April 20, 2022, at 4:00 PM

Original link

The meeting was called to order at 4:00 PM; it being noted that the following Members were in remote attendance: Councillors J. Helmer, S. Hillier and M. Salih

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that Councillor S. Hillier disclosed a pecuniary interest in clause 5.4 of this Report, having to do with the Deferred Matters List, specifically item number 2 on the list, by indicating that his family also hosts a five day event.

2.   Consent

2.1   Request for Proposal 2022-054 - New Play Equipment at Gibbons Park and Greenway Park

2022-04-20 SR - Request for Proposal 2022-054 New Play Equipment at Gibbons Park and Greenway Park (1of2)

2022-04-20 SR - Request for Proposal 2022-054 - New play Equpment at Gibbons Park and Greenway Park (2of2)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by M. Hamou

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated April 20, 2022, related to a Request for Proposal 2022-054 for New Play Equipment at Gibbons Park and Greenway Park:

a)    the bid submitted by Park N Play Design Company Limited, #20, 10 Wrangle Place SE Rocky View County, AB, T1X 0L7, to design, supply and install new playground equipment in Gibbons Park in accordance with RFP2022-054, at its bid price of $223,215.98 (excluding HST) BE ACCEPTED;

b)    the bid submitted by New World Park Solutions Incorporated, 42 Woodway Trail, Brantford, ON, N3R 6G7, to design, supply and install new playground equipment in Greenway Park in accordance with RFP2022-054, at its bid price of $170,000.00 (excluding HST) BE ACCEPTED;

c)    the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the above-noted staff report;

d)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this project; and,

e)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.2   Update - City of London 2021-2022 Winter Response Program for Unsheltered Individuals

2022-04-20 SR - Update - City of London 2021-2022 Winter Response Program for Unsheltered Individuals

Moved by M. Hamou

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development the staff report, dated April 20, 2022, with respect to an update on the City of London 2021-2022 Winter Response Program for Unsheltered Individuals, BE RECEIVED. (2022-S14)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.3   Irregular Result RFP 21-74: Dental Program Administration Single Bid Award Recommendation

2022-04-20 SR -Irregular Result RFP 21-74 Dental Program Administration

Moved by M. Hamou

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development and with the concurrence of the Director, Financial Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated April 20, 2022, related to an Irregular Result RFP 21-74 Dental Program Administration Single Bid Award Recommendation, as per the City of London Procurement Policy Section 19.4 “Only One Bid Received”:

a)    the Request for Proposal (RFP 21-74), submitted by AccetaClaim Servicorp Inc., at the annual cost of $58,500 (plus HST) for a three (3) year period, with the option to renew the contract for two (2) additional one (1) year periods BE ACCEPTED;

b)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts which are necessary in relation to this project, and;

c)    the approvals, hereby given, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract or having a purchase order relating to the subject matter of this approval. (2022-S04)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

None.

4.   Items for Direction

None.

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   DELEGATION - A. Valastro - Light Pollution By-law

2022-03-29 PS - A. Valastro, Request for Delegation Status, Light Pollution By-law

2022-03-29 PS - A. Valastro, Request for Delegation Status, Light Pollution By-law (2)

Moved by M. Hamou

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the verbal delegation from A.M. Valastro, with respect to a potential Light Pollution By-law, BE RECEIVED; it being noted that the communications, as appended to the Agenda, with respect to this matter, were received at the previous Community and Protective Services Committee meeting on March 29, 2022.

