February 8, 2022, at 4:00 PM

Original link

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that the following pecuniary interests were disclosed:

a) Councillor S. Lehman discloses a pecuniary interest in clause 4.1 having to do with the Core Area Pilot Program involving the London Downtown Business Association (LDBA) and clause 4.6 having to do with the appointment to the LDBA, by indicating he is a member of the LDBA.

b) Councillor P. Van Meerbergen discloses a pecuniary interest in clause 4.9 having to do with the 7th Report of the Governance Working Group and specifically the Childcare Advisory Committee being dissolved, by indicating that his wife owns/operates a childcare business.

2.   Consent

2.1   Anonymized Application Review for the London Community Grants Program

2022-02-08 Staff Report - Anonymized Application Review

Moved by M. Hamou

Seconded by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the staff report dated February 8, 2022 regarding an Anonymized Application Review for the London Community Grants Program BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

None.

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   Strategy to Reduce Core Area Vacancy - Business Case: Core Area Pilot Program

2022-02-08 Submission - Business Case - LEDC

Moved by M. van Holst

Seconded by M. Cassidy

That the following actions be taken with respect to the “Strategy to Reduce Core Area Vacancy – Business Case: Core Area Pilot Program”:

a)    the communication dated February 8, 2022 from Planning and Economic Development regarding the Strategy to Reduce Core Area Vacancy - Business Case: Core Area Pilot Program BE RECEIVED;

b)    the funding request by London Economic Development Corporation as presented in the “Business Case: Core Area Pilot Program” BE APPROVED;

c)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required by the City Solicitor, to implement the approved noted in part b) above.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

4.2   Draft Climate Emergency Action Plan

2022-02-08 Staff Report - Draft Climate Emergency Action Plan-Appendix A

2022-02-08 Staff Report - Draft Climate Emergency Action Plan

Moved by M. van Holst

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the draft Climate Emergency Action Plan:

a)    the draft Climate Emergency Action Plan, as appended to the staff report dated February 8, 2022 as Appendix “A”, BE RECEIVED;

b)    the draft Climate Emergency Action Plan Foundational Actions, as appended to the staff report dated February 8, 2022 as Appendix “B”, BE RECEIVED;

c)    the Background Information (Supporting Documents) to Develop the Draft Climate Emergency Action Plan, as appended to the staff report dated February 8, 2022 as Appendix “C”, BE RECEIVED for information; and,

d)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to hold a public participation meeting at the April 5, 2022 Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee with respect to the draft Climate Emergency Action Plan;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a presentation from the Director, Climate Change, Environment & Waste Management and a communication dated February 6, 2022 from Councillor M. van Holst with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

4.3   A London For Everyone: An Action Plan to Disrupt Islamophobia

2022-02-08 Staff Report - A London for Everyone

Moved by M. Salih

Seconded by S. Turner

That on the recommendation of the City Manager, the following action be taken with respect to ending Islamophobia in London:

a) the report of the Anti-Islamophobia Working Group, A London for Everyone: An Action Plan to Disrupt Islamophobia (Action Plan), attached to the staff report dated February 8, 2022 as Appendix “A”, BE ENDORSED;

b) the recommendations of A London for Everyone: An Action Plan to Disrupt Islamophobia which are specifically directed towards the Corporation of the City of London BE ENDORSED;

c) letters of support, from Community Based and Public Sector organizations and individual members of the Muslim communities, attached to the staff report as Appendix “B”, BE RECEIVED;

d) the members of the London Anti-Islamophobia Working Group BE THANKED for their time and effort in developing recommendations to end Islamophobia in London;

e) one-time funding of up to $150,000 BE AUTHORIZED from the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve for the erection of a memorial plaza at the intersection of Hyde Park Road/South Carriage Road, creation of a mural, and establishment of a Community Garden in honour of Our London Family;

f) the Mayor BE DIRECTED to establish an Anti-Islamophobia Advisory Council/Circle, with appropriate representation of diverse Muslims in London, to meet quarterly with the responsibility to provide oversight for the implementation of the Action Plan recommendations directed to the Corporation of the City of London;

g) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake the following actions for accountability and implementation:

i) establish a Muslim Community Liaison Advisor role within the Anti-Racism Anti-Oppression Division with the responsibility of working with community partners and the City of London to implement the recommendations of the Action Plan, it being noted that this position will be funded on a temporary basis within existing budget resources;

ii) continue the work of the Anti-Islamophobia Working Group to provide a forum to update on progress, share best practices and hold each other accountable;

iii) request that the Community Diversity & Inclusion Strategy (CDIS) consider whether Islamophobia should form a distinct priority within the Strategy; and,

iv) create an implementation plan for the Corporation of the City of London actions to end Islamophobia with activities, responsibilities, timelines, measures, and budget requirements (inclusive of additional funding needs) by September 2022;

h) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to share the A London for Everyone: An Action Plan to Disrupt Islamophobia with local Provincial and Federal Members of Parliament, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a presentation from the Director, Anti-Racism and Anti-Oppression with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

4.4   London and Middlesex Community Housing

Moved by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by M. Hamou

That Anne-Marie Mitchell BE APPOINTED to the London & Middlesex Community Housing Board of Directors for the term ending December 31, 2025 (Third Class); it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication from A. Anderson, Board of Directors, London & Middlesex Community Housing with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

4.5   Consideration of Appointment to the Waste Management Working Group (Requires a Minimum of 3 Council Members)

2022-02-08 Submission - WWMG - S. Turner

2022-02-08 Submission - WWMG - M. van Holst

2022-02-08 Submission - WWMG - E. Peloza

Moved by M. Cassidy

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the following BE APPOINTED to the Waste Management Working Group for the term ending November 14, 2022 or when the City’s Resource Recovery Plan and Residual Waste Disposal Plan are approved by Council, whichever comes first:

Councillor S. Turner

Councillor M. van Holst

Councillor E. Peloza

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

4.6   Appointment to the London Downtown Business Association

2022-02-08 Submission - London Downtown Business Association

Moved by J. Helmer

Seconded by M. van Holst

That Councillor J. Fyfe-Millar BE APPOINTED to the London Downtown Business Association for the term ending November 14, 2022; it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated January 20, 2022 from Councillor J. Helmer with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

4.7   1st Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Advisory Committee

2022-02-08 1st Report of DIAAC

Moved by M. Hamou

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 1st Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Advisory Committee from its meeting held on December 16, 2021:

a)   the communication from L. Poeta with respect to the Canadian Brewhouse Inukshuk BE REFERRED to Civic Administration for their consideration; and

b) clauses 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 6.1 and 6.3 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

4.8   2nd Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Advisory Committee

2022-02-08 2nd Report of DIAAC

Moved by M. Cassidy

Seconded by S. Turner

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2nd Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Advisory Committee from its meeting held on January 20, 2022:

a) the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to include a template for the Acknowledgement of Indigenous Lands on all future Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Advisory Committee Agendas;

it being noted that the meeting was opened with an Acknowledgement of Indigenous Lands by M. Buzzelli; and,

b) clause 1.1, 2.2, 3.1, 4.1, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 7.1 and 7.2 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

4.9   7th Report of the Governance Working Group

2022-02-08 GWG Report 7

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 7th Report of the Governance Working Group from its meeting held on January 17, 2022:

a)  based on the results of the Council-directed Advisory Committee Member consultation, the Governance Working Group (GWG) recommends the following actions be taken:

i)    the attached revised Terms of Reference for the London Community Advisory Committees (LCAC) BE APPROVED for enactment;

ii)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to recruit for the membership appointments for all of the LCACs, included in part a) above, upon Council approval;

iii)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a future meeting of the GWG with respect to an updated General Terms of Reference for all Advisory Committees to support the approved new structure, including but not limited to the feedback collected from the Advisory Committee consultation with respect to recruitment, term, flexibility in procedure, and reporting;

iv)     an additional round of consultation with the newly established LCACs, once established, BE UNDERTAKEN to identify any additional considerations around operational matters;

v)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee with a plan to establish a new Housing Committee to assist Council in meeting its goals under the approved municipal budget, the Strategic Plan and the Roadmap to 3000, with the committee include representatives from London and Middlesex Community Housing, community members at large, and relevant housing not-for-profits, organizations, and industry partners;

vi)    the Childcare Advisory Committee BE DISSOLVED and no new related committee be established.

b) clause 1.1 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That Part a) vi) BE APPROVED as follows:

the Childcare Advisory Committee BE DISSOLVED and no new related committee be established BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That Part a) i) BE APPROVED as follows:

the attached revised Terms of Reference for the London Community Advisory Committees (LCAC) BE APPROVED for enactment; and

ii)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to recruit for the membership appointments for all of the LCACs, included in part a) above, upon Council approval; BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 3)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That Part a) iii) BE APPROVED as follows:

the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a future meeting of the GWG with respect to an updated General Terms of Reference for all Advisory Committees to support the approved new structure, including but not limited to the feedback collected from the Advisory Committee consultation with respect to recruitment, term, flexibility in procedure, and reporting;

iv)     an additional round of consultation with the newly established LCACs, once established, BE UNDERTAKEN to identify any additional considerations around operational matters;

v)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee with a plan to establish a new Housing Committee to assist Council in meeting its goals under the approved municipal budget, the Strategic Plan and the Roadmap to 3000, with the committee include representatives from London and Middlesex Community Housing, community members at large, and relevant housing not-for-profits, organizations, and industry partners; and

b) clause 1.1 BE RECEIVED for information BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

4.10   Unique Part-Time Role of Council

2022-02-08 Submission - Councillor

Moved by M. van Holst

Seconded by S. Turner

That the Governance Working Group BE REQUESTED to discuss and report back to the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee with their recommendations about Council continuing as a unique-part-time-role versus transitioning to a unique-full-time-role.

Motion Passed (10 to 4)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   (ADDED) Audit and Accountability Fund - Intake 3 - Transfer Payment Agreement and Single Source Contract Award

2022-02-08 Staff Report - Audit Accountability Fund - Transfer Payment Agreement

Moved by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by J. Helmer

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated February 8, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on February 15, 2022, to:

i)    approve the Ontario Transfer Payment Agreement, appended as Appendix “B”  to the proposed by-law, for the Audit and Accountability Fund – Intake 3 (the “Agreement”) between Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and The Corporation of the City of London;

ii)    authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement; 

iii)    delegate authority to the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, or their written delegate, to approve further Amending Agreements to the above-noted Transfer Payment Agreement for the Audit and Accountability Fund;

iv)    authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute any amending agreements approved by the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development; and,

v)   authorize the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, or their written delegate, to execute any financial reports required under this Agreement and to undertake all administrative, financial, and reporting acts necessary in connection with the Agreement;

b)    a Single Source Procurement (SS-2022-044) in accordance with section 14.4(e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy BE AWARDED to EZSigma Group, 61 Wellington Street East, Aurora, ON, L4G 1H7, to conduct the Audit and Accountability Fund Intake 3 – Site Plan Resubmission Process Review for the City of London at a cost of up to $305,280.00 (including HST); and,

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this matter.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

6.   Confidential (Enclosed for Members only.)

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by E. Peloza

That the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee convene, In Closed Session, with respect to the following matter:

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

       

A matter pertaining to the security of municipal property; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege including communications necessary for that purpose; 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.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

The Strategic Priorities convenes, In Closed Session, from 8:52 PM to 8:57 PM.

7.   Adjournment

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 9:00 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 (5 hours, 7 minutes)

Good afternoon, colleagues. Welcome to the SPPC committee meeting. I just wanna bring some regrets from the mayor. He’s unable to join us tonight, but he did ask that I pass along his regrets for not being here.

So you’re stuck with me on what looks to be an exciting and action-packed meeting. I’ll just start off by reading a statement for colleagues and those listening in. The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for council standing and advisory committee meetings and information upon request. To make a request for any city service, please contact accessibility@london.ca or 519-661-2489 extension 2425.

To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact sppc@london.ca. I will start off with disclosures of pecuniary interest. I see councilor Layman. I will choose myself from 4.1 as I’m a member of the LDBA and the LDBA as a financial component to this discussion.

Okay, anyone else? Okay, seeing none, we’re on to consent items. This is a report to be received on an anemonizing, difficult word, the application review for the London Community Grants Program. So I look for a mover and a sector on this and certainly we can go with questions.

I see councilor Hamou moving, councilor Palosa seconding. I’ll look to colleagues for questions or discussion. Councilor Palosa. Thank you, Mr.

Person, the officer. And thank you to staff for this. It was definitely worth the wait. This was one that councilor Lewis and I had requested and looking at different ways we do things.

So happy to see with the report that we’re going to be looking at how other not-for-profits in the sector do single applications for a portal and also looking at application methods such as storytelling, recognizing when we look at programs like these, it shouldn’t be just the best grant writer on monthly has the best chances of getting the money and the funding that they desperately need. So grateful for this and happy for the report back, recognizing that in this case staff feels that anonymized reporting isn’t best for the applications itself, but perhaps there will be other applications for applications of actual individuals who want to serve on committees. So glad that we have this information now in this city’s resources. So thank you to staff for this.

Thank you for the discussion. Okay, seeing none, then we can open this one for voting. I’ll send a vote, motion carries 14 to zero. Colleagues, we have no scheduled items.

The next section is items for direction. And the first item on that list does not have a presentation associated with it, but it does have a report related to the strategy to reduce core area vacancy, the business case for a core area pilot program. In just preparation for this meeting, should colleagues wish to proceed with this item? I did ask that the clerks prepare some language in advance of the meeting that would involve receiving the document approving the funding request by the LEDC and authorizing the mayor and clerk to execute any contracts or other documents for this.

So if you’d like to approve it, we do have some wording prepared ahead of time. There’s also obviously every other option before us, but since this is committee, perhaps it would be appropriate to start off to see if colleagues have any questions or comments for our staff. And if someone does stick up their hand and they’re prepared to take an action on this, I’d certainly entertain that at that time. So a look to colleagues for comment and discussion.

I see Councillor Vanholz first. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m happy to move forward with this so if the clerks could present that motion, I’d be happy to move that.

I’m gonna read the full motion so that then I can ask for a seconder. Just so colleagues know exactly what it is and I’ll ask our clerk to put it up on the screen as well once we have a seconder. It is that the following actions be taken with respect to the strategy to reduce core area vacancy, business case, core area action, a core area pilot program. A, the communication dated February 8th from the planning and economic development, from planning and economic development regarding the strategy to reduce core area vacancy, business case, core area pilot program be received.

B, the funding requested by the London Economic Development Corporation as presented in the business case, core area pilot program be approved and C, the mayor and clerk be authorized to execute any contract or any other documents if required by the city solicitor to implement this approval. Is there a seconder for that motion? I see Councillor Cassidy. So that is moved and seconded.

So we’ll continue with the debate and if there are any questions for our staff, of course we can entertain those as well. Councillor Van Wollst. Thank you. So I had a chance to discuss this with the Small Business Center and I think they have done well for London to take this on.

I know that some of the funding that they’re going after might have been tricky to get if our community hadn’t already been working on a number of things related to the recovery. So we’re in a pretty good position to take advantage of some funds that are available and this plan should do that for us. So I look forward to the results of the program. Thank you, Councillor.

Any further discussion? Councillor Cassidy. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

I just want to thank the organizations involved. The Business Center, downtown London, all these villages, LEDC, and for this business case that’s come forward. I think they’ve done an excellent job with a small amount of money that is being provided by City Council and a short duration of time. So some really quick hits.

I just want to make a comment for City staff that we can’t lose sight of the bigger picture. This is a one-year pilot project. I think it is a great plan, but I think we can’t forget to look longer term and bigger picture. We’ve got a concern with vacant buildings in downtown London and in Odys Village and throughout the City of London, really.

And we have to have a long-term strategy to address that situation. And some of the social concerns with downtown will never go away or never be drastically improved until we really do come at this with a long-term big picture approach. Thank you. Councillor Lewis.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So let me start by saying right up front, I fully support the recommendation that’s coming forward here. And I think that this is going to be a good use.

And I think that the business plan that’s come before us is quite sound, I like what I’m seeing. And I am hopeful that it will have an impact in making a difference. My concern remains around the ready fire aim sort of feel that our approach to our downtown issues feels like it has sometimes. And I say that because I look at all of the different tactical tools that we’re trying to utilize to tackle those challenges.

And whether it’s the core area action plan or a number of the recommendations that have been already implemented or are being operationalized out of the London Community COVID Recovery Network or the CIPs that are available or the BIAs both in OEV and in downtown itself. What I’m still struggling to see is an overarching vision for our downtown, a strategy. And I know that Mayor Holder touched on at least a component of that in his state of the city address in making our downtown an entertainment district and some visionary goals he had towards that. And that’s helpful.

But I do think we still have to take a step back, not that we should take a step back from this particular project because I think it’s worthwhile going forward with this one right now. And I think it’s going to be directed towards an immediate impact need. But I do think we need to really take the time to ask ourselves what is our overall goal in the downtown? I think most of us recognize that the days of an Uneaten’s or a Simpson’s or a Bay anchoring downtown retail are in the past and they’re not coming back.

And that in many ways, it’s the niche retail and the entertainment and hospitality sector that are the future of our downtown. I still don’t see that being articulated particularly well. And I still have concerns about some of the issues that we have around some of the social problems downtown. There’s a lot of moving pieces here.

And so I just want us to all keep in mind that these pieces need to be complimentary. If they start becoming overlapping, redundant, we have to look at the ones that are working and the ones that aren’t. So I’m going to support this tonight. And again, I echo Councilor Cassidy’s comments about the work that the LABC’s put into this.

This one’s an easy yes for me. I think for a small amount of money, there’s potentially really big impact. My bigger concern is how it’s going to be sustained and how it will be integrated with the other pieces of work that are going on in the downtown. So certainly, if staff have any comments that they’d like to share about, how those integrate, I’m happy to hear them.

If they want to share those offline later, I’m happy to do that as well. But it remains a concern for me as of how all of these pieces are going to fit together. Councilor Lasky, do you want me to require staff to have a comment? If staff have a comment, I’m happy to hear it now.

If they think that that’s something that is more appropriately followed up with later, that’s fine too. I’ll look to staff to comment on the councilor’s comments. Through the chair, I guess nobody’s jumping up and down. And that was all, I’ll tell you, it’s George Cox at this.

There are several plans underway. There’s some that are coming forward to you this year as well, including the broader kind of vacancy strategy in the downtown as well. But it’s been a lot of work in the downtown plan. We’re working with the BIA’s main street and others as well.

And so there’s a lot of moving parts to this and clearly our official plan has a significant role in this as well. And be very happy to have our staff reach out to the good councilor to have further conversation if that would be beneficial. Great, thank you. I don’t see anyone else on the speaker’s list.

Oh, I do see one, Councilor Five Miller. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. And for you, I think everybody on this council knows the value of a strong downtown. We know the financial impacts that our downtown gives us.

When we look at it, we’re getting over 6% of our total tax base out of our core. And with the residential units that are coming online, we’re looking at seeing that percentage increase over time. I wanna echo everyone else’s comments. I think the amount of work that was put into this by the LADC and by the partners, the BIA’s Small Business Center is exceptional in a short period of time.

And I think we have to commend them for the work that they put in. But I’m gonna echo and say, I think this is one piece of a very large puzzle that we need to be able to put together in our downtown. We have some challenges. We have some fabulous bones in our downtown.

To me, this is a reactive measure post COVID that we have to deal with, but we need that long-term plan. We need that long-term vision of what we want our downtown to be. I look at this, I looked back back in 2015. We did an our move forward document and it was our downtown area plan.

And let’s be honest, coming out of COVID, that plan is, it’s stale bread now at the end of the day. We need to put time, energy and financial resources into having our downtown become what it can be, what we need it to be. So I, again, I look at this, I support this. I think this is a good plan, but I think as a council, we need to really put some time and energy and thought into what we want our downtown to be.

And I think once we get that vision in playing, it will make our path forward much easier. But part of that vision has to be dealing with the issues that we’re having. And I think it will give us a solid road forward. But like I say, I look at this right now.

I like this, but I do see this as one small piece to a puzzle that needs to be put together. Thank you. I have Councillor Hopkins and then Councillor Hameo next. Yeah, thank you, Mr.

Presiding Officer. And I appreciate the downtown more Councillor’s comments. I know time and energy is what’s needed. The past seven years that I’ve been on council, I think the downtown we all, as Councillors are invested in the downtown, so very supportive of doing something here when it comes to the core area pilot project.

And I’ve heard from a number of my colleagues, the importance of that long-term vision. And obviously the resources and energy that needs to go into economic recovery right now as we get out of COVID, we started off doing and having great ideas of the downtown, then we, COVID hit. And I think as Londoners, I know, Londoners are supportive of our downtown and wanted to see investments and opportunities. And we know when we invest in the downtown, our payback is much larger.

