, but maybe it's changed. Okay. >> Yeah, it's it's incorporated. Um now you you'll see it when we put it up, but the clerk took what you asked for in the email and put it together. So that's that'll be done first. I just need to know if anybody else wants it. Then we'll do everything else after. No one has any other way they want to do it. Okay, good. We'll proceed that way. So, >> so if you're in Eastcribe, we're going to be doing vote 11, which is just those pieces and then we'll do the remainder of them. Okay. Okay. We're going to open that for voting. closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to1. >> Okay. And now we're going to do the remainder of the motion. We'll open up that for Councelor Trusso. Thank you. Closing the vote. Motion carries. 15 to zero. >> Okay. I I know the next one um probably gets debated a bit. It's been 2 and 1/2 hours. I wonder if colleagues want to take a 10-minute break at this point. Councelor Frera, you want to move 10 or people going to vote against it because it's not 15 like >> Yeah, I think we should amend that to 15. Let's be honest, by the time we get upstairs and back down, we're never back in 10. >> Okay. Uh motion to take a break for 15 minutes. Moved by uh council for a second by Deputy Mayor Lewis. >> Let's do it by hand. >> All those in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries. >> Okay, we'll do 15 minutes. Okay, thank you. Please be seated. We're back to Council Ramen to continue with that committee's report. >> Thank you. I'd like to put item 4 2.3 housing stability services procurement and delivery framework emergency shelter guidelines 2011 versus 2026 comparative analysis on the floor. >> Okay, that's on the floor for discussion. I'll look for speakers. Go ahead, councelor Stevenson. >> Thank you. I circulated an amendment for this one as well. That the motion be amended to add a new part that reads as follows. D. the civic administration be directed to amend the emergency shelter guidelines as appended to the above noted staff report as appendix A to I remove any provision that permits illegal substances to be brought into or possessed within emergency shelter locations and I I remove any provision that prohibits the discharge of or service restrictions being imposed on an individual for the use of illegal substances within an emergency shelter location. and I I I ensure that the current version of the emergency shelter guidelines is made publicly available on the city of London's website and maintained thereon for an ongoing basis. >> Okay. Is there a second for that? Councelor Hillier is willing to second it. Uh okay. So we can start discussion on the amendment. It should be in escribe and available for colleagues to read. Would you like to go ahead and speak? I'll wait and go after my colleagues. >> Any speakers to this? Councilman Mallister, go ahead. >> Uh thank you to the chair. Um just I I listened to the committee uh uh discussion on this. Uh I know uh they went through a lot of things. I I think the question that still is on my mind and I think this was brought up at committee as well, but uh I just still don't understand uh in terms of enforcement how this would be enforced. Uh my understanding from what was discussed at committee was uh you know shelter staff do not have search and seizure powers. Uh and so I'm just wondering if staff can maybe add anything further to that. Um or if you know this is something in terms of the police having to uh deal with illegal substances cuz this my understanding that they do not have the power to to do any of any of this. So staff could comment. >> Mr. Dickens, go ahead. >> Thank you. And through you your worship that that is correct. this would be very difficult to uh enforce. I think the delegation submission as part of the CAPS agenda was really clear. This community has had several policies in place for emergency shelters uh long before uh some of my colleagues and I were here and uh the same issues were persistent when there was a prohibition as there is now under a a harm reduction framework. And as we point out um in the report um we're simply just trying to modernize our guidelines to reflect that what is in your pocket is not the sole grounds for being denied entry to an emergency shelter bed in one of our low uh barrier emergency shelters. um shelter providers still have the ability to uh remove someone from the building to uh put in service restrictions. Um and it's looking at the the whole experience. So a person comes in and if they are you know trafficking or using or uh disruptive or there's behavioral issues absolutely that shelter provider has a responsibility to keep the place safe and they may lay service restrictions and they may ask that person to leave. That is what happens now and I assume that's what would happen uh going forward. >> Councelor McCallister. >> Uh thank you through the mayor. Um and yeah that was my understanding. I I did some research on this as well and um I know a number of municipalities struggle with it and whether whether you explicitly say not allowed or you allow um their response is essentially the same where they do have to call police services in to manage it. I would imagine that would be the same thing with any sort of like weapons uh charges. There would be a number of issues, not just uh elicit substances, but my understanding is that the um the way of dealing with this would be through the police. Um I understand in terms of what you know the counselor is uh trying to achieve here but uh I don't think it matters one way or the other. I think enforcement uh is going to be handled by the same service regardless of what you have in your policy because uh the laws would supersede any shelter policy depending on what they're dealing with in that situation is my understanding. Um so with that in mind I think updating this uh policy is appropriate. Um I do think regardless of what you have uh written uh you're still going to have those challenges. Uh and I understand in terms of where the shelter staff are coming from that this is not a task that they are uh feel comfortable to handle or can actually enforce. Um so with that I'll leave my comments there but curious to hear what other colleagues have to say because uh I know there was a lengthy debate uh committee as well. Okay, other uh colleagues. >> Go ahead, councelor Prible and then councelor Stevenson. >> Thank you. Very similar to what council me said. I love what's in front of us, what's proposed, but it's actually based on based on the play, based on the city province we live. Unfortunately, legally we are not able to do it. So this I see I love it. As I said uh at the committee meeting when I discussed it with some other jurisdiction outside this country they said absolutely they would support it. They would not allow this. Having said that they have the tools how to address it. How to address it right at the entrance with uh private security guards with actually even uh metal detectors so the weapons don't go into places. They have it at every virtual place and they can they have actually the tools and they have the teeth to actually uh to actually implement it and to make such decisions. We don't and based on that I will not be supporting it. We had things before us before that we were discussing in other areas and we said great idea but we actually cannot act on it. And I believe I feel that this is the same way if I hear otherwise that we can I would be willing to change my mind but as I said I addressed it with various people organizations uh in our city and in our province and I always got the same answer. There's nothing you can do about it and even if you if you put this forward it's you won't be able to act on it. Having said that, speaking with the agencies, they do they don't have the they don't have the the individuals can enter, but if they do use it, they do act on it. So, it's not kind of like it's a green light. Go ahead, do this. No, that's not the case. Thank you, >> Councelor Stevenson. >> Uh, thank you. We did have a long discussion about this at committee. Um, I'm bringing this forward because uh it's illegal. And so we have a sentence that says allowed illegal substances. I could not find that in any other city's guidelines. Some many of the other stuff we have in our guidelines I saw, but not a sentence that allows illegal substances. That's what I'm asking to be removed here. I'm not even saying go back to the prohibition of 2011. I'm saying, how about we just not say that they're allowed to bring in illegal substances. We'll let staff work that out. The um guidelines can be published. It already says there that they can make amendments and changes so maybe they can find another way to address this without this council endorsing guidelines that allow illegal substances. I know for me, we we heard what the agency said. We understand the concerns. I there's always a straw man argument put out there like, "Oh, so who's going to strip search them to make sure that there's nothing in there?" There's a far cry between that and saying they're allowed. So I feel strongly that I need to bring this forward. I heard what the agencies had to say. Um it certainly wasn't all of the agencies through you to staff did mission services and Salvation Army. Are have they both explicitly said that they support this change? >> Go ahead. Through through your worship, um the consultation sessions that were developed and and carried out in result of uh creating these shelter guidelines did include all the organizations that were offering shelter services. We've connected with those organizations that you've mentioned. They offer um unique programs within those those spaces that are recovery oriented programs. These guidelines do make provision for the nuances that come with a recovery oriented program. Um the the low barrier emergency shelters that we're talking about in consultation with the other shelter operators including those those organizations like this would align with the harm reduction practices that they do have in their in their shelters. >> Oh go ahead counselor. >> Uh thank you. Um, and through you, uh, the emergency room at the hospital, do they make allowances like this as well, given that they deal with a lot of the same clientele? >> Go ahead. >> Uh, through your worship, I I think I should point out that that is well beyond our jurisdiction here as municipal staff to comment on the hospital. That's better answered by the hospital. >> Go ahead, counselor. >> Yeah, thank you. I understand that it's just the same premise that services are needed by a particular clientele. Uh my my stand it you know to me it would be useful to know if they were doing that at the hospitals. The um our code of conduct says that we uh are supposed to uphold both the letter and the spirit of federal and provincial laws. So again, advoc, you know, endorsing this policy that allows illegal drug use or illegal substances to be brought inside um is a concern to me. I'm representing the residents in my ward and I've heard very clearly from them that they don't support this, that they do not want uh illegal substances to be explicitly allowed inside taxpayer funded shelters anywhere in the city. uh particularly not in the neighborhood uh that they live in. Um, I've also heard concerns. You know, there was a letter submitted by the OEVBIA uh executive director with a lot of uh various questions and concerns in here around uh insurance, possibility of insurance, possibility of uh legal liability potentially or workplace and safety regulations. have uh through you to staff have has that exhaustively been explored in terms of will there be insurance you know no general insurance liability concerns for these agencies with the change in policy workplace safety no concerns there and I don't know if we need to go uh into closed for legal but I would want to know if something were to happen uh would we be legally liable for the Mr. Dickens, >> um through you, your worship. Very fair question. We we did see the communication on the council agenda. Um and we have lots of uh responses to it if needed. Um these organizations have been operating in this way. Now, um I want to make it clear the inclusion of the language harm reduction or um you know removing the piece of of a suspicion of substance use or possession of substances is is a requirement to uh deny you entry to a shelter is not suddenly introducing this activity to our community. These organizations that currently operate this way all have board of governors, board of directors. Uh they all have their own independent legal advice and they all have their own independent insurance. Uh if this had been a problem up to this point, it would have been flagged in the consultations by their boards or by their uh leadership teams or it would have been a practice they had not been carrying out up until this point. >> Councelor Stevenson. Um, thank you. I understand that many people want the laws to be different than they are, but the laws are what they are. And this is a sentence that clearly states that we're allowing illegal substances without setting parameters on other illegal activity. As I said, representing the residents in my ward. I just can't uh support having that in there, which is why I bring forward this motion for council to consider what their residents uh how and how they would want them to vote on this amendment. The uh publishing of the guidelines, I think, is really important because we delegate the authority to make changes. So, I think having that accessible for anybody to be able to look at is really important. And the other one is about um >> 30 seconds >> you know discharging restricting not being able to discharge people or uh do service restrictions for people who actually use the illegal substances inside which is still prohibited. Um I that is a concern for me as well and and I wonder too if you know there's many other statements in there that say people can't be discharged or service restrictions just because they have a substance use disorder that all makes sense. But to say that they can't do it if people use inside has at least the perception that there's no consequences if they do. >> Your time is up. Councelor Frank and then Councelor Cuddi. >> Thank you. Uh first off, I just wanted to say thank you to staff for bringing this forward. I think it's good for us to have uh a framework that accurate accurately reflects what is happening within our shelter guidelines and to have it updated to 2026. I think that's uh good again for the community to know what our standards are and what's the expectation and what's going on and to again reflect what is currently happening within our services. Uh I do want to flag that it's my understanding it's not illegal for someone to enter a facility uh and for this specific example a shelter provider if they're under the influence or if they have drugs in their body. So I hear there's some discussion about whether or not you know we're following legislation but it's not illegal for someone to enter that building. Uh, additionally, it's my understanding that shelters also have human rights considerations and as addiction is protected as a disability under the Ontario Human Rights Code, forced shelter providers to deny people access to their services because they might have an addiction actually puts that at jeopardy as well. And I don't think that we want to have any claims about not being able to accommodate disabilities within our community. Uh, so again, just want to say thank you to staff for updating these guidelines. And I think they'll be um despite some folks not perhaps agreeing with a harm reduction approach uh I think they'll be helpful for the community to understand what uh staff are doing and what our providers are doing as well. >> Councelor Cuddi, >> thank you worship and through you. Um question for staff. Mr. Dickens, do we have any information on on if this is an ongoing problem or it's isolated cases where people are consuming drugs while they're in the shelters? Because if it's not, it may be an is if it's isolated, maybe it's a tempest in a teapot and it's something we really don't need to be concerned with. But if it is, if it is more than that, perhaps it is something we need to discuss. Thank you, >> Mr. Dickens. >> Uh thank you. and through your worship, I I would um I would adventure to say that uh this is a problem that's widespread across the province. Emergency shelters uh from Niagara uh through uh Northern Ontario uh especially Northern Ontario are dealing with these same challenges um trying to manage a drug crisis. Um and I want to make sure I'm very clear, organizations can discharge people. they can restrict people uh for a number of reasons. Uh it's just coming in uh with suspected possession of drugs or under the influence would not be the sole grounds if that person again is is trafficking or disruptive or using um it may lead to a discharge. It may lead to service restrictions. What we're really trying to ask service providers to do, which they are essentially doing now, is we want to create a a point of intervention uh to provide someone a therapeutic path to recovery. And we can't do that uh if we keep locking the doors on them and asking them not to come in because they have an active addiction. If we can get them in the door, um we can work with them. And if they're under the influence, shelter providers can try to provide them uh a safe space and try to work with them time and time again to get to that point where we can make referrals as it talks about in our report. Referrals to therapeutic services and recovery services and addiction and mental health services. We want to get people on a path to recovery. Um we talk about the drug problems. We're we're really focusing at the front door of an emergency shelter as being the pain point uh in a community that has a drug crisis. It would be great to stem the flow of drugs into our community. Uh the police would be a great resource to do that or to stem the trafficking activity that happens within our community um upstream versus just focusing on someone looking uh for a place to sleep. So to answer your question, this is a very pervasive problem not just in London, across