Motion Passed (4 to 1)

5.2   Clause 4.2 of the 2nd Report of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee

2022-04-20 Sub. AWAC

2022-03-03 Sub. - Private Zoos and Mobile Zoos - AWAC Recommendations - Final

Moved by M. Hamou

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the staff report, dated April 20, 2022, with respect to the Animal Control By-law - Reptilia, BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that the verbal delegations from the following individuals, with respect to this matter, were received:

  •    R. Laidlaw, Zoocheck

  •    W. Brown, Chair, Animal Welfare Advisory Committee

  •    V. Van Linden – providing the attached submission

  •    J. Van-Daele

  •    F. Morrison

  •    M. Hamer, World Animal Protection

  •    R. Murphy, Reptilia

  •    B. Child, Reptilia

  •    M. Lerner

it being further noted that the following communications, as appended to the Agenda and the Added Agenda, with respect to this matter, were received:

  •    M. Lerner

  •    J. Winston

  •    L. Corneli, McCOR Management Inc.

and it being noted that clause 4.2 of the 2nd Report of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on March 3, 2022, with respect to this matter, was received.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Voting Record:

Moved by M. Hamou

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to approve the delegation requests, as appended to the Added Agenda, from M. Hamer, R. Murphy and B. Child to be heard at this meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by M. Hamou

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to receive the verbal delegations from R. Laidlaw, W. Brown, M. Lerner, J. Van-Daele, F. Morrison, M. Hamer, R. Murphy and B. Child.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

5.3   “Graphic” Flyer Deliveries to Residential Properties

2022-04-20 SR - “Graphic” Flyer Deliveries to Residential Properties (1of3)

2022-04-20 SR - “Graphic” Flyer Deliveries to Residential Properties (2of3)

2022-04-20 SR - “Graphic” Flyer Deliveries to Residential Properties (3of3)

Moved by J. Helmer

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated April 20, 2022, with respect to “Graphic” Flyer Deliveries to Residential Properties:

a)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 3, 2022, to regulate the delivery of graphic images in the City of London; and,

b)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 3, 2022, to amend By-law No. A-54, as amended, being “A by-law to implement an Administrative Monetary Penalty System in London” to designate the Delivery of Graphic Images By-law.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

5.4   Deferred Matters List

CPSC DEFERRED MATTERS as at April 11, 2022

That the Deferred Matters List for the Community and Protective Services Committee, as at April 11, 2022, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

Voting Record:

Moved by M. Hamou

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to receive the Deferred Matters List for the Community and Protective Services Committee, as at April 11, 2022, with the exception of item 2.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by M. Hamou

Seconded by M. Cassidy

Motion to receive Item number 2 on the Deferred Matters List for the Community and Protective Services Committee, as at April 11, 2022.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

5.5   (ADDED) 3rd Report of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee

2022-04-07 AWAC Report

Moved by M. Hamou

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the 3rd Report of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on April 7, 2022, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

6.   Confidential

Moved by J. Helmer

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the Community and Protective Services Committee convene In Closed Session for the purpose of considering the following:

6.1.    Solicitor-Client Privilege

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose regarding an exemption to the Animal Control By-law.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

The Community and Protective Services Committee convened In Closed Session from 5:38 PM to 6:02 PM.

7.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 6:20 PM

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (2 hours, 17 minutes)

Are you folks ready to try a sound check? I can hear you from chambers. We could not hear room five. Can hear you now, great, thank you.

You’re gonna leave that on and I’ll just mute the room. Good afternoon everyone, it’s four o’clock. So we can call this meeting to order. It is as so many have been a virtual meeting during the COVID-19 situation.

So please check the city website for current details of COVID-19 service impact as there still are some. Meetings can be viewed via live streaming on YouTube and the city’s website. And the city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for council, standing or advisory committee meetings and information upon request. To make a request for any city service, please contact accessibility@london.ca or 519-661-2489 extension 2425.

To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact CPSC@london.ca. With that, I will check with the committee to see if there are any declosures of pecuniary interest being none, no disclosures. I will move to the consent items. We do have some timed matters in our deferred matters and additional business.

I’m not anticipating a long discussion on the consent items, but if there is a committee member or a visiting member of council who expects to ask a significant amount of questions or have some discussion on those consent items, please let me know. And I will move them to the later part of the meeting. Councillor Hamou. Can we pull 2.2 and 2.1, please?

