Good afternoon everyone. We are going to get started with the 12th meeting of community and protective services committee. We will start with the land acknowledgement. The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Inishnabek, Honi, Lenapoic, and Adawand. We honor and respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. The city of London is currently home to many First Nation Matey and Inuit today. As representatives of the people of the city of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. Uh, as always, the city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication support for meeting upon request. Please reach out to the clerk should you have any questions. And for those uh here in uh paying attention online, we have all members of committee including Mayor Morgan in attendance today. Uh we are also joined by other members of council. I see councelor Stevenson is here and online councelor Mallister. With that we'll go to item one which is the disclosure of peerary interests. Okay, seeing none, uh we will move on to item two, which is our consent items. I have not had requests to pull any items, but we do have one delegation request for item 2.3. The delegation request for item 2.2 uh that is in the agenda um is is not able to attend. So, uh, right now, um, I'm looking for any requests to pull any other items. Any items? Seeing none, we will draft a motion for 2.1 and 2.2 together. And I will look for a mover and seconder. Councelor Ferrer, seconded by councelor Privile. Thank you. Just a moment. Okay. So, for 2.1 and 2.2, we have a mover and second on those items. I'm looking for questions and comments from members of committee. >> I'll go to Mayor Morgan. >> Um yes, on 2.2 to and the um the added uh staff report. Um I just want to thank um thank our staff for the added report and the added information. Uh but more importantly, I want to thank uh a number of my colleagues um on the uh federal big city mayor's group, including the mayor of Montreal specifically uh who was a phenomenal advocate uh for municipalities uh on the issue of the federal funding, a former colleague of number of members of the federal government with great connections there. um uh on the advocacy on this piece both initially to get the uh funding renewed but also in trying to get the money out and flowing to municipalities as colleagues will recall you know we previously um had provided direction for us to continue our advocacy which I've certainly done so in collaboration with my partners uh at FCM as well as other mayors um but I also want to say um uh member of parliament Peter Fraiscatos and the city here was also very helpful in liazing with both the prime minister's office and the minister's office about the importance for the municipalities who had access to this money uh to have access to it in the future. And so uh the renewal of this money is incredibly important. It's $2.5 million that we will have access to uh pending council's decision to um authorize it in this way and then submit that application. It also allows for uh council to restore um the money that it uh uh used from the reserve fund. Um the funding is uh agreement is retroactive uh to the period of time that the government made the announcement. And so although we did uh backfill a number of services for the federal government that is able to be uh reimbursed to the reserve fund as part of the uh [clears throat] part of the allocation of the federal government which allows us to use it for for other things uh that may be of of need in the municipality. So, um I just wanted to say um thank you to our staff uh for uh their work and leazing with the ministry and thanks to my colleagues uh at the federal level who helped with the advocacy on this and thanks to our local MPs who are also great advocates to ensure that uh that the government followed through on not only committing the money when they did but now actually flowing into municipalities in time for them to use it for various things including things like the winter response program which is now a program if you and I can be corrected if I'm wrong that is almost predominantly if uh exclusively uh federally funded for uh for the portions of the the expansion of the program that we're looking at. And that aligns perfectly with the guidelines of this money. And so I think it's a it's a very appropriate use of funds because it's federal dollars being used in a way that is a need in our municipality that we don't have uh adequate resources for that um that is an appropriate use of the funds in my opinion. I'm very supportive of of staff's recommendation in their um in their uh in the added agenda report. Thank you. Was the last part a question or just a comment? >> It could be either chair. I I think I was just commenting, but I'm colleagues may have questions, so I'll just leave it at that. >> Thank you. I'll go to councelor Trasa next. >> Yes. Um, thank you. I I adopt a lot of what the mayor said. This is this is good news. Um my confusion is um we have a separate item on the agenda and I I think the problem here is it's also the way the agenda was scheduled. I have item 4.1 on on the agenda that goes to uh the specific uh question of the extension of interim bridge uh bridge bridge funding which is going to be dealt with as a separate matter. We're going to have a delegation from uh from from from Arcade. Um, does this funding that we're talking about in this item extend to the um uh the bridge the bridge funding for the outreach services or does it exclude that? >> I'll go to Mr. Dickens. >> Uh, thank you and through you chair. I can appreciate the confusion as the timing. Um, we received word uh late last week from the federal government that we were receiving the UHI funding. Um, so to parse it out perhaps for committee to to best understand is is the federal government has uh given us notice that we'll be receiving roughly 2.5 million. Uh, prior to receiving that notice, we also had this report back uh that you see in front of you, which was a council resolution to go and seek out UHI funding and it was tied to the cold weather response. So what we've come back with is late last week we received word we're receiving 2.5 million. You have council direction seeking federal funding for the winter response which is roughly 2.1 million. Uh so in totality we'll receive the 2.5. We're recommending 2.1 go towards the winter response and then we would treat the uh remaining uh UHI funding uh in accordance with previous council resolutions. One of which was to return uh the municipal funds that were expensed to extend those services is to reimburse them with UHI. So right now that would be our practice. 2.1 million go to the cold weather, 350,000 go to reimburse the city uh from the previous council decisions uh which leaves a small amount uh unallocated which could be uh used as admin costs for this program. >> Councelor Trust. >> Um thank thank you. So, what what what I'm concerned about, and again, I don't want to mix up these two items, but it's impossible not to mix the two of them up. So, I hope I'll be indulged a little bit. Um, to what degree, can this money be used going forward for the outreach services that are the subject of uh of 4.1 with with with particular reference to ARC aid and 519 pursuit? >> I'll go to Mr. Dickens. Thank you through your chair. Uh what we would recommend and and the clerk can certainly weigh into if they feel differently is uh you receive this report and the 2.5 million that the federal government has uh given us um which would include not just the 2.1 million that we're recommending on this program but the 350,000 currently that is slated to go back into the reserve fund to offset the reserve fund draw down. We would then recommend that if you wanted to make a decision as a committee about extending those outreach and drop-in services or making a decision about what to do with that 350,000 that you would do that later in this agenda to refer staff to come back with the report on the best use of those funds. >> Okay. I just I just want to avoid any procedural um confusion. I I know I know that uh Miss Campbell will be giving a delegation uh under the next item and she can address um her her position on this, but I don't want to pass a resolution on this that would be contrary to having some of that money allocated to the outreach services going going forward. And I'm really sorry that these are on the agendas as separate items, but the way the original agenda was was characterized. I felt that I had to put 4.1 on as a placeholder to at least have the discussion of the continuing funding for uh Arcade and 519 Pursuit uh not rolled out of order. So I just don't want to I don't want that that little piece. I call it a little piece. It's not a little piece, but it's a it's a little piece compared to the to the money that we're dealing with here. Uh, is there some way we can have Sarah Sarah Kemple's delegation uh heard now and deal with these together? >> It's the procedural question for the clerk. Uh, procedurally, no, that's not appropriate. >> Counselor, I worry sometimes that we allow our procedural rules to get in the way of what we're substantively trying to do. So, I just want to make sure and I'm just going to say this again and I'd like confirmation from the clerk that when we get to 4.1, the question of using part of this funding uh along the lines of uh what the delegation will be talking about will be in order and it is not precluded by passing uh this consent item. Otherwise, I would like to pull this consent item which would uh well, it would still come before the 4.1. So I just think we've once again we've sort of uh boxed ourselves into a untenable situation because of the way we apply our rules and I know we have rules but we need to we need to deal with this question that is that that has arisen under uh Sarah Kembell's letter her delegation and 4.1. So, um, yeah, I understand the clerk's ruling, but I would I would think that this committee would have a little bit of flexibility to try to deal with these matters in a um more rational order. So, I would ask that the uh I I would make a motion that uh we we deal with uh we deal with the delegation and the discussion under 4.1 as part of this item. And I would look for a seconder for that. Councelor Hopkins, we're just waiting procedure question. I think we were just told that we cannot do that, but correct me if I'm wrong. Uh because if I am wrong, I will be seconding the motion. I've been advised by the deputy clerk that we can't do that procedurally. >> Yeah. I I >> councelor Trusso. >> Yes. I would like to uh just state for the record my strongest objection and I'd like the deputy clerk to tell me what rule would be violated by uh dealing with 4.1 together with this matter. I'd like to know exactly what rule would be. Why we can't do it? >> Just a moment. I've been advised by the deputy clerk that there is a motion on the floor at the moment and the other motion is out of order. >> Councelor Trussa, >> the other motion is out of order. Why? Under what procedure? because I'm making a motion to amend that other motion that's on the Councelor, I understand your procedural question. Right now, we have a motion under consent for two items together that we're dealing with. This item of which you've submitted communication under 4.1 is a separate part of the agenda. with respect to 4.1 um in the communications that's received it also doesn't tie it to UHI in the communication that you've that sorry in the motion that you've drafted. So I'm just wondering how to pro procedurally maneuver it. I think there's a path forward here where one doesn't exclude the other. Um, so I do think that we can proceed with what's in front of us right now and still hear and deal with 4.1 as we set out to do in the agenda. >> Well, I am just going to on faith take it that passing this consent item, which by the way I strongly support. So, I would not be voting against this consent item. Does not preclude the material that we're going to hear under 4.1. And um I'm just going to take it on on faith that we'll be able to have the full discussion after hearing Miss Campbell's uh delegation on that because, you know, I I I think without the outreach, it's it's really it's an integral part of the in overall infrastructure that we're trying to um build here. And I don't want to get into a uh discussion of >> the mer the merits. Um but uh I think I'm going into a discussion on the merits. So I won't do that. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. So we're still on items 2.1 and 2.2. Looking for other speakers on these items. I have councelor Hopkins followed by councelor Ferrer. >> Yeah. Thank you uh madam chair. And on 2.1 I just want to thank Canada Life Insurance Company. $165,000 donation is pretty exciting celebrating not only our city's bicesentennial but also their I think it's their 100th anniversary for the location uh where they are at the moment. So great news and just the idea of collaboration uh that we have as a city working with stakeholders in the community is very very important. So good work staff. I know you do all the the leg work here and thank you very much. On 2.2, it's pretty hard to say no to some money and it is so exciting when federal governments and provincial governments, but we're speaking about the federal government here, step up and help municipalities with homelessness. It it is so so important because we cannot do it on our own. So, uh, I I'm pretty excited, uh, to know that we've got the funding available. Uh, but I am a little confused and and and maybe not to get too far into the weeds. I I heard the discussion uh that, uh, councelor Trusso had with the agenda and how do we tie these requests in and how do we know uh, when is the right time to ask the questions. So maybe a question through you madam chair to staff around uh the requests that will be in front of us uh what happens if if if funds aren't available to these stakeholders in the community. Okay. I I I'm just not sure where I should ask this question and I'd rather ask it. Maybe at the wrong spot uh than in in um and you know understand that I'll have an opportunity later on in the committee, but I I'm just trying to just make sure I'm asking the tough questions or the right questions at the right time. >> Thank you, councelor. I'll go to Mr. Dickens. Uh thank you madam chair and through you what's [clears throat] before you is the cold weather framework uh and we would recommend that committee debate and discuss uh and make a decision on what you would like to do for the winter response for the cold weather response. We were directed last cycle to um it was referred back to us to go and seek out this federal funding. Um and when all signs pointed to we weren't going to get it, we published our report for the agenda. The announcement came in uh barely in time for us to meet the added agenda. Uh and that's what you see before you is this is the cold weather framework. It's got federal funding like we were asked to go and find uh now available to fully fund it. um to debate and discuss what it means for those that are not getting this funding cuz last round of UHI there were several organizations that were receiving UHI funding not just one or two there were several. Um, so we're proposing as per council direction, apply the UHI funding to the cold weather. Then uh once we receive those funds, we can definitely report back with the best use of the remaining funds and council can make decisions at that time on what you would like uh to see in this community and how you would like to pay for it. >> Councelor Hopkins. >> Yeah, thank you for that clarification. So right now the 2.5 million we're good with uh um supporting our winter response able to make to to meet um those requirements. The 350,000 uh that will go back to the city will become a further conversation. At what time through you madam chair? >> Mr. Dickens. >> Thank you through you chair. Very good question. So, um, we would need to have a decision from council that we can then send back to the federal government to say this is how we plan to use your money. Uh, they have indicated that funding winter beds in overnight spaces is in direct alignment with their program criteria. So, at bare minimum, we can say, you know, our plan is to use 2.1 million of this to fund our cold weather response. uh pending discussions later on in this agenda, committee can direct staff on what to do in the report back. >> Thank you, >> Hopkins. >> Thank you. I have councelor Ferrer and next follow Mayor Morgan. >> Uh thank [snorts] you, Chair. Uh I'll start with just 2.1 uh with Canada Life and their um investment for Victoria Park. I appreciate that. Long-standing um community member, business partner of of London and downtown. So, I appreciate that. And I do appreciate um like you know the lighting, the accessibility improvements that they'll bring to that. And it is their 100th anniversary for the Duffren block. Uh they have different sections of the building that were built in last years, but the Duffren side here was built in 1926. I'll go [clears throat] to 2.2 because I do got some questions there. And the only reason I'm going to go there is because we do have the UHI funding component there. Um, and just like just looking at the debate, I'm going to try not to get into 4.1, but I do want to ask about um I guess um the money part like the money allocations like in this report in the uh revised agenda. Anyways, we see that uh we had that committed $350,000 allocated to those outreach agencies and I do understand that that was supposed to be applied retroactively uh to expenses that they were incurring during the time while we were waiting for those funds. So, I just wanted to first ask how much of those retroactive expenses are taking up that 350 like what is do you have the exact number of what will be left over um at this point in time. >> Thank you. I'll go to Mr. Dickens. >> Thank you. And through you, Chair, it would be a full reimbursement. So, the 350,000 would go back to uh offset the municipal investment. Councelor Ferrer, >> how much is um currently left un um allocated still from that 350,000 at this point in time? I believe that we were retroactively paying for the services till the end of last month, I believe. So, how much is left over of that 350,000? >> I'll go to Mr. John >> through the chair. We've actually used up the full allocation of 350,000. The service extension brought us to the end of last month and the agencies have uh concluded their operations and the full amount has been used. >> Councelor Ferrer. >> Okay, thank you for that. Um okay, so I appreciate um that we did get the um 2.57 million from the federal government. I have lots of things to say about this, but just to keep in the parameters of this discussion here. Um I do appreciate that we're going to be able to um pay for our winter response um with that money. Um, and I guess I'll wait for my other comments uh for the actual outreach agencies when we get to 4.1. Um, so I guess I'll leave it there uh as it is right now. Um, but from that uh we won't have any remaining money like what is the remainder of that 350,000 that we're going to be paying retroactively to the work that these outreach agencies were doing with the allocated amount for the winter response as we have prescribed in front of us. Is there any remaining funds that will be left over >> Mr. John >> through the chair for the funds that we're talking about for this um recent UHI UGI announcement we would have a remainder of 75,000 approximately left over >> counselor >> and committed of that 75,000 is there anything committed for that money or is that money going to be held until we find uh some commitments for that >> Mr. John >> through the chair. We haven't made those decisions based on uh the agreement that we just re received last week from the federal government. Um we do have a responsibility to update a community encampment response plan that is attached to this funding and it would uh identify in that plan how we would use the funds and this would just be based on the council decision today. A committee decision today. We um could be looking at administrative components or any other direction that we might receive from committee. >> Council Ferrer. >> Thank you. And what's the likeliness of getting additional unsheltered homelessness encampment initiative funding in addition to what we have already had committed to us? >> Mr. John >> through the chair. We haven't heard any updates from the federal government on this. We don't have any reason to believe that we would get any additional funding. >> Counselor. >> Okay. Thanks. Those all my questions. >> Thank you. I'll go to Mayor Morgan next. >> Uh yes. perhaps I can help with some of my colleagues um concerns about the funding so that we can address this issue as well as the other issues on the agenda. Um so this is an opportunity for us to receive 2.577 million from the federal government. Um, and we can do that because with council decision-making, we're going to say to our staff, spend 2.1252 of it on winter response and take 350,000 and reimburse as is allowed under the agreement, the money that we spent and uh, backfilled for previous work uh, that the UHI was doing. Uh, and then that allows our staff to go and write an agreement with the federal government to say, "We'll take the money." They transfer the money. The $350,000 goes back into the social services reserve fund. I believe that's the name of it. And the $75,000 staff have said they just haven't quite figured out exactly what to do yet. So that's $425,000. The maximum flexibility for the municipality, the maximum flexibility is for us to do this because we fund winter response. We meet the obligations of the the UHI programs. we put $350,000 back in the reserve fund which we can allocate however we want within the parameters of how that reserve fund can operate. So maximum flexibility here when we deal with uh the item later today as Mr. Dickens said and again I don't want to mix the debates we have options on the table to say to our staff go back write a report and find out you know maybe we want to still spend the social services reserve fund money on outreach programs. Maybe we want to do that. That's a decision we have to debate and decide as a council. Staff can bring a report. They will have the maximum flexibility to spend that money on services if we meet the obligations of the federal grant by doing those two things because we will be able to spend money out of the social services reserve fund with greater flexibility than if we spent it under the parameters of a grant and agreement with the federal government. So we can reimburse ourselves for the the stuff that we've already done. we can fulfill an obligation which is currently was going to be funded from the the uh the the budget contingency reserve which again council referred to this meeting because they weren't happy doing that. Now we have the opportunity to actually meet those winter response obligations with federal dollars and have flexibility to do other things should we choose to do so. But we have to have that debate and Miss Campbell will give a delegation. We'll hear some options what we can do. We can make a decision to have our staff report back at a future time on what to do with that. But I support the direction before us because it maximizes the flexibility of the municipality to respond to multiple needs in the community in different ways. So um I I don't know if that helps with colleagues who are a little uneasy, but I think this is a good path forward that does not preclude any sort of future discussion later in the agenda. [clears throat] >> Thank you. Uh councelor Trasa, you have about 30 seconds under 30 seconds remaining. >> Um number one, that's very helpful. Thank you. Um, number two, what is the effect of our uh disability to spend money after a certain date under the lame duck rules and how that would pertain to any of uh this discussion or is it not relevant? Could somebody help me with that? >> Thank you. And that's your time. Just a moment. I'm looking to Mr. Dickens, Miss Dory, or anyone else from clerks that wants to take the question on lame deck rules >> or or any delegated authority. Go ahead, Mr. Dickens. >> Through you, Madam Chair. Um I'm not a lawyer. I just play one in council chambers. Um, in the attached bylaw, it seeks delegated authority to execute the agreements and receive the funding. Uh, federal government says it would be about a month from signing until money would flow, which would still be in advance of cold weather and this plan being activated December 1st. Um, so to your question, Council Trusso, I I don't think the lame duck would impede us here. If it is approved at committee today and passed at council uh by the uh 25th of August, we could then go ahead and uh execute the agreement with the federal government and then enter our service agreements with service providers. >> Thank you. And that's your time. Okay. So I will go to councelor Pribble if you can take the chair so that I may speak. >> I have the chair and I recognize councelor Ramen. >> Thank you. Uh very much appreciated. I want to start with my sincere thank you to Canada Life as well for their donation to Victoria Park and their continued investment into this area. Um it was wonderful to see them activate the street in the park uh with their own event recently and uh I look forward to seeing what that investment does. I know it's something I've heard complaints about and concerns about in the past as well. So very pleased to see this come forward. On item 2.2, to uh the proposed winter response. Um I just wanted to ask a clarifying question about the report um and as it pertains to Cronin Warner and uh the mention of uh coming back for multi-year budget. Uh I just want to um understand does that preclude them from uh participating in any procurement processes in the future under um our other shelter funding? >> Thank you. and going to the staff for their feedback >> through you Mr. Presiding officer. Um it wouldn't preclude the organization from participating in the procurement process um where we find ourselves in uh uh different timelines is uh looking to keep those beds activated now uh use the funding until March 31st and the shelter procurement policy or process would not be completed by March 31st 2027. So you would have a gap in service. So the original intention was um come back through the MYB process with a business case. Now that business case can be term limited. It can be a 2-year, it could be the 4year uh whatever that may be. And that would be for uh the council of the day to decide and direct staff and and have that uh discussion. Um but we would absolutely as I think we've said before is uh organizations uh could certainly participate in the procurement policy when it comes to uh shelter spaces. >> Thank you councelor. >> Uh thank you and through you. Um I'm just wondering when I read this and and saw the inclusion and the extension to June 30th. Um, I'm just wondering for maybe also for the public information just what does that additional timeline allow us and the organization because my understanding was there was concern about ramping down before the end of March and I'm just wondering if you can explain what that additional timeline provides us with >> and going back to the staff >> uh through the miss uh through the presiding officer um this would allow us to make decisions around referring clients out of the space if the funding doesn't continue. If we need to find uh additional uh spaces to relocate clients to would allow us to do that work. >> Thank you, counselor. >> Thank you. Does it mean that those beds are available all the way till June 30th >> and going to the staff >> through the presiding officer? um we would work with the operator in this case to ensure that um there would be adequate time to be able to refer clients out. And so that could mean that uh we pause admissions any new admissions into the space at a certain point. It could be um anywhere you know post post March between March and June uh to allow for time to be able to refer people out. So the beds may not be available straight through to June for any new admissions but we would um still operate the spaces until June. >> Thank [snorts] you staff counselor. So [clears throat] my concern would be that I would want to ensure that those beds are available in the system until the end of June. So I guess my question and this is something I'm hoping can be sorted out on the operational side is that if it wasn't to take uh folks that could stay for long term, it would still apply as short-term space just like it would in any other shelter. So I'm just wondering if that's something that can be worked into the agreement. Otherwise, why are we continuing to fund a service that isn't going to provide full service until the end of that time? >> And going to the staff for response >> through the presiding officer, I think uh what the organization had indicated that with a hard funding stop of March 31st, they would naturally see some staff potentially leave or they would want to start to wind down services prior to March 31st. So what they had indicated as part of this uh expression of interest and this exploratory work was with the additional time it allowed for services to continue without uh disruption through to March 31st. We can certainly work with the provider uh to ensure they remain operational as long as they can and it would be incumbent upon the operator to try and make sure they they stretch those staffing resources and dollars as far as they can to keep those beds available. We would be in a position though if they start to lose staff and they're unable to open or can't operate at full capacity, uh we would have to try and manage that reality. >> Thank you, councelor. >> Thank you. And this would be reflected in any service agreement or any continuation of funding that's written in. >> And staff, >> yes, that is correct through you, >> counselor. >> Thank you. I appreciate the answers to those questions. Um, I did put the referral forward for this motion and tied it back to the UHI for this exact reason that we needed to find an avenue and a pathway forward to fund these beds and the federal government and the opportunity to do this through UHI uh seemed like the right response um to be able to uh continue these services but also to extend the service. We saw what happened last winter. We did our very best, but we had additional needs. And so, this is a way to address those additional needs. What kind of report back can we expect in anticipation for the next multi-year budget ask? What kind of response um and report back will we get on this next winter? >> And going to the staff for feedback. through you, Mr. Presiding Officer. Thank you. As we just confer here, um it would be difficult to tie it to the business case as we report back because it would be too early to do that. Um but what we would look to do is bring back status updates, status reports to uh council in terms of perhaps a mid-winter and a year and a end of program report uh that uh similar to what we did this past winter with updates to committee on uh number of folks accessing services, the type of um trends we're seeing, referrals, that sort of thing. >> Thank you, councelor. >> Thank you, chair. My final comment would be um I really appreciate the information. The one aspect I would like to better understand is unmet needs and I'm wondering how we can incorporate that into our reporting going forward. >> I know you stated it was a comment but at the end it was a question mark. Do you wanted them to answer or are you okay with it >> going to the staff for the answer? Thank you >> through you. Um staff are working on this presently. We are looking at a variety of metrics to determine the unmet need in the city of London, including turnaways from different uh winter spaces and shelters, including the number of people that we might uh use diversion funds to um provide temporary accommodations and hotels, the number of um callers that reach out to us looking for services that we are unable to provide. So, we will we are working as part of our housing stability action plan to come up with a set of metrics to be able to report on this in future reports. >> Thank you. Anything else? Councelor returning chair to you and no one else on the list currently. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Looking for other speakers. Councelor Stevenson, go ahead. >> Thank you. Um there was mention that uh the UHI that the winter response fit nicely under that. Is there any concern that the 770,000 for the April to June doesn't really qualify as winter response? Go again. >> Going to the Mr. Dickens. Uh >> thank you. And through you um [clears throat] Miss Smith was just providing me the accurate information. Um so we have two different funding sources on this report. Uh so what we would do is we would prioritize the UHI funding up until the end of March and then we would uh use our municipal funding source for any of that continuation. The fact that the the spaces will be created uh fully align with UHI's expectations. >> Counselor, >> thank you. And what's the municipal source? I'll go to staff when you're ready. >> Thank you. It's the um operating budget contingency reserve u uh fund. It is 3.6 million. That's in section 3.0 financial impact and considerations. >> Councelor, thank you. And then there was just talk about the problems that happened with the hard stop at March 31st. And I remember this in the first couple of winters of our term where that was a really big issue. And yet somehow we're back to a winter response that looks very much like the one that was problematic in the first couple of winters. So given that we were just talking about that, how is this we got to have 121 spaces that will end March 31st when the April weather is pretty nasty. um how are we avoiding the issues that we had in previous winters? >> Miss Smith, >> thank you. And for the chair, actually our plan last year was starting in January. We opened up in December with some flexibility both of city staff at our center and our community opened early too. And in addition, we did go into April. So we were flexible and we moved with the weather that allowed us to. we had enough resources in our approved budget in order to do that. So, we were able to continue until the weather uh until until the weather approved. So, I can't imagine if it's it's hard to predict at all what the weather will be like. We take this on averages as we looked over the last 5 years and this is our best estimate. Last year, we weren't supposed to start until January. So, now we've increased that and started in December to March 31st. It's not a hard stop. It never was last year. And we will continue uh if needed if that uh the extreme weather continues into April, which did for a few days in April of this this past 2026. >> You have a good memory, Miss Smith. Uh Councelor Stevenson, go ahead. >> Yeah, thank you. Well, I remember it was a motion of counselors through committee that extended it to April 30th, but maybe I'm wrong because at that time we did the uh exemption for 696 Dundas. But so you're saying that this isn't a hard stop at March 31st. And where's the funding going to come if April turns out to be a nasty weather? Is that built into this in terms of when we delegate amendments? Is that part of that? >> Miss Smith, >> thank you. And through the chair, I can't speak to Mr. Dickens and his funding, but for us when we looked at this, we built it in. You're right. You we did come back to council. That was to uh increase the beds and open them every night. So instead of the remember our our winter response last year was at a minus15 threshold. So council approved additional funding to keep those beds open um every night uh just in our community a with our community organizations. So we would look and we had cost savings because we didn't open as many times. So we we were able to use some cost savings and some efficiencies we found is we monitor our budget weekly, monthly, daily, and if if it was a bad winter, if we knew it was coming, then it wouldn't preclude us from coming back to council with a recommendation of if we needed to continue into April and how long. >> Councelor Stevenson. So just to be clear on that, so it would come to council in March on based on the predictions of April or is this something that staff's going to look after? >> Mr. Dickens. >> Uh thank you chair and through you. Uh in all likelihood this is going to look at um the framework spells out December 1st to March 31st to try and make it clean, clearcut, not dependent on two out of three weather forecasts and weather warnings and all of that stuff. So, we're recommending until March 31st. If by chance there are days in April that are frigid cold or nasty, we we in all essence we're looking at organizations to make those decisions to uh maintain their spaces or open up their spaces again. Um, based on conversations with the organizations, based on previous years, we felt that if we had come to committee with a report that said we wanted to create all of these spaces from December 1st until the end of April, we would get the other push back that there's not enough days in April that are uh below freezing or at minus 10 that would warrant uh that type of investment. So, we went with the March 31st uh deadline. It's also the end of fiscal. aligns nicely with our uh funding envelopes that we received from different funding sources. Um so if there was a need to open up additional spaces and there was extraordinary costs incurred, we would look at how we can manage that in the first month of a brand new fiscal year and I imagine we could probably manage it relatively okay given the prospect of how many days it could it could potentially be. >> Councelor Stevenson. >> Okay, thank you. Well, that's good to hear and it's not what happened in those first couple of winters where everything shut down and there was very bad press and a tragic death uh outside one of the shelters as well. So glad to hear that the agencies will open their doors if the weather's bad. Um I I wanted to when I look at this there were a bunch of uh shelter spaces. So the report says that uh demand exceeded expectations. And yet when I look at the winter response from last year, my sister's bed had five, my sister's place had five beds. This current winter there's going to be 15. From what I can see, Cronin Warter had 95 beds. This year it's 98. Lenning Cares had 25. Now it's going to be 30. So, I'm wondering sort of why those extra beds weren't available last year, but they are available this year. And is this the max capacity or is there still un u unused capacity in these shelters? >> Miss Smith, thank you. And and through the chair, so a number of these are warming spaces. So, it's based on the organizations. We went out and we met with the organizations and we asked them what their capacity was and what they were able to provide. So they looked from drew on their experience from last year. Often they their capacity was 25. Often they were close to 30. It's very hard as you saw us in boil to turn away people. We never did. Our capacity was 60. We exceeded that and almost doubled that when we opened. So we looked at uh what our numbers were last year. We knew for those warming spaces probably 120 would allow us um provide us so that we didn't have to turn anybody away. So we went to our community organizations and asked them what they could do. So based on their staffing, their abilities, the resources they had, they identified the numbers, the maximum numbers that they could do in warming spaces in in their organizations. >> Councelor Stevenson, >> thank you. And you just mentioned boil. Could could you share with us uh what emergency services were available the nights that you were at boil in terms of police paramedic security and uh why those were necessary? >> Miss Smith. >> Thank you. And through the chair uh we uh operated boil with city staff our frontline staff who were not experienced in social services. We have experiences and and we trained on first aid and basic training but uh our we have a partnership with St. John's ambulance uh through our emergency management program. So they offered to be part of when they could. So when we opened boil uh we reached out to St. John's ambulance. So they provided if there was any uh first aid required as you can imagine the the frostbite and some of the wounds and wound care we needed. So St. John's was there to support us over the night. We have contracted security that I have met at most of my community centers. So, we required contracted security there to help support us. Um, it's typically what we do when we opened up our uh cooling center and we had security too during those evenings when we weren't open. It's was that's why we uh suggested this year we open every night from December to March. It's very hard to explain to somebody who's not looking at the thermometer that - 10 and -12 isn't minus15. So we had people as you could imagine at boil and people dropped off when we weren't open. So we needed security at a full-time basis at boil and we also had the police and we brought the police in to help support us um if there were any uh issues if there were people coming in that weren't welcome. So, the police also supported uh uh city staff um overnight at our uh at our warming center at Bole. >> Councelor Stevenson. Uh thank you. And then I'm just wondering how when we reallocate the spaces out to these other agencies uh you know will those types of services in terms of frostbite and that be available or how are we addressing those issues? >> I'll go to Mr. John >> through the chair. Um the services that we're contracting out are with established agencies that are already partnering with various healthcare services, security services, and so we would expect that these services continue with their existing partnerships. And in fact, they the the delivery of that might look uh strengthened because of those agency's existing partnerships. >> Councelor Stevenson. Okay. Thank you. And I had another question around uh London Cares and 696 Dundas Arcade location. They're both offering 30 warming spaces for 11 or 12 hours a night, but the the cost of London Cares is 183,000. Arcade is 363,000. So almost twice the cost. Can you help uh me understand that, >> Mr. John? through the chair. Those numbers are based on occupancy costs largely if those facilities um including utilities and and rental payments and uh various occupancy costs to operate those buildings and so they look different based on the type of building that the services are being offered in. >> Councelor Stevenson, >> thank you. Um I do we have budgets for those that would be publicly available though because both those locations already have those locations all the time for their regular work. So this is just incremental warming space overnight. >> Mr. John, >> through the chair, those would be made available through the agreements that we set up with the agencies. >> Councelor, >> thank you. And could those uh agreements be produced publicly on the public agenda? >> Mr. Dickens. >> Uh thank you through you, Chair. I believe uh the last advice we received from the clerk or from legal was uh with the council direction we can bring those back in uh public session and uh we would just work with privacy to make sure we're compliant with some of the regulations. If there's any information that uh should be shared is shared and if there's any information that might not be shared that it's not. >> Thank you. So just to clarify you require a motion here >> through you chair that would be best. Thank you >> counselor. Thank you. I can't do it here, but I'll do it at council if it isn't done here. I do think for accountability and transparency, we've done it in the past. We just aren't doing it consistently, and people really care about this issue and the uh particularly the winter response. So, I'd like to see that happen. If somebody here at committee is willing to do the work at committee, that would be great. >> Thank you. Looking for any final speakers on 2.1 and 2.2. Sorry, councelor Stevenson. Sorry, I forgot one other issue that I have which is well I got two I guess um the location the arcade location of 40 spaces is to be determined and that's something that the public really wants to have a say in or let's wants their elected representatives to have a say in as to where that is located. So um again if if people are willing to do the work at committee I'll hear through staff how uh council could retain that final approval. Thank you. I'll go to Mr. Dickens. >> Uh thank you through you, chair. Um I I think what the agency requires is a commitment that there is a funding potential like when for public clarity and any misconceptions out there. This would not be committee approving this framework and us writing a check to an organization for spaces that don't exist. it would be approving the up to amount and that allocation be uh permitted for that use. Uh we would then need to see that the organization was able to find a space uh and that space was suitable and adequate and and met the needs and and all of those things. So, uh, as staff though, we would be happy to come back, um, with an update to say, you know, the organization, uh, a never found a site or b found a site. Here's where it is, and we bring that, uh, to committee for you to, uh, support because then we would release those funds if they had the location. >> Councelor Stevenson, you have about 30 seconds. Go ahead. >> Thanks. So, just to confirm that that would allow council to approve the location, not just be informed of it. Mr. Dickens, >> thank you. Similar to the framework that's in front of you, which lists locations, council's endorsing and approving all of it. Um, so yes, likewise, we will come back and say the remaining 40 spaces were found and and I don't want to presuppose the outcome here. If if the arcade comes back and say they found two locations, they have 20 spaces each and the cost is um under budget or on budget, uh we would present that in front of you as well for consideration. So yes, very much like committee is approving these uh this framework with these costs and these spaces, it would be the same uh when that last location is known, we would bring it to committee for you guys to approve. >> Counselor, thank you. And then uh we were talking about the shelter guidelines later on, but the allowance of illegal substances inside, is that something that these warming spaces will be allowing as well? And there's also a concern about stolen goods where I heard a story where the police identified the stolen goods as being on the premises of one of these locations and they weren't allowed entry. So, do we have policies around that? >> Thank you. And that's your time, but I'll go to staff to answer that question. >> Through the chair, we would uh mandate this through the contracts that we have with the agencies that receive the funding um to ensure that they have a safe space for clients and staff and anyone that accesses those services. And that would include all the provisions that we set forth in shelter guidelines around safe belongings for clients and safe storage um spaces and all the other parameters that come with ensuring a safe operating space for both clients and staff. >> Okay. Thank you. And just to answer your question on the because we're on consent items, we can amend the consent to add that portion because they're tied together, but you can amend it at council to get the contracts. Just wanted to give you that information. Okay. So, any looking for any final speakers on 2.1 and 2.2? Seeing none online and none in chambers, we will open the vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries six to zero. >> Okay. Thank you. So 2.3 will move to item five which is our deferred matters and additional business. We will move to schedule the items which is 3.1 which includes the delegation from Mr. Samuels. Uh okay. So we are moving to item uh 3.1 which was the delegation by Mr. Samuels for ESCAC as well as the additional communication from Mr. Traso. Sorry about that. That was timing is never right. I know. [laughter] So um Mr. Samuels I'll give you a moment and if you're prepared to do so you can uh Okay. Wonderful. So, um, you have five minutes. You've done this before, so please go ahead. Uh, no delegation request is needed when it's a member of the committee. Go ahead. >> Good afternoon, counselors, staff, members of the public. My name is Brandon Samuels, and I'm here to present the advisory committee's report. The committee included a couple recommendations, so I came to provide you with context. The first recommendation is responding to a request we received from staff to share feedback on a new program which offers rebates to help reduce rodent infestations in buildings. We provide a template that we think would help to keep track of how the rebate is used and identify risk factors at buildings undergoing treatment. I'll spend the rest of my time on the committee's second recommendation relating to preparedness for extreme heat and wildfire smoke. Uh, councilors Trroso and Ferrer have taken initiative to bring forward a motion which is very much aligned with our recommendation. And so on behalf of the advisory committee, I would encourage you to support the motion. The advisory committee considered extreme heat and smoke together because we're starting to see these conditions overlap during summer and responses involve similar measures. The city has emergency response programs as required by provincial legislation. The city works closely with partner organizations and agencies as part of an emergency management program committee. The city's emergency response plan includes an extreme temperature protocol that gets activated based on guidelines from the health unit. Typically, if there's a heat event coming up, London would receive about 3 to 5 days of advanced warning from Environment and Climate Change Canada. The city opens cooling centers, promotes pools and splash pads, and puts out advisories. This system seems to work. The [snorts] advisory committee thinks it's worthwhile for council to consider how the system can be strengthened. We wonder, will the city be able to meet growing needs of the community? Is the city fully engaging all interested parties, schools, tenant groups, frontline agencies to provide effective heat relief to everyone who needs it? Do the city's partners have enough support? Cooling centers can be life-saving. However, accessibility barriers may prevent Londoners who are most in need from being able to use them. For example, London does not appear to have a map that clearly identifies locations of all the cooling centers. I had to go onto the city map and select a bunch of layers to export this printout. That's all I could find. Um, the health unit warns that during extreme heat, if you have health conditions, you should not exert yourself outdoors because you are at higher risk. But meanwhile, the city advises traveling to a cooling center, which may involve leaving your home and exerting yourself. Around 80% of households in Ontario rely on air conditioning in the summer. This leaves nearly 1 million households without air conditioning. Access to air conditioning is significantly lower among renters and lower inome folks. Suppose you are a renter in London without air conditioning and unable to get to a cooling center due to your health or mobility. What else are what are your options? Where can you go for heat relief? It seems the city currently lacks overnight options for cooling centers. Heat waves can be especially deadly when heat extends overnight, which is when the body normally recovers from heat stress. Research shows that deaths increase as a result of extended higher overnight temperatures because the health effects of exposure accumulate over time. In 2021, an extreme heat event in British Columbia killed 619 people in around a week. It was the deadliest weather disaster in Canadian history. According to the BC Coroner, 98% of those deaths were people in their own homes. This year, heat waves in Europe have killed nearly 35,000 people so far. These might seem like far away prospects for London, but they're not. We're seeing more extended heat in southern Ontario. Just a few weeks ago, we had conditions that felt like 48 degrees C with humidity. And during that period, Toronto Public Health reported 39 heat related visits to the emergency room. Compared to heat, we believe London is less prepared for poor air quality due to wildfire smoke. As far as we can tell, smoke is not considered in any emergency response plan. Because smoke can blow in suddenly, it may be difficult to predict. Last month, the city canceled programs due to poor air quality and referred everyone to the health unit for guidance. At the advisory committee meeting, we consulted with staff from the health unit and from the city. We found their answers to our questions suggest some gaps in London's overall ability to handle poor air quality outdoors. For example, unlike Toronto, we are told London does not have a protocol for checking if a building is leaking air and allowing smoke to enter from outside. Nobody could tell us how cooling centers are monitored for indoor air quality. While the federal and provincial governments are distributing free respirators like N95 masks to health units and local groups serving people in need. London's health unit told us there's no funding for them to provide masks to people who cannot shelter from smoke. when we tried to confirm who's at greatest risk and who should be wearing a mask outdoors during smoke. Um we found differences in guidance from the city for its employees, from the health unit, and from the province and from the federal government. In closing, we proposed that a staffled review and report back could help to clarify what London is already doing and maybe identify areas for improvement. Looking forward to your discussion today and hoping the community and the next counselors to serve on this committee will be properly informed. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um, I would like to go to councelor Traso who has an added communication uh on the agenda. I'm wondering if you would be prepared to move the recommendations coming out of the ESICAC uh uh report as well as your motion at the same time. Yes, I would like to um [clears throat] indicate that we have uh heard a delegation from the chair of the committee and that is received along with the report which is in the agenda and um I will also move the um the the item that uh councelor Ferrer and I put on the agenda. I won't read the whole thing because it's a long discussion, but uh the operative section says civic administration be directed to report back by Q2 2027 with the review of programs and procedures for [clears throat] responding to extreme heat and poor air quality, including a scan of extreme heat and smoke relief strategies in peer jurisdictions, operation of internal policies for employee health and safety, and a summary of best practices from Ontario. provincial and federal authorities and new paragraph that the Middle Sex London Health Unit, the London Fire Department and Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee be consulted as part of this review submitted by myself, seconded by Councelor Ferrer. >> Thank you. So, your motion's on the floor, including the East Cak motion as well with all of the recommendations that came out of their report. Uh, would you like to speak further to it first? I I want to thank the uh advisory committee. Um the advisory committee really did their homework on this one. They did a lot of background research and that they did the kind of background research that requires a certain level of um scientific and uh research expertise. So it's it's particularly um appreciated. I think that there is going to have to be staff work on this. But when we when we receive uh when we receive a recommendation from a committee of this quality, I think it takes uh much of the burden uh off off of the staff and I think it makes it easier for us counselors to say with confidence that we want to pass on the um recommendations of this advisory committee. I personally don't have a lot to add other than the one point that I want to stress. And the one point that I want to stress is for me the the the underlying purpose of this whole um motion is to make it a little bit easier for the next council to hit the ground running in terms of dealing with this issue which I think represents a bit of a gap in our in our current program. So rather than the new council have to come in, ask for a report, go through all of that, wait 6 months to a year, um there will be there will be information on the on the ready that they can just pick up and and run with. And I think that it's it's it's great planning for an outgoing council and the advisory committees that support the council to do this kind of uh uh ongoing work. So once again, thank you very much for the delegation and to the committee and I put my motion on the floor. Thank you. And I have councelor Ferrer next. >> Uh thanks chair. I don't have much to add further than what I saw in the report uh from the advisory committee as well. I do want to say this. In addition to um the great research and work that you did, the communication that you brought to council as well to counselors um just letting us know kind of where you're at, answering our questions as we asked them. I thought that was really um extraordinary as well. So I just wanted to point that out as well. I guess the point that I would point here to is, you know, for myself, like I would consider myself a healthy younger individual and in specifically about the wildf fire smoke uh that we had a few weeks back that affected me. Um I could feel that in my throat and I could I I I even got a couple of headaches during that time. And I think that just thinking of healthy individuals being negatively affected by that, I do believe that there is some kind of improvements that we can bring forward here. And I do think that the direction that we're bringing here, especially considering we could put this into the emergency uh management plan, considering that we are looking into other jurisdictions, seeing what they're doing, um is probably a good way to go. I would also include uh this um I did ask the question, I remember when I was speaking to Mr. Samuels over the weekend about the N95 mask requirement and I did see that there is a program out there I think it's from the um uh the Red Cross I believe it is that they do provide the N95 masks and those are already funded as well and that's something that our health unit and the city could tap into especially to provide to city employees. So just the research that you brought forward and just kind of finding areas that there wouldn't be necessarily um cost implications for us because these programs and these um items are already funded I think is some really good work that really was pointed out there. So I just wanted to add that uh to councelor Trusso's comments and um I'm happy to support this. I'm happy to second it. And uh I I agree. Um just providing the information for the next council and for the next committee and uh finding a a better framework moving forward so we can cover these bases is something that I think is a really prudent way for us to go. >> Thank you. I have councelor Hopkins next. >> Thank you, Madame Chair, and thank you to the uh two councilors for bringing this forward. Also, Mr. Samuels, thank you for being here. Thank you to the uh committee members on the advisory group on the work that you've done. I think there's a lot of work there. So, thank you for that and giving us the information to help us understand uh the challenges and concerns. So, I'm happy to support the motion. A quick question for you to staff would be, [gasps] is it enough time Q2 2027? And I know that's going to get us just before the summer season, which is important information to have, but just want to hear staff's thoughts. >> Thank you. I'll go to Mr. Parody >> uh through the chair. Uh Q2 2027 is perfectly fine. Uh this information, thank you uh for bringing it forward. Uh the two counselors and the advisory committee uh we'll uh we'll take this back if it's the will of committee and counsel. happy to build out this report and have the conversations and uh get it back in a timely fashion. >> Councelor Hopkins, >> I like the idea timely, too. I think that's going to be important for next year. I uh am very um uh appreciative of the uh motion uh asking uh that consultation be done with the advisory group and with um Middle Sex London Health Unit and the London Fire Department. And I think that collaboration and information uh is really uh helpful to the city moving forward with this one. I do want to say I have had a resident reach out as a parent uh who has children in uh I guess playing soccer. It it it seems and being part of um a number of soccer organizations throughout the years, it does take the burden off uh these organizations and our own uh recreation uh facilities as well when we have city direction. uh it it is very helpful uh on a number of areas but more important it does give uh organizations guidance as to how to proceed uh going forward. So it is very very important to have. So thanks again to the two counselors. >> Thank you. Looking for other speakers. Okay. Seeing none in chambers, none online, we will open the vote on this item. Councelor Hopkins. >> I vote yes. >> Closing the vote. The motion carries six to zero. Thank you to Isac. Thank you, Mr. Samuels, for your presentation. And with that, we will move to item four, which is our items for direction. Uh, we have item 4.1, which is council's extension of interim bridge funding for outreach services. We have a delegation request from Miss Campbell, which we will deal with first. I'm looking for a mover and seconder on that item. I have councelor Choso, councelor Prible. Thank you. And just a moment while we repair that motion. Okay, that's open. Councelor Hopkins, >> I vote yes. >> Closing the vote. The motion carries six to zero. Thank you. I will invite Miss Campbell to the microphone. You have five minutes for your delegation. Please go ahead when you're ready. Thank you through the chair. I'm grateful to be uh with you today. Um the conversation has changed significantly just by being in the room today. I'm grateful uh to hear the debate and discussion about the winter response. Um, I know that's not the item we're on, but I I have to speak to that because it's so critically important that we have an infrastructure and organizations and uh staff to respond to expanding and contracting of services year round. Uh even listening to the other discussions today have been very informative around the needs of human beings in a climate change environment. Uh I just want to highlight the need and why do I come to you each time we're at the end of one funding cycle to the next. I think it's critically important that uh members of council understand that our system we're talking about the procurement of the system as a whole does not include uh a large envelope of funding around outreach and that front door first point of contact emergency responsive services. And so many of those things are funded through short-term funding envelopes that come to the city with a strong and good plan and evidence that demonstrates why that is important against a backdrop of an increasing population of people experiencing homelessness in our city. It's no surprise to anyone in this horseshoe uh that the challenges around safety, the sense of people uh despairing, why are people still in this position, our question of our system, does it work? Are we getting the outcomes that we're looking for? continues to be the discussion rather than we have outstripped the capacity of the system we have. And so we find ourselves continuously with a handout and a question mark. What do we do with the most basic of human needs? Do people deserve access to a bathroom? Do they deserve a meal each day? Should we ensure that people have an indoor space to have access to whether it's raining, snowing, hailing, smoky? It's a question mark. It's a question mark all the time. But this council time and time again thankfully has said when we have the resources we need to invest in these things. It is important. These are the citizens of our city and we must do something. I'm grateful for that support and I know you get question too. I looked at the communications and the questions about transparency and what is this funding actually bringing us and I wanted to provide some insight to that. Just during the bridge funding that was provided, we had over 66,000 service interactions, 31,000 meals served. That's not from other programs. That's just at the 696 Dundas Street location in the four hours that we were funded. Because you fund us for those hours to the point of why is it so expensive if we provide the night beds at our arcade location? If we have no funding, it isn't incremental funding. It actually has to fund the whole space if we're open at night. I can't promise donor dollars, but when we have core funding, we can add more. So, we added two th 2,365 overnight stays on top of the drop-in spaces because we know there's a lack of indoor spaces, particularly at night in the summer. We had 3,568 referrals from partner organizations including police, EMS, hospitals, 426 referral turnaways with no resource to connect them to. 529 case management appointments, none of which is funded by our service agreement. These are things we're able to do through the donor dollars. These numbers demonstrate both the impact and the unmet needs. It's not just the basic needs provision. It's that basic needs provision with dignity. And the consistency of a place to go does help relieve a lot of our system challenges as it relates to emergency room and looking at diversion and helping people have a place to go, particularly 7 days a week. There is no place in our city to go seven days a week. There is no referral for people to go 7 days a week if they are experiencing homelessness and just need a place to belong, a place to be welcomed. Our shelters are at capacity. Many of them provide those services extra on top of what they currently do at the capacity they have, but we are outstripped as a community for these types of spaces. So what does that funding garner you? It garers you not just the services themselves but hundreds of volunteers who add to those services a doubling of our capacity through inind and cash donations. It also garners you a system that is ready to respond like in the winter response. And so I just ask that you would debate and consider where can the funding come to stabilize these services so that it doesn't all go into short-term envelopes like winter response but stably can be considered when you're looking at the envelope for your ongoing procurement of the system. How can this be included and where can those funds come from? Thank you. >> Thank you. That's your time. Okay. Uh just a moment. I have a question for the clerk. Okay. Councelor Traso, I have your communication uh from the agenda. I'm looking to see what you'd like to do with that. >> Um, thank you very much. This has not been moved and seconded. So I think it would be appropriate uh and I'm asking for feedback from the committee ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra rather than ver verbatim uh introduce this motion which leaves which leaves some details to be determined. I would rather say um I would rather say the following that the uh CPSC recommend that civic administration report back to the next CPSC regarding the extension of funding for delivering basic needs outreach and diversion services including 519 pursuit and arcade mission. Such report shall include sources of potential funding for such services. >> Thank you. Okay. >> And I'm I'm sorry to do that on the fly, but based on everything I've heard today, I think that would be a more accurate motion than what I submitted. Thank you. Um, okay. I I want to respect the intention of your drafted motion, but one moment while we try to put that together. Um, Mayor Morgan had prepared something as well, but I wanted to hear from everybody see if we can get on the same page around the language in the motion. Um, it doesn't uh directly name organizations. It says direct to procurement a process. Okay, that's fine. Okay. So, I will have it read out just so that we can make sure that it's uh looking in in the spirit of the same uh motion before we proceed. Do you want to read it or would you like us to read it? >> Yeah, I'm happy to read it because I was listening to my colleagues and drafting some language and I'm interested in if councelor shows okay with this. The following actions be taken with respect to the interimm bridge funding for organizations determining basic needs outreach diversion services. I I think that's what the item is referred to, but the actual motion is um and and I'm I'm not sure if that changed or not because I was um I'm working from my draft here that civic administration be directed to report back to a future meeting of the community and protective services committee with recommendations respecting uh the procurement of any necessary services including services previously funded by UHI. Uh B the civic administration be directed to consider any unused UHI funding or funding returned to the social social services reserve fund as potential sources of financing for such services and see the communication of for uh by councelor Estro be included for consideration as part of that report back which covers the um the language that he puts in. So in other words um ask staff to do an assessment of what's needed uh determine a proper procurement process for that as was kind of mentioned in the delegation. uh look at a possible sources of financing that we've restored and then come and report back to us with some options and recommendations that we could consider debate and then decide how to move forward with. >> Council Trussa, are you open to that? >> Yeah. Yes. And I would I would second that because I think that uh more accurately captures what what I'm trying to do today based on everything that we've heard in the last day. >> Thank you. So, we've got a motion moved and seconded. Uh Mayor Morgan, would you like to speak to that motion? >> Um sure. I will speak briefly to it cuz I already did. Um I'm not I'm not trying to get ahead of anything here, but what I'm trying to say is we know that we procured under uh EI um some services that had uh benefit to the community and supported council's overall direction on you know getting people off the streets, providing basic services and finding them pathways to housing. I don't want to be presumptuous to say let's just continue to extend the previous services that were funded under uh uh EI but let's actually have staff do the work of looking at what is necessary in the system what how we would properly procure that under a transparent and fair process uh and then how we would potentially fund it with some of the money we restored but it certainly is not limited to those things but just a more robust process because I I think what we want to avoid as was mentioned in the delegation is we just keep extending ing things. Before we had lots of agencies doing it, then there was just a couple. We extended for a few months. This is not a a good way to provide stable consistent funding that supports the overall operations that we're trying to achieve with support supporting vulnerable individuals in our community. So, I I this motion is more let's do something a little more robust, get their information back, and then we can move forward as a council rather than, you know, just extending things once again each and every time it comes along. I think it reflects both what councelor Troau communicated the funding that we saw that helped with winter response as well as what Miss Campbell said about um you know stop and go funding is not is not uh really beneficial for uh supplying and supporting individuals in our community who need some consistency and support. So I'm not going to be presumptuous about what what staff would bring back but I'm very open to to hear what they have to say and how we can move forward. >> Thank you. Uh, councelor Traso, did you have anything that you wanted to add as a secondary the motion? >> No. >> Thank you. I'll go to councelor Ferrer and then councelor Hopkins next. >> Uh, thank you chair and thank you to uh the mayor and councelor Trussell. This is speaking to some of the um conversation we had on the last item. So, I do appreciate that. I do have just one question. I do see that this is supposed to be um a report back, but I don't see when that report back is supposed to be. I'm just quickly reading through it and I do understand that, you know, with the UHI funding fully depleted now. Um and from Miss Cample's delegation kind of hinging on donor funds to continue their work and with the other agencies themselves, I don't know where they stand on this. I wanted to know what happens in the in the interim in the meantime right now. Um, is there any way that we could get this report back sooner or is there any kind of measures we could bring for the interim um right now or can we reach out to the agencies and see kind of where things stand with them and where their services stand uh right now? Cuz I'm just worried about um that gap uh at at the current state. And I would also say um with putting this into the procurement, I do want to see um and I guess another question I would add there. Let me wait for this answer and then I'll ask you the next one. Thank you. I'll go to Mr. Dickens on the answer about the timing of the report back and any unmet gaps or or needs in the time being. >> Uh thank you and through you chair. Um so we would be looking to report back as soon as we can um because we want to uh honor the UHI commitment that we want to get an agreement in place as fast as we can uh and flow those funds to our community to uh support our services. uh part of the UHI is is looking at, you know, fairly procuring services. So, uh we can honor that through the cold weather response because we've gone out to look and solicit uh partners and services. This referral here, this amendment actually gives us the ability to honor the remaining 350,000 and follow that same process, which we need to do. So, um, I couldn't give you a date, but we know we need to move as fast as we can, uh, to get something out the door, and we can work with the feds on how general we can be in our submission, understanding we would have our own, uh, administrative process to still follow on the procurement side uh, following that. So, meaning can we send in our our investment plan, our our agreement with the feds, receive the money, and then work through our process to get that remaining amount out the door. uh what it means for organizations right now. We would have to work with those organizations to understand what those funding pressures are um and look to see if there's any in-ear uh flexibility or breathing room to accommodate anything. But at this point, those services have concluded at July 31st from a municipally funded perspective. >> Councelor Ferrer. >> Okay. Thank you for that. So, with the language in this motion right now, does that give you enough leeway to reach out to those agencies, see where they're at, and potentially, if they do require some assistance when they provide you um the information that you're seeking to tap into the unused UHI funding or within the social service reserve fund and uh contribute to some of the services that they may need assistance with. >> Okay. So, on the motion that we have in front of us, you're asking for an evaluation of something separate to that motion. Right now though, >> I'm wondering if the language in the motion is able to um reach out to the agencies, find out where their funding levels are, find out if their services have been have been reduced and to see if this language is enough to bridge any funding gaps in the interim before this report comes back. >> I'll go to Mr. Jens. >> Thank you, Chair. I I think what the counselor is asking us to do is is what we would typically do, right? You we've just received uh funding from the federal government. It needs to fit a specific criteria that they have. It needs to fit a specific timeline. We then go and do our work to see where does it have the biggest impact. So, yes, we go and meet with the organizations. We look at our own um we've been having ongoing uh budget discussions with every service provider looking at where we're seeing pressures on participant volume on service needs on gaps. Uh and the ARC is not excluded from that. They are part of that. I think what we need to do as staff is honor the fact that we've received federal funding. We need to come back to you and say here's where it's best applied to have the greatest impact in our recommendation. uh and not find ourselves in a position where uh respectfully we're not just uh having a delegation and then handing the money to that organization without going through some form of procurement as per our procurement policy. So um what you're asking for is exactly what we've been doing and it's exactly what we'll continue to do is where where can we put these funds to have the greatest impact? uh where are there budget pressures within the system and how do we uh ensure we come back to you as fast as we can with a recommendation to uh unlock and flow those funds to better support our community. >> Council Ferrer. >> Okay, thank you for that. Um, the reason I ask is because we do have this conversation quite often here at council about interim funding that may be inconsistent where you would have to have uh an agency wind up services, wind down services, potentially lose resources, have to pay for the costs that are incurred for winding up again. So I do like the direction that this is kind of pointing to with putting this within the procurement policy itself so we can have a consistent funding stream so we don't have to see that moving forward. But the reason I ask about the interim funding right now is because I just want to make sure that we don't have that once again happen uh with the wind up and wind down because I I wouldn't like to see any services have to be reduced and then potentially losing of staff who have experience doing the work and then having to spend extra money to bring them back on board as we continue with the procurement. That's a statement. >> Thank you. Was that a question or comment? >> Comment. Actually, I would like to go to staff for response if you had one. >> Thank you. I'll go to Mr. John >> through the chair. Um, we regularly have budget pressures across the entire system. We see that there are turnaways happening regularly. There's inflationary pressures on organizations across the entire system. Um, if we look at eviction prevention resources and supporting people with the rears, we know that there are people that are being declined service because those agencies are out of funds. We uh know for housing allowances there's um significant increases to rents based on the subsidies that we're offering and we're not able to serve all the people that are looking for supports. Um there's also challenges with housing stability services where cases that clients are or staff are managing through case management services are be becoming increasingly complex. There are budget pressures across the entire system that is a regular landscape for service providers and we continue to engage with those providers through their financial reviews to understand ahead of time where those budget pressures are. Our job as civic administration would be to bring forth all of those budget pressures across the entire system to be able to make a data informed decision about where we want to allocate the limited resources that we do have available. >> Councelor Ferrer, >> thank you for that. So with that, how long would we realistically, and I know you already kind of answered this, but how long would it take to get this report back? I'm assuming it's not going to happen in the next cycle um with everything that you need to look into, but what's the possibility that it could or the the cycle thereafter, >> Mr. John? >> Through the chair, we would work to expedite the report to be uh both meet the UEGI requirements and um bring it forward in a timely manner. We are, like I mentioned, regularly in conversations with service providers. they they do regularly inform us where all the budget pressures are. This is an a new um type of conversation that we're having. These these um budget pressures are documented through their quarterly financial reporting that they submit as well. So we are already are in a climate of discussions that talk about we don't have enough funds and so um as a in light of that we would be able to bring this report um we would expect in an expeditious manner so that we could both meet the federal requirements and ensure that committee is able to make an informed decision. counselor. >> Okay, thank you for that. I I see this as very critical infrastructure when it comes to how we provide services and how we do our outreach because a lot of individuals who are out and unhoused don't necessarily go into facilities or buildings that we have. A lot of our outreach and a lot of our contact happens away from those. And you know, when it comes to being vital about bridging people to stability or pathways to housing, this is a very important part. So losing any of this could really uh hurt the effectiveness of of kind of the work that we do. So I appreciate the motion um from the mover and the seconder. I will support it. I do want to see the report come back as expedited as soon as possible. I am concerned about uh agencies right now and where their funding levels are because that could negatively impact the work that we're doing and may even cost us more in the long run if we do have to see wind downs and windups. Um, so I I would like to see that come back as soon as we can. I don't want to see any gaps get uh widened or opened uh with with the time that we have to wait. >> Thank you. I have councelor Hopkins next. >> Yeah, [snorts] thank you, Madam Chair. I too um had questions around the timelines and I heard loud and clear from staff it's going to be expeditious and without making changes to the the motion which I'm totally in favor of. I do think it is important that it gets back to us. uh September we have two caps meetings the beginning of September the end of September and of course October may be a busy month but more importantly we're getting closer to winter and I think it's really important that agencies have some reassurances that they can count on on uh these funds to create not only stability in their own organizations but also stability with our vulnerable populations. So I definitely encourage uh staff to get back to us as soon as possible. Thank you. >> Thank you. Have counselor Purple next. >> Uh thank you. Both of these services that were provided if you look at 519 and arcade 519 if you talk to a homeless person in an encampment uh and ask them who goes out there and who provides the essential services like food, water, hygiene pack, clothing. They will say certainly if not 519 only pursuit they will certainly mention that they are the most frequent ones and the ones that really go there. If you look at our services Saturday Sunday that's really if we look at drop in it's really only arcade. So if we if we take out 519 and we take out arcade we are missing big part of the encampments potentially street as well. not potentially street as well. 519 if if you do arcade, you're looking at Saturday, Sunday. Those are actually unfortunately the only services we have on the weekend. Uh if you do talk to the individuals who are nearing cabinments, the neighbors neighborhoods when you are outside and when you ask them if there are any issues, most of them mention if there are issues, it's usually during the weekend. Why? Why in the weekend? Because now there are not additional services and that's our that's our kind of negative in our system that we have to approach it. But two of my counselors before they asked council farah, council Hopkins, can we have a commitment September 8th from the staff to get this report? It's one month away. These are the two only organizations that are addressing mainly these issues. Can we get September 8th? We can um through you madam chair. Um so this would be to honor the wording of the motion is we would be looking to report back with recommendations respecting the procurement of any necessary services including of course those previously funded through other levels of government or UHI programs. Uh and that we are to consider any unused UHI funding. So that would be the 350,000. So, right now based on the calendar, the report would need to be submitted on the 27th of August um for the September 8th meeting. Um we're going to be doing an expression of interest probably to solicit where there are uh program pressures cuz this funding is eligible to be retroactive to April 1st as well. So, we're going to be looking to do an expression or call to service providers to look at where uh they can uh provide service or where there's pressures or gaps in the system. So, uh again, looking at just the 350,000 that we're working with, we we could aim to try and hit the September 8th caps noting it needs to be submitted uh like written all that procurement work done and submitted by the 27th. So, we will certainly try. We're we're not aiming to hold up this process. It is great that the mayor and his uh OBCM group was able to do some strong advocacy. It is wonderful that the city of London received UHI funding. It is not uh fantastic that it falls outside of when we would have liked to have made decisions back in May and June. Uh but here we are. So um we will be moving as fast as we can. I want to make it clear to committee we don't need any external motivation uh to go as fast as we can. We're doing everything we can here. >> Councelor Privile >> I do understand about the motivation but on the other hand we have people who are struggling out there. So they don't have the comfort many of them that they don't have the comfort to wait as we do. Uh thank you for that. I really do hope it's going to come back certainly September 8th. uh I do uh when I read this motion it is it is open that potentially you could be coming out with certain other suggestions that that that amount in your perspective can deliver potentially better results that what we have till now it's open and I see it I read through it I get that but on the other hand if you come up with something else that you feel it's going to be better please do consider the essential services the n the what I call 911 services that need to be addressed in some capacity as well. So it's not kind of only that you feel 350 is going to deliver us beds, it's going to deliver deliver us these services. We need to look at the amount of the essentials 911 as well and bottom line is again save lives etc. So if you come up with something please make sure you consider these two organizations and the services that have been provided. Even though it's still going to be in the motion, I certainly hope and as Mr. Dickin said, they are not uh you don't want to delay it either. I really hope that the report is going to be by 27th and it's going to hit CPSC on September 8th. Thank you in advance to you and your entire team. >> Thank you. Uh Council Purple, can you take the chair? >> I have the chair and I recognize Council Ramen. >> Thank you. And through you. Um, so I just want to be clear about what's in the motion and then the additional $75,000 that remains. So in the motion we're talking really about the 350K that is going back into the social service reserve fund, but there is still 75,000 that is through the UHI funding that could be directed by staff as to where it goes. Am I correct? going to the staff for their feedback. Thank you. >> Through you. Uh yes, we would be um applying the parameters of the funding agreement of UHI around the 75,000 as well. We would highlight that there is an administrative component that is um eligible to be sought expenses after. And um you know when we talk about stagnant funding, the stagnant funding also does apply to the backend infrastructure that's being delivering these contract administrations and uh reviews. And so one option would be to also claim administrative funds through UHI, but otherwise we would apply the full par parameters of that agreement to the 75,000 as well. >> Thank you, councelor. >> Thank you. But we could use the uh social service reserve fund either to cover the 75K administratively or we could in reverse theory use 75K from the social service reserve fund without having to go through committee right now as delegated authority to backfill any needs that you see in the system. >> Going to the staff >> through you. That is correct. Yes, >> counselor. >> Thank you. Much appreciation to city staff for coming back with answers on this and and putting together a report on the added agenda to address the uh good news story of receiving the UHI funding. Uh I'm thankful that the federal government was able to flow these dollars. Um, I have to say that, you know, there was some back and forth very early on about whether or not these dollars needed to flow through the province, how they were going to flow, and so on and so forth. Um, you can see in this conversation, all we're concerned about is that the money came in and that we have the ability to use it and put it to its highest need. And that's what we're really trying to understand and assess. And I know that it's frustrating to sit in a room and listen to us have this kind of a conversation, but it's also part of the accountability process that we undertake these types of conversations and ask for reports back so that we can make informed decisions as we're being uh requested to by the public as well. Um so I look forward to the report on the September agenda. Really appreciate the work. promise I won't give anything else uh to to to that agenda to help align with getting that work done as well. Um and thank you to the mover and seconder on this motion. >> I take it as a comment only. Returning the chair back to you. >> Thank you. Any other further speakers on this item? >> Seeing none, we have a motion moved and seconded. We will open the vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries six to zero. Thank you. That takes us to item five, which is our deferred matters from earlier on in the agenda, which was item 2.3, our housing stability services procurement and delivery framework emergency shelter guidelines 2011 versus 2026 comparative analysis. We have a request for delegation from Miss Lazby of Unity Project. I will look for a mover in seconder to open that request. Councelor Pribble, thank you. Councelor Ferrer, thank you. Just a moment as we get that ready. Closing the vote. The motion carries six to zero. >> Thank you, Miss Lesby. I invite you to the microphone. I know you've done this before. >> Yeah, >> it's been a while though. >> Yeah, a little bit. [laughter] >> You have five minutes and please go ahead when you're ready. >> Great. Thank you uh for the opportunity to speak today about the emergency shelter guidelines and specifically I want to talk to um the references to substance possession and use within emergency shelters. Uh I submitted a written document outlining UNI project's experience with substance use policy and practice for nearly 25 years as an emergency shelter and transitional housing operator. and our span our our experience has spanned kind of the full spectrum of approaches. Um for our first 10 years we operated uh uh as an abstinence and sobriety based program. Uh we've tried restrictive policies. We have enforced them. We have changed them. Uh we've really seen firsthand what works for us, what doesn't, and what unintended consequences can be. Um and our evolution was not driven by ideology. it was driven by operational reality. Um, I'm not going to summarize the entire document today and I know it was long for those who read it, you know, really appreciate it. [laughter] Uh, but for those who have not read it in full, including the public, uh, I think that it would be great if if you could go back and read that. But I did want to highlight six lessons that we learned over that 25 years. Um, first is that restrictive policies do not eliminate substances or substance use. Um, restrictive policy puts frontline staff in a role of enforcement rather than support. It doesn't fulfill the promise of a substance-free facility. So, when substances are prohibited, people do not stop using or bringing them in. Uh, they do become more likely to hide it, creating significant safety issues within the shelter. Second, safety improves when people can be honest. So when participants believe that acknowledging substance use could result in losing access to shelter, they are less likely to share information about their use, overdose risk, health concerns, or their support needs. And this compromises frontline staff ability to safely plan effectively. Uh third, frontline staff are most effective when they can support people, not police them. Our staff are there to build relationships, respond to crises, develop housing plans, and connect people with health and community resources. Under more restrictive substance use policies, we found significant staff time redirected towards monitoring, investigating, documenting, determining intoxication, enforcing restrictions, and responding to rule violations. And this was time taken away from the work that actually helps people move forward. Fourth, the toxic drug supply changed what safety means for us. The emergence of fentanyl fundamentally changed the environment in which emergency shelters operate. Uh before fentanyl hit the streets, Unity Project responded to three overdoses in 16 years. And it wasn't because people weren't using drugs. The drugs that they were using were different. And after fentanyl emerged, we experienced three overdoses in a single week, which is really our current operational reality. That changed our policies and we had to recognize that hidden substance use was no longer simply a policy violation, but it was actually a life and death issue. Fifth, low barrier does not mean no accountability. Effective low barrier shelter requires clear expectations, consistent boundaries, and appropriate re responses when behavior impacts the safety of others. The difference is that accountability is based on behavior and impact rather than requiring a person to meet a condition before they can access emergency shelter. A safer shelter environment is not created by removing expectations. It's created by having expectations that reflect the realities of the people that we serve. And finally, emergency shelters cannot solve systemic problems alone. Shelters are an essential part of the homeless response system, but we cannot solve the lack of affordable housing, the gaps in healthcare, inadequate income supports, or limited access to a spectrum of treatment services from inside an emergency shelter. And those systems need investment, too. Emergency shelters are the last place people go to seek help. And if we put additional barriers at that that last door, we should not be surprised when people don't come inside. Uh, and I do want to be really clear that I'm not arguing that anything goes or that we shouldn't have expectations of people who access shelter or even that every shelter has the ability uh to operate in the same way that we do. >> I'm really arguing that policies need to be effective, enforceable, evidence informed and grounded in the reality of the people circumstances we are dealing with and the facilities we operate from. Um, also if there are better policies and procedures out there, I'll be the first one to sign up and try them as long as it doesn't compromise our staff's ability to support people or create increased safety risk and can actually be enforced. Um, and so I think that in emergency shelter, what's really important is to understand that good intentions aren't enough. >> Thank you. That's your time. >> Policies have consequences. So, thank you. Thank you. Okay. I will uh look for to committee for a motion. Um there is one that was drafted alongside the report. Um I'll look for a mover and seconder on that motion. Councelor Hopkins and Councelor Ferrer. That motion is moved and seconded on the floor. I'll look for speakers on this item. Councelor Hopkins. >> Yeah. Thank you um Madame Chair and I just want to thank um Miss Lazenby from uh the Unity Project uh for your not only for your delegation but [clears throat] for your uh response. It was such a good read. There was a lot of information there that I really uh learned a lot and appreciated you taking the time. There was a lot of thought uh put into that. So, thank you and uh to staff for the recommendation. I too appreciated the um uh the comparisons between what we did back in 2011 and what we're doing now. And one of the uh most important things I learned was around the um uh when it comes to shelter transformation and how we are looking at uh housing and the importance of um uh low barrier diversion oriented coordinated and data driven. I think all that is really uh I think we've come a long way uh when we uh when I see this and when I read uh the um updates. I do have a question for you, Madam Chair, maybe around the community engagement piece and and how that works and and what are we doing that is uh different. >> Thank you. I'll go to staff, whoever wants to take that question. Uh thank you and through you chair. So the um guidelines were uh created in partnership with folks at access shelters and the shelter operators. Uh where a lot of shelter operators adopt uh practices is around their unique um community engagement that they do with their surrounding neighborhoods. And uh organizations like uh Unity Project are well connected in their communities and neighborhoods and do a lot of outreach and uh have very open lines of communication and and accessible for questions and concerns as do other organizations in terms of the community outreach that they do uh with their surrounding areas. So each provider has a unique method and and how they do that. And um I think some of them are probably as in anything more successful at that than others. But um yeah, we we see shelter providers doing this on a regular basis. >> Councelor Hopkins. >> And again uh is there something that we um can do uh more when [clears throat] it comes to the community engagement with with the neighborhoods? I I know um as a counselor I'm sometimes challenged with trying to provide the right information to residents uh as to uh how we are dealing with homelessness and housing in our city. But I I just want to have a better understanding on uh how we can uh better engage with neighborhoods. >> Thank you. I'll go to Mr. Dickens. uh through you chair. Uh organizations are required on the complaint driven side to have a complaint process in place for handling uh neighbor complaints or complaints in general. And as [clears throat] we look to the pro, excuse me, to the agreements and the contracts, uh we can look to see what uh we can put in place in terms of a community engagement plan. Um, but this committee has debated things beyond that previously and and had made decisions on on where you felt you were comfortable and not in proceeding with anything beyond that. >> Councelor Hopkins. >> Yeah, thank you. Um I I'm just really pleased to see us going forward. Um and when it comes to the stability and uh as we go forward, I think we also have to learn uh a little bit more and engage and that's something uh when I was reading this report, it reminded me of the importance of uh community engagement and how we share information. So thank you. >> Thank you. Looking for other speakers. I'll go to Councelor Stevenson. Go ahead. >> Thank you. Um, specifically regarding the explicit allowing of illegal substances to be brought inside our taxpayer funded shelters, um, is there any other city that uses that language? Cuz Thank you, Mr. Dickens. Are you looking for any clarification on which language or >> Mr. John? Go ahead. >> Through the chair. Yes. These uh guidelines were based off of consultations with other municipalities as well. Toronto and Hamilton being some of those other municipalities. and it specifically talks about access to shelter that someone may not be declined access to shelter simply because they um have in their possession elicit substances. So there are other municipalities that have the same framework. >> Councelor Stevenson, >> thank you. I saw that they said people can't be asked or not not allowed to go because of substance use, but I didn't see the the actual wording of you must have a policy that states that illegal substances can be brought inside. Mr. John >> through the chair. Um we're not requiring service providers to direct the clients that they need to have substances to come inside the door. What the shelter guidelines is speaking about is um that they aren't able to decline access solely based on having elicit substances on their possession and that um there isn't a um disproportionately punitive response to someone that may potentially have a substance use disorder or have significant withdrawal symptoms etc. the the shelter guidelines are really centering around providing uh just and and uh equitable care for everyone that accesses the shelter services including folks that may potentially have a substance use disorder. So it is centering around how we provide care to people who have um use elicit substances and not necessarily around a punitive approach that we're asking shelter providers to take upon. >> Councelor Stevenson, thank you. I'll follow up offline because I it seemed to me that ours went one step beyond any other one that I could find. So I I'll I'll follow up offline. When you talk about just and equitable, what is the response to those who are in recovery and have difficulty uh in a space where uh drugs are available or or you know are allowed to be brought inside. >> Mr. John >> through the chair. Um the shelter operators do have a requirement to ensure a proper intake assessment gets done for every single one um every single client entering that shelter which includes having conversations about rules and expectations of participants in the program. These rules uh typically may be posted somewhere. They may require clients to sign them upon entry or have a verbal discussion around them. Those rules are also included in their case management conference or or discussions that happen with clients. And so those rules uh take into consideration that um elicit substance use on site is still prohibited. Um and we're looking after the the needs of both the clients that may have a substance use disorder and folks that are participating in recovery based programs. And these shelter guidelines are particularly speaking to low barrier emergency shelter programs. There is uh provisions in there that allow for recovery based programs to have specific policies around um recovery focused um parameters around substance use. Councelor Stevenson. >> Thanks. I guess just it's just my point is that the low barrier is low barrier for people in active addiction. It's not seen as low barrier for those that are triggered or can't see the substances in people's pockets and the harm reduction equipment that's handed out. Um, the other thing is when we explicitly say that people are allowed to bring illegal substances inside, it makes it really difficult to call neighbors and neighborhoods nimbies, when our policies ask those individuals to use the illegal substances offsite, which is often times their front porches and their backyards. So, what do we say to the residents around the shelters when our our policies say this so explicitly? Mr. John >> through the chair we um see this as an opportunity for people who use substances to come indoors to be able to access services and that could be harm reduction services. It could be uh connections to addiction services or opioid agonist treatment. It could be connecting provider or clients who use substances to health care providers. Uh the alternative of of that of denying access to someone potentially because of a substance use disorder and uh refraining um that that individual from coming indoors would be the uh description of what you provided is that people may turn to the streets to use substances on the street. And so allowing clients to access services that shelter operators can then connect them to other service providers, including addictions and health-based services um would seek to mitigate some of those concerns that you raised around substance use um on the streets. >> Councelor Stevenson. >> Thank you. Well, if there's those diversion uh capabilities exist, why are we not diverting right at the door so that they can access those things rather than have illegal substances brought inside? >> Mr. John through the chair. Um those uh referrals to other services regularly happen whether it's on the street through our our street outreach um partners that are providing um uh services to clients living outdoors. They're also through our system navigation partners. Uh referrals are a regular part of the system. We recognize that not one provider can do all the work and so this is the the climate of how services are delivered is through referral bases. Um we've highlighted through past uh discussions and reports that there are significant uh barriers to accessing services. One of them being funding like health healthc care services and accessing addiction services isn't uh specific solely the responsibility of the municipality. Th those are services that we don't receive uh funding for and so law referrals can happen. Um there there will be weight lists and barriers to accessing those services as a result of limited funding. And so in the interim, we would want people to come inside to be able to make better use of services that exist in a shelter versus uh leaving them outdoors waiting for services that might be uh include lengthy wait lists. >> Councelor Stevenson, >> thank you. And so just to go back, moving past the denying people access, what do we say when we're taxpayer funding shelters on the main street of a business district where people live in apartments all right there, right on Dundas Street and in neighboring homes. when the when our policy says you can bring them inside but you can't use them inside, you have to do that offsite. Where is that off-site direction? And what do you say to the neighbors who say, "I'm very uh uncomfortable with taxpayer funded services telling people to do it offsite in my neighborhood." >> Thank you. Council, are you referring to like safe injection sites or >> No, I'm saying that our policies say you may bring the illegal substances inside. You may not use them inside. You must do them offsite. So, in the old East Village, Midtown neighborhood where we're taxpayer funding these, where is the off-site direction then? And and what do you say to the neighbors who don't want us to use their taxpayer money to bring that to their neighborhood? >> Thank you. So, Mr. Dickens, I'm not sure if that helps to clarify, but just structuring the answer maybe around what is available and perhaps speaking to some the things that maybe were available but are not available. >> Thank you, Chair and through you. I mean, this is the existential question. Where do we uh direct people to go um where they are not uh consuming drugs in the open? Um we know there's a multi-pronged approach. We know LPS tries the enforcement piece. uh and it doesn't exist in isolation nor is it effective in isolation. You need treatment um and you need education and you need access to services in indoor space. So there is no answer of where do you tell taxpayers that people are allowed to go and use drugs. You you don't you can't there's there's no allowable space. there was and it was the supervised consumption site where people could go and use uh illicit drugs uh under supervision and under care that no longer exists. We've lost that resource in our community. Uh this is what other communities are grappling with as well. We see a heartthub which was meant to replace that type of service. However, it comes with restrictive policies that you can't bring uh uh paraphernalia in or or um or use drugs in that space. Uh so it's not an exchange. So when we look at well what are those alternatives and it is trying to build highly supportive housing. Well, we know that comes with challenges. Are people allowed to use drugs in a place that they live? The general public can. vulnerable people, we tend not to because they're they're funded and subsidized through various government programs. So, our job is be compliant with the guidelines bestowed upon us by the provincial government or by the federal government or by our municipal council uh and ensure that we follow those the guidelines before you are consistent with well over a dozen municipalities in Ontario. uh it is consistent with a reflection of the realities that our service providers are dealing with on a daily basis and we are just trying to be uh a little more modern and cognizant of the fact that these are the realities that people are facing in our community. >> Councelor Stevenson, [snorts] thank you. Was there consideration to not putting in there that they should be used offsite or could be used offsite to just leave that off rather than be directing people to use illegal substances in the neighborhoods? Thank you. I'll go to Steph. >> Uh thank you, Chair through. We're just trying to find the reference to us telling shelter providers that people can uh must use uh offsite. We do know that emergency shelter providers will not discharge participants or impose service restrictions based on substance use, be it on or offsite. Um, and what we reference here is that uh having an act of addiction is not the sole grounds for uh uh a turnaway or rejection of a space. So, um we're not here to promote that people go into neighborhoods and use drugs. That's not what this policy is about. It is a modernized policy that acknowledges uh having uh uh restrictions in place based solely on the fact that a person may have paraphernelia on them. And the delegation's written submission lays out some really practical examples of how that uh policy has failed in the past. Uh and we want to make sure we're taking steps to be as inclusive, create space where people can come indoors and then finally get on a pathway to recovery. >> Councelor Stevenson. Thank you. Because the policy says spec explicitly people are allowed to bring illegal substances inside the taxpayer funded shelters. Is there a limit on quantity? >> Mr. John >> through the chair um there isn't a specific indication in there about uh quantity. The uh again the the guidelines are specifically referencing does someone who use substances and may potentially have it in their possession do they deserve the right to access uh shelter and access all the services that are available in that shelter. The guidelines are specifically speaking to that and not to the elicit substance potentially that may be on them. That's not the scope of the shelter operator to um handle substances. there there there are risks and legal assessments that I think would need to be conducted for that specific purpose, but it again it's focusing on on access to services versus the uh what what is in the belongings of the person coming indoors. >> Councelor Stevenson, the policy allows them to come in and you're not allowed to use them. I didn't see anything that said you weren't allowed to sell them, >> Mr. John or Mr. Jiggins. >> Uh thank you through your chair. No, the the shelter guidelines do not weave into the the realm of uh selling uh or purchasing uh drugs. It is a again a guideline that is consistent with other municipalities that recognizes that an individual may present uh uh with paraphernalia [clears throat] with uh perhaps drugs on their persons and we are not asking uh shelter providers to uh to search their belongings to frisk individuals or to confiscate uh that paraphernalia uh from that person. Uh some of our shelter providers have written to us that they've undergone risk assessments with the London Police Service where the London Police have advised them, do not try to confiscate people's uh paraphernalia or their uh drug supply uh because you're not police and that puts you in risk. Uh the written delegation points out some really good uh pieces on that too. So no, we would we would never weigh in on um suggesting [clears throat] people uh it be written that they cannot sell or purchase drugs in a shelter. uh service providers manage that through aspects such as creating a safe environment uh managing behaviors uh and ensuring that both uh residents and uh participants are in a uh environment free of fear. >> Councelor Stevenson, >> thank you. If there was an incident and police were called in and then there was an issue with the possession of illegal substances and they were to say, "Well, there's a policy explicitly allowing me to have them in this building." Is that a concern, >> Mr. Dickens? >> Uh, thank you through you, Chair. The guidelines say that they're not denied access based solely on that. Um, so that question would probably have to be referred to the police. >> Councelor, >> thank you. And just to go back to the neighborhoods, we had a policy in 2011 that explicitly said due to safety, illegal substances are not permitted. Now it says they are allowed to be brought inside. Now that we're making that change, is there is there consideration to limit where emergency shelters are located in terms of how close to other vulnerable people like elementary schools, daycarees, or uh senior populations? >> I'll go to staff. >> Um through you, chair. In short, uh that is not contemplated as part of an overall uh review of the shelter guidelines. Should that be something committee and council want to discuss when the entire shelter procurement system comes back, uh committee can make different uh alterations to how services and where services are provided at that time. >> Councelor, >> thank you. Was the safety of the community surrounding the shelter considered at all when writing the shelter guidelines? >> Mr. John >> through the chair, we have had opportunities during the review process to consult with um members of of the community, including neighbors. Uh there is a provision in the proposed shelter guidelines that specifically speaks to responding to complaints, including complaints of neighbors as well. And uh providers are expected to comply with those directions in in terms of how they respond to complaints both proactively and reactively. There's also um some reference of providers um having having policy and um how they engage with neighbors as well. So there are provisions there and and specifically highlighted that um these are auditable provisions as well. So th those things have been considered. >> Councelor Stevenson, >> thank you. Was there any consultation with the communities uh surrounding these shelters as to this drastic change from not allowed to explicitly allowed? >> Mr. Dickens. >> Uh, specific to that, uh, through you, chair. Sorry. Um, specific to that, uh, I don't believe there was, we started doing this work back in 2024. Um, so I'd have to confer with my team. >> Counselor. >> Thanks. And I just wanted to confirm. So these guidelines generally are going to be true for all of the warming spaces and other services. We talk about transformation of the system. This is part of that, I assume. >> Mr. John or Mr. Dickens through the chair. Um yes, the these guidelines would apply including the principles of the guidelines as well um for any emergency spaces um including respit spaces. Considering that the spaces that were proposed in front of council uh for the winter response exist in our emergency shelter um operators, they would be expected to comply with the same guidelines. Councelor Stevenson, you have about 30 seconds. Go ahead. >> Thank you. So, I just want to go back again to neighborhoods and neighbors being called nimbies when they oppose a taxpayer funded shelter in their neighborhood. Um, so again, I just want to hear what staff's response is to those neighbors who say, "I don't want a taxpayer funded shelter that allows people who bring to bring illegal substances and which is illegal in my neighborhood." What What's the What's the city response to that? Sorry, can I just clarify your question? You're asking staff to respond to comments about nimiism. >> Yes, because um we we we talked about 15 hubs, 12 to 15 HUDs spread out across the city. We had some issues where uh neighborhoods have been opposed to that kind of thing and there there's been issues of nimiism. So now that was prior to us making this big change. So, now that we're explicitly saying people are allowed to bring illegal drugs into these locations and residents are opposed or concerned about that coming into their neighborhood, I'm asking what the city's response is to those uh residents to alleviate their concerns. >> Thank you, Mr. Dickens. I hope that clarifies the question. Go ahead. >> Uh thank you, Chair. Um uh it it helps a little bit. Yeah, I um I can't speak to the nimism stuff. That's not uh a position civic administration takes. Uh nor do any of our reports reflect that assessment of uh individuals with concerns. Uh what is important is that uh through our contracting process, we ensure service providers have uh community engagement plans in place and they have commitments uh to respond effectively to complaints and that they are uh open and engaged partners in the neighborhoods in which they exist. uh civic administration would not have a response uh on the floor of committee um to [clears throat] uh hypothetical questions about folks uh being upset about drug use. Uh part of these guidelines are updated to reflect the significant drug use crisis that municipalities in Ontario are facing including London. uh and we are we are battling upstream I think uh and and what we can do as a municipality uh in the face of this drug crisis. >> Council you about 10 seconds. >> Thank you. Is there a communication plan to educate the public surrounding these shelters about the change? >> But I'll get your question on communication plan. Go ahead. >> Through the chair. We will be working with our communications professionals to be able to ensure this information is rolled out in a way that keeps people informed. Thank you. I'm looking for other speakers on this topic. I have councelor Trasa next. >> Thank you very much. That's hard to follow, but I'm going to I'm going to try. Um, these guidelines include explicitly reasonable deport regulations based on behavior. That is a very important point that we cannot overlook. Reasonable rules that will have a person suspended or removed based on their behavior, which is very different than basing it on their status. or another or other indications that are not related to behavioral issues. We should be very careful about trying to operationalize presumptions that are untenable. This is this exclusion in front one that is not related to any behavioral problem is not reasonable. It would likely not be upheld. It would go against bad practice and more significantly it would act as a deterrent to people involving themselves in the very program that we very badly want them to be um part of. I also think that we should try to avoid making uh stigmatizing and I think unwarranted assumptions about people's lives condition life conditions unless there is um sort of a behavioral manifestation of that. So what's the alternative? What's the alternative? It would become a barrier creating impediment that would be enimical to the nature of the service that we're trying to provide. The alternative would involve, it would necessarily involve searches, invasive surveillance, seizures that would be impossible at a practical level to administratively carry out by our staff. It would also place our staff in in much greater danger than is warranted. So when we talk about inappropriate assumptions, I think we have to be very careful. In closing, allow does not mean countenance. I think countenance would probably be a better word to have used here, but countenance does not mean authorize. Countenance does not mean encourage and countenance does not mean look the other way when there are behavioral issues. So I think the bottom line here is has this document struck a reasonable balance between the purposes of the program, the safety of the staff, the integrity of the persons who are the uh clients here and and the and the the implications of people's status which is which is for people entering this facility. is is is not the highest point in their life. So, I am I am well, I've I've seconded the motion. I'm I'm fully uh in in in in support of uh well, no, I I didn't second the motion, but I'm in fully support of this of this motion. And I think that we have to be very careful not to engage in in a narrative that just encourages people's worst side because there is a good side to people that are seeking treatment in these facilities and our program is going to be a success if we allow that to flourish. Thank you. >> Thank you. looking for other speakers. Councelor Purple, go ahead. >> Thank you, sir Chair. Uh there's no doubt we need and there's a [clears throat] need for low barrier facilities and absolutely we need them. Uh I do totally understand when individuals come to the door under the influence that they are accepted. Totally get that as well. I do struggle with the illegal substance coming to the premises as well. uh on the legal issues doesn't matter oh sorry no doesn't matter if it will be the staff or if it be hired private security what legal issues are there or if we look at the uh sorry the uh Ontario human rights code if we were to push this on any organization providing these services what are their legal rights in terms of the search I I know you mentioned Mr. Dickens mentioned the advice from LPS but what are actually legal issues and the rights. >> Thank you. Just to clarify, you mean if it wasn't a low barrier approach? >> No, for the low barrier. >> Okay, just a moment. >> Actually, to be honest with you, it could be any facility, but I'm steering towards low barrier. >> Miss Dory, are you prepared to answer that question? I'll make my best efforts. So through the chair, just first of all, I want to make it clear I I can't provide advice on the rights and obligations of the service providers per se. I can only speak to these uh guidelines. Um and and I will I'm prepared to give uh a couple of very general comments, but obviously um as you're aware, normally legal advice would be privileged and confidential. So we would need to go in camera if I were to give detailed um advice. But I think it's important to note that um the disab that disability of which um substance abuse or addictions is recognized by the Ontario Human Rights uh Commission as a disability. So generally speaking to deny service which in my view would include um uh these type of emergency shelters to deny that service on the basis of a disability very generally could be a breach of the Ontario human rights code. Um so that has to be uh kept in mind. Um and as I said any further detailed legal advice I think I would likely need to go into camera because that would be privileged and confidential. >> Counselor, are you satisfied or would you like to go camera? I am and I had some other discussions as well. So I do know that when it comes to the search and certain taking actions like that that are actually not illegal and we would not be able to. So I do uh I do understand the guidelines what's in front of us. This is the only one that is stuck in my head. There's no doubt because uh I do believe that if we do have that then are we going to push on these organizations safety protocols internal and also external to minimize any occurrences to happen on the premises and also potentially outside. Are we thinking of adding this to the guidelines or potentially to the agreements when the funds are allocated? >> Mr. John >> through the chair. There is a requirement within the shelter guidelines that's proposed uh to committee uh to incorporate the best evidence-based harm reduction principles including uh training for staff administering the these protocols in in the shelters. Um just to understand everything around harm reduction and addictions and substance use um in a holistic way. uh there is um provisions within the shelter guidelines to ensure that shelter operators are regularly engaging with clients about um the rules and responsibilities of clients and expectations of participants in the programs through uh case management services. So these these would be regular discussions with clients. Um and there is also provision to um enforce rules um based on uh uh the circumstances that are presented. Service restrictions are still available there. there's that is a tool that is available to shelter operators. Uh warnings um uh conditions around what what particip participation agreements look like. Uh these are all tools that shelter operators can still utilize that's not being removed through these shelter guidelines. Um and like I mentioned earlier in a previous uh question that uh there is still responsibility for shelters to engage with complaints that may arise from uh neighboring um community um organizations or or businesses or residents that might be around uh the neighborhood. And there's responsibility for shelter operators to continue to foster positive relationships. That is mentioned in the shelter guidelines. It doesn't absolve operators from uh participating in that work. >> Councelor, >> thank you. Followup. Uh we have these guidelines that will be accessible to every organization. These protocols, what I call protocols, safety, etc. Are we going to based on these guidelines is our staff going to verify these protocols that they are in accordance with our guidelines and also verify that they're actually uh obeyed by >> Mr. John >> through the chair. Yes. Uh that is correct and it does state in the guidelines that any of these um circumstances are auditable through through our assessments of operators. >> Council approval. >> Okay. Thank you for that. Uh some years ago or two and a half three years ago when we came came up with the hubs there was a time that I started to uh review it and get a feedback from other individuals not just in actually in the world and there are some that I've been in contact with and reviewing our reports and everything we do. the stuff that uh you presented to us actually last Thursday I went through with a a CEO of an organization and actually she agreed with all of them. This was her the only question that she had because on their premises it was the last week that I spent a lot of time with city staff and community organizations in other cities and this is the one that they have specific questions to but I have to state one thing is that their laws in that country doesn't matter if it's the staff or if it's the private security they do have the right in terms of the substances to search and to keep which is a big difference and I told them that that that's the difference and they did tell me then their suggestions would be to be really truly strict on the protocols in the big just and I'm not going to go with the hours that I had a communication with but I just want to let you know the system we have in place in London they say the system we have it does make sense rooms for improvement in each area the part they're struggling to understand is is our way of funding they don't understand in that city how they would because they say the secret of success is moving people to the better better improvement and even though we have it our funding is limited they see it their funding is much larger but it's continued so they know that from 0.1 to point 2 there is a guarantee but they say how do you have that guarantee in London if the money is not guaranteed if every 3 6 9 12 months you're going back to it so they say kind of what I say is they really don't see huge light at the end of the tunnel because we don't have this guaranteed and the organizations they are in in the dark because they in the dark because they are not struggling improve their services and what they do they're struggling to keep their staff so they are not hiring firing training because of the >> 30 seconds >> but I just want to I just want to tell you that uh and these are individuals and city that they have proved uh success in their system and and they're successful. Again, they're not perfect. No one has a perfect system. But I just want to give you this feedback that the guidelines from other people, other municipality, they agree with it and they feel we are on the right track. They're just uh uh they just don't know how we can operate the way way we do most efficiently and effectively based on the source of funding and the way we do it. Thank you. >> Thank you. I'll go to councelor Ferrarinex. Go ahead. >> Uh thank you chair and I appreciate the conversation. and I think all aspects was very informative but some areas um kind of talked about some of the items that we have in this new delivery framework but it didn't really explicitly highlight some of the big changes that we had so I just wanted to kind of touch on them um because like right now with this new delivery framework we are moving away from primarily like an access and safety and operational model towards um a comprehensive support planning and housing stabilization support model that gives us a delivery framework where people are actually leading through like a more of a throughput from unsheltered to shelter to permanent stabilization to housing. So that's like a big thing that I think we haven't really discussed here because we are kind of changing the delivery framework in a way that has long-term stable outcomes rather than how they're operating today. And a lot of areas in this report points to that. And I just wanted to highlight that because, you know, we're going from uh general health and safety requirements to with the new proposed guidelines expanded infection prevention, outbreak management, and wellness standards or from um basic shelter and referral services to that comprehensive support and housing stabilization supports. And I see this delivery model change in a way that should provide us rather than being reactive or um promoting more use of shelter services to moving people through a system and getting people housed and permanently housed with the stabilization side. I heard some comments about um the referral systems and I [clears throat] would point out that our outreach discussion we had on the last item. I'm not going to venture too off chair, but I'm just wanted to point out that that referral system is included there as well because if we are not just looking at the shelter part and we're looking at the other part of the infrastructure reaching people where they are at, that is very important. But going to the referral system at the shelter side, that is something that's included here as well. And that is something that is included that will go case by case and help people um with the needs that they need. Whether it's substance use disorder, whether it's uh life stabilization, whether it's paper readiness, whether it's any of those things, that system is there and is included there and it's explicitly put into this new delivery framework, which is one of the many things that I'm trying to point out here that enhances kind of the effort that we're bringing. Um, I do want to go to kind of what happens right now with the current 2011 model. And I've heard a lot of discussion about um, substance use, opening that up, allowing individuals to bring it into the shelter and what happens in that situation. I have worked in in my volunteer days with some shelters and even though I do understand that it was prohibited, substance use was still around and I just wanted to kind of get boil down to um the question of if we were to allow individuals bring substances in, does that bring more use or more substances to the area? And I just wanted to know I because I cuz I don't there's a distinction there between the two. is, you know, if we open it up, it leads to this. But that's not necessarily the case. Like, I already understand that individuals who are dealing with substance use disorder are dealing with that, which is not connected with what the shelter allows or the shelter doesn't allow. I understand if the shelter prohibits, then individuals may not openly discuss, which could hurt with some of our referral pathways. But I just wanted to ask the question of does one lead to the other? >> Mr. John >> through the chair. Um, you know, we know that shelter operators are aware of harm reduction practices. Um, as we've heard through some of the delegations and even through engagement with our contracted agencies, uh, harm reduction practices have been adopted in in various um formats in in in shelters. Um, the shelter operators do have a responsibility to create a safe uh environment for both clients and staff that work there. And as we heard through some of the delegations that adapt adopting harm reduction principles can contribute to some of those pieces. Um you know we we would uh present back that uh limiting and and providing punitive um uh practices around access to shelter would actually create further risk for clients. Um if someone was uh denied access to shelter because of their substance use um this would create potentially more risk for some of that those clients that are trying to access services. And through the examples that we heard earlier, um you know, even even hiding some of those substances, if staff are stumbling upon substances that have been hidden, uh in a shelter somewhere because someone is uh fearing retribution for having that on their person, uh these these would create unsafe um environments. And so uh you know, to answer your question more specifically, harm reduction practices have been around for quite some time, including in in the shelters that are operating. and uh we we don't uh believe that the circumstances would change beyond that with these shelter guidelines. >> Councelor Ferrer. >> Okay. Thank you for that. With our hyphus and by name list, um and looking at the homelessness dashboard, I I kind of I don't we don't have it categorized in substance use, but we do have it categorized in high acuity, moderate acuity, lower acuity. Could you are you able to give me any uh data on the proportion of individuals right now on that by name list who uh within that high acuity category or moderate acuity would be suffering from substance use disorder >> Mr. John >> through the chair. Um, you know, speaking about substance use, uh, amongst clients, this is personal health information. Uh, the the operators, uh, are not necessarily health information custodians and the ability to collect some of that information and disclose it. Um, it it would be limited based on how the operators are are funded and the contracts that they have. We uh do case management work and assess um uh operators as they perform case management through through hyphus as you mentioned. Um there could be referrals to various services including uh addictions uh therapy services as well but we don't have specific information around um the the substance use nature per client because of the personal health information risks there. >> Counselor. >> Okay. Thank you for that. Um okay let me try a different um angle um without the exact data on that. Um if we were to have still the prohibitive model and this was discussed actually in this conversation with that prohibitive model >> 30 seconds >> that's it. Um if with the model to prohibit we wouldn't be able to have necessarily necessarily referral pathways for individuals because they wouldn't be able to be in the shelter system and they would go where >> Mr. John >> through the chair for a low barrier emergency shelter system that may deny someone access to um using services due to substances on their possession. there would be no other alternative uh for them that would be the lowest barrier service that they would be able to access and um the alternatives would be the streets are engaging with um other emergency response personnel. >> Councelor Ferrer. >> Okay, I don't have that much time so I'll just close it with some remarks. The conversation that we had here previously was very informative, very informative on the some of the aspects that we don't have included in the system and really what is going to have be the outcome if we don't have certain um resources available. >> Okay, I have Mayor Morgan next on the speakers list. Go ahead. >> Um thank you. So, first let me um let me say thank you to um uh Miss Lazenby um not just for the presentation and uh sharing your thoughts today, but for the work that you've done for many years in the community to help people who are most vulnerable and all of the staff who work for your agency and others uh that provide similar services. I I've said this many times, it's very difficult work. It's um hard to see people suffering each and every day and I think you're you're doing the very best in a very difficult situation out on the streets in the city of London. Uh, I want to say to councelor Fer and councelor Troau through the chair. I I really appreciate your comments because you you took a number of the things that I wanted to say off the plate. Um, yeah, I think you both spoke very articulately. Um, I I have a question of our staff then I want to make some comments because I I want to just understand where councelor Ferrer left off and he ran out of time. The and and maybe through you to our staff. So the my understanding the previous guidelines state that drugs and alcohol are prohibited on property uh which means people their only recourse is to use outside starting now you're not going to deny entry for people who may be under the influence or having possession but they're still prohibited um in the building. So is there is there actually any difference like it's uh it's still prohibited in the buildings it was before and I'm just wondering from an operational perspective do you see a significant change in the way that that that would work from one shelter guideline to the other. >> Thank you. I'll go to Mr. Dickens. >> Uh through you chair uh that the the mayor's accurate that there would be no difference in terms of usage and the location of the usage. So, as our written delegation actually submitted to the agenda, when we've had uh prohibited policies where uh uh drugs and alcohol were not permitted on site, it meant people were still using offsite. Now that we say you can't be denied entry because you have it on your possession, uh they still can't use on-site. So, to the mayor's question, yes, those two things are the same. >> Mayor Morgan. >> Okay. So, um, just some some comments because I think that the it's it's it's very easy to get hung up on small pieces of the the shelter guidelines and and miss kind of the big picture. We're talking about emergency shelter here, right? Uh, uh, for the most part, these are the emergency shelters in the city, the last resort for people who have a place to go. You know, they're seeking um basic needs and shelter from many different things. and and and and as the framework said and as councelor FRA articulates, you know, it's actually a move to a more um complex and supportive framework within the guideline system to say we recognize that people are struggling and we need to help them. Um connecting people with supports is actually a really critical way of um getting people off of substance use. And what we've seen from stats in supportive housing and other places is that when you bring people indoors, when you when you give them access to people who can help them, when you create a framework for them to have opportunities to connect with with others, you know that they have less substance use in the long run. They can actually exit their addictions. Where we have a lack and where we have a gap in this province is in uh provinially supported uh large-scale treatment and recovery facilities across the province. something that the premier has said he's committed to doing, something this council has passed a resol resolution saying we support and something that mayors and others across the province continue to advocate for. We need many more spaces to refer people to who we want to have them exit their addiction. And one of the great spots that people can be referred to is from personnel who are well trained within our emergency shelter system who can say if you need help, we're going to refer you into the service. As Mr. Dickens said part of the gap we have now is you want to do that but then someone's either got a high cost or a long wait list that faces them. You know that barrier needs to be eliminated and then I think many of the challenges many of the debates and many of the disagreements that we could possibly have here get resolved very quickly with with a a properly funded and more complete system of treatment and recovery across the province. On the shelter guidelines, I I am supportive of the shelter guidelines before us today. Um, and I think councelor Troau was was quite articulate in saying just because people are not denied access to a building doesn't mean we're encouraging them to do anything. In fact, by getting them through the door, we're giving them access to supports and people who can help them. We're get letting people build a relationship with them and then we can refer them into more services. We've seen this in all of the services we provided. When we brought people indoors and we've connected them with others, you know, there is a greater opportunity for their lives to become better than if we deny them service and have them continue to be out on the streets. And whether they're in doorways or in municipal parks or along Dundas Place or in Oldies Village, it's better for people to be indoors wrapped around and close to services than out on the streets where they don't have supports where they are. So I see these shelter guidelines as a step towards continuing our work to make sure people are connected with services and supports that they need to move to where we'd like them to get to and that is not addicted addicted to substance having stable secure housing dealing with complex medical and healthcare issues in a way that is supportive and gets them on a better path. So um supportive of what's force today and um uh you know happy to continue the discussion and and very open to ideas that colleagues have about improving the system each and every day. I think this is yet another example of us trying to make improvements to the shelter guidelines based on best practices across the province. >> Thank you. Uh looking for other speakers. Don't see any online. Councelor Pville, will you take the chair? >> I have the chair and I recognize councelor Ramen. >> Uh thank you and through you. I just had a couple questions. um some of which have been addressed, but I just wanted to clearly um get an answer from staff on uh with the 2026 emergency shelter guidelines, are we in compliance with provincial policy and guidelines on these matters? >> Going to the staff for response >> through you. Yes, we are. um there the homelessness prevention um guidelines for funding specifically does state that harm reduction practices are something that is eligible for funding. So yes, we are >> councelor. >> Thank you. And with the heart hub, how do we see the heartthub now in our community interplaying with shelters and perhaps some of these changes to guidelines? Um we know that there's a referral component to the heart hub. So how does that all interplay >> and going to >> uh thank you Mr. Presiding officer through you. Um they engage uh now with these new guidelines as they have been uh without these guidelines. Um I know we all know this but I will say it for the sake of clarity too. Introducing shelter guidelines that that reference harm reduction does not suddenly introduce drug use to shelters. and shelters have been making referrals to heart hub uh to recovery treatment centers uh to out of town uh treatment facilities for a very long time and they will continue to do so. So to answer u the chair's question I don't think this would uh alter the relationship between shelters um and the heart hub in fact London's heart hub is based inside one of our shelters so uh they work closely together. >> Thank you counselor. >> Thank you. And you mentioned that well over a dozen other uh cities also had similar um guidelines or had similar practices within their guidelines around um being able to have shel being able to have drugs on site. I'm just wondering uh have any of them ever resulted in the loss of funding >> going to the staff for feedback through you? Not that we know of counselor. >> Thank you. So, my understanding based on what we've heard today is that the upgrade to or the update to and upgrade to our 2026 uh emergency shelter guidelines puts us in compliance with the province. That we continue to take a harm reduction approach that is outlined in the province's guidelines when it comes to shelter management. that it is an Ontario human rights approach that we are taking and that these things are seen across the system in other cities, municipalities and have been supported by the province as they move that forward. With that, I've exhausted all my questions. Thank you. >> I saw nodding all the way along. I don't know if the staff wants to comment or make a comment. No, they were agreeing with everything you said. Returning the chair to you. >> Thank you. Looking for other speakers. cuz I know most of your us are out of time. Okay, seeing none, uh we will open the vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries six to zero. Thank you. I have not been aware made aware of any additional business. Does anyone have any? Seeing none, we're looking for a motion to adjurnn. I have councelor Ferrer as fast as ever and councelor Hopkins as our seconder by hand. All in favor of adjournment. Motion carries. Thank you. Have a great day everyone.