January 10, 2022, at 12:00 PM

Original link

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by M. Hamou

That Consent Items 2.1 to 2.7 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.1   Report of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities Board of Directors - Hybrid Meeting - November 24-25, 2021

2022-01-10 Submission - FCM

Moved by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by M. Hamou

That the communication from Councillor J. Morgan regarding the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) Board of Directors update on board activities from the virtual meeting held on November 24-25, 2021 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.2   Argyle Business Improvement Area 2022 Proposed Budget – Municipal Special Levy

2022-01-10 Staff Report - Argyle BIA

Moved by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by M. Hamou

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the Argyle Business Improvement Area:

a)    the Argyle Business Improvement Area proposed 2022 budget submission in the amount of $283,000 BE APPROVED as outlined in Schedule “A” of the staff report:

b)    the amount to be raised by The Corporation of the City of London for the 2022 fiscal year for the purposes of the Argyle Business Improvement Area and pursuant to subsection 208(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 BE FIXED at $215,000:

c)    a special charge BE ESTABLISHED for the amount referred to in part b), above, by a levy in accordance with By-law A.-6873-292 as amended; it being noted that the special charge shall have priority lien status and shall be added to the tax roll pursuant to subsection 208(7) of the Municipal Act, 2001; and

d)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 10, 2022 as Schedule “C” with respect to Municipal Special Levy for the Argyle Business Improvement Area BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on January 25, 2022.

Motion Passed

2.3   Hamilton Road Business Improvement Area 2022 Proposed Budget – Municipal Special Levy

2022-01-10 Staff Report - Hamilton Road BIA

Moved by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by M. Hamou

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the Hamilton Road Business Improvement Area:

a)    the Hamilton Road Business Improvement Area proposed 2022 budget submission in the amount of $121,414 BE APPROVED as outlined in Schedule “A” of the staff report;

 

b)    the amount to be raised by The Corporation of the City of London for the 2022 fiscal year for the purposes of the Hamilton Road Business Improvement Area and pursuant to subsection 208(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 BE FIXED at $70,000:

c)    a special charge BE ESTABLISHED for the amount referred to in part b), above,  by a levy in accordance with By-law C.P.-1528-486 as amended; it being noted that the special charge shall have priority lien status and shall be added to the tax roll pursuant to subsection 208(7) of the Municipal Act, 2001; and

d)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 10, 2022 as Schedule “C” with respect to Municipal Special Levy for the Hamilton Road Business Improvement Area BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on January 25, 2022.

Motion Passed

2.4   Hyde Park Business Improvement Area 2022 Proposed Budget – Municipal Special Levy

2022-01-10 Staff Report - Hyde Park BIA

Moved by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by M. Hamou

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the Hyde Park Business Improvement Area:

a)    the Hyde Park Business Improvement Area proposed 2022 budget submission in the amount of $553,810 BE APPROVED as outlined in Schedule “A” of the staff report;

b)    the amount to be raised by The Corporation of the City of London for the 2022 fiscal year for the purposes of the Hyde Park Business Improvement Area and pursuant to subsection 208(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 BE FIXED at $484,000;

c)    a special charge BE ESTABLISHED for the amount referred to in part b), above, by a levy in accordance with By-law CP-1519-490 as amended; it being noted that the special charge shall have priority lien status and shall be added to the tax roll pursuant to subsection 208(7) of the Municipal Act, 2001; and

d)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 10, 2022 as Schedule “C” with respect to Municipal Special Levy for the Hyde Park Business Improvement Area BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on January 25, 2022.

Motion Passed

2.5   London Downtown Business Association 2022 Proposed Budget – Municipal Special Levy

2022-01-10 Staff Report - LDBA

Moved by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by M. Hamou

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the London Downtown Business Association:

a)    the London Downtown Business Association proposed 2022 budget submission in the amount of $1,845,838 BE APPROVED as outlined in Schedule “A” of the staff report;

 

b)    the amount to be raised by the Corporation of the City of London for the 2022 fiscal year for the purposes of the London Downtown Business Association and pursuant to subsection 208(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 BE FIXED at $1,905,238;

c)    a special charge BE ESTABLISHED for the amount referred to in part b), above, by a levy in accordance with By-law CP-2 as amended; it being noted that the special charge shall have priority lien status and shall be added to the tax roll pursuant to subsection 208(7) of the Municipal Act, 2001; and

d)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 10, 2022 as Schedule “C” with respect to Municipal Special Levy for the London Downtown Business Association BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on January 25, 2022.

Motion Passed

2.6   Old East Village Business Improvement Area 2022 Proposed Budget – Municipal Special Levy

2022-01-10 Staff Report - OEVBIA BIA

Moved by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by M. Hamou

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the Old East Village Business Improvement Area:

a)    the Old East Village Business Improvement Area proposed 2022 budget submission in the amount of $240,350 BE APPROVED as outlined in Schedule “A” of the staff report;

b)    the amount to be raised by The Corporation of the City of London for the 2022 fiscal year for the purposes of the Old East Village Business Improvement Area and pursuant to subsection 208(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 BE FIXED at $42,000;

c)    a special charge BE ESTABLISHED for the amount referred to in part b), above, by a levy in accordance with By-law CP-1 as amended; it being noted that the special charge shall have priority lien status and shall be added to the tax roll pursuant to subsection 208(7) of the Municipal Act, 2001; and

d)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 10, 2022 as Schedule “C” with respect to Municipal Special Levy for the Old East Village Business Improvement Area BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on January 25, 2022.

Motion Passed

2.7   Strategic Plan Variance Report

2022-01-10 Staff Report - Strategic Plan Variance Report

Moved by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by M. Hamou

That, on the recommendation of the City Manager, the staff report dated January 10, 2022 regarding the Strategic Plan Progress Variance BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.8   Election Sign By-law Update

2022-01-10 Staff Report - Election Sign By-law Update

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That the draft by-law BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration in order to consider the following changes to the draft by-law:

a)    maintaining the setback distance at the current at 3metres (section 4.5 b);

b)    maintaining the current removal period at 96hrs (section 3.4);

c)    incorporate clarification around signage of a campaign office, that allows signs on the property without being physically attached to the building;

d)    maintaining the current height restriction of 1.8m in the 5-8m of the roadway regulation (section 4.6 a);

e)    amend the distance between election signs of the same candidate to 100 metres (section 4.5 i);

f)    change the Election Sign permission to be placed no earlier than 1 week prior to nomination day for nominated candidates;

it being noted that there will be a report back to the Corporate Services Committee with respect to the above-noted proposed changes, as well as information related to impacts of any proposed changes.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

None.

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   1st Report of the County/City Liaison Committee

2022-01-10 Submission - CCLC Report 1

Moved by E. Holder

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That the following actions be taken with respect to 1st Report of the County/City Liaison Committee from its meeting held on December 16, 2021:

a)  the following actions be taken with respect to Land Ambulance Dispatch:

i)    the Council of the County of Middlesex and the Council of the City of London BE REQUESTED to send letters to Minister Christine Elliott in support of the following Land Ambulance Dispatch Project Pilot program as proposed by Middlesex County, substantially in the following form:

“The Council of the [County of Middlesex / City of London] supports Middlesex County’s proposal from 2019 to the Ministry, to assume responsibility for dispatching and managing deployment of ambulance resources within the County of Middlesex, City of London, County of Huron and surrounding area.

We support the notion that Middlesex County would provide the services better, faster and more safely than the status quo. Further benefits from adopting Middlesex’s proposal include:

  •    upgrade of technology to allow for better communications and tracking of ambulances;

  •    demonstration of innovation and providing the Province with an opportunity to assess new dispatch models; and

  •    addressing numerous local concerns regarding the quality of ambulance dispatch.

The [County of Middlesex / City of London] stands to benefit from the innovation and leadership demonstrated through this proposal.”

ii)    the verbal update provided by B. Rayburn and attached presentation from N. Roberts with respect to the Middlesex London Paramedic Services dispatch business case, Middlesex London Paramedic Service Communication Centre Pilot, BE RECEIVED; and

b)  clauses 1.1 and 4.4 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

4.2   Application – Issuance of Proclamation - Black History Month

2022-01-10 Submission - Proclamation - Black History Month

Moved by M. Cassidy

Seconded by M. Hamou

That based on the application dated December 20, 2021 from Community Diversity and Inclusion Strategy (CDIS) Implementation Body, the month of February 2022 BE PROCLAIMED as Black History Month.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

4.3   Amendments to Members of Council Proof of COVID-19 Vaccination Policy

Moved by E. Holder

Seconded by J. Morgan

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Members of Council Proof of COVID-19 Vaccination Policy:

a)  on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated January 10, 2022 to amend the “Members of Council Proof of COVID-19 Vaccination Policy”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council Meeting to be held on January 25, 2022; and, 

b)  that NO ACTION be taken with respect to the communications dated December 23, 2021 and January 6, 2022 from Councillor M. van Holst.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   (ADDED) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - National Day of Remembrance of the Quebec City Mosque Attack and Action Against Islamophobia

2022-01-10 Submission - Proclamation - National Day of Rememberance

Moved by M. Hamou

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That based on the application from Community Diversity and Inclusion Strategy (CDIS) Implementation Body, January 29, 2022 BE PROCLAIMED as National Day of Remembrance of the Quebec City Mosque Attack and Action Against Islamophobia.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

6.   Confidential (Enclosed for Members only.)

Moved by M. Cassidy

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That the Corporate Services Committee convene, In Closed Session, with respect to the following matters:

6.1  Land Acquisition / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Position, Plan, Procedure, Criteria or Instruction to be Applied to Any Negotiations

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality.

6.2  Land Disposition / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Position, Plan, Procedure, Criteria or Instruction to be Applied to Any Negotiations

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending disposition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality.

6.3  Land Acquisition / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Position, Plan, Procedure, Criteria or Instruction to be Applied to Any Negotiations

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality.

6.4  Personal Matters/Identifiable Individual / Labour Relations

A personal matter about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees and labour relations.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

The Corporate Services Committee convenes, In Closed Session, from 1:58 PM to 2:23 PM.

7.   Adjournment

Moved by M. Hamou

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 2:24 PM.

Full Transcript

Transcript provided by Lillian Skinner’s London Council Archive. Note: This is an automated speech-to-text transcript and may contain errors. Speaker names are not identified.

View full transcript (2 hours, 11 minutes)

can we to begin dinner? Good afternoon everyone and happy new year. I’m gonna call the committee to order and we’re going to proceed with the second meeting of the Corporate Services Committee. During the COVID-19 emergency, this is a virtual meeting.

You can check the city’s website for current details of COVID-19 service impacts. Meetings can be viewed via live stream on YouTube and the city website. And the city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternative formats and communication supports for council, standing or advisory committee meetings and information upon request. To make a request for any city service, please contact accessibility at london.ca or call 519-661-2489 extension 2425.

To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact csc@london.ca. And we have quorum. All committee members are here, although we do not have mayor holder with us at the moment, but I will start with item one, which is disclosures of pecanary interest. Committee members, I see none.

So we will move on to the consent agenda. I am actually going to pull item 2.8 myself and councilor humu as our vice chair will take the chair for that item. We’re looking to committee members to see if there are any other items in the consent agenda that they would like pulled. Seeing none, I will look for a motion to receive 2.1 through 2.7 of the consent agenda, and then we can have some discussion on it if folks wish.

Moved by councilor fife miller, seconded by councilor humu. And I will look to see if there’s any discussion on any of those items. Deputy mayor morgan. Yeah, thank you chair.

I just wanted to make a couple of comments on the items. First, I’ll comment on the item that I put on the agenda, which is the report from the federation of committee municipalities board of directors meeting. It was a hybrid meeting. However, councilor cassie and I both participated digitally given the content of the meeting and there was no government lobbying at this particular meeting, but it was still a productive meeting.

There were a number of sessions run and colleagues can review the report. And I know either one of us would be happy to answer any questions that you have about about that report anytime. The other item I wanted to comment on was the BIA budgets. And I’ll just make a general comment on all of them because I reviewed them all.

And I know a number of our BIA colleagues are listening in to this call and available for questions. I want to say, first and foremost, thank you to those who serve on BIA’s. I know it has been an incredible amount of work to provide services to the businesses and communities in your areas throughout the pandemic. And once again, you have submitted a series of budgets, I think that recognize the challenges that are faced in the BIA areas in our city and the plans that you’re putting forward to try to help mitigate and address business impacts.

Certainly not every area of the city has that advantage, but I very much see the work of BIA as being a huge advantage. And I think, as you have seen over the past couple of years, BIA’s have adjusted and shifted their budgets to prepare themselves for both assisting businesses through COVID and anticipating the recovery period and the programming and spending that will have to happen through that period. And so I think these budgets represent both that shift and the continuation of that shift of money as well as that foresight and planning into the future. And I think that these areas are well positioned to weather the current challenges and that that businesses are facing as well as be well prepared to partake in in their recovery phase.

So well done to the BIA members, the boards and their staff for putting forward a number of really well thought out budgets. I don’t have any criticisms or questions or anything on them. I think you did a good job of articulating them in the documents. Thank you.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor Morgan. Are there any other speakers to the consent agenda? Seeing none, we will open the vote on that. The vote, the motion’s passed five to zero.

The next item to deal with is 2.8. This is the election signed by a law update. I did pull this one myself, so I’m going to turn the chair over to Councillor Himu so that I can speak to this and propose a motion. Thank you.

So the 2.8 is up. Do I have yes, Sean, to Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. So colleagues, I did ask to pull this one.

I’m going to actually look for a referral to send this back to staff, but I want to provide a little clarity on what specifically I want to provide some direction for here so that, you know, I’m not just referring this back. There’s actually going to be an intent for some direction here. And I’ve got to provide a little bit. And do I push Chrome?

Okay. I’ve got E-Scribe here. Sorry, your worship, you’re you’re not muted at the moment. We’re hearing you in chambers.

He’s muted. Thanks. So I will just pick up with what I was saying there on the election signed by law. So I actually presented to corporate services as a citizen in 2017.

The last time this came forward, and I’m going to share that I’m actually disappointed to see a number of the same recommendations that were rejected in 2017 coming back and the reasons for that. And there are particularly 5 items that I want to address here. The first is moving the sign locations back, 3 meters from the road to 5 meters. And I think it’s very important colleagues that that everyone understand.

So you’re going from 9.8 feet to 16 and a half feet. There are yards front yards in our community that are not 16 and a half feet, particularly where the ultimate road allowance has already been taken by the city for various infrastructure projects for sidewalks for those kind of things. So if we go from 3 meters to 5 meters, we’re in effect telling some residents you’re not even allowed to have an election signed because your front lawn is not deep enough. I think that in itself would be a very wrong move to make.

We have a recommendation that the removal period be shortened from 96 hours or 4 days to 72 hours. And I think probably as ward counselors, we all say, well, 72 hours, we can all get our signs down in 72 hours. But I think that we have to keep in mind that this also applies to mayoral campaigns and the federal and provincial campaigns of MPs and MPPs, a much larger geographic area. And all of these campaigns depend on the goodwill and the support of volunteers.

And people have jobs. They have commitments to their children. It might be a day or two before our volunteers able to go out and help bring in some signs. And to say to folks, we’re going to shorten it from 3 to 4 days.

I don’t think that there would be that much of a noticeable benefit for the public, but it would certainly make it much more difficult for campaigns themselves. I also want to provide some direction to clerks to clarify the language around campaign offices. And I’ve encountered this myself, but I know others have as well. Right now, it’s interpreted that the signs on a campaign office must be affixed to the building.

And particularly, given the restrictions we have on our own municipal campaign signs, I think it’s reasonable to say if somebody has a campaign office, the sign should be allowed on the property. In some campaign offices, they’re actually set so far back from the road that you won’t be able to see them if they’re attached to the building. But if they’re put in the parking lot area, for example, they may be able to be seen. So I think there needs to be some clarification around what is allowable signage for a campaign office.

And then we come to the 0.09 meter height in the 5 to 8 meter allowance. And this one really stuck out because I talked about this in 2017 as well. What you are essentially saying if you restrict to the 0.9 meter height is that we no longer allow the large size campaign signs. Even along major arterial roads, you will be reduced to lawn signs only, which frankly along arterial roads present no particular benefit.

And then the final piece that I’d like us to refer back to staff to give some consideration to. And again, this comes to treating the federal and the provincial campaigns equitably is currently federal and provincial candidates can start putting out their signs day one of the campaign when the rip drops. I think it’s important that colleagues understand there is a nomination period in the federal and the provincial campaigns as well. Candidates have to collect their signatures, go to the returning office, be verified by elections candidate before their name can appear on the ballot.

And that happens during the campaign period. So we don’t hold them to the close of nomination day before signs can go up. We say on the day that the rip opens you can start putting up signs. Now certainly for ourselves, I mean, this plea that would be a little bit more of a challenge because our our writ period is so long starts in May and runs up till election day in October.

However, I do think that waiting until nominations are closed presents a particular challenge in municipal campaigns. And I would suggest and I’m going to include this in my referral and we’ll see if if people supported or not that we allow municipal candidates to put up their signs one week prior to nomination day. And I think we have to realize what signs can do for the public. It allows in some cases people to consider the opportunity of whether or not they want to stay on the ballot, whether they perhaps want to withdraw.

They look at there’s three other campaigns that are way ahead of them in the sign count. And they might say, you know what, I like this other person. I’m going to withdraw and support another candidate. Or it alternately lets people take a look and say, oh, well, there’s only signs up for two people and I don’t want to vote for either one of them.

So maybe I’m going to put my name on the ballot myself. They do provide a visual indicator to people of where campaigns are. And I think particularly since we’re moving, unfortunately, in my opinion, but we’re moving away from rank ballots and back to first pass the post, allowing people the opportunity to at least evaluate the support from signs that other candidates have gives people an opportunity to consider whether they want to be on the ballot and potentially be involved in a vote splitting situation. So having provided some rationale, I’m going to move a referral back to staff with the following directions that the amendments to three meters to five meters, the 96 hour removal period and the 0.9 meter height restriction are deleted from the recommendation.

And that further direction is clarification of placement of campaign office signs on campaign office property and changing the eligible sign period from nomination day to one week prior to nomination day. I don’t know if I have a seconder for that, but those are the five points of direction I want to provide, Madam Chair, and I’ll look to see if there’s a seconder on that one. Thank you, Councilor Lewis. Do I have a seconder for Councilor Lewis’s motion?

I have Councilor Fife Miller. Okay, I do have some speakers. So we’re going to switch over to Councilor Cassidy. Thank you, Madam Presiding Officer.

So first of all, I understand that Councilor Lewis doesn’t like looking at this again, even though we looked at it in 2017, but that is exactly what we do with our bylaws from time to time. We look at them again, and we’ve had the benefit of an election that has been run since the changes were made in 2017. And we saw the feedback from the public on those, on where we are with our election sign bylaw. And I admit it was not a huge sample of people, but it was not an insignificant number of people either that responded to this survey.

Frankly, the way we allow election signs in this city is nothing but visual pollution of our city. And I will share with you that during the 2018 election, I unfortunately lost a dear friend. And right in the thick of the election, in October, I had to drive to Guelph to attend her funeral. I couldn’t.

The difference between London, Ontario and Guelph Ontario during a municipal election was beyond night and day. There, there were election signs. Yes. But the, the glut of signs that we see here in London during, especially during a municipal election, I would contend that it is worse during a municipal election than it is during provincial or federal.

And it is fine to say this and this and this is best for the candidates. But what about the citizens of London? I would say that election signs are the least informative or useful piece of information for people voting in a municipal election. A sign is just a sign and there used to be an old saying that people would say is that signs don’t vote.

So it really didn’t matter how many signs you had out there in public. Signs don’t vote. But they do do many other things. They distract.

They, they, they visually obstruct in many cases. And they make our city look unattractive for a long period of time. I won’t support this referral back. And in fact, if the referral fails, I would like to move an amendment on the distance between signs for the same candidate.

We tried in 2017 to make that a longer distance and it, on a short, on a, on, on a close vote, I would say that distance was shortened. And I would like to see that distance increased to 500 meters between, between signs for the same candidate. So I won’t support the referral. I do have two quick questions for staff.

Number one, when do we have to have this bylaw complete in order for it to be in place for the next election? And number two, when I read the bylaw itself on page 72 of our agenda package, 3.3 says no person shall place or permit to be placed an election sign for municipal election on a campaign office. Oh, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry. Uh, no, I was reading that wrong.

So I did want clarification on counselor Lewis’s comments about nomination day. Um, does that mean the close of nomination or does it mean once a candidate has their 50 signatures and has filed their nomination papers with the city clerk? And if it is the former, then that would be another amendment that I would make. So if the referral fails, I would amend this bylaws so that there is a greater distance between two signs for the same candidate.

And I would also amend it so that a candidate can start putting their signs up once they have filed their nomination papers. Thank you. Counselor Cassidy, we are going to move to Mayor Ed Holder. Thanks very much, Chair.

Uh, I’m going to support the referral, uh, to address one of the comments. Why we have so many more. To questions, Madam presiding officer, I would like answers to those questions. Sorry.

Yes. No, my apologies as well. Uh, staff. So it wasn’t a point of order on the mayor.

That’s very thoughtful, Councillor Cassidy. Thank you. It’s on me through the chairs, Michael Schulte speaking, the 3.3 question through the chair to Councillor Cassidy. Uh, the way I read that it the earlier than the day that the candidate has filed their nomination with the city clerk.

Uh, now was there a question out of that wording? I was unclear of whether you had a question related to that. I wanted the clarification. Is it when a candidate has filed their papers or is it the close of nominations?

That would be the, uh, filed their, their nomination with the clerk. So that’s not, not just the gathering of the names piece. If that answers your question. I think that answers my question.

And then my second question is, uh, what is the, the deadline for this bylaw to be finished with us at Council so that it is in place for the next election for May 1st? Uh, through the chair, we do have time to get that in place. Uh, obviously there’s a candidate information session that we have upcoming, but I, I wouldn’t consider that that would be a show stopper for not having this in place because we do have the 2017 bylaw that can be referred to. Uh, now as far as the actual deadline, perhaps if I could just ask Ms.

Korman to speak to the, the deadline. Yes, there is an upcoming provincial election. So we would want the new bylaw in place before that. And that’s anticipated to be June 2nd.

So we do have time to take this back for a referral. Thank you. Okay, did I finish up? But, uh, okay, great.

Thank you. Okay, we’re going to go back to Mayor Holder. Thanks very much. First thing I’m looking for, uh, I’m looking for that information from, uh, Councillor Lewis in terms of his, uh, referral and the details there.

I presume that wasn’t sent in advance. And I’m going to challenge colleagues, all of us, that if we put some real thought into this, which clearly Councillor Lewis has, it would be exceptionally helpful to have that in advance. And if I missed that, that’s on me, but I didn’t see it. And there’s a lot to it.

So colleagues, please, when we do these things, uh, there’s, uh, the worst thing on the planet is to try to look at this and make sense of the details, notwithstanding the reasonably loose and clear comments by Councillor Lewis, it would just be helpful to have all of that in advance. And again, if I missed it, I’ll, uh, I’ll take my lumps in that, but I didn’t see it and I don’t see it now. So, uh, is there a spot where I can see the reference to the referral points from Councillor Lewis? I believe it’s an eScribe.

I’m an eScribe. And I’m, uh, and I’m looking for the current item here, which I have. And I see no details there. Keep scrolling.

Life is a scroll. Your worship, uh, sorry to jump in here. But if you expand, if you click on the votes tab in eScribe on this item on the right hand side, um, you will be able to see, uh, it’s a motion number two, the language is in there. All right, I’ll look for that there.

But let me just come back to the points. Um, I think, uh, Councillor Lewis is making, uh, uh, some sense with those that I’ve heard verbalized. Uh, uh, the reason that we have so many signs in a municipal election, by the way, is a we have 14 words in a citywide, uh, citywide campaign. Last I checked, we had 14 people running for mayor, uh, then, and, and, uh, some with modest number of signs, others with lots, and I’ll put my hand up for, for that as well.

So to, to note that there are a lot more signs in municipal campaigns for sure. I don’t think that’s unexpected and non reasonable. Uh, I think the notion of putting the, my sense is putting the, um, signs up as soon as you’ve registered is not appropriate, but having some time frame around the nomination date, it might well be as Councillor Lewis has suggested. It may make some sense.

Uh, I have a question through each chair to the, um, to staff. And what I’m trying to understand is, uh, relative to, uh, election day, what’s, what’s ultimately changed since the last election as far as, uh, when I look at things from three meters from five meters to the roadways, what, what roadways would be limited by that restriction? Uh, have you put, I’m sure you put thought of that. That’s through the chair.

This is Dini speaking, manager of elections. Um, the three to five meter roadway restriction would apply to, um, all city roads. It’s a safety provision put in due to sightline concerns based on the public feedback. So that would apply to all the places that the current three meter restriction applies to.

Um, and there, I’m not sure if we do have some people here from transportation, you may wish to also speak to the change between three to five meters as they do. And I appreciate that. I’m just trying to understand, um, if that would limit, for example, in residential areas, uh, um, signs to lawns versus boulevards, where the five meter starts from just to give a, a kind of sense of that. And so I’m just trying to get a feel for major roadways versus residential areas.

This would apply to residential areas as well, as well as arterial road. So there would be no distinction. This is applicable as a safety provision on all roads. And, and, and could you just clarify them, please, through each other, the measurement is from the center of the road where we have, like, where’s that five meters begin as far as the roadway is concerned?

So the five meters is measured from the edge of the roadway. Um, we do have some people from enforcement here as well, who may wish to speak to the actual act of measuring from the roadway and how that, how that looks on all roads. Yes, please. I’m from municipal law enforcement.

Um, I believe maybe what we are seeking clarification on here is roadway versus private property. So when you’re in a residential area, uh, the way I read this by law, the provisions apply to city property. It’s not preventing anyone from placing a sign on their own private property, regardless of the distance from the roadway. And I may need my colleagues in the election sign, the clerk’s office to confirm that.

As they do that, please. Could I ask again, Chair, and I don’t mean to be interrupted here, but as counselor Turner often reminds us, when people think that they’ve got a certain amount of property, that’s their own, it really belongs to the city. So what I’m trying to understand is what is meant then by, uh, your, your roadway, and basically what I’m trying to understand is where does the measure begin? If, if, if there’s a certain roadway allowance that the city has from basically the center of the road, if I have that correct right through a certain number of feet, uh, what are we talking about in terms of, uh, whether it’s residential or arterial doesn’t matter to me.

I’m just trying to understand so we can give good advice for the upcoming provincial and know ourselves come the municipal. Again, from enforcement services. Um, if we are looking at a bylaw that doesn’t stipulate in the bylaw where the measurement is taking, we would take it from the closest portion of the roadway. Uh, so in front of a residential property, not from center line.

So from the limit of the roadway on either side is where the distance would be measured on either side of the roadway. Chair, again, I’m, I’m prolonging this a little bit because, and maybe the referral back will bring some clarity to this. So it means there will never be a boulevard sign and maybe that’s appropriate. I can’t be based on what Miss Chapman just indicated to us.

And, uh, and, and I think it would be really important for people then to ultimately know where their property begins and where the city doesn’t so that if they want to participate in the democratic process of putting up a sign, they’re not in, uh, in, uh, in, uh, on the outside and defines the law. No one wants to do it the inappropriate way. But, um, if it’s not the center of the road, then we would have to, then where there can be challenges will be what that measurement looks like because again, as we’ve in, as we know, uh, the private area of an individual’s residence, I mean, this could go potentially up to their porch or whatever it might be or, uh, depending on the, on the measurements and road allowance. That’s why I’m, I’m a little nervous about this because I’m not understanding it.

And if this referral, uh, takes it back and clarifies, I think that would make some sense to me. I guess I’m looking for some comfort there, but I’m not sure I’m hearing it yet. The measurement is taken from the roadway. The roadway is defined as the means, the part of the street that is improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular traffic and includes the shoulder.

So in an instance of a residential area, it would be measured from the curb or the side of the roadway. I, um, I will, um, thank you for that. I’ll let support the offer. Thank you, Mayor Holder.

Um, the next person is Councilor Lewis. Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. And I know that Councilor Morgan has his hand up and, and is on the committee and hasn’t had a chance to speak yet. Uh, but Councilor Cassidy asked a question that I’m going to re-ask of staff.

And this is really important in terms of, uh, part E of the referral, which based on what I heard from the city clerk may not be necessary. Um, and I, I, I say this respectfully and it’s no intent, uh, to, to proverbially throw anyone under the bus. Um, but our former city clerk had indicated to me, um, that nomination day in the bylaw was interpreted as the close of nomination day, not the registration, uh, of a candidate. Um, and I see some nodding of the clerks, uh, to our side right now.

Uh, so I’m looking for, for very, very clear indications here, um, because I, I actually agree with Councilor Cassidy. I don’t want to see them necessarily go up on May the 1st or 2nd when the nomination period opens and somebody files their papers. So through you to our staff, uh, Madam Presiding Officer, as written right now in the draft bylaw, the nomination day, uh, as defined, is that when a candidate has filed, uh, their registration papers and been received by the clerk as an official candidate with their signatures and everything, and their, their deposit paid, or is it the close of nominations, which I believe the province has moved to late August. Um, now, uh, rather than, I, I believe last campaign, uh, it was around Canada today, but, uh, can we get some clarification in this bylaw?

When can signs start to go up for municipal candidates through the chair? Um, and Councilor, uh, directed to section 3.2, uh, of the draft. Uh, no person shall place or permit to be placed an election sign for a municipal election, except an election sign, which is placed on the campaign office earlier than nomination day, and that is defined and the nomination day means the deadline to file it filed with the city clerk under the municipal elections act 1996, I’ve amended. Now, the, I suspect the confusion is that 3.2 simply refers to has filed their nomination with the city clerk.

Uh, certainly we can undertake to, to clean that up, to make that in accordance with 3.2, if, uh, that is the direction that’s given. So just a follow up question on that then. Um, so as it’s written right now, no candidate, regardless of when they file their papers with the city clerk, no candidate can place any signs other than their campaign office until not the nomination period has actually closed. Is that correct?

It’s earlier than the nomination day and the nomination day. Uh, you’re quite correct. It’s, uh, I believe this year, it’s August 19th, which is a Friday. It closes several days after that.

So the nomination day, uh, would be, uh, August 19th and no sign can be placed earlier than that nomination day. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Um, I’ll have some other comments to offer, Madam Chair, but I want to give other members of the committee and visiting counselors an opportunity to speak first.

So perhaps if you can move my further comments down until after Deputy Mayor Morgan and Councilor Van Holst have had their opportunity. Sure. Thank you. Um, Councillor Lewis, we’re going to move to Councilor Van Holst.

Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m, I’m fine to wait until your committee members have spoken, but I’ll just make a couple brief comments then. Uh, I think I do support and most of the referrals that, uh, Councilor Lewis is, is suggesting, uh, I would guess that many people were, were choosing, uh, those in the, in the survey, uh, or supporting those simply because they, what they really want was no election signs on public property.

So I wonder, I wonder if that may be the direction we, we should be going in. Also mentioned that in a county down in Florida, I noticed that when they were having a municipal election, they had certain areas of, uh, public property where signs were allowed. So on, on the city property, the city property, this is where you could have signs and no other places. So that might be, that might be a way for us to, to deal with that, to balance it out.

Um, when we’re making, is another suggestion now, when we’re, when we’re coming up with a limit, um, I think we could go both ways on it. For instance, if, uh, that, uh, a sign shouldn’t be, uh, closer than, uh, three meters, uh, from the roadway, you know, on, but they, they can be, um, within, uh, one foot of a house, for instance, are, so that, uh, if someone’s yard is very short, they still have an opportunity to put a sign in because we, we put a restriction or a direction on, on the other side of that as well. Um, uh, I do think that in terms of the positions of the signs and the height of the signs, I, I was more or less okay with the last, uh, with the last election, but we might, uh, certainly, uh, consider having fewer signs or coming up a way to have fewer signs on our public property. Uh, I would note that signs on, on private properly kind of tell you how much support, uh, candidate has, signs on public property tell you how much money a, uh, a candidate has.

And those are, you know, two different things. They’re not both as helpful to the candidates. Um, I, I also do think there’s some virtue in counselor Lewis suggestion that, uh, there be a time slightly before that, that, that period for, for people to, uh, rethink, um, how their, their, their chances or their, their desire to have an election. Um, he’s suggesting one week, um, that might be two weeks would be, uh, would be a better way, at least for people to have a little more time to make that determination.

So those are my comments for now. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Morgan.

Uh, yeah, I’ll start with a couple of questions of our staff. When, when was the survey, um, in this report conducted? Uh, through the chair, uh, that was in October of 2021, I believe it ran for three weeks, beginning, uh, October 6th through to, uh, October 27th, I believe, roughly three, uh, three weeks in October of 2021. And there was also, uh, text responses received by the elections office.

Uh, I presume that those came, came in, uh, around the same time, but I’d have to defer to Ms. Raycraft for that information. Mr. Chair, yes, the survey was available from October 6th until the 31st and the only public comments received for through the survey.

That was the double online. Okay. So I think it’s important to know the context under which the survey was collected. The federal election had just happened.

And I think we all recognize that signs were very bad during that election. They were all over the place. Uh, there was lots of issues with where they were placed. Um, and so there was, uh, the survey was conducted right after that, uh, which is good in one way because it’s right fresh off of the results of an election.

It’s also not ideal in one way because people are reacting to something very specific. Um, that being said, I think I do appreciate that a number of people took the time to fill out the survey and, and, and that’s important. What I am most interested in in this is like fair and democratically run elections. Um, that means that we provide opportunities for people to express themselves and to be competitive in elections.

And I am in an awkward situation on this because I don’t particularly like the way the referral is worded because it is definitive on the changes. Um, I don’t particularly like the report the way it was conducted. Um, because it seems to be almost solely based on the survey. And what I would have been most interested in was knowing the impacts of the changes, something that the mayor was getting at.

If you change from three to five meters, how, how much of the city is, is now eliminated from the possibility of science? Like what, what are the actual impacts of these changes? The other thing I would have appreciated, um, is that there are entire like academic departments and journals associated with the study of democracy and the impacts that science have. Everybody is going to spend today speculating and what the impacts are of these changes.

Uh, you could say, guess what? If we make these changes, uh, it’s going to, it’s going to benefit incumbents because you’re going to give no opportunity for new people to get their name out. But you could also say, uh, incumbents already have a stack of signs ready to go and, and they have access to money. So, um, so they’re best able to put up signs.

Like all of those are our own estimations on what we think is happening. And it would have been valuable to me to actually get some actual, uh, summaries of some of the research that has happened out there in many different jurisdictions to say, here are the impacts of your decisions on a democratic, democratically run election. There are very few things we can control in the election. There are very few things that we can make decisions on that can impact, uh, the election in, in, in the way that a sign by law can.

Obviously, we had our opportunity to change the, the, the type of election from first pass to post rank ballots that was taken away from us would have been great to continue with that. I think that would have been better for competitive elections than our first pass to post. So, I also, um, contemplate these changes with the election system in mind and that, um, incumbents are going to have big advantages this time around bigger than they had last time. And so, uh, I’m interested in a referral, but I’m actually interested in a referral more so to give our staff some time to bring back some information on what the impacts of these changes are, the types of things we could be considering on how the election will be run and the opportunities for people to express themselves and the democratic impacts of those as at least a section in the report.

Otherwise, you know, we can tweak the numbers all we want. Um, and, and like I said, I’m not even sure as the mayor got into, I’m not even sure of the impacts of these changes. I don’t know how many roads it wipes out. I don’t know how many fewer signs locations there are the opportunities to do.

I don’t, uh, I haven’t gone out there. It sounds like Councillor Lewis has and measured how high like 0.9 meters is compared to the existing signs that you usually see. It seems to me, if you stick a sign five meters back and you only make it nine meters tall, you may as well not have signs on that street at all because they’re going to be so far off the way and so low to the ground. If that’s what we’re trying to do, then that’s that’s the vote that we should be having.

So I’m going to listen to my colleagues. I’m a little unsure on the referral. I’m also a little unsure on the report because I don’t think it has the information for me to make the type of decision that I want to make with a report like this. And that is understanding the impacts that will actually happen based on our decisions.

And I can’t see that from this report at this time. Thank you, Councillor Morgan. We’re going to move back to Councillor Cassidy. Thank you, Madam Presiding Officer.

So I will say a couple of things. Number one, if we’re talking about a boulevard between a sidewalk and the road, it’s explicitly written in the bylaw that that’s not allowed. If we’re talking about the road allowance and in front of somebody’s private home, in practice, candidates, I would say never put signs there because homeowners hate it, because even if it’s not their property, I mean, if the homeowner is not asked for that sign, I would never go out and put a campaign sign in front of someone’s house because the implication is that that homeowner is supporting me as a candidate. So it may be within the bylaw and follow the bylaw and five meters or three meters or whatever the meters are from the roadway.

If it’s in front of somebody’s home, there’s absolutely no way any smart candidate would ever put an election sign there. I will say, again, going back to this visual pollution and this 10 meter separation now being suggested to be slightly increased. We did see, as Councillor Morgan, Deputy Mayor Morgan pointed out in the most recent federal election, that there were a lot of signs again on the arterial road. So you go down the road and you see the same candidate sign every 10 meters and in a federal or provincial election, then what you’re going to see are four candidates, signs spaced apart every 10 meters.

It’s not good for London. It doesn’t make London look good. And what I will say is we have the air show running at the same time as the municipal election, and we have visitors to this city. And I have had comments made to me by visitors to this city.

I have seen multiple comments on social media of what London looks like during the air show while they’re visiting our city. The other point about the the sheer quantity of signs is this Council declared a climate emergency. We had staff create the climate emergency action plan. Every policy that we create as a city and as a council is supposed to be viewed through a climate emergency lens.

I would say, as Mr. Wallace, who sent us a letter on this very issue, as he pointed out, the two don’t jot, seeing thousands upon thousands of election signs on every possible public space in the city with plastic everywhere is is not a good look. And it does not speak to our declaration of a climate emergency. If we have time to look at this again, I am not averse to that as long and I agree with Deputy Mayor Morgan that if we’re going to look at it, it should not be as prescriptive as Councillor Lewis has made it.

And if Deputy Mayor Morgan wants to suggest amendments to the referral motion, I would be happy to hear that. And I do think that having a survey occur right after an election is actually a good thing because it is fresh in people’s minds. And I know how upset people get during these elections and when they see all of these signs, I get the feedback. So I know that people are not happy with election signs and how our bylaw is written today.

Those are my comments. Thank you, Councillor Cassidy. We’re going to go to Councillor Palosa. Thank you, Madam Presigning Officer for recognizing me and the opportunity to speak at committee today.

I volunteered with federal and municipal and provincial campaigns everywhere from Windsor to the Danforth and Councillor Cassidy is absolutely right that different cities do things very differently. Some cities have fees that can’t pay as a deposit in order to be allowed to put up signs to help offset the cost of bylaw resources that are taken from the municipality. Signs, setbacks, public property and all various permissibility. So my question to staff is, could you tell us how much it does cost estimated or otherwise to enforce all these bylaw complaints coming in about sightlines, placements and roadway allotments?

Through the chair, if I could defer to enforcement for that question, perhaps Ms. Chapman. I didn’t have any exact figures for you, but I can tell you when we conduct enforcement around elections, we use existing staff. If we have an election that runs through the summer, we also, if we have students that we can hire on to assist the existing staff, we would put them in that position as well.

So from my recollection, during the last election that ran through the summer, we did have one staff member and one student working on complaints under the election signed bylaw. That one staff member, as well as that one student, had other duties as well outside of sign election signed bylaw enforcement. The other thing to take into consideration is because of the limited resources we had, we respond to complaints under the sign bylaw, sorry, and election signed bylaw, only. It’s not proactive unless we were to see something that was definitely an immediate risk to the public due to a sightline placement or something to that effect.

So hopefully that answers the bulk of your question. That does thank you and recognizing many residents will reach out to a candidates campaign office directly with a concern because they don’t know who to contact at the city to log to concern. So I do have that concern with and I would be fine with no public property signs based on compliance and how it also takes up staffing resources. As per council loses point about the removal allotment of four days versus three, absolutely, as candidates who run city-wide or larger writing versus ward allotment, it does take longer to get your resources back.

Also seeing some campaigns start strong and volunteers fizzle and leave if the campaign isn’t looking like it’s going to be winning, your resources for stopping at the end to help you remove those signs can be drastically changed. In regards to a point made that signs don’t vote, absolutely, a key portion of campaigning is go knock doors, go talk to those constituents, find out what matters, find solutions, and be busy engaging residents with debates and meet and greet meetings. Every time a campaign resource is taken up with signs, sign installation, maintenance, replacement, that’s all valuable time and financial resources that could be taken and had better spent actually engaging in conversation with people, residents, the people who are going to be impacted by these decisions. I also seen having listened to conversation, it’s almost like sign intimidation of let’s get our signs out the biggest, best, and fastest and intimidate anybody who might bring something else to the conversation but not have as much experience with the campaign or financial resources to tackle our sign numbers.

So I have concerns about that, that it’s also a barrier to democracy and participation. If you don’t have the big money to back you or people with pickup trucks, you can get out the giant rebar and teabar and do all your sign installation for you that if you don’t have people with those resources, you’re either stuck renting them or just not engaging in that, which will be seen as a potentially weak campaign and non winning campaign and someone who’s not as desirable because you don’t have as much financial backing. So those are some of my concerns about just barriers to democracy that we we have a ability to go over also for clauses and public clauses where parents put their signs have heard definitely from sign maintenance crews. I feel for them every time there’s an election that signs pop up, they’re accused of stealing them when the property owners tell them to take it down.

Can’ts complain that someone’s harassing their campaign and stealing their stuff in regards to and plus the people trying to actually cut around and maintain those properties who are just working as well. So those are just an overview of my concerns so far and thank you for the opportunity and the conversation today, Madam Chair. Thank you, Councillor Palosa. Councillor Lewis.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I promised I’d come back with a few more comments and I’ll say right off the top. Thank you, your worship for for saying my commentary was rather lucid. I think yours has been rather lucid today as well.

So we’re starting 2022 off on the right foot. I will say that and again not to and I understand your worship’s concern about getting things early. I will also share that I was in conversation with staff about a language on this up until about 11/20 this morning so unfortunately sometimes these things come without a lot of notice because you’ve got to go back and forth a few times. So I’ve been listening to the debate and I want to offer a few more thoughts on this and I want to focus first on what Deputy Mayor Morgan was saying and I fully agree with him.

The lack of an impact assessment on these changes is a real concern for me and the you know basing changes on what seems to be a survey pretty exclusively is a concern to me without looking at the actual impacts on campaigns and elections and there is lots of good information out there that I think needs to be considered but you know here we are and Councillor Cassidy asked right off the start about deadlines and how soon this could come back and you know that’s why in terms of being prescriptive a lot of this referral says come back with something that doesn’t change the setback that doesn’t change the removal period that doesn’t change the height in the 5 to 8 meter area and so a lot of it is saying listen leave the bylaw the way it is for the most part right now. There’s still the change to 20 meters and instead of 10 meters I’m not sure that I would go so far as Councillor Cassidy’s suggestion of half a kilometer but I think if we went 50 or even 100 meters that might be something I’d be amenable to and in fact if if she had a number that maybe wasn’t half a kilometer but was something somewhere in between that 20 and that 500 meters I would be amenable to considering that in the referral so I’ll leave that for her to think about for a couple of minutes because I know it’s not a lot of time but I wouldn’t mind them being spaced out more on on public property either I think that certainly what we see along arterial roadways could be described as visual pollution my difference of opinion is with the public the private signs in large part I think that residents should be able to put up whatever size sign wherever they want on their front lawn so long as it’s not blocking a sight line triangle which I believe and when I conclude my comments Madam Chair I’ll ask you to confirm this with staff but I believe when we measure sight triangles at intersections we are actually using a three meter measurement already so the the prescriptiveness is consistent with what’s already in place I think if we want to talk about no public location signs in the future you know that’s that’s a that’s a much bigger discussion to have with the public at large as well as looking at the impacts that that has on the democratic process because I don’t think signs just create visual pollution I think when when Councillor Closea suggests you know you go out and you knock doors and you you have meetings with people absolutely do all that stuff you know I I am quite and I’ve made no bones about being proud of the fact that I got around my entire ward two times knocking on doors and started the third lap in the last campaign it’s vitally important but something that signs do do is they they remind the voters that oh yeah that’s the person that I talked to because you may have talked to them in June and you might not talk to them again until election day but when they see your sign whether it’s on their lawn or whether it’s on a public corner or along a public roadway they remember who you were so I think that they serve a purpose that way I think that we also have to keep in mind there are volunteers who get involved in in campaigns who aren’t comfortable talking to people they’re they’re not but they’re very comfortable helping out on the hours that they have by going to put up some signs some of them are willing to go up to front steps and put in put flyers in mailboxes but they don’t want to actually talk to somebody and that’s okay too we need a space for those volunteers to help as well and that’s why I think at least private signs will continue to be part of a democratic process in my view for the foreseeable future but I think when we’re talking about the prescriptiveness of this referral and I do want to bring it back to the referral you know what we’re really saying in this referral is bring back something that doesn’t make as many changes we’re still going to change from 10 meters to 20 meters or perhaps something higher than that but we’re still going to make that change in the distance what we’re not going to do is start taking away a bunch of opportunities for people to put up signs on their lawns we’re not going to punish candidates if it takes them four days to get in their their signs and we’re not going to say you know 90 centimeters is the tallest thing you can have eight meters from the roadway because to the deputy mayor’s point there there’s no point in doing them at that point and if we want to have that discussion about no public signs then we should frankly have that discussion and not you know try and do it through these small restriction items that’s that’s the point that I really the the section D you know I stood on that side of the chambers in 2017 and spoke to the council of the day about why that was wrong and I actually brought in lawn signs and the medium size and then the the large size signs and visually showed them what they were talking about and it was you would only be able to put up lawn signs was it and if you’re talking about eight meters from a roadway like Wellington or Wonderland then then we’re really talking about not putting up public signs because a lawn sign eight meters off of Wonderland Road is not going to be seen by anybody driving by I think that that’s a discussion that we could have moving forward in the future but what we’ve got right now is two elections coming this year and a recommended bylaw that I think becomes too restrictive and makes too many changes especially at a time when we are shifting back to a first past the post campaign and so now you are going to have the reality of the consideration of vote splitting again unlike in ranked ballots where people could choose their second and third choices they’re back to one choice and they’re really going to have to give that some thought I think the mayor made an excellent point about the number of candidates who run municipally so there is more municipal signs up just by virtue of the number of people in the race but I think what we’ve got here is something that says for the time being make a couple of changes like the 20 10 meters to 20 meters but we’re not going to do all of these changes right now and I think for all of the you know thoughts we have about how many complaints signs create you know when we look at this the report 369 complaints is what staff had registered in the report so we had a thousand people respond to the survey but only 369 complaints about signs and councilor blows us correct some complaints go directly to the campaign office and they don’t ever get to municipal bylaw enforcement but I think it’s important to remember that almost 60,000 people voted in the municipal campaign and we’re going to change a sign bylaw based on the survey and and I say this respectfully I am not trying to be critical of staff’s work but I looked at the survey it was check boxes so it wasn’t there wasn’t a lot of opportunity for what do you think the sign law should be it was should it be this or should it be that is it okay or should there be less or should there be more that’s a very hard thing to gauge a really good bit of public feedback on how to change a bylaw on so I I hope for now colleagues will support the referral certainly as I indicated if if there’s a suggestion for an addition to that referral an amendment to it I’m open to hearing that too but I hope we can get to the point where we can provide some direction today so that staff can bring something back in time for the municipal and provincial elections this year thank you counselor Fife Miller thank you madam presiding officer and through you I think a couple of things here one the the word impact comes up a lot and and I think when I read this report one of the things that I didn’t get to see in this report was the impact of the changes which I think are are extremely important but I also think comparatives and counselor Cassidy brought up that she’s been in other municipalities and they look different and this is why they look different but I think some comparatives on what other communities are doing and those best practices that they’re that they’re going through I also think though for me one of the other things that is a challenge there’s a big difference to me between writings and works writings are fairly are fairly balanced in this city but when we break the city down towards whereas five meters in some wards really will have no impactful difference five meters in other words will have an extremely impactful difference on where those signs are available I also think when you’re looking at it from the input of whether or not you’re putting signs in public space or not again when we look at some of our wards public space is extremely limited and having that public space extremely limited we we’re pretty much destined that we’re looking at private space to put signs up and so when we’re looking at that private space to put signs up I think to limit it in a way that we’re saying becomes a challenge and I understand that we want to make a by-law that covers the whole the whole city but I do think that we have to be careful on how we look at doing that because the wards are significantly different and so I just think that when we go through and we are doing this we have to be respectful of the fact that this is going to affect everyone it’s not going to affect just you and your ward thank you thank you counselor five miller we’re going to turn to mayor holder thanks I don’t want to belabor the good comments that have been made by everybody but I want to give a from from this perspective an all-o-city thought because I know that most of us are focused greatly on our wards and they represent give or take one 14th of the city unless you’re talking about the deputy mayor who I think his ward is half the city but I’m not sure but give or take but I would say to you that the what we get what I get concerned about is when the staff recommendations are too prescriptive and even when the referral gets too prescriptive and and and you know it’s how you play solemn and find the rate that settle at the right point is the challenge that we’re going through here so that’s why I think this discussion is is valuable I knock away on too much but just a couple of quick things when I ran for mayor I did not knock on every door physically frankly impossible for me we were allowed to spend up to $225,000 give or take I think it was a couple thousand less than that we raised something just around 200,000 and we relied on brochures heck we relied on bus advertising we relied on brochures the signs of various sizes some of our website comms all these kinds of things that we did and it took all the money that we raised to be able to to do that and I share that with you because a bigger ward may not be able to go door to door all the time not sure but what we don’t want I think any of us is one thing that necessarily favors the incumbent unless for the incumbent I suppose but I don’t think we really want to do that I think we want I think the sense I’m hearing from everyone is to do something that’s fair that’s not ugly that is reasonable too much distance between two signs I’m not as excited about that I can tell you frankly getting rid of signs altogether look here’s what’s clear signs are advertising and one of the things you learn in in business about advertising is that half it works and the other half doesn’t if you only knew which half work that’s where you dedicate your money and your efforts that way so so what do we do we try to do a catch all campaign that has bits and bytes of a lot of things but signs for any and all of us I would dare say was an integral part to our our efforts to become elected or to be in the position that we are today it matters so so that’s what I’ll come back to the original point this whole issue of being a little bit too prescriptive either on the staff or on the referral side is I’d like to see some flexibility on both and then and then we’ll take another run at it sounds like we have some time and and we’ll do a thoughtful consideration for this upcoming potential as well as then our own come the fall so I’ll just leave that for your thoughts and I don’t know if Councillor Morgan’s deputy mayor whether you had some ideas on ameliorating the referral a bit but I heard the Councillor Councillor Lewis say that he was amenable to some some changes some I am some not but anyway I’ll leave it there but thank you chair for this thank you mayor holder Councillor Van Holst thank you madam presiding officer and I’m also going to mention that there’s many places in Ward 1 on the arterial roads where five meters simply wouldn’t would make it impossible for somebody to have a sign on their lawn and I think in terms of the residences we should be as least prescriptive as possible whereas in on city property we can be as prescriptive as we like the other thing I’d mention is the rule that says you can’t have a sign between the roadway and the sidewalk and I do notice there’s there are many places in the city where the sidewalk is very far from the road and so that that makes that rule a little little challenging because there there is the presumption that the sidewalk is close to the road and then property after that but that’s that’s not always the case so we might want to think about an exception there I know that’s necessary for this round of changes it seems like we’ve got some more pertinent ones to to deal with here but again let’s have it be not very prescriptive on on personal residences and then then more prescriptive where where we can do that thank you cancer van host we are going to move over to cancer Cassidy thank you madam presenting officer I just want to point out for everyone and I do agree first of all that um allowing people to display within reason what they would display on the private property is within their right and we should preserve that I want to point out whoever that everything where we talk about these meters and placement of signs that all deals with section four of the by-law which is specifically election signs on public property just so you know so everybody is aware when we’re talking about all of those measurements and everything it’s under section four which is election signs on public property um so I I’m anxious to hear what the deputy mayor has to say I would look to counselor Lewis to see if he would amend his referral motion to say um and I can’t remember us sorry to under section four I believe but the part where it talks about the distance between two signs of the same candidate that the distance be at least 100 meters and I would like to counselor Lewis to see if he views that as a friendly amendment. Thank you madam presiding officer um counselor Cassidy I would absolutely see that as friendly and I would be comfortable with having that uh in the referral as well thank you through you madam presiding officer thank you counselor Lewis that is 4.5 section 4 4.5 item I on that list um and I did I I just do want to make one final final comment um I’m I’m very supportive of counselor palosas um comments about uh signs on public on public property I think that it would not be unreasonable to uh at some point get to the point where we say uh no election signs on public property we already do it with parks which is public property we always already do it around city hall which is public property um so I and and also that delineation between what is public property and what is private property can be very tricky at times for example mason bill mall um there are no signs allowed anywhere near mason bill mall and security will remove them even if they are on the public right of way uh so if you were to go across the street to the law laws there’s a big empty green space right directly in front of law laws that is not technically law laws property it is the city right away and that’s always full of election signs so law laws knows it’s not their property they leave them alone mason bill mall doesn’t view it the same way and I’m perfectly fine with both approaches but I’m just pointing out that the that difference between public and private property is not always clear uh and also uh in the interest of the environment and visual clutter I would absolutely at some point support removing uh signs from public property altogether thank you kind of sarcastic deputy may uh may your jobs program yeah thank you so this is getting um this discussion it really is illuminating my point but I don’t think we really understand um uh nor nor do I think the public of the implications of these changes the suggestion to move um to a hundred meters of spacing between signs like that sounds like a great idea if you envision driving down wonderland road and saying there needs to be space between these things but if you think about it basically wipes out your opportunity to put signs on more than one corner at an intersection um when people are traveling different directions maybe that’s not something that we want to restrict but that would probably be an implication of switching to a hundred meters so what what I think we could do that would allow everybody to to um to be happy um with uh with moving forward at least I’m hopeful is that um perhaps counselor lewis is willing to amend his motion to not throw all the things he wants to consider the changes to off the table but perhaps let’s give us one more committee meeting at this where these changes can be contemplated but also staff can bring forward um some information on on exactly what this looks like um in reality on our streets and anything that they can share on you know the democratic um benefits or consequences of uh more or less election signs most of the changes we’re talking about here lead to more or less election signs on public property and I think that that’s that’s as simple as you got to get to it um it’s clear what the members who feel that the survey would like us to see but I and I’m happy to move forward with some some of their changes if there aren’t significant implications to it but I’m not even sure we fully understand what this means we spent a ton of time talking about five meters and still I think there are members of council who might not be clear on whether this applies to someone’s lawn or not because it’s in public property section of of the report once you get past that road allowance it would be my understanding that you could stick up whatever size sign you want on your on your front lawn within the restrictions of the general signed bylaws within the city because it doesn’t refer here but I’m not sure that’s clear for everybody I’m not sure whether staff would interpret it the same way I’m interpreting it and so what I’m saying is perhaps we can readjust this motion to to have these as options that we can consider but also uh not say incorporate them into the draft bylaw but come back with uh an impact assessment of the potential changes that are being contemplated in in this bylaw and if you want to throw some things specifically in there that you want to exclude I do think that there are things in here that if I read it like the 72 to 96 like yeah you know what council just makes a great point that’s really about giving volunteers times to take down signs that’s that’s and to be honest probably the best funded well organized campaigns who win probably get down their signs a lot easier than those who don’t and it seems very very punitive to to ding people who might not have the resources or might not have one in getting their signs down under a really tight timeline so I think they’re a fair and reasonable changes we can make but I really want to understand the implications of them so I don’t know if Councillor Lewis is willing to adjust his motion because if he’s not you just vote on it and but if he is then like let’s find some consensus here to to get what I think we’re all agreeing on and that’s some more information about the impacts of these changes because we have slightly different opinions on where to go on these. Thank you Deputy Mayor Morgan we’re going to move over to Councillor Lewis.

Thank you Madam Presiding Chair well the Deputy Mayor was speaking the clerks in their great wisdom have suggested a slight change and that it’s say that the draft by-law be referred back to civic administration in order to consider the following changes to the draft by-law we can keep all six of the bullet points there that includes Councillor Cassidy’s amendment of the 100 meters and then if if this is what the Deputy Mayor is so this would be for staff to consider and then if there needs to be another bullet on this that says you know the staff include an impact assessment in their considerations if that’s what you’re looking for Deputy Mayor I’d be okay with something like that as well but I I wonder if just changing from incorporate to consider provides what you’re looking for in terms of giving our staff the opportunity to go look at these and come back in the next cycle through the the presiding chair. Thank you Councillor Lewis I think we’ve exhausted our speakers list so I think it’s time to call the question if nobody else has an up the city the sorry the clerk. Thank you through the chair I’m I’m just working on this amended wording which I’d like to have the committee review before we open the vote respectfully through the chair as well as confirmation that the seconder is comfortable with the changes that we’ll put up momentarily so if you could just give us a quick moment. Thank you Deputy Mayor Markin.

Yeah Councillor Lewis asked a question about my thoughts on the language I think as the clerk’s working on this and I kind of wanted to jump in so that she could hear these thoughts instead of in order to incorporate it would be in order to consider and report back on the impacts of the draft by-law and the possible changes listed below or some some wordsmith language of that the clerk’s has like that would make me more more comfortable because it’s not as definitive we’re getting information back it doesn’t matter to me if I like all of the bullet points under that I’m willing to support a motion that gets its information and impacts back on those bullet points regardless of whether I agree with any individual one of them or not that’s a very comfortable approach to me. Thank you the clerk show us. Yes I’m presenting a chair I just had a question about one of the suggestions about changing the election sign permission to be placed no earlier than one week prior to nomination day for nominated candidates I’m just seeking clarification from the mover of the motion that that is distinct from a campaign office because the current wording makes a distinction between all persons and a sign placed on a campaign office so I’m just seeking clarification on that that suggested bullet point. Councillor Lewis.

Thank you and and through you to the city clerk yes that is apart from the campaign office that is specific to the candidates individual signs for public or private distribution. Thank you for the clarification. Councillor Van Holst. Thank you Madam Presiding Chair.

I would also be interested for us to have some pretty clear wording around the what it means to have a road allowance I should say what does the road allowance mean is that public property are we talking about it that way or is that is that going to be private property I was mentioning that on my in my ward on some of the arterials it certainly couldn’t be five meters back there’s there’s places there where people’s with a road allowance is right up to somebody’s porch so that that that is an issue there and I think we should make that really clear personally I believe that if the property if it looks if putting a sign on a property makes it look like you have support from those individuals then you should have support from from the from the owners and shouldn’t be able to just put a sign up there because it’s because it’s a road allowance ruling in that way might affect some signs on on intersections as well but we may have to think about that nevertheless I would like to have that that be clear so there’s some understanding about how a road allowance might affect a private property owner thank you. Clark Schultes your hand is still up I’m wondering if you wanted to make a comment. Yes Presiding Chair I just had a follow up just to the Councillor’s query there and I was wondering if Ms. Raycroft or Ms.

Korman could address the the road allowance query that he had. Mr. Chair this is Ms. Raycroft here the definition of road allowance is contained in two parts it’s contained within the definition of roadway and then as well within the definition of street when you see street indicated in the by-law it essentially indicates public property which would be the road allowance thank you okay I think we so Councillor Redholst.

Yes so just for follow up then so I have some space on my lawn which is reserved for the road allowance it’s a few meters and so for purposes of my own lawn if it’s more than three meters that means that someone could put a sign on my lawn or what I consider my lawn and that would be still on on public property is that is that a correct interpretation? Through the chair yes if that property was considered the road allowance it would be considered public property if it was within three meters of the roadway the current by-law the the candidate would be able to place a sign there legally as long as it was not considered a site line or traffic concern. Okay that’s interesting to know I don’t know if that’s I think that’s something that we should address so but I’ll leave it to committee to do so thank you thank you okay are we ready to call the question okay we’re ready to go so we’re going to call the question yes please please read it thank you through the chair the motion reads as follows that the draft by-law be referred back to the civic administration in order to consider the following changes to the draft by-law a maintaining the setback distance at the current three meters which is section 4.5b b maintaining the current removal period at 96 hours which is section 3.4 part c incorporate clarification around signage of a campaign office that allows signs on the property without being physically attached to the building part d remove the height restriction of 0.9 meters in the 5 to 8 meters of the roadway regulation which is section 4.6 part a part e amend the distance between election signs of the same candidate to 100 meters which is section 4.5i and f changed the election sign permission to be placed no earlier than one week prior to nomination day for nominated candidates it being noted that there will be a report back to the corporate services committee with respect to the above noted proposed changes as well as information relating to impacts of any proposed changes so chair i have a question if i can please and that is of the two e’s in the first e that says amend the distance between election signs of the same candidate to 100 meters i don’t support that having said it uh so we could either split that out or if it’s covered in the catchall that says that that staff will come back with report corporate services with respect to those changes i can live with that if that’s if again as long as the the first e is not so prescriptive that that’s the only direction that staff will consider maybe just some advice thank you through the chair there is only one e now but yes the intent of this the wording of this motion is for a report back so it could be considered when this comes back to the committee thank you okay are we ready to call the question then all right closing the vote the motion is passed six to zero. Chair back to Councillor Lewis uh thank you Madam Vice Chair and i i hope that was fun for you and your first opportunity to to chair a debate um we certainly gave you lots of back and forth um that concludes the consent agenda and we move on to item three on the schedule of scheduled items of which there are none item four is items for direction and we will deal with these one at a time uh the first item is 4.1 the first report of the city count city/county liaison committee and i’ll look to see if there’s a mover to get that on the floor and then they need to move by mare holder seconded by Councillor 5 miller and we’ll look for any discussion on that i’m seeing none so we can call the question on that closing the vote the motions passed to zero and moving is an application for an issuance of proclamation for black history month look for a mover and a seconder for that and then any discussion moved by Councillor Cassidy seconded by Councillor Hamou looking for any speakers i see none so we will call the question seeing the vote the motions passed six to zero and item three is amendments to members council proof of vaccination policy that includes communications from Councillor van holst a staff report and a second communication from Councillor van holst and i’ll look to committee to see if there’s some direction on how you want to deal with this start with deputy mare morgan and then we’ll go to the mayor yeah i would um uh i i think that Councillor van holst wrote a letter and so i’m happy to hear from him on the contents of his letter uh at the appropriate time mr chair i’m willing to put the uh the staff reports recommendations on the floor and receipt of the other correspondence um but i do think it’s appropriate when a Councillor writes the letter to to hear from them on their issue uh thank you deputy mare so uh do you want to to move the staff recommendation in the receipt of the communications then is that what i’m hearing or do you want to wait for further i will i will allow the Councillor to speak first he wrote the letter first but then i’m i’m that is my intent so i’m just letting colleagues know that’s what i’d like to do okay thank you and i’ve got mayor holder on the speakers list mayor holder thanks i was actually happy to do that uh to actually move that motion uh to uh receive the uh report uh of uh pardon me to uh accept the recommendation of staff and receive the reports of Councillor van holst uh and i’m still prepared to move that uh uh subject to the deputy mayor but if you would like to defer that for uh uh Councillor van holst comments that’s fine which case i’ll be happy to second it well i think it’s always important that we uh focus our our debate and discussion around motions that are actually on the floor as much as possible uh so if you’re comfortable uh moving receipt and the staff recommendation your worship and perhaps the deputy mayor is willing to second that and then we can have our discussion uh with a motion actually on the floor that’s fine texture okay i’ll follow the guidance of the chair as well in a second all right so we have a mover and a seconder uh for the staff recommendations and receipt of the communications uh i will start a speakers list now uh Councillor van holst you did uh submit two communications to us so i will uh let you speak to those now if you wish thank you uh mr chair and uh to the committee for their their willingness to um to have me expand a little bit on the communications uh of course the um the deputy mayor is is is very interested in an alignment between the staff policies and the council policy and uh that that leaves an opening for us to do something slightly differently which is to uh not just adopt the staff policy as it is but uh to direct staff to have their policy be like ours my concern of course with the policies that we’re creating two classes of employees uh or counselors and treating them differently and any anytime that happens there’s some some risks and so i think in in this instance we may be better off uh without out taking those risks i don’t know that the discrimination between the two and i’m not using that in a human rights term it’s just that we’re we’re treating two things differently um i’ll use those those those two phrases interchangeably uh we’re looking at one different from the other but uh sometimes it can be seen as uh as a human rights type of discrimination which is what we want to avoid um in this uh you know in this instance uh i want to point out that one of the things that i think is is is the worst result of uh of the pandemic is the is the loss of respect that’s been that’s taken between place between family members between friends between people who work together uh because they have different opinions on uh how it should how it should be dealt with and that’s one of the things we should uh try to try to prevent and i think that having a by-law that that treats people differently exacerbates that and there’s been staff members who’ve uh written me and said they don’t feel like it’s uh there’s a respectful workplace because people are acting on on those opinions and i think treating people differently will will again as i as i said exacerbate that i’m pointing out that um the vaccines weren’t quite what we hope they would be i know there’s been the metaphor um mr.

chair you use it that it’s it’s like a hard hat and safety boots but uh when we look at the actual performance of the vaccines it’s not that i said in my communications maybe like a tuke and and sandals but uh it doesn’t prevent contraction doesn’t prevent um transmission uh the other challenge that we’re facing now is there’s we’re seeing vaccine side effects as well and i think because of those those two reasons there’s no actual moral high ground here where one group has done the right thing with respect to their vaccine choices you’re the one wrong thing sorry uh your worship go ahead you know i’ve listened to this for for some time and and what i get particularly concerned about is when anyone be a member of council or someone without the appropriate uh credentials speaks to issues as if they were fact and and i think that this does disservice uh to to folks and i’m not going to get into that opinion of it but i’m going to challenge the the credentials of our colleague here who is is presenting his conjecture as fact and i think that’s not only offensive but i do give us a point of order that’s exceptionally misleading thank you worship um councilor van holst do you do you wish to withdraw any of your comments uh in light of the mayor’s point of order uh because i i do think that uh he raises a valid point uh that neither yourself nor other members of council are qualified uh in terms of our technical training uh to be uh providing factual information on efficiencies of vaccines and and uh matters of those natures we’re reliant on what the public health officials provide us okay well i believe that uh i’m i’m simply quoting information that that is out there i believe uh i believe it’s public knowledge that that uh the vaccines don’t um don’t prevent transmission and they don’t prevent contraction but i think that’s that’s councilor van holst as well councilor van holst i i don’t think that um uh to my knowledge and again respectful of your opinion uh i don’t believe i’ve ever heard our medical officer of health uh or or our ontario science table lead or anyone else say that the vaccines uh we’re going to prevent transmission um and so you’re when you’re speaking like that you’re actually putting words into the the mouths of the people who are in leadership positions here so again i just need to caution you um it’s one thing to have an opinion it’s another thing to um be presenting opinion as fact and i think you’re getting close to the line on that i think the mayor’s point of order was raised in a respectful way to suggest that you you’re skating the line here thank you mr chair and uh so i i will talk about the uh the tests then on themselves i know that my wife has a small business and she’s been offered uh some tests through a government program and uh they um the she’s required to sign an agreement which says that uh she acknowledges and agrees that the kits uh haven’t been authorized by health canada for asymptomatic screening that they cannot diagnose whether an individual has covid-19 and that um that they do uh you’ll false negative and false positive results so there’s i see some that seems to me like there’s some questionable value about about pursuing uh those as a means of asymptomatic screening and uh then the next thing i wanted to do and maybe this is a question and uh for our staff in this agreement it also says that that you’re required uh to or it is um the you’re required to represent and warrant the canada that they’ll secure the prior informed consent of the visuals individuals participating and so i want to know if that is the same restrictions that our city is under for using these tests for screening okay thank you for that question i am going to look to see perhaps if miss Livingston uh wants to comment on the screening process sorry mr chair i got thrown there a little bit i believe i’m answering the question around um those uh staff that need to participate in testing in the process around that so what’s important to understand is that the staff that are involved in this program are those that have provided attestations and uh under um our approach we have developed with each of those individual staff and individual covid plan uh for those that have attestations and some instances that may mean remote work which means they do not come into a facility or it may mean that they are participating in the regular testing so that is a plan that is developed individually with each affected employee uh thank you for that and counselor van holst does that address uh your question for you thanks that make the policy very clear and and i appreciate that and uh i i do think there’s a lot of virtue in the policy we we had um previously um this one again treats people a little differently um however i i don’t i don’t think it’s a bad policy i have some concerns about its its effects uh so the question was are we required uh to um as as was said here um to represent and warrant to Canada that uh will secure the the prior informed consent for people participating with uh in these in these tests do we have that prescription uh as a municipality okay i will go back to our city manager miss Livingston to see if um she apologizes she can offer i don’t know the specific answer to that question i wasn’t informed the question was going to be asked so i can follow up uh later uh if that’s necessary but i just want to reiterate in terms of individual staff participation in the program it is an individual program that is part of uh each step for the staff people thank you for that miss Livingston and i think that that’s perfectly fair council van holst are you satisfied if miss Livingston follows up with you uh between now and and the council meeting on the more specific prescriptive question that you had mr chair that would be fine if that’s the case i i’d appreciate that and also um thanks step for coming up with uh an individual program i think that is that is a good step and a good model for other companies that have uh are going to be implementing similar policies and i’ve said that previously about our own so thank you those are those are my comments mr chair thank you i had both councilor Cassidy and councilor morgan deputy mayor morgan on my speaker’s list i’m not sure which one of you actually raised your hand first so i’m going to go to councilor Cassidy first um acknowledging that she’s the current chair of the middle sex London health unit thank you uh counselor or chair thank you mr chair um uh and also you could have done it alphabetically if you weren’t sure so the same result um so um i wonder first of all if we can separate out the votes on these on counselor van holst submissions and the staff report and i would i would have moved um take no action on the counselor’s submissions and i would hope to that the mover might consider adding that to his motion we’ve heard from this uh from counselor van holst time and time and time again over the last few years on these kinds of issues and it doesn’t matter how many times counselor van holst brings these items forward he generally the sole vote uh in on his side of the issue there’s a difference between so i’m sorry can i just mention just to help counselor Cassidy i’m prepared to if the seconder will do it and that you carry on from there to uh to amend that to take no action uh on counselor van holst report and put that in that main motion i apologize so i should have considered that before sorry sure well you could have done that after counselor Cassidy had finished speaking your worship but uh it’s still generous of you to offer to do that um however since since we have interrupted counselor Cassidy at this point i’m just gonna uh ask the clerks uh if they can clarify how the the uh motion is set up currently uh and that may help people understand where we are uh thank you through the chair the the motion that’s before you reads as follows that on the recommendation of the city clerk the proposed bylaw as appended to the staff report dated january 10th 2022 to amend the members of council proof of covid 19 vaccination policy be introduced at the municipal council meeting to be held on january 25th 2022 it being noted that the communications dated december 23rd 2021 and january 6th 2022 from counselor m van holst were received so currently it is an it being noted uh rather than a part a and b if colleagues wish uh to deal with that as a part a and and b and vote on those separately uh we can also uh take that approach uh but currently what we’ve got is the receipt of the communications as an it being noted so with that i’m going to turn it back over to counselor Cassidy to let her continue and to see if she’s got some direction that she would like to uh pursue with that now that the clerk has read out what’s on the floor thank you uh mr chair uh so yes we’ve been dealing with this for quite some time and we’ve been dealing with vaccines specifically for uh about a year now we’ve heard um and in many many public settings from our medical officer of health from the chief medical officer of health of ontario from um the minister of health from various multiple people who are trained in this area trained in public health trained in infectious diseases trained in immunology um we have a counselor who was the head of infectious diseases at the metal sex London health unit for a number of years and he has spoken to us directly we know what public health is telling us and they are the experts we should turn to in these times we’re going to speak specifically about the policy the policy is not about treating people as different kinds of citizens or discriminating against anybody the policy is about keeping members of staff members of council and members of the public as safe as we possibly can as safe as our ability to make policy allows us to it is a multi-layered approach including remote work including personal protective equipment including vaccinations and quarantining and isolating when necessary it is not about a blanket one vaccine will fix the whole thing for everybody there are a number of people in our community in our workforce and in our families who cannot be vaccinated or for whom the vaccinations are not as effective as they are for some other people it is about our ability to put as many measures in place so that we can open up our society and so that we can keep our vulnerable safe i’m going to speak about my own personal situation and no counselor van holst has shared his personal situation in the past i’m one of the caregivers for my father who’s 88 years old legally blind he has multiple health issues i have to go to his house four times a month he cannot be alone i am doing everything in my power including vaccinations and booster shots to keep myself safe so that i don’t kill my father at the end of the day that’s my goal so that is why i have asked the mover and seconder to take no action on this because i am so tired of talking about this i’m tired of misinformation and disinformation being spread from the council floor thank you can’t council Cassidy and i just want to come back to you for clarity uh you’re asking that the receipt be dealt with rather than it being noted as an action and that we take no action as part of that receipt yeah yeah mr chair thank you thank you and i know the mayor indicated he was amenable to that deputy mayor morgan you were the seconder you’re okay with that i see your hands up so we’re just going to give the clerks a moment to adjust what we’ll be voting on and chair sorry for interrupting you and the and the learned councilor kaspie so keen to uh to amend that motion so thank you for your interdiction thank you you worship no not a problem there i know you were just eager to uh get this item dealt with and and understand that um do we have any i don’t see anybody on screen uh in chambers do we have anybody else to speak uh to the item before we called the question deputy mayor morgan yes i just want to explain uh my rationale for being supportive of taking no action because i think it’s important to explain why you would do that in the councilor’s letter uh he suggests a specific action um uh that staff would take and i i think it’s appropriate if committee wants to make a recommendation to take no action it’s um it makes it very definitive that we’re not interested in entertaining the action that was suggested in the letter so i’m i’m happy to vote on it that way it’s not something that i think we do very often but i think it can be um justified at times thank you deputy mayor uh and i don’t see any other speakers so if the the committee will indulge me just for a moment uh to speak from the the chair uh on this uh i actually very much appreciate councilor Cassidy uh asking for it to be dealt with in this way um i am much more comfortable receiving this with taking no action um i wasn’t actually particularly comfortable receiving it um and i say this with all due respect uh to the councilor with his submission when i start reading submissions that are speculative about people in your immediate circle uh having uh reactions to a vaccine that which are not backed up by uh and should not be in a in a public communication uh but quite frankly the public health data doesn’t suggest that and i i find that to be of concern and frankly of misinformation and misleading the public when that happens so i was reluctant to even receive the communication but if we’re going to receive and take no action uh i’m a little more comfortable with that because i think it’s a little more definitive uh than receiving so that’s my thoughts that i just wanted to share with the committee and and uh we’ll see if the clerks have the motion ready uh the clerk is nodding it’s updated on the screens and on e-scribe so i’ll just look see if there’s any more comments before we call the question and seeing none we’ll call the question on this closing the vote the motions passed six to zero thank you clerk moving on uh that completes the items for direction uh deferred matters and additional business we do have one added uh and that is the application uh for an issuance of proclamation uh for the national day of remembrance of the Quebec City mosque attack and action against islamophobia and i’ll look to see councilor humu you’re moving that uh councilor fife miller a seconding i’ll look to see if there’s any discussion mare holder thank you very much just through you to staff just to see how because we’re talking about this as a national remembrance uh and uh i had very specific discussions with the mare of Quebec City which is referenced in this motion uh and we brought in the uh by virtue frankly of the efforts of our letter uh those are so many uh we were able to have that summit that was uh had been uh discussed and promised but we’ve got uh specifics on it but my question through you chair is this uh it’s if we’re talking about a national day of remembrance that presumes that nationally uh that uh the federal government is working towards this as well so i’m just wondering if staff have received any communication uh from uh the uh from the individuals requesting the uh the national day of remembrance if in fact this is uh national in its scope well i’m not sure if uh staff will have an answer to that or not your worship but i will look to the city clerk to see uh if uh he’s aware of any communications indicating a national observance to the chair i i am not but i would welcome um it’s best like power to jump in if she is aware of any communication through the chair um all of the information that we have is attached to the agenda for your consideration thank you clerks your worship so chair i’m not sure where to go with this i look i i think you will get full support from committee and council because london was a strong leader of uh uh uh the summit uh doing this is longophobia so uh but what i would like to get at some sense of and and i don’t know if there’s an opportunity to defer this to our next meeting if we can reach out uh to the individuals behind the request and uh and and just get that broader background to determine if in fact what we need to do is uh is is this intended as leverage uh to get the uh to get this recognized if that wasn’t a hundred percent clear to me and to be fair i didn’t reach out to the uh responded in this case um you’re going to find strong support but i’m just not sure if it’s leverage or whether we’re part of a movement to uh to uh to support this across the country so i’m just wondering through you if it makes sense to defer this one cycle so that we can do the right thing and maybe someone has better insight than i do to this so your worship i i’m going to get some comment from staff as well i’m also just going to share with you uh from the perspective of the lgbtq community there have been uh community recognized national days of observance that have not been necessarily recognized by the federal government in certain circumstances um but i see our city manager uh is on the line to offer some comment and i believe the clerk has some as well so first we’ll go to miss Livingston and then we’ll go to miss was like power mr charristan to be corrected but i believe uh that this has been declared a national day of remembrance i believe that was done uh early about this time last year uh recognizing uh january 29th so i believe it is a national recognition uh we can work to try and confirm that um but that’s my understanding is that it is a national recognition in place already not an effort to have it recognized thank you miss Livingston that’s as always very helpful uh and i think the uh the clerk of the committee uh has some comment as well your worship which i think will probably indicate there’s no time to defer through the chair that is correct i just want to confirm that the date being requested is for january 29th so we could not accommodate a referral and uh still bring that through before that date thank you for that uh clerk uh before i go to deputy mayor morgan your worship does that answer your questions did you or did you have further comment or question no it does and uh and pretty based on what you’ve offered up as comments chair i prepared support thank you uh deputy mayor morgan yeah i’ll support this as well i think that the mayor made a good point um given the timelines there’s time for our staff to uh to look into this before it hits the council meeting uh next week and ensure that the answers to colleagues questions uh are there um whether it’s a national day of remembrance or a day of remembrance because the city of London can’t proclaim something nationally pretty sure we could figure it out at council um once we’ve got all the questions but um today i think we should pass it in and move it to the to the next step thank you deputy mayor morgan i’m going to go to councilor hamu i was just gonna sorry i was just going to say that um i did find some information that the liberal government um declared january 29th the national day of remembrance um last year thank you councilor hamu so i think that that answers uh your question uh your worship and i see some nodding there so uh seeing no other hands up we’ll call the question on this item closing the vote the motions passed six to zero colleagues we just on the agenda that is confidential matters so uh just before i look for a motion to go into camera uh just for the public’s information uh we are going into camera on four items uh the purposes of which are related to land acquisition solicitor client privilege advice uh land disposition solicitor client privilege advice uh land acquisition and personal matters identifiable individual labor relations matter so those are the uh the four items and the three reasons for which we’ll be going in camera so i’ll look for a motion to go in camera move by councilor cassity seconded by councilor fife miller and we’ll call the question mayor holder closing the vote the motion is passed five to zero so i’ll just let you know that mayor holder uh has left the meeting i don’t know whether he’s going to be able to rejoin us or not uh we’ll just need a couple minutes to shuffle the proverbial deck chairs so that we have the right people in the room for the items that we are dealing with in camera