No, not a lot. Okay, so we will handle the consent items separately. Councillor Hamou says she has some questions, but she doesn’t anticipate it would be a long discussion. So we’ll go ahead with the consent items and we’ll start with 2.1.

That’s the request for proposal for the new play equipment at Gibbons Park and Greenway Park. I’ll look for a mover and seconder for that item 2.1. Moved by Councillor Hillier, seconded by Councillor Hamou. Any discussion or debate on that?

Councillor Hamou, go ahead. Thank you. Through the chair, I have some questions about the play equipment at Gibbons Park. Will there be any themes for the equipment or how is it gonna look if that’s actually being considered yet?

Thank you. I will go, I don’t know if Mr. Stafford is here or if somebody else from staff is here. Miss Smith in the line there, but I don’t think that’s her anymore either.

This has moved around a bit. Through the chair, let me connect with Mr. Stafford and if we can hold that question, I will get right back to you. Wonderful, thanks.

So to the mover and the seconder, what if we pull that motion for now? We’ll come back to it later and let’s move on to 2.2 so that our delegates who are waiting are not kept waiting too long. So 2.2 is an update on the City of London Winter Response Program for unsheltered individuals. Can I have a mover and seconder for that item?

Moved by Councillor Hamou, seconded by Councillor Hillier. Any questions or comments on that one? Councillor Hamou, go ahead. Thank you, through the chair.

I just wanted to comment that reading through the report, the Fanshawe Winter Shelter numbers are excellent. I was actually really happy to see and actually some of this brought me to tears at points that it was so successful. 18 individuals were housed directly to apartments after going into the Fanshawe Winter Shelter. My question to staff is, is there anything like this that’s gonna be ongoing so that we continue to see these types of numbers going forward?

I think that should go. Oh, there you are, Mr. Dickens. Go ahead.

Thank you, Chair. And through you, thank you for the question. That is always the golden question of it worked really well. So what do we do now going forward?

We’ve brought a number of previous reports forward to Committee and Council related to the work we’re doing with the emergency shelter system, looking at some transformation of that system. And we’re also bringing forward reports on a regular basis around housing, supportive housing programs, housing allowance programs, and really trying to implement new and innovative ways to create all types of housing across the continuum, whether it be temporary, transitional, all the way through to permanent housing with support. So this is where we’re gonna see our major shift and our focus is to really emphasize the need for different types of housing, whether it be in the shelter system itself, some of the low barrier temporary, the winter response was just a few months in length, but it produced some significant and fantastic results. So we’ll continue that shelter transformation work.

We have very willing, enable partners. And so that’s where we’re gonna put a lot of our emphasis. We know going forward there will be a need in the community for daytime drop-in spaces, some of that less formal, more come-and-go type service. We did have a number of lessons learned around how effective those programs can be, but also how they often replace traditional programs that already exist.

And so we wanna make sure we’re building system capacity and not really contracting our system inadvertently. So going forward, we will continue to put a major emphasis on housing. That’s how we are gonna make dividends here in our homelessness situation in London. And we’ll continue to work with our shelter operators around that transformation to really introduce that temporary transitional housing supports.

Thank you. I really appreciate all the work we’re doing. Thank you, Councillor. I see Councillor Van Halst has his hand up.

Go ahead. Thank you, Madam Chair. I was also very impressed with the results. We’re definitely on the right track, looking at transitional housing.

One statement that really jumped out at me was that many participants thrived being away from the pressures of the downtown core. And I wonder if staff could just expand on that a little bit. Mr. Dickens.

Thank you, Chair, and through you. Yes, this was feedback from the original winter response, as you may recall, when we brought this report forward initially, was that participants had demonstrated or vocalized to us the positive elements of the first winter response, where some participants were a little more secluded, not so much in the public eye. And we tried to build upon that. And really, some of it is lessons learned through encampments.

