Transcript: Housing Protections and Planning Debated - Planning and Housing Committee - April 14, 2026 | Summary 76

Housing Protections and Planning Debated - Planning and Housing Committee - April 14, 2026

If councilors Matlo and Bradford are in the building, could they please come to committee room one? Good morning. I'm councelor Gourd Perks and I am the chair of the planning housing committee. We have quorum. I am calling meeting 29 to order. Okay. Okay. Welcome everyone. Today's meeting is being held by video conference and in person at city hall in committee room 1. This meeting is also being livereamed online at youtube.com Toronto city council live. Although we may be in different locations today, the planning and housing committee would like to acknowledge that the land we are meeting on is the traditional territory of many nations, including the Missosagas of the Credit, the Anesnabek, the Chipawa, the Hodnoni, and the Wendat peoples, and is now home to many diverse First Nation Inuit and Matei people. We also acknowledge that Toronto is covered by Treaty 13 with the Missosagas of the Credit. If you are registered to speak at today's meeting, please listen for me to call your name. I will call speakers in the order they appear on the speakers list. The list of speakers can be viewed online by visiting the planning and housing committee page at toronto.ca/counsel and clicking the speakers box for today's meeting. If you are present in the room and wish to register for an item, please come up to the glass partition located on my right hand side and a member of the clerk staff will come to you. Members of the city members, the city clerk has provided all agenda materials on toronto.ca/counsel and on CMP, the clerk's meeting portal. City clerk's IT staff are available to members if you need help with your devices. I also want to remind you to please submit and approve your motions by email. Staff are available at phctoronto.ca to help with motions. Are there any declarations of interest under the municipal conflict of interest act? If you do have a an interest, please indicate the item number and the nature of your interest. Councelor Bradford. Thanks, Chair Burks. I'd like to declare interest on PH 29.6, 6 which is 105 109 Vanderhahoof Avenue and 10 Brent Cliff Road OPA appeal report uh the nature of my interest as my spouse is a planner on the file. Thank you. And you'll submit and the document to the clerk. Yeah. Okay. I understand that there are Oh, I don't believe there are any new business items. No new business items. Thank you members. I appreciate that. Yeah. Okay. Can I have a motion to confirm the minutes from our meeting of February 26, 2026? Councelor Matau. All those in favor opposed. That carries. Okay, let's do the agenda rundown. Um I think we have deput most things. Item one has deput. Item two, item three, item four, item five, item six. Ah, PH 29.7 108 through 162 Vine Avenue official plan amendment application appeal report. I'll move that. All those in favor opposed carried. Sorry. Okay. Item PH29.8110 West Toronto Street official plan amendment application appeal report. Councelor Nenziata. Yes. I'll move the recommendation. All those in favor? Opposed? Carried. Item PH29.9 2700 Duffren Street official plan amendment application appeal report. I'll move that. All those in favor opposed carried. Item PH2910 817 Mount Pleasant Avenue Mount Pleasant Road. Notice of intention to designate a property under part 4 section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. I'll move that. All those in favor? Opposed? Carried. keep forgetting. Do I have to move the president? Yeah, there you go. Okay. Uh, we have deputations on item 11. Uh, okay. Members, uh, Councelor Cheros Lynn was hoping to get an item moved up because she has commitments this afternoon. She wanted it between 10 and 11:30. So, I'm going to propose that we do items uh one and two and then uh return to her item. Is that okay? Yeah. All right, we'll do that. All right. So, PH 29.1601625 and 673 Lakeshore Boulevard East uh 185 Billyard Street and 300 Commissioner Street. city initiated meanwhile use enabling policy and zoning and update on clearary district planning work. We have a deputent Aaron Ginsburg. Hi Erin, welcome. You'll have five minutes. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the time. Um I'm here to talk about the redheaded stepchild of the Portland district. Uh we don't get a lot of reports on it. It is just for counselors that aren't councelor Fletcher. Uh it is sort of between OK missing in the east and port and East Harbor in the north. It's the connective tissue between those two. It's also going to be a neighborhood in Sunright. Um this report is mostly about the attributes. Uh, I'll talk about that briefly, but um, it's also about an update on the planning and all of the infrastructure work that needs to be completed to get us to an RFP to actually develop these blocks, these public lands on the clear. There are private lands as well, but there is public land on clear that can be developed where we can secure affordable housing, where we can secure more public good. Um, so it's important that this project moves forward as quickly as possible. Um, we're scouring the city for inches of parking lot. uh this is acres and acres of public land uh that can be developed once the infrastructure is in place. Um so it's very important that we keep our eye on the ball here. And the challenge I have with this report is that there's a lot of discussion about the intermuses. There's some discussion about the work that needs to be done, but there's no clear goal here. There's no end point of hey, we think we can have shovels on the ground in 2030 or 2031. And that's realistic. It's probably going to be five years before you can get shovels on the ground. I recognize that. Um, but there is a lot of work that needs to be done from a lot of different agencies. Toronto Hydro, Toronto Water, Transportation, all of this stuff needs to be done and there's no real clear vision here on the McCclary specific uh infrastructure that needs to be done. There's a master plan for the Portlands that includes everything but mccclary specifically we don't have a clear list of the things that we need to in order to start building and we don't have a date when that is supposed to be done. Um I'm disappointed to see the timeline that is proposed for the planning reports to come back. Um that's late 2028 early 2029. Uh we've known this district has existed for a number of years now. uh preliminary works. There was a a design there was a version of a plan that went to the design review panel I think a year and a half ago. Um so I'm not sure what the delay is till 2028 to get the planning done. Uh it seems a little excessive. U all the other stuff it would be a shame if the planning work was what held it up. Um speaking of the planning work, um there's a really important feature in the clear district. It also extends up into East Harbor. Uh and that is the Bravia extension. Um, councelor Fletcher is very well aware of this. A couple years ago when the when the deal with uh Cal Fairview and the teacher pension fund was being negotiated, uh, there was provision on the East Harbor part of the Broadway extension to put in provision for eventually street car tracks to connect what will be the waterfront east up to um, East Harbor Transit Hub, which is a very good thing. Um we need to make sure that provision is in the McLar district plan as well. Uh we know from what the uh industry has said about OK is very important that there are street cars in these new districts to enable them to not build massive underground parking lots here. Uh if we want to have transit oriented communities, we need to have transit in these communities. And with the funding announcement last last week, the week before on the waterfront seller T, which is fantastic, it now becomes possible to dream on building broadview, the broadview extension correctly the first time with street car tracks in place, not having to tear it up 5 years later to put the tracks in. Let the the agreement as struck by the mayor and I congratulate her on her. All the co costs are overl to you. That's a bad thing in some ways, but it's a good thing in that if you want to expand the scope, it's about kilometer and a half, kilometer and three/4ers of extra track to get from where it's supposed to terminate right now in Oklahoma up harbor. Half of that is the new broadview street that you haven't built yet. Broad Avenue that you haven't built yet. So why build broadview with a bus lane and then a few years later tear that bus lane out, disrupt businesses that aren't there right now? Nobody's living there. Nobody's working there. It's the easiest time to put in street car tracks right now. Um, so I want to make sure as we go forward and we get in 2028. The planning for McCclary that the street car is being built now and not 5 years from now, 10 years from now when we realize we need the tracks. Um, so those are my my comments. The other thing I will highlight very briefly, the last paragraph of this report highlights that the province and uh Cal Fairview the pension fund are responsible for what looks like a dyke and uh in the in the Portlands for flood protection that affects clearing. The city should be at the table to make sure that that gets done on time. Thank you. Five minutes. Thank you. Right on time. Are there any questions for the deputent? No. Seeing none. Thank you. That's all the deputants I have on the item. Are there any questions of staff? No. Does anyone wish to speak to the item? No. Okay. I'll move the item. All those in favor? Opposed? That carries. Uh we'll go to item two, Little Jamaica and Oakwood bond planning framework proposals report. Uh I have some deputence on that one. Uh and Yika Mark Good morning. You have five minutes to address the committee. You can start as soon as you're ready. Okay. I don't need to press the button. Okay. Perfect. Okay. Hi. Hello. My name is Anika Mark and I am the managing director of the Little Jamaica Community Land Trust, LJCLT. LJCLT is a black le serving and focused community land trust with the mandate to ensure that AfroCaribbean culture the AfroCaribbean cultural legacy of Little Jamaica remains in place throughout accelerated development and that the people that make this community home are not displaced in the process. Through our work, we are committed to stewarding community assets and resources that allow for the self-determination and the creation of thriving black communities. Before I start with my remarks, I want to commend all the community members who sent letters, communications, emails, and are here to depute on today's motion. Special thanks or special shout out to my friends, Junior Lewis, the son of Monica and George Lewis, who are the first black property owners on Egllington, and Marcus Pereira, uh the founder of Reclaim Rebuild Egg West, a community leader and resident who has been organizing to empower members in the neighborhood through GoFundMes, donation drives, and tenant relief funds. This is a testament that although the cultural integrity and displacement of constituents is very real, the community members are keeping up, staying involved, and are going to do what it takes to hold the city accountable to the promises it made Little Jamaica. The Eglinton West Oakon, also known as Little Jamaica, has been a cultural and economic anchor for Toronto's black community since the 1960s. For over 10 years, black residents, black business owners, black le nonprofit organizations, cultural leaders, and thousands of people across the GTA have shared their concerns and vocalize the need for critical municipal and provincial intervention to immediately stop the displacement and create avenues for financial compensation and authentic cooperation with community governance models. We want to commend city staff and our local city councilors for their continued commitment to driving policy change forward in Egllandon West and Okvon, also known as Little Jamaica. We want to acknowledge that we understand that this is a draft proposal and that the city staff will be undertaking further community consultation to perfect the final planning framework. I'm here today and because I'm concerned with the vagueness of AfroCaribbean people's contributions to the study area and that the language is reminiscent of the Egllandon connects planning framework which completely erased the enduring AfroCaribbean legacy normalizing our nuanced experience of displacement. This draft proposal makes no mention of the shortcomings of that initial planning framework while also not making any mention of the displacement and harm already caused during transit and residential development within Little Jamaica. Additionally, there is no mention of anti-black racism and how this correlates with the current state of Little Jamaica within the equity statement. And there's no background section to articulate the neighborhood's vibrant and culturally significant history. As a result, we are concerned that the draft framework does not demonstrate a culturally responsive or applied understanding of AfroCaribbean ways of life and the values identified in the PL for the plan. In comparison, our peers and friends in Chinatown recently passed the Chinatown tomorrow planning initiative. Wait, do I have three minutes or five? Okay, perfect. Sorry. Um, recently passed the Chinatown tomorrow planning initiative. The following language and phrasing is what we in Little Jamaica intend to use as reference for all future policymaking discussions related to the Little Jamaica study area. They begin first with what is a Chinatown? Chinatown is a meeting place. Chinatown is a refuge for all. Chinatown is a home for Chinese Canadian identity. At this time, I want to share the communication sent to the committee by my colleague and friend Jamira Lovemore Nelson, who wrote a beautiful excerpt about her relationship with with Little Jamaica um that she wrote with her mother. I write this today as a concerned Toronto resident and Little Jamaica community member. Back in the 80s, my mother lived near Cedarville Park on Dunham Road. When I was a baby, she moved 4 hours north where she could afford to buy a home, sent me to daycare, and walked to work in 30 minutes. She was not the first in my family to make this calculus. This vibrant Caribbean enclave that my parents recalled with joy was already failing its residents, lacking affordable housing, child care, and community supports. Displacement was not accidental. It was predictable. Result of decades of structural disinvestment in a predominantly black neighborhood. Even still, they always brought me back. I spent hot summers on Egun eating bone and roti and reading reading in the corners of Maria Asuka Library. My mom would take me to the record stores because we lived in a non-black community. I cherished those Toronto summers. I was steeped in Caribbeanness. It was affirming. It was home even when it wasn't ours to keep. This draft planning framework speaks continuously about the changing character of this place. But change has not been neutral here. Jewish, Italian, Portuguese, and other neighbors have long called this place home alongside so many West Indians. This neighborhood has always been layered and in flux. It is critical that city staff work with community members in Little Jamaica with the priority of black community members to refine principles and policies similar to the ones articulated in the Chinatown tomorrow to ensure that the neighborhood change in Little Jamaica not only honors the area's history but creates a new path forward for collaboration and black leadership in said change. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Are there any questions? Councelor Matlo has a question for you. Yeah, you nailed it right at the five there. Yeah, I know. I'm sorry. You got it right there. Uh thank you. Thank you for your deputation. Um do you believe that um as we get to the final framework that stakeholders like the Little Jamaica Community Land Trust and others that you referred to should not just figuratively but literally be at the table as part of a stakeholder advisory group to review and support uh a successful framework when it moves forward. Absolutely. I think, you know, we've had really great relationships with our local counselors, of course, councelor Matlo and councelor Cole and the city staff. And I think um to have some sort of structure around that so that we're always at the table. We're always involved. We're always sharing our insights. I think something that I love about the neighborhood is that it's constantly adapting as well. Like our needs are changing rapidly. And so, uh, for there to be an advisory body that is constantly coming back to community, asking what we need, figuring out how we can make this better, how we can stop displacement really, I think is a really critical next step. And I think we've had a lot of conversation. There's been a lot of discussion. There's been a lot of talking. There's been a lot of consultation. and an advisory group would really help us ensure that there's enforceable action and that would that would hopefully prevent the concerns that you raised around Egllington connects where you'll literally be at the table to support the success of the framework to really reflect the community's priorities rather than read about it afterward in in a certain way. Exactly. And I think there's lots of people like Junior Lewis is here in the crowd. He's been in this neighborhood since the 60s, a property owner. These are the types of people that need to be at the conversation um because they have this long-standing history and they're still here today and they're and they want to be in Little Jamaica for the future. So, absolutely. Thanks for your voice. Thanks, Council Matlo. Any other questions? No. Thank you so much. The next deputent I have listed is Arthur Gron. Morning, Arthur. You'll have five minutes to address the committee and you can start as soon as you're ready. Um, I haven't used this before and I'm sort of wondering how this works. Just just a moment. Beautiful. Oh, perfect. Thank you. Ready? Yeah. Go ahead. Hi. Yeah, I'm Martha Gron and I'm with the Oakwood Von Community Organization, uh, resident-driven nonprofit committed to strengthening the Yoquid Vaughn community. Um, in 2023, we released a paper, the OV future search, a sharet type report that engaged the community in planning for what kind of community the residents would like to live in. The 120 page report is available on our website and emphasizes a a walkable and affordable community. In 2022, Offco managed to negotiate a lease for three classrooms in the former Von Road Academy, a school to establish a community hub. And we're currently running a programming for uh a senior's group. You know, having a community hub greatly benefits the Little Jamaica community. Currently, there are dozens and dozens of new developments planned in the area, which is going to significantly transform the entire neighborhood. Um, and on the map, you could just see some of those developments that are planned. Many of those are large condo developments. Uh, and there's just dozens of them. Currently, the neighborhood is characterized by uh just its walkability and its great storefronts. You could just walk through there, see all the amazing storefronts that are there, and it has a great sense of community and just a great sense of walkability uh in the neighborhood. Unfortunately, the new condos in Toronto are sort of soulless. The uh the city of Toronto mandates that the first story of all new condos has to be extremely tall to accommodate large transport trucks doing deliveries. Uh and we've seen what happened with Young and Egleington where the neighborhood just becomes a little bit soulless. You lose that, you know, that community bus. lose storefronts. Instead of having five or six storefronts in one area, you have maybe two large storefronts and it just loses character and it's loses it source. So that's why I'm really hoping that the city of Toronto works with the local residents in this community to to plan what's going to be here and to keep the the character and the soul and the makeup of how the how the community is and to work to move forward with the residents of the neighborhood to make this uh to keep this a walkable, safe, affordable community. Thank you very much. Thank you. Are there any questions? Councelor Matt though has a question for you. Thank you. Uh thank you for your deputation. Uh so uh uh one of the points you raised um in our Ukidon neighborhood you support our efforts uh to see Vonroad Academy eventually open up more space to the local community along with being you know it it served it served uh you know other parts of our community well with respect to supporting the students from Davisville and Hodgson etc. But but do you support our efforts to advocate toward the TDSB to open up more space for more programming for the community? Oh, definitely. Uh we're currently doing a lot of seniors programming and the seniors are working with the students in the school to do multigenerational programming where you have a lot of the seniors working with the students to on arts projects and other community projects sort of sharing their knowledge with the with the younger generation. And it'd be great to have a to move forward and continue that community hub in the future where local residents can share their expertise with one another uh and with the students in the of the uh of the Tdsb and of the local community and and and do you also uh support uh I've moved a motion to this effect and uh and you know council this is council's position that we would like to see the province of Ontario allow us the ability to not just beg or control or negotiate, but actually be able to prescribe retaining fine grain retail on our main streets. Um uh rather than uh just having, you know, many of our main streets turn into just large banks or Shoppers Drug Marts. Oh, yeah. It's um it's a great neighborhood cuz when you walk through the storefronts, they're unique. You know, you get to know the owners of the businesses. You get to have many more businesses there. As you walk along the street, you get to see the beautiful storefronts. With the large condo developments, you might get two stores on a block and there's nothing interesting to see. It's just a lot of dead space and it just feels soulless. It's not uh the scale is just not a human scale. And people move to Toronto because they want to have those beautiful walkable communities of, you know, locally driven stores. Thank you. I app I appreciate your your words. Any further questions? No. Arthur, thank you so much for your time today. The next deputent I have is Gerald Dean Alexander. Gerald Dean. No. We'll move to the next deputant. Uh, Cheryl Casease. Cheryl, I understand you're online. Can you hear me? Hello. Hi. You're no stranger to this. You have five minutes. You can start as soon as you're ready. Awesome. Thank you so much. So, I just put up my notes. I wasn't expecting to go to go next. Um Okay. Um sorry. Um yeah, so wonderful to be here. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I am here representing community and public, formerly known as speed planning. As many of you may know, I'm also a resident of the Little Jamaica neighborhood. Michael Cole is my counselor and Josh Matlo is um I wish he was also my counselor. He's a wonderful person. I've always appreciated his uh strong assistant efforts in support of Little Jamaica. So, I'm here to express appreciation for the continued attention to Little Jamaica and to flag that the draft framework as presented does not yet meet the scale, structure, or accountability required to effectively respond to the community's call for the city to address the displacement of renters or systemic antibism in land use, e economic opportunity or social development. uh given the significant scale of public investment in the cross, the level of development pressure in the area and the incredible leadership of grassroots organizations, many of those uh in my neighbors here speaking today, the framework must play a stronger role in guiding for more equitable outcomes as the community has been very clear in communicating that uh displacement and all even the matters uh that have been brought up today need to be addressed. Um, so given this, it is essential that the framework plan include in its approach to community engagement builds on previous work in partnership with people who call Little Jamaica home. We've had a series of amazing motions that have been passed asking for uh great community engagement and participation in the planning of the neighborhood. Um, and that's why I'm here today to bring to attention that there has not yet been a clear update on the status of the partnership and accountability table directed in 2022. Um, that was to go alongside the development of a master plan for the neighborhood. And and also of great concern, the framework significantly proposes to significantly narrow the planning bar boundary to primarily Oakwood Vaughn and the Edgington corridor, excluding large portions of the Little Jamaica community from planning protections or improvements, as well as social or economic development opportunities that may arise from this process. This is significant considering that the now excluded area includes a site where an action by city staff left a rooming house without heat, water, or power for six months. This is a case that some describe as one of the most harmful examples of systemic antibactism. Um, and so you know, Michael Cole and Josh Matlo are counselors that have been brought to attention in regards to this file, but we also know that Alejandra Bravo and Franca also have large portions of their communities and constituents that would be left out of the opportunity to address uh for their city to address the systemic barriers of displacement and antivic racism. So with this shift of away from alignment with community priorities and uh collaboration um myself uh along with Gerald Dean um and many other signitories little Jamaica community coalition reclaim rebuild Egen west southwest tenant union climate just Toronto uh as well as many residents in the neighborhood and school board trustee ask for these five things to be uh put forward as uh amendments to the framework. Number one is to restore the full community planning boundary. So rather than just the corridor along Eglinton, uh we actually have the full uh boundary as was original in 2022 along with extending to Biknell as proposed co-creating the framework with the community, not just consultation. We are incredibly talented and engaged community and we are more than capable of being effective partners along the city um in the development of this framework. um establish establish shared governance and accountability. So reestablish the planning and accountability table that was uh put forward as to be implemented in 2022. Um it was actually quite a shock to hear that this item was going to uh the planning and housing committee and I think that's something that should not really be happening. Um the community should be part of the process and I shouldn't have to be um asking community members uh to hear who has heard of this and who knows what's coming and to wait for it to be posted. Um the community should have awareness of um what the city is planning as you are planning for our communities and our lives. Uh ensuring coordinated intraditional implementation oversight. So in 2022 there was direction for uh intraditional engagement. So the housing secretariat confronting anti-racism unit are two key offices to be engaged and also to provide feedback direct feedback on the existing community led plans such as the little Jamaica right term main community development action plan and number five to establish anti-displacement targets and align to strategic strategies on confronting anti-back racism which the city has great leadership again from the confronting anti-racism unit and the housing secretariat. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Are there any questions? Councelor Matlo. Hi. Hi, Cheryl. It's Josh and uh thank you for the kind words. I think the world of you too. Um and I wanted to uh just ask you on on the note that you just made regarding uh community involvement. Would you support uh an amendment uh requesting that there be a stakeholder group struck uh to ensure uh that uh there's the ability of the community uh to support a final framework uh that everyone you know really believes in and believes will support the success of the community and reflects the priorities of the community. Yes. And I think that um such a group it would be really important that the the the group actually had a role in helping to develop or uh provide input on the design of the engagement. So it's not just that we're coming in and providing feedback, but um part of the approach is actually co-designed with community. Yeah. And then and that way you don't hear you won't you won't worry about hearing about things after the fact or what have you. You you'll you'll literally be at the table to be part of it. Thank Thank you. Thank you. Any further questions? No. Cheryl, as always, thank you for your assistance today. Thank you. Uh, next I have Junior Lewis. Morning, Junior. Is it until it's green? It's green now. Got it. Sorry. Gerald Dean is here now, by the way. If you can call her again. She says she's on the phone. Thank you, Cheryl. Junior. Hi, my name is Junior Lewis. Um, from Egllandon and Oakwood area. Monica's is my mom's store that used to be there. We started there from the 70s, like early '7s. I was seven when I got on Egllandon. Was a place where we had Italians, every culture was there. Then my parents came in. My dad was um a DJ. He he loved music. He brought Jamaican music here on the block. Reggie became popular at that point. My mom was a hairdresser, the only black hairdresser. She had to go to Bruno to learn hairdress and then teach herself how to do hair. We've been there since the 70s. I've seen the grow the block transfer that we was like west little West Indies. anybody coming from Jamaica, Grenada, anywhere, they would come to Eglinton, find their friend, find their community, find their friends, people that they know, just so they have a communication with people in in Toronto. Now, people say to me, "Well, you never really come to these meetings. You never really come out here and never really understand what's going on." So, I came out today to see what's going on, hear what's going on. Cuz my parents, they're in their 80s now. They got old. My dad's bedridden. My mom's home. She's taking care of him. I never thought of this day. Now that day has approached. Now I have the long-standing building on Egllandon. And everybody goes, "Don't sell it. Don't sell it. Don't sell it." So we stayed for the LRT. We stayed for all these things that say they were going to happen. It all happened. Now everybody's underground. They don't even see my store. They don't even come on my block. So the planning stages and all these things were really cool and it sounded good in those days. My parents couldn't come out to these meetings because they were busy trying to make money to pay their taxes and do whatever they had to do. So now that they're here and I'm taking over now, I realized the conflicts they have cuz she says, "Let's sell it. Let's do this. Let's do that." And everybody in the neighborhood says, "Keep it cuz we're the roots of Little Jamaica." Now that we're the roots of Little Jamaica, I've tried to say, "Here, we have a laneway. We got nice pictures and mirrors on the laneway." I went to the lane way to try to figure out how to work with the laneway because the word laneway, the city has no responsibility for the laneway because we have private properties and we have lane way. So that's confusing. So we try to go in the parking lot. Now we have the rats and all these other things that happened since the subway's been around. So we're back to square one. I came down here today just to state my point and say, how do we do how do we move on from here? Cuz everybody says we just build this place up, everybody's going to come back and it's going to be beautiful. Most retail stores right now are mostly turned into homes. They turn their retail stores, divide in half, put apartments. So obviously people want to live there on Egllandon. There's not no doubt about it. But can we afford our West Indian people can afford to come back there? I don't know. I think we need affordable housing. We need maybe a retirement home. Maybe something where my parents could have stayed there and got help from their people or somebody their culture that they could help them and move them along so they could have felt happy that they they put something on this block that they can say they could be proud of. Right now, I'm I'm kind of glad I came cuz I've heard Josh Matloan met him before and seen him, but he's talking my language today because I came down to say we basically need a committee in Little Jamaica that we can communicate with these people to say, "We're going to get a bit of this, we're going to get a bit of that, we're going to get this, we're going to get that." Cuz they said that before maybe in 2018, they said they had a report for Little Jamaica. It hasn't happened yet. We haven't seen anything yet. All I see is vacant stores, five stores struggling to survive. And if those five stores came down here to say their point too, they'd be saying they're struggling, but they have to stay there and maintain their business. So while they're maintaining their business and doing all these things, this is what happens. We get displaced just like jungle, like village, like po, like region park. Nobody's here. But everybody wants to come back to Toronto, but there's nothing to come back to. So before that, before that happens, I came down here today say, let's put a committee together. I want to be Hazel Mallister and say this is what we're going to pick to be on Eglinton. This is how we're going to build Egllandon. Let's come together and build it together so we can enjoy it at the end of the day. We have no parks. We have no daycare. We have no this. We have like a lot of things we don't have. And now reggae is basically pushed under the mat and that was brought brought Eglinton to where it was today. So I don't know if I'm making any sense, but I'm just trying to say my point that we need your help. We would like to be at the table. I'm probably the longest standing person. Once I'm gone, you guys could just blow it down. Nobody cares about Eglas anymore because my parents were the first people there. We got reggae there. We got music there. We got the West Indians there. She's well known and I just want to make her proud in some way, shape, or form. So, if we can have a conversation with somebody or anybody that we can get this thing done right, cuz we have a BIA situation that we can't communicate over there. So, there's too many rats in that one there. I want to separate myself from there and I could be the leader and I can help them do what they have to do from my community. Thanks, Junior. Any questions? No. Junior, thank you so much for your time today. Um, I'm told that Geraldine is back with us. Geraldine? No. Okay. Uh, that completes our deputations. Are there any questions of staff? No. Uh, councelor Matlo, would you like to speak? Thank you. Um, as many of you know, like Little Jamaica has been um a really special place to so many people, especially uh from the islands, from AfroCaribbean backgrounds, from the general African diaspora, uh that uh has seen Little Jamaica as a place of pride. Um, I've spoken to people who live in Ajax and Pickerine and Missaga and beyond who will bring their kids to Egllington because they want to uh connect with a place where uh they might have arrived in Canada for the first time and they will tell them stories about a time when little Jamaica was really vibrant and uh they had the Kitty Carnival, they had uh a a they were one of the three along with London, England and and Jamaica itself. They're one of the three major epicenters of the reggae world. And um and excuse me, guys. And it was uh it was a place that didn't just bring music, it brought um food, it brought um culture, it brought traditions, it brought family, it brought community. And over many years uh for a number of different reasons uh that vibrancy has declined. Um and through the 15 years of the LRT construction, um it had such an enormous impact on the viability of many of those businesses. And then of course with that LRT comes redevelopment and um and and the and the prospect of gentrification. Every major infrastructure project in North America in our history has seen um black communities displaced and we have an opportunity to do something very different here. um to lean in to supporting the community. Um the success uh the the the the affordability uh the the the pride, the health of the community. And um in 2018, I remember when I first became the counselor for part of the area, I spent the first year just listening. And I remember going to uh to a bar with Seipo Mapango and we listened to um our friends at Black Urbanism TTO uh talk about uh Eg Connects and how while Egun connects was an important planning initiative. Uh it did not reflect uh the community along Egun and the identity of the communities along Egun. And we brought a motion in 2020 asking for a omnibus a whole wide array of of things that city hall could do along with advocating to the provincial government for support as well. And there were failures along that journey since the motion was passed. But I'm very happy to see uh a report come forward now uh that finally addresses a number of the we had. I forgot to move my amendment if we could put it on the floor. I was kind of waiting. Yeah, thank you. Thanks. Thanks for it. It was a long preface to the amendment. And but one of the things that uh and by the way I want to say before I even speak to them the motion um I believe with SEPO uh leading this we are finally in a position where we can make an enormous amount of progress. I believe in her and I believe in her commitment and dedication to the success of Little Jamaica. Um, and but SEPO can't do it alone. Um, I've always believed that city hall should be the vehicle for the success of Little Jamaica, but the community itself should be the driver. And we will know that it's a success when the community says it's a success. and the community wants um an affordable place to live and an affordable place to work. If we don't have the mom and paw shops, if we don't have uh the hairdressers, the barber shops, we don't have the juice bars, we don't have the patty shops, if we don't have the places that that that make Little Jamaica, Little Jamaica, we will have a museum of Little Jamaica with a few murals in the future, and that's not good enough. We want a little Jamaica like we celebrate Chinatown, like we celebrate Little Italy, like we celebrate Little Portugal. We want a little Jamaica that not only benefits the local community, but something that all of Toronto can be proud of. And so this this is why I believe it's important that the community itself, not just figuratively, but literally be at the table to work supportively with staff toward a successful framework. Thank you, Councelor Matlo. Thank you. Question of the mover. Councelor Nunz. Yes. Um could we put the motion back up this amendment? So councelor Matlo um as as part of the upcoming stakeholder and community consultation the stakeholder advisory committee. So who would be on this advisory committee? Would it be um businesses, community members? Who would actually be on this advisory committee? And it would would it be through all the um various wards like there'd be represent representation from all the various B? I I think I think we should be as inclusive as possible. Yeah. Um and uh and you know obviously working with uh with staff uh but uh there are you know whether it be um uh uh representation from business, representation from community advocacy groups, um representation uh from uh from local neighborhoods. um if if if and and frankly there are elders and and and performers, reggae artists who have been feeling forgotten and should be at the table as well. We want to make sure that everyone feels invested in the success of it. Uh and I and I certainly wouldn't want to uh remove any voice that should should be at the table. Yeah. And it's important to get all the BAS part of this as well as part of the stakeholder advisory. Correct. We want all the BAS to be supportive of the success of this framework. Yeah. I remember when that part was the city of York. We used to have festivals all the time on Egllandon Avenue. If you remember that years ago when Joe Mahavik was the counselor, we had all these festivals. So yeah, thank you for the amendment and we want more again. Yeah. Yeah. We haven't had it for a while. Yeah. Any further questions? No. Seeing none, uh does anyone else wish to speak to the item? No. So why don't we take councelor Matlo's motion and the item as a package. All those in favor opposed that carries. Okay, members. Uh I had said that uh we would do Oh, I've got to get item six as our third item. So I'm going to call PH29.6105 6 105 through 109 Vanderhoof Avenue and 10 Brent Cliff Road official plan amendment appeal report. I believe we had a deputent. Oh, we have two deputants. Uh Peter Smith. Peter, I understand you're online. Hello. Can you hear me? Okay. Yes, Peter, we can hear you. One one second, please, before you start. Fantastic. Okay, Peter, we just had to clear something up there. Uh, the floor is yours. You've got five minutes. Um, no problem at all. Thank you very much, Councelor Perks and members of committee. Um, my name is Peter Smith. I'm a planner and a partner with Bowfields. And I'm speaking on behalf of uh the owner and the applicant in this matter. I'd like to speak in opposition uh to the staff recommendation and instead ask planning and housing committee to support our client's appeal. And I'll touch on three points. Um first um it's my opinion and our team's opinion that fundamentally the proposed redesation of the property to mixeduse area would be compatible with surrounding uses. And I say that for a couple of reasons. First of all, the entire area south of Agington, west of Brenliffe, uh down to Commercial Road is exclusively a mix today of existing and approved residential, office, automobile, service, commercial, and retail uses. There isn't in that area a single manufacturing or warehousing uses. and our client's property is used for retail service and office uses. So the mixeduse area designation just in and of itself would recognize the existing uses on the site. Secondly, the proposed redesignation would support intensification within the layered protected major transit station area. Um the site is located within uh 280 mters of the east station entrance within approximately a 5minute walk or so. Um the staff report notes um that the minimum required densities uh can be met without redesating um the subject property. But I emphasize that in terms of planning for major transit station areas, it's a minimum density and the provincial planning statement in fact encourages going beyond those minimum densities. And really from a practical perspective, if we look at the billions of dollars that were spent on the Egllington Cross Town LRT, we need to be taking advantage of opportunities for transit supportive intensification all along the route rather than hyperfocusing intensification at Young Egllington or at other locations along the way. Um and in this case, part of the challenge is that much of the area around the layered station is designated either for low-rise neighborhoods or for uh employment areas, which means that there are more limited opportunities to intensify here. And then thirdly, and this is where Bill 97 and the new provincial planning statement comes in, it used to be um because I've been doing this for an awfully long time that the city used to say, "Well, if we don't redesate you, we can just reintensify for employment uses such as offices." But Bill 97 and the provincial planning statement has fundamentally changed that equation. Employment areas as defined by um the uh provincial planning statement are no longer meant to be uh or no longer meant to include things like office and retail and institutional. They are to be reserved for uses such as manufacturing, warehousing and logistics which are uses that do not support uh transit supportive intensification. if you want intensification and that's whether it's for office or residential or mixed use and I think there's a misconception here that mixeduse areas means um solely residential it's only the mixeduse areas designation now that's going to allow for things like intensification of offices and mixed use so um with that um I'm well under my five minutes I just wanted to uh thank you for your attention Um, on behalf of our client, I'd like to u also signal to to staff and to other stakeholders who I know will be speaking today that we uh want to continue to work with staff and with those stakeholders through the uh OOLT appeal process and hopefully ultimately arrive at um a settlement that works for everybody. So with that um thank you very much again and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Are there any questions for Peter? No, seeing none. Peter, thank you for your deputation. Next, I have Jeff Catel. Jeff Catel. Jeff, I understand you're online. Yes. Hello. Hi. Welcome. You know the You know the drill, buddy, don't you? I do. I can't see myself, but uh that's okay. You're loud and clear. Okay. Um well, thank you. Um this is to express the the strong support uh by the the Leid residents association of which I am co-pres for the staff report recommendation that city council direct city staff to attend the Ontario land tribunal in opposition to the current application to redesate the subject lands. Our opposition to conversion application is based on several factors. First of all, these lands are designated as employment lands. With a precarious economic situation, Canada needs to protect lands needed for the strategic reshoring of jobs, particularly manufacturing jobs. This land provides jobs in a central location in the city. Its role in doing so should be safeguarded. Secondly, if these lands are converted to mixed use, which translates mostly almost exclusively into residential use, in reality, it just add it would add to the condo market. This market is oversaturated and is in dire straits with likely 10 years supply already approved in the development pipeline. Thirdly, this is not the first conversion application for these lands. The applicant has attempted to get approval from council previously. The conversion to mixed use was previously applied for and rejected in 2001 and again in 2023. Why is it being raised yet again? And once again there is no actual development application only for land conversion. The answer most plausibly is is speculation to increase the value of the land by changing the land use designation. Fourthly, Vanderhahoof Avenue was authoratively established as a southern boundary of residential development on formally industrial lands south of Egun Avenue and east of Leair Drive, what we call the Egllandon Brankliffe mixeduse area in the landmark Ontario municipal board decision city Toronto bylaw 879 2001. Rejecting this application would therefore be consistent with this precedent. And fifthly, historically, Leid's heritage as a model garden city designed in 1912 invited homes, that's people, and employment, that's jobs, adjacent to each other. Further conversion of employment lands into residential lands will weaken this balance more. Thank you very much. Thank you. Are there any questions for Jeff? No. Okay. Uh that completes our deputations. Are there any questions of staff? Councelor Chosin, welcome by the way. Thank you and thank you for having me here today. Um I just have a question. Um based on the first deputent, there was a seemed to be a statement that we have residential uh south to commercial and I just wonder if you could clarify is there any actual like are there condos south to commercial east of Leairard? Uh through the chair, there are planning permissions for uh residential south of Egllington um and along the frontage of Eglinton, but not down to commercial on the east side of Leairard. On the west side, yes, but not on the east side. So, it currently um it's pushed down to the north side of Vanderhof. Is that correct? But nothing all the way south to commercial. That That's correct. through the chair. The residential permissions south of Edgington stop at Vanderhahoof. Further south of Vanderhahoof is all employment and commercial. Okay, that was my understanding as well, but there seemed to be a discrepancy in what was said in that deputation. Thank you. That's it for questions. I do have some comments I want to make after questions. Any other questions? No. Uh, councelor Chair Nosin to speak. Thank you, chair. Uh so I just wanted to make a few remarks about um this this uh report uh which I just want to note I am very much in favor of staff's recommendations. Um I know it's unusual for uh people to come to committee uh and people wonder why is she here? It's actually because I am very much in support of these recommendations. Core employment areas are essential to the health of our economy and are increasingly in short supply in the city of Toronto. The Leside Business Park, which is in my ward, is a significant asset for the city, especially when we think about in recent months when the importance of a strong domestic industry has been made so undeniably clear. Given the nature of some of the land uses in this area, particularly heavy industry, it is important to have a dividing line between residential areas and employment and commercial uses. This proposal would result in further encroachment into commercial lands, potentially introducing residential uses into an area that has long been established as a site for intensive industrial and other commercial uses. The industrial nature of this area is evidenced by the planning context that has been enforced to date. Vanderhof Avenue has been recognized in policy and in practice as a dividing line between mixed use to the north and commercial use to the south, which is what my question uh that I asked staff was really getting to. In fact, the residential buildings on the north side of Vanderhoof Avenue that have been applied for recently have been given class 4 noise area classifications permitting higher daytime and nighttime sound