Ontario, across Canada, uh regardless of what policy is in place. >> Go ahead, councelor. You good? Okay. Thank you. I have uh councelor Hopkins next. >> Yeah. Um, I know we've got the amendment in front of us, so I I'll speak to the amendment and I'll make my comments to to the main motion. I won't supporting the amendment. >> Um, even though I do appreciate the conversation here, >> uh, I do want to um say though, first of all, thanks to staff for modernizing our guidelines. I think that is what we needed to do here. I really do appreciate the uh focus being more on uh housing focused um getting people into places and I want to thank the agencies. I know we had a delegation at committee uh from Unity Project. It was uh uh them sharing their experience. And one of the things I got out of that uh delegation was the understanding that compassion and the ability to uh still be accountable. I think that is where the focus is going and and I I get that. Um there needs to be still accountability but we can still do it with compassion. And my third point while I'm standing I just want to say the the uh challenges that we have as a municipality as much as we can update our guidelines modernize the uh need for uh funding uh from the provincial government. I think when it comes to not only mental health but addiction um supports the other part is the uh affordability. Uh we see it in our guidelines. We want people in places. we need these buildings uh built and the operational uh dollars that go with that to to make them successful. So many thanks to staff. >> Councelor Ramen. >> Uh thank you and through you to staff. Um I'm just wondering if I can get some answers on the amendment. Um, for part I, I'm just wanting to clarify what how staff interpret this. Okay, go ahead. >> Through your worship. Um, this would actually read differently from what we're proposing in the the current shelter guidelines that are before you. Um, we're proposing that if clients do have possession or or substances in their possession at the time of their intake that they are not um to be immediately denied access to the shelter. Um this particular um uh phrase reads uh almost conversely to that that if they do have um any substances in in their possession during the time of the intake that they would be prohibited from accessing shelter which would be uh in contravention to what we're proposing into the just the research behind harm reduction policies. >> Uh thank you and through you then my question is for the chair. this motion that appears to be contrary to uh what was brought forward by the committee. >> Okay, give me a sec. Okay, counselor, let me just uh do a a ruling on this. So, I understand your question about um within the shelter guidelines, uh the counselor's direction may be counter to some of the pieces within the guidelines. Um the motion that's before us is uh ABC um update the emergency shelter guidelines as appended uh direct them to implement the guidelines be authorized to make further administrative updates in the motion to amend it needs to not propose a direct negative to the main motion given the the main piece of this is to implement the guidelines I don't see it as counter to make some adjustments to the internal proced proceedings of the guidelines in the document, even if it's something that may be different. So, I think it's probably important for council to have this debate and and have clarity on the components of the guidelines. And so, I'm going to I would rule that the amendment can stand based on the components of the main motion before us. Um, but I would recognize that this is a different direction than what staff put in the emergency uh guidelines and council could amend it to take a different direction. So, um, I'm happy to be challenged on that if someone feels they should, but I'm going to I'm going to allow the motion to proceed. >> Thank you. And through you and I do feel it's an important discussion. And so, um, I'm not going to challenge the chair on it, but I will say that I think what is interpreted versus what is written is two different things. I read this as asking that the guideline be silent on the matter. And so if it's an issue of being silent, I'm I could be supportive of it being silent. But if it's interpreted as now no longer as sorry, the 2011 version now, then I have an a different opinion. So that's what I'm trying to understand and make my decision on. And so I read this as remove what's in the 2026 guideline but don't go back to the 2011. Is that fair? >> Thank you worship. I I don't know if it's as cleancut as what we're hoping for here. Um we're trying to talk about admissions into an emergency shelter and this is focusing on possession of illegal drugs. And if we're silent on it, I worry that every shelter provider is going to have a different interpretation of it. Um and and we might run a foul of inconsistencies or discrepancies and uh be right back before you about why everyone's doing it differently. Um, and so I wish I had a more clear answer, but this this seems to focus more on uh uh permitting illegal substances when we're talking about um grounds and requirements for for bringing people indoors and admitting them into event. >> Okay, thank you. Uh I will m that over. Uh for part two, um I'm just wondering again, how does staff interpret this? Because again from a human rights perspective, this reads differently for me than uh perhaps um some of the other guidelines around or sorry some of the other things in the guidelines around restricting access. This I just I need some clarity on how this is being interpreted. >> Go ahead through your worship. Um, yes, this would again speak to that admission piece that we're making it clear to shelter operators that when it comes to admission that based on the fact that someone may have substances in their possession potentially for substance use disorder or managing withdrawal symptoms, as it was mentioned earlier, a potential um disability that's code protected. Um, we're making it clear to shelter operators that that alone um isn't necessarily grounds for denial to the shelter. um and and the way we have it currently worded in the shelter guidelines would provide clarity to that that that section. Um this particular um phrase that we're looking at would um just lead to the other point that we spoke about with ambiguity for shelter operators. >> Council Ramen. >> Okay. Thank you. And through you I think I'll listen to the rest of the discussion but um I'm hoping that uh these can all be called separately. Okay. Um, other speakers uh to this matter. Okay. Okay. Um, now I have some questions. So, I'm going to turn the chair over to Deputy Mayor Lewis. >> Uh, thank you, your worship. I will take the chair and, uh, please go ahead. >> Yes. So, just I I want to I want to go off of what councelor Ramen said because I I'm still a little unclear on the question. Um part but my question is more about part two. Um I part two seems to suggest that within the guidelines um that there's no ability to discharge for use. And my reading of the guidelines was that that's not the case. um you can discharge for using my conversation with some of the shelter providers is they they do do that. Um and so part two doesn't make a lot of sense to me because it I I I believe it's already possible within the guidelines. I think there is a line in there about you know try to help the person first. Um perhaps connect them with services or something rather than discharge right away. I know some s some providers have that right in. But just some clarification on what is like actually happening if someone uses in a shelter. Can they be discharged uh by the provider? >> Mr. Dickens. >> Thank you through you, Mr. Presiding Officer. Um yes, they can be they can be discharged. Uh what this is updating is to recognize the prevalence and the uh um number of occurrences in which that can happen in daily life. uh you would spend all day discharging people and no time supporting people. And that's a wide generalization and broad stroke just to give you some context of the scale of the problem that's uh affecting uh shelters across Ontario. Uh what we are saying is you you can still discharge a person. Absolutely. uh and if there's uh reason to uh discharge a person, we expect that it's well documented uh that it has come from every attempt to support that person first. And again, the the more that shelter providers can engage with a person in that moment, uh provide them pathways to better options, better supports, um the better we are off as a community and that person is better off. Uh whereas um discharging at the first sight of a suspected um addiction or someone who may be under the influence if they're posing no harm to anyone um would be in our minds a little bit callous to to uh discharge them out to the streets when they're posing no harm. So we're asking folks uh that can't be the sole criteria that you're asked to leave a shelter. It could you could be discharged. Again, if you're showing up and you're trafficking and you're disruptive and you're violent and there's concerns and you're using repeatedly, you're going to be asked to leave. However, if you're in the door and you're in the building and you're under the influence, we want staff to safely engage with you. And if it's a repeated occurrence, they better be putting safety plans in place, care plans in place, start talking about referral pathways. In the addictions world, folks need to be at least pre-contemplative that they want help. Uh, and so when they're in our care or in the care of a shelter provider, we want to get them to that state where they start to contemplate the idea that they might want help. And we do that best if they're permitted in to have a spot to sleep. Then if we tell them to go away, that is what this guidelines is trying to communicate. We're here to help people. We want to help as many people as possible. and asking them to leave at the first sight of an addiction is not conductive to doing that. >> Councelor Stevenson, >> this amendment is very clear about it's sub uh substance use inside the shelter. So this, you know, there's all kinds of stuff in it that talks about people have substance use, you can't be discharged for that reason. Sus, all that kind of stuff. I'm not touching that. This is one sentence and I can tell you it's on page 176 or the b the bottom of page 44 within the shelter guidelines and it says emergency shelter uh providers will not discharge participants or impose service restrictions based on substance use on or offsite. I didn't even put the offsite into this. I just don't want to restrict the discharge or service restrictions for somebody using those illegal substances inside the taxpayer funded shelter. All of the other stuff that's being mentioned here is part of the guidelines and I'm not touching that at all. >> Okay, counselor. Uh uh I know you said point of whatever. Um I'm going to rule that as a point of personal privilege. Um not as a point of order because it's not a procedural matter. um you're you calling a point of personal privilege because you believe that your intent was being misrepresented and so uh I'm going to rule that as a point of personal privilege. You have made your statement to correct your intention. So I'm going to deal deem that dealt with and I'm going to return to Mayor Morgan. Okay. Appreciate that. Um so I'm going to say a few things uh on this. So, first um I I did take the time to speak to all the shelter providers. Uh pretty easy to give them a call and um ask some some questions about how they operate currently and and their engagement on the guidelines and whether or not they're supportive of them. And the answer that I got was yes. Uh it is how they operate today. Um, you know, one of the interesting things that came up in my discussions with them was the challenge with being silent on letting someone know that they can come in the door if there's someone who uses gets away from the opportunity to intervene in those individuals lives. The Salvation Army, for example, colllocate services. They have low barrier barrier shelter shelter services, but they also have withdrawal management, you know, a recovery community center, uh, and they have the heart hub. And my discussion with them was they see the low barrier shelter as an entry point into connecting people with services. So sometimes people do have a drug addiction, they will come in the doors, uh, they may be a user and then they intervene with them. In some cases, that person decides to go into the withdrawal management program. Some cases it works for them. In some cases they don't and they might return to low barrier shelter. Some cases they connect into the recovery center because they progressed along through the withdrawal program. In some cases they may be connected with the heart hub. There are some abstinence based programs working alongside other programs to to try to bring people in the doors and capture them. The the problem that see the challenge with this motion is like I totally understand the counselor's intent. Um it's a it's a politically challenging motion because it's really easy to box it into a space and um say this is what we're doing. But the consequences I'm I'm concerned about if we don't particularly on I if we don't let people know that they can come in and get help and if we can't engage with them there's probably going to be more people out on the street like more people who will just you know what I'm not going to show up to the shelter less people to intervene with. This is the this is these are the concerns that I heard from some of the shelter shelter providers. They want to engage with people. They want to try to connect them with services. Some people are ready for that. Some people aren't to the to the residents in the area who um might not be supportive of the guidelines. If people don't feel they can go indoors into a shelter, they're going to stay outdoors in parks and doorways and on the street. And I think ultimately what we want is to connect people with services. I think we're relatively, you know, on the same page on that. You know, it's it's part of the reason why, you know, the calls for the province to invest in more, you know, voluntary treatment services to be available so that when people are ready, they don't have to wait for a long period, you know, that they could have that like the the challenge is we don't have some of those referral points. So, people are going to be indoors or they're going to be outdoors. They're going to be connected with people or they're not. Um, we we have some challenges here. So I it's very difficult to figure out you know what to do with all the parts of this motion because again I think there are the actual practices that the shelters are are doing. We don't want to create through, you know, the we don't want to create the perception that people shouldn't be coming and asking for help, coming indoors, getting emergency shelter, um protecting themselves from all elements or whatever else, sleeping outdoors, all the things that emergency shelter provides them with because they may have a possession possess a substance on them. If they're trafficking, if they're doing the things that Mr. Dickens said, yeah, for sure they should be considered to be banned, right? You have got to protect the other people in the shelter. But for me, you know, I have a challenge with I because I I don't want to put I don't want to give people the impression that they can't get help when they need it. And if they need to come indoors to get help and they need to be in a shelter and then we can connect them with services, I'd rather them be there than out on the streets. So, uh I the other pieces I'm I'm thinking about, I want to hear colleagues uh thoughts on, but um but I think I is is moving in the wrong direction because I think it leaves people outdoors. Uh, thank you, Mayor Morgan, and that was right on your time. I will return the chair to you. Uh, I don't have any other speakers at the moment, but I'm happy to put my own name on the speakers list because I have a question now resulting from some other comments. >> Sure. Well, you know what? Then you're on the list and you can go ahead. >> Okay. So, I I'm going to focus I I was interested in what councelor Ramen said about remaining silent on some things and I heard Mr. Dickens answer. Um, but I do wonder why we couldn't allow different emergency shelter providers to have different guidelines. Uh, so if a service provider, uh, and I'm not saying that they they want to do this, but, uh, you know, I'm using I'm going to use the Ark as an example cuz Miss Campbell's in my line of sight here. So, let's say the Ark wanted to to say the the first, you know, the beds at Bishop Cronin um were zero tolerance for illegal substances, but uh the uh emergency beds uh that they sometimes set up in the basement, they're they're more flexible on or at 696 Dundas, they're more flexible on. um why could we not allow shelter providers to choose their own approach to this and then simply have them communicate that to us as part of their contract and list this these are the shelters that allow uh possession these are the shelters that are zero tolerance for possession >> go ahead thank you worshipman 3 it's fair question uh these guidelines are meant to apply to low barrier emergency shelters and so we have recovery services. The mayor just highlighted a couple through mission services, Salvation Army. Uh and your example would prove to be another one where you would have uh the low barrier emergency shelters following these guidelines. Uh and there may be other uh recovery oriented programs that would follow whatever their uh mandated service would be. So, uh, it is possible, but we were looking if if the Ark were to be contracted and said, "I want to be an emergency shelter," we would ask them to follow the emergency shelter guidelines. >> Go ahead. >> So, I wonder and and uh Mr. Dickens will know the individual that I'm referring to because we've both interacted uh with that individual over the years. Uh but I've certainly heard from uh an outspoken LNER who's experienced homelessness um that one of the reasons she didn't access