And when we see people find safe haven in unsheltered homelessness for encampments that are out of the public eye, the winter response out at Fanshawe in particular did certainly draw some commentary and feedback initially around the risks of being remote and what that could do for the individual’s well-being and safety. The direct feedback though from the participants was that being outside of the typical, whether it be the core area or just the urban population was really good for their recovery when it came to mental health addictions. But also it was quiet and there was a lot of stability with the number and the individuals that were participating at that site. So an element of community was able to be established.

And some of the feedback directly from participants was that it had been a long time since they could sleep at night when it was quiet or not feel like their safety was in jeopardy or that they had to carry a weapon to protect themselves at many. So those were really moving but also telling signs and telling feedback around creating space for people to work on themselves, to work on their housing stability. In some cases, not be easily accessible to other peers. But those are learnings that we will use, that we will share with our other service managers across the province, but that we will use in our future planning as well.

So the Fanshawe site and credit to our colleagues, Ms. Smith and Mr. McGonigal, who really helped us get that space up and running, really proved to be successful for people to obtain housing stability, build connections with peers, with staff, and be in a location that was free of fear and they were able to really work on themselves. So those were all positive feedbacks.

Certainly there were challenges as we work through some of the weather. We had deliveries coming out to the site, security on site. So it took some extra planning, but certainly by all accounts, it was well worth it. Thank you, Councillor.

Yes, thank you very much. And I think those learnings are really important. And it’s unfortunate that we lost a clubhouse at River Road in the process. But again, I think the transitional housing approach is effective, and of course, people thrive in different areas, living in a crossroads in a rural environment is very much different than living in downtown.

So it is going to be quieter and there are going to be those effects. Many great things were done here. I noticed that there were a lot of applications committed or completed for rent-to-gird income. I’m just concerned about our capacity to supply that once the applications are filled out.

So I wonder if staff could make a comment on that, Madam Chair. Mr. Dickens. Thank you, Chair.

And I will actually pass this one to Mr. Cooper, who’s on the call. His team has been working to streamline and overhaul the Housing Access Center, which is the rent-care team come and social housing weightless. Go ahead, Mr.

Cooper. Great, thank you. And thank you for the question and through you, Madam Chair. The work that our Housing Disability Services team are doing is really focusing on that alignment, working with individuals who we recognize have some economic challenges, fixed income.

So the probably some of the definition goals is to achieve our GI housing. And so many of the applications that we resubmitted for our GI housing were folks that were previously on the list and weren’t able to get connected when the unit was available for them. And so part of the capacity challenge that we experience is I know when we’re working through with other city departments in an otherwise approach. But what we really focus on is the assessment and understanding of an individual’s needs and then making sure that we’re matching them to the right resources and the right units of choice.

All these folks had a choice to apply for our GI housing, they chose to do that, some folks did not. And so I think for our perspective, we’ll match those individuals to the units that they’re eligible for when they’re eligible for those units with their property supports to try and help ensure the housing stability. In addition to that, there’s a number of projects ongoing within the city with the roadmap to 3000, the baseline units, the work we’re doing at Thompson. They really all fit into a good system approach that we’re not always just relying on our GI units for individuals that there is choice, there is some flexibility across our system and there’s also different levels of income and rent that individuals can afford and pay.

Councilor. Thank you, Madam Chair, and of course we understand this, but the difference between affordable housing and rent care to income is an important distinction. The affordable housing, maybe 80% or some smaller percent of regular market value, but rent care into housing allows a person to pay much, much less than that because it’s simply based on what they are able to contribute and that may be a small amount of pension, et cetera. So it’s very important.

I get calls from individuals in these situations about weekly, so I know the challenges that staff faces and I appreciate the successes that they’re having. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor. Are there any other comments or questions?

Okay, so the committee will indulge me I have one question from the chair and that’s for Mr. Dickens. We saw what we could do through this program, the winter response program over two years during COVID. I wonder what will our capacity be for this program or something similar going forward if we don’t have those same kind of supports from the provincial government that we received during the COVID pandemic?