levels than would typically be allowed specifically to protect the businesses to the south. I want to thank the Leside Residents Association, the Toronto Industry Network, and of course the Leside Business Park Association for their uh remarks and their submissions in support of this item. And I hope that my um colleagues who are on this committee will look at those uh when they consider this report from staff. I and I would of course request that the committee support the integrity of the Leid Business Park by adopting the recommendations put forth by staff to oppose um this appeal at the Ontario Land Tribunal. Thank you for having me at the committee today. Thank you. Uh does anyone else wish to speak to the item? No. I'll move the staff recommendations and we need to do a recorded vote on this. All those in favor, councelor Matlo, councelor Myers, councelor Nuniata, and councelor Perks. Good. Thank you. Okay. Now we'll return to item PH 29.3 status update report on transitoriented communities. We have a deputent on this, Aaron Ginsburg. Erin, welcome back. should be relatively brief on this one. I figured I'd talk about it since I was here. Um, this report is an update on transit orient oriented communities. Um, there is a new proposal at Scarbo Gilwood um at Gilwood Station, sorry. Uh, getting my terminology mixed up. Gilbert go uh that's outlined here. It's a reasonable proposal. Staff have some minor criticisms. So I'm sure it can be worked out. Um but more broadly I want to speak about a couple things. One is there are these memorandum of understanding uh between the province and the city on these sites. Um I appreciate that there may be some commercially sensitive information in those memoranda. Uh but it seems to me that they mostly seem to be planning documents and it's very odd although maybe not at Queens Park these days. Uh it's very odd to see planning matters deemed confidential. uh if there are commercially sensitive details in those memoranda, they could have been redacted and the rest of the memoranda could have been published. I think it's worthy I think it's worthwhile that citizens understand what their governments are agreeing to when it's just the governments involved. Um so I'm disappointed that those memoranda were not redacted if there are if there is in any commercially sensitive data in there. Uh it doesn't seem like the province understands what it's going to get for the land anyway. So, it doesn't really track that there's much commercially sensitive data. Um, or at least nothing that you wouldn't have to disclose if you were putting it on an RFP. Um, so I'm not I'm not exactly sure what's confidential about these. Um, but I'm disappointed to see that they are. Um, in terms of what's being proposed and what's being uh what you're being asked to prove from what is public, um, I'm still disappointed. I said this at the public consultation for the Eastern site at East Harbor. Uh, it's too small. It's always been too small. It's still too small. And uh it's unfortunate that's that it's being built this at this uh density. This is across the street from one of the biggest transit hubs in Toronto. Uh and 12 stories is absurd. It just is. Um there should be some a little more intensification when you are literally across the street from one what will be one of the biggest transit hubs in the city. Um if you look at the density at exhibition which has a similar profile in terms of the transit density there um it's much taller. I cannot fathom why East Harbor is being treated differently. Uh it doesn't make sense. Um when I was on the public consultation on it, it seemed to be consideration for the residents north in Leslieville. I think it's pretty clear that we need to be upzoning Leslieville, not downzoning this site. Um and I think it's unfortunate. I'm also disappointed to see the downzoning at Cosburn. Uh it's already an apartment neighborhood. Um I don't know why we're trimming stories off at Cosburn. Uh fewer houses, fewer affordable units uh for arbitrary reasons. And again, because the memoranda are confidential, we don't even have an explanation as to why. Um so that's very disappointing to see as well. Um this is a big deal. These are this process is going to be very transformative in neighbors neighborhoods across the city. it's going to be very disruptive and I think it's important that there's as much transparency as possible so that people can get used to what's coming. Um, and I I'm I'm a little bit disappointed what the report offers. I'm also disappointed there is according to the province uh they transmitted a letter to the city on a um transit oriented community at Martin Grove Edmonton on March 13th. Uh and I was disappointed to not see details of that plan in this report as well. Um, so the report itself is fine. Um, but I'm disappointed at what's not here and what's confidential as well. So, thank you for your time and uh, thank you for your attention. Thank you. Are there any questions for the deputent? Nope. Seeing none, uh, that was the only deputation on this item. Are there any questions of staff? Councelor Myers. Hi. Uh, thank you. Through you, too. I'm sorry, Councelor Myers. You're very faint. Okay. Sorry. What happened? Oh, no. Oh, there he is. Now you Now you're silent. Can you still not hear me? Ah, perfect. There we go. Loud and clear. Go ahead. Just going to turn my camera off. Um I so I guess my first question is uh if staff could just give a bit more detail regarding the initial analysis you had done regarding the need for commuter parking at Shepard and Macauen through the chair. Um we uh did some initial analysis as you noted to respond to the motion that you brought forward. um we see some value in public parking at at end stations on uh subway lines and so we're continuing to do some uh some work to see how that might be possible at Shepard. One of the reasons that we put it in this report is that the future TOC that will be uh brought forward at Shepard and Macauen may provide an opportunity for the provision of some commuter parking for the uh the subway station there. Thank you. And has staff started thinking about how they'll manage the future transit oriented community which is going to be right next to uh employment lands how that balance will be managed. We have not yet seen anything from the province in terms of their concepts for uh the TOC there. Um but there are many places where we have faced um de facto employment conversions because of the TOC's. In most cases the province is bringing forward um mixeduse developments where there would be some retail and office uh in the development and then um and then largely residential development. We uh know that there are some sensitive uh location or some sensitive industries right around that and that would certainly be a key issue for us in reviewing and working with IO in terms of how to mitigate uh against uh impacts on on those existing industries. Uh there are also broader issues in terms of the regeneration area study that's going to be done on the um the other side of Macauan there that um will face some of the same issues and and city staff will will work through to to find some kind of balance. Thank you. And I'm just wondering if you could just give a bit more insight into some of the protect the sensitive industries particularly the concrete plant uh Duffren Concrete uh that many consider strategic uh just because of its location as one of the few uh cement plants in the eastern Toronto area. So to be uh through the chair to be honest counselor we have not done a lot of thinking about how the TOC will specifically interact with that concrete plant but we are aware that that is a key issue when this comes forward. uh we are facing similar issues to that uh in the work that we're now doing up at Woodbine where there um there is a a similar kind of um similar kind of plant on the other side of the GO tracks and we've done a lot of work with the province as has the company in ensuring that there's proper um proper spacing of or or distance separation distance from the the development uh as well as any other kinds of mitigation measures. walls or or other things that can be put up to try to um uh limit the impacts both on the development and on the industry. Thank you. And um final question, the report mentions that the city will that the city will make a final determination around the need for commuter parking at Shepard and Macauan in the city's I think it's the strategic parking review. I correct sorry if I don't have their name correct. Do you have a sense as to when that review will be completed and coming before the committee? So the um the uh strategic parking framework that was led by transportation services includes a number of follow-up activities including uh looking at specific areas um many of which I think are um around major transit stations. uh that won't be coming to um committee and that would likely go through IEC as opposed to planning and housing committee. Um that would come in um uh sometime into 2027 is my expectation. Okay. Thank you very much. Are there any other questions of staff? No. Seeing none, uh does anyone want to speak to this? No. I've got a couple of motions. Uh first is this is on behalf of councelor Aninsley and it just sets out uh some ad uh requests of staff on how we communicate to the province and what kinds of uh issues we want to prioritize. And the next one, this is on behalf of uh Deputy Mayor Malik and it does a similar thing for the uh exhibition station transit oriented community. So, uh, I'll just move those and once again note that this is yet another example of the province of Ontario, uh, taking arbitrary authority over land use planning in the city of Toronto and ignoring, uh, the wishes and hopes of people in local communities and the positions taken by City of Toronto Council. We will continue to advocate with for good land use planning with the province of Ontario, but it is proving to be an uphill battle. Uh with that, why don't we take the item and the two amendments as a package? All those in favor? Opposed, if any, that carries. Moving right along. Uh PH29.4 rent safe to update report. Uh, we have some deputations. First, Arnold Marg Margulus. Arnold. Arnold. No. Uh, Marca. Marcia, it's your turn. I I have to read a lot of names. Marcia, we're we're we're good. We're golden. We're good. All right. As long as you don't call me my name, we are Go ahead. Hello everybody. Thank you for having me. My name is Marcia Stone and I am the chair of the Western Acorn Chapter and I've been renting in Ontario for the last seven years. Um, my message is it's time that we listen to tenants. What the tenants want, not what everybody else thinks that they should have. Tenants have wanted color-coded evaluation signs since the since the mid 2000s. Tenants are already stigmatized by the environment in which they live. Color-coded signs would help. Now that this proposal is finally before you today, we urge you to listen to tenants and finally roll this program out. But there's more that needs to be done. Landlords are contractually obligated to provide safe and healthy homes, yet are harassing tenants when they speak up for hazardous living environments. Again, we need to stop doing education first enforcements. Landlords receive this 45page handbook when they register with the program and if there are changes to the rules, they would receive amendments. So, why are we asking these landlords nicely? Why do we have to chew our cabbage twice? If you see a violation, write up in order to comply. It's that simple. While we're happy to see the evaluation process adjusted and that there will be more opportunities for bylaw officers to inspect inside people's units, it's crucial that in-unit inspections be included somehow in the initial building evaluations that happens every two years. People don't live in the lobbies or the laundry rooms or the stairwells in their building, common areas that is inspected every two years. They live in their apartment units that they pay rent for and the landlord decides to not comply with their obligations and leave the tenants vulnerable. Rentto has recognized that there's no substitute for door-to-door engagement. We need to do more of it. Bylaw officers should be regularly going doortodoor connecting with the tenants, educating them about their rights and about the programs and taking any enforcement action that is needed. We've reli we're relieved to finally see remedial action and interdivisional collaboration moving forward, especially at 500. But it took 20 years to get here. Tenants cannot wait another 20 years for in-unit inspections. We're looking for action. People's lives are at risk every day and we hope that you'll take action today. And with that, I thank you. Thank you. Any questions? No. Marcia, great to see you again. Thank you for having me. Stacy Simple. Hey, Stacy. Hi. Hello everyone. Uh my name is Stacy Sample and I am the chair of the downtown Toronto Acorn chapter. Uh thank you for taking the time to listen to all of us today on these very important issues following the release of the rent safe report uh dated March 27th of 2026. First, I acknowledge for my time with ACORN over these last two years, I have seen in some improvements in this program and we're very grateful that the city has increased the amount of officers to ensure all buildings that fall within the requirements can be addressed in a timely manner. Also, most recently, Acorn has worked extensively with Rent Safetto to ensure every tenant, new perspective, or lifelong out there knows what is the current condition of their building as the city classifies it and what they can do to address it. However, why am I here today? Enforcement. It's as the public sees it, a lacadasial at best, and that needs to change. Uh although it's a vital program in place, it is not doing enough to ensure safe and healthy living situations for about 50% of the Toronto's population with supply of very old buildings in use. Why when the OBSman released the report in 2024 on the failed actions by Rent Safe isn't transparency being recommended and brought forward to ensure tenants at any given building can know the status of fines, administrative penalties, or remedial actions. Just like landlord licensing, tenants have a right to know who and what they are dealing with. The tenant lives in the building day in and day out, so they know it firsthand what issues are being neglected or reoccurring. A rent safe bylaw off enforcement officer will not. And most likely, as we've mentioned countless times, the landlord has already tidied up everything to make it appear functioning for the officer's arrival since Rentafe actually reaches out to the landlord to schedule it. But I have never since uh seen nor been told that that information is provided to tenants when this is occurring. That needs to change where a notice is provided and if a tenant would like to speak with an officer, they should be made available. I understand Renay's position actually is they do put out um information to the tenant the buildings that they visit. We have yet to see that. Uh no, we've engaged with many tenants across the GTA. They had no awareness whatsoever Ren Safe was on the property. So better yet, but a better actually uh suggestion would be that as we've also asked Ren Safe to do is have the officer show up unannounced at the building. That would actually provide a much more true picture of everyday life on how what it's like to live in that building. And then there's the request we made for a universal work order form. One of the simplest ask ACORN has and yet no mention or offer of it in their report. Why not? It would streamline the process more effectively and efficiently when all parties are working under the same format, also eliminating duplet requests and everyone having the same consistent information and understanding. I couldn't believe when an ACOR member told me what Rent Safe wanted for a copy of her file request. The fee for a tenant to proceed with an FOI request is outrageous. This tenant is going to a hearing tomorrow with all their neighbors. She reached out to Renafe to get a copy of her file history and was told that she had to pay $650 for it. How can you expect someone with limited income to afford this? In essence, this lack of being able to pay that fee also obstructs their right to justice just like housing. Today, if there are city staff who could fulfill this request for a nominal fee, please connect with our ACORN organizer. Their building's AGI hearing may be tomorrow, but those documents would still be a huge help. As I understand, Run Safety is a government-run organization, but like others associated with government, RunSafees truly needs to stop pointing fingers at all the other departments. It's their problem, not ours. There needs to be an established framework where like MLS oversees Rentafe perhaps, then rents safe could be the coordinator with all the other departments to ensure they all work in unison and nothing takes as long as 500 DAWs has taken. Why is rent safe so slow in action? Just like the upcoming changes and implementation timelines in the report, the new evaluation and audit timeline should not beginning in the first quarter of 2028 and fully phased in by the end of 2029, 3 years from now. We're already waited too long. They need to start action and stop talking around the issues. Please make rent safe. Thank you so much. One more comment. I just asking that rent safe be given teeth and brush it every day. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, are there any questions for Stacy? No, seeing none. Thank you. Thank you. Uh Alejandro Ruiz Vargas. Alejandra, there you are. How are you? I'm very well. How are you today? Very happy, actually. Go ahead. I want to say that is the first time that I see down here that I am not upset. So that's good. So um Ekor has been fighting uh on this campaign over 20 years. Actually this will be our 22 year and during these years we had seen some changes for low income and moderate income uh tenants. uh but instead but some changes instead we have receiving a lot of higher rents and a lot of struggle that has been continuing but today we are keeping up speaking sorry of hopeful changes um championed by our mayor we believe that these changes will touch the lives of tenants in a profound way uh we double love like double off the color code signings. Uh, and we triple off the remedial action. And of course, more officers are like, so we want to say thank you to our mayor, to counselor Josh Mashlo. Thank you so much. Uh, councelor Paulo Fletcher. Um and personally I want to remember councelor uh former counselor Mike Leighton and former counselor Janet Davies that they were in the struggle as well and uh we want to stress uh that since our mayor uh Olivia Chowo is in this administration we don't feel anymore like we don't feel anymore like we wasn't in the map we feel that we are value for many many years that we have been in this struggle and if this change are approved or these changes are approved we are not going to be witness or no more seniors uh sorry I need my glass we not going to be uh we don't have to we witness all more seniors that had to wash their dishes at the kitchen sorry in the top because the kitchen sink is damaged for over two We know how to see more parents and mothers crying because the living room has been no fixed for over the two years and they feel isolated because they don't bring they cannot bring their families. And we going to stop the abuses from property managers and unprofessional superintendent and oh I have time we don't have words to express how happy we are sinking in the possibility of remedial action for our buildings. You don't have idea of how many people specifically vulnerable women, seniors and single mothers that had to live in fear and in chain because they don't have repairs made simple because landlord says I will not fix anything because your rent is too low and I want you that you move out. If remedial action will be adopted, these bullish practices will be gone. Of course, we need more work to do with units inspections uh inside universal work orders, standards, operating procedures, clear and effective followup even in capacity for by lots because this city needs to be for all not for few and hopefully after that we can go have an after party. Thank you so much. Thank you. Any questions for Alejandra? No. Alejandra, as always, thank you very much. Thank you so much. Ryan Endo. Hi, Ryan. Good morning, uh, chair and members of the committee. Uh, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Ryan Endo. I'm a licensed parillegal here in the city of Toronto and chair of the Daw Acorn Tenants Association. I'm here to present the findings of my report. It's been published as part of today's agenda um on and the report is on property standards enforcement framework um with a focus on rent safe's program and the use of higher enforcement higher order enforcement tools um with a focus on remedial action. Um before I go into the report I just want to quickly say um there are some things about the staff report that I really do appreciate. Changes to the scoring model I think are welcomed by ACORN members as well as um the proposed color-coded signs. Um just to speak on color-coded signs. Uh they make the issues more visible. Uh they acknowledge um they're an acknowledgement by the oversight body which is rent safe to that there is a problem. It exists. Something needs to be done about it. It's an access point for tenants uh to engage 311, engage uh rent safe to engage their counselor and organize around uh issues that they're facing in their buildings. Uh jumping into my report um at a high level uh this report essentially finds that the city is not lacking in legal authority to uh obtain compliance with its property standards bylaws. The legislative framework for property standards in Ontario and more specifically in Toronto is very very robust. Uh the city has at its disposal a range of enforcement tools. They include inspections, orders to comply. And once those orders have been confirmed um and the um there's a binding order and the landlord is found to to be in default uh the city can engage even higher order enforcement tools like uh prosecution um and most importantly remedial action including seeking court relief uh through the superior court um and other tools which are outlined in this report. Uh the issue is not whether these tools exist, it's whether they can be used. And unfortunately, this report from staff um you know, we've been at this for a number of years now. And this report is just outlining what the law is. I know what the law is. ACORN members know what the law is. I think staff are very aware of what the law is, but we need to actually know what we're going to do about it. The the core concern in my report um is that the evidence suggests a growing gap between the city's formal enforcement powers and how those powers are deployed in practice. Lower order tools like issuing orders over and over again. I think members are very familiar with that and seeking prosecutions is done in a very cyclical way. It's done over and over again and uh yeah it appears to be used regularly and repeatedly but higher order tools like remedial action appear to be underutilized and in some cases treated as exceptional rather than integral to the city's process for enforcing property standards. That's not acceptable. Uh it creates a cycle where the same properties remain in non-compliance over extended periods. Um, and if you look at the data that's come out of the city, out of Rent Safe over the last few years, we've seen an increasing number of of properties that have gone that have sunk into that bottom 2.5 percentile. I think the number now is over 150 buildings. I know there are many buildings like about 3,600 that are covered by Rent Safe TTO, but we're seeing that increasing number. And yes, it's great that Rent Safe uh gets compliance, you know, through the through the voluntary mount uh route through uh you know, educating and issuing orders. But where you reach these types of roadblocks and property owners are not complying with the orders, it doesn't make sense to prosecute over and over and over again, that I think is resource intensive. I think it requires a lot of wherewithal from from city legal in terms of prosecuting and litigating these matters. So I think that we should be focused on compliance uh which can be achieved through remedial action because the objective of remedial action is bringing a property into compliance not punishing the landlord not punitive measures but actually ensuring that the that the issues are fixed uh as I mentioned remedial action is a core tool it's not an ancillary one it's not an adjunct one um it's the point at which enforcement becomes outcome oriented the central outcome of remedi Remedial action is not deterrence. As I as I mentioned, it's not punishment, it's compliance. And yet in practice, remedial action continues to be framed by MLS, including in this report that they've put out today as resource inensive, operationally complex, and implicitly and explicitly if you've listened to staff uh such as at the previous council meeting as a last resort, which I don't agree with. Uh this framing matters because when a tool is treated as a separate option generally outside of the enforcement continuum that has downstream effects on how staff treat the enforcement of property standards and that can have farreaching impacts on the way that bylaw enforcement officers and other staff approach their enforcement efforts which in turn can impact remedial actions function as a reliable part of the enforcement system. Thank you. Thank you very much Matlo. Uh so just to be clear, would you agree with me that uh even before today the city has had both administrative monetary powers and um and remedial action powers but has not effectively used them has not effect I agree with you. Yes. And would you agree with um and I'm gonna say this as delicately as possible, not to raise the chair's eye, but um but would you agree that uh if I tell you that I hear repeatedly from tenants throughout the city that there has that their perception has been a culture at city hall that has viewed the landlord more like the client, the one that they're supposed to be dealing with and giving first chances and second chances and third chances. and heads up that we're going to do an inspection so they can kind of make it pretty that day. Uh rather than see the tenant as the the the core focus of their work. Has that been what you've heard? Has that been your experience? And if we use ammps and reme action more effectively, we could actually change that culture and put the focus back on the tenants who are living in those conditions. I I I generally agree, counselor. I I think at this point it goes without saying that there is that type of and I mean I don't want to there there there is that type of unfortunately culture that exists where we are prioritizing the property interests of the landlord which I don't think makes any sense. I don't think there's any sound legal basis for doing that. Um, speaking from personal experience living as a as a tenant at 500 OS road, if you do a title search on this property, you can find property standards violations, right? Violations under a property standards bylaw under the building code act that go as far back as 2014 relating to the balcony guards relating to um relating to a number of issues in the building. The parking garage, for example, that's been closed at our building for 5 years. And unfortunately now tenants are being ticketed when they have guests over because there isn't any guest parking because all the tenants are parked on the on on top. And the the concern that I have even more is the practices of um of the related city divisions in going to buildings, issuing these orders, going through that court process, getting a binding order, and then choosing not to initialize things like remedial action and actually engaging in a practice where they actually go to the the property owner and they issue more orders and they ask for compliance and they do this sort of thing. that actually puts the city in a very difficult position administratively from an administrative law context. It kind of muddies the enforcement. You have a binding order. You should now be operationalizing those those higher order enforcement tools. If you don't do it and you give the landlord more time and you engage in more targeted enforcement and conversations and commun trying to communicate with the landlord, what you can end up doing is actually I would think put the city in a difficult position in terms of actually initiating a remedial action because the timeline becomes influx. The timeline is difficult for property owners, for tenants, for the general public to actually interpret. So what we're doing here, what staff have have put in front of us is a report that just says what the law is. I've prepared this report over the course of four weeks. It shouldn't take us, you know, a decade to to to for staff to present to us what the law is. We know what the law is. I don't want to have a conversation about the law. I don't think anybody wants to have a conversation about the law anymore. We want to have a conversation about how we're going to operationalize the tools that we have right now. So, working together and moving forward and we're we're now poised to be able to make some real progress, would you agree that tactically it is it is better to contextually look at, you know, maybe there's a landlord that you can work better with and they want to they want to address uh uh any violations and they want to fix things and that's great. But there are some landlords, not to be punitive, but there are some some few but some landlords perhaps like yours that if they don't care about the healthy and safe living conditions of the people in their building, they need to know that there is a real risk to their own wallet by not taking those steps now. And if they don't do it, we're going to go in there and do it for them. Yeah, we're going to go in and do it for them. And I think that is very important. I think that, you know, we obviously have prosecutions and there's a whole framework for that and there are the fines that can be imposed and if it's a continuing offense under the building code act, they they can there's heavy heavy monetary consequences. Remedial action in itself, as you've pointed out, can produce those types of monetary financial impacts for the landlord. I would say that that's an incidental thing. The core objective of remedial action is to bring the property exactly into compliance and to the to the extent that it creates those types of financial consequences. Well, that's their problem for not complying. It's incidental. Any other questions? No. Seeing none, uh the next Ryan, thank you. The next deput is Mason Fitzpatrick. Morning, council. Morning, staff. I uh I don't intend to detain you long. My name is Mason Fitzpatrick. I'm director of communications at the Federation of Metro Tenant Associations. Uh or our organization was founded in 1974, and since then, we've been organizing, educating, and advocating for tenants across this city. One of our most popular services is our tenant rights hotline, which receives over 8,000 calls every single year. Um, and the subject of a lot of these calls is when tenants find themselves in a situation where they move into a new building to find that it's not what was advertised to them by real estate agents or landlords, etc. Um, and we view Rent Safe TTO's uh signage program and particularly the color-coded signs as a way to mitigate these situations as an objective and external body that's able to evaluate buildings so tenants know exactly what they're in for before they move in. And so we support the uh interim executive director's recommendations on this point. We also very strongly support the interim executive director's recommendations related to uh the fee restructuring for remedial action. Um in 2025 alone, we received over 2,300 calls related to maintenance and repairs. um 572 of which were situations in which landlords had outright refused to make repairs and 272 of those inquiries were from tenants whose landlords made repairs that were inadequate. Um a further 110 inquiries were related to um vital services being interrupted. So that's water, heating, electricity, etc. things that cannot be left for very long without a serious issue. In our view, this data speaks to a situation in which landlords are dragging their feet or using delay tactics while tenants are stuck waiting for LTB orders or hearings that um place them as at a disadvantage while the issues remain unresolved. And that's why we view remedial action as an important tool to rebalance the scales in favor of tenants and actually resolve the source of their issues uh instead of waiting around for the landlord to do it or for uh the courts to order them to do it. We see the fee restructuring, particularly the scalable 20% uh that will be applied to larger jobs above $10,000 as a progressive step in the right direction because it presents a higher cost exposure for landlords. And of course, it's always the bigger jobs that are delayed the most, such as the situation that animated the discussion at the March 25th council meeting about uh 500 DAWS. That was, of course, several buildingwide issues that were being delayed. However, much more still needs to be done to address the overarching needs of tenants across Toronto. And as our data demonstrates, as well as the stories we encounter every day in the buildings and on the phone with tenants, um there's lots more work to be done and neglect is still unfortunately the norm. We support these recommendations and we look forward to uh their implementation by rent safe. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions? No. Seeing none. Oh, councelor Nzata has a question for you. Don't go away, Macy. Please. Just a question. Um, do you think that a lot of the landlords out there are using the appeal process to delay um the work that needs to be done and they continue to appeal these uh these orders and that's a huge problem for tenants? I would certainly say so. Um, and then added on top of that is the fact that landlords are often going to have a lawyer on staff or at least the resources to access a lawyer whereas tenants um, you know, usually don't. And so they're already at a disadvantage in that situation as well. So if we increase uh the fines where uh landlords don't have the option of uh appealing um they do second time. Um cuz I I've always said that because I'm frustrated with that appeal process as well. It's hard to tell a tenant it's been in it's been in court for 3 years, you know, and they're waiting for the work to be done. Um maybe you have to get if you give a landlord strict fines or penalize them, you'll see the work being done a lot faster than going through the appeal process. Correct. I I certainly agree with that. Yeah, because I think that's a big issue with landlords. Yeah, I I agree. Like we can figure out I guess an appeal afterwards or who pays for it, but but really like the important thing is that tenants are waiting for the work to be done, right? Thank you. Thank you, counselor. Thank you. I think that's all the questions. Daryl Chong. Hi, Darl. Good morning, chair. Thank you. Let me just plug this in if you don't mind. Is that Do I need to push a Is it coming up? You're you're coming up here. Great. Yes. Thank you very much. Good morning, chair, committee members. Um, as you know, the Greater Toronto Apartment Association represents the owners and managers of more than 150,000 units of multif family purpose-built rental housing across the GTA, mostly in the city of Toronto. Our members are proudly providing this housing uh in professionally managed buildings, and we care about our our customers. You know, city staff have been tasked with reviewing color coding or or people labeling for a long time uh many times over the past years and have consistently recommended against it for a lot of reasons including confusion caused by red and yellow which are internationally known as danger hard stop do not proceed and maybe stop do not proceed but if you must do so with an abundance of caution. Traffic lights are the best example, universally understood. Staff wrote that this could mislead people to believe that their buildings are closed, dangerous, uninhabitable when referring to red labels. Just to be clear, this is from a staff report. These are not my words. These are staff words. Um, this report's from November 2019. The city staff have also consistently highlighted their concerns regarding stigmatization and disproportionately stigmatizing low-income individuals and families. You know, labeling people in their homes has always been a bad idea. City staff reports have always said this in the previous and this is again staff reports that say stigmatization, not the industry, city staff. In the previous versions, 86 to 100% was categorized as good, which seems reasonable. 66 to 85 was satisfactory. However, in today's iteration, a 96 gets you just a satisfactory. An 83 is downgraded to what is presumed to be yellow and needs improvement. These are unreasonably high thresholds. It seems these ranges were selected to make sure that 800 buildings fall into the lowest categories. So if your goal is to confuse and stigmatize the people, the most people, the most families, the most children, and the most people visiting these families and children, then this bad idea as designed, spot on. But if your goal is to fix 500 DAWs and and some other notoriously bad properties, then a more surgical approach is needed, such as remedial action. That'd be more effective without the collateral damage of confusion and stigmatization. GTA members are good operators. We generally score solidly in the '9s. We have a bunch of 100s as well. We don't defend bad operators and we encourage you to go after them with all the tools that you have. But you've diluted your attention by systematically visiting excellent buildings, spending lots of time, lots of staff time on 97s, 98s, 99s, and even 100s. It feels like your inability to remedy deficiencies at Daws has spurred a punitive response and a revival of this bad idea. So people labeling continues to be a bad idea which you should abandon. Thank you for your attention. Thank you. Uh, councelor Matlo has some questions for you. Uh, hi Darl. First of all, do you believe this is just about 500 DAWs or do you accept that there are far too many landlords who have been bad landlords in our city? There there are there are several. I've seen the the tables about the buildings that are in the red category as proposed. That's too many. Not certainly not every landlord is a bad landlord, but there are too many. And we need to address that, don't we? We do. If if you and your family were living in an apartment where there are bugs and rodents and it's an unsafe and unhealthy environment and your landlord has been ignoring you and your neighbors for many, many years, do you believe that you would feel stigmatized? I I think there's a better way to do what what I mentioned earlier, but in that in that in that in that situation like would would you feel more would you and and also if let's say you don't believe the government in city hall has heard you well enough or listened or addressed it quickly enough um and you don't know if anyone's hearing you at all. Is it not the living conditions where you even feel ashamed to invite people over? Isn't that more stigmatizing than having a sign that finally validates how you've been living for years? You know, I I I think the dilution of the city's efforts is has resulted in a handful of buildings continuously being in that sort of state of condition. May I ask you though dilution of city's efforts? How has it worked out for 500 DAWs without these efforts? In other words, what has been diluted? We haven't done it yet. We were hoping to do it many years ago, you know. So we knew about 500 dogs at the beginning of this program. Like this is not something that just materialized in the last couple of years. This has been a notorious building. The Krebs, everyone. There's lots of stories about them. Um but again, so instead of focusing all of your attention maybe starting seven or eight or 10 years ago on 500 Daws and a few other pro uh properties, you've spent a lot of time running around to buildings that are scoring in the 90s. out of the 3600 buildings, the average score is 90. But so that that that's the dilution of staff time. You have staff writing the same report over and over that says this is a bad idea until you've directed staff to just go do it anyway. You're you're not you're not suggesting that that that the city should only be dealing with the worst of the worst. What if there is a building that only the worst of the What if there's what if there's a material problem? What if there's a substantive problem in a building that may not be the worst, but it still has to be fixed? substantive problems. Yes. The worst of the worst, absolutely. But what about the buildings that are scoring 197? Like why even bother with them? Are are you the experience of most tenants has been that the scoring system has actually been out outweighed to allowing many of the landlords to get higher scores because they get they get points over basically just doing the basics. And actually the reforms being submitted are actually supposed to improve the fairness of the system so that it focuses on the problems. So so this the city or council has directed staff to revise the system over and over several iterations of it. And every time I think the goal of council is to be more punitive. Every time you do this the buildings still score 97 that scored 97 previously. These are excellent buildings. There's lots of them. You keep wasting your time on them. Ultimately though, you're speaking about and may I ask you, are you are you are do you recognize that you're speaking about a color-coded sign initiative that has not yet been implemented? You're suggesting that we shouldn't be doing something that would fail before ever doing it. And what we So you don't know what will happen when we do it. What we do know is that there are buildings like 500 Daws and others that have been effectively forgotten and not addressed well enough. Do you not recognize that the stigmatization that tenants are feeling are is the experience of feeling forgotten, not being supported, not having enforcement done effectively and adequately. And that sign in the window is telling them that they are seen. And as was said before, telling prospective tenants, and yes, it is a red sign saying stop. Don't go in there if you're worried about the landlord being neglectful and and and and not supportive of your family's health and safety. I think you can paint that building red and it wouldn't make a difference. What do you mean? I I I you've we've known about this address for a decade and it hasn't been remedied. Okay. So, we're at five minutes now. So, you agree that we should be doing things that we haven't done before. No, I think this is a bad idea and I think everyone knows it. Okay. I disagree. It just sounds it just feels punitive when you know it's not resultsoriented. Okay, Darl. Thank you. Okay. Councelor Nunziata has question for you. Yeah. Okay. So, do you not think um I I I don't know why you feel that landlords are not supporting this this program because would you not think that if we do this, which we're going to do it um and we've been working on this for a while, wouldn't it be incentive to the landlord financially to repair the building and at code so they can get more tenants moving in do you not think that that would be in the best interest of the landlord? Agreed, counselor. So the GTA's members scored solidly in the '90s by and large. This won't affect us. I'm not here to say that uh we don't like this because all of our buildings are red and they shouldn't be red. None of our buildings in our membership are red, right? We're not here for that. I'm not here for that reason. It's just an offensive thing to do and it's not resultsoriented. the whole program um has diluted the attention or the efforts of staff. You run around to 3,600 buildings every every second every two years in a cycle and most of the buildings are in the '9s. Like we look at them, we we see this the inspectors in the buildings and we wonder they actually wonder what am I doing here? Well, also too was mentioned building is beautiful. also was mentioned by some of the deputants that you know we don't do in unit inspections and if we started doing that I think you'll get more reds um but uh uh in my opinion that's a mutual responsibility the city of Hamilton's just adopted a similar program and they in their adoption of it they've implemented a $450 fine to tenants that don't participate for pest control So, so the tenants's responsibility to prepare their unit in advance of pest control uh is doing several things like moving things away, packaging things up, and if they don't do that repeatedly, the city will find the tenants $450. Yeah. Okay. So, that that's it's a dual responsibility within the unit. Um, you know, we've seen examples of of dangerous flammable situations or fire situations. uh things piled on top of stoves, stoves that haven't been cleaned, grease accumulation. These appliances were were clean when they were rented. They're not cleaned weekly by the management staff. So So there's a a mutual responsibility inside the unit for sure. Well, there's no way you can convince me. Um but I I don't know what you're afraid of, but anyway, I'm afraid of this. Thank you. Thank you. Uh councelor Myers, do you have any questions? No. Okay. Thank you, Darl. Uh, the next deputent we have is Ann Lee and I understand you're online. Hello. Can Can everyone hear me? Hi, Ann. Yes, we can hear you. Thank you so much for uh coming to Deute today. You've got five minutes. You can start when you're ready. Hi. So, um I've been listening to everyone speaking and um I'm just uh relating to cockroaches. Um uh so I'm going to speak about my personal experience but also just commenting. So regarding the the high scores uh my building has a 90% score and it is cockroach infested and you do see them in the common areas but it's just that they're maybe at night or early morning. You know I have one video where in December I'm like walking down past the elevators to stairwell and like you know stepping on five different cockroaches along the way. Um, so those scores are questionable. Um, and also they're also very visible. Uh, you know, building code violations. Uh, you can that I mean this is not not the main issue, but if you go to a laundry room, you can see walls that, you know, they don't go even go all the way down. You can see all the pipes and wiring exposed. Uh, except, you know, they're behind the washer and dryers. There's, you know, insulation falling down from where the pipes go into the concrete. like they're not completely sealed. Um, so many things like that. And then regarding that situation that you just mentioned before I got on, um, yeah, the, you know, I moved into apartment where it was infested with cockroaches right from the beginning. Um, they sprayed it twice the month before I moved in, I was told. Um but it turned out the fridge and stove were invested and um you know they like they didn't do move out inspection but and it was like you know even though they have lawyers on their know as a so my landlord is Toronto Community Housing uh I have a market rent department um you know they flaunt the laws basically um you know I signed the same lease as everyone uh with the application I said the I put in writing that the the super agreed to do a removal inspection any necessary repairs and uh but after I moved in they told I agreed that they didn't have to paint the walls but after I moved in they told me that you know oh you took the apartment as so we don't have to do anything that was repeated by everyone um even though completely false so um two minutes sorry um but basically uh the other thing is uh you know someone mentioned inspections I think video is also important um uh so when my ceiling been leaking. I have a ceiling in one of my bedrooms been leaking for 5 years. And in uh a few years ago, um the officer left on vacation and uh couldn't, you know, I was begging him when it leaked a second time if we could maybe do at least video call and then but he said he couldn't and then when he came back a few weeks later said, "Well, because he didn't see it in person, he couldn't follow up on it." Um so that's important. And also, you know, the way certain tenants are treated versus others. I'm worried even with all these updates like we're not addressing the corruption. So, uh, they have a section of officers just from my landlord, just for charge housing. And I think there's some comp it's a compromised relationship. Um, when I, you know, I was often told to talk to the landlord myself, you know, um, and, uh, you know, yeah, so I had this officer that was just saying, oh, they're being they're being transparent, whatever. And then, yeah, and just but refusing to share me even share with me even basic information. And then like now I'm seeing yeah that would be very expensive to even get that information. And when I spoke to the vendor they gave me then oh they said why don't you talk to the contractor. I looked it up and then there was retaliation for that. Uh where the super incited one of the contractors to harass me. Um and uh there was you know even though they escalated the le you know since August September there's no followup. Um and then when I tried to speak I don't know time is running up. um when I tried to uh you know I was also told repeatedly so I called twice to 311 and asked to speak to a supervisor instead I was transferred to the communication director and you know was told that there's no supervisors and but when I googled it I found that's not true I found the list of supervisor talked to the manager uh you know one of the managers I won't name them but they were very abusive and belligerent and was telling me you know even said to me well we're not advocates you should talk to a landlord yourself. Um and uh you know I think there needs to be more like and going you know was repeatedly when I asked can I speak to his direct supervisor she just told me oh why do you want to talk to him he works for me he works for me over and over I hung out called the next name on the list you know unfortunately that person that person was more reasonable but couldn't uh address the you know I asked if there could be a different officer and he couldn't he didn't do that and um I know I'm sorry I'm running out of But um I'll follow up with I guess written remarks. But uh yeah, I mean I think we should look at that and even now I have the city councelor following up assistant following up for me and uh you know it took them weeks for them finally to get something and I'm afraid you're at time. I'm going to have to ask you to stop there. Are there any questions for an Seeing none. Thank you so much for your deputation. Uh next I have listed Nicole Curado. Nicole, I understand you're online. Hello. Hi, Nicole. Yes. Um, what I was going to So, yes, thank you. And um one of the things that that is uh that I um yeah what I was going to say is that it really concerns me about the pest control. It concerns me that the the city is yet to hire a pest control abatement pest abatement company. A lot of these companies, especially for animals like mice and rats, use really horrible, horrible methods like glue traps and you know that the animals rip their limbs off and their their fur off to try to get out of and they use they'll often put the the glue traps in live traps even and and they'll also they'll also put they'll also put poison out that anti-coagulant poison that takes days. It's really painful for the animals and it goes right up the food chain. It's really really toxic stuff. It's It's so It's so bad that Yeah. It's very sad that that I don't I I don't um I I think it it it's really unfortunate that you know the poisons will go right up the food chain. really unfortunate that the city of Toronto is not taking a humane approach because the problem is is uh food attractant. So the color coding system I completely agree with that but I think there also should be an effort for humane truly effective wildlife management and pest real pest is the is the use uh is the uh the attractants. So, attractant control and and um and putting fixing the holes. There are companies that you can get through rodenocidefree.ca that only use humane methods. So, I would highly recommend that you know people should have to have should have a choice. They should not be forced to have a cruel company come into their into their space, their living space when they don't want, you know, a cruel company to be have to deal with them. So, yeah, there's often cruel companies that that that the city will will be forced to use a cruel company is the thing. You know, Nicole, is that all you wanted to share with us today? Yeah, but I think that that Toronto should be having a humane company that they should that they should try to work with. Okay, we've heard you on that. Thank you so much for your deputation. Are there any questions for Nicole? Nope. Seeing none. Uh members, I understand that uh Arnold Margulus, who I called earlier, is connected now. Arnold, uh are you ready to make a deputation to us? Here you are. Hi, welcome. Thank you very much uh for the opportunity and uh I wanted to uh uh support the initiative for the improved color coding system as well as uh you know um with bad landlords going uh you know on a serious note and also councelor's uh MLO suggestion to change the culture of MLS and I'm well experienced with uh you know the existing culture Uh in particular, I'm a tenant of Toronto Seniors Housing Corporation and there was a ventilation shut down for half a year. Uh water shut down in common areas. Uh the heating system in summer was switched to 50° C in laundry and the MLS inspectors uh three of them consequently give excellent score to the building because of appearance of the lobby. So and only because of my evidence and personal contacts with the leadership of RN safety etc. So the eventually they issued the compliance orders. So so Mr. Chong it all depends on how the colors are going to be enforced and how careful the inspectors are going to be in assigning these colors and the frequency of inspections should be different depending on the color. So that addresses your efficiency issue. So going back to uh this stuff report, I suggest to uh kind of uh to look at the other aspects of the issue. For example, who is responsible now for improving property standards? This a main tool apparently MLS this is not appropriate. They should be contributor but not sole uh uh responsibility for improvement. uh we need to have an advisory committee with the members of the public acorn members etc who would contribute to this process and I also participated in number of such meetings with MLS and I say that advisory committee is absolutely critical in improving property standards because MLS uh sometimes they try to avoid enforcement of certain sections inconvenient for them or which require joint inspections of the buildings also thought the suggestions should be posted on MLF's website. So the general public should contribute through chat system and provide suggestions even to advisory committee. So going to uh for example my uh in my experience what uh uh uh property standard section should be improved uh and uh again uh about the advisory committee I'm just asking to put it maybe as uh uh you know amendment now to to look if if it's a useful idea and immediately water on it as a motion. So uh going back to property standards what should be improved? If you look at section 6 to9 uh 27 it talks about walls and ceilings but apparently the property standards treats walls as uh you know drywalls there are decorative elements they call it walls. This is inappropriate. Uh don't forget that uh almost every unit has uh uh these drywall compartments where uh pipes run vertically or horizontally and they also uh usually penetrate the floor the ceiling and the walls and there are holes around this pipes. So in order to enforce ceiling as holes, we need to give proper definition of what wall is. Drywall is not wall and the property standards inspector should be able to enforce namely this searing the holes and cracks around the pipes hidden in pipe compartments. And this is critical from the P safety from the health and safety from preventing the landlords from Pzoning the tenants environment which unfortunately also uh the case in several buildings. So this section should be improved. Section 6 to939 ventilation uh uh now uh uh for some reason it uh uh treats uh only for joint purpose buildings. Uh the preventing noxious fumes. This is not appropriate and the residential property should also be included in this section so that MLS would issue an orders to prevent noxious fumes purposely injected by the landlord to prevent them from entering the tenant units. So the section 6 to 937 plumbing the uh says that section A uh tob that it should be you know from approved medical officer of course it it requires um both uh Toronto water and uh MLS inspector joint inspections Arnold thank you so much you're at time now we appreciate your deputation are there any questions for Arnold no seeing none Arnold Thank you so much for joining us today. Uh that Oh, I I think I have No, I got Nicole. Uh that completes the list of deputations we have. Are there any questions of staff? Councelor Myers? Uh uh can you hear me? Yes, we can. Okay. Thank you. Through you, chair. Uh my question resolves around some of the comments from ACOR uh specifically the suggestion to have a universal form was why was that never considered? Uh thank you uh for the question through you chair. uh a universal form uh is not uh something that we as MLS can prescribe onto landlords. Uh what we uh do require them to have is to have a system of communication between tenants and themselves to identify uh work orders and and what work needs to be done. What we do provide is we provide a template that can be used in those situ situations and we provide uh information and education in multiple languages on that. Okay. Do other cities use universal forms in in Ontario? I'm not sure on that particular answer. I can. Thank you. And then I guess regarding the audits, is there a reason why we don't do a better job of letting tenants know that we'll be on the property? And can you confirm whether we do surprise audits or do we always give advanced notice? Uh so through the chair uh there are some requirements for us to give notice when we do come in uh to do an audit so they're not surprised. Um we are uh does that apply if you also do just an inspection? A random inspection a formal audit? Yes, but a random inspection. No. Correct. So, in most cases, what we respond to are service requests that bring us into the building. Um, and certainly once we're in the building, if we observe uh violations of the bylaw, I would expect that our bylaw officers are noting that and following up. Okay. So, there's no reason that we have to give advanced notice if we just do an inspection. Right. Sorry. Uh through the chair, if we do need to get into certain areas behind locked doors or other things, then yes, we do have to give notice to ensure they know that we're there. Okay. Okay. And is there a reason why we can't give notice to the tenants through the chair? We do uh we do inform tenants that we are going to be on the property. Uh an audit is a fairly um uh intensive uh evaluation of a building. So we are there physically there. Uh there are also tenant engagement uh events that we do at buildings. So we have visibility and we're there um you know in the front uh lobby and we're throughout the building. Um as always communication how do we inform the tenants? Communications with tenants is a is a definitely an area that could always use improvement and that is something that we are constantly working on uh both internally at MLS as well with other partners for example with CXD throughout the city of how do we better communicate with tenants so they know what's going on in their building and they know what we're doing and during the audits do the tenants have an opportunity to speak with MLS staff to let them know about specific concerns that they might have through the chair absolutely and That uh is in fact something that we are counting on uh because that is a good opportunity for our uh officers to uh be invited into in suites uh to conduct inspections so that they can then uh use those to issue orders that will further impact uh the score of the building. Uh so it's very much encouraged. Thank you. And then there was a a talk about $650 for some forms required for an LTB hearing. Is there a reason why the cost would be so much or is there something that we can do to help these tenants uh through the chair? I don't have all the details on that uh particular number. The brief thing that I saw was uh that the individual required to go through the FOI process uh as a city process and that's where the the costs were and can those costs be waved the chair. That's a city clerk's question. Can I get the clerks to answer that then please? So, uh, councelor, uh, I've asked, uh, the committee administrator and she said that she would have to get someone more senior from clerks to answer that. I'll do my best to try to get an answer to you, but it might take a little while. Okay. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Any further questions, Councelor Nunata? Yeah, thank you. Um, I I had a tenant meeting the other night and I was told that it's $5. uh to get a fee, but possibly if you have more than one item and then it adds up. Am I not correct on that on those fees for a fee? Uh through the chair, that is a a $5 uh application fee. So, if it's 650, that means there's quite a few documents that are requested. Correct. Am I correct? Yes. Okay, just want to clarify that. Um, so as far as the inunit inspection, so um if a tenant um requests for an inspection, then uh you can go doortodoor and and go into the unit and do an inspection. Correct. Uh through the chair, that is correct. If we're invited in. So, because I've had a number of meetings with tenants and we actually um and rent safe staff are there and we encouraged them that we were going to go in and gave notices for them to be there in their unit so we can do a proper inspection. Correct. Uh through I know you weren't there but your staff was here. Uh through the chair absolutely and we do recognize that many of these issues are in suite issues. Yeah. the more we can see them and the more we can action them through orders uh the better results for tenants and also the more reflective a score for the building as a whole right so it's good to encourage tenants when there are issues in a building and I do that whenever I have meetings to encourage these tenants to contact us and to request for an inspection and we can go in and inspect a number of units at the same time and as far As far as um I would say let the tenants know in advance that there's an audit, not the landlord because usually if you let the landlord, they clean up the place uh before you're there. Uh that's happened. So um correct. If you get a number of requests from tenants, you could do the the overall the whole building inspection if there's a a number of requests. Correct. uh through through the chair again we can do common areas of the building as of uh our powers under the bylaw for in suite we would have to have the invitation of the tenant to do so and I'll just add that also in in 2025 for example we did um about 11,584 door knocks throughout the the program to encourage um in suite issues to be raised yeah I know we did one on Lawrence Lawrence and Ke that building and we had quite quite a few meetings there actually and I try to encourage those tenants. Um so as far as the process here now with the the the um the signs so all the signs will be mailed to landlords uh right um by June 1st. That's correct. So all three signs the green, yellow and red will be mailed and it's the responsibility of the landlord to post it in a con to post the appropriate sign depending on their score in a conspicuous place and also to update the sign uh within 14 days of a change in their score or change in their category. So, do we um uh do we um inspect once we mailed the signs? Do we inspect the buildings to ensure that the signs have actually been posted or do we just take the word that they're putting it up and where they're putting it up? Do we inspect and ensure that the the signs are actually posted where they're where they should be? Uh so, through the chair, um it is an obligation on the landlord to display the sign. it is an offense if they do not display the sign. So what we will do is when we are at a location, we will uh inspect that sign as part of the regular inspection and of the building. But again, if um tenants notice that uh a sign is not posted, uh again, uh calling 311 and letting us know of that would get us uh there faster. So, we're going to communicate that information to tenants then um that they call us if the signs have to be replaced because I could see some landlords just throwing them in the garbage, right? Um so, we have to make sure the signs are properly posted. Um Okay. So I I I know that you've been working on this report for quite a few years and I and I think that you've also been working with ACORN on this report on some of your consultation meetings. Uh that's correct. Right. And uh so they gave their opinion and comments as well and that's incorporated in your report uh through the chair. Yes, we've had extensive consultations with uh tenant associations and landlords uh throughout this process. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Uh councelor Matlo. Oh, okay. Are there any other questions of staff? No. Seeing none, councelor Matlo would like to speak. Uh thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um so I want to I want to thank staff uh for um bringing forward a report that moves forward with initiatives that we've been asking for for many years. Uh and I want to um acknowledge and express my gratitude to the remarkable advocacy of organizations like ACORN FMTA and others who I've worked very closely with uh to bring forward uh first of all rent safe to begin with. We fought to get Rent Safe into reality. Uh but as proud as we were for that success and it was hard to get there there were threats and and and whole campaigns against us when we were trying to get that done. As proud as we are with Rentafe, we are the first to admit when Rentafe needs to be better and when it's not doing enough and we heard that very clearly. Then we advocated to complete the first iteration of rent safe which color with color-coded signs. And I'm going to make it really clear and I'm going to double down. This the stigma that we hear from tenants is not a matter of a sign in the window. That sign in the window is a validation that they are finally being heard because they are being stigmatized by living in unhealthy and unsafe conditions for far too long by a neglectful landlord. And it is a sign in the window telling them that we see you, we hear you, we are willing to take action and to prospective tenants that yeah, if you see a red sign in the window, you may want to consider going somewhere else, somewhere that actually cares about you. But ultimately it's about effectively getting results. And we also for years advocated for remedial action. Motion after motion advocating for remedial action. And under the past administrations that wasn't that wasn't happening even though we had the legal ability to do it. And that's why I also want to acknowledge Mayor Chow. What used to be a fight actually had real support this time. And the by having this toolbox in front of us, what it means is that for the many good landlords out there, when there are problems, we work with them to fix things because they want to fix things because they care about the people whose homes they have responsibility for. And I want to acknowledge that we have a lot of good landlords in the city. But unfortunately, we've got far too many bad ones, too. landlords who look at their tenants as mere sources of revenue rather than people who have homes in their building who need to be respected and cared about. And when they don't care about other people, we've got to tell them that they better care about their own wallet. Whether it be through an administrative penalty, whether it be through reme remedial action and if they're not willing to fix what needs to be fixed, we're going to go in there and fix it for them and bill them after the fact. They need to know that by having the accountability of the signs, by knowing that they are going to be facing real monetary consequences if they don't do their jobs. That's a signal, a very clear message to those landlords that we have not only expectations, but we're not saying please. We're not we're no longer begging, cajoling, we're not going to cooperate with you for two decades, hoping that one day you'll see the light of day. You'll have an epiphany and be a better human being. We're telling you that we're going to come after you if you don't do it. And why do we do this? Similarly, with dine safe, we don't want people, you know, going into a restaurant and finding a rat in their soup. Why should people's homes be treated any less? I've heard too many stories from tenants who have told me that they have felt ashamed to invite family over to their home because of the conditions that they've been left in. That's stigma. And that they've come to government after government, city hall after city hall, saying, "Can you do something?" And it's one thing when we say, "Well, we can't do it. We don't have the power to do it." You know what? The city of Toronto has very few powers under the provincial government. But when we have the power to do something, we we better damn well use it. And we are. So, I'm really proud of the advocacy. Acorn, by the way, is incredible. They've they've said to to friendly counselors, we're going to we're going to we're going to have your back if you do the right thing. And they've said to unfriendly counselors, we're going to get you removed if you don't. They've done incredible advocacy to move this agenda forward. FMTA, ACTO, many others. And I'm so happy that their voices have finally been heard. I've worked with them for years. We've we've made a lot of progress, but now I am hopeful that we are getting to a place where we finally have the tools in the toolbox to have their backs in the way that they deserve. Thank you. Thank you. Any other any other counselors want to speak? Councelor Nunata. Thank you. Um, so I'll um I'll move the recommendations in the report and they can um I do support the recommendations and first of all I want to thank uh staff for bringing forward this report. Um they've worked hard on this report and thank you for your recommendations and um I I do know that I've had a number of meetings with tenants and staff have attended those meetings uh um some of them in TCHC buildings as well. And what I found that when we when I invite our uh staff there rent safe that a lot of the tenants don't even didn't even know that they existed. Didn't know. And we so we were handing out these brochures and they were actually surprised they didn't know this. And so I I think it's important as well is that we try to engage tenants and you know counselors should could have regular meetings with tenants which I do um um you know to get that message out because once you get that message out the tenants know what their rights are and what they can do. Um and I have um a lot of slum landlords in my ward I can tell you. Um, and um, it's what really bothers me and and I mention it to staff, but I know that, you know, it's it's out of our jurisdiction, but you know, when these landlords appeal and then they're in the courts and here you're waiting 2 or 3 years and tenants call you, so what's the update? Well, it's in court. It's in court. It's in court. It keeps getting delayed and appealed and that's frustrating. As far as I'm concerned, there that process shouldn't even be in place. If they're a landlord that continues to have infractions, I think that they should be penalized and uh you know, with fines and if the city has to go in and do the work, they do the work because it's just it's frustrating for tenants. And um I think uh I I I think the staff are doing an amazing job when they attend meetings and they're going and they're working with tenants. And I want to thank you for that because it's really an eyeopener for a lot of tenants and um you know that they do have an opportunity they have an option and a lot of them what I say to tenants too when I attend their meeting and they they tell me about some of the issues are happening in the building I say well have you contacted the city? No we haven't. Well, it's important that you do because if you don't contact the city, then the city, we can't go in and inspect and we don't know how many uh orders there are for this building because when you bring staff there, they show they haven't received any calls. So, that's really important to engage the tenants and let the tenants know. they they do have their rights and they need to use that and contact the city um because there there's a lot that we can do and and again I want to thank the deputants that came here today to make uh to make a deputation. It's very very important to acorn and thank you to staff and I'll move the recommendations. Thank you. Thank you councelor Myers. Did you have anything you want to say? No. Okay, I'll speak. Um, so today is an important day, but today is nowhere near the end of the journey. Many of us at city hall have been trying for not just the last decade, but I can remember uh Howard Moscow working in the 1990s for something called landlord licensing, which unfortunately we were unable to achieve because of the way provincial law works. And one part of the work we've been doing, as you know, the city of Toronto uh has a a housing charter saying that people have the right to housing, including safe and dignified housing. Because of that work, uh we've established something called the Housing Rights Advisory Committee. And at the housing rights advisory committee last week, we invited uh someone called the federal housing advocate because the federal government says that tenants should have rights too. And they created that. And we asked her to go and look at the legal rights of tenants to live in safe and dignified housing right across Canada and to look at the the legal frameworks that that exist. And what we basically found is in every province in this country, landlords and their right to own property is legally recognized and tenants and their right to live in safe and dignified housing is not. Mhm. There is a deep systemic issue in Canada that privileges the ownership of property over the rights of people to live in a safe, dignified, and secure way. And it's something that we have to all work together on. The federal government has promised, it promised over two years ago to pass a tenants bill of rights that would set a standard right across the country that said, for example, if there is a a property deficiency in a building you live in, you have the right to be part of that court process. If there is a property standards issue in your building, you have the right to be notified of that. It would say that you have the right to safe, dignified, and secure housing. Period. End of sentence. And you have the legal tools to to pursue those rights independently of the city of Toronto or the federal government or whatever provincial government is operating. That's the prize. That's where we have to get to. And today, city staff have made some steps towards that. But while we continue to operate in a legal framework where the rights of property owners to extract value from tenants supersede the rights of tenants to a safe and secure place to live is wrong. We have to work in partnership with that. I know that many members of the Toronto Public Service work every day towards trying to achieve that goal and I'm proud of them for doing that. I know that groups like ACORN and FMTA and the various housing rights organizations right across Canada are working on that. I think it's time we worked in partnership to achieve that and that's our next goal. That's our next step to say that you shouldn't have to rely on lucking in to finding a good landlord. That you actually have rights, whether the landlord is good or not. that every single person who pays rent to live has the rights established in law and the legal tools to enforce and pursue those rights. When we have a Canada that does that, when we have an Ontario that does that, then we will have the tools in your hands and the tools in the hands of the city of Toronto so that nobody lives in inadequate housing and that's just a basic standard. So, congratulations on where we've got today. Let's hold hands and build a system that truly works for all tenants. Thank you. Okay. Uh, recorded vote. Okay, we have had a request for a recorded vote. If we could get councelor Myers up. Thank you. All those in favor, councelor Matlo, councelor Perks, councelor Nuniata, and councelor Myers. Okay, so that's that down. Uh, what's next? PH29.5, Advancing the City's affordable housing access system. Uh, we have some deputants. I see Arnold's listed again. Arnold Margulus. I think Arnold was online. Thank you for allowing me to speak this time. Uh obviously it's a noble goal to integrate uh you know the affordable rental housing into the existing centralized housing access system and it allows for a unified process that would definitely benefit everyone uh of the applicants. Uh I just wanted to add uh some uh kind of amendments to this. The first is 100% draw. I think we need to give some tools to the counelors to work with their constituency and that requires at least 5% reserved uh you know space in the affordable housing. Many counselors consider it major part of their work and it should be supported. Now the other thing is transcripts. Many uh people uh stay uh let's say for 10 years on the wait list then they uh come to an RGI unit only to find within two weeks that because of their complaints uh you know to MLS they are now a target and they are targeted by the landlord and suddenly they need a transfer and uh the transfer should also be integrated into this system like uh part of the uh affordable housing uh communities are RGI units and the tenants of current TR seniors housing uh and the community housing should be able when they apply for transfer to choose to transfer outside of the system especially if they have some conflict with the corporate leadership who doesn't want to address reported issues uh in the buildings. So and obviously eligibility in this case would be considered by the housing secret and uh the uh existing tenant transfer policy should be adjusted to reflect uh the fact that tenant can transfer to a different system uh within the uh Toronto housing portfolio and uh also uh you know appropriate software uh like adjustment should be So the there's transfer chance to fully participate in centralized uh uh you know system selection process as it it exists now. So I'll give you an example for example uh the uh when I moved in into the building a few years ago in seniors housing there were uh major issues that MLS was refusing to recognize in the form of orders. When I start complaining and insisting on correcting this issues, the uh local staff simply drilled holes through the uh floor of the above unit and started fugating my unit with toxic chemicals. when I started reporting it uh repeatedly to uh uh Toronto Community Housing who owns the building and Toronto seniors housing uh leadership and board of directors uh they uh like the leadership couldn't find the better way just to try to evict me on totally fabricated case with uh you know landlord tenant board uh so and that's about it they refused uh to do the professional inspection and they refused to uh uh uh you know uh to change back the illegal alterations in the above unit. The local staff then started fumigating the hallways trying to uh speed up tenants turn around as the means to the cemetery. By the way, uh, three tenants around my unit died within the last half a year because of this, I believe. And, uh, the purpose is to just to receive more funds from the unit renovation funds, which are then possibly laundered through the uh, set of trusted contractors. So what I'm saying is that there are circumstances when the tenant cannot be transferred within the existing system and they should be allowed to be transferred from to a different system such as affordable rental community RGI unit and it should be done obviously through the same centralized housing access system and the housing secretary to be uh responsible for eligibility assessment. Thank you. Thank you. Um, are there any questions for the deputent? Can I talk to something? Just just a just a moment. We'll we'll get there. Seeing no questions, thank you so much for your deputation. Uh, next deputent we have is Rosalie Thompson. Hi, Rosalie. Welcome. Can I ask someone over there? Yeah, we'll have someone come speak to you to understand what the issue is. Okay, Rosalie, welcome. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee members. My name is Rosalie Thompson. I'm a staff lawyer with the Advocacy Center for Tenants Ontario. We're a specialty community legal clinic. We're funded by Legal Aid Ontario. Um, and we have a provincial mandate to advance and protect the interests of the interests of low-income tenants on issues that affect their ability to stay in housing, but also to access housing. And so today, our clinic is here to lend our full support to the housing secretariat report item 29.5 and specifically the recommended that targeted allocation requests from housing providers where the targeted group is not one of the priority groups identified uh by the city um to access housing be subject to some checks and balances and specifically that housing providers provide a legal opinion confirming compliance with the Ontario Human's Rights Code. And secondly, that such requests for targeted allocation be subject to approval by council. As a tenant advocate, I have the opportunity and the privilege to speak one-on-one with many, many tenants. Um, and I also have the privilege as someone who works for ACTO to see how housing laws are made on a structural level. Um, and so this means I can see the effects of laws and policies on the everyday lives of individuals. Um, we all know the city is facing a crisis in affordability that affects not only those living in deep poverty, but its effects extend to those who have moderate income levels also. Um, tenants have very few rental options that um that will not force them to pay unaffordable rents. Um, this is starkly illustrated by the 60% of tenants in Ontario who report having to cut back on food and other essential items, um, other necessities to pay shelter costs. Toronto's food banks are also very overloaded. Um, we've had over 4.1 million visits in the 2024 2025 year, and that's a huge increase, 340% increase from 2019. 88% of food bank clients live in unaffordable housing. We also know that discrimination in the search for housing further exacerbates the crisis for those who are from groups that have historically been excluded from housing, including those with disabilities, people who are racialized, people on fixed incomes such as old age security, people who've newly immigrated to Canada and indigenous people. An understanding of this type of discrimination is what led to the city identifying priority populations for specific groups who face extraordinary barriers to securing housing and developing policy to meet the needs of people who have the most need for housing for affordable housing I should say. For the past 20 years, we've lost affordable renting housing units um without building enough units to replace them. So, um, what me what that means is that we really have a bottleneck in the mid and lower rental levels where Torononians cannot find housing that's affordable. So, the the the need outstrips the demand and it it goes without saying that the houses housing crisis has affected everyone, but it has affected some people disproportionately. We have the um the data to back that up. So those who have historically been disadvantaged in economic life and in housing feel the effects of the housing crisis even more acutely. Tackling the housing crisis in this city requires all hands on deck. It requires collaboration with the with the private sector. Um and ensuring that housing solutions reach everyone equitably means proactive policies and procedures responsive to the lived realities of those who face disproportionate hardship in accessing rental units. So returning to the recommendation at hand, the pathways to access affordable housing must be informed by these principles as well. The pathways should be compliant with the Ontario Human Rights Code um and with the Toronto Housing Charter. These pathways must ensure that public resources are not shifted away from populations with the greatest housing need. The receipt of of of public benefits comes with public responsibilities. And it's our opinion that the secretariat's recommendation strikes a right balance. It asks housing providers to ensure that access to these new uh affordable housing units is rolled out lawfully. It's rolled out in compliance with the human rights code and that on-ramps to affordable housing be aligned with the city's action plan on housing and the housing charter. Having the approval of council will ensure that the principles at the heart and and the policy ration at the heart of the city's housing policy are not compromised. And just to wrap up, that brings us a little bit closer to our goal of creating communities that are resilient, diverse, and vibrant, and where everyone has a fair chance at a safe and affordable place to live. Thank you. Thank you so much. Are there any questions? No. Seeing none, thank you for your advice today. Uh, the next deputent I have is Mason Fitzpat Fitzpatrick. No, Mason's not with us. Okay. Uh, Yang Cheng. Yes. Welcome. I need to talk my evction is wrong case. I am a disability person and a senior person. I live before is 6168 John Street. Unit is 525. In their first RTB in 2022 give result is Toronto Senior Housing pay me one month's rent fee and application fee. But after that my social work did I temperature leave shle then did the landlord fix my unit cockroach and mouse hole but after that I leave shadow is 2 years and 10 months but then the law give me in my unit lotus. I can show they not is fix and clear my unit but later the eye I evaction. My all personal sins all is as garbage is gone. This is very wrong evaction. I appe is some parallegal and lawyer want to volunteer help me for appeal but later only said is a delay not allowed this so I require you I can prepare Toronto s to government is help me check this two record first is 20 uh 22nd September for my old building is a new inspection this record and uh second day is 2023 for May for a new uh uh uh inspection. I war got is first one naval you can check this but I d for evaction so I don't know this evictionction correct were not correct because that time 2022nd October to 2023rd uh February all public library is closed. So that time have uh uh 2000 uh November 2022 RTB result said I need the eviction but my lawyer before lawyer is quit job is leave Toronto or Canada. So this information I don't reserved 20 uh November 24th 2022 I not received any eviction documents but uh December my men doctor social work meet me said maybe you need uh move out. So I soon sit in my lawyer office outside 4 hours but inside uh office law office one two three Edward 505 office manager is call 4 hours not can find my eviction documents. So close is uh Christmas no uh new year. So this is not any documents show me but later said I I talk said is volunteer parallegal first for a 2024 April and another lawyer in uh 2024 June want to help me for a appeal but later this is said appeal time is passed. So this what reason because before LTB need to pay me one month and the application fee. Thank you. You're at time now. So thank you very much for your deputation. Are there any questions for you? No. Thank you for coming and sharing that with us today. Okay members, uh we'll reconvene at 1:30. Awesome. I think he is is are you sending are you sending are Councelor Myers, just wanted to do a mic check and check out your video as well. Uh, can you hear me? Uh, we can't hear you in the room. If you could check your audio connections, please. Jamal, sit and sit. Councelor Myers, can we do an audio check with you? Uh, your video is working fine, but uh, no, we're still not getting audio. I think you need to unmute yourself. You should be able to hear me. I'm speaking through my phone now. We can hear you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. questions about heard the text. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Uh we have quorum. Call the meeting back to order. When we left, our heroes were considering item PH29.5, advancing the city's affordable housing system, access system, and we had finished deputations. Are there any questions of staff? Yeah, if I councelor Nunzi. Yeah, if I can just ask staff to give us a brief presentation on uh on the item, please. Just a brief verbal overview of the changes. Sure. Thank you for the question, counselor, and through the chair. Um, currently, um, affordable housing projects within the city of Toronto are managed in a, uh, inconsistent, uncentralized, uh, manner with random draws, um, developed and executed by individual housing providers. Uh, this creates challenges and confusions for both applicants who are required to apply to a number of random draws with multiple applications. It's administratively burdensome for housing providers um and lacks um the necessary oversight on a data perspective from the city of Toronto. As we look to grow the supply of affordable rental homes in the city and our incentive programs, we need the infrastructure to allow Toronto to access those homes in a more readily transparent um and effective way. And so with the recommendations in the report, we hope to hope to evolve to the future state in a in a phased manner that builds on the modernization that has already occurred um in the access to housing team with the RGI waiting list. So going forward, residents would have a one window access to apply for housing that's right for them. That's both rented to income and affordable with one application. applications and program eligibility and the random draws will be administered centrally by the city of Toronto. Landlords will continue as is the current practice to complete landlord screening and make housing offers and requests for targeted allocations will be approved in a more consistent and transparent manner. So those councelor are the um a summary of the the major changes outlined in the report. Um so some of the communications that we've received they're um requesting that there be um to further consultation with the land trust community. Um so what are your um thoughts on that on moving forward on an amendment that we actually do that? So, we've been consulting on the access system for over two years, closing on three years. Uh, we've hosted um ongoing sessions with the stakeholder community, both developers and housing providers. We've gained insight uh better understanding of the concerns and issues. Uh, and we've incorporated um those considerations into the plan that's before you. As is with all our processes, this there's needs to be a continuous improvement and process improvement loop. So we'll continue those engagements and we're happy to do so now on the implementation uh as we progress towards it. There are a few of the consistent items that have been outlined in those letters um are highlighted in the report um and I think are fairly straightforward. Uh one of the concerns is the um advent of a new eligibility requirement related to minimum income. um that does not currently exist and we see the inclusion of of a minimum income as reducing the pool of applicants who who can't afford to be there which burdensomes the housing provider uh our administration uh and doesn't create a clear path for those individuals to be housed. So, we're hoping to reduce the pool to ensure that the um upsets in terms of what we've seen on the access system in terms of the speed, the efficiency and effectiveness of delivering housing and getting uh individuals into units faster um will be enhanced and improved through the system. Uh the second issue is the um number of the letters have indicated that they would prefer that the director of the housing secretariat be uh delegated full control on um uh priority allocations for for populations uh developers wish to uh include in their development. Um and and that's problematic on a couple fashions. So um two quick points. the this the city of Toronto has both a housing to action plan and a charter um that seeks to advance the progressive realization of the right to housing. Um and we have existing targets for those groups that have a demonstrated uh barrier to achieving housing. Um and those groups are outlined in the housing to plan. Um for other targeted allocations, there could be very valid reasons to do so. But in effect, when you target an allocation to one group, you you disadvantage people who aren't in that group. There may well be uh appropriate times to do that, but this report u puts that onus back on council um to ensure that they can make uh the best decision for um a very limited supply of affordable housing for which the um demand far outstrips the supply. Thank you. Thank you. Uh members, councelor Fletcher has asked uh uh if she can have questions. All good. Yeah, councelor Fletcher. Thank you. just the um when we first started uh looking at how to populate affordable housing, I think you received a direction from city council, you were interested in uh and that was to create a weight list and you were to work to create a weight list and then figure out how much would come from the weight list, how much would come from the draw. Do you recall that or were you in perhaps you weren't in that position at that time? No, I recall that counselor. Yes. So that was city council direction was it not? Correct. And so you're shifting that correct? We are shifting that um based primarily on feedback from again the development community and those stakeholder groups um two primary issues. So so I hear you but I'm just establishing Yep. Okay. I can I can confirm that counselor that's there. And is that very clear in the report that you're changing the direction that you were given on populating affordable housing again through the chair. Yes, counselor. That's very clear that you've made a decision different than what we have. That's a recommendation in the report, counselor. And um so did you have a consultation with Wigwam one-on-one? Uh Wigwam uh I had a conversation with the the ED. We did bring the um framework in an early iteration to TCAP which is the organization we work with for the indigenous community. Um the recommendations what's the name of it? I'm sorry. TCAP Toronto indigenous community advisory body. Yes, but it the provider directly with Guam. Did you have a one-on-one with them because we we didn't we did not. So, um, did you have a one-on-one with the housing co-op housing federation? Yes. Okay. Uh, I just probably go through another list there. Um, okay. Thank you. Those are my questions. You're welcome. Thank you, counselor. Any other questions? Um, I got a couple. I Oh, coun councelor Myers, you go ahead. I can't hear you. Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Uh, you're gone again. Can you hear me? Yeah. I don't know. You go in and out. I've got you now, but Nope. Nope. Hang on. I'll I'll I'll do my questions. Uh, I'll have someone from it contact you or clerks. Okay. Um, I've received some and I know other members of the committee and council have received some correspondence on this and there seems to be a number of areas of confusion. Uh, first um we still have a waiting list for rent geared to income housing. This report does not change that fact. Correct. Correct. You are implementing however some improvements in that to make it clearer uh when people drop off or don't want to be on the list anymore so that it's managed more effectively. That work is ongoing. That's correct. Council. Okay. In terms of um uh this idea of there being some set aides uh for groups and some of that where it's in line with our housing charter and our housing action plan. You have authority to do that work. Correct. We are not establishing that uh in any building that that be the only form of housing and that that you are going to be right across the system excluding people who aren't on that list. That's correct. The report recommends that if we are prioritizing groups outside of established council policy that we have council opine on that. No, I'm asking a different question. So, so, uh, I have I have an a the Parkdale Hub. A certain percentage of units are being set aside, but not all the affordable are being set aside for priority groups. Correct. Right. So, so if I'm not in the priority groups, I'm still going to be eligible for lots and lots of lotteryies to get into the affordable housing system the city of Toronto is building. That's correct. Okay. Um, and part of why we're not doing a weight list for the affordable housing portion, not the RGI portion, the affordable housing portion, is that the demand is so great that uh, you know, h tens, hundreds of thousands of people would would get a number that would basically make them say, well, this is not going to happen in my lifetime. That's correct. Council, I would also add to one of the changes from the original direction in 2022 was the advent of the Toronto Builds uh framework that came out in June of 2025. Um we recognize and we've heard council's desire to make sure there are mixed income communities. Um and subject to budget approval, 20% of all affordable housing will be dedicated to rent geared to income. So there will be pathways for deeply affordable units into those affordable housing projects as well. One of the pressures that we've had in terms of uh reviewing how we manage uh who gets into the affordable not the RGI the affordable units. Uh there was actually an investigation that found problems when it was developerled. Can you tell me a little bit about that? Um don't know if I recall the specific case you referenced in counselor. Okay. There there was a an auditor general's report on the issue of uh was this uh yeah I would I would be guessing counselor but I'd be happy to uh get that answer for you at a later date. I'll speak to it. Um and and fundamentally uh fundamentally the issue here is that with the size of contribution we've got from the federal government, the very near absence of the provincial government and the limits that uh we have imposed on us about our debt ceiling and other limits on the cities. We simply cannot uh build fast enough to to meet everyone's needs. Is that fair? Yeah, that's fair. I think you're sitting beside a gentleman who's laser laser focused on trying to do that from a DGS perspective and a whole of city of Toronto approach. But uh we are having trouble keeping pace with the demand uh and the affordability challenges for for many Torononians which makes the supply of affordable housing a scarce resource. when we are um laser focused on growing but uh at present one which the demand far outstrips the supply. Okay. Thank you. How are you doing there councelor Myers? Are you hooked up? Uh yeah. Can you hear me now? Yes, I can. Go ahead. Okay. Thank you very much. Uh through you chair. So I just want to so I just want to clarify something in my own mind. Currently there is no wait list for affordable housing. There is a wait list for RGI. That that's correct, counselor. Okay. And the people that are currently on the RGI weight list, not all some of them would not be or some of them would not be able to afford a um affordable housing um unit. Does that mean all of the people on the RGI weight list would not be able to afford an affordable housing unit? Well, two pieces to that question, counselor. So the the the majority of individuals on the wait list if we look at an average um uh affordable rent would not have the income required to to meet the the base uh rent. Um there there would be some who have enough income to meet the rent. Um whether they would um pass secondary screening by uh landlords of those affordable housing questions would be uh subject to their evaluation of their income, their landlord references and credit checks. Do you know what percentage roughly of RGI weight listed um Torononians would be eligible to um potentially afford an affordable housing unit? Stand by. I've got a lot of um smart people about to feed me that information. Just give me one second, counselor. Okay. And then I guess in the meantime, do you have a do was there any consideration as to um making the I guess the secondary screening more standardized as well in this process instead of sort of leaving it to each individual affordable housing provider. Yeah, standardized um assessments from a city perspective is problematic. So um housing providers um are um owners of the property and and they are accountable as landlords for um the requirements under the residential tenencies act. Uh that is not under the purview of the city of Toronto and rest with the housing providers. So there's a delineation between program eligibility in this perspective um and and the landlord's ability to ensure that uh people will be able to pay rent and meet their obligations as a tenant. Thank you. And does this so just to confirm does the city have any role in the secondary screening process or is that all regulated by the province? That is all regulated by the province. Um we will be requesting for individuals who aren't met screening for those housing providers to um indicate the the rationale for not doing so so that we have uh an aggregate data set that can provide more information on how the system is functioning uh and could inform future improvements. Thank you. And I I just picking up where councelor Fletcher left off regarding the uh the letter from Wigwamin. I you know it's right on the border of my ward in Malvin. Um is there a reason that they were not consulted once the recommendations were ready or sort of finalized and how was their feedback incorporated into this into your recommendations? So, so again counselor, we we sought engagement through TCAP uh of which Wigwam is a member. Um the indigenous community primarily houses individuals who require deeply affordable rents. Um and there is um there is an um like generally speaking um all of our work with um Wigwamin is for um you know 40% average market rent or rare rent geared to income. Um, so, uh, we could have improved that and and connected back, but I did speak with the CEO and and he advised while they don't have a direct implication on the system, uh, they are referral partners for some of those affordable housing providers, um, and would have liked, as the letter expressed, um, to have, um, uh, more direct consultation. So um there are three requests in the letter from Wigwaman to the city and uh we intend to follow up uh with Wigwaman directly on those recommendations to to confirm the answers to those questions um and um to um take up that engagement. Thank you. And just one final question. Um sort of looking through the groups um in terms of groups that uh wouldn't require council approval to have units set aside for them. And one group that I noticed was absent was veterans. Um, and I'm just cognizant of the fact that I think uh back in November we had passed something uh regarding uh making more affordable units for veterans uh or trying to work with the Department of Defense or Canadian Legion Hall to see if there were opportunities to um make uh more affordable housing units for uh members of the uh the veteran community. So just curious as to why veterans are not part of that group and to confirm that nothing that them not being part of that group would exclude would stop any of that work from proceeding. Great question counselor and and so we do a lot of work with our partners in in Toronto shelter support services um with some veteran specific programs. Um typically there's an overlap with veterans and uh homelessness uh of which they are a priority group. Um, but you're right there. Just because they're not in the housing to plan uh doesn't prohibit the city um in in in in due course and with good intent on partnering with it. It just would require council direction. Um it's a that's a very good example of one of the areas where um council would opine and again based on that council direction uh we would proceed. So um this doesn't take away that ability. What it what it does do um counselors is quite frankly restrict my authority to do so on my own. Thank you. Um if no one objects I have a a second round. Yeah. Just just on that point, uh nothing in what we're doing here prevents the federal government uh from buying or or converting a piece of land they already own for former employees of the federal government who were veterans. The armed forces are fed funded by the federal government. Nothing in what we're doing prevents them from housing veterans. That's correct, counselor. Thank you. Okay. Uh, does anyone wish to speak to the item? I think councelor Councelor Fletcher, did you want to speak? Yes. Uh I I'll just say that um I don't I am very unhappy that a council direction that was quite clear and came actually from the chair of the previous planning and housing in discussions with staff um or discussions at council has been just simply set aside. um and that there was a principle there of a 50 at least a 50/50. Keep a wait list, have a draw. That is very concerning to me. The other piece that I think is concerning and I'm sorry I haven't had my whole briefing and I will have it between now and council is just the notion of sector housing which is quite a strong notion. One I first learned about in um England when we did a trip with to look at affordable housing and revitalizations back a number of years ago and the importance of sector housing in creating affordable housing for people that are being pushed out main sectors in the economy and I still think that that's a pretty important tenant. I do have made a number of motions there. I have had housing built in that way and I understand the direction that the staff are going in, but I don't think it meets the wholesome discussions that we've had before. And I'd like to make sure that when we finally land on this that we're all able to agree the um I don't know how long we've been tinkering with the access to housing and trying to make sure as Mr. Rollins knows because I've had many meetings that the new system actually allows everybody to participate because if you're not digital, if you're senior, there's a lot of barriers. So, I would rather make sure that this is right rather than end up trying to fix everything at the end of the day. And I don't want to ask how many times we went through to say go back out, do this, do that. Um, but it was many, many, many times. So, I'll leave it at that, Mr. Chair, and I will take a further look at this and have a wholesome briefing before the council. Thank you. Uh, Councelor Nunata. Yes. Um, I have an amendment and I did speak to staff about it. I'll put it on the screen. um that city council direct executive director of housing secretariat to continue engaging stakeholders including not for-profit housing providers including one-on-one engagement to inform implementation of the new affordable housing access system. Um, so I'm moving that amendment and uh cuz we have received a number of communications on it and uh I and the staff do agree and and they are in full support of my amendment um that there needs to be further um engagements and one-on-one and and to all the nonprofit uh providers. So that's my amendment. Thank you. Any questions? the mover. Councelor Myers, was that a question of the mover or did you wish to speak? You wish to speak? No. Okay. Um, I have a motion as well, so I'll speak to it. Okay. I'm moving that the planning and housing committee request the executive director housing secretariat to report directly to the April 22 through 24 council meeting with a report outlining the current and proposed frameworks for the affordable access system including income eligibility requirements for affordable housing applicants and requests for targeted allocation of affordable rental housing by housing providers. Uh very very simply put this is uh a complex system with multiple streams. We have the rent geared to income stream which is weight listed. We have uh an affordable housing component uh which is frankly something that uh we stopped doing for an entire generation. And you know as the as the saying goes we're having to build the airplane while it's in flight in flight. Uh this is uh putting wings on the airplane, if you will. Uh and and we've had problems. Um a senior executive at a city of Toronto agency had to resign from his job because of allegations of interference in the allocation of units uh when John Tory was mayor. Uh so it's important that we establish a fully transparent and accountable system and uh you know I I hear the the comments that councelor Fletcher has made and I'm hoping that this report will will provide some more information to help us all understand uh why staff advice is the way it is and and how it's impacting people's access to housing. But the fundamental problem is that, you know, we lost 40 years of uh contribution to social housing from the federal and provincial government. And we're now dramatically behind. And like all scarcity scenarios, uh it's putting desperate people in conflict with each other. And we have to make sure that wherever public money is being spent that it's being spent in a way that conforms with uh basic legal rights that people have in accessing housing and the laws that protect uh protected groups in our constitution to make sure they're not being squeezed out of housing. And I'll be honest with you, I have seen developers come in and try to make sure that only good affordable housing tenants come into their building and that's just appalling. And that's why we need clarity in this system. And uh I I believe the balance that uh uh city staff are proposing for us is the right balance, but I want to make sure that all the information is out and in public before we vote on it at council so that uh we've all done our due diligence. Any other just a point of order? Yes. The units you're speaking about were lost uh when before we had a housing secretariat or a housing affordable housing office. They'd been secured through planning, but nobody really knew about them. So, I want to be very clear in your allegation that somebody was let go for X and Y. Uh some of the background I think we should be very careful. That's not really a point of order. Well, it's not I'm sorry. You don't have the floor, counselor. You don't have the floor. You don't have the floor. I think you should be careful. You don't have the floor. You don't have the floor. I just had it. Thank you. Um, okay. So, why don't we take uh the two amendments and uh the item as a package? All those in favor? Opposed? That carries. All right. Uh I think that leaves us with one item. Okay. Impact assessment of extended flight path to Billy Bishop Airport. We have deputents. First is Ed Good afternoon, Ed. I'm chair. Sir, sorry. Is that better? Uh I am a lawyer. I'm chair of Waterfront for All uh which is an umbrella group of resident associations and other groups uh interested in the waterfront. Uh I support councelor Matlo's motion calling for staff to study the prospective impact of uh the flight pass if uh the runways at Billy Bishop Airport are expanded. Uh but I'm here to say that uh uh expansion of the island airport to accommodate jets may also have many other perspective impacts on this city on Toronto Harbor or on the waterfront and the scale and scope of those impacts may be far wider than is widely understood. I want to draw two documents to the attention uh of the committee uh both uh of which set out potential implications of expanding the island airport for jets. And I think the important thing is that both were prepared by expert consulting firms and neither one necessarily h is is familiar uh to councilors and to people at the city government as far as I know. One of them is the Oliver Wyman. It's a presentation here. I've asked uh Miss Lee to give you hard copies just because I myself find it easier to read things when they're in a hard copy. Uh and what it is is it's a presentation that was done. It was shown to me actually and circulated I'm not quite sure where. I don't know if it went to the city but it um it is a presentation done by Oliver Wyman which is an aviation aerospace and defense consulting company a subsidiary of Martian Mlennon and they were consultants to Air Canada and what they said is they looked at the uh the operations the the idea that there would be jets at Billy Bishop and they said a number of things and I would commend you all this document to uh to read it over. They said a number of things. First of all, they said that there would be key regulatory changes in the relevant aeronautical uh regulations which meant that the buildout at Billy Bishop would be far larger than was normally appreciated. There would be a longer and a wider runway which would be moved to the south. That would probably eliminate the the Handland Point Ferry. Uh there would have to be a much larger terminal. The terminal now we're discussing would be even larger because we're talking about 10 million people, not just 5 million. You'd have to move hangers. There would have to be runaway approach lighting, which would be lighting way out into the harbor and uh on the Humber side about 700 m as I understand it. Uh the marine exclusion zone, which Porter Airlines at the time said would be, you know, about the same would be much larger according to these consultants. and they said that the cost they estimated it in 2015 as about $1 billion. Uh the presentation concluded the estimated cost of the runway extension along with the related infrastructure required could approach 1 billion. They concluded the economics of this infrastructure project are daunting and unprecedented. And they said essentially that the jet expansion plan was not feasible. They expressed doubts about the feasibility. we couldn't recover the cost of this from the airport improvement fees and they basically said it doesn't make sense because the ground footprint of the airport is simply too small to support that kind of expansion. It's something that I think is important for uh counselors and for people in our city to know about. Just know that there's a different set of experts that say something different from what Porter Airlines experts were saying and they're saying this is a much bigger deal than people appreciate. The other document that I want to bring you uh to your attention is an environmental assessment that just came out. This was done by Porter uh Toronto Port Authority itself. Uh and it said uh and it just came out in March. I think it was March 11th. It came out as a result of an FOI although was completed in 2017. It said there would have to be jet 20 foot high jet blast barriers. uh it found numerous uh bad uh socioeconomic effects of jets on the waterfront. It said that there would be adverse health effects which included environmental insomnia and sleep disturbance, hypertension and a schemic health disease. Uh they identified substances which would cause increased risk of respiratory illness, cardopulmonary and lung cancer, lesions and upper airways, nasal lesions, increased risk of developing respiratory tumors. I fully support uh the motion. I think we need to look into all of it. Uh and I just wanted to make sure you're aware of uh all of the ramifications in addition to the important question of the building heights. Thank you. You're at time. Uh any questions for the deputy? One question. Who are you representing again? I'm I'm uh it's a citizens group called Waterfront for All. So, we're we're just volunteers down on the waterfront. Councelor Matlo, um speaking of uh residents along the waterfront, uh before Premier Ford uh made his announcement uh that he intends to remove Toronto from the tripartite agreement uh remove our land uh and introduce uh jets to an expanded airport. Um, were there any consultation meetings or any efforts to talk with the communities about about this proposal? There were not. Uh, was uh was there any information provided uh to residents that you're aware of? Uh, whether it be the the the the benefits or the negative implications of moving forward with a plan to expand the airport. Aside from like, you know, generalities or or hyperbolic statements, was there any substance, any data, any real information provided to the public that you're aware of? There's no information as far as I know. There's a press release. That's all. Thank you very much. Any other questions? Okay. Go ahead. Just wanted to know about traffic studies because 2 million passengers to 10. Yeah, they're projecting 10 million. It's now 1.7. It's gone down. Close to that. Oh, I'm sorry. So there is a the the environmental assessment does have a an appendex that deals with that and says that's from Ports Toronto. That's Toronto Port Authorities's own environmental assessment of the proposal 10 years ago. Yeah. Says there's going to be all sorts of traffic impacts. Okay. It's a thousandpage long documents. Pretty thorough. Yeah. Not been updated. Okay. Thank you. Yep. Needs to be updated. Thank you. You okay? Thank you very much for your deputation. Uh Melanie Wilson. Hi Melanie. Welcome. Good afternoon through you chair. Um, I'm not being a uh policy expert by any means, but my understanding is that this expansion of Billy Bishop Airport sits within a shared governance system with legally binding tripartite agreements that can only be amended with unanimous consent. And even though it the provincial role seems to be evolving uh without much consultation uh from most people uh there are a number of protocols that have to happen. Also, although the port authority recently has appears to be open to the idea uh and there is lobbying going on at the federal level from the pro uh proponent, a formal proposal has not yet been brought forward and there is emerging uncertainty about the special economic zone legislation in Ontario which is currently subject to legal scrutiny. So, this reinforces that this proposal is far from a predetermined decision. Even if a runway extensions are contemplated, the airport's waterbound configuration would still present inherent overrun in water emergency risks, issues that are already being re remediated in 2024 2025 which led to the environmental assessment report uh following the environmental assessment reports as well that were just spoken of. U as and as this is as the runway currently stands. Therefore, introducing Jet aircraft would increase operational and emergency response demands. These directly impact public safety. As far as I understand, that is a um a fundamental legal constraint that cannot be overridden uh by development and economic objectives of a of a special economic zone. As highlighted by councelor Matt Low, Transport Action Ontario and the Atmospheric Fund commentaries, major changes to airport operations have implications for long-term waterfront planning choices, including housing, which um what we've been talking about today has just been fantastic. when we're talking about affordable housing and where that was positioned to be um at the waterfront. Um it also uh raises issues about land use flexibility, waterfront revitalization and significantly impact marine mobility as we've just heard plus emissions from a climate perspective which I seem to be a little bit more in tune with. Toronto is working towards net zero by 2030 20 240 commitments and aviation remains one of the hardest to abate sectors especially short hall flights where expansion increases this type of expansion would increase the long-term emissions. This proposal would increase the emissions from 64,000 currently to 300,000 tons. That's like adding 70,000 gas cars to our roads when at a time when Toronto wants emissions 65% less than they are now by 2030. Plus consider, as we've said, the traffic when the number of passengers go from 2 million to 10 million and the pollution pollution impact that will have as well as the tourism congestion just to get off the island. There is also an ecological consideration of the cumulative effects proposed changes such as the developments at Ontario Place and the electricity transmission infrastructure beneath Lake Ontario. With that in mind, I'm asking the committee uh with potentially in tangent with the infrastructure and environmental committee to consider the following actions. Municipally, if it's not yet already underway, is require a full independent impact assessment so that council is making decisions based on complete evidence across governance, housing, transportation, waterfront revitalization, environmental and health effects, and the cumulative pressures before any irreversible commitments are made external to the city council. uh confirm and enforce the city's existing approval authority under current agreements to safeguard that no significant operational or infrastructure changers can proceed without municipal consent and public process as should be by the tripartite mandate and require a formal housing uh assessment as councelor Matlo has motioned uh but not only aligned with Toronto's housing targets including affordable housing percentages but also with provincial and federal housing objectives Also, the waterfront redevelopment capacity and long-term employment outcomes, especially when we talk about youth unemployment reaching almost 25% in Ontario. as the provincial and federal levels as clarification and to get ahead of this potentially a little bit more. the mayor and city manager could formally request a formal tripartite working group right now uh with the other two parties so that cumulative impacts including public safety are assessed collaboratively with the city formally present in that process and if needed written confirmation from them regarding approval pathways consultation requirements environmental and safety review obligations for any proposed operational in infrastructure changes almost finished these are to ensure are structured, documented, and transparent measures across current governing partners in contrast to what appears to have happened at the provincial level. Thankfully, the federal government just released a statement saying such decisions will also involve comprehensive consultations with key stakeholders, affected communities, and indigenous groups. This remains a moment when acting now is really important before any changes to government structures potentially narrow the city's ability to outcomes. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions for the deput? Yep. Councelor Fletcher. Uh, I'm really unclear because what the provincial government did was said they're taking the city's role. They're taking our land. They're taking our role in the tripartite agreements, right? There would be no role for us to be doing all of those studies that you'd like because we're out of the picture. Would you not agree with that? Uh, partially. I'm saying there's a window of opportunity right now to reassert because a lot of the things that the province is looking to do are going to take quite a considerable amount of time and they're also going to have to have agreement by the other two parties. Yes, I think would you not want to f I'm wondering if you've been in touch with your MP. Sorry, say that again. If you have been in touch with your member of parliament, uh I that's a bit challenging given the fact that they're a conservative MP. there's been often a lot no opportunity to speak with them perhaps other MPs because it really is uh it's up to the federal government to tell the provincial government that they won't be dealing with them right and I because they're taking our 20%. So to my mind would you not agree that if the federal government is a willing partner in the takeover that's a problem for the city? I have not yet heard the federal government say they're not a willing say that they are refusing to be a willing partner. Is that concerning to you? Uh it's concerning that there's some commentary around it, but I've also heard other commentary that um there's a lot of uh things to look at prior to that even being an agreement, which is my suggestion to see get about getting the city in with a federal meeting now um and seeing where that can be swayed, I guess. And then uh would you consider consultation? And one of the MPs said there'll be community consultation, but really it's city's land. We're in the tripartite agreement. It will be up to the federal MPs and the federal government to tell the province that they're not they're not proceeding with the province without the city. Would that be a reasonable position? Yeah, I would concur. I would concur because except that I think the city has a small window to try and influence that. But I I concur. But you would have to agree that the federal government would have to agree to meet with the city. We can't impose a meeting on the federal government about the tripartite agreement. You can't impose one no more than they can impose one on you in that tripartite agreement, but currently the city still has a tripartite agreement. The province has not yet taken that over. Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Matlo. There are there are some who uh suggest that the city should have play no role in even doing what I'm asking uh today. Would you agree that and I think to some of the points that I heard you say that if we are presenting uh an argument or at least wanting to put out facts onto the table to have a more informed conversation with both our provincial and federal counterparts that if they're not doing that research if Premier Ford is making announcements but not actually doing the due diligence to understand for example the impacts on housing supply along with traffic and other matters that if we have the opportunity and the ability to do some of that work to present those facts to put it on the table along with engaging the public in that conversation is it not a window of opportunity now to do that rather than wait till after the fact perhaps even until we're removed from the tripartite agreement altogether um yes that um that's specifically what I'm suggesting is that um as much as it's a lot of work that potentially may or may not go anywhere um by very experienced Jaffers to use this window of opportunity right now while you're part still of that tripartite before there's a move on that is where you can possibly have the most influence. Thank you. And and to get all those facts on the table, particularly to the federal government. Thank you. That's all. Yep. Okay, that's all the questions for you. Thank you so much for sharing that with us today. Uh Nicole Curado. Hello. Yes. My concern is that my concern is about how wildlife is going to be impacted by the airport. Not only will it, you know, involve the expansion of the airport involve destruction of wildlife habitat, it will also, the other problem is it will airports have wildlife control programs and these are federally mandated yet the law does not say how the animals are are managed. So, you know, they could they can manage animals in literally whatever way they want, you know, and they could manage theoretically they could manage wildlife in very humane, non-lethal, but unfortunately Nicole, it's it's counselors. Nicole, I'm going to ask you to focus your comments specifically to the airport. uh committee has a lot of work to do today and and uh I ask you to really focus in on what what's in front of us. Okay. Okay. So this is about the expansion of the Billy Bishop airport from a health point of view. From a health point of view well it's going to affect health absolutely because there's going to be a lot of a lot more pollution. There will be a lot both air pollution but also a lot of noise pollution. It's going to bother people's. Yes, there's going to be a lot of noise pollution and you know people don't want to have but plus also a lot of nature will be destroyed which will affect people's mental health as well but also the animals you know being affected you know the animals will being you know a lot of the airports manage animals in in you know basically by shooting them and trapping them. And that's that's really that affects people's mental health, but it also affects physical health because, you know, the animals, you know, they they they they don't want them colliding with the planes. But people managed in very cruel and harmful ways. But yes, to get back to the health aspect, it an airport expansion, having jet planes is going to be very noisy and and a lot of air pollution and it it'll it'll disturb that'll disturb humans. It'll disturb animals. It'll it'll disturb everybody. It's it's not a Thank you so much, Nicole. That's been very helpful. Are there any questions of Nicole? One question. Nicole, do you live near the Billy Bishop airport? No, but I I actually I used to live in Toronto, but now I But where do you live now? Do you live near the airport? Actually, no. I live in I live in in the West Island, but I So that's Nuni has got her answer. Are there any other questions? No. Nicole, thank you very much. The next deputent I have is uh Miguel Aia Valarde. Miguel, I understand you're online. Yes, that's correct. Go ahead. All right. Um I just want to say that I agree with um councelor Matlaw to do whatever is necessary um legally to fight back attempt to take over um uh the the Bishop airport. I live near the islands. I live in Toronto center. Um I understand this will create a lot of noise pollution. uh it will it will create problems for our housing uh plans for the poor lands. So I want to join my boys of protest against this attempt to take over uh our uh airport which um planes that are going to create um turmoil and more noise to to the city uh downtown. Um so whatever you guys uh will have to do it has my support and let's hope that this we can win this battle against uh Dport and the province has um and the federal government also needs to understand resident of Toronto that they need to be consulted. I will be talking to my member of parliament Ian Solomon very soon to let him know that he he needs to uh listen to residents of Toronto center and he must oppose this um extension of the airport accommodate large jet planes that will create chaos in our city which is not what we want. As a longtime resident, I enjoy going to the islands and enjoying the peace and quietness. You know, those turbo planes that go by, they don't create a lot of noises or difficult to life. So, keeping the turbo planes in the island is the way to go. And I oppose to the any expansion that would dist destro disturve the peace in our in in in our communities especially those living in the islands who I'm has a lot of friends and they know that dog for does for has no respect for them. They call him squatterers but he's he's the biggest squatter by the way. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions for Miguel? Seeing none. Miguel, thank you for your deputation. Uh final deputent I have listed is Norm D Pasqualer. Sorry I'm going to have another one after Norm. But Norm, there you are. Uh go ahead. Thank you very much councelor Perks and members of the committee. I'm Norm Dasquali, chair of No Jets TTO. Uh, no Jets TTO is a grassroots organization dedicated to preserving the mixeduse vision for our waterfront and a regional island airport without jets. As we renew this fight to save our waterfront, I hearken back to 2014 when we were raising alarm bells on the impact on the Portland's development that jets and their required safety areas would have. We highlighted a Transport Action Ontario report that raised these risks back then. And since then, the Toronto Port Authority completed a jet environmental assessment in 2016 that was only released this year. Both reports highlighted the risks then. And what has changed since is that some of the buildings in Aquaman Mining have grown to over 50 stories and many buildings there gained height. Appropriately, we think as we find ourselves in the throws of a housing crisis. We view Aquaman Mining as a future of our city and as a great opportunity to help solve our housing crisis with the tens of thousands of units planned there and the thousands of affordable housing units that may no longer pencil if buildings need to become dramatically shorter due to Nav Canada mandated jet safety areas. I wonder if any of the plan signature parkland would even pencil if the buildings in Aquaman mining no longer pencil. No jets to supports councelor Matlo's motion for a study on jet house jet safety areas might impact housing and encourages all members of the planning and housing committee to support the motion as well. Nojto also supports the urgent nature of getting this report back as things may move quickly around the jet proposal particularly with the nonchalant response from premier Ford about uh the impact on aquim menacing housing impact. This is an urgent issue. No Jets TTO believes in getting all the facts on the table before making a decision on jets. This is critical to the future of our revitalized waterfront. Thank you and I'm available to answer any questions. Thank you. Are there any questions for Norm? No. Norm as always, thank you for your advice. Um I do have one more deputent Ron Jenkins. Hi Ron. There you go. Feel like I'm at a Grateful Dead concert. It's been a while. This is what it will feel like to live near the airport. Turn your microphone on, please. Tap your microphone so it's green. There we are. Okay. Okay. So, this is the current airport and um and the the space that it takes because of course when we talk about an airport, we're talking about much more than what's on the ground. And the current airport, like it or not, already constrains building heights in the Portland lands. Um nobody has tried to build a CN tower there, but if you did, you could would not be allowed to. Um so it's operating under a regulation called TP312 and the version of TP312 is the important thing. TP312 is in its fifth edition but the airport is using the fourth edition. The fourth edition um dates from 1993. The fifth edition dates from 2015. Um the Porter airport's proposal was introduced under the fourth edition because the fifth edition hadn't happened and so all of the environmental assessment work and so on relates to the fourth edition. However, the Oliver Wyman report that uh Ed Horn mentioned uh describes the fifth edition and the differences are significant because they relate to airspace and the impact that it will have on the port lands and see if I can just jump you to the next slide. Never mind. Let me just go verbally here. So, um, basically the fifth edition is more restrictive in its airspace use, and it's essentially like taking a lawn mower and lowering the the the platform, cutting deeper down, and that affects building heights. And really um what we need to understand and I think councelor Matlo's um motion is is to the point um it's about economics. It's about what value that building represents in various scenarios. So how much that land can be built out under the fourth edition and how much it can be built out under the fifth fifth edition vary greatly. And um the city needs to get if if possible a picture of what loss would be um represented by reduced building heights um reduced ability to develop land that already billions has been put into and so on. The provincial government's explanation for this project is really um economic. They say that this airport, if expanded, would generate multiple billions or trillions or quadrillions of dollars. There's no nothing to support any of those numbers. He's he's, as far as I can tell, pulled them out of um anyway, um he's pulled them thin air. Thin air. That's Yes. Um, so, so I think what's important is to to say, okay, what are what are some real numbers? What do the port lands represent in terms of sunk cost already and in terms of opportunity cost that would be lost if um if that building could not happen? How would a developer assess the value of building there if they knew that they were in the flight path of aircraft passing a couple of hundred feet overhead? Um we've modeled at waterfront to0 or waterfront for all, sorry. um certain certain airspace heights and and you see very quickly um how they um impinge on building heights and uh of course much of the Portland's project has not been defined but neither has um the air airport expansion. So, it's kind of two theoretical things, but we do know for sure what the airspace shapes are. They're defined in these aeronautical regulations and they can be drawn and they can be seen and um they can be as a result their estimation uh their impact can be estimated. Any questions? Thank you. Are there any questions of the deput? Yep. I'm just about the traffic because these there's nothing built there yet, but there is only one road off the airport. Uh what kind of work are you doing on that conundrum of 8 million more passengers that um the the press release talked about a 10 million passenger airport which is um inconceivable actually in terms of transit to the airport in terms of parking and in terms of many other impacts. I I think that the city would need to expropriate, you know, that section of the city, Little Norway Park, and so on, and turn that into parking because there is no other way to get that number of people to the airport. 10 million people is is 27,000 people a day, which is, you know, a Scotia Plaza and a half a day. And of course those people would be going through that tunnel in the morning and in the evening and not through the evening through not through the night not I mean it would be the more you think about it the more ridiculous it gets. Yes. So what kind of work are you doing on that from waterfront which is I understand the portlands because we haven't modeled any but I'm interested in what your plans are for that because that's quite real. Yeah. And the uh buildings are still being designed on the other side in my ward. Yeah, we haven't modeled any transit alternatives. Well, let's call them transportation because transit technically transit transportation alternatives which would really have to be transit. I think you would have to be putting in um some kind of an LRT. the e the waterfront east LRT is projected to carry in operation up to 50,000 passengers a day. Um you would need something similar going to the west and um that would really only be capturing people ready to take that mode of transportation instead of cars. So you haven't really done any of that yet? We haven't. I mean, do you not think that's an important thing for people to understand in the city that we already have congestion on Lake Shore? How difficult that would be to get across the south part of the city? But yes, um I don't think that Doug Ford is considering traffic impacts generally. That is when he talks about the spa or the convention center or the airport, right? Um, all of those things are loaded onto an already pretty fickle transit area or transportation infrastructure along Lakeshore Boulevard and past the exhibition placements, which could be the Achilles heel of this particular project, could it not? It would certainly be a problem if it came to be. Yeah. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay, I think we're good. Thank you so much for your deputation. Okay, thank you. That completes the deputations. Is there any questions of staff? Guess I'll just ask on the transportation matters because I think that uh and I'm that there is the transportation study that was associated with Ports Toronto or Toronto Port Authority initial um environmental assessment. I' like you to just comment on that and whether or not there have been significant changes that would need to be looked at if we were to look at 2026 as compared to 2015 through the chair. That's something that would need to be modeled based on the average number of hourly passengers and number of flights per day. And that also would be based on the changes if any to the runway or aircraft proposed. Sorry, it's just hard to hear you. That would be a piece of work that staff would have to undertake once the any changes to the runway or permitted aircraft are proposed and then also that which would affect the number of daily passengers coming through the airport. Well, if we if we had that information, then we could advance to model the impact of the nature of congestion uh at Billy Bishop. So, there are currently 2 million passengers apparently coming through Billy Bishop. Yes. Give or take. That's true. Give or take. So, you could easily we would know what that looks like with people coming on and off up uh Baurst to Queens K or up to Lake Shore. Would we not know that already? um through the chair. I have to review exactly what we have in hand, but we also have council direction to look at Bath's Key in um in relation to Billy Bishop Airport to understand the flow of passengers and hourly impact of people arriving departing the terminal. And when is that due to come back? You're you say you have the direction to look at that. When are you planning to bring that back through the chair? That's work that um the transportation planning team is currently undertaking and um we can confirm prior to council what the report back date is for that what the date would be because this is now asked for the end of Q2 to get this other information. Would you anticipate it would be in Q2 because we don't really have a Q3 um with council's direction to undertake a more comprehensive report. we could bring forward the information we have. And um for your patience, thank you. I've just been informed that the transportation study is to come forward in Q2 of 2027. 2027. So we'll have nothing ahead of that, not even a a napkin to match the napkin plan that's in front of us. With council's direction, we would look to expedite the amount of analysis that we could reasonably undertake in the short period of time between now and the end of Q2. Well, you could report to us on the 2015 transportation study that was undertaken by Ports Toronto, correct? Yes, we could do an assessment of that. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions of staff? No. Seeing none uh to speak, councelor Fletcher is the visiting councel. Thank you. Uh and thank you councelor Matlo for highlighting some of the issues with the proposed expansion of Billy Bishop airport on the up and cominging development sites on the Portland lands and we've heard a whole number of things whether or not that's in the flight path whether Oakman Mining is in the flight path is mccclary in the flight path is south river in the flight path so that'll be helpful to understand that and that impact on future housing it's also O going to be good to understand just the impact of that level of flights on the waterfronts itself because while we're talking about housing we're also talking about a dominant a dominant use. When something becomes dominant then everything else is falls into trouble. And the dominant use of the airport uh as a dominant use on our waterfront was actually put aside when we looked at the last time we made changes in order to make safe landings because of course it's under the department of transport everything that happens there um on the water and on the air on the air strip. So it's good to have as much information as possible. What I really am hoping is that all of the resident groups that are very passionate about this find their way to getting a uh a commitment from the federal government and from the MPs that they are not interested in negotiating with usurped land with usurped city positions. There is a usurping going on here of the provincial government saying we're taking the city's role. we're creating special economic zone, whatever they'd like to do once they take your land. But that there are there are partners there and I think it's very much incumbent on the federal government to say slow down. We are not going to just have a tripart agreement with you. We have to look at all of the things that are being brought forward by the community and by the city. So that is the first thing that if anything I think that's what's missing here and I know it's very easy to come here because you can come here and make a fiveminut deputation and talk to us as many times as you'd like as long as we have a letter on there. Very hard actually to speak directly to the federal government but we all have MPs. Uh they're all there. They're usually there Friday and they need to know exactly what the public thinks. Whether you love the airport, whether you hate the airport, whether you think it's the right size, whether you don't think it's the right size, the fact is that a government has said, "We're taking the city's role and we're taking it over. We're usurping it." And another government has not yet said, "Well, we're not going to negotiate with you in the tripartite agreement." Our partner there is the city. Let's slow down and have that conversation. The other one that I'm very happy to hear, we can probably, and I'll do that at council, make sure that we have clearly in front of us a quick analysis of what was found in the 2015 traffic study. The I don't know who's who goes on the lake shore. I think you do, councelor Nuni. I'm surely there quite a bit, but it's hellish to start with thinking about adding that many passengers. That would be something else. Perhaps we just need to bring in a a firm if we're really busy, one of the ones that does all the development work and for developers to tell us how great everything's going to be in our developments and there'll be no traffic impact to say going from 2 million to 10 million. Can you please give us a few thoughts about how easy that's going to be? because at the moment there is not a complete understanding by the public of that impact on the waterfront and they often think that it's just people that hate the airport. Many of us fly out of the airport. Uh it's works, but whether or not it would work at five times the volume and as you pointed out with your map, how far into the lake the uh runway has to go is a whole other matter. There's also federal issues around water, marine life, and everything else that haven't been looked at. So, I do hope that we're campaigning as strongly with the federal representatives and ex getting them to be very exacting in what they're prepared to do or not prepared to do around this file. Thank you, councelor Matlo. So, I I appreciate the words of my colleague and um and and thank you, Councelor Fletcher, for the I've seen you do community meetings as well, and you're doing something that the provincial government never did, which is to ask residents their thoughts. Um the uh the letter that I put before you is focusing on on the impacts on housing supply and our ability to provide both a new neighborhood in the Portlands, but also affordable housing projects that may not be viable uh without uh the ability uh to build the buildings that uh that we would propose on those sites. uh the performers may not work. The reality is we don't know what we can do if uh uh there is a um a flight path that needs to be safe uh to accommodate jets over a new neighborhood. And one might ask, well, why is it our responsibility to find out? Well, we have a premier who unilaterally announced that he wants to remove our locally elected government from a binding tripartite agreement between three governments. That's not what partners do. He announced that he saw some poll uh that uh it's all going to be about economic development, but he never actually spelled out what that economic development opportunity might be. So, we don't know what that is. What we do know is that there is an economic development opportunity cost by not providing the housing supply, the construction that could happen in the new neighborhood in the Portland. We know we're in the midst of a housing crisis and we know that's an area where the city can grow. So I believe that we have a responsibility to put facts on the table where the provincial government has not provided any. If Doug Ford is not going to do his due diligence and as councelor Fletcher rightly pointed out, there's much more to this story. You know what about the traffic downtown that already is unacceptable? What about uh the enormous blast wall that will most likely have to be built in our lake? What about the massive runway expansion that would cost hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars at a time when there is a der of funds for so many other priorities. It's another one of these things sort of like his trillion dollar tunnel under the 401 where it's sort of announced but then it's clear that there hasn't been any thought put into it. And the announcement was made at an alarmingly quick rate. Like it it Doug Ford, I think, suggested that he'd like to have jets on the island and then all of a sudden announced that it's going to happen and Toronto's out of the triparty agreement and we're moving forward. And I just don't understand how any responsible leader could make such a big announcement with such enormous impacts and such huge consequences without doing even the basic amount of research and due diligence to understand what the consequences might be. And I agree that there are some people who don't want the the airport there at all. There are some people who love the airport, but a lot of people, I think, in Toronto like the fact that it's a small regional airport and the fact that now we have so many transit lines, including the UP Express and Line Five, that will get us over to Pearson. Um, there hasn't even been a reasonable argument to suggest why why Torononians would benefit from having a more Pearson-like airport on their waterfront. There are also concerns that have been raised about um when there are housing projects being proposed in the Portlands. How will even affect the ability to um to draw people to a neighborhood that all of a sudden has more air pollution, more noise pollution uh right above it and around it. These are the things that we need to consider. So, I look forward to receiving the facts from staff. Our professional staff will come forward with real information for the public and all of us to review. This is information that we can share with both the provincial government and our federal counterparts. And ultimately, whatever the future of the island airport and the waterfront might be, let it be done based on due diligence, based on responsible fact gathering, and really understanding the consequences of big decisions along with the costs to our quality of life, our finances, traffic, and beyond and housing supply rather than just having a premier announce that he's going to boot Toronto out of a triparted agreement, take our land, and do something for somebody, but maybe not the people of Ontario. Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak to the item? Nope. Seeing none on the item, all in favor? Opposed? That carries. That completes our work. Thank you very much uh for everyone who participated and supported the meeting today.

Full Transcript