shelter services is because uh she didn't want to be around users. She wanted a an emergency shelter bed that was in an absence-based uh location. and instead uh her choices ended up being things like couch surfing in less than uh ideal circumstances um and perhaps potentially exposing uh to some uh intimate partner violence in in a couple of cases. And so this is where I struggle because I don't know why we couldn't have both prohibited spaces and spaces where we're not going to prohibit. Um, and I don't know if there's anything that's that's related to uh, you know, our own requirements with the province of Ontario or or anything else that staff can provide as to why we can't have some of both. if and that's presuming that a shelter operator wants to do that. Um perhaps all of our shelter operators in the city are are fine with this. But if we had one that wanted to provide an abstinence-based space so that those who don't want to be exposed to users uh can feel safe, how like how would that agency even approach us? >> Mr. Dickens. >> Absolutely. Uh through your worship. Absolutely. uh that would be done through our procurement framework when we go to procure the shelter system. Um so often uh it can be uh deterrent could be the funding that's required. So you go abstinence-based shelter um you you often require uh detox uh services. Uh often those type of absence based or recovery based shelters come with medical staff. Uh so there is a cost prohibition there uh that can that can factor into this. But when we go to procure the shelter system, if council says we want a a mix of abstinence based and low barrier or we want all recovery based, we can do that work through the procurement process and come back and show you what the various models would cost and what that would look like. So, I guess to to perhaps frame my question a little more tightly, um, under these guidelines, if we had a service provider approach us and say, "I've read your guidelines. I'd be interested in being a provider, but I don't want to allow any uh possession in our space." like I want to know uh from our staff if a provider could come forward themselves rather than it being part of a procurement thing that we do um and say we're going we want to offer this um it's our choice we want to offer it as an abstinence based space for emergency shelter. Would staff then bring that forward to us as an option to consider u voluntarily or with these guidelines in place does would our procurement process automatically preclude them from uh being a potential uh tender for shelter spaces. through your worship. Um yes, if a provider did want to offer a recovery based abstinencebased program, these guidelines wouldn't apply to them. This is for emergency shelter low barrier programs. um programs that are outside of that aren't specifically spoken to in these guidelines and that would be uh considered to their contract process. If they were deciding to run a recovery based program, we would build specific parameters within their contract. I I'm sorry, I'm not asking about recovery based. We have homeless folks who are not uh drug users out on our streets who do not want to be in the same space as those using drugs. So the question is not about recovery based programs. It's not about detox. It's about what if a provider came forward and said, "I want to provide emergency shelter beds, but I will only take folks off the street who are not currently using and would they then be able under these guidelines to apply?" Go ahead. Through your worship, um those would not be low barrier emergency shelter programs. The the premise behind a low barrier program is that for folks that are not in a pre-contemplative stage to decide about substances or any life circumstances that we limit the amount of barriers that prevent them from coming indoors. And so um the guidelines are presented in a way that they can come inside provided that they contribute to a safe space. If there are exclusionary criteria criterias or things that people have to meet to enter the doors, then that wouldn't be a low barrier program. And this guideline is specifically speaking solely to low barrier programs. Anything outside of a low barrier program that would be considered in our procurement um framework or within the contract with the the service provider. >> Go ahead. So through you chair then are we not creating a high barrier to access for those who are not users and don't feel safe around users by precluding uh those who want to provide a space without users. I I hear what you're saying about low barrier. I think you're just creating a high barrier for someone else. That's >> who you worship. I mean they still have to meet safety requirements in those spaces. um using drugs or having drugs does not automatically make you a risk to those other people that don't do you use use drugs. Um but if they're if they're creating unsafe situations, then those need to be addressed and handled so that those that are uh looking for a space where they can feel safe and not be pestered and offered drugs that they can get that as well. uh and those that are showing up with drugs. That's why um we're trying to put this in place that they still contribute to a safe environment. We're not trying to create more hoops for people to jump through. People that are are are uh have an addiction or don't have an addiction are all entitled to housing. Um and some may be closer to that housing goal than others. uh and if somebody can come into an emergency shelter uh and and receive that support or that's not the right space for them, it's triggering, it's threatening, it's whatever, then we look to the system to start to find ways to get them into a different space, maybe into some of those other Salvation Army base or mission services base services or to the micro modular shelter where they have their own independent living or uh into some type of housing where they could have some followalong support. So, it's not a you uh in order to access our shelter, you must be an active drug user. And I know that's not what you're saying, but we're not trying to create more hoops for people. If somebody comes in and they're are free of of addiction and they're in recovery, we want to make sure we get them on that pathway, stay on that pathway as quick as we can. And there are examples when that goes horribly wrong. This this is true. And there are examples when it goes really really well. And and so we are trying to make a policy that is reflective of 2026 of the prevalence of drugs in our community and trying to create uh some type of standard that is consistent with well over a dozen other municipalities in this province. >> Go ahead. All right. Um I appreciate those uh responses. Um I'll see what others have to say. I I will say for me that we would preclude um somebody who wants to provide uh a drug-free space from applying through this is problem is a problem. Um I'm not saying that I cuz I recognize the problem. I know it's out there. It's very prevalent, but I'm disappointed to hear and I'm and this may influence how I I vote on a couple of these clauses. I'm disappointed to hear that if an agency came forward and wanted to run a space that was drug-free that staff are saying we wouldn't come forward and say notwithstanding our guidelines, this agency should still be allowed to apply. And that's that's what I've heard. So I just want to confirm with staff if that's accurate that you would not come forward with a notwithstanding the guidelines, this organization should be considered uh that you would just preclude them. 30 seconds. So I'm just looking for a cl a very clear yes or no. Would you bring forward a notwithstanding or would they be precluded? >> We'll get you that answer through your worship. Um yes, there is a provision for those operators to be able to offer those programs that are entirely abstinence based. we wouldn't um immediately preclude them from being able to put forward a program like that. That that particular program would be independent of these guidelines. A provider can still very much do that and we would consider them just like we would consider any other provider or any other um shelter modality modality. >> Okay, other speakers. >> Go ahead, councelor Ferrer. >> Thank you for that. Um, okay. Follow up to the deputy mayor's questions. Um, I do know of uh some providers. They wouldn't be necessarily considered shelter. I'm not going to name them that are um bringing forth uh sober living environments to help people recover and move forward and get involved into the housing pathways. Would a provider like that be able to um tap into this procurement these guidelines? through your worship. I believe you're talking about a recovery treatment program uh which would not fall under emergency shelter guidelines. It would fall under uh what an accredited uh uh treatment program would have to fall under. >> Go ahead. Okay. I know that uh I don't want to go beyond the scope of uh the item at hand. Um so I guess the question would be are there are there any other guidelines that we're going to be expecting coming forward under the procurement framework that would be able to cover something like that? >> Go ahead through your worship. Um yes, there is precedent in other municipalities across the province. They do have multiple sets of of guidelines for different types of programs. Um this is not something we're considering particularly for this particular phase. Um a program like that that you're suggesting could very much exist in the city of London. Uh they could come through a procurement framework and absence of of specific guidelines about that program. It would be considered in their contract. Um and that's what we're open to bring forward to to council and committee um through the procurement process that we would lay out a number of different shelter modalities including abstinence and recovery based programs. There's nothing uh within our current processes that preclude that type of service from existing. Uh these particular guidelines are speaking to very specific subset of shelters. Um we don't have other guidelines for other service um providers, but that would be included in their contracts. >> Okay. Thank you. That's how I read it. Uh that's why I just wanted to ask the question because you know the one that I'm talking about that we've been working on for a while. Appreciate it. That's all my questions. Okay. Other speakers to the uh amendments before us. Okay. I've been asked to do them all separately. So, um we're just let me make sure we got that lined up. Okay. So, we're going to start. We're just going to do them in order. So, we'll do uh I first closing the vote. Motion fails 7 to 8. >> Okay. And now I I Closing the vote. Motion fails. 6 to 9. And I I I Closing the vote. Motion carries. 15 to zero. Okay. So, now we're back to the main, but I it's an as amended motion now cuz uh one of those parts passed. So, I'll look to the chair. Good for the as amended motion. I need a seconder on that. I I'll second it. Uh okay. Okay. Discussion on the as amended motion which is all the pieces including the addition of the I II part that we just debated. Go ahead councelor privile. >> Thank you chair. I just want to make some comments and thanks for the staff for updating uh these guidelines procedures. Couple of things that I want to uh address. Uh I do have I do have issues which I mentioned before to have them uh at the premises. I do understand I'm talking about the point of course the substances at the premises I totally understand we accept the individuals who are under with the premises there uh I don't I think >> sorry >> yes go ahead sorry uh Mayor Morgan um my apologies um but on I um I voted incorrectly and that would change the outcome Um, so I'm looking for a motion to reconsider. Okay, you are on the winning side of that vote, so you can move reconsideration yourself. So, okay. Then I'm moving reconsideration. Okay. Reconsideration needs a second. Councelor Cuddy. One sec. I want just want to make sure I follow the rules on reconsideration. Okay. So, yes, you can. It's moved and seconded. It's uh requires twothirds of whole council and it's not debatable. So, we'll just get the motion to reconsider up. Okay, we're going to open that. Closing the vote. Motion carries 13-2. Okay, we're good to go. So, we're going to open that for voting. Councelor Pribble. >> Thank you. Closing the vote. Motion carries 9 to six. >> Okay. So now I need to make sure because that's a different as amended motion that you're still okay on the as amended. I'm still okay to second it. Now we'll go to debate on the main as amended motion. I'll look to speakers. >> Go ahead, Councelor Stevenson. >> Uh, yeah. Thank you. I just wanted to say thank you to my colleagues for supporting some of those amendments. >> Oh, sorry, Councelor Stevenson. I I don't mean to cut you off, but Councelor Pribble was actually speaking, I think, to the guidelines when Deputy Mayor Lewis jumped up and said I needed to reconsider. So, I don't want to let I want to let Councelor Prible make his comments and because I haven't partially spoken there. My apologies. Go ahead, councelor C. >> Okay. Thank you. So, actually uh I was the one who actually together with uh uh dep Louis V I changed my vote as well. Uh my concern was legal. Uh but what I'm trying to say is this. I do think that based on this, we really need the agencies to have very strict uh safety protocols, very strict safety protocols because it is an issue for me. It really honestly is just unfortunately or as I said before it's it's very difficult for them to stop the individuals or let's put it this way it's impossible. Uh and I didn't want Londoners to have a to give them a perception that actually they have 100% tools to stop them to enter. They don't. Should they try? Absolutely. Should they steer them away? Yes, absolutely. I really ask and I don't know how I said it at the committee meeting how our staff to really make sure that the safety protocols are very strict very tight so so we minimize sub uh such uh such incidents uh dep Louis when he mentioned the guidelines and let's say drug-free environment I really took this only as low barrier having said that we do we are missing again we are missing missing certain parts in our system. Why are we missing it? Not that we even know it that the organizations, agencies or our staff, we just don't have the funding for it. And this is my issue that these we should have the process of step up, step up, step up, step up. Unfortunately, our steps are too high because we are missing the ones in between. But I took this as only low barrier. I really do think that we should have for organizations what was mentioned before. If someone wants to go there and they don't want to be in such environment that we should have certain guidelines and funding associated with these premises again going back to it again comes to the money and comes to the funding I do think that when I look at our uh when I look at our system it needs to be improved we need to have these individuals for each individual at every stage we do need to have the promises is but as I said I took this as low barrier if I look at how many people we have home homeless we don't even have enough low barrier spots to accommodate them so again and that's going back I know that's coming back to us again with the additional money that's coming in September I mentioned it uh last meeting as well but again just like Maslo's hierarchy of needs if you look at the bottom step even though we consider those minimal things we need to have them we need to have the system we take it out, our system breaks down. So, please do consider that. And I think that's all I had. Thank you. >> Okay, now I can go to you, Councelor Stevenson. >> Okay, councelor Ferah. >> Thank you. Um, I guess I got some questions then just because we have significantly changed the direction of the procurement policy uh for funding sources to the agencies. We're not the only source of funding for agencies. Correct. The agencies have their own sources of funding. >> Go ahead. >> Through your worship, that's correct. The agencies either can self-und through donations or other levels of government or or private sector foundations. Yes. >> And in some cases through you, in some cases, we're not the primary source of funding. When I say primary, I mean like the majority funding source. Is that correct as well? Go ahead through your worship. Uh for the emergency shelters, we are the majority funder for the operators that are in the city of London. That's correct. >> Thank you through you. So a follow-up question. If the board of directors are making these decisions and as it was said previously by staff that uh some of the um the policies in this new framework have already been implemented by the shelters specifically with uh the item one to remove the provision of uh illegal substances. um if they have decided those directors and the management there have decided to do it that way and now us as a primary source of funding for many of the services or the agencies are now saying um you're prohibited to do that. How does that reconcile between the two? >> Councelor, that's not what was passed. It's not a prohibition. It's just a removal of the language. The guidelines would be silent on it. So people could boards could make their own choices. I just want to be clear on what that vote was. So, but our staff can answer your question, but there's no prohibition. >> Okay, let me just reframe the question with it being silent on that and like still how does it reconcile between the two? Like, is it up to the agencies or is it up to the service providers now to make that decision on their own accord? and the funding if it comes from the city, it's still up to the provider, the shelter to make that decision. Is that that's I guess a clarification question. Then uh thank you your worship and through you. Um I I think that remains to be determined. Uh quite frankly um with this change in the guidelines uh we will go through and we will follow uh whatever the council recommendation is is to remove um any of those provisions. Uh it will uh probably create uh some questions or confusions for shelter providers and we'll have to uh sort out what that looks like. >> Go ahead. Um so I don't we don't know how this will translate in like what are we making a decision on here then? Um I thought we are giving direction and now we don't know how that direction is going to land. So if it was up to the shelter service provider to decide that is one direction but if we are being mute now on that provision and we don't know how that's going to translate I am confused on what the decision is that we're going to be making here today with this new framework. >> Go ahead. >> Thank you your worship through you. It does it does create confusion. It's why we brought it forward with language in there to reflect um that it's a an occurrence that they encounter frequently. Uh we had a delegation submission as part of the CAPS agenda that spoke to the many iterations of this policy and and how having language in or out uh often created some ambiguity, created challenges with upholding it uh with or without. So, um, where we're at now is is needing to understand. I I wouldn't be able to answer the question for you, counselor, uh, you know, what are you going to do if somebody shows up at a shelter and they have, um, they they use drugs or they have drugs on their possession? What what is every shelter's stance on that? That that is to be determined now as we, uh, change course. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, you know, with that, like we're not making a decision here. We're making confusion and we're making confusion on a serious crisis we have in the city. I thought that we had a data-driven evidence-based report that was very well done. It was specifically made and meant to capture everybody to put them into the system to be able to put them on pathways to housing through stability to make sure that we meet everybody where they're at. low barrier because the ultimate goal is to get people off of the street. Regardless of where they stand right now, whether it's struggling with substance use, whether it's being unsheltered because they can't afford it, we are trying to create a pathway, a system that is able to capture everybody because the ultimate goal is to get people off the street. The report came back, it was very clear, very well done, too. And I made those comments at committee. Now we are deviating from that data, from that evidence. And now we're making a decision that's going to create confusion. And this is not an area where we need to be confused. If I'm confused because of this direction, and we don't even have a a a clear direction of what this is now leading to from staff. There's going to be confusion with the shelters. There's going to be confusion on how this system is supposed to work. There's going to be confusion amongst the city. and they're once again going to say what are you guys doing? So with this like I I can't support this at this point because there's no decision here. It's a confusing it's you know there's nothing that's really being done here. There's no changes and if I can't get a direct answer on how this is going to translate this is just going to lead to more spinning of the wheels. Um and I would like to have some decisive direction here. So So I guess I can't support it anymore. which is a shame >> to the city manager. >> Thank you, worship, and and I certainly appreciate through you to the members of council a decision by the elected officials to uh make an amendment to something that's put on the floor. We don't have an issue with that. The challenge though is that we have a scenario where we actually need to consider what this means. And and I appreciate their questions about can we answer the questions. It requires us a little bit of time to think about what this means. And that's not because we don't want to answer the questions. We just have to think about it from a standpoint of what actually will we say to providers. What does it mean for us in terms of delivery of essential services in our community. So I think our intention is not to try to be difficult and not answer the questions. We need to think through this process and be able to be sure when we give advice back to you about the change what that actually means. And so I just wanted to be clear about that. It's not it's not our intention to be difficult. It's just about there's this is now a change came on the floor today. I just want to be clear about that and thank you for the time to say that. >> Okay, Council Ramen. >> Thank you. And through you. So, I was supportive of uh the language change because the way that I interpreted it was that on page 41 of the shelter guideline where it says emergency shelter operators will have a policy regarding alcohol, cannabis, illegal substances, and medications without a prescription. policy will include and then it has a bullet and it says to ensure the safety and security of all residents and emergency shelter operators staff regarding alcohol cannabis or illegal substance participants are allowed to have it in the emergency shelter but not allowed to use it in the building that that is where it becomes now silent. So that for me was the reason why I could support it because as we were entering a debate on this topic as we were considering the amendment we heard different scenarios where this could be considered differently. The rest of the document still reads as it reads. It still reads as this is a low barrier approach. It still reads as a guideline that supports what we've continued to support here at council. So I think that this helps to address the issue of whether or not uh we were allowing these things in but not allowed allowing people to use them inside. Um as well as uh I think there will be interpretation and discussion from shelter providers. We have a long procurement process and timeline before this is in place. So I do believe there is time for us to get further clarity and go back and have further discussion. So that's why I remain supportive. >> Uh councelor Hopkins and then McAllister. >> Yeah. Thank you and um appreciate that. um committee chair's comments, but uh for me, we're a council. We make a decision here. I am not clear uh based on city manager's comments about where we are and the confusion. I need to make a v I have to make a dis decision here and I'm not ready to do that. So, uh, given the, uh, comments I've heard, I I would like this to go back to committee for, uh, better understanding as to exactly what we have done here because I'm not clear. I was a committee. We had the conversations at committee. We're here at council and now we have changed the direction, I think, in a different way. So, um I don't think this is where we should be doing committee work to start off with, but if we can refer this back to get further clarification on uh these changes. I'm not sure uh what else to do. Maybe uh a vote and then if depending on what happens with the vote, I'll ask for a referral back. just looking at process. So, does the referral start now? >> Yeah, you only get to speak once. There's no other amendments. This is the we're we're to the main motion now. So, >> I'd like to have this referred back to committee. >> Okay. For what reason? >> Uh for further for clarification on on what we're doing here? I have no idea the implications of what we have just decided. I don't think the staff are clear and I'm not sure if the agencies are clear. >> Oh, okay. Okay. So, what the clerk heard just say was for basically referral back for further consideration and clarification. Are you good with that language? >> Uh, and I wonder >> I wonder if we need legal advice as well. I'm just very concerned here. Uh, your worship, >> that doesn't need to be part of a referral. If staff feel we need legal advice, they'll schedule it that way. If a counselor feels when it comes back they want that, they can ask to go into camera. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Seconder for the referral. Councelor Tro's willing to second >> with legal added. I would like >> with legal added. I would be happy to second that. >> Do you want to just add including any relevant legal advice or Okay. Is that good for you, Councelor Hopkins? Okay. Okay. On the referral, I'll start a speaker. I don't know if you want to start, Councelor Hopkins. You get speak once to the referral. It's up to you. >> Yeah. Based on uh what I've uh heard from staff and from a my colleague and from my own understanding on exactly what I am voting on here, I would like further information. Sure. Uh, Councelor Ferrer, >> thank you. Thank you for the referral. I will support it even though I don't want a referral. I want to put this to bed. This has been going on and on and on and I wish that we could just come up with a decision here and take a very wellwritten report with a lot of data and there's staff will answer your questions too if you reach out if you're confused or if but they obviously can't answer this because this is a significant change. We want to ask, will this cut people off from supports, from pathways, the amendment that has been approved, will it ultimately lead to more people on the street? Will it ultimately avoid or I guess remove our direction of what we're doing. Like ultimately, we want to be capturing as many people. So I think some of the questions that you don't have to answer now but I would like to see in the report back are are those are those like will this is this a significant deviation from the framework? Will it mean less people are captured within the system for support? Will it mean less people are put on those supportive pathways with stability workers or housing? Will it mean more people on the street? Those are the kind of things that I would like to see with the change that we saw here today. So, I don't want to have I know you can't give me an answer, but that's ultimately why I'm going to be supporting this referral, which I will be. And like I said, I'd like to to decide on this now. This is this has been going on way too long. I want to see some decisive decisions here, but the direction that we have seemed to be going, um, if it's going to have to be a referral, it's going to have to be a referral. So, I'm going to support it, and I think we should all support it because those questions need to be answered. uh on the referral deputy mayor Lewis and then councelor McAllister. >> Thank you, Chair. Uh so I'm not going to be re supporting the referral. I don't think this is confusing at all. We've reverted back essentially to the policy being silent and allowing the operators to decide for themselves what their policy is going to be around possession. It's very simple and they can do that. They can provide the individual shelter providers can provide Mr. Dickens their own policy which can be posted on the website along with the emergency guidelines. It's not hard and I think to to make statements about what this is going to mean for more people on the streets turned away from services etc. I think it's highly speculative at that point. I think we've heard from the shelter providers we have active right now that they're prepared to move ahead with the policy of allowing uh possession as long as there's not active use. They're not saying that they're going to pull out uh because it's going to be up to them. So, I think it's really highly speculative to say that's going to cut people off. It's just simply going to be up to the shelter providers. And if someone chooses to come forward through the process and offer a space that is possession free, then that will be their choice. I'm not sure that we have anybody who's interested in doing that right at this moment. But we did hear from the delegates that they were comfortable with the policy. They can pursue that policy. Nothing we have done today prohibits. It simply removes the permissive language and says nothing and leaves it up to the shelter providers. So I think we need to step back from the speculative and and it's not that confusing folks. It's very to me it's very straightforward. We will leave it up to the individual to pro providers to establish their own policy around drug possession in their spaces. Otherwise the rest of the guidelines are in place. Nothing has changed. So, uh, I encourage colleagues to not support the referral. Let's get this passed and move on. >> Council Mallister, >> uh, thank you and through the mayor. Um, I have a different take, uh, I think than, uh, just said. I mean, for me, this whole discussion was going from a place of, um, ambiguity to to to some clarity. uh and even the answers that were provided today uh I thought we were moving to a space where the emergency shelters had the guidelines uh I understand in terms of the drug use that has been problematic across the board uh and we could have other streams it was never precluding and we heard that a number of times today it was not precluding other types of supports uh and I would have been fine in terms of if other people want to be designated a certain way that was fine and we could have developed guidelines that way I think what this is doing is it's muddying the waters and we're returning to a place of ambiguity. And I think councelor Fer said this earlier, but to me it it just I think you just revert back to 2011. I think it's a lack of of an acknowledgement of what we're experiencing currently on the streets. Um, I understand the concerns, but I honestly think it just poses the question back to the public, where do we want people who are suffering with addiction to go? And I think it's not going to result in what uh people want, unfortunately. I think you're still going to see them on the street. And the mayor spoke to this, and I I know we've all kind of wrestled today with, you know, where we go with this. But one of the things I want to make clear on this vote is I think we all care about this issue. We we're all struggling with it. But I don't like how it has being used for political posturing purposes. We're not debating a war on drugs here. This is not a pro and anti-drug vote. This is more us trying to have guidelines that allow operators to work in a difficult space with people who are struggling with addiction, which is a very challenging space in itself. And I think we can all acknowledge we don't have a lot of access points right now. And so we have all also witnessed the capacity issues with the shelter. We want people to be able to come to a shelter. Uh and this again I think it just returns us to a place of ambiguity. I am supportive of the referral just because I would like a report back for staff to now see what this might do to the system that we were trying to um help in terms of offering that clarity. So I I think it just puts us back to a a gray area and I need further understanding in terms of what that gray area looks like and how the people who are actually working in that space will operate. Um and so again, I appreciate the discussion. I know we're kind of on different sides with this. I think we're all grappling with it, but uh I'm saying it now because I just know the way this is interpreted in the public and I'm really tired of this war on drugs thing coming up where that's not what we're debating. I think we're debating where people can get help and where they can seek shelter and the guidelines for that in terms of um allowing them a place to go even if they're struggling with addiction. I think that was an important thing we needed to talk about. But this is not a debate about drugs. It's a it's debate about the shelter space and the guidelines which would have allowed people to to come in inside regardless of what they're experiencing. So, I'm going to leave it there, but I'm supportive of the referral. Councelor Tro, >> thank thank you. Um through through you, does does this shift in our decision and this is directed to the solicitor. Um does this shift in decision create any legal challenges for us in terms of human rights legislation? Go ahead. >> Thank you. And through your worship, I'll say publicly about that is that we know that addiction is a protected human rights ground. And so a person cannot be denied entry on that basis subject to a potential uh human rights complaint. And I presume through you um that that means we'll be getting more information about this presumably in a close session at a subsequent point and you can't answer that now. >> Go ahead. Thank you. And through your worship, um, additional information could be provided as part of the referral. >> Okay. I I won't go through each grounds of legal objection that I could see arising here and ask you individually. I'll just assume that we'll get a thorough um report. What bothers me so much about this is we were just on the verge of being able to have some a victory in terms of clarity, certainty and at least at least a road that is legally in my view sustainable but also ethically and practically sustainable from the point of view of administration. I believe that we have um well I won't say that that way but I will say that what's important to me here is that we distinguish between status person's status which can be very broadly construed to include things that they're in possession of and things that they often often have on their person or on their body. But we're we're making a distinction here now between status and conduct. And what I thought was so um beautiful, what I thought was so brilliant, what I thought was so sustainable was the way staff persistently told us. People can be deported. People can be removed from the premises, but it's based on it's going to be based on behavior. not going to be based on what we think they're going to do with something that they persistently have on their person, which is part of their underlying problem that we're trying to cure. We're going to be pushing people away who are in the most need of the kind of help that we were just on the verge of being able to enact. And I I believe that like once again we backtrack. Once again we are we are standing on the door doorstep of coherence. And what do we do? We worry. We worry and we're allow we're allowing we're allowing uh posturing and political considerations to affect our our judgment here. And that is not something that is acceptable. I find it reprehensible that we're doing this. So, I look forward to getting a further staff report. And I also think that um this backtracking that we're doing here today is going to have some implications in terms of a lot of other people who have a lot of knowledge about drug policy to come forth. And I hope we get some good advice because we were so close. So close. And here we are again. Okay, we'll get another staff report. I will be supporting I will be supporting this referral, of course. And should the referral fail, sadly, because most of what's in the report is good, sadly, I'll have to be voting though on the main motion because I I can't I can't support this. I cannot in good conscience as a counselor who is not only bound to represent the interests of people in our community but also the interests of the corporation which I think is going to be in my opinion just my opinion severely compromised by this move plus I think all of the goodwill that London has built up through the outstanding staff work over this council term This is what people are going to remember that we were on the doorstep of doing something important, but we made a lastm minute change on a reconsideration vote. This is not acceptable. And that's why I'll be voting no and I'll I'll be urging everyone else to voting no on the uh on on on the matter. But please, please, please vote yes on this referral because we need some more information in front of us now because this this seems to be people are of various minds here. So, I think my time is up and uh I appreciate your uh your indulgence, but I'm very very disturbed about the uh the the the turn that this is taking. Thank you. Um, other speakers. Okay, seeing none, we're on the referral. Um, this is councelor Hopkins referral. Uh, so we'll open that up for voting. closing the vote. Motion fails 7 to 8. >> Okay, so that puts us back on the main motion. Okay, I think Councilman Mallister was next on the list. I think cuz because we're back to the main motion and I don't know if you remember, but you were on a list. Um, you don't have to be on it now if you don't want, but you were on it if you want to speak now. Uh, >> if someone else wants to speak, they can go first because I got like my train of thought again. Just so people know, councilors Prible, Ferrer, Ramen, and Hopkins have spoken on the main motion. So, I'll start a speaker. Can Sorry, Ferrer. Counselor, what? No, you can't. You spoke already. You spoke before the referral. Okay. So, speakers who haven't spoken yet to the as amended motion. Go ahead, councelor Mallister. >> Uh, thank you uh through the mayor. Yeah, just some closing closing thoughts uh from me on this. Um, yeah, I to the point I made in terms of supporting the referral. Uh, I just think this puts us back in a place that's uh more of a gray area. I think it defeats the purpose in terms of updating the guidelines. Um, I'll be voting no just cuz at this point I don't see I I think it takes away from what we are trying to achieve and at this point reverting to what we had is pretty much the same as what we'll go with either way. I think you go to 2011 or 2026, we're now just existing in the gray area. And I I think uh it doesn't really offer the clarity that we were looking to seek by doing this exercise in the first place. So uh as it stands uh I won't be supporting it. I think um it just doesn't do what we uh wanted to uh in terms of uh offering those avenues and those pathways for support that we were looking to provide. So I'll be voting no on it. Okay, I'll turn the chair to Deputy Mayor Lewis. I only have myself on the list. >> I'll take the chair. Please go ahead, Mayor Morgan. >> So, I just want to say a few words. Um, first off, I I think there's a lot of colleagues who are projecting a whole lot on to uh the one change that we made. The existing shelters are operating as the contemplated guidelines were operating. Removing references from the guideline does not change the way that the shelter operators can operate today. They can operate as they're operating. they can uh make decisions of their boards. They can integrate with other programs. Um we have not changed or impacted fundamentally the way that they can operate today. So I I just want to be clear because a lot of people are saying that. I would also remind people that everybody has to follow the human rights code. I know there's going to be questions about that, but being silent on something doesn't preclude you from having to follow the rules of the provincial and federal governments and the human rights commission. So, if there are things to apply to the operation of emergency shelters or shelters or any aspect of the work we do as a corporation, those are still going to apply. Uh, you know, our staff could have given us legal advice on that, but it's very clear we have to follow the rules uh of the land. Everybody swore that when they took their oath of office. This is something we have to uphold. So there's nothing that we're making a decision on by being silent on something that precludes us from our obligations to follow any human rights provisions in the provision of services that we provide at the corporation or in the contracts that we provide to people or their board's obligations to follow the rules and the laws they have. So um I think colleagues should support the guidelines. I think there are a number of good things in there. Uh I don't think you should move towards um removing all the other changes because you're unhappy that we're being silenced on one provision where in my opinion it's not going to fundamentally change in any sort of way the way that the shelters are operating today and we should proceed and and should clarity be required in the future again uh which I don't think it will be that's a change that can be made down the road by subsequent council uh in the future but the work that our staff have done on all the other aspects of the guidelines. I would hate to see staff throw it out. I would also remind colleagues that if you vote no on the motion, you're voting no to like just all of the pieces of implementing and directing all the other aspects of the guidelines that were updated. So, I I would say pass this. It's it may be silent on a part that you wanted to speak to, but being silent on that part doesn't preclude an operator from continuing to operate that way. You can give me back the chair if you want. >> Uh I'm debating whether or not to do that, but then go ahead and chair the meeting. >> Uh looking for any other speakers. I see councelor Pelosa on the list. I'll return the chair to Mayor Morgan. Uh recognizing councelor Pelosa. >> Okay. Go ahead, councelor. >> Thank you. uh not rising to move adjournment but uh it's quite the discussion tonight. Um, I appreciate the work staff done, uh, the long conversation to get here and the concerns colleagues are raising about if we're silent on something and if we do something, is it going back to this version, a prior version, where are we landing? That's why I supported the referrals so we could have got some feedback from operators if they were saying what they wanted to do. Uh for me it's we always say we don't think someone's going to come back and then it comes back. Maybe not this council but a future council. Like sometimes there's different iterations. Sometimes it's just the timing. I um I always interested in the transparency of clarity of if those wordings are in there, the public knew what we're going for. Service providers knew what we were going for. people trying to seek help knew clarity should they search it of what we were going for. I learned my I learned from prior councils when they thought removing something it would just default to what the powers were out there. People can decide. I hate to use the words reptilia. It gets Paul too excited. Um but that was it. a council removed words some it became silent on it and it reverted back to something that was proincially mandated that council I believe hadn't attended when they made that small change it ended up being a really big change and that was my fear with this that if we're silent what are we actually reverting back to and what will actually fill the space in the void of us actually being very clear of our intentions thank Okay. >> Okay. Councelor Chos, you can speak to the main. >> I I hope I don't sound like a broken record here, but I need to repeat something I I I said before, and that is um I have some very serious legal concerns through the chair. I have some very legal con serious legal concerns about where we're going and I was very happy to um have this come up later in a in a staff report. But I must ask the question again in light of the uh referrals uh being defeated um to the to the solicitor. Do we run some any appreciable risk here of charter challenges uh of human rights code violations and other potential legal issues that that could um plague this council? And I really do not like putting you on the spot like this, which is why I thought the referral was appropriate. But I have no choice right now to ask you that question. >> Go ahead. Uh, thank you. In addition to my earlier comments, any commentary on risk would have to occur in camera. >> I move that we adjourn to go into camera for the purpose of getting legal advice on the issues I had raised as as just responded to by the city solicitor. I think we have to do that now. And I so move that we go into camera. Um, and I hope I'll get a second and I hope I hope at the very least you'll support this and um, we can get the best information that we can because we're not we're not operating on good information now. And this is a very perilous direction we're going in. Okay. So Okay. So that's a motion to go into camera to receive advice on the matter before us. There's some language that we have kind of always ready for that. I just need a seconder for that. Councelor Hopkins willing to second. Okay. So, going into cameras, moved and seconded. Any discussion? Yeah. Councelor uh Ramen and then Deputy Mayor Lewis. >> Uh thank you. Um I'm just looking for clarity on what are we going in camera for. >> I'm happy to lay it out in greater detail if you want. >> Let me just read the reason because And just make sure this is what everybody everybody understands what it is. Okay. Uh council convenes in close session for the purpose of considering the following. a matter that is subject to solicitor client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose with respect to the staff report dated August 10th, 2026 related to the housing stability procurement and delivery framework emergency shelter guidelines 2011 versus the 2026 comparative analysis and the emer and the proposed emergency shelter guidelines. So all those pieces, there's the staff report and the proposed guidelines. That that that's good and that that would cover all of the >> So councelor you don't have the floor. Councelor Ramen was asking a question and I'm just clarifying it. >> Uh thank you and through you. So um we're getting legal advice on components of which we're not even debating technically at this point. The 2011 and the 2026 comparative analysis piece we've received. We've already went past that in this part of the discussion. So, I'm not sure what we're going in. >> So, the solicitor was given a heads up that there might be a request to go into camera. Uh, I think some broad-based parameters assists the solicitor in being able to to bring up anything that uh she or they may need in discussion. I I can't really comment on the rest of the language, but that's the title of the item that is before us. And so it's basically what we're talking about now. But I'm just going by the language that the clerk's developed for for this based on their conversation. >> Okay. Thank you. I'm still unclear as to the question as to why we're going on camera, so I won't be supportive. >> Deputy Mayor Lewis. >> Well, I'll say I won't be supporting it either. I I think I've heard clearly what I need to hear. However, um, as a point of order, it's a good thing there's no SPC report because we still have ICS to go and it is 20 minutes to 6. Uh, and while I won't be supporting it, I would suggest that your worship may want to call uh, for an extension past 6 p.m. before moving in camera. Yeah. So, um, can be made in camera to go past six, but I think it's more transparent to do it now. So, we'll just do do it now. Um, so you want to I need someone to move. Councelor Stevenson moves. Councelor Hopkins seconds. We're going to open that for voting. closing the vote. Motion carries 11 to 4. Okay, now we're on the close session piece. Any other discussion? Okay, we're going to vote on the motion to go into close session. closing the vote. Motion carries 9 to six. Okay, we'll move to committee room five. Okay, please be seated. Okay, we're back in public session. Uh, councelor Troau asked to go on camera. We went in camera. Uh, councelor Tro, you had the floor. Um, I don't know if you have any final comments uh before, but you're you you hold the floor now. Now that we've come back from main camera. >> Yes. Um, how much time do I have? >> I honestly have no idea. Um, but you did spend probably two minutes. >> Okay. >> And uh Oh, so let's call it three. And I'm sorry for that, but we the timer got cleared when we timed in camera. So, um, >> I'll be brief. >> Okay. So, um, I thought that the questions that I was raising were legitimate questions. I'm not going to talk about what went on in close session cuz I can't do that. But I I I will say I'm not walking out of here tonight feeling good about the um the process or our or our prospects. And I'm still very worried about this. I think that um the the the excellent work that was done by the staff and I want I want to I want to look at I I I I really want address I want to look senior staff in the face and address this right now. The work that was done by the staff on >> through the chair counselor I don't want you speaking directly to staff. You're speaking through the chair and you can make comments on the debate. >> Okay. So, um I just want to let the senior staff know and everybody that worked on this file that in my view this was excellent staff work. It was very difficult staff work and you took on some very difficult um questions that were known to be controversial. Um and we we made it we made a significant and I think it's a significant departure from the staff recommendation. I don't think this was a minor change. I've heard it said that this was just a minor change from the staff report. This is a fundamental shift in in in direction that I think raises a whole paniply of issues that are going to need to be um addressed and if they're not addressed at this council table they will be addressed elsewhere. Now in closing I just I just want to say that it is not my intention to help people smuggle drugs or use drugs or get drugs into these facilities. My my intention here is to assist as many people as possible to get the type of uh treatment and support and uh help that they need and we have to be we have to look at the situation from the lens of the clientele who will be using this service and I worry sometimes that we're looking at it from more of a administrative uh uh lens. We have to look at this from the point of view of people who are not going to come into these facilities >> because they're scared. >> And I think that that is going to have an appreciable effect on the the effectiveness of this program. And again, it's too bad as I said before in my uh it's more than too bad. It's tragic what I what I said before. Um and and my my my my my closing thought is um we had the opportunity tonight to do something historic, heroic and very very valuable not just for London but for the other um communities watching and it's I think it's very unfortunate that we chose not to do that and I hope that at some point this or the next council will reconsiderate this direction. Thank you. other speakers. Okay, there's been a request to separate one part for the final vote and that's part B which is the direct the implementation. Uh that's the only part I've been asked to to have addressed separately. So, okay. Okay. So, we'll do that first and then we'll do all the other pieces. Okay. So, we'll open B for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries 9 to 4. >> Okay. and all the other clauses. We'll open that up for voting. Councelor Trusso >> of frozen. I vote yes on receiving the report. >> Do we have your microphone? Councelor Trusso. >> Noted. Closing the vote. Motion carries 11 to two. >> Councelor Ramen. >> That concludes my report. Thank you for your report. All right. Uh we're on to infrastructure and corporate services committee. Uh it's a four item report. I will turn it over to the chair to present that. >> It's a four item report. We're half being pulled. So sorry, but uh we uh this is um 13th report infrastructure and corporate services committee. Um and I've had requests for item two and four to be pulled. So I will look to move one and three unless there are other poll requests. So looking for those. >> Well, given one's disclosures, I think we could just do one and three together. Even if people want to debate it. Um Oh, I guess if people want to amend three, it has to be separate. Does anybody want to amend three? No. Okay, then you can put one and three on the floor. >> Okay, I'll put one and three on the floor. >> Okay, that's on the floor. Any discussion? All right, we're going to open that for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to zero. >> Go ahead, counselor. >> Okay. Uh I will put item two on the floor. This is the school crossing guard program. Uh councelor Traso has an amendment he'd like to move forward. >> That's on the floor. Councelor Trusso, go ahead. >> Um thank you. Thank you very much. um and and and and and through you I I submitted a um slight amendment um which I which I which I hope will be um less difficult as as the last one. Uh, but I I what what I what I'm looking for here is the addition of the words um and other information. No, including accidents reported near accidents and other information reported from school principles, teachers, staff, students, and adjoining residents. And that's the motion. And I'll wait I'll wait to see if there's a second before I uh talk about why I think that's a good addition. >> I'll second it for you. So, go ahead. >> Thank you. I'll go I'll go right into it then. Um the the staff report really um got into some very interesting questions about the feedback from principles. And the the the thing about the feedback from principles was the the it they didn't they didn't go into a lot of detail um counting the responses from principles but it was going in a particular direction and that was there were a lot of concerns about the safety around the schools and of course that's that's not much of a surprise. Now, um the reason I'm doing this amendment is I don't want this to just be um a counting exercise in terms of doing the traffic study and counting cars. I want to make sure that this that this um that this exercise takes into account also the qualitative aspect of of what the uh the principles, the students, the staff and uh the crossing guards themselves and the um adjacent residents have have to say about this. And I think that'll just make it a more complete better better report to uh to continue along the lines of doing the uh uh exposure index um analysis. So I think this is a very very small small ask and we've seen this uh question come up quite a bit with respect to um some of the requests that we've had in in neighborhoods for either additional crossing guards or for additional traffic mitigation measures. We we just went through a very very wholesome exercise in Old North uh where we looked at uh yes we looked at the data, we looked at the numbers, but we also looked at um a lot of qualitative feedback from the residents and I think that that was a benefit to the staff. So I I I I hope that I'm not um uh indicating to staff that I don't think their work was good. I think it was fine. I just think by by making it explicit that we're going to also look at this qualitative data. I think we'll have a a more wholesome report in the end and um I'm hoping that the uh I know the traffic department is quite capable of doing that and um I I hope that this this um minor amendment uh passes. So, thank you very much. >> Okay, any discussion on the amendment? >> Okay, seeing none, we'll open that for voting. closing the vote. Motion carries 12 to one. >> And um councelor chair, are you willing to move the as amended motion? >> Yes, I'll move it. >> Okay. Councelor Chos, you'll second it. >> You'll second it. Yes. Okay. Um any discussion on the as amended motion? Okay, seeing none, we will open that for voting. >> Closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to zero. >> Council McAllister. >> Uh, thank you. And I will put item four on the floor. This is the amendment to the council procedure bylaw the striking committee. And councelor Ferah had an amendment for this one. >> Okay, that's on the floor. Councelor Ferrer. >> Thank you, Mayor. I circulated a referral on this one. Um, I did circulate it, but if you want me to read it out, I can do that. >> Yes, please. >> All right. I just have to find it. I'll have it in front of me. Can the clerks put that on escribe so I can read that? >> All right. Here it is. Oh, wait. That's not it. >> If you refresh it, sir. Okay. So, uh, moving to refer, uh, and the referral is that the staff report dated August 12th, 2026 related to amending the council procedure bylaw A61 by removing the requirement for the appointment of a of a striking committee for initial citizen appointments to boards and commissions following a municipal election be referred to the next meeting of the infrastructure and corporate services committee for further consideration. Is there a seconder for that? Councelor Troau. Okay. On the amend on the uh >> All right. Well, the reason I'm moving this referral is because um I have some obviously some issues with it. Like I do appreciate that independent community-based layer um that goes over all the ABC appointments. And I would say that this council and past councils have seen some issues coming up with some of the ABC appointments. And I feel like if we were to have that extra striking committee um going over everything and bringing recommendations that would ensure that we have the knowledge, the experience um and the expertise uh for the overall skills uh needed because otherwise and I do understand that the SPC will be the ultimate decider but to have those recommendations come through if we didn't have that then otherwise um you would have you wouldn't really have the the qualifications really uh be focused on for the composition. It would be really kind of attuned to the council preferences. And I'm trying to depoliticize this as much as we can because in the end, our ABCs are are supposed to be providing that greater benefit, that greater good and that smooth operation for whatever the ABC is. So, um this is really kind of something that I think that we should really have um here. We should have that extra level of insight. It will help us make our decisions and it will help us really understand of you know after that review from a striking committee that you know that citizen layer that community layer of um just giving us kind of that recommendation to show that you know this this candidate has you know these qualifications this candidate has these qualifications otherwise it's just going to be a matter of of counselor preference when it comes to that and I would say you know I do understand that council should retain the appointment but we should at least have that extra guiding um factor because we have seen um in this term you know some issues that could come up and I feel like we need to be able to use as much resources as possible that will help us make those considerations because I don't want to have this overly political. Um, I would say that um, you know, I understand that there were some issues with the striking committees in the compositions of maybe some members not being able to show up or having issues with quorum, but I think taking a sledgehammer approach and just removing the striking committee altogether is not the the prudent approach. If we have some issues, we should look into how we can recompose or how we would set the striking committee um, with the amount of members that comes through. But I don't think just removing it alto together is is the right answer because in the end, you know, like you've heard this term before. Um, but the definition of insanity is doing the same thing again and again and again. And I feel like we see some of the issues that have arisen and now we're taking away that that insurance mechanism that could help us not repeat some of the same issues we saw um in the past. So I think it would be a wise choice to refer this and not remove this striking committee. So, I would like to have some details back from staff on how we could recompose or we could mitigate some of the issues we saw in this last council's uh striking committee that was brought to me by the clerks rather than just remove it entirely. >> Go ahead to the clerk. >> Uh, thank you uh your worship. Uh just before I uh begin my substantive answer, I just want to flag that even if a referral is supported given the timeline in order to provide council the full option, we would likely advertise and uh seek uh members to comprise the striking committee given the timelines. The reason we would uh do that is to provide that option. Should council choose to disband the striking committee, then we would advise uh the members that had put their their names forward. I just wanted to flag that if you do see uh outreach from the clerk's uh department, it's not going contrary to whatever is decided here. It's simply to ensure that you have that option before you. Uh the other part I just wanted to mention is uh quite right rightly the council has indicated u some issues that were experienced at the start of the term. U there was only one citizen at large applied for uh five positions and then resigned just prior to the meeting. So we had no uh citizens at large. The standard uh advertisement recruitment approach which is very broad was undertaken by the city clerk's office. Uh certainly uh we would endeavor to make it as broad as possible. Uh as we always do. Um there is no guarantee that we would get that engagement uh from members of the public. Uh we also had some regrets uh from uh other uh striking member uh composition. Um and those are the kind of the standing organizations. Uh we would endeavor to encourage participation should council uh go in that direction. But that said, uh given the timing, uh the appointments to the striking committee pursuing to the existing council procedure bylaw would need to be done no later than the last regular council meeting of this term. So just wanted to flag a few of those issues. Thank you. >> Okay. Just some clarification questions from the clerk's comments on that just to make sure I understand this correctly. Um, so if council were to approve this referral from what the clerk is telling me considering the timelines, you would still proceed with the current mechanism of the striking committee because you don't have sufficient time to make that um that report back. However, in time, this would be, I guess, for the next council term, you would be able to look into the composition. We'd have a report back. Is that just to clarify the first part? Okay. So what what the clerk said was if we referred it, we will have not made a decision to keep all the options on the table, the clerk would be required to advertise for the striking committee. Uh because if through the referral council decided to keep the striking committee, there would not be sufficient time to advertise at that point on. So they would be preemptive in that. if they decided not to, we'd be telling the people who applied actually we're we've decided not to proceed. So the reason why the clerk said that is didn't want counselors to think that they were proceeding in the absence of a council decision um given the if the referral passed um but but wanted to reserve council's right to populate that committee. >> Thank you. That fits my understanding then. Um, and I would also say if we did proceed to do this referral, we could learn, I guess, from another round of the striking committee. Um, so I like that. I I understand that. I think that's fine. But I'd also, I guess, follow up with if we were to not proceed with the refer referral and vote it down and vote with the recommend recommendation from committee, there would be no striking committee um appointments being sought after and we wouldn't see anything like that. We'd be following the committee's recommendation, which would be to not proceed with the striking committee. >> Okay, thank you for that. >> Okay, councelor Frank on the referral. >> Thank you. And I'll be quick. Um, I won't be supporting the referral. I sat on the string committee in 2019 and council ignored about 80% of our recommendations and it kind of felt like a waste of time. uh my time, the clerk's time, other members on the strength committee. And that's fine because council at the end of the day chooses who they puts on put on all these committees. I think we saw the same thing happen uh most recently. And I think that uh council will ultimately end up choosing who they want to put on the various ABCs. Um and of course, I think we all are able all council members are able to go and ask for advice and input from experts and from nonprofits in the community on who they think should be sitting on and serving on our ABCs. But um I from personal experience did not find the starting committee to be a good use of time. >> Any other speakers on the referral? Uh Deputy R Lewis. >> Yes, I agree with Councelor Frank. I don't think the striking committee is a good use of time. I won't be supporting the referral. Uh the timing from as we've heard from the clerk is really short now anyway. Uh we need to make a decision tonight. Um I will say in two terms the input the input from the striking committee with no offense to councelor Frank um was not something that as a counselor I really considered. The counselors are the ones elected to make the decisions and the counselors need to be free to speak to or not speak to whomever they want to seek advice from. Um the striking committee does not bear any more weight for me uh than the input from anyone else in the entire community. including colleagues around this horseshoe who might uh know somebody on the striking or on the um resumes that come in who they might say, "Hey, that's a really good person." And they they come and speak to it uh when we're making those appointments. And I appreciate that feedback from counselors uh because it does help. Um, I think it's frankly, in my opinion, not a good use of the clerk's time uh to have to uh submit all of the uh advertising, get that out there, review the appointments, if there are even any. Uh, as we've heard, we didn't attract anyone last time. uh then circulate all the resumes to those committee members uh be there to uh assist with meeting oversight uh and then put all of that information into a package for the new council that as councelor Frank has indicated many counselors um didn't follow when she was on the striking committee. Uh certainly hasn't had an impact on my decision. Uh this to me is just there's just not a value to it. I'm prepared to say uh it it is gone. The decision does rest with council. The councils are the one who are elected to make decisions. Um and you can consult whoever you want, but we don't need to have a formal committee to do that. >> Any other speakers? Council Tro. >> Um thank you. Thank you very much. Um may I ask the clerk to the chair um not an exact number but rough estimate and I'm not talking about um advisory committees. I'm just talking about the boards and commissions. Approximately how many applications um approximately ca came in for review dur during the uh period at the beginning of the last council roughly. >> The answer is that was four years ago. We'd be totally ballparking it. So sorry. >> Okay. Um I guess it doesn't help but I think it was about this much in terms of the thickness of the packet but it was it was a lot but um maybe she's okay let me move on to the next question then what what is the time period that counselors uh that the SPC members will have from the time that they received the packet to the day of the SPC edition uh decision. I'm going to have the clerk answer that. >> So, we uh through the through your worship uh we did delay some of the appointments and certainly uh SPC can uh refer certain appointments uh should it choose. There are some timelines with some of the the ABCs that uh they may find critical. uh the the turnaround time would be the typical turnaround time for uh agendas. Uh so you would receive it and you would uh you would have it on the agenda and uh that that's the amount of time that you would have. That said, SPC can uh refer matters. They can make some appointments uh refer some other appointments. For example, say some positions have only have a handful of applicants. Some positions may have uh the number of applicants that are required to fill that position and that's it. Some may have a lot. So, I'll just end it there. >> So, um if I if I may um add to that, typically, and tell me if I'm wrong, typically we'll get the packet Thursday, maybe Wednesday, uh and it would be typically a Tuesday meeting. Is that correct? >> That's correct. Okay. Um, so my my feeling about this is um at and then that would take place at the first SPC meeting. >> No, I can answer that. Um, we passed a motion to delay a number of the citizens appointments by extending their terms into I can't remember the date, but it would certainly not be the first SPC. It would be into the new year. >> Okay, that that's that that's good to know. So, my feeling is we should keep the striking committees. And the reason why I think we should keep the striking committees is I think that we need to do more to talk to our residents about civic participation because I think civic participation is at an overall low right now. It's it's it's reflected in what was said about the committees last time and it's also reflected in the voter turnout last time. um it's reflected by a lot of things and I think just to say that well we're going to make the decisions anyway so let's not have the striking committee it's it's a little analogous to saying we're going to make the decisions anyway so maybe we don't need so many um citizen advisory committees and I'm not talking about advisory committees but I think it's the same thinking it's the same kind of thinking we need to engage the public much better than we do right now and I think that like eliminating the striking committees is going to be sending the wrong signal to our our our residents at a crit at a critical time. So I I would strongly urge >> just encouraging you on the referral, right? Um right now we're referring it. So um >> well well and and without the referral we're just not going to have it. Uh yeah, I can come back and explain why I would vote no on the on the motion, but the referral will at least give us the chance to look this over again. And there are a lot of good reasons why we should have these striking committees and at the at the meeting to which this is referred. People would be able to address that in in in better detail than we can uh at this late hour. >> Thank you. >> Any other speakers to this? Okay, we're voting on the referral and we'll open that for voting. >> Closing the vote. Motion fails 3 to 10. >> And on committee recommendation, any other speakers? Mr. Trro. >> Well, once again, I'm I'm sorry to say that since the referral lost, um I I sadly am not going to be able to support this uh committee recommendation because basically the committee recommendation is saying let's not worry about getting more citizen impact feedback into this. Let's just go ahead and do it ourselves. We'll have the weekend. We'll have the weekend. That's a thick packet. I'm sorry we don't have the exact number of people. people apply to the library board. I mean I mean people want to be on the a number of these boards. It's very important and I think that by um by just sort of pushing this through uh and there's only so much scrutiny uh even the most diligent SPC member can uh can devote to this to this file over the weekend. I presume that that's that's not going to be the only thing in the SPC packet that early in in the term. So, I I I think we're sending a very negative signal at a time when we really need to be increasing civic participation. And not only do we need to be increasing civic participation, we need to look back and understand why these instances of civic participation failed in the past. And rather than to say they failed in the past, wasn't a good use of my time, uh, let's just not do it. I think we need to critically assess what was the dynamic that led people to think this wasn't something they wanted to do. So I very much I'm very keen to go ahead and try to recruit people for these uh striking committees. We used to have them and uh we used to have a good we have we used to have a big uh sort of cross-section of uh of different groups. I remember we had we had the Chamber of Commerce, we had the Labor Council, we had a variety we had a variety of groups and it was it was very useful and I think we're giving up something very important if if we just push this uh through without regard to how this is going to view how the public um how the public is going to view our um cutting out of one of the few opportunities they have to engage in this meaningful decision-m. So, please vote no on this. Thank you. >> Okay. Any other speakers? >> All right. We're going to open that up for voting. Councelor Hillyard. Councelor Trusso. >> Sorry. Oh, there it goes. >> Thank you. Closing the vote. Motion carries. 10 to three. My report. Okay, thank you. Um, added reports. I just handed you the added report from the closed session. Um, you'll be happy with this one. Usually, you read a long time last time, so I'll let you do this one, though. >> Uh, thank you. Yes, this is the 13th report of council in closed session. I think this is the shortest one I ever got. So, thank you for that. Uh, that progress is made with respect to items 4.1 and 4.2 2 as noted on the public agenda which was 6.1 uh/12 peek uh 6.1/13 ICSC and that uh progress was made uh for the added U matter that we went into close session for. >> Okay. And you know what we don't even have to vote on that because they're it's just a report of progress. It's just a verbal statement. >> Uh privilege point of personal privilege. >> Sure. Um I I would on that last matter for the close session that we just went to. I do want to disscent that progress was made. I don't I just want to I just want to indicate my um descent to that uh perspective. >> Okay. >> That's all I'll say. >> Okay. That's not a thing in our procedure bylaw. So we're we're going to move on. Um deferred matters. Any deferred matters? Okay. Inquiries. Any inquiries? Uh emergent motions? None. Okay. Bylaws. >> This is going to take a moment because people are telling the clerks now that they want things pulled, which is not as helpful as before. Councelor Frank. >> Yes. As circulated via email, I would like to refer one of the bylaws. >> We're not there yet. Okay, I'm going to read out how we can do this. We're going to do bill 302 first, which is the striking committee uh item 306. uh 306 which is the one that councelor Frank you want to defer but I'll just note you can't do that until second reading so we have to deal with first reading doesn't come into effect you can refer and debate at second reading uh that's the appointment of deputy mayor and budget chair um 308 uh council I don't know what one that is, but a councilor asked for that separate. Um, >> it's the streets bylaw. Uh, 305 and 324, which is the PEC motion related to deerness. Uh, and then everything else. Does that sound okay to everybody? Okay. Okay. I Is anybody supportive of all the things that I can just use the same mover and second? Deputy Deputy Mayor Lewis and Councelor Cuddy always so agreeable. I appreciate it. It makes uh makes it a little quicker. Um okay. Okay. So, that's how we're going to proceed, unless I just want to make sure people had time to look at them. All right, we're going to start with 302, which is the uh striking committee item. Um moved by Deputy May, seconded by Councelor Cuddy. This is first reading, so we'll open that for voting. Motion carries 11 to two and second reading. Any discussion? Okay, seeing none, we'll open that for voting. >> Motion carries 11 to two. And third and final reading. We'll open that for voting. Motion carries 11 to2. Okay. 306 is the next one we'll do. We got a mover in secondary. We'll do first reading. Open that for voting. Motion carries 8 to 5. >> Okay. Second reading. Any discussion? Councelor Frank. >> Thank you. Yes. I would like to refer this bylaw to a future meeting of SPC. I believe we have one in September to include provisions regarding the nomination process of deputy mayor, including that where a nominee is not confirmed by council, the mayor may continue to make nominations until a nominee is confirmed by council. Uh second for that, councelor Fah. >> It's a referral, so that's debatable. So go ahead. >> Thank you. Yes. Um I'll remind folks that we had discussed this uh policy at a previous governance working group committee meeting I believe uh mid last year and we had discussed having clarity around the nomination process. Right now uh in the policy it just states that uh the mayor will nominate a deputy mayor who will be confirmed by council and I asked at the time what happens if they're not confirmed. Um, and I just wanted some clarity around that just so that you know in the future if it for whatever reason happens that council does not agree with the mayor's position then uh we know what direction to take and uh this one seems to be um somewhat easy and at the point that the nominee is conferred by council uh then we can move forward with that position. So just seeking um a referral so that we can have that added before uh new council is elected. Any other speakers to the referral? Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair. So, uh, setting aside uh my own bias, uh, um, well, I think that this is sort of a, and I said this, this isn't, uh, dig at councelor Frank because I said this at governance working group 2. I think this is a bit of a problem in search or a solution in search of a problem. Um, I don't think in the entire history of the city of London a council hasn't affirmed, uh, the mayor's appointment to the deputy mayor position. Nonetheless, um, I appreciate councelor Frank's desire for some clarity of language. I just don't think we need to go through a whole committee cycle. I think the the language you've suggested is very clear. However, I realize that clerks need time to edit the bylaw. Um, so I'd like to amend this to just have it brought back to the October 14th council. And I will share that at this point uh the SPPC meeting in September does not have any staff reports yet on the agenda. That doesn't mean that there might not be some uh because I know staff are working on a couple, but um that might not fall like that meeting might not occur. So I think the language councelor Frank has suggested could simply be written into the bylaw brought back to us on October 14th. So, I'm going to move an amendment uh that uh this be referred to the October 14th council meeting and that uh civic administration, the clerks in this case be directed to amend the bylaw to reflect the language from the councelor. >> Okay. And councelor Cuddy uh wants to second that amendment. So, we're amending just the part on the reporting back from SPC to council and then you're picking the specific meeting. Okay. So, >> there's only one more council meeting of this term. >> Okay. Well, that's probably a good one to do it at then. Okay. Um, yeah, that's that's okay. That's that amendment's on the floor. Councelor Cuddy seconded it. Uh, so we're on the amendment now. I'll look for speakers on the amendment. Go ahead, Councelor Troile. I I think my question though it's uh it's relevant to the main motion, it's also relevant to the amendment. So, I'm going to ask it now. How how did something get onto the stage 13 agenda where we do three readings of things typically that have been done previous in the in the meeting. Um, I've never seen an instance where this council or any previous council that I've been watching has um done three readings of a bylaw if it wasn't something that was on that council agenda. And I actually went back and looked uh it's hard to figure out, but I thought I'd also talked to some of the former counselors. um nobody has any recollection of something making it onto the stage 133 reading uh agenda that hadn't previously been on that same council agenda. So I guess my question is how did this get um how did this get on this agenda uh in in stage 13 if it wasn't on the um agenda previously on this meeting? How how did that happen? >> Okay, that's a question for the clerk. I'll let the clerk answer. Certainly on the current agenda, there are a number of bills uh that u are on the agenda. For example, bill 308 through 3 uh 320 at least uh that are uh on the agenda. Those are related to dedications of public highways. uh those uh relate to active city uh business. Um but they wouldn't go through a typical process for items where there's a clear direction from council where there's no new decision to be made where there's a a direction for example the referral before um before council right now. It would be the October 14th uh change to bring it back to council. It would appear on a bylaw list. Thank you. Councelor Tro. >> Well, um I would like to say I'm going to save my um I'm going to save my um other comments, but if the referral passes, that's it at it tonight. So, I'm going to say I'm going to be voting no on the referral because I think there's more to uh there's more to the controversy here than uh than than this is not just cleanup language. This is this is not housekeeping. There's some substantive changes that are being made here. and to have this appear at the stage 13 three reading uh agenda with without with I'm I'm I'm sorry I'm I'm trying for this to appear on the stage 13 part of the agenda without any indication on the rest of the agenda what this is from. I think it's very confusing to counselors. I also think it's very confusing to members of of the public. I think it's bad practice. It's hard enough to go through and be diligent reading all of the um staff reports and reading all of the things that are on the agenda proper, but but now apparently we also have to plow through all of the bylaws in detail without any aid of staff report or context to see if there is to see if there's a change. And I think uh again legally we can do that. There's nothing in the procedural bylaw that says we can't do it. But in terms again going back to my um uh the plea for for more transparency and civic engagement, I think this is a real bad idea. So, I'm not saying that it'll turn out different in the end, but I think this is an important enough question that it that it should come to a uh it should come to an SPC meeting properly on the agenda with a staff report where people can actually make um at at the SPC. If people have objections to the text of the um of the bylaw change and there are serious changes, they can they can they can send in and add it. They could also ask for delegation. And I don't think we should cut off the public's right to do that. Now, of course, if we put this on the next council agenda, we'll get a report back. People can still do their uh people can still do their uh added, but uh we do cut off the ability for people to make delegations. I think it's a bad precedent for us to be cutting out the the typical um standard process of going through committees. And I'm not asking for this to go back to governance. because I don't even think we're having another governance meeting. I don't know. But, uh, I do think this should go back to SPC. So, I'm going to be voting against the referral and should the referral pass, I'll be I'll be making more comments at council about why I think this is a very bad process. Thank you. >> Okay. I'm going to have the clerk respond to that because you uh you made some comments there about controversy and process and procedure. Um I want the clerk to answer clearly uh why they put this particular item on the agenda in the way they did. >> Uh thank you your worship. Uh there was a resolution passed by council where the roles and responsibilities as well as the appointment process be clarified. Uh so there's clear direction for us to already do uh the work. Uh we did the work we put it on uh the the bylaw list. Uh and absolutely council can refer they can do whatever uh council would like including uh amendment or debate at second reading. >> Okay. Sorry councelor. Go ahead. >> Yeah. Well, just to briefly respond to that. Um this is just going to create a situation where we're doing committee work at council again and yeah this is what we'll do. We'll get the report at council and the uh my view is there are substantive differences and um those will be raised those will be raised at council and we'll get into a uh discussion with a uh with with amendments and maybe there'll be amendments no amendments I really would like to have that kind of discussion done at standing committees not at city council but he'll here we'll go again so please vote please vote to refer this please vote um no if the referral referral pad if the referral does not happen. So, thank you very much. >> Okay. Uh other speakers to the amendment. >> Go ahead, Councelor Stevenson. Uh thank you. I mean, I have seen bills come through in the past that aren't uh outlined and I've learned to go through the bills carefully. Uh I do think it would be better to have some sort of a cover sheet to let us know. we do. It would help. Um to councelor Traso's point though, if we don't if this referral doesn't pass, then the bill is likely to pass as it is. So I would encourage uh supporting the referral if you don't want this to pass tonight. Um, and there would be other ways to potentially make other changes through a notice of motion or something before the next council. >> Okay. Anyone else to the amendment? Oh, go ahead, Councelor Fra. >> Uh, thanks, mayor. Um, can I just get uh procedurally from the clerk um the amendment here to refer be amended to bring back to the October 14th meeting. Why is that? Could we just if if the intention is to bring it back? If we were to not support the referral, then this would pass as it is now. I just wanted to know procedurally, is there a reason why we have uh this amendment brought by the deputy mayor and councelor Cuddi? Uh just procedurally, is there a procedural reason why we have to have the motion to refer to be amended to come back to October? That's >> because the de the deputy mayor and councelor Cuddy are asking it to come back to council for approval at the council meeting on that date. So we can direct things to committee. Uh we could direct things to council. They're just making a change to direct it to the council. So procedurally it's it's >> there's no procedural reason to do this. So, I don't want to get into a cross debate, but um I I I'll let the mover explain the reason uh because procedurally the clerks cannot rewrite the bylaw tonight. Councelor Frank has provided language uh to amend the bylaw. Uh but the clerks can't rewrite the bylaw and have it reviewed by legal and have the language in Eastcribe for us to vote on tonight. They need time to go back and put the uh proposed amendment that councelor Frank has put forward uh which I'm supportive of uh into the bylaw. So it doesn't need to go back to committee. It can just come back to council with the amended language once the clerks have drafted it up. That's the next opportunity really for them to do so if we're going to give legal time to review it and make sure that it uh meets all of the the legal language requirements as well. >> Okay, councelor Farah. >> Thank you. I would just remind that the motion to refer does say to the next strategic priorities and policy uh committee. So, we wouldn't necessarily need a bylaw to be drafted up before the next council. Um, I do think that something like this as substantive as this, especially when we are going to be removing kind of the the d the discretion of the mayor to rotate between the skills and experiences depending on counselors for deputy mayor and everything else that councelor Frank is asking about, including clear provisions regarding the nomination process. Um, I I think we should be bringing that to to committee. Now I guess the next question and councelor Trussell kind of alluded to this. Can I amend this amendment to send it to committee rather than sending it to No, you got to defeat the amendment and then it goes to committee. So you vote no if you want to do that. You don't you wouldn't amend it again. >> Okay. So, I would just clarify. Um, I understand the deputy mayor saying that we need the bylaw to be drafted up. Um, and they would, the clerks would need time for that, but this referral motion is to committee which does not require a bylaw to be drafted up at that time. And there is time after >> yes, bylaws come to the committee uh as well. So, the clerks would bring this bylaw to the committee uh or they'd bring it to council. So, it's still a bylaw. It's still at the actual >> it will still be a bylaw, but we can still have that discussion at committee where this discussion belongs at SPC. So, um I would say vote no to this amendment. There's no reason why this amendment needs to be here and support councelor Frank's referral. We need to have this discussion at the proper um forum which is the strategic priorities and policy committee. other speakers to the amendment. Okay, seeing none, then we're going to vote on the amendment. Closing the vote. Motion carries 7 to six. >> Okay. So on the So now it's as amended. Um, I need an as amended. Oh, we we have the So, same bylaw mover, same bylaw seconder. As amended this time. Okay. So, now on the referral, so it's not as amended. Sorry, my mistake. The the as amended referral we can still vote on. But councelor Frank, are you still okay with the referral moving