Thank you, Chair, and thank you for the question. The system itself is sort of recovering from the COVID reality as well, really taking stock of what capacity looks like, but also taking stock of what programming should look like post COVID. Our service providers have all been engaged in various housing programs as well, but we are looking at when the colder months come, what will the indoor capacity opportunities look like? Whether it be daytime resting space, overnight resting beds, we have made some very consistent investments in expanding the resting spaces for overnight, whether it be for a very targeted and specific population or whether it just be in general, so that we know that those beds will be available come the winter months as well.

This is an opportunity that has been granted to us from upper levels of government, and while we are in receipt of the Social Services Relief funding again, there is a time limit on when those money can be spent and invested. So we are looking to come back to committee later in the spring with some reports around the use of the SSRF5, but again, we will be looking now to be making a significant impact in the number of people that are able to obtain housing, whether it be housing that is, again, short-term temporary with supports or permanent housing with supports. We continue to advance projects like 403 Thompson as well in terms of city-led affordable housing projects, and then we continue to work with the community on the development and the advancement of other affordable housing units as part of the roadmap to 3,000. So I think there’s still a bit of a recoil as the winter ends this week, and as the system adjusts to oppose COVID reality where our understanding of capacity going forward will be better understood in the coming weeks.

Thank you so much for that response. I share Councillor Hamouzaan praise for City staff and for this program. We see what can be done, especially when we have support from the other levels of government, and also we have community collaborators like the Y and like Arcade, First Andrew’s United Church from St. Joseph’s Health Center and at LOSA in running the Wiggy Wamanan shelter.

And, but we have to keep in mind as well that this is as great as this program has been, it really is a drop in the bucket of the need that’s out there in our community. But we see what can happen when there is stability and security in a place to call home in addition to the supports that are necessary and available to ensure the success of those individuals who are seeking a place to call home. So, I’m really pleased with this report. I’m looking forward to the coming reports, especially on the SSRS 5.

So grateful to the provincial government for coming through again with continuing that financial support for us. This is that the need is great and our resources are finite. So, all the help that we can get is so, so appreciated. So, with that, we do have a motion on the floor that’s been moved and seconded.

I don’t see any new hands. I see an old hand. Oh, it’s a new hand again. Go ahead, Councilor Bannell.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Dickens brought up four, three, Thompson Road. I see work starting on that.

Is there, is there a completion date expected? Mr. Dickens? The, thank you, Chair, and through you, we are targeting early 2023 as the completion date for 403, Thompson Road.

Thank you. Wonderful, thank you so much. So, motion is on the floor. It’s been moved and seconded.

And I will call the question. Opposing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Item 2.1, and that had been moved by Councilor Hillier and seconded by Councilor Hamou. They’re both willing to take those roles again.

And Councilor Hamou, you had a question for Mr. Stafford. So, maybe you could repeat that question. So, I was just looking at some of the plans for the Gibbons Park Play Equipment.

And I had had a conversation with some members of my community and they were wondering what this playground was gonna look like, if it was gonna be themed. If there’s any information on that, that would be helpful. Go ahead, Mr. Stafford.

And through the Chair, sorry for the delay. I will get some pictures sent to Council later this week and certainly before Council so that you’ll have a chance to have a look at those. There was a competitive bid around six companies with them being district parks and there needed to be an all ages playground as well as the accessibility components. And there are different designs.

So, we’ll make sure the Council gets a chance to see the design and see what’s anticipated for there. And we’ll certainly take this into a council that the community gets to see an information board as well. So that they know what they can see coming and build their enthusiasm for the project. Councilor, thank you.

Perfect, thank you, Mr. Stafford. Stafford, sorry about that. I’m having trouble pronunciation today.

So that’s been moved and seconded. Any other comments or questions on that item? Seeing none, I’ll call the question. I’ll leave the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

That leaves us with 2.3. I’ll check to see if there’s any questions or comments on that one. Seeing none, it is the irregular result for the dental program administration, a single bid award recommendation. I’ll look for a mover and a seconder, moved by Councilor Hamou, seconded by Councilor Hillier.