But I also look at it as a Londoner on how I can support London and local businesses. This is a great opportunity that we can all be part of the solution. For sure, we need to know where we’re gonna go long term, that this to me is a great opportunity to start with economic recovery. Thank you.

Thanks, Councillor. I have Councillor Himu next. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

Yeah, I just wanted to echo a lot of what my colleagues on Councillor are saying. And just to kind of say that I’m along with Councillor 5 Miller, I see this as a start and that there has to be a long-term, bigger vision. And we need to create that vision. So any kind of investments we make in this area, I’m very happy to do so.

I’ve heard from my own ward that downtown’s extremely, the core is extremely important to them and they want to be able to go downtown. And so it’s virtual ground right now that we start implementing some of the changes that need to happen so that we can, coming out of the COVID recovery, start this whole, start kind of a movement to get people into the core. So I’m actually quite excited about this plan and hopefully we can grow it further. Thank you, Councillor Vindalls.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So it looks like we are getting $450,000 worth of fed dev investment for the plan. And I think that we’re responding to a short timeline in this and so we did, we are in fact working on along the longer term plan.

And is there somebody that can tell us where we are along that path? I’ll go to staff. I’m not sure who would like to respond to that question, but feel free to jump in. Through the chair, were you referring to the vacancy plan and the parking report that is coming forward in this quarter?

Councillor Vindalls, can you clarify? Okay, well, thank you. I think those are parts of that longer term vision. As well.

And maybe I could ask, just glancing through the report, quickly trying to find out what we’re going after some fed dev money here. And there was some timeliness to this report because of that. But I do think we are working on that longer term vision that people who are needed, people have referred to and that a couple of those reports that Mr. Cotsvis referred to are part of that coming together.

So maybe if you could just give us a brief idea of what other pieces will be of the puzzle, we’ll be able to put together in a fairly short term. So Mr. Cotsvis, he’s looking for just a brief overview of what’s coming down the pipe that would also support this. So one of the biggest, I think, over kind of arching documents that speak to the downtown is really our official plan.

And there is a vision in that document for our downtown place types and even the role, there’s a section called role within the city structure. So there’s quite a large, I guess a lot of emphasis put into our downtown through that official plan document. And many of our other policies like the downtown plan and our move forward and other documents that we’ve created and we’ve been reporting back to you over the years, actually, you know, derive from that official plan document. So that would be probably the first place I would look for if you were looking to a kind of a strategic document about what our vision of the downtown is.

And if there was an interest or a need to revise any of that, you know, there is the ability to amend your official plan if you feel that additional language needs to be put into that document. In terms of the, this piece that we talked about today is quite as many counselors mentioned is just a small component of all the multitude of programs that are being explored either through LCRN or the core area action plan. And we’ve been reporting through periodically to counsel on those initiatives. I think the core action plan is actually being reported on next month as well.

We also have the downtown vacancy report that’s coming to you next month and LCRN as well, as well as the strategic plan itself. So there’s many, many documents that are out there that speak to this downtown and the vision of the downtown. I hope that provides a bit of a context. I think so, I see the council nodding.

All good? Yes, thank you. So it seems like that plan will be coming together. And I do agree that things are gonna have to be different.

People aren’t gonna come downtown for the staples, but except for the people that live downtown and that’s gonna be a big part of it. So as we have more residential properties, particularly high rises, putting up here, we’ll have more people and that’s what’s really gonna vitalize the businesses. I recall living on the 33rd floor of the Hotel Plaza II at Young and Bloor. And there were residential high rises around there.

And that was a booming place for the businesses in the area because there were so many people supporting them. And I think that’s gonna be the key to turning our downtown around plus all those, the great businesses that are rejuvenating some of the properties and bringing new, new particularly tech jobs to the core. I think that’s really encouraging. So I look forward to what can happen.

And I also look forward to see what we can do with this pilot. Okay, thank you, Councilor. That exhausts my speaker’s list. So I think if there’s no further comments, where, oh, I have Councilor Halmer.

Thank you. I wanted to say first, although I don’t have a peonary interest on this issue, my wife did work for the Canadian Urban Institute and the Urban Canadian Urban Institute was one of her clients last year. That’s not the case now. So that’s why I don’t have a peonary interest.

I wanted to say, I really appreciate what I’m hearing from colleagues about the need to meet some of the particular challenges in the core. I think the idea of attracting a new retail and main street type businesses to fill some vacancies is especially a good one. And I think this is a well-targeted program. I think one of the reasons the program is so clearly filling a very direct need is that we’ve got a great group of partners working on it.

I think it’s actually quite a quick turnaround to mobilize a number of people. I think the sources of funding that people are going after to try and make this happen. It’s a good mix and that’s the kind of thing we need people cooperating across organizations, drawing together multiple different funding sources to make great things happen in terms of the recovery downtown and throughout the city. And I wanted to just say to the various partners as well as Business Center, LADC, hopefully the Canadian Urban Institute, the BIA’s great work to try and make this happen.

I think it’s a really good model of what we could do. And I agree that much more needs to be done throughout the whole city to support recovery, but this is a good idea and I support this specific request. Now I don’t think I see any other colleagues looking to speak. So with that, we will open this for voting.

It’s moved. Councilor Van Walsen, I assume your hand is up from before. You never just, you just didn’t take it down? Yes, sorry.

Yeah, great. Okay, it’s moved and seconded. Moved by Councilor Van Walsen, seconded by Councilor Cassidy. I’ll open this for voting.

Close in the vote. Motion carries 13 to zero with one recuse. Okay, colleagues, onto 4.2, which is the draft climate emergency action plan. We are gonna have a presentation on this.

I will just note for colleagues, if you look in the added agenda, you will see a copy of the presentation so you can follow along from there if you like. And also this is before us in its draft form. So there’s the motion in the staff report is essentially to receive all of the information and then staff seeking a direction to potentially hold a public participation meeting on this matter. So lots of good opportunity to ask lots of questions, but maybe many of those will be answered by the presentation as it goes on.

So I will turn it over to Ms. Sure. Chair, and you can take it from here. Thank you much.

I am pleased to table the draft climate emergency action plan today. The staff report, the CEP, the appendices, represent thousands of hours of work by staff, not just in environment and infrastructure, but in every single service area of the city. This has truly been an enterprise wide effort. And my team and I are very grateful for their time and their wisdom and their innovation and dedication to bringing this forward for you to consider.

So just a comment on process, as Deputy Mayor Morgan noted, we are tabling this report this evening. We are not asking for approval at this time. We are recommending to hold a PPM to hear from Londoners that a future meeting of this committee, we are prepared to proceed as early as March 8th, but certainly are happy to consider a later date to give council and Londoners the time they need with the plan. It is an all of London plan and it’s also a living plan.

It’s one that will be monitored and updated regularly. It’ll be refined to the chase of changing technologies, community choices and financial supports and partnership opportunities that become available. There are going to be a great number of decision points along the path that leads us from today to net zero in 2050 and council and Londoners will be part of every step of that journey. But I’m very happy to turn things over to Mr.

Stanford, Director of Climate Change Environment and Waste Management who has about a 10 minute presentation for you. He promises. Thank you, Ms. Schur and good afternoon and thank you for allowing us on the agenda today.

Before you, it’s a slide that you’ve probably seen before, the emissions, the community emissions of greenhouse gas in the city of London back in 2019. We’re using that as our benchmark year because that is the year that council declared a climate emergency. When we look at our local information, we understand where the emissions come from, personal vehicles, how we live at home, our businesses. When we focus specifically on our home, we know where the emissions come from, the fuel that we use for traveling in our vehicles and the natural gas that we use to heat and cool our homes.

With this information though, we’re allowed to plot our direction for moving forward. When we look at our corporate emissions, that’s when we’re building that from a fleet, which represents about 1% of community-wide emissions, we will see very similar profiles. Fleet and buildings are our two major generators of greenhouse gas emissions based on the energy they consume. When we pull all that information together, of course, we work with what was assigned to us.

The emergency was declared in April 2019. We produced a report later that year to set sites on a climate emergency action plan. And over the last two years, a number of different reports have been produced and brought forward to SPPC as along the West Civic Works Committee. And today, we’re bringing forward the draft plan along the way though.

And so I think it’s really important to note there that Council has made some tremendous investments. We’re traveling well over 400 million have been made in the last three years on projects such as rapid transit, e-buses, active transportation, investments in our utilities and how we move around the city with respect to our own fleet. And of course, things such as adaptation and building a more resilient London. And none better can be looked at as the West London dykes very visible to anyone going through the downtown area.

Our engagement on this project done through a pandemic times was difficult, but we achieved very good members with respect to who we heard from, the amount of information we receive. It is a community plan. We captured the information was important and then the opportunities for people to read our materials, to engage in different types of online sessions. We’re quite pleased, but at the same time, we know that many people were not reached and that is an important part of our next steps.

Two things emerged, not really a surprising because they dealt with our mission sources as well as the areas that we have to make more resilient and the areas of London that will contribute in our natural environment to helping make us more resilient. And of course, as I mentioned, engaging, inspiring and empowering people and organizations to act became paramount for our work. Before you, there’s a report, the SPPC report, Appendix A, which includes, and it’s on your agenda tonight, the draft Climate Emergency Action Plan, the friendly version. And that includes 10 areas of focus, including 10 work plans on how we are going to implement within those areas of focus.

13 background documents sit on the website and we’re just doing our final tweaks. You have an executive summary in your package tonight, but we’re going to make a friendly version of that to help people get through the wealth of information available. Three simple goals, 2050 for net zero emissions, for resilience along the way, and most important, bring everyone along. Everyone along at the right pace, at the right time, making choices that are wise for them.

Milestone targets are important and are discussed in the report. We know where we have to end by 2050, setting progress goals along the way and making the measurable helps to highlight where we’re achieving success, where we’re falling behind, and where we all need to do a little bit more work. And at the same time, where we might have to adjust because new information, new technologies, and other things become available. We looked at the trajectory line very much with the federal government and their target of 2050.

And you see the red solid line. Here in London, of course, our emissions go up and down each year because they’re very much tied to not only what we do in the way of energy efficiency and actions, but also to the weather. The weather influences how much energy we use. Corporate lane, we have similar targets.

These are science-based as well. And when we were assigned the net zero by 2050 or sooner by council about two years ago, well, we’ve come back and said we can do it by 2045. It’s in the same philosophy. Work with milestone targets, move us down a path.

A number of communities are adopting a very similar path of science-based targets. I’m just reading a number of the communities that have adopted them recently. And back in the fall, the big city mayors group of FCM also provided support that this is the right direction to be heading and that milestone targets, science-based targets, and aspirational goals are extremely important for changing how we look at the climate emergency. At time for 2030 and the milestone is based on 10 expected results, each one will have a starting point and where we wish to be by 2030.

The work plans that are in your package tonight part of the CAAP are fundamental and are essentially the driving force behind our action plan. We’ve captured not only what we’ve heard from the community, what we’ve heard from other municipalities we’ve chatted with and we’ve introduced what we believe are the right steps to move this community forward. And we have 10 areas of focus, each with an individual work plan, each with the community in mind on where everyone fits in. And that is perhaps one of the most important parts and is threaded through all the work plans.

Community engagement, broader, deeper, and more reflective of London. We all know that’s important. It’s easy to say, it’s much tougher to do and we have aligned a strong team internally and working with partners in the community to make sure we can achieve that goal. The work plans, number two here, the strength of alignment.

You’ve got 10 work plans that can be nestled together. There’s some overlap on purpose but at the same time, it begins to align the direction that we need to move in, either moving identically or in a very similar direction, is essential because it allows multiple actions from many to occur at the same time because we all know where we’re heading. Along the way, business and economic opportunities, research and innovation is also threaded throughout the work plans. Essential because we want to capitalize on any new investments in the community, any savings that occur, and yes, where there will be some new money required.

We want to make sure that we are driving much of that as much of that locally as possible and our work plans are designed to address that. In fact, one of the items deals with work with Western University and a memorandum of understanding that is before you as well tonight as part of the overall package where we are aligning very well the next steps on how the university can help the city move forward with the climate emergency action plan to meet both of our needs. Fanshawe College is the next group to meet with along with our school boards. There are opportunities here over this long period to get many people engaged at all levels in London.

Finally, on the third and third of the work plan, velocity, budgets, essential here. For the next two years, we have aligned and leveraged our existing work plans with our approved budgets because we have a number of major projects underway right now like the mobility master plan that is being designed to address how we move around in the city. In the next year, we will also be producing the climate change investment and implementation plan for future projects and programs. The multi-year budget process will be essential.

In fact, it’ll be multi-year budget processes because this will take many years to put in place, but at the same time, we must be ready because it is essential that we work closely with the provincial and federal governments and the funding opportunities that they must bring forward to work with local governments. In the appendix B of the report, the first to foundational actions. These are the 17 that are at the top of the list because we need to have these in place first as the other actions followed. I’m gonna end in just a couple of more minutes here with what I believe are key opportunities and choices.

We spend a lot of money right now in London, about 1.5 billion a year. There are opportunities and choices to spend that differently here in London that will bring better economic benefit to our community. Those are the choices and decisions we need to make together. Picking one item, waste, waste cost money.

Food waste costs all under this money. And in fact, we’ve quantified that here in London. But we’ve never really looked at it from the perspective of greenhouse gas and presented them both at the same time, the same way we’re doing now. If you reduce your food waste, not only do you save money, you’re also reducing greenhouse gas both locally and globally.

In our report, we also introduce concepts such as do your fair share and we introduce the menu of choices. If that choice is what this plan is all about, because individually, we’re gonna make different choices and we all have different means and it’s vital to recognize that this is not one size fits all. It’s you need to develop your own plan based on a menu of choices. And there will be different needs and different outcomes depending on the household type within that particular category.

And on your screen are just sort of two examples. This particular house needs to do a lot more work to get to about a 70%, which be considered their fair share because they are contributing more greenhouse gas in London due to their income and lifestyle. Other examples show something completely different. A household that is quite close to meeting the 2030 mission production target because their lifestyle is different than how they build about this city.

It’s about choices. And just to wrap up the share and to introduce this, we will wait here from you on when you wish to hold the public participation meeting, but we do wish to hear from London’s because they helped to build this plan. And last slide, three major rules again, net zero emissions by 2050, improve resilience along the way, make sure we are adapting to severe weather, bring everyone along. And there could be many words, but these are the words and phrases that come to mind when I reflect back on what’s been created with the community over the last two years.

Alignment, choices, collaboration, council decision points, leadership, learning, and multi-year budget processes are all key. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Stanford.

We will go to comments and questions from colleagues. Councilor Lehman. Thank you. I really want to thank staff for this very extensive report and start to laying out a roadmap of where we need to go.

It’s easy to make declarations. The hard part is doing the actions that are needed to put meat behind those declarations, especially as a city with a limited property tax base that is essentially our repressive tax. So, what’s being discussed tonight and down the road are gonna involve some very hard decisions that will be made. There’s a lot of good things in this report.

Just touch on a few. I like the talk around neighborhood developments, being walkable, being built with mini-commercial hubs, mini-marts and neighborhood restaurants or bars, et cetera, that will allow people to easy access for those maybe day-to-day items and entertainment, et cetera. Also like the way it’s put out emphasizing leading by example, there’s a lot of things that we will be requesting from households, the best way to encourage that is to make sure our own house is in order. I think a big part of that will be the electrification of transit and city fleets, making sure city buildings are energy efficient.

And thereby exploring initiatives that we can assist households to make their homes come along in that direction. They also think planning for extreme weather was important part of this. Climate change is happening and we are seeing the results of that. And even if we achieve these targets, extreme weather I think will be with us.

Waste diversion, we’ve already started down that road with a green bin, but we’ve got increasingly ways to go there and I think that’s great. And I also have some concerns here. I’m concerned about changing our targeting. It’s important that we have realistic goals that we can achieve and if you don’t, there’s a temptation I think for people to throw up their hands and go we’ll never get there and not even bother trying.

I also think it’s very important that we align our targets with the province and the feds. They’re gonna be a source of a major part of funding I’m assuming for initiatives down the road. And they’re already doing things for example of carbon tax that will lead as they plan to hit their targets for the future that will by nature have our city emissions following their path. I’m concerned about the emphasis on reducing cars.

Electrification of cars is happening. In a decade or two, most cars will not be fossil fuel driving. Cycling and walking as a major method of getting people all their cars will work to a certain extent but there are major accessibility challenges. People can cycle or walk for a short distance but not all of us are capable of going far or with a lot of packages, et cetera.

I see most people continuing to use those methods of transportation for recreation or for very short distances. Mass transit, I believe is at a crisis point. With the workforce changing to remote office work through the pandemic, I believe that mass transit has been affected and has been affected permanently. So to look at moving folks from cars again to mass transit, I think we have to be cautious about that.

What we need, my concern too is that we’re looking at solving 21st century problems with 20th century solutions. Where are we planning for electrification of cars? I.e., are we planning charging stations? Are we talking about looking at building permits for apartment buildings that have charging spots and parking garages, et cetera, et cetera.

I don’t see a lot of that. Councilor, you’re going just over five minutes. Can I have an extension of a minute? Yeah, I’m actually, since this is gonna be a hot topic, I’m gonna actually ask for an extension of time.

I see Councilor Van Holst moving, Councilor Hopkins seconding, all those in favor of this by hand of an extension of time for Councilor Lehman. Any opposed, go ahead Councilor. Thank you, I’ll get wrapping it up. Also micro transit, door to door transit will be the major factor increasing transit usage.

We should be looking at adapting or piloting, maybe in conjunction with universities, autonomous micro transit. That’s where we can use technology to get where we wanna go. Lastly, cost. In here, we don’t see anything about cost.

So I’m very concerned about signing on to things if I don’t see a cost component. I ask that any major decisions will be held off until we have a chance to talk at the door during the next election in the fall. We’ll give us a true representative of how London are feeling as we all talk to our wards and bring back when we get into multi-year planning, et cetera. Thank you for the extension, Chair.

Thank you. I actually put myself on the list, so maybe I’ll hand the chair over to Councilor Lehman, and then I don’t have anybody else after that, although I anticipate a lot of people wanna speak. So I will make notes after I get the chair back. Thank you, and I will look to Deputy Mayor.

Yes, thanks colleagues. I thought I would speak early on this, and I wanna ask Mr. Stanford a couple of questions at this early stage in the discussion, because in his presentation, I think two things really hit me. There’s gonna be really important actions that the municipality can take.

We’re going to need the support of other governments to do some of those. There’s gonna be a lot we can do on our own. There is a lot that we have done, and both greenhouse gas reductions and climate mitigation are important components. That being said, it’s abundantly clear that one of the key paths to success here is, I think it was item number three in the presentation, which is goal number three, and that’s making sure people are brought along, not leaving anybody behind.

And for me, that’s really key, and that seems to come out in the report and in the presentation is that the idea of a menu of choices and developing options for residents so that they can do their part in the way that might make the most sense to them, given their lifestyle, given their family circumstance, given their level of income, given their current impact on the climate. On that, I wonder if Mr. Stanford could elaborate how he sees that rolling out. To me, I think we’re at this really critical moment where people have spent a couple of years being told what to do a lot, and coming right out and telling people what to do again is gonna be a really tricky thing to navigate, giving them a menu of options and explaining to them how those options can be beneficial.

And in some cases, people are motivated by self-interest. And as you can see through the presentation, reductions in your own organic waste, by not wasting as much food, obviously has a financial benefit to the person buying the food. There are obviously components in here that will play to people’s self-interest as well, if articulated and shown and put out there in the right way. So I wonder if Mr.

Stanford can comment on, how does the menu of options development really play to that goal of bringing people along, and how do you see that evolving over time? Is my first question, and I’ll ask my second one too. Obviously with such a long stretch of targets, and you heard Councillor Layman talk about some of the challenges that we may face along the way, how do you anticipate the plan evolving over time? Given it’s such a long time horizon, and obviously there’ll be the need to revisit and tweak and shape and adjust.

So if you could comment on both of those things, I’d appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. President, Officer. On the first one, it is how we change the narrative.

And hopefully often we are in a sort of a telling mode, just non-purpose, it’s the way we conduct ourselves here as staff. Our goal here is to make sure things come through as choices, and that there’s a long list of items that people can select to work with. Things that are simple and easy, and have maybe no cost or low cost. And then there are those that are perhaps in the medium range, or those that are in the higher range from a cost perspective.

But those choices need to be made by the individual household, whether it’s a group of one or two or five or six. But to get them the information they need is an important first step. And when we have a plan like this, it allows for that discussion, especially if we can get the community on board to agree with that line of thinking. Because they live and work beside all the people that we’re trying to work with closely.

So they’ll have a really good handle on that. So our report right now starts off with many different choices, and we provide 11 different household examples that begin to put out that menu of choices to develop your own personal climate action plan to move forward. And this is going to be essential because we have to get to communities that we have never reached. And they will be reached and chatted with from the perspective of what are their needs and what is the best way to work with them.

In that case, we might not even be at the menu approach. We might just be at the initial conversation approach to find out and learn what makes them motivated for change, what are their pressure points. And we might find out at that point, too, that there’s a number of commonalities in some of the challenges we face. And climate change is only one of a number of challenges, but perhaps a couple can be addressed at one time.

On the notion of targets and moving forward, we view this as reporting back annually, in part because technology is going to change, solutions are going to change. And we believe that governments change the numbers frequently. One of the things and the advantages of setting the goal post that we’re suggesting right now is it shows the business community where we’re heading and that London would be a good place to invest because they know the direction we’re heading. Should those targets change from one year to an ex?

They will. These are not binding targets. They are milestone targets to upset direction on a path to the year 2050. We’ll leave that to answer some of your questions.

Deputy Mayor. Yes, and so thank you, Mr. Stanford, for the comments. My general comments on the report, I wanna add my thanks to what was staff from pretty much every division of the corporation doing the work to craft this draft document.

I think it’s a testament to the magnitude of the challenge that we need all parts of the corporation participating. And as was mentioned earlier, we need all parts of London to try to do their part as well. What that may be is obviously subject to how this plays out and the menu of choices and what’s right for them. But certainly, I think we can all agree that this is an incredible amount of work.

And our staff have done a thoughtful job of putting this document before us in a way that I think is, although I know Mr. Stanford has to be kind of cleaned up and shortened for the website, certainly I thought was thoughtful, easy to read and contained the amount of detail necessary to really dig into the different components at this stage in the decision-making process. So thank you for the work you’ve done. And I look very forward to the public consultation on this as well.

I think it’ll be very, very key. And I’m supportive of moving it to a public participation meeting. I’m really open to what colleagues think about the timing on that. I think that there’s advantages to doing it sooner, but there’s also advantages to ensuring people have the opportunity to make their submissions.

So I know staff said they could go as early as March 8th. I’m not opposed to that, but I’m also interested in hearing from colleagues on what they think about the timing of that public engagement through public participation meeting, which is really the public’s chance to speak directly to us on it too. Obviously, there’ll be other forms of engagement that will be ongoing, but interested in that as well. So thanks again to our staff for a really thoughtful, well done report that I really appreciated reading.

Thank you. I will turn the chair back to the deputy mayor with Councillor Himu. Councillor Van Holst and Councillor Lewis on the speaker’s list. Okay, and I’m gonna add Councillor Turner as well, ‘cause I see his hand up too.

So Councillor Himu, you’re first. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. I just wanted to tell everybody that I really like this plan.

I think it’s bold, but I do think it’s achievable. If we do this as a full city with industry, with all of our partners, I like it because there’s choice. I think Councillor Morgan was right in saying that people don’t really want to be told what to do. And I like the fact that you can pick and choose what you’d like depending on your lifestyle.

I like the fact that we’re bringing people along that we’re not really, we’re saying that we have to do this together. And there’s a huge educational component of that. And when I was reading the report, I saw that two thirds of people are pretty much on side, but there’s that one third of people left that we have to really work on educating. So I’m really excited to get to those people.

And I also like the fact that we’re going slowly. Other, I mean, it’s probably to put out environmental reports that have not weathered well. So I’m happy that we’ve actually waited this out. And I like that we’re actually meeting people where they are personally.

I think that’s really important. And it just goes to tell, it goes with my own attitude of bringing everybody together means we’re gonna go slowly, but it feels good because you do more together. The one thing that I wanted to ask about the report was about how we’re all connected. You guys really stressed the notion of connection from the get go.

And I see that we’re connected here with the federal government. I see that we’re connected with the provincial government, but I haven’t seen much connection to the United Nations. And I think it’s important that we do bring forward some connections between our report and what the United Nations is doing because I think we want London to be this world-class city. And we know a couple of things about London in terms of the environment and that it’s in Southern Ontario, which is an environmental stronghold.

And if we’re working harder to ensure that the environment in London remains sustainable, remains not as, you know, Aradica’s other places and that we’ll be able to attract world-class talent. We can attract business, we can attract institutions, specifically for those companies that are looking for safe cities environmentally. So I think it’s important that we look at the United Nations sustainable development goals. You know, line ourselves with them because I think, again, it shows that we’re a world-class city and that we’re, there’s another level of government that we’re actually meeting.

And I think I look through the United Nations sustainable development goals. And I think our plan really works well with it. So I’m hoping, I guess my question is through you, Mr. Presiding Officer to staff to say that, has there been any work on how we are meeting the sustainable development goals, the United Nations sustainable development goals in staff at staff meetings and whatnot?

Mr. Stanford. Through the chair, what’s referred to as SDGs, sustainable development goals. I believe there are 17, one specific to climate change, one specific to consumption and waste.

We are just beginning to determine the fit in this community. And a lot of good work is being done by the non, by the pillar, not for profit network. And in fact, they’ve got one staff member devoted to a project between the city of London and the city of golf to further explore that. We’re in conversation right now to figure out how we can begin to bring all these types of goals and reporting mechanisms together in one place.

We don’t want to have too many different ways of reporting things as that can confuse matters, but the work that has been done recently has begun to open our eyes on the ability to absorb more of those sustainable development goals locally for the benefit that we’re seeing right away with the music city and that sustainable development goal. So yes, it is built into one of our work plans and we know that there’s more work coming on that. Thank you, that’s excellent. Actually, that’s great, thank you.

Okay, I have, just so colleagues know, the order I’ve gotten here, Councillor Van Holst, Councillor Lewis, Councillor Turner, Councillor Hopkins and Councillor Helmer, I have you all on my list. So I’ll go to Councillor Van Holst. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

And I’ll echo the comments of my colleagues in terms of the amount of work. A lot of great stuff done here. And so I’m just gonna raise my concerns because I could spend a lot of time describing sort of the great work plans that have been dealt here. Of course, my fear is that we would scare ourselves into a panic where we invest too soon in technologies that don’t actually get us to our goal.

And as looking through there, I do see some evidence of a little bit of scaring ourselves as the chair and vice chair of our water boards. I noticed in there it talked about, it suggested that a storm could change the water quality and cause any interruption in the water supply. And I thought, oh, that doesn’t sound right. So I reached out to the director of the regional water supply and asked what are the chances that a storm could affect the raw water enough to interrupt the city’s water supply.

And he said for all practical purposes is virtually zero. So we’ve got great mitigations and contingencies and redundancies in here. So I wanna make sure that even though those concerns might be in other places, we don’t drag them in to London where they’re not really there. And to just describe how well those work, let me talk about a little bit of a disaster.

I guess we had last night. So we had a pump burnout that was supposed to dose the water with alum and so too much got in there. And that means we couldn’t send the water out. And that would be okay because we’ve actually got some duplication.

Our plant is really two plants and either one can work or the other can work. And as an extremely rare coincidence, the exact piece of equipment on the other side of the plant failed in a different way. And that within a number of hours. And so our ability to push water forward stop, we had to turn the plant down.

However, no one’s gonna notice that because of all the other contingencies that are there. Where the pumps are pumps are fixed, we drain things, the water will start to go out shortly and by Thursday, everything will be filled up all our reservoirs as well. So that’s a great job. There’s an example of how well that works.

What’s interesting is that we were planning to replace those things and if it wasn’t for some of the COVID shutdowns, those replacements would have been there already with the new pumps. And those ones are decades in advance of the ones that we had in there. The pumps have better sensors in them. They’re more controlled.

And so they provide their own kinds of mitigation. And as well, we’re not just purchasing two, there’s four. So on each side, there’s a redundancy. And the reason I’m saying this is to call back to what Councillor Layman said is that technologies advance, things are much better.

And so we’re gonna get better and better at mitigating greenhouse gases. And that’s the interesting thing. When I looked at the graph, and I may just show you my own, sorry, I might just call up my own little graph here. When I looked at the graph, I thought I got it.

Oh, how sad. Anyway, I’m sorry, I thought I had a graph right up here. But it’s a fairly straight line, these new targets. And what that tells me is that we’re not improving over time when the decades go by and we’re taking on this project.

Really, the curve shouldn’t be straight, which should be, it should be more rounded. And that gives us more time. So I’m a lot more confident that we have time to invest in these other things. And it’s not as big, it’s not as big as rush.

And then why do I say that’s important? It was because I think we’re gonna have some financial challenges moving forward. So this plan relies a lot on people making personal investments that can be very large. So getting a new EV and a heat pump, that could be a $40,000 investment.

So we’re expecting people to take those kinds of things on when we’re hoping to recover from the economic problems that we’ve suffered with COVID. We’ve also got very high inflation that we expect to get worse. And we’re dealing with large carbon taxes that are eating into disposable income. So that’s gonna be a challenge and we may need that extra time.

Now, saying that, go ahead and yes. You’re at the point where I cut off Councillor Layman, but given everybody extended that one, I’m just gonna ask you if you can wrap up these comments. You can certainly jump back in later. Right, okay, thank you very much.

That’s good. I should have warned you, I might be a little longer. So that’s gonna be a challenge for instance, we had 25,000 households that needed to take $40,000 measures like the ones that were described. That’d be a billion dollars investment we’re expecting from our citizens.

And that’s gonna be a challenge. So we’re gonna need to develop more of those menu items. And I really think we should be looking at carbon offsets as a way for people to participate because to take your greenhouse emissions from a 4.8 down to the 3.6, I think it was, or 2.2, that’s about $52 for a person in a year. And I think we need to have that as an option in a while.

And then that’ll give a chance for people to come on a little later on, and we still have some extra time to hit those goals. So those are gonna be my comments for now, but other than some of those goals, particularly the heating and the kilometers driven by EVs, those are gonna be very difficult goals as we set them. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Councilor Lewis.

Thank you, Chair. I know that there’s a number of counselors who are sharing similar concerns, similar praise, I’m gonna try not to overlap too much, but I am going to perhaps dive a little deeper into a couple of those particular concerns. But I’m gonna start by saying to Ms. Share and Mr.

Stanford and everyone who was involved in this, clearly a great deal of work has gone into this already. In fact, I’m glad I’ve switched to electronic agendas, so I didn’t have to carry the paper version of this one around with me because it’s quite substantive. That said, I’m gonna pick up on something that the Deputy Mayor actually raised, which is the public engagement piece and staff have acknowledged this in their report. So for me, it’s, you know, I’m not trying to throw staff under the bus on this.

They’ve said themselves, more engagement needs to be done. And on that, I absolutely, absolutely agree. I don’t think one PPM, frankly, is even gonna come close to it. I don’t think that one month of a get involved survey on the website is even nearly close enough of an opportunity to get people engaged.

I’ll tell you when I’ve talked to just over the weekend, word constituents who saw the article in the free press about this. None of them were aware that there had even been an opportunity to weigh in yet. 2700 submissions, sounds like a great number, but we’ve got 400,000 people in the city. And even the 19,000 impressions on the visit to the get involved page while I visited once.

I’m sure other members of council and staff visited as well. We don’t know how many of those were repeat visitors versus unique visits. But over the 19,000 impressions, we still only had 2700 submissions. And to me, this is actually the single biggest ask plan that’s being made to individual households.

So I think that there needs to be a lot more consultation done with them before we look to prove any of this. That needs to be done in multiple ways. And I know that Ms. Sharon, her team certainly have some ideas about reaching out to communities that are underrepresented typically in our outreach.

But I think we have to do a better outreach to Londoners on a whole, on this. It’s just, it’s not enough yet. And I think that a lot of people will look at this and say, I’m not doing this. And again, the deputy mayor and council are going to move both referenced.

People aren’t not in a mood to be told what to do. They are certainly going to welcome some choices. But even in that menu of choices. And I want to get into that a little bit more.

And councilor Van Halst actually alluded to some of the substantive investments that households would have to make to choose some of these options. You know, and I know we’ve had some discussion recently and there’s a council compensation task force around. And I think it’s important that everybody remember that. Right now, we are in the median salary.

And if you think about some of the investments that would be required for the median Londoner. And I did see in one of Mr. Stanford’s slides for the lower income household, the Enbridge gas assistance program. I’ll tell you, I actually looked into that myself.

I got two mailings from Enbridge gas last week, encouraging me to look into it. As a median household income, I’m not eligible for any of them. And neither are the median number of Londoners out there. And yet that low income household was the one that actually had the lowest carbon footprint coming out of their lifestyle and their choices.

Those incentives, of course, are not within our purview as municipal council. We know that. We’re gonna have to do a lot more lobbying with provincial and federal governments and private sector energy suppliers to really incentivize some of these switchovers if households are going to be able to reach them. And Councilor Van Holst mentioned the rising inflation rates and the rising costs of groceries and those things.

He’s not wrong there. There are really a significant number of households who are in a financial pinch right now. And they’re already carrying some of them significant debt load. So debt financing some of these things is not realistic for them either.

So again, I think we’ve got a lot more work to do in terms of communicating through FCM, through AMO, through our partner municipalities, the need for the senior levels of government to help us out on this. Because if we’re not empowering households to make these choices, if we’re not making it within reasonable reach for them, then they’re not going to do it. Because they at the end of the day still have to pay the mortgage, put food on the table, do those other things that everybody has to do in life. So if we’ve put greening their lives out of their financial reach, then it’s going to be a really, really difficult thing to meet the goals laid out in this plan.

Likewise, and I say this as somebody who does occasionally walk to the grocery store to get groceries, the walkable neighborhoods component of this and are planning is a key part. But again, we’re going to have to find ways to actually attract those sort of, and I think it was Councillor Layman who might have mentioned mini-marts. The neighborhood convenience store is not all that common a beast anymore. A lot of them are not within a kilometer or two walking distance from a home.

And one of the reasons is the break even point on those business operations is pretty tight. There’s not a whole lot of profit in a variety store sort of scenario. So how we’re going to develop those walkable neighborhoods, livable neighborhoods plans where all the daily needs are within a short distance. That’s going to be a tough conversation too because the business community is going to have to come along.

There’s going to have to be opportunities that are economically viable for them to offer those sorts of services in those neighborhoods. So I think that there’s a lot more work to do still. That said, I think that the goals that are laid out for the municipality itself, what we can actually control, the electrification of our fleet, the electrification of transit, the moving to renewable power for our wastewater treatment facilities, those kinds of things, lower carbon construction material choices. Those are fantastic things that we can do as a municipality to make an impact and lead by example as the corporation of the city of London.

So I’m very supportive of those things. I think that the personal choices that are laid out are very much aspirational at this point. And out of the reach of the majority of Londoners in terms of their financial ability to make these commitments, there are other days, I’ll tell you that I drive my car to the grocery store because I can’t carry everything that I’m going to be getting on that trip. And that’s not going to change for anybody.

The car is not going away. It definitely needs to go electric and we definitely should be encouraging people to make smart choices in their transportation trips, get the dry cleaning and the groceries and pick up the kid from soccer practice or hockey practice or dance or whatever it happens to be all in the same trip rather than three separate trips. Those are things that we can responsibly say to residents, if you plan just a little better, you can actually make this work. But those are going to be long conversations to have in transitioning the societal view on these things.

So again, I look forward to hearing what others have to say. But for me, the key coming out of this is we’ve got a lot more public consultation to do before we start ratifying some of the goals in this plan. Councilor Turner. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Thanks to staff for putting this together. It’s been long awaited. It’s been three years since we’ve declared the climate emergency and we’ve taken a number of steps along the way.

This is kind of the first comprehensive roadmap towards how we might address that. As I was reading through it and listening to comments of my colleagues, it struck me why the action plan has phrased the way it is. And it’s because the comments that have hurt so far indicate a significant reluctance to take the measures that we need to take. Really, really, really worried about that.

Maybe I’ll pause for a second and just ask a question through you to staff, Mr. Chair. Can you talk to me a little bit about the use of regulatory controls to achieve climate goals? There’s not a lot of mention in them in the report, but there’s a lot of tools that we can use.

If you take a look at the average household emissions, the ranking goes personal vehicles, housing, commercial buildings, and then it goes freight and vehicles, but it gets down to methane from landfill. There are a number of things that are well within the regulatory control of human municipality, but we don’t talk a lot about them in this report. Mr. Stanford.

Mr. Chair, when it’s within control of council, we assume that that is for you to decide on direction. So methane at the landfill site, you are approving, for example, the expenditures that go into the landfill site to recover more landfill gas. And you’ve approved for us to go out and look at opportunities to turn landfill gas into renewable natural gas.

So those types of programs, they’re inherent in the plan. They’re going to carry forward. On items that actually impact the household, right now, generally, most things are voluntary and that is sort of Canada-wide. We are just beginning to see the first bylaws that are coming out in different municipalities that are pushing the envelope on making sure certain things occur.

Our work plans identify a number of reports back report backs that will identify the pros and cons of taking bylaw action in certain areas. It’ll look at the advantages of moving in different kinds of directions. So those types of reports are still to come forward and they are part of moving at the right pace. And just by way of one example, one of our reports will be looking at small landscaping types of equipment that do use fossil fuels, but do have alternatives such as electric leak bores.

So those are examples that municipalities may or may not choose to take stronger action. So those are projects and programs that are to come forward. And as we emphasized in our plan, there are many pieces still to come on this and they will come with the right amount of reports and information to help you make the decision on when something should remain voluntary and encourage versus when something more definitive and through a bylaw is possible locally. And on my last comment on that, a number of these matters, we have to watch our jurisdictional issues.

And in that case, many items do require a legal review. Mr. Chair, thank you, Mr. Stanford.

So I’ll give some examples, right? Personal vehicles, and it’s mentioned in the report, talks about eliminating or reducing parking minimums in new developments, putting a bit of squeeze in terms and helping to develop the way our city develops so that we are less car dependent. A few of my colleagues have already talked about that already. That helps to use our regulatory control ability to help decrease the amount of personal vehicle use.

In terms of housing, the way we develop, the London plan has been fairly effective in helping to reduce sprawl and energy use, but there’s a lot more things that we can do in there. And when we take a look at, for example, the intensification targets, we just met them this year, the last couple of years we didn’t. And we’re not on track to meet them for the next few years. What are we doing to actually make sure that we meet those intensification targets?

Are we putting holding provisions on new subdivisions until we’ve met the intensification target the previous year, things like that? When we look at commercial buildings and building in general, are we looking at energy standards for new builds? A lot of the discussion we’ve been talking about is what kind of pain people have to take on their own and to change their habits. We can also do prospectively and change the way we do things so that it doesn’t impact people, so that their cost neutral or the cost is generally sunk or invisible.

When we take a look at the vehicle for higher fleet, we regulate that. We could say in five years time, all vehicles for higher need to be electric, and there’s no cost to us. Yeah, there’s a cost paid on passed on to the operators. However, vehicles over five years old are pretty uncommon in the vehicle for higher market.

These are just examples. I mean, things that, oh, let’s take a look at that waste, for example. We could move to a user pay system where right now an average household spends $2 per week on garbage, and we’re allowed to have three bags of garbage at the curb, and reduce that to two, and say, okay, everybody gets the cost of a bag of a garbage is a dollar each bag that goes out. One of the challenges in Deputy Mayor Morgan talked about it and Council Hamou talked about it, about the equitable impact of taking these choices.

The thing is, when we leave it to choice, it ends up being inherently inequitable because we can tell people, all right, you can use your car more, but maybe you wanna be able to do this, but those who might have lower incomes are very dependent on active transportation or transit, but we’ve left it to choice. When we take a look at how housing materials are built, well, then if the only housing that’s available is housing that was cheaply constructed and uninsulated and wastes energy, then again, an inequitable choice. So it really shifts the burden when we open it to free choice in a inequitable way. Same thing happened with COVID, and the Council of Deputy Mayor Morgan talked about, people are tired of having been told what to do.

Yeah, absolutely they are. The only way, the only way we get to this is through some using some regulatory tools. They don’t have to be painful. They can work in the background, but there’s very little discussion about this.

And I was so excited for this. I was waiting for it. I was really hoping that this would hit it out of the park. All the areas are the key and the right areas.

They’re the right things. They’re the right areas of focus. But we need, I think what we can do is have a menu of things that we can choose from as municipality, understand the costs and the benefits, understand what their cumulative impact on greenhouse gas emissions would be. Those are the things I’m looking for in this.

And I hope when this goes out to the public for consultation that we hear a lot about that. I’m frustrated on talking about to slow walking the targets. Perhaps I can help you read a graph. The graph, if you take a look at the slope the way it’s going right now, is a lower slope.

It’s less aggressive than the provincial and federal targets by rejigging it. You see that line, it doesn’t go as steep an angle as the federal and provincial targets. So to try and align with the federal and provincial targets means slowing our progress, but slowing our progress for now and then having to accelerate it later. And that’s more harmful.

I do have another question about this graph, however, through you, Mr. Chair. I’m a little concerned about the 2022 mark on the current trajectory and how that’s being used to extrapolate what our path is. 2020 in our time period is the year of COVID when there was significant reduction in personal vehicle use as people stay at home, work from home.

And that’s our largest contributor to greenhouse gases and municipality. So are we confident that that’s the trajectory? Or if we take a look and say 2017 to 2018 was a massive jump and going completely the opposite way and we lost all the ground through 2014 that we had made by going into 2017 and 2018? Mr.

Stanford. Mr. Chair, as we developed the graph, we’re actually working with the new base year of 2005 and that is now being recommended. So essentially we then plotted our line space targets of what they’re recommending where we get to for 2030.

And that is essentially a bit of a straight line on the graph. What you see around that, of course, is the red line, which is the actuals for London. And then the line that is in the very short green lines are the current targets for London, of which we only have two. So we’ve actually, we have developed a plan here that is dramatically changing the trajectory for us to reduce greenhouse gases by 2030.

So we actually can have the difficult years pushed up front in case there is slippage. If we leave everything for the end, it’ll be that much more difficult and that much more costly to tackle these measures later in the piece. So that is how the graph has been compiled. It is based on science based targets, but it’s done at a very high level here.

Perhaps just to help a little bit. Thank you, Mr. Stanford, I agree with that. I agree with the targets in the direction.

And the extrapolated line comes from what looks like about 2006 into about 2017 and carries on down towards the 2050 path and follows that same course. However, in 2017 to 2018, we see a very market change in the trajectory of the graph heading almost straight north. And then it comes almost straight south because we had a massive slowdown in the use of greenhouse gas emitting pieces like cars and stuff. So I’m wondering how confident we are that that extrapolated line actually represents our trajectory.

Or once everything’s back to productivity, are we going to end up going the opposite direction, the trajectory that was going from 2016 to 2017 and ‘18 and onwards? If I may through the chair in our report, we’ve identified that for 2030, if we are using the year 2020 as our baseline, we need about a million times. If we actually go back to 2019, pre-pandemic, when we’re consuming more energy and more fossil fuels than London, the amount would actually be closer to 1.2 or 1.3 million times. Right now, it is very hard to predict what that rebound will be.

We’re hoping that after two years, a number of the changes that have occurred with how Londoners move around the city, with flexible hours, with alternative work strategies, that we will actually have a number of commuters that are doing different patterns. We won’t know until we actually have a full year under our belt in the way we’re doing our new business, but we do not anticipate completely going back to where we were because we do think there’s been some good learnings in the last two years that are going to be advantageous for us. And Councillor Turner, if you could wrap up your comments for this round, that’d be great. Thank you.

So, thank you for the responses and the comments. The challenge with us will be for us to actually act. I’ve heard a lot of discussion about us waiting and seeing. And I really feel like I’m living in real life, don’t look up right now.

And I hope that I hear some more ambitious and courageous comments from my colleagues, because right now it just seems to be, all right, well, we’ll leave it in everybody’s hands and we’ll see what happens. We need the same response. This is a longer period of time, but it’s just as existentially threatening as COVID has been. And it needs a similar level of fortitude and resolve to be able to address it.

I have Councillor Hopkins next. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Chair. And I want to start off with thanking staff for this draft record coming to us.

And an opportunity for a public participation meeting. I too have been waiting a long time for this. It is a conversation that is important in the community. And I know the community has been waiting for this as well.

I’m going to keep my concerns to the end. And I’ll just start with some comments. I know, Mr. Presiding Chair, you were looking for information back to you regarding the PPM for March the 8th.

And if I can make my comments on that, I would suggest that we move it out slightly. It’s one month to go. I think this is an important plan that needs to be looked at by the community, talked about within the community. And then hopefully we can hear their response back.

So I would encourage you to push it out. There are other timelines that will be affected. But by doing that, and that’s my suggestion. I do want to start off with the public engagement part.

So reading the report, I was pleased to see in the report that the community does want us to achieve the Paris Agreement. It’s something that the community understands the conversation that is going on across Canada. And what are we doing here in our city? The, you know, the challenging timelines for these reductions are eight to nine years.

I think we need challenges to change our ways. We can’t sort of do the status quo because with the status quo, there won’t be any change. So I’m not so much concerned about the challenges ‘cause the public, I’m sure, will step up to it. The importance of the race to zero is something that I think is a city that we should be part of.

Other municipalities has taken it on and I would really encourage us as a city to take on that challenge as well. I’m glad to see that the budget up to 2023 is fine but as Mr. Stanford’s presentation showed us, it will be a conversation in our four year budget as we look at getting the funding to take on this plan. But I think what it shows me even more is that the provincial and federal governments have to step up to the plate as well.

We have to hear from municipalities the need and the support and they have to come up with the funds to help us out. To me, it is a no brainer. It’s not should they or shouldn’t they? They must for us to move forward here to meet our targets.

The other part I wanted to mention as well was how we engage with the public. And I was glad to hear Mr. Stanford talk that we need to have a deeper, broader dive. Not sure what that looks like but I’m hoping that we can have those conversations because there are opportunities.

I know the community is invested in being part of the process. I think as counselors, as leaders in our community, we should be part of that as well. And I think we need to do it in a different way. I’m not sure how that is but can we do it in a different way?

And the other part is not so much the importance of the public engagement for sure, but also the education component. What are the expectations and what are we asking from the community and having that? Those conversations are really, really important. And we really need to dig deep and to make sure that we are constantly in communication and understanding from both points of view.

The other thing I’d like to just end on. And I really appreciate all the comments I’ve heard from my colleagues here. I have been concerned as I’ve been listening as well. And I think as a counselor, we all agree we need a plan, a roadmap or something, which is in front of us.

It’s in draft form. I think what I’ve learned is if you wanna kill a plan, make it political, please don’t do that. We need a plan, no matter who you are, we need a plan. And I think we need to change the narrative of not only how we see each other, but how we go forward, because the plan that we make today is not gonna be for us.

It’s gonna be for future generations. And we have to do that regardless. I don’t wanna go too much into the weeds. I think those conversations will, we’re about to undertake all that.

And I’m really looking for it to those debates and conversations. But we have to do something. We have to acknowledge First Nations to be part of that conversation as well. There’s a lot to be done.

And again, my thanks to our staff for starting us off, finally, and looking forward on how we move forward. Thank you. Thanks, Councilor. I have Councilor Helmer next.

Oh, and I’ll just let Councilor Palosa know that I have you on the list and I see Councilor Vanholz hand up again too. Go ahead, Councilor Helmer. Looks like he kind of got frozen there for a second, then might’ve got bumped out. I just cut my video.

Perfect, the interconnection is unstable. So we’ll see if this works. We can hear you. I’ll let you know if you break up so that we don’t miss anything.

Okay, so I just wanted to say a couple of things. One, I wanted to agree very strongly with what Councilor Turner said about the timeline. It has been quite a long time to get to this point in the process of developing the plan. And 2019 seems like a long time ago.

A lot has happened since then. But I recall in Montreal, for example, hundreds of thousands of people in the streets demanding climate action, many of them, much younger than I am. And I wanted to say that I actually think the community and Canadians generally are way ahead of governments when it comes to climate action. Two thirds of Canadians, if you look at polling, want governments to do more to reduce emissions.

That’s from last year, that’s recent polling on should governments be doing more to reduce emissions. Three quarters of Canadians agree that it’s human activity that’s changing the climate. There’s a very strong consensus, not only about what the nature of the problem is, but also the governments need to act to help Canadians reduce their emissions. And I really appreciate my colleagues’ sensitivity to, especially those who don’t have as many resources.

They don’t have as many financial resources. They’re not going to be able to upend their lives and change some of these things. Some people are going to push the car that they have as long as they can because they can’t afford to buy a new car of any kind. They’re going to make their own choices.

And governments need to be there to help them in a positive way to level the playing field so that they have the same kind of choices that are available to people who have more resources. For myself, I installed one of these heat pumps to take some of the demand off the furnace that we have and works great, cut our greenhouse gas emissions by 30% as soon as we installed it on the furnace. And that’s a change that people can make, but it costs a bunch of money. It’s not cheap to install a heat pump.

And the good news was the smart switching thermostats, it’ll choose the cheapest option too, electricity, gas, so you’re getting cost savings plus you’re reducing emissions, very effective technology. And I think wider adoption of that is a good idea. And governments are going to have to help people who can’t afford to make those changes on their own, make those changes if we’re going to reach these targets. Similarly, last year was last year, I’m driving a gas powered car at all.

And I have an EV now, it costs $4.50 to fill it up. And again, it costs a lot of money to buy the car. And for myself, I had to borrow that money. I just don’t have all this money sitting around the bank to buy a brand new car, right?

So I had to borrow the car. It costs a little bit more money than the car we had before. But we had to put an end to driving around a gas powered vehicle. And we can do that, and so we’ve done that.

But it’s really at the municipal level where I think we need to keep our focus. Individuals are already making changes. The federal and provincial governments are going to do things to support people like the Climate Action Incentive where they put a carbon price in and then rebate money back to people, let them choose the things that are going to save themselves money in the long run. At the municipal level, it’s where do we build the housing and how do people move around?

Those are the really key things for us. And we have to make it easier for people to get around without a car. The problem with cars is not the combustion engine, although that certainly makes them worse. The problem is that a lot of them are filled with just one person.

And so you have to spend all this money to buy an expensive car, the costs a lot of money to operate. And then you put one person in it and drive around town on short trips that could be done in a different way, either with more people in them or using a different mode of transport that’s way cheaper and better for the environment. And so it’s those cheaper, more environmentally friendly, lower emission modes of moving around that we really need to focus on, all of them walking, cycling, transit. All these things are way, way better than cars of any kind and putting the housing close to where people want to go and the kind of things that they need to do.

So their trips are shorter. They don’t have to go so far. All the new housing that’s going to come in the city or our Target and London plans, 44,000 new households. That’s a lot of new households.

We’re part way through to that Target already. Where they go is critically important in terms of how people move around. And then what kind of transit and cycling infrastructure they’re going to have for those trips that can be done by transit and by bike, which is a lot of trips. And it’s not like stopping driving altogether, right?

Sometimes people think that’s the choice. Either you don’t drive at all or you take the bus and you drive everywhere. You can just substitute, take fewer trips. Don’t go out on as many trips in a car, take transit sometimes, bike for some trips.

Pick your kid up by walking to school instead of driving. There’s lots of things that can be done that would cut the number of trips taken by car, reduce costs for people and improve emissions. So is community effort for sure? And I appreciate that about the plan.

I think we have to be very ambitious. The idea of taking a whole lot more time, I think is really misreading the situation. This is like an urgent critical thing that we need to be acting on. We have to level up our targets and our ambition on this.

I think the targets that are outlined in the plan are good in terms of the slope of to where we need to go. But it’s going to be very difficult to achieve them. And so waiting a long time, I don’t like that idea. I think a little bit of time for people to read over the plan and weigh in is good.

But my read on citizens is that they’re very eager to see us take more action on climate specifically, especially younger people. They’re so far out ahead of where governments are. We’re the ones who need to catch up to them. And I think we need to do that.

Councillor Lehman mentioned something like, we better not spend any money before the election, something like that, you know, I talked to voters. I want to push back very, very strongly on that. You know, the restricted acts kick in on nomination date, which is in August. And until we’re in a situation where we have restricted acts, we’re the council, we are elected.

We have to make the decisions. There’s no kicking it down the road to wait to see what people have to say in the election. Councillor Plaza. Thank you, Mr.

Presiding, officer. I’ll also warn that I have unstable internet, but I will reconnect as soon as possible if I go absent. Thank you to staff and the participating listeners who took the time to visit the page, read up on it and write us as Councillors individually and provide their feedback for us. To my colleagues today and realizing we are on the, getting closer election cycle to future colleagues who are looking to serve.

As we review this plan, looking at today’s landscape, we might think it’s not doable. We’ve sprawled too far. We don’t have the intensification and do these things, but we’re laying the groundwork for a plan that is gonna outlive us all and serve current lenders and future ones to come. So as we discussed and we look at our intensification, we’re doing an infill in the city’s planning department.

That’s when we have our opportunities to really capitalize on the intensification, public transit, act of transportation and those microimability options. That’s one of us are really excited to see what they can turn into for us. One colleague mentioned water in storms. My concerns with the environment in our water recognizing London has recognized water as a human right and has become a blue community.

It is looking at the invasive species that are moving in, the algae blooms in our water, the shoreline erosion that’s happening and just not in the summer storms, but recognizing the water is not freezing over on our shoreline in the winter like it used to. So those storm swells are coming in and though it’s not affecting London, it’s affecting our neighboring municipalities and those residents. In the report before us, 65% of participants were worried about climate change’s impact on the quality of life for their children and future generations. Those were looking beyond themselves at the plan we’re creating that of those who will inherit what we believe behind.

And they’re recognizing a couple of the top five barriers for tackling climate change is to create more safe environments to walk or bike, including a network of protected bike lanes accessible for all ages and abilities and a need for more frequent, efficient and well-distributed public transit services. And I know today we look at it and yes, everyone might not want the bus rapid transit. We’re not trying to get downtown across town, but it’s those micro mobility connections in neighborhoods that are gonna make it connectable that you can find once we build them, complete neighborhoods and you can enjoy your local pub, your local restaurants, your kids’ school and other community activities. And as residents are asking for this, I am glad to see that staff and councils already directed and we’re coming back to us soon.

The mobility master plan for eating zoning. I’m super excited about as we’re gonna be tackling some parking regulations that are long overdue, community diversity inclusion, green bank implementation, wastewater treatment operations plans. We have a lot coming up and we are really on the precipice of what London is turning into as we grow in population. And to my colleagues, I realized that we’re not always on the same page, but we are all here to serve Londoners.

I do not doubt that for one minute that we just have a different idea of how to get to a result and how fast we should get there. So achieving these milestones are gonna take so much of us to really look at the way we live, work, play, commute and how we build our communities. And it is doable, but it is gonna take employers, employees, the community at large to make unprecedented, dedicated actions and considerations to make this plan possible. And I do believe we can do it together just as the required action that will take us past our election cycle and those of our federal and provincial partners.

So we really are in this together and I’m happy that we’re having this discussion, though I realize it’s not going as quickly as some of us want, but it really is this is a decision point to be made now to set the groundwork, gather more public feedback and really hold ourselves accountable to what those 65% of learners are wanting for their children that hopefully we’ll call London home and stay here and their grandkids that will hopefully be able to live and enjoy this community that we’re creating to leave behind as a legacy for them. Thank you. Thank you. I have Councilor Van Halston and Councillor Cassidy.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do have that graph appearance, the same one that I provided in the added agenda, but you can see that the line that we have that’s green is very straight. And the one that I put in here where it’s a curve, that’s the one that would describe getting better at what we’re doing over the decades.

So 20 years from now, we’re going to have some better approaches to tackling climate change than we do now. So that’s reason for us to be a little encouraged. I think compared to this one, I do like the fact that staff is taking on an aggressive stance for the city because as grants and things become available, we’ll be able to jump on those quickly. And that’s been a strength of London a long time.

But with respect to a PPM, I’m afraid what I would like to see are some numbers and some dollar values before that. I’d like to see staff return back with some estimated values or costs for those items that they suggest for the various households. And I think that’s going to be important because otherwise the feedback that we’re going to get and the discussion we’re going to have is simply subjective and that’s not what we want. I do have a few other comments I wanted to say and in terms of things to do, some good ideas have come up.

I think new deciding what needs to be done for new bills is a great idea from Council Turner. I think for ourselves, if we want people to take shorter trips or be able to walk, we have to look again at the idea of keeping all the office space downtown. I think we should allow that to go anywhere and then people will be able to get a job close to where they live or live closer to where they want to work. Another thing that I think we can be doing is supporting greater height when the chance is there.

We’ve had lots of opportunities to have greater density but there’s always the nimbeism that comes with a building of some height and we rarely allow. We often say go back to the drawing board. So I hope we’ll come up with some more resolve in that way. And just some other strategies.

Maybe we need to look at height around over the whole city for those buildings. I know that, and I believe no one is obliged to participate in the plan. And so it is gonna be a challenge bringing people along. However, I think that could turn out to be kind of divisive as well.

I know Council Turner was comparing this to the COVID and of course, how we’re trying to bring along people now in terms of vaccinations by condemning them for doing the wrong thing. And so just my concern with this idea of fair share are we gonna be stigmatizing people who don’t have the money or don’t seem to be able to keep up? ‘Cause that’s gonna be a challenge. There’s gonna be, as it said in the report, there’s a bell curve and there’s some people that are above average, some people that are below average in terms of their actions to take reduction.

If we divide the community again, I think that’s gonna slow us down. We really need to have this be a team spirit where people are praised for any actions that they can take. And then again, there should be those more actions available. And we can start out with really easy ones.

So the idea of a 72 hour kit to get you through in case there’s some kind of a storm is a great idea. And it’s a really easy way to get people thinking about the possibility of storms and those impacts. I remember when it was that not that many years ago where we’d lost power for a few days. So that’ll be a great start, I think, for everybody.

Councilor, you’re at five minutes. I’ve been lenient with people in their first time speaking, but on their second time speaking, I’m gonna drop the hammer a little bit, so. Okay, well, you just go ahead and drop that hammer. I’m happy to pass it on to my colleagues and I’ll say a few more things a little later.

Okay, Councilor Cassidy. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So some really good comments so far from colleagues and also my thanks as well to staff for this report that we asked them to do.

We asked them to make this report and bring it back to us that we asked them to do a plan. And I think that this is a very good one. And I appreciate the collaboration that went on to bring this plan to us. Councilor Halmer spoke about the urgency that is felt to address this issue by members of the public and especially from younger people and that governments need to catch up.

I would say that municipal governments have the most catching up to do, and especially the city of London, because we’re seeing the initiatives that have already taken place at other levels of government, the incentives to address this issue, things like tax rebates and things like that for electric vehicles. The fact that for probably a decade now, the other levels of government are not providing funding to municipalities to widen roads or to create new roads. They have not done that for a very, very long time. When other levels of government provide funding to municipalities for transportation issues, it’s almost always public transit or active transportation projects, almost always.

So we’re catching up there. We have industrial areas of the city that still don’t have adequate transit service. So there are not only people who can’t take jobs in those highly high employment lands, but we also have people who might choose to use transit to get there rather than drive. But right now they don’t have that choice.

So Councilor Turner and others have spoken about our role as policymakers. Those are the kinds of things that we can do to nudge the LTC along, to continue to do projects like BRT, to encourage transit use, wear feasible, and wear possible, where there is that desire. I know a lot of people that ride their bikes to work from the north end of London to downtown in the summer months, but maybe not necessarily in the winter months. I know a lot of people that would ride their bikes more to downtown and have said to me very specifically if there were better cycling paths to get me directly to downtown.

They opened a connection between a cycling path on Adelaide Street and cycling along Richmond Street. They opened a connection there going east west. I challenge you to find an empty spot on that pathway any given day on the weekend. It is so highly used, 12 months of the year.

It is living proof of if we build it, they will come. If we make policies that match what people are thinking. And I recognize not 100,000 people, 100,000 people did not participate in the public engagement, but 2,700 did. And overwhelmingly, their mindset is looking towards this issue and wanting us to do more.

When we are also playing catch up is often we, our policies are slower. And so then when the provincial government as an example makes a change, we have to hurry up and make a change. Though the landfill is a good example. We expected to have a little bit more time to decide what to do to expand the landfill or to implement new programs to deal with organic waste.

And then all of a sudden we were facing a 60% target that we had to meet. We had a 60% diversion target and we scrambled to get the process in place to put an organic composting program, a green box program here in London. We were going too slowly. And the provincial government said, people, you got to speed it up.

And so London responded by starting the process to implement a green bin program. So generally, London, especially, but municipalities aren’t often at the front of the line for these things. We’re following other policies coming from other levels of government. And I want to remind people when we did our four year budget, the last time around the overwhelming majority of people came to speak to us during our budget discussions and they wanted to speak about climate change and environmental issues and how the city should be responding to those things.

I can’t even guess the ratio, but I’m going to. It had to be something like 10 to one. People speaking about climate change and the environment outnumbered every other delegation, every other participant in those public participation meetings where we can implement policy is around making sure that we meet our intensification targets providing incentives for intensification and infill as opposed to sprawling and new neighborhoods sprawling on the outskirts. When we have sprawl, we hollow out our core neighborhoods, schools close down, new schools are built in the outskirts which require busing, which require parents driving their children to school as opposed to children living in the neighborhood where they go to school and walking to school.

Talking about these mixed use communities, we have tools that we should be exploring. How can we incentivize these mixed use communities? There’s a subdivision being built right now, it’s been being built for the last few years. In ward five, it is mixed use.

There’s office space, there’s commercial space, there’s retail space and there is high, medium and low density development in this subdivision. There will be an amazing market style grocery store in this neighborhood. There will be a cafe, there will be an amazing restaurant and it will be walkable, not only for the thousands over a thousand units that are going to be built in this subdivision, but also the neighboring subdivisions. Those people will be able to walk into this neighborhood and go eat dinner or pick up some groceries, things like that.

We can provide incentives or look to the province to provide policy tools to create more of these kinds of complete neighborhoods. The province give us the tool of inclusionary zoning to address the problem of affordable housing and the lack of housing. So it stands to reason that they could create tools to create these kinds of mixed use developments to encourage that so that people have less reliance on a car to go around and do their errands. So I agree very strongly with all the counselors who have said now is not the time to slow down, now is not the time to pump the brakes on this.

Now is the time to encourage more community engagement to do everything we can to get the message out there that we are going to have a public participation meeting and to invite every single member of the London community who wishes to come and speak to us about this issue to do so, to come and talk about the plan and give us their thoughts and opinions on that. And so I am hopeful that this is what we’re going to do tonight to move this forward and definitely not pump the brakes. Okay, I have Councilor Feitmillera next. Thank you, Ms.

Presiding Officer and through you, lots of really good comments from my fellow counselors. I’ll echo their comments. This was an excellent report. I think to answer the one question on the public participation meeting, I think I agree, I think sooner is better.

I think we need to look at getting back more public comments. I think we need to be cautious on how we do that process. I don’t wanna lose Londoners through a public participation meeting done on Zoom that they just feel that they can’t get on and that they have to sit there for a long period of time, so I would urge some thought and how we want to go about that process, how we want to gain that information back. I think just a couple of quick comments on this.

One thing that I think is imperative as a city is looking at this, we have to lead by example. The city has to be in the front. And to me, I think that that’s something that’s very, very key. If we set the stage, I think we can bring people along.

I think the other thing is, and I know Councillor Turner asked the question about some of the regulatory changes and such, and I know people have heard me say this before, you have the character, you have the stick. I wanna make sure that in doing this, that as we bring people along, that they’re excited about it, and one of my concerns always with regulatory is you end up penalizing people who maybe are low income Londoners. And I don’t wanna see that. I think that I think we have an opportunity to make change.

I see this plan as being that change, but I just wanna make sure that we recognize that we don’t wanna set that stage. We don’t wanna set that table out there. Councillor Halmer had said that there’s a lot of opportunity to assist people. I agree with that, but I also think that all the time people aren’t looking for assistance to get them to where they wanna get to.

So we need some of that flexibility in there, but ultimately, and I think we’ve heard it here tonight, these changes that we’re making, they’re not for us. These are for the future generations. And we may, I think we need to stop asking ourselves when’s the right time to start? We know now.

We know that we can start. We know that we can make these changes. And I agree with the sentiment that’s out there that the time is now. So thank you.

Thanks. I just wanna add just I think it would be helpful if Mr. Stanford could just comment. I know a number of comments are related directly to the PPM and I may have caused that.

The reason why the PPM is in there, it’s not required. So staff are recommending that we do a PPM, but that is by no means the only form of engagement as Mr. Stanford had indicated there is going to be a full, get involved site and other methods. Mr.

Stanford, could you just touch on that? ‘Cause I just want colleagues to understand that the PPM is not intended to be the only form of engagement for learners. Mr. Presiding Officer, that is correct.

We’re going to use get involved ‘cause that is the best tool we have, especially during the pandemic when in-person meetings are limited. We are going to use social media, of course. We will also run a few advertisements in other media as well to make sure the word is out there on where people should go to read the information. We are going to emphasize that they do need to take a little time to read.

There is a wealth of information, but it is time very well spent. And that is something we do have to urge. The literacy on climate change is essential. It doesn’t happen overnight, and we are going to allow a lot of time over the course of the next couple of years for that literacy component.

That is why whatever is decided, whenever the PPM is held, if I may be as bold to say, that is a point in time. We are going to continue to learn on this project, learn from other municipalities, learn from Londoners, most importantly, and continue to bring that information back to you. And the federal and provincial government, we are already in conversation with them. We are very good at going after grants.

We will continue to do that. In fact, we will elevate that. We have a team that specializes in that. So Mr.

Providing Officer, we’re going to do our best to get the word out. It remains challenging, but we have the right people to do the best we can in the next one or two months or whatever committee and council decides in the way of the PPM. Thanks for that. I have a number of people on the list, including myself, because I wanted to speak one more time.

I have myself next, and then I have Councillor Van Holst, who has spoken a couple of times, but then I have Councillor Turner and Hopkins also. So I’m going to hand the chair over to Councillor Lehman, because I’m next on the list. Okay, I’ll go to the deputy mayor. Yes, first, I want to thank my colleagues for their comments, and I know I spoke early, and I usually like to speak late, and I probably wouldn’t have the speak if I spoke later, because I actually think that this is one of those instances where listening to your colleagues, I think, can help you find kind of that consensus and path forward.

And as I listen to everybody, I go back to the goals that Mr. Stanford outlined in the action plan. One, that we have to get to net zero emissions by 2050, two, that we need to improve our resilience, and three, that we need to bring everyone along. And I think it’s easy to get hung up on how people are going to be brought along, and it is going to be a range of tools, like everything the municipality does.

There are people who are instantly passionate and excited about doing their part, and have probably already taken a good number of steps to do their part. I know that my family’s passionate about climate change, and I’ve also bought an electric car. We’ve made changes to our house on energy efficiency. Like there are people who are going to do stuff.

There are others who do not know what they can do. They don’t understand every piece of the range of options on how they can contribute. And I always point to the food waste piece, because it’s something that saves people money and helps. And sometimes that’s just about education and tools that you can put out there.

And that brings people along. And then there’s also compliance. As Councilor Turner mentioned, there are tools at the municipalities disposal that can be used to also bring more people along. And that’s more the stick than the carrot.

But I think that the idea of bringing everyone along, it means that we’re going to have a range of options here in this plan. And also it emphasizes the importance of what everybody I think is saying. And let’s hear a little more from what the public thinks on this. I think a PPM is a great process.

I think they get involved sites great. And I think Councilors have a tremendous ability to push out information into their networks and constituencies as well. And I think really that’s the critical next step. I think it’s a good plan.

I think we’ve got great information in here. I think our colleagues have provided some great thoughts and inputs. I think there’s diversity in thoughts and approaches on some of the components of the plan. And I think we’re going to get that from the public.

But I think we’re all waiting for that next piece, which is moving this forward. So I think it’s been an excellent debate tonight. And I’m anxious and excited to have that next piece of seeing what the public is, letting all of Council kind of push this out in a wider way, get that, get involved information on this iteration of the draft report that we see before us. Because all the consultation up to this point has been on lots of the different programs we’ve done.

But now we’ve got like an action plan that people can sink their teeth into. And as Mr. Stanford said, it’s going to take some time for people to digest it. But let’s get people into it and let’s get their feedback.

Because I think to me, how we proceed next, will be greatly influenced by what Londoners say. And I think you’re going to hear a lot of people wanting us to move forward on climate change. I think there’s going to be a lot of people who learn a lot from the process, people who choose to engage in the materials are going to learn all the different ways that they can contribute and all the different components of where the challenge is, the role of governments, the role of individuals, the role of industry and business. A whole of community plan needs to bring everybody along.

And I think that this is a good, great draft report tonight. And I’m looking very forward to the next steps. And hopefully, we can move towards to that point. I think I’ve certainly heard lots of great things from my colleagues, and I’m anxious to move forward.

Thank you, and I’ll return the chair to the deputy mayor. Have Councilor Van Holst next, then Councilor Turner, then Councilor Hopkins. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for your comments as well, and participating in the debate.

The— I don’t see anyone saying that we should put on the brakes in terms of this. I know the point I had hoped to make was that the goals are very aggressive, and so that gives us some leeway if they’re difficult to make. What I would really like to do is have staff come back with a version of the plan that contains more quantified costs. And so that’s a motion I might put on the floor.

And then I think we’ll have a better discussion of what’s possible when we get to the public on board. I sent some language to the clerks, and perhaps they could provide that when we reach the end. But it basically says that staff be directed to report back to a future SPPC meeting with a version of the Climate Emergency Action Plan containing more quantified costs. And that could be the very same meeting that is the PPM.

I would be fine with that as well, but I do want to see those numbers in there. And it didn’t happen, but I have heard people condemn Canada’s and saying we’re behind and burn a little more GHGs than is our fair share. But I do want to make a couple of comments about that. We have a country that’s cold, and we have to heat it, and it’s very spread out, and so we have to travel further.

And so there’s something to take into account. The other great thing about Canada that people don’t notice is that we’re at least fifth in terms of trees per capita. So it’s over 8,000, almost 9,000 trees per person in Canada. And thanks to the work we’re doing here in London, that number is growing.

But we have over 80, almost 90 times as many trees per person as China. And 1,000 times more than some countries. So there’s some good things about our nation too. I also think that carbon sequestering is going to be a big part of the plan, actually achieving the plan.

And as was pointed out by one of my colleagues on the water board, we already know how to sequester carbon really well. We pour too much phosphate into the water system, and then we get these algae blooms. And I believe that in the future, we’re going to start using that as a strategy, because it’s so easy for us. And perhaps one of the great approaches would be to use that to grow plankton in our oceans so that we get the basis for a food chain to restock the fish supplies.

So we know that our oceans are overfished. And if we can restock those, it would be a good idea, I believe, to restock our oceans and sequester carbon as fish. So there’s some options. And I say this because if we find out that some ideas just seem unattainable in the short term, we may look to some of these others and feel a little more confidence going forward.

So the nice thing about ideas is they’re not a limited resource. So thank you. I think the clerks probably received that. I’ll put on that on the floor at the time when we get to moving the motions.

And I’m happy to move the rest of these, Mr. Chair as well. So thank you. OK, Councillor, so I think that’s helpful to me that you’re willing to kind of move, because there’s nothing on the floor right now.

So if you’re willing to move all of that, plus an additional item, I’m happy to look for a seconder for that. And then, of course, we can vote on the components differently if colleagues would like, but perhaps we’re to the point where we should get something on the floor. So I don’t know what the final item looks like. I guess you’ve sent it to the clerk, but colleagues might want that read out before they agreed to second it.

But there is nothing on the floor at this time. So you could propose to put a motion on the floor. OK, thank you. Well, I’ll put the staff recommendations on there.

And I’ll put part E that says staff be directed and report back to a future SPPC meeting with a version of the Climate Emergency Action Plan, containing more quantified costs. And perhaps I can, through you, go to our staff to see how onerous a task that would be, or how long that would take to do. OK, I’m going to take that as a question. So I’ll go to Ms.

Cher. Thank you, Deputy. So it is an extremely onerous, if not impossible, task to quantify if it goes to 2050. Our intent is to bring the prices that go with the work plan in four-year pieces that coincide with the multi-year budget.

Each of the work plans and elements and tasks that are incorporated into this massive climate emergency action plan would have a costing aspect to it. And as you can imagine, the cost to review the use of gas-powered small lawn tools is extremely different than the cost to implement a new parking standard for zoning. So it’s really tricky to go down that path for the plan as a whole, which is why you’ll be seeing it at digestible chunks from us as part of our budget and budget updates. I think the other element to it is that a lot of the technologies that might be our solutions in the future aren’t at the market or aren’t at the market at a rate price now, so you will see a good cost for your plan as part of multi-year.

We don’t assume that our conversations around this overarching many, many decades plan would presuppose budget approvals, but it does lay the foundation direction that’ll help us know which case is to be advancing at which time the process. OK, that’s harmful. I certainly don’t want to set you to a task that’s impossible by the way I worded it containing more quantified costs. Really, the most important ones were those for the community.

And on those pages where you’ve got the diagrams of the houses and the people and the cars and the costs, would we be able to put some approximate numbers into there? So some of them say purchase an EV, or purchase a used EV, or a hybrid, a heat pump, those kinds of things. Is that attainable on just those diagrams? Got two of you on the screen, Ms.

Sherrod. Do you want to take it or hand it off? I can certainly share it if you wanted to add to it. I think those costs are things that we can share.

We have good market costs on it. They wouldn’t be specific to a homeowner. Of course, people’s furnaces, HVAC, windows, all those things vary immensely. But if you’re looking for some standards that are proforma, what does an EV cost?

What is a heat pump cost? What does it cost to better insulate your attic? We can provide those sorts of levels of cost. We’re going to need to keep the scope fairly tight.

There’s an quite a bit of work going on around this piece. And we do certainly want to get to the start line soon. Yeah, Mr. Chair, that is all that I’m looking for.

And I’d be thrilled if people can look and get a sense of it, at least prepare themselves. And then they’ll be able to discuss it a little better, and then figure out how in eight years they might be able to meet that timeline or not. And maybe asking for some other suggestions. So I’ll put those in that part on the floor, realizing that it’s just those numbers that we want for the community to see what their investments might be.

OK, Councillor, I now know the clerk don’t know how he is worded, because you’ve changed it. I also am unclear if it’s even necessary. If you’re just looking for staff to add some examples of some ranges of costs for some of the items that they’ve suggested for household things, it seems like Ms. Schur was willing to just do that.

And so I’m not sure if it’s necessary to put it in a motion if that’s her interpretation. I mean, there’s another thing that costs zero, too. So I think that seems like a component that could give the public a little bit more information on the range of the items proposed, where it’s possible and easy, and there’s data available. So Ms.

Schur, is that something you were just going to endeavor to do or something that we actually need to direct you on? Thank you, Mr. Deputy. We certainly can simply endeavor to do that without direction from Council.

We can provide it on the Get Involved link, which can be shared as we promote the PPM piece. And this really is the start of that conversation with the community as we dig into these programs. And all of the actions with the EAP will have many, many more conversations as well. Councillor Van Vost.

Yes, and Mr. Chair, thank you very much to Ms. Chair. I think that’s great.

I prefer it. We just do it this way. Because sometimes passing my emotions is also an impossible task. OK, so then you just want to move the staff report, then, and get that on the floor.

I have, yes. OK, is that what someone want to second the staff report? Mr. Fife Miller.

OK, I’m going to go back to the list for discussion. Knowing that on the last piece, the staff report does not identify a date, so certainly that’s something we could add in. The SPPC date that they could be ready by the earliest is March 8th. The subsequent SPPCs are April 5th and April 26th, just for colleagues’ information.

Next is Councillor Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I just want to— I won’t speak long.

Just a couple of really quick clarifications. One, I do want to re-emphasize. I really respect and appreciate how much work staff have put into this report. I want to push us, and I think the tone in the staff report reflects the impossible line that there is for them to walk in terms of trying to satisfy everyone.

And I think it reflects the tone in Council. And so the discussion that we’ve had, I’ve heard on two very different paths and visions for what this could be. And I think staff have tried to walk the middle of that. But as a Chair, I identified thousands of hours of work gone into this from all the departments, and it’s significant and respected.

And so thank you. And I really hope it doesn’t come off as me being critical of it. I just want us to do as best we can. The second, I do want to push back, I think a few of my colleagues have kind of characterized what I stated as sticks.

Using our regulatory tools aren’t really sticks, necessarily. If they were punitive, yeah, absolutely. If we were issuing fines or removing things from people, I’m just talking about us saying, OK, what’s the norms for going forward? Speed limits aren’t sticks, but fines are for speeding.

But we have an expectation that people drive at a certain rate and no more on our roads and highways. We do a lot of other really— it’s what we do. It just becomes the expectation for behavior within our government and within the city. And so I think we can do this in a way that’s not punitive.

I think we can do a lot of this in a way that’s not cost-impactful, but we just have to be able to nudge the direction in which things go, so that we have the accomplishments that we’re looking to achieve. And I don’t think we should be afraid of them. It is the role of government, to be able to create the parameters, to be able to accomplish the things that we need to do collectively. And left to individual actions, that’s where we’re at right now.

This has been individual actions. There have been some regulatory nudges, but not a lot. And to say that it’s the federal or provincial government several municipalities are where people live. And we probably have the largest impact into greenhouse gas emissions out of all levels of government.

Before it gets said, Canada has amongst the highest greenhouse gas emissions per capita. We’re at about 15.5 metric tons per capita. And if we were to compare ourselves to a country like China, it’s half at 7.4. If somebody was to say, well, we’re not going to do anything until India gets their emissions under control.

They’re at 1.8, like 1/10 of where we’re at. If you looked at waste production, again, Canadians are at the top of the list of per capita waste production. And as mentioned, that is one of the things in our control. And I’m just going to go back really quickly to the idea of using a utility model or fee-for-service for garbage if people produce two bags of garbage per week.

And we’re spending about $113 per household per year. And we were to change it to a utility model where it’s $1 per bag per garbage. Everybody who’s producing two bags per garbage per week spends exactly the same that they’re doing now. Somebody who puts one bag of garbage per week out on the curb spends half that they were on garbage before.

So we can incentivize behavior. And if people want to be able to produce more garbage, there’s a cost associated with that, it’s producer pay. And then you’re at $3 per bag, or $3 per week, and you’re paying 50% more, because you’ve put out 50% more garbage. We treat it like a service, but really it’s a utility, because it’s not something that should be— it’s something that everybody pays a flat rate for, but lots of people produce way more than other people.

And we don’t recognize that. And so in terms of equity, and in terms of ability to decrease the impacts through different income strata, that’s one of the ways we can do it. And we can help to incentivize behavior through rewards and make it cost-neutral. Anyway, I’m looking forward to hearing back from the community.

I’m looking forward to the public participation meetings. I’m looking forward to seeing what our council will have the courage to move forward and not wait until after the election, because I think the time is now and the time was several years ago. Councillor Hawkins. Yeah, thank you, Mr.

Presiding Officer. And thank you for the clarification around the public participation meeting that you had mentioned March the 8th. I wasn’t really sure exactly what and if it was needed. And I’m really glad to know that we are adding this public participation meeting.

But I think it’s also important to know, Mr. Stanford, did say there’s going to be other opportunities as well. I think I’ve heard loud and clear from a number of Councillors that the importance of getting this done sooner than later is what we need to do. So if we were going to go forward with the public participation meeting on March the 8th, can you give a sense, maybe through you to staff what opportunities we would have for that public participation meeting at Council or at SBPC, Mr.

Stanford? Through the Presiding Officer. Given the tremendous discussion tonight, staff would actually recommend April 5th, would allow more time to reach out into the community. So I think everything I mentioned before, still in place.

But if we could have a few extra weeks, it would just give us that much more of a chance to get the networks working, to get word out to all the different places and do our best to encourage people to respond in a manner that meets their needs. And if it is not attending the PPM, we will make sure that written documentation will be very well received and unexpected, to be quite honest. We expect to hear from lenders on this. Thank you for the response, Mr.

Stanford. I too think it’s really important that we get that back and have given staff the time that’s needed as the community tries to digest this plan. So supportive of the April 5th date. Councilor Lewis.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you for Councilor Hopkins for asking the question about the date. I think it’s very important.

And I will say I was not keen on March the 8th. I can support April 5th. And I’ll share one of the reasons that I would prefer the April date right now. If trend lines continue, on February 21st, we will, the province of Ontario, will move into the next stage of loosened restrictions for COVID-19.

On March 14th, the third step, according to the plan for reopening, is set to move in place. I think the more people feel comfortable with the public measures that are in place around COVID and their ability to participate in a PPM. And Councilor Pfeiff Miller mentioned this. And I think this is really important to emphasize.

Not everyone is comfortable joining a meeting remotely. In fact, when the Mayor’s Honors List Awards happened before the last council meeting and volunteers were recognized, I was actually asked to speak on behalf of one of the volunteers who was being recognized because she’s an older individual who was not comfortable participating by Zoom. So I think it’s really important that we have multiple points of opportunity for people to engage. Mr.

Stanford’s repeatedly mentioned the Get Involved link. It was referenced, and I’m sorry, I’ve lost the page in the report. So I’m just wanna confirm with him. At some point, I read engagement through the month of February.

I’m reluctant, however, to cut it off at the end of the month of February, especially if we’re having a PPM in April. I think there’s a real value in allowing the Get Involved feedback to remain open for a longer period of time. So through you, to our staff, whether that’s Mr. Stanford, in terms of the Get Involved link, what’s the timeframe or the window of opportunity for people to participate?

Through the chair, we will go right through into late March, and then we will package up the information to make sure it will be in a report for SPPC. And then as we’ve done in the past, anything that trickles in that is different or new, we would make sure that is available for the meeting itself. Great, that is wonderful to hear, I think with March Break coming up for parents, with the COVID reopening phases coming up as well. I wouldn’t want this to get lost in all of the news coming from home and schools and from the province and everything else about what’s happening over the next few weeks in our province.

So, and in our community, of course. So, I’m much happier to hear that Get Involved will run as late as possible to package everything up before the PPM so that it’s on the SPPC report. Thank you, Mr. Stanford.

Colleagues, if I can make a suggestion, it seems like unless someone wants to speak up and object, it seems like there’s general consensus on the April 5th date, although I say that, only having heard from two people and seeing some nods on the screen. So, if anybody, if no one has a problem with that, we’ll just, and the mover and the second are okay. They are both nodding. We just make a specific reference to that in D.

Okay, everybody seems okay with that. All right, I don’t have any other speakers, except for Councillor Layman. Go ahead. Thank you.

And I’ll be quick here. I just wanted to maybe clarify all my thoughts, you know, with the comments regarding election, et cetera. My biggest concern is that London gets its chance to be heard on this because we need, we need to be all growing in the same direction. And London has to buy into this to where we’re going here.

I agree with their urgency as well. There’s no question. This is the biggest concern of our generation. COVID has kind of put this a bit in the back burner.

But this is something we need to deal with. I think the comments by Ms. Shear helped me to kind of see where this document lands and how we’ll be used and comforted by the comments with her by her about, you know, major spending or spending initiatives being planned out in future four year budgets, ‘cause that’s where it belongs. So I am supportive of this motion for sure as a document that needs to be going forward and to start to lay the groundwork as we do our part in addressing this major challenge of climate change.

And Councilor Vameerberg, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. I really enjoy hearing this debate.

I think it covered a lot of aspects to this whole issue. There is a few things that I wanted to bring forward. Firstly, so much of this is outside the realm of our little municipality. And I think we have to keep our eyes open about that.

I think sometimes we can get ourselves just generated to a point where we think we have this definitive power that somehow is outside of the bigger realm. And that bigger realm is our entire planet and the entire atmosphere that we all breathe and use. And so we don’t have walls around our municipality where we can take actions and it just affects our little place. And I think we most of us know that, but I think it’s when you get caught up trying to do good, sometimes the realities that are larger than us are forgotten about.

And so one of the things I wanted to bring forward is the fact that we’re in a very good place right now, thanks to an agency that’s outside a provincial agency outside of our municipality. And that’s namely the Ontario Power Generation people and obviously through them by extension, the provincial government. And that is by getting us to 93% non-GHG emitting sources for our electric power on average in Ontario. So another way to flip it around is only 7% of our electric power is from GHG emitting sources.

That’s a great place to be. And that’s before we’ve even done anything in London, Ontario. So that’s one aspect. I mean, that’s huge when you think about it ‘cause so much of our daily life revolves around the consumption of electricity.

And that’s going to increase as we go more and more into electric vehicles and even vehicles, not emitting vehicles such as Toyota is really putting a lot of research into right now. And that is with the hydrogen cells that they’re promoting. So we know that the electrified vehicles and the hydrogen cell vehicles, these are what are coming forward, that’s a given. That’s going to be the transportation of choice because that’s what people want.

And that’s what we’ll be transitioning to. And so the communities that can accept that and accommodate that are the ones who are going to do well and prosper. And at the same time, help with GHG emissions. I did hear, we were starting to touch a little bit in the discussion about using regulation and perhaps bylaws to enforce that regulation.

The minute we go down that path, we will not be traveling together as one of the goals is for this whole movement, is that we go along together. That will not happen if we start taking this regulated bylaw enforcement type approach. If that starts to creep in, that will severely damage the effort. I’d like to maybe sum up by just bringing forward the fact that we hear things like per capita.

We have to be careful with that. In reality, as a state stand at the beginning, it’s one grand atmosphere, one grand planet. So the gross amounts are really what counts. We are a small country of only 35 million.

And as has been stated earlier, we are a massive geographically situated country. And so yes, on the one hand on the per capita basis, things look a little skew. But then when you compare ourselves, say with our 35 million to China, and if you do it in millions, is 1400 million, at least if I’m doing the math right, so 1.4 billion, 1400 million, same versus 35 million. And when you see what is being turned out, in terms of greenhouse gas emissions out of a country like China, with their 1,000 coal burning electrical plants, electrical generating plants, with at least dozens more coming online in their plan.

Again, coal burning. So the GHGs coming out of there are huge. So I think we have to be prepared for the fact that with these external forces going on, that we can do all these things in London, Ontario, in the municipality, and have a completely obliterated and blown away by what’s going on on the other side of the world. And so that has to be kept in mind.

And I just say that just so that we can keep an element of realism in our discussions. Thank you. Okay, I don’t have any other speakers. We have the staff recommendation moved and seconded with a date of April 5th identified.

So if there are no other speakers, which I see none, I’ll open that up for voting. So hello. It’s not coming up for me, I’m a yay. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero.

It’s given this point in our agenda and that we have another important staff presentation coming up. I think this would be an appropriate time to take a 20 minute recess, so everybody can refresh. I’ll look for someone to move that. Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Halmer.

We’ll just do this as a hand vote. All those in favor of a 20 minute recess. Okay, we’ll see you back here at 10 after seven. That motion carries.

If colleagues could just do a quick screens on or thumbs up, so the clerk’s gonna just check, make sure everybody’s back. We look good. Okay, I’ll call the meeting back to order. We’re now moving on to item 4.3, which will start with a presentation of a London for all and an action plan to disrupt Islamophobia.

And so I’m gonna turn it over to, I don’t know if Ms. Livingston is introducing it or if we’re going right to Ms. Morris, but I will turn it over to both of you for the presentation. Mr.

Chair, I was just going to say that we’ll go directly to Ms. Morris. Thank you. Thank you, Chair, for having us today to report back on a London for everyone and action plan to disrupt Islamophobia.

I’m going to just go straight to slide two and just remind Council that following the terror attack on June 6th, we received Council direction on June 15th to do three distinct things. One of them is to work on Muslim community and key partners in the community to work on reporting back on a plan to end Islamophobia on a local level. The other two things that we were asked to do was to engage with the local Muslim community to determine how we can honor and remember our London family as we are affectionately calling them. And lastly, we were asked to engage the Muslim community and talk a little bit about how we can highlight and honor their contributions within our community on a more broad level.

On slide three, you’ll see that we chose to take a response by creating an anti-Islamophobia working group. And so by that, I mean, we engaged approximately 80 members of the diverse Muslim communities within London. We also had about 30 community-based and public sector organizations who were engaged and invited to participate. We also acknowledge that local media and while media in general have a responsibility and a role to play in terms of either perpetuating stereotypes of Muslims and similarly to actually disrupt those very stereotypes.

And so we invited them to participate in a separate but parallel process. And I would like to acknowledge that overwhelmingly everyone that was engaged was very eager and was very interested in participating in this working group. What we ended up doing was having a number of sessions. And we caucus the first two.

So the first one was with the local Muslim community separately. And then we had a second session a couple of weeks later that was dedicated to the community-based and public sector organizations acknowledging that there may have been some overlap as people had intersectional identities being leaders as well as Muslim identifying. And we really started those sessions with a joint understanding of what we are talking about and recognizing that Islamophobia can be experienced on a very personal and private level, but it can also be affecting on a structural level. We had some dialogue then where we brought the two groups together at the beginning of November.

We spent some time having some really fruitful discussions when we had the group join together. We then had a separate session that was dedicated just for the local media, as I had mentioned. We had another session with the local Muslim community specifically to talk about commemoration of our London family and how we can see our way to highlighting and honoring contributions of Muslim community members more broadly. And then in addition to those working group sessions, we ended up having over 21-on-1 conversations with community leaders as well as with some individual Muslim community members who had some wonderful ideas and initiatives that they wanted to bring forward.

And then most recently at the end of January we held a feedback session where we were able to review the draft recommendations with the working group and we were able to receive their endorsement of the recommendations with some feedback that we were able to also embed into the final action plan. I would like to just highlight some of the things that we heard from the Muslim community directly. I want to just acknowledge that this community remains hurt. They remain frightened, they are angry, they are frustrated and they are desperate for all levels of government to stand by their commitments that were made following the terror attack.

I also heard loud and clear that there was a significant oversight when we look at the aftermath of the terror attack that the Muslim youth were not really engaged in those discussions. And so the ask from the community has been very explicit that any initiatives that emerge from these recommendations really do need to have the Muslim youth centered in those plans. Not surprisingly, we also heard the impact of Islamophobia is very gendered. And so it is highly targeted towards Muslim identifying women, particularly those that wear the hijab.

We heard from community partners that they are very invested and eager to disrupt Islamophobia within their spheres of influence. And we also learned that the educational institutions really do have an increased responsibility to direct their resources and attention towards addressing Islamophobia. You’ll see in the report that the recommendations are split into two. There are a number of recommendations that are geared specifically to the city of London.

And many of those will align with the 61 policy recommendations with the National Canadian Council of Muslims. They had created those policy recommendations after some very broad consultation across this country. And then the other section is for community-based and public sector organizations, because we acknowledge that those partners also have a responsibility to further their efforts and also collaborate with other partners to dismantle Islamophobia. Some of those recommendations also do apply to the city of London as well as we are a public sector organization.

The recommendations are categorized in a number of ways. And so there is a section specifically around the commemoration. And there are some initiatives that have been suggested, including painting the sidewalks, the crosswalks rather, at the intersection of the attack. We’re looking to create a memorial plaza at the very intersection and then a community garden, not necessarily at the intersection, but to find a community garden where we can create a way to sort of honor the family and give back.

The other buckets, if you will, are around advocacy. There’s a number of things under the advocacy that I will just highlight quickly. And there are many things that are inclusive of advocating that other levels of government do their part. So that we are asking provincial and federal governments to also be doing their part in endorsing these recommendations and implementing them as well.

There’s a whole section on education and awareness. There are a number of initiatives that we want to be able to support on the local level, including public awareness campaigns, anything that will help to broaden the awareness of Muslims and change the narrative of how they are perceived in our society. This includes training opportunities as well. There’s also a section on programs and services.

And then there are things that are recommended, such as a youth fellowship program, which is a novel way of engaging Muslim youth to engage in civic literacy. And other things like creating spaces that are more welcoming for all people, particularly for Muslim women. There is a section on accountability that I will speak to in just a moment on the next slide. And then there’s also a section on internal policies and practices, which are very much the things that the anti-racism and anti-person division are required to do as part of their deliverables internally.

And then we want to support community organizations to do the same. So in terms of accountability and implementation, I just want to highlight a couple of things that I think are key for you to know. One of them is that the recommendation for an advisory council to the mayor that is specifically dedicated to anti-Islamophobia. We were envisioning this council to provide oversight of the implementation of these very recommendations.

We’re also looking to seek and establish a Muslim community liaison advisor role within the anti-racism and anti-oppression division. And this role would essentially work with the community partners and actually deliver and implement these recommendations. And then we also see another way to create accountability would be to continue with the anti-Islamophobia working group. So continue to meet with them on a regular basis and help to support accountability and implementation at that level.

There are a number of financial implications that I just want to highlight at this point. The first one being that we’re looking to have one-time funding of up to $150,000 from the operating budget for a memorial plaza that I just referenced. We’re also looking to get funding for the Muslim community liaison advisor position. I just mentioned that we are looking to fund on a temporary basis for a period of up to two years and to do that within existing budget resources.

If there is a need to consider that to be a long-term option, then we would explore that through the development of the 2024, 2027 multi-year budget. And finally, we are looking to create an implementation plan with your direction. And so at that point, once we have more specifics around what the implementation looks like, the timelines and what resources are required, we would then submit a business case at a later time for that. In terms of what’s next, there are a number of initiatives that are already underway, I’m pleased to say, including some of those ideas around a memorial plaza.

We do now need to be directed to create an implementation plan. And as I mentioned, to have those clear outline of how those recommendations will be actioned. And as well as I mentioned, the anti-sanophobia working group needs to continue to meet so that we can regularly discuss how others are doing and review shared best practices. And as I said also, to keep that as a body for accountability as well.

So with that, I can stop sharing my screen and I’d be happy to take any questions. Yeah, so go to Councillor Sully first. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I’d be happy to move the recommendation from staff at this point. And then I’ll look to you and then I’ll comment when it’s appropriate. Sure, I have Councillor Turner willing to second it. So it is a staff recommendation is moved and seconded and go ahead with some comments, Councillor Sully.

So I wanted to first thank staff and for working on this, I know it was a lot of work. And I also wanna appreciate, sorry and thank the members of the Muslim community and the organizations and all those members, community including the media for being part of this process because it’s a collective effort that’s needed to address and tackle and Islamophobia in our community. I’m glad to see what we have here in front of us today. I know there’ll be more things that we need to do to really have an impact in ending Islamophobia.

But I think this is definitely a very, very strong message in a very strong step in the right direction. And I definitely encourage my colleagues to support the recommendation. And I look forward to the days ahead where we don’t have to have these kinds of discussions. But I’m comforted by knowing that we have the leadership in place right now to help drive the change that’s needed in our community.

So again, thank you to the Muslim community for being a part of this process. And I know it’s a difficult process, especially for those who are living every day and having to be sharing their personal experiences and personal stories that aren’t easy conversations. And I look forward to us as a city honoring and remembering those that are no longer with us and honoring the contributions of the Muslim community in the weeks, months, and years ahead. Thank you.

Thanks, I have Councillor Lewis next. And then I put myself on the speakers list. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And through you, I’m gonna have a quick question to Ms. Morris, and I’m gonna preface it just a little bit. This is a conversation that Councillor Silly and Councillor Hamou and myself have had over many years that we’ve known each other before any of us actually arrived in this building here and around this horseshoe. And on Friday, I had a great opportunity to have to continue that conversation with Ms.

Morris. And I think it’s a question that’s important to ask in public session so that it’s something that the community can hear too. And the question is this through you to Ms. Morris.

Often when we develop an action plan to address a problem, in this case, it’s the Islamophobia, and the creation of the Muslim community liaison position. One of the things that I’ve heard over the years, and in fact, I’ve experienced a couple of times, is that while one community is experiencing discrimination, there is sometimes within that community biases and discrimination that it projects outward as well. And in my example, Councillor Hamou and Councillor Silly and I have all had conversations about the homophobia that exists sometimes within the Muslim community. So when we are looking at these community liaison positions, what role would the individual in that position play in helping not only address the bias that the broader community may be feeling towards an identified group, in this case, the Muslim community, but also addressing within that community some of the underlying biases that they may project out into the community that creates some of the tensions that we can sometimes experience in our community and other communities across the country.

Go to Ms. Morris. Thank you, and through the chair, I appreciate your question, Councillor Lewis, because it is, I’m sure, something that others have also wondered. And so I would like to just explain that in terms of the liaison advisor roles, although they are specifically belonging to particular communities, when it comes to equity work, the only way that we can do this type of work is to come at it with an intersectional approach.

If you think about the different communities, so Islam, for example, is a faith. And so it covers every gamut of race, ethnicity, culture, people all over the world identify as Muslim. So a Muslim community liaison advisor has to be able to acknowledge the differences within those communities. There are people from the LGBT community who are also Muslim identifying.

There are people in the black community who have disabilities. There are people who are in the indigenous community that experience harm because of their gender. So there is an approach here that all of these liaisons, in spite of the fact that they may belong to one specific community, they themselves have intersectional identities, and they also have to represent the intersectionality of those groups. So with the wondering about the other groups and how do we address some of the harm, as you mentioned, is homophobia within the Muslim community?

There’s homophobia within the Christian community, within the Jewish communities. That is a very real situation. And so anyone that comes into the anti-racism and anti-oppression division has to understand how we operate with an intersectional lens, so that they are engaging with their communities from a very broad lens. If you think about the black community liaison advisor, for example, that’s a very broad group.

The black community is all… There are people who have been here for generations, and there are people who have immigrated from the Caribbean, from every country, one of the 54 countries in Africa. So when we talk about the black community, it’s a very diverse community, very similar to the indigenous communities, extraordinarily diverse and similar with the Muslim community. So when we approach these communities with an intersectional lens, we really have a lot of depth and breadth.

And so there is a need for these folks who I work alongside to really appreciate how gender impacts all of those things, how abilities and neurodiversity impact those communities differently. So it’s incumbent upon all of us when we are working within this type of work, that we are really engaging with communities in that really broad sense. Thank you for sharing that Ms. Morris.

I think it’s really important that the community understand that intersectional lens is being applied in these liaison roles. Whatever the label is on the particular position and whatever community they’re reaching out to, it’s not a limited, a stereotyped, it’s not a confined silo, but it’s in fact a broader silo. And so again, I just think it’s really important that community understand that. And I wanna just take the opportunity again to thank you for your time on Friday, having that conversation with me, and I know it’s a conversation we’ll continue.

But I also wanna thank Councillor Homue and Councillor Saleh as well for the conversations that we’ve been able to have over the years. And it means a great deal to be able to share and know that those experiences are not lost. No matter what title we are putting on a position, that we are getting people involved to address what are systemic problems in our society. And it’s the goal is ultimately for the betterment of everyone.

And the rising tide floats all boats at the end of the day. So I do wanna thank both Councillor Homue and Councillor Saleh for their friendship over the years too, as we’ve had some difficult conversations about that particular issue. And I think that as we move forward with this, and I’m gonna be fully supportive of all of the staff recommendations tonight, that the work is just not what we see in the recommendations tonight, but it’s about at the end of the day community building and understanding amongst all of the different groups that make up London. Thank you, Councillor.

Turn the chair over to Councillor Layman. The chair recognizes Deputy Mayor. Thank you colleagues. And I know if the mayor would have been here tonight, he would have absolutely spoken to a number of aspects of this.

I won’t, certainly I’m not speaking on his behalf because he didn’t provide me with any notes, but I did think that it was important to provide a few thoughts on the recommendations. And in the aftermath of the attack, I remember sitting with the mayor in the mosque where the police were briefing leaders of the Muslim community and neither one of us said anything. We were there to listen and show our support. And in that immediate aftermath, it was just the feeling in the room and the magnitude of the event that had just happened, which I don’t think any of us had fully come to realize, certainly demanded action.

And I’m so proud of our Council and our colleagues for doing something quickly, but also providing staff the direction to do something thoughtfully and something meaningful, something that took time to get to. And the result of that work you see before us tonight. It is comprehensive. It is thorough.

It is reflective of community voices. It is the culmination of multiple leaders in the community coming together, providing recommendations. It goes all the way up to the NCCM, a national Muslim organization, but it also addresses the actions demanded and expected by our local Muslim leaders. It is comprehensive and it is thoughtful.

And I am very glad to see the last item about the direction to share this plan to disrupt Islamophobia with local, provincial, federal members of parliament, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. And I know Councillor Hopkins will help with that. And of course, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and I have the distinct privilege to serve on FCM’s anti-racism and equity committee. And I’ve discussed the draft report with the Chair Lindell and some of the support staff.

And I’ve discussed it with the NCCM because there are multiple motions coming before the FCM on this. And I will tell you, this is not just an important document for London, but will be an important document for our colleagues and other municipalities, who all are looking to tackle similar issues in their community. And one of the things that the anti-racism committee at FCM wants to do is help build capacity in our municipalities across the country. And what that requires is leadership.

And this report is an example of leadership from the London community that can be shared. Every component and every piece of it won’t be right for every community, but there is a real opportunity to take the work that’s been done here. The model that we’ve built and show other communities what it means not just to pass a motion condemning something, but taking some thoughtful steps towards actually doing something about it. And that doesn’t mean the work is done and the report is it and that’s all.

Obviously the report shows the path on the immediate actions ahead. But I can tell you, we absolutely are leading on this at this point in time. And London has the capacity to share with others and through time and process and learn from others as well as we work through this process. But I could not be more proud of the incredible work that our staff has done on this to get us to this point.

And of course, a massive thank you to all of the community members from all of the different groups who engaged in the development of this report. It would never be reflective of the needs, desires, and wants of the community to move forward with their participation, who came with many opinions, many thoughts. And you see the letters of endorsement that are supporting this direction. And there has been a great deal of consensus on the path ahead.

And I think we have an excellent plan. And I would encourage my colleagues to support and endorse this as the next step in the process. It’s very important, a very comprehensive step. But the next step in the process to us disrupting Islamophobia in our community.

Thank you. And I’ll turn the chair back to Deputy Mayor with Councillor Turner on the speaker’s list. Councillor Turner. Thank you.

And thanks to especially the community for working really closely to be able to put this report together. I think it’s really important. Of course, it should be without question. I think this gains unanimous support.

I think it’s clear it lays things out really well. My question is about measures. In the 5.4 accountability and implementations on E, it created an implementation plan by fall 2022 for the City of London actions to end Islamophobia with activities, responsibilities, timelines, measures, budget, and any necessary funding requests. So I’m really curious how we measure success or progress or not, and so that we know how we’re moving as a community and making headway on something that we really need to tackle as a community together.

I’ll go to Ms. Morris. Thank you, and through the chair. Thank you, Councillor Turner.

Great question. This is a very difficult— these are difficult things to measure, if you will. And so we have to go with the tools that we have. And so we anticipate— and it will take time— but we anticipate that there will be a reduction in the number of hate crimes and hate incidents that are reported to the police.

That’s one way to measure. You’ll recall there was a recent study done in partnership with the local immigration partnership, and it really highlighted the different types of discrimination our community experiences, as well as where they experience that discrimination. There are some initiatives that are coming out of that study that we’re hoping to be able to find ways to measure this type of data. And so post surveys in the future should have a lower rate of experiences of discrimination.

Part of one of the things in the report is the consideration of creating an online reporting tool. There’s been some discussions in other communities how they’ve managed that. And so there is a lot of reluctance in many communities to report hate incidents, if you will, to the police, because the police have often been seen as oppressors of those groups. And so an impartial sort of online reporting tool may give us an opportunity to then gather that information and be able to measure that over time.

So that’s one of the things that we’re looking to deliver on. But as you said, this is important to be able to measure, and it’s also complicated, because it requires people to report. We know that people under report, what is reported is just a glimpse of what happens. So if we can create more avenues and ways for people to report outside of the police, then there may be a better opportunity to track that over time.

Through you, Mr. Chair, to Ms. Morris, thank you. This is going to be a challenge.

But it’s incredibly important, and I think it’s really important that we find the right measures. If we look at hate crimes reported on their own, those are macroaggressions. But there is countless, countless microaggressions that happen all the time. Understanding the attitudes and beliefs within our community, those are really important to understand, to see if the sense of community has been strengthened, or whether it’s a roading over time.

And whether those are the racist feelings, the xenophobic feelings, otherisms, those kind of things. What’s the community sentiment? And are we addressing things at the root in terms of misapprehensions and misinterpretations that lead to microaggressions, racism, and then overt attacks? So I think this is a great foundation, and I think the point I’m trying to make in this, all of this, is let’s make sure that we have strong tools to be able to see how we’re progressing and so that we can course correct or strengthen certain areas of the program as we move forward.

Thank you, Councillor. Other speakers? Councillor Van Wollst. And then I have you next, Councillor Hopkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And of course, I’ll also say a tremendous amount of work went into this report and some excellent suggestions. I have perhaps a couple of questions and then comments.

Maybe start with a couple of comments. I think some helpful things are the suggestions such as bringing the 1,001 inventions display, because that’s quite an amazing thing to see what came out of the Golden Age of Islam. And people relate to all of those because they’re so pervasive in our society and in our own experience. That’s a great thing.

I do want to mention, to the excellent work, some groups such as the Hyatt Mosque in my ward that does a community meal every Saturday, I think those kinds of things really bring them into the community and bring the hearts together. I wanted to ask about the idea of a more memorial at the location where that happened. And my concern is, and I have no objection to it, but I wonder if we might be memorializing a crime instead of the people. How will that affect the psyche?

And I wonder if other measures, like scholarships or things like that, might have people remember more the deceased? Ms. Morris. Thank you, and through the chair, Councilman Hose, thank you for acknowledging the 1,001 inventions.

I think you’re right, it’s a lovely way to speak to what Councilman Turner had talked about in terms of shifting the narrative and seeing people see the depth and breadth of Muslim contributions. With regards to the memorial, I think that’s a really good question. Is it going to memorialize a crime? And I think in my world, I very much come from a both-and perspective.

And so we both need to have something and somewhere for people to quietly reflect. And really, the memorial plaza is really going to be that. So it’s going to be designed to have some raised flower beds with some seating. There will be a beautiful mural that’s being created by some of Yumna Afsel’s friends who are coming together to create an art mural that will go on a small, retainer wall there.

So it is a place for people to stop and reflect, because it’s become a makeshift place for people to do that in the absence of even having a place to sit. So we need to honor that that is a place that we must always remember what happened and never forget and create space for people to reflect in that area. So that end, I love the idea of scholarships, of many other ways to change how people experience being Muslim in our society. And so I think we can do it all.

And I think this is an essential piece that the community needs and wants to be able to have a tangible place to go. And we also need to do many other things. And so I believe a lot of those initiatives are still going to be emerging through the working group and through some of this implementation. And so I don’t think we have to pick or choose.

I think we need to really embody that people need a place. And we also need to do things that can be really seen as honoring the family in a different way. So the community garden, for example, really came up not just because it’s a cool idea, but because the Afsel’s have a gardeners. So it’s keeping in spirit with who they were.

It’s also a way to give back to community, which is very fitting in terms of if we’re doing it in honor of them. There’s been ideas about creating that community garden with some really neat information about Muslims contributions in London so that we create a bit of a learning opportunity and make that be a space that is beyond just, if you will, a community garden. So a number of different ways to come at it. And I think all of them are relevant and important for different reasons and for different people, if you will.

Well, thank you very much. And I do like the ideas that have been suggested for the memorial. And you make an excellent point. People do need a space.

I know that there was a tragic death of a popular individual in my ward and at the site, the memorial was just created by the community and the individuals. And now there’s something that remains permanently there as a way to remember. So I think doing a very fitting job with city resources will be a fine thing. Thank you, Councillor.

I have Councillor Hopkins next. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. And I want to thank staff and especially the community for bringing this report to us tonight. It is a very important report in London for everyone.

And I’m very pleased to share it at the AMO board as well. So with that, I do have a couple of questions and well, a comment first. I’m really pleased to see that the voice of the Muslim youth have not been overlooked. And it’s really important to include their input.

And the reason I’m making that comment is, I recall at the vigil, there were thousands of people there. And when you looked around, there was a lot of young people. And especially young people in their 20s and having the conversations with them, it really was something that sort of sobered me up in realizing the impact that not only the attack that happened in June created in them, but how do we move forward? And this to me is a really important part of how we are going to deal with Islamophobia.

I do have a quick question around the anti-Islamophobia advisory council circle. If I just can go through you, Deputy Mayor, to staff to just get a better understanding on how that works, because that to me is really something that as a council and as a city, we need to really sort of follow and see where we’re going with this recommendation. Ms. Morris.

Yeah, thank you. And through you, Councilor Hopkins, thank you for that question as well, because it is not a lot of municipalities that have that. From what I understand, City of Toronto has an advisory council that’s similar to the mayor, as well as the city of Hamilton. And NCCM has been supporting in terms of helping navigate what they actually mean, ‘cause this is one of their recommendations for municipalities.

But from what I understand, there is an opportunity. It does have to be as per their recommendation, and I would not disagree. It needs to be a diverse representation of Muslim identifying people. So as you mentioned, the voice of youth would need to be at that table, as well as Muslim identifying women.

So that is essential to it. In terms of how many people, I think those are things that we still have yet to determine what the process would look like to come apart of that body. I do know, and what we believe is necessary for Pacific is that that advisory group then creates some oversight of the implementation plan. And so that is essentially where we’re at at this moment.

And we hope to do a little bit more research other municipalities in terms of how they’ve gone about doing it, and then have some discussions about what would be the most appropriate way for us to do it. What does that even mean, what can it mean? But the biggest thing for us is that they would be the oversight for the implementation. And you’ll see actually with a number of these recommendations, there is a need for us to now go find out more, even with the youth fellowship program, for us to find out more about what are the costs, what does this look like, what are ways to do this, and the advisory council is one of them.

So we have a little bit of preliminary information at this point, and I think that will then follow with some of the follow-up that we will be doing with yourselves in terms of what that actually needs to look like in consultation with yourself. Thank you for that, and we’re looking forward to the follow-ups, thank you. Thank you, other speakers, for comments or questions. Seeing none, we have this moved and seconded.

So what, Councillor Halmer, go ahead. Thank you, I slow on the unmuting. Through the, W. Mayor, I just wanted to say a couple of things.

One, I appreciate the work to get us to this point. Certainly, I’ve been feeling the frustration that we got here sooner, but I’m recognizing that work of this nature sometimes takes a significant amount of time, and I think it’s more important that we get it right than to go extremely fast. And then I do want to address some of the recommendations that are related to policing. And there are some language in the recommendation that’s come before us, which is essentially to refer the issue of reallocating resources to alternative measures to policing, to the police service board for the police service board to discuss it, I suppose, and get back to us with their thoughts.

And I want to make sure, although I’m fine with referring it to the police service board for consideration, that we don’t use that motion as a way of ducking the issue here at municipal council because it’s municipal budget that is the subject of that recommendation, not the police budget, municipal budget, and it’s municipal budgets that need to be adjusted by municipal councils. The police board we have in the past, actually, we’ve foregone a few assessment growth positions for a while, delayed them, essentially, and returned some of those savings back to the municipality that could use for homelessness prevention. We reduced the root budget request that came before the board, from the multi-year budget, which provided the municipality with some room not to do other things with that property tax money, but the municipal budget is set by municipal council. And I just want to make sure that we don’t refer this and think that the work is done by just passing it on to the lot of police service board.

That was just a comment, right? Councilor, excellent. Other speakers, Councilor Van Holst. And then anybody else who wants on, just give me a signal and I’ll get you on the list.

Thank you very much. I appreciate the very articulate presentation. And my question is, and perhaps my hope is just to describe what we take these measures, but what kind of a London are the Muslim citizens hoping for? And what do we see?

I sometimes feel, is it cynical when we look at anti-racism because I think even if all of that went away, people might still not treat each other better than say the Republicans treat the Democrats. So there’s still those levels of microaggressions that happen no matter how we look. But I see us definitely moving in a good direction, but perhaps our guests could describe what we hope to see. And what kind of relationships are we really looking for?

Councilor, I will have Ms. Morris answer the question, but she’s not going to say what the entire Muslim community is expecting the city to be like, but I think she probably can comment on the types of things that were heard through the process of the engagement. So I just wanted to caution you that we’re not gonna have our staff try to speak for an entire community. Go ahead.

Thank you, Erin, through the chair. And you’re right, I can’t speak for all of the Muslim community, but through this process and through one of the sessions, we actually did ask the Muslim community, what would London feel like? Actually, the very question that you’re asking, what would it feel like if Islamophobia was eradicated? And we created a bit of a word cloud to highlight it.

And you can just imagine what it said. So as a Muslim identifying person who was asked to envision a world or a city, even without anti-Muslim sentiment, the words that came out were free, peace, calm, those types of things that they’re not looking over their shoulders all the time, that they’re feeling like they are welcome included. There’s a sense of belonging that places are designed for them in mind. Those are all the things.

And I don’t think that if we asked every Muslim community member, I think everybody would have a consensus on those are the things that we are looking to create from Muslim identifying people. So nothing radical. Just the idea that we can be safe on the streets, that we can navigate spaces without constantly feeling like we’re being othered or that we’re a nuisance. Those are the types of sentiments that really came out.

But safety at this point, there’s a lot of fear still. And so safety comes up loud and clear. People wanting to feel like they can just literally walk down the street without fear. And that fear hasn’t subsided as it yet.

And so I do wanna just acknowledge Councillor Homer’s point around the fact that this has taken some time to get here. And so for community looking and waiting to see what we do, the fear hasn’t subsided because nothing feels like it’s changed. And I think this is the first step to really create that change and create that city that we really envision and that we want. And more broadly than the Muslim community, but for all equity deserving groups that people, regardless of the bodies that they’re in in the city, feel like they have a place and a space and have a right to take out that space.

And so if we improve things for Muslim identifying folks, we’re gonna improve things for all people is what I’m really getting a sense from the Muslim community. And they are very much in solidarity with other equity deserving groups as well, recognizing that if their needs get met, other people’s needs by default will get met as well. And really first and foremost is safety. Mr.

Redwell’s good. Yes, thank you very much. I’m very happy with the answer. It was a difficult question, but I think and anyone listening now really understands what we’re striving for.

It’s certainly something that everyone in London should be able to enjoy. Yes, and my apologies for trying to deflect your question a little bit. I thought you were going to play a different way and I thought it was an excellent answer. I’ll go to Councillor Himmel.

Hi, thank you Deputy Mayor. I just wanted to say that I really, really enjoyed the document. I thought it was well done. Thank you so much to staff on all of their work.

And of course, the Muslim community. You don’t know how much this actually means to my community and to me, even just being in this conversation at present. It’s almost surreal because I was born here and wore the hijab in my 20s and have been racialized my whole life. And I just, being born in London and still being treated as other is just the weirdest thing.

And then having to go to places where my birth rate is from, sorry, my ancestry is from, which is in the Middle East of Syrian Lebanon going there and being the other there as well. So I think this really comes down to making people not feeling like they’re other. And I think that that’s kind of what we’re trying to get here in this document. And maybe I’m making presumptions here, but I think that’s what I heard from Ms.

Morris. And again, I thank everybody here and just on the issue of safety. And I hear this from other Muslim women that a bunch of us are traumatized to be on the same street as pickup trucks or those trucks. And I feel it sometimes too.

If I’m driving, I’m like, okay, I see one of those trucks. I’m like, okay, I’m gonna, you know, maybe somebody’s gonna say something to me here. You know, it’s still triggering, it still triggers us. And so I just want that out there that it’s still in the back of our minds anytime we’re driving in London, right?

So I just wanted everybody to know that, you know, we’re happy that this work is being done. And it’s taken very seriously. And the document itself stands on its own. And I think should be shared with other municipalities because I think it does a really good job of addressing Islamophobia.

So thanks to everybody, to the deputy mayor, to the mayor and to all of city council for their leadership in this and thanking all of the staff. Maybe on behalf of the Muslim community, I hope I can say that on behalf of the Muslim community. Thank you. Thank you, councilor, other speakers.

Seeing none, we have a moved and seconded motion. It is the full staff recommendation contained in the report. All the components of it moved and seconded. We will open that for voting.

Motion carries 14 to zero. Thank you colleagues. Thank you again to our staff for what was an enormous amount of work bringing that before us. And of course for all of the work ahead.

The next item in the agenda is item 4.4, which is appointments to London Middlesex community housing. There are a couple of components to this report. I’m just gonna outline why they’re there. There’s the tenant recommendation from the board, as well as a listing as well.

And all of the applications from all of the applicants. Just for colleagues reminder, the reason why there is a board recommendation here is as the shareholder, we have directed the board to undergo a specific process to provide recommendations to municipal council on potential board members. And so in the board’s letter, you will see that they executed that under the exact parameters that was required under the shareholders agreement. And you see that they’ve come forward with a name in their letter as well.

Councillor Lewis actually served on that subcommittee. And I’m sure he could provide some more context, but that’s why you see for colleagues, it’s not always normal to see a letter recommending a specific person from an external board, but in this case, it is something that council has essentially directed them to do under the shareholder agreement. And I have Councillor Lewis on the list. Thank you chair and through you to colleagues, yes.

The board of directors for London Community Housing, London Middlesex Community Housing did initiate a subcommittee. It was that subcommittee’s job to review all 20 applications from the direction that the board had received from the shareholder. An index matrix was actually created to help evaluate all of the applications along the same criteria. There are a lot of criteria in that matrix and it was quite an extensive exercise going through to evaluate all the applications.

And then the committee members shared our results. And I will tell you colleagues that ultimately bringing forward the name for recommendation today was actually not as difficult as we thought it might be because when we reviewed the results that the members of the subcommittee came up with, there were two candidates who stood out amazingly above the other candidates, not that we don’t want to thank all of the candidates for their interest because we do, but there were two who clearly brought extra things to the table that would really fit the needs of the housing board. And so it’s the board’s recommendation that Anne-Marie Mitchell be the candidate that we appoint as the tenant representative on the board. I will let colleagues know as well that the other candidate was Mr.

Coyle, who was ranked very, very solidly by the subcommittee. In a discussion with him that the CEO had, he decided to withdraw his name from consideration. There was a discussion about whether we would submit one name or two names for your consideration with the board recommendation, but ultimately Ms. Mitchell is the name that we’re putting forward.

I hope that, and I know colleagues may have reviewed all of the resumes, but I hope that you’ll support the board’s recommendation on this. It was not arrived at without considerable thought, and we think that Ms. Mitchell is gonna bring quite a number of good qualities to the board as a tenant representative for the remainder of the term. Okay, so I’m in colleagues’ hands on how you’d like to proceed.

We could proceed with having a motion to appoint the board’s recommendation, or we could proceed with another process, but I’ll look for possible speakers on this. I see Councillor Fythe miller. I’d like to move the recommendation from the board. Okay, is there a seconder for that Councillor Hamill?

Okay, any discussion on that Councillor Van Halst? Thank you, Mr. Chair. And just this question through you to Councillor Lewis, where’s, I have the impression that in your views were done with the candidates, or was that not the case you spoke of a discussion that was had?

Councillor Lewis. Through you, Chair, to Councillor Van Halst, no interviews were not conducted. There was a time sensitivity in terms of supporting a recommendation coming forward as well. So the evaluations were done based on the applicant’s responses to the application and the resumes that they submitted to the board members.

Okay, thank you very much. Well, I’m happy to support the recommendation of the the Crenmity that went through this. And thank you to everyone who participated and all the applicants as well. I thought there were some excellent choices here.

I thought that someone, when I picked out myself was a key campaign having some peer committee skills might be able to pull together a little focus group with the rest of the applicants in order to find out what their ideas were because I think there’s probably a host of good suggestions from all these people. There was a number of other candidates that I thought looked like excellent applicants. I will say that some, the applications were very sparse. So I wasn’t able to really tell if they would be a good candidate or not.

So for those people who are applying, answering all the questions at least a little bit really helps those of us who are tasked with appointing a good candidate. Thank you. Okay, any other speakers? Okay, then there is a motion to appoint Amory Mitchell on the floor, moved and seconded.

I will open that for voting. Is that the vote? Motion carries 14 to zero. Thank you colleagues.

The next item on the agenda is item 4.5, which is consideration of appointment to the Waste Management Working Group. There were three council colleagues who expressed an interest when solicited by the clerks. I will note there’s no maximum for this committee. So if someone would like to add their name to the list of councilors who have expressed interest, we could, I’d like to just have you identify that now.

And then certainly we could consider more than that group. If no one wants to, I can certainly entertain a motion for the appointment of those three individuals. So if you’d like to be on the committee now’s the time to speak up on the working group, I should say. Note that I’d look for colleagues to move, Councillor Cassidy, Councillor Hopkins, the motion to appoint Councillor Turner, Councillor Van Halston, Councillor Palosa.

Any discussion that’s moved and seconded now? Okay, seeing none, then we will open that for voting. Motion to vote, motion carries 13 to zero. Next on the list is item 4.6, an appointment to the Downtown Business Association.

There is a submission from Councillor Halmer who is the current appointee who was filling in for Councillor Caiabaga, who took the leave when she sought election as the Member of Parliament for London West, which we all know she was successful on. I don’t know if Councillor Halmer, you’d like to make some comments on your letter. I think it’s self-explanatory, but we can certainly hear from you. Thank you, I tried to articulate my reasons in the letter and hopeful that Councillor Fife Miller will step forward to fill the vacancy.

I think it’s appropriate to have the word 13. Councillor on this important board. I is indicated that I’ll resign on the 15th, which is next week. I think I have a meeting tomorrow morning.

I need to go to still, but I think if we make it effective on the 15th, we can have a new person take over and be the seamless transition. So Councillor Fife Miller certainly has, it’s up to you to express an interest if you’d like to. And then of course, it is an appointment that is open to all members of council, but Councillor Fife Miller, I have you on the list. Yes, I would be happy to do that.

And while I have the mic, I’d like to take an opportunity to thank Councillor Halmer for his dedication to the downtown BIA over the past few months. It’s greatly appreciated that he put in the time and the energy there. Thank you. Are there any other colleagues who are interested?

Councillor Layman. Thank you. Being this is where it’s going, I’m going to declare up to getting an interest as I’m a member of the LDBA. Anyone else interested?

Okay, there’s one person interested. I’d look for a mover, Councillor Halmer, and a seconder to appoint Councillor Fife Miller, seconded by Councillor Van Holst. Any discussion? Okay, we’ll open that for voting.

Close on the vote. Motion carries 13 to zero with one with choose. First report of diversity, inclusion, and anti-oppression advisory committee. I’d look for someone to move the items related to that.

It’s in the e-scribe if you need me to read it out, I could, but it’s essentially the following actions, I’m going to read it out because I see people nodding, that the following actions be taken with respect to the first report of the diversity, inclusion, advisory, and anti-oppression committee. From its meeting held on December 16th, 2021, A, the communication from El Poeta, with respect to the Canadian brew house in a shook, be referred to civic administration for their consideration, and that all the other clauses be received for information. So I’m willing to move that item. Councilor Hymu, seconded by Councilor Feithmiller.

Any discussion? No, okay, we’ll open that for voting. Close on the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero.

The next item is the second report of the same committee. That item has one item that says civic administration be requested to include a template for acknowledgement of indigenous lands on all future DAAC committee agendas, and that there was a communication. Oh, the meeting was open with the land acknowledgement, and all of the clauses be received. So I’m willing to move that.

Councilor Cassidy, seconded by Councilor Turner. Any discussion? No, okay, we’ll open that for voting. Close on the vote.

Motion carries 14 to zero. The next item is item 4.9, the seventh report of the governance working group. Given I’m chairing this meeting, I’ll look to the vice chair of the working group, Councilor Lewis, to present and move the items that are coming from the working group, Councilor Lewis. Thank you, Mr.

Chair and colleagues. As you’ll recall, there was a referral to the governance working group back in December. This report coming forward tonight with the recommendations is actually the second of two meetings, one of which was held over the course of two different dates and times, where we had six hours of dialogue and communication with the members of the accessibility advisory committees, or sorry, the advisory committees in general. And then the report that’s before us tonight is the recommendations from the governance working group, which were supported unanimously by the members of the working group at our last meeting.

This comes from the consultations that have been going on for quite a number of years, and then we’re finalized through the last wrap-up. So this is going to implement new terms of reference for new advisory committee structures, that it should be noted to colleagues that there are a couple of small changes from the recommendation that was before us in December. The recommendation now does not include a childcare advisory committee, and that was at the request of members of that committee itself, that it be dissolved, as much of the work was seen as redundant and overlapping with the licensed childcare network of London, and many of the members are the same members on the two bodies. And we are also, there’s also the recommendation to reconstitute a new housing committee, and I’ll draw you, that’s clause V of part A, which directs civic administration to report back to us, to establish a new housing committee to assess council, in meeting its goals under the approved municipal budget, the strategic plan, and the roadmap to 3,000, with the committee to include representatives from London Middlesex community housing community members at large, relevant housing, not for profits, organizations, and industry partners.

That was a big piece of feedback that was received by both members of the governance working group, but as well as council heading into the December meeting, that the housing committee remain. And the other piece that I would draw, just colleagues’ thoughts to, is that a lot of the communication and dialogue that we had with the advisory committee members, during the two, three hour meeting sessions we had with them, was a lot about how the meetings operate moving forward, how some committees are much more formal, how other committees are less formal and more people oriented, less technical. And so there is, in part A3, the recommendation or the direction to civic administration to report back with some updated general terms of reference, and incorporate that feedback. And that includes things around recruitment, terminal limits, flexibility and procedure, and how they report through to us.

So I think there was a, well, the fact that it was unanimous, I think speaks to the fact that there was a consensus, that this was the appropriate path moving forward. So I’ll put all of this on the floor, and then see where colleagues want to deal with it from there. Councilor Homer. Thank you.

First, I want to say, thanks to the government’s working group for having those additional meetings and consulting with the advisory committee members. I thought it was very helpful. We’ve talked about it in the past, so I’m not going to belabor that point, but I think some of the changes that have been proposed in this recommendation from the working group are good ones. So I think I’m glad we’re keeping that.

How’s the committee round and frankly adjusting it so that it can be even more useful and effective. I think that’s a good idea. I think acting on the general feedback about how the meetings were structured and how they’re sort of working in current operational perspective, I think is really important. You know, it certainly came up a lot in the discussion in some of the survey consultation as well.

I think having ongoing consultation with the advisory committees is also just a general good improvement that we’re incorporating into sort of future design. The only part I have trouble with at this point is the actual terms of reference and it’s a couple of very specific things which I think we meet you just generally not support the new terms of reference. The combination of reducing the number of people who would be on the committee and then reducing the number of committees is just shutting out so many people from participating. At a time when I think we need more people, more citizens, more people involved in the advisory committee work rather than fewer.

And I just don’t support that kind of change. So collapsing, cycling and transportation together, collapsing agriculture and heritage together into planning and then reducing the overall number of people. I just, I’m not on board with that. So I think some of these changes are really good.

You know, the one childcare group, for example, when they say, look, we already all meet in a different body, we’re having a second meeting, we don’t need to do this, let’s stop. I’m glad that we’ve got to that. And I don’t feel so strongly about the previous structure that I have to insist that we continue on with it. You know, and I am hopeful that even if these terms are referenced or passed, then my concerns are unfounded.

You know, the committee is still functioned great. They provide us great advice. We’ve got lots of great people in the committees. But I’m not convinced that those changes that collapsing and combining are really going to get us more and better advice from the advisory committees, which is what I think we’re trying to get.

I think it’s going to result in fewer people in fewer meetings, which I think will have benefits for the secretary, the staff that support it, potentially could have some benefits if it results in longer and more depth discussion. So I’m hopeful that I’m wrong, but I’m going to vote against the one part there, the clause that says adopt all these terms of references, everything else I can support. And I think those are good, good changes. So if you could just call it separately, Chair, that’d be.

For sure, absolutely. So so far I have a request to call A separately, which is the approval of the terms of reference from everything else. If a colleague has something else they’d like to be called separately, I’ll make sure I craft the motions so that people can vote how they’d like. Councillor Hopkins.

Thank you, presiding officer. And I might as well start off where Councillor Helmer left off. I do have concerns about the amount of participation that’s going to be happening with these new groups. It’s going to be less.

And I really have concerns about that. I think our advisory groups are a great opportunity, not only to get some experienced advice, but also community advice and opportunities for people that are interested in being part of our advisory committee groups. It’s a great opportunity for people lenders to have their voice heard. So I do have concerns about the terms of reference in the reduction of the advisory groups, less participation.

I think the cycling and transportation is a concern. I still have, I’m still not convinced that it’s somehow going to be better if it is. That’s great too, but I have concerns there. I do have a question or maybe I’ll make a comment on E first.

And my concern on E is that I wanted, first of all, thank the public for coming out and being a part of the public participation meetings on the advisory groups, because I learned a lot. And one of the things I heard loud and clear was that housing is really important in our city. And obviously to go to do away with the housing committee may not be the right way to go forward. But I’m not sure of the terminology of the housing committee.

We refer to the 3000, that’s affordable housing. The groups that we refer to in clause E all have to do with affordable housing, not housing in general. So with that, I’m more or less just going to make that comment that when the report comes back on the housing committee that they look at, and I’m not a great fan of affordable housing because it encompasses so many things, but I do think we have to really understand exactly what this committee is about. And that the report back will at least look at the naming of that committee.

I do have a question through you to staff ‘cause we’re directing a number of things here. And will the advisory committees that are established still continue during the work until we finally get the new advisory groups in place? Go ahead. Thank you and through the Mr.

Presiding Officer. So the direction would be to approve the terms of reference and to recruit forthwith for those new advisory committees. So in the intervening short amount of time if there’s an existing meeting, obviously if that’s one or two days, that would take place, but we’re anticipating we can recruit and fill those advisory committees on a very short timeline. And so we will still have the advisory groups reporting to our committees without having a delay in their reporting to us.

Through the chair, so if there is an existing report that’s going to be coming forward, that would come forward. However, the advisory committee’s terms of reference would be approved for enactment by council, so they would take place. So for example, the childcare advisory committee council were to approve that recommendation that it be dissolved, it would be dissolved. It would not continue.

Similarly, if several of the advisory committees, for example, cycling and transportation would be emerged, then those would not continue. However, if there is an existing report that would go forward to the council through the standing committee. So I just wanna know for sure the process here that if we are going forward with the working groups, recommendations, this will go to council once council makes a decision, the automatically the advisory groups that we have will no longer exist. And then we will look into a short span of time to come up with new advisory groups.

Just wanna be clear on this. Essentially, through the chair, essentially that’s correct. However, keep in mind that the advisory committees, their terms had already expired. And we had been arranging meetings on a as a needed basis in the intervening period.

So if council were to approve these terms of reference, again, we would seek to fill those advisory committees very quickly in order to provide some advice to council on a quick basis. However, the existing advisory committees would no longer be in existence. Thank you for that clarification. And if I may ask one more question as the follow up, Mr.

presenting officer through you to clerks again, what short period of time are we looking at? Through the chair, that’s going to depend on the number of applications. It’s going to depend on how long it’s going to take to review those applications and put those appointment requests before council. So it’s going to take, I would expect at least a cycle, but potentially too.

And again, that depends on how quickly we can get those committees populated. Some committees may have more applicants than others. And it may require subsequent calls for applications on some committees. Okay, thank you.

Other speakers. Councillor van Merebergen. Thank you. Within this report, I do have a conflict.

So I’m not sure if I should just vote. I mean, not vote on the section. It’s basically the page at the top of page 447, the additional vote. If we could make that a 3.2 or maybe an F, and that would just vote on that separately.

Just give us one moment for me to confer with the clerks about that. The short answer to that is yes, it’s possible. They’re just working on what that would look like. Councillor.

Or I can just vote against the report or not against abstain. Up to you, the clerk tells me that it’s possible to separate the decision on eliminating the child care committee out into a separate vote. I’ll have to see what that looks like. I don’t know what it looks like.

And if that only you can decide whether your conflict is satisfied or not, no one else can. So they can provide some language that separates it out. And then you can decide. Okay, all right.

Okay. Okay, thank you. Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Chair.

Just this may just help for Councillor Van Mirbergen’s concern here. And I do know that he abstains from voting on child care funding issues because of his family and his wife in particular operating a child care service. But for his, and again, he has to decide for himself whether that represents a conflict or not. But there’s no funding decisions to an advisory committee existing or not existing.

He may want to consider whether or not that actually constitutes a pecuniary interest or not for him. I think if we were supporting the replacement of the child care committee with the licensed child care network, that might be a different story. But I’ll leave that for him to consider while the clerks work out some language. Would caution colleagues on giving each other advice on their conflicts?

I know everybody wants to share information with each other but like colleagues need to make their own independent decisions on their conflicts. What I will say to the Councillor is what the clerks have suggested is the vote to dissolve the child care committee was one of the additional votes because it was a vote that led to the development of the final draft terms of reference. The clerk has recommended that we could actually have that vote here. But the child care committee is not contained currently in the terms of reference because of the decision that the governor’s working group made.

So I’m not sure if that satisfies your conflict if you’d like us to vote on that additional vote that the committee had separately. It’s essentially kind of pulling it out of the general terms of reference even though it’s not in there just to be definitive on your conflict. But that’s up to you if that’s satisfied, that’s what the clerk has said is the option that they can present. Again, it’s up to you to determine whether or not that satisfies your conflict.

Okay, and I appreciate that. I think if it’s possible to pull it out and vote separately on that, I would prefer that, right? Okay, so colleagues, what I’m going to do is, it seems to me like there are two components of A that we have to treat separately. A1 and A2, if you’re looking in E-Scribe, both of them related to the terms of reference because the part two really goes with part one.

So the clerks will work on deconstructing the sub-components of that for the councilor’s consideration for the conflict. But what we will craft is a piece with the conflict, a piece with the general terms of reference, both A and B and then the rest of all the items can remain together for when I’m hearing so far from colleagues. So I can still take some general comments on the whole piece as we prepare those particular motions. I need a mover and seconder for all of these items.

I see Councillor Lewis and Councillor Feithmiller are willing to move and second all of the pieces of this as they come forward. Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Chair. Was awkward to decide what to present with the report and keep my comments till the end.

As I hadn’t expected to be presenting the report tonight, however, since colleagues have all weighed in, I wanted to just share my own comments before we call the question on this with regard to this process. One thing that I think it’s really, really important for colleagues to really hear and understand, ‘cause I know that not everybody was able to attend, in six hours of consultation with the advisory committee members, not one single member of those advisory committees said to us, the status quo is working fine. It’s great the way it is, don’t change anything. They all indicated a preference for some changes.

And we may not get it perfect this time and to Councillor Halmer’s point, part of this direction to civic administration is to engage in another round of consultation once the new advisory committees are established, to undertake any other considerations that may be needed to be tweaked as they move forward. But I think that that speaks very, very clearly to the fact that after more than three years, in fact, a process that started after, or prior to the beginning of this term of council, that we are at a decision point here. And I understand colleagues may have particular interests or attachments to one advisory committee or another. They may have worked more closely with them on items than they have with other advisory committees.

But the message from them was also very clear in that nobody was saying status quo is great. It is time to move forward on this, to close this chapter on this review. So I do hope colleagues will support this. I recognize now in getting into the receipt of the report discussions that it’s, becomes a little bit technical because all of the terms of reference are attached together in one clause here, once that gets separated out.

I really hope the colleagues will support moving forward with this. You know, we standardized the committee size. We listened to those committees. And in particular, Mr.

Levin and other members of EPAC talked about the importance of the technical expertise. So an amendment was made to that particular term of reference so that that continues. We heard from members of the agricultural advisory committee who really told us that they don’t feel that they’re really contributing in a good way, in a meaningful way as a standalone advisory committee. They pointed to other work that’s being done in the community by other groups and associations, whether that’s the Food Policy Council, the Western Fair, others who are involved in agricultural components of the life of the city of London.

So when you really take a step back from any attachments we may have to any particular issue we’ve worked on, any good report that’s come forward that you’ve really wanted to grab hold of and champion, is that what we have here before us is the result of many, many rounds of consultation. Has incorporated many of the concerns that were heard, not all of them, but we as 15 members of council don’t always agree, and that’s okay. That’s the part of it is that we find consensus and move forward on as many items as we can. And I think that’s what the governance working group has done here with the advisory committee members has taken the consensus from the group while there may still be some outliers and brought forward these recommendations.

So I do hope that after all the time that’s gone into this, the colleagues will support it. And I have no doubt that there will be future changes to these as we move forward. It’s a learning process. It’s a living process as priorities, as needs in our city change.

And in terms of where we are asking the community to provide advice, that will change as issues change. So the sooner we can actually move forward on this, the sooner we can not only get the new committee’s populated, but we can have staff start working on them. I know Ms. Sharon and Mr.

Stanford want to engage them on the climate action plan and the master mobility plan, among other things. So I think it’s really good that we get moving forward here tonight, get these new committees in place. If it’s one cycle or two where we don’t have reports coming forward, but then they’re ready to dive into the new work that’s coming before us all, I think that that’s the right way to go. So I hope you’ll support this.

And I just want to take the final opportunity to say to all the members of the advisory committee who came to both of those sessions, or either of those sessions. But at the time was really actually well spent. And I do want to, and I was opposed to the referral, but I want to thank Councilor Helmer for bringing it forward. ‘Cause there was an opportunity for me to hear some different points of view and learn some new things from some advisory committee members that I had actually never met before.

I’ve had a chance to talk to some of the chairs, but I didn’t know who some of these individuals were until they came and shared their ideas and their thoughts with us at that session that we had. So I think it was time well spent and appreciate the contributions they’ve made and the contributions I know many of them will continue to make in the new advisory committee structures as those are constituted. Thank you. So I’ll go to the next speaker.

I just want to let colleagues know that the clerks have updated the proposed motion in eScribe. So if you refresh your screen, you’ll see that the childcare, the dissolution of the childcare committee has been separated out into its own item. And then there will be a series of motions that deal with the items both to account for the conflict as well as the items that have been asked to be separated. So you can take a look at that.

I am going to have the clerk walk us through the motions as we do them. So it’s very clear to everybody what they’re voting on, but if colleagues as they’re listening to other speakers want to review that in eScribe, you can refresh your eScribe and take a look at those motions. Councilor Vanholst. Thank you.

I do also think this is going to be an iterative process where we’ll try out this method and then probably adjust in the future. But I did want to acknowledge the deputy mayor for setting a great example on how to conduct a more informal meeting. It was as very enjoyable. And I think it worked quite well.

And it was a nice process that got a lot of people speaking and sharing their ideas. And I think everyone was very happy with that, with the way it was done. So thank you. Okay, any other speakers or can I start to craft out the votes here?

Okay, I’m going to go to the clerk to outline the first vote that we’ll do on the item that it is. So everybody’s clear. Thank you through the chair. The first vote will be in relation to the childcare advisory committee being dissolved.

That’s going to be called as item A6 and that. Is item three, so motion three in e-scribe. Councillor Turner? I’m just trying to correlate the AVI or VI with the actual thing here.

You may need to refresh e-scribe. I can advise that that is the childcare advisory committee be dissolved and no new related committee be established. Thank you. Close in the vote.

Motion carries 12 to one with one recuse. Clerk to describe the next vote for me. And through the chair, the next vote is a one and two. And that is related to the revised terms of reference and the recruitment for those new advisory committees.

So they’re two related items. That is motion two in e-scribe. Is everybody good with that? They know what they’re voting on?

Okay, we’ll open that for voting then. Close in the vote. Motion carries 11 to three. And the rest is essentially the rest, everything else.

So it’s all the remaining clauses in the report’s recommendation as well as receive for information component of the working groups report. If anybody needs clarity on what’s remaining, we can certainly outline it, but it is everything remaining. I don’t see anybody who’s unclear, so we’ll open this piece for voting. Close in the vote.

Motion carries 14 to zero. Okay, colleagues, that concludes the seventh report of the government, what’s working group? Thanks to Councillor Lewis for taking care of that for me. The next item is 4.10, a piece of correspondence from Councillor Van Holst.

I’ll go to Councillor Van Holst to present your piece of correspondence and potentially move your motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I’ll try not to be long-winded on this.

The motion comes as a result of some comments made by colleagues at the last meeting where it was suggested that this debate should take place. So it shouldn’t be a surprise. However, I do want to share a secret. Years ago, when we first talked about compensation with the last committee, I wrote up a motion very similar to this, and I went out into the offices to look for the first Councillor who might second it, and the first person I encountered said they would.

And when I went down into the meeting, they were waiting there at the door and they said, I chickened out. And so I ended up not putting it on there, but kind of regretting it. So there’s some personal resolution about getting to this debate for me. So that’s why it’s here.

I’m not going to speak to the motion, but I’ll put it on the floor. I hope for a seconder and my desire is that we’ll either have the discussion this term or someone who will simply refer this to the next term in Council when they’ll be set up to do it in a pretty good timing at the beginning. They’ll be able to decide what they want, but at least that will be brought up for discussion early on. And this can finally get resolved.

Councillor, just I’m going to ask for a seconder for your motion, but just read it so that the colleagues know what your motion is you’re proposing so they can consider whether they’ll second it. Okay, so the motion is that the governance working group be requested to discuss and report back to the SPPC with their recommendations about Council continuing as a unique part-time role versus transitioning to a unique full-time role. Okay, I’ll look for a seconder. Councillor Turner, seconded.

Okay, so moved and seconded, discussion. Councillor Turner. I seconded this mostly because Councilor Van Holls called my bluff from last meeting when I said we have to have this conversation. I’m really not sure what I think, but I think if I’m going to be genuine in suggesting the idea that we have to do it, then I’m happy to second it and let’s see where it goes.

Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I will say from that last meeting, Councillor Turner actually beat me to seconding it and I’m okay with that because I think sending this to governance working group and allowing a discussion to happen.

And what I like about this as opposed to the previous discussion that didn’t get any traction is that it’s not talking about compensation. We’ve got a compensation task force for this. It’s talking about the role of a Councillor. And I think there is some discussion to be had around, and some of it might be in our Council policy and procedures bylaws around serving on outside boards, agencies and commission, distribution of workload between members of Council, those kind of things.

So I’m willing to entertain the discussion. I don’t know where it will go. It may be a short discussion. It may be a long discussion, but I agree.

I think it’s a discussion that we’ve not always had. The political will, I guess, to at least undertake. I’m willing to undertake it. I don’t know where it will lead us, but I think it’s something that, I think it’s one of the reasons the governance working group exists.

So I’ll support this. Any other speakers? Okay, the motion is moved and seconded. We’ll open it for voting.

Motion carries 10 to four. Okay, colleagues, under deferred matters in additional business, there is a matter of additional business in your added agenda, and there is a full staff report related to it. It is, again, it’s contained in the added agenda. It is about the Audit and Accountability Fund intake three, and it is about introducing the bylaw to take advantage of making a submission to that fund.

If colleagues have questions about it, I can certainly get you questions and answers, but the report is there for you on the agenda. I’d look for someone who’s willing to move and second it. Councillor Fyke Miller, seconded by Councillor Helmer. Any questions or discussion?

Facing none, we’ll open that for voting. Motion carries 14 to zero. Colleagues, that concludes the public content of the meeting. There is one in-camera item.

So at this point, I would look for a motion to move in-camera. Councillor Layman, Councillor Losa, any discussion? No, okay, we’ll open that for voting. Motion carries 14 to zero.

I need a few minutes to transition into the in-camera. And for the public watching, YouTube will not return to online after the session, but E-Scribe will. So if you’re on E-Scribe, you can see us make that magical motion for adjournment afterwards. Colleagues, could I have quorum check?

Looks like we’re good. Okay, I’ll go to Councillor Layman to report on our in-camera session. I’ll report that progress was made on the item 6.1 that we went into-camera for. Okay, and I’ll look for a motion to adjourn.

Colleagues moved by Councillor Vameerberg and seconded by Councillor Hillier. All those in favor of adjournment? Motion carries. All right, thank you, colleagues.

We’re adjourned. Thank you for a great evening.