it? Okay, so councelor Frank's still the mover of the referral. I don't remember who the second was, but C. >> Okay. Well, councelor Ramen put up her hand first. So, she's the secondary. >> No, I wasn't seconding. >> Oh, you weren't. Okay. Councelor, uh, Deputy Mayor Lewis can second it. >> You see the text? It's not on the screen. >> The referral as amended. So, it's councelor Frank's referral with the direction for it to go to council on the 14th. >> Not asc. >> No, that's been amended now based on the last vote. >> Okay. So, discussion on the referral now. Go ahead, councelor Ferrer. Okay. Thank you. I hear I heard your comments about uh the referral to go to strategic priority policy committee has been amended to the October 14th municipal council meeting. Um but then it says the referral as amended be approved. We still have the words strategic priorities and policy committee in there. What uh is there like a conflict in the language here? Is are they counter to each other first of all? >> No, it's just the way we do it and we do this all the time. So there's motion 16. Uh motion 16 was amended by motion 17. Motion 18 is that the referral as amended be approved. Um so it'll it's basically the same thing as 16 just going to the place that was passed in 17 and then 18 just captures both of those things. It's not in conflict. It's the way that this the way we do a lot of as amended motions if you read through. >> Okay. Thank you. So, this is a referral to take everything that was done here, but put it back into the October 14th municipal council meeting, which will just go to a bylaw reading just as we are now. So, there's no changes. We're just putting it into the next council meeting. >> No, Councelor Frank added some changes to the bylaw motion 16 to be to change the language there. So, so she's made a change. It'll come back with the language with that change. Um but including clear provisions regarding the nomination process. When do we see the clear provisions if it's just a bylaw? That would be in the bylaw that came back. So, the direction is tell staff to go make those changes, bring back a bylaw that has those provisions because those provisions would be in the bylaw >> and we don't know what they would be. >> Yes, it's in motion 16. um they would be uh including clear provisions regarding the nomination process that include where the nominee is not confirmed by council that the mayor may continue to make nominations until a nominee is confirmed by council. So that's what councelor Frank has asked to come back with those changes. So the the new bylaw would have that incorporated into it in detail. Okay. Detail, which again, you know, I don't want to be beating a dead horse here, but this we should have the discussion at SPC. And there's some other changes there that we saw in this bylaw as well. So, I um I guess I'll vote how I do when when the vote time comes in a couple minutes. >> Council Ramen. >> Uh thank you and through you. I know everyone's getting tired. Um, uh, the first thing I wanted to bring up is that October 13th is the council meeting, not the 14th. Um, is a, as far as I understand, it's in our calendar that way. >> It's on our calendars, in our outlook that way. Oh, in the official counselor agenda because the Monday is a Thanksgiving holiday and previously when we amended it, people wanted to people move things around to make sure that it wasn't like a holiday in council. It's >> it's I don't know the clerk's got the calendar here. I'm just going by the clerk. >> It says she and he says it's the Wednesday at 1 p.m. >> Perfect. We'll amend our calendars then because they all say the 13th. Oh, is this the calendar that your staff built in? Oh, >> yes. >> Okay. Yeah. >> Okay. So, >> well, okay. So, you may let them their staff know that they've got to fix that. >> Either the 13th or the 14th, either way. Um, so because we this was amended, we can't refer to another SPC meeting late October the 6th because the way that the amendment was done. I just want to be clear. So I think that would be contrary to the amendment we just made that was send it to SPPC and then through that vote it was a no send it to council. So I don't think we can amend it back to the thing that was just changed even regardless of which SPC meeting it was a future meeting of SBPC that is a future meeting of SPC. So I think from the advice I got from the clerks that's that's been decided now. >> Thank you. And what if it was for a different reason? So for me the issue isn't that I wanted to refer the matter for just this change that councelor Frank has proposed. Uh my reason is actually because I was looking to get the budget chair policy brought forward. Um I think that we require a discussion as a council as to which roles and how we see uh council should be best supported in the future and so my reason would be for that for that exact reason. So I would like a discussion at SPBs for that reason. Okay. So, we just need a little bit of clarity because um I'm asking the clerks. So, the bylaw is about the appointment process, but you want to have a separate policy on deputy mayor. >> Thank you. I'd want to discuss the policy. We're incorporating both positions into a policy uh as a decision as we move forward. I want to have that discussion on the roles that we're considering in the policy. Therefore, I need an SPC meeting to do so. totally get it. That's Yeah, it's not complex as it sounds. Okay. So, there's no decided matter of council today. We can't change it back to SPC because it's that vote was made. You've got a different reason that you want to make some other changes. Um there's there's nothing precluding you from writing a communication to an SBPC meeting or I think that's the relevant council committee uh having a discussion on that and then subsequently that would land at council at the at the same time but it would be with the other direction because council will council will have not made a decision on the policy at all and then it'll be before us with the direction for the bylaw and and then whatever other thing came through SPC and we'd have to reconcile the the pieces there because we're I guess the clerks aren't exactly sure what change they want to make and maybe it's part of a discussion but but that's that's an avenue pathway forward for you that would involve a discussion at an SPC meeting. >> Thank you. And so by signaling today that the the intention to bring a a letter to the October 6th SPC meeting, there isn't a way that that SPC meeting doesn't happen because we don't have enough items. So I I can't guarantee that because the chair can in consultation with what's on the agenda and the workload decide to have a meeting or not. Um there is one scheduled. I don't know the load of that yet. So >> go ahead. >> Thank you. And therefore, that's the reason why I'd like to make this an amendment. >> You I'm going to call a point of order. Sure. On the process here. >> Yes. Okay. The clerks have brought this forward because of of a previously adopted resolution of council that was passed after an SPC meeting that got a report from a governance working group meeting. There was no direction from that SPPC meeting or that council resolution to move into discussions about rotating deputy mayors and how many we're going to have or how many budget chairs or rotating people in anything like that which I've heard some people refer to. There's actually already a decided matter of councel on that to cl have the clerks provide direction in a bylaw to clarify some of the language around the nomination process and confirmation by council. The rest of those things were already in the last 12 months debated at an SPPC dispensed with forwarded to council and the resolution from council was clerks bring forward some clarifying language. The piece that councelor Frank brought forward tonight was actually uh not only part of the discussion at at governance working group, but it was part of the discussion at that SPPC as well and just wasn't captured in the council resolution, which is why I'm supportive of having that come back with an amended bylaw in October. If colleagues want to bring something else forward, and I'll remind you um that we are at the end of our term. So you have the policy in front of you. There's not a need to go through another committee cycle. If you have a very specific change you want to make, you could provide a notice of motion on council before the October 14th meeting. You could simply write a letter and and submit it to the clerk and it would be on the agenda related to bylaw. Well, it won't be 306 at that point in time. Uh the number will change, I assume, saying that you want to make another change. But keep in mind that the scope of the change is very much around the bylaw we have and the already decided matters of council through SPPC and the council resolution that was previously passed. So there might be some minor amendments to language or proposed change to um and I don't know what councelor Ramen's amendment might be but maybe she wants to say you know the budget chair should also be on you know another uh border commission because of how it relates to the budget or something like that. Um which would fit into the job description but it's not changing the process of the mayor nominates someone and then council confirms it. It's not changing the number of budget chairs or the number of deputy mayors. It's really focused on what is the job description in the bylaw. So again, there's no thing there's no piece of the process that prevents a a member of council from just giving that some thought, consulting with our clerk's team, and putting an amendment on the October 14th council agenda. So given that we've already passed an amendment to forward this bylaw, not just a portion of it, but this bylaw with some specific amended language to the October 14th meeting, I would suggest that that is the process colleagues have to follow. They have to put an amendment on that agenda of council any sending it to a trying to break it up at this point and send it to a committee would I believe be contrary to the motion we've already passed. So that's your point of >> that's the point of peace and I've already pretty much said that but give me a So yes, that is what we're doing. I mean, there's a lot of context there that was unnecessary for this decision, but I have to, as chairing the meeting with the procedure bylaw, follow the motions that council has made, including the motion um which I was in the minority on on the uh the last motion to amend. And so that's so but the referral is still on the floor as amended which can be passed or defeated. Um and then I've outlined the avenues the council would have but I I just can't make those guarantees about the meeting because I again I don't I don't chair that meeting and I don't know the workload of the agenda. So, but we can't but unless you're going to make an amendment to say bring forward some more language like some other changes that council like similar to what councelor Frank did, um I don't think I I have an avenue besides the one that I've outlined with you going through committee to to do anything different than what council's already decided tonight um so far, which again I I wish I could give a different answer but going by the advice that I'm given and how we're trying to proceed. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. So, we're on the referral as amended. Any other speakers to that? Who has Kela? not to the referral as amended. No. >> Okay. Let me let me start by sort of a point of uh procedure and that is let's not overblow what the effect of the previous discussion that we had at council uh last year when I brought forward uh that request for a staff report. Al all council voted on was rejecting the request for the staff report. council did not vote on any of the substantive matters that could have been contained therein with respect to the process for the selection of the deputy mayor. All the only decided matter of council was there was a request for a further staff report and that was voted down. So I think it would be open to council members and I'm willing to vote for this if it's if it's clear that council members coming into this meeting. I'd rather it be an SPC meeting but if it's a council meeting that's okay too. But that there's not there's not going to be a decided matter of counsel now or today or with respect to that last thing we did that is going to cut counselors off from being able to uh make other ways of looking at this. Why are we afraid of looking at other options? I don't understand it. It's so like we're so set in in in in just keeping the status quo with minor tweaks. And again, this goes to the inability of the public to be able to actually weigh in to how we're running this uh allegedly well-run city. And I just think we're going to be a much better well-run city if we allow people clear clear chance to be able to come to a committee meeting where they can actually delegate and say what they want to say. Now, if they can't come and delegate, they at a council meeting, they can at least submit a um a letter. But why why are we not giving the public the opportunity to weigh in on this? And yes, it's the end of the council term, but all the more reason why we want people to be engaged. I don't want to send yet another signal to the public that we're precluding uh uh public participation because it's convenient. We shouldn't do that. we should be going out of our way to give the public the opportunity to come to a meeting. And if there's an SPC meeting that's scheduled and this is on the agenda, it shouldn't be cancelled. And I'll I'll leave it at that. I'm still very confused about the effect of the motion that's on the floor right now in terms of everything I've just said. Maybe that maybe the the mayor can explain that. But my main goal tonight is to keep open the opportunity for members of this council and members of the public to weigh in on this question. And I guess maybe that's a question to the mayor or the clerk or I don't know solicitor. So if it is referred, it's going to come to the council meeting and the regular process for communications of the council meeting would would exist. If someone writes a letter to an SPC meeting and has a discussion there, that would land at the same council meeting. Uh if councilors brought notice of motions or wrote letters about amendments to the bylaw they intend to do at that meeting, like that those are all options before you. Um, the only option I don't have at this moment is undoing the vote that was just done um about the meeting where this is going to land to if the referral passes. I I appreciate that response. It does leave me just as confused as I was when I started, but that's my that's my fault. And um um I want to hear what other people think. I'm hesitant to sit down because then I'm done, but I'm going to sit down. >> Okay, Councelor Hopkins, go ahead. >> Yeah, thank you. And uh I do have a question. Not sure uh who can respond to to it, but if this um amendment is not supported, what happens next? >> So, it's a referral. If it's not supported, we would continue with the second reading of the bylaw that's before us. >> Thank you for that clarification and I'll be supporting it. >> Other comments, councelor Stevenson. >> Uh just a couple of things. One is I heard that there was no items on the next SPPC. So I just sent an email because I did have something that I'd sent to IC that was uh I was told should be SPC. It doesn't seem to be there. So I'm going to get that done tonight. The other just a question. If the bill, let's just say the this referral fails and then we vote on the bill and it passes, is it considered a decided matter of council such that uh these potential changes can't be brought forward. >> So, um that bylaw would be passed. Um like many bylaws, uh you can amend bylaws after they're passed. And so I guess it would depend on it would depend on well give me one. >> I just want to know if it needs a 2/3 majority or just a simple majority. >> So you don't need 2/3 majority to amend an existing bylaw. You can amend a bylaw like so you can change a bylaw and that's the regular same process. >> Okay. Thank you. I'm going to be supporting the referral, but I appreciate the clarity. >> Okay. Anyone else on the referral? >> Okay, let's open that for voting. Noting uh councelor Mallister uh is no longer present. Closing the vote. Motion carries 11 to1. >> I just want to say thank you and sorry that took so long. >> Hey, it's the first rare referral of a bylaw. It's just not a quick process. So, okay. So, we don't have to do any more readings on that because it's been referred. So, we're going to go to the next bylaw on the list. Okay, we're going to do the deerness bylaws now. There's two of them, uh, 305 and 324. So, moved and seconded. We'll do welcome first reading for voting. >> Motion carries 9 to2. >> Second reading. Any discussion? Okay, seeing none, we'll open up for voting. Councelor Pelosa. >> Councelor McAllister. >> I'll vote yes. A second reading of the the items referring to the dearness addresses. >> Okay. Yes. >> Closing the vote. Motion carries 10 to two. >> Okay. We'll open that for voting. Motion carries. 10 two. Okay. Bill 308. Um, and councelor Hopkins asked for this to be pulled. So, we'll do first reading on that. That's okay. We're doing 308 now because we didn't do it yet. So, we're doing it. We're doing it now. Council >> motion carries 120. >> Okay. And uh second reading of this. Any discussion? Seeing none, we'll open that for voting. Motion carries 120. Um, third reading on this bylaw. We'll open that for voting. Councelor Prebble, Councelor Trusso. Motion carries. 120. Okay, now it's everything remaining. We'll open first reading for voting. >> Motion carries 120 >> and second reading of these items. Okay, seeing none, we'll open that for voting. Motion carries 120. >> Third reading. We'll open that for voting. >> Motion carries. 120. Okay, that's it for bylaws. So, it's just a motion to adjurnn. I'll look for a motion to adjurnn. Councelor McCallister, seconded by Councelor Cuddy. We'll do that by hand. All those in favor? Motion carries. Okay, we're journed. Thank you.