I’ll call the question. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Moving along to, there are no scheduled items or items for direction. We have a number of deferred items.

First is 5.1. It is a delegation that was granted at our previous meeting, granted to be heard at this meeting. And our delegate is there in committee room five, Ms. Velastro, you can come to the microphone please and make your delegation, you have, as you know, you have five minutes.

We can’t hear you, Ms. Velastro. Let’s check and make sure, right? Can you hear me now?

Yes, we can hear you now. Go ahead, press something. No, it’s all good here. I think it was done from this room, so you can go ahead now.

I submitted something that I thought was really straightforward and simple and I hope it was clear to the committee members. All I wanted to add is that since I submitted that, I learned that the city of London does control light spillage on new buildings to site plan control. And they also have regulations for parking lots, next to residential areas, but there’s just big gaping hole for everybody else. And I’m just asking that you might consider something that would protect everybody else.

So there’s something for new buildings, something for commercial parking lots, but not everybody else. And I just wanted to bring your attention to the bylaw that I submitted from the city of Toronto. Could be something as simple as that. So it doesn’t interfere with anyone’s ability to light up their own property.

It just doesn’t allow them to light up the next property. And I just like to use the rest of my time to answer any questions you might have. I’ll come back at the end of the conversations just to address any concerns or comments that were raised. So Ms.

Velastro, you’re definitely welcome to respond to questions that committee might have, but we’re not going to get into a cross debate with you. So if the committee makes things, makes comments that you don’t agree with, there won’t be an opportunity for you to rebut any of those comments. So I suggest that whatever you want to say, you say it now. Okay, I’ve said, I think, like I said, I think I submitted something that was very clear.

Thank you, Ms. Velastro. We do have that in our agenda. I would look to a city staff just to see if there’s any comment from the submission from city staff.

If not, I can go to committee for questions, comments. Yes, through the chair. We get one or two of these complaints a year between neighbors. Ms.

Velastro was correct that we do address lighting at the site plan control stage for new development. We are aware that some municipalities do address nuisance lighting through their, either property standards bylaw or through their nuisance bylaws. There definitely would be some enforcement challenges with this, with a nuisance bylaw directly related to lighting between two neighbors. Firstly, it would be somewhat subjective.

We would have to determine what is too bright and why is it a nuisance. Secondly, we are changing over our streetlights to LED lights, which are definitely brighter. So we would have to make a determination whether it was actually the neighbor’s lighting, that is a nuisance, or whether it is the city lighting, which is a nuisance. And lastly, we do not have MLEOs that work 24/7, and we would have to investigate this during the evening.

However, saying that, we are aware that there are some municipalities that do address nuisance lighting. So the report, the committee does have two options. They can ask civic administration for a report back with the draft bylaw amendment. And then we would have a PPM to amend either the public nuisance bylaw or the property standards bylaw.

Or secondly, the committee could just note and file the delegation. And that way, the matter would remain a civil matter between neighbors. And as I mentioned, we do get one or two complaints a year out of the 8,000 plus that we investigate on an annual basis. And when we do get these complaints, we always ask the complainant, have you talked to your neighbor?

Why do they have these lights on? Is it for security reasons? Or what is the purpose of it? So in summary, there really are two options for the committee to consider.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Catolic. So I will look to committee.

It’s I’m in your hands. Councillor Hummel, I move to receive this report. Move for receipt. Is there a seconder?

Councillor Hillier. Are there any comments or questions? Councillor Vanholst. I’m excited to make a quick comment and certainly acknowledge that it is a problem.

I think everyone’s tried to sleep in hotel where the lights are blazing. And you realize you have no choice, but to close the blinds. I mean, that happens at my home to where there’s lights. My wife has purchased a little thing that actually turns on the lights slowly in the morning in case that you do have all the blinds.

So it’s definitely a problem and there’s some technical ways to do it. But certainly it’s great if we encourage people to speak to their neighbors as well. I find that that’s a good first place to go. But acknowledging that this is a challenge and our lights are getting brighter.

And because of that, I recently had someone say that it’s a big improvement overall. But here it may be a challenge and it’s always a balancing act. But I do think we’re moving ahead and I hope we can address these one or two issues a year somehow, whether it’s working, the citizens working with each other or us adding to the bylaw. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Did you have a comment too, Councillor Hillier? Go ahead. First of all, thank you, Ms.

Velastro. Yes, I actually know all about the deflectors you’re talking about a couple of years ago. One of the apartment buildings in my ward was costing a very large bright glow on the neighboring buildings because they did switch to LEDs. And I spoke to the moat deflectors and how we could angle them.

And literally within a week, it was salt. I think we need to have more conversations between neighbors because if we start monitoring how much light levels are reaching each of our neighbors, it’s gonna be a nightmare for my life. Well, that happens automatically. Like I’ve taught to my neighbors many times, it’s just those stubborn issues.

And as you build multi-family home buildings, there are investors like in my neighborhood, some of the owners are from the United States or there are numbered companies. You don’t know how to talk to them. So obviously a good neighbor talks to their neighbors. I do that.

I like to be a good neighbor. But I’m not talking about that. I think that’s a given. It’s when it’s very stubborn or confrontational.

That’s why you have a by-law. Everything always happens first through dialogue. Is there like to think so? Yes.

So thank you, Ms. Velastro. So we, Mr. or Councilor Hillier did not have a question there.

So we are not engaging in debate with the delegate. That’s not something that the committee does. But I also appreciate you coming to our committee and presenting us with this information. I do see where there are challenges.

I have had constituents contact me about challenges with their neighbors. But I do also hear what our chief by-law enforcement officer is saying in that the enforcement is a difficult matter and judging how much light is too much and that whole dispute between neighbors thing is a very difficult matter for the city to get involved in. But there is a motion that has this submission be received for information and the delegation be received for information. And since I am not seeing any more hands from committee members or visiting councilors, I’m going to call the question.

I’m closing the vote the motion carries for to one. That brings us to the next deferred matter, which is 5.2 and it is the second report from the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee from last cycle. There were a number of delegations that were previously approved at the prior meeting, but we do have, I believe, three new ones, three new delegation requests. One from M.

Hamer, one from R. Murphy, and one from Be Child. So before we continue with the delegations, I wonder if we could have a motion from committee, if it is the committee’s will, to approve these three additional delegations. Moved by Councillor Hamu, seconded by Councillor Hillier, and we’ll vote on that one right away.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. We will proceed with the delegations. I’m just going to follow the order that is on our public agenda. And that means that we will begin with our laid law from Zuchek, and I wonder, Mr.

Laidlaw, you could, if you wish to be on screen, that’s fine. If you just want to do it by voice, that’s fine as well. But you will have five minutes to address the committee. Ah, yes, I would like to be on screen, but it says that the host is not allowing it.

If we can rectify that. There we go. There you go, we see you. So go ahead, sir, you have five minutes.

Thank you, good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Rob Laidlaw. I’m Executive Director of the Wildlife Protection Organization Zuchek, and we’re an organization that has dealt with zoo and wildlife and captivity issues in the province of Ontario and elsewhere since the early 1980s. I wanted to restrict my comments to basically one item that is reflected in the recommendations of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, and that is the perceived exemption to London’s Animal Control Bylaw PH3, provided by the permit held by the reptilia organizations.

And I wanted to talk a little bit about the limitations of that permit, and its actual official name is a license to keep specially protected and gain wildlife in a zoo. The limitations of this license have long been known. In fact, you can go back and look at dozens of media articles throughout the year that highlight the fact, as media found at Berry Bazaar, that a native wolf in Coyote in one cage in a zoo was regulated by the natural resources ministry, whereas the tiger, cobra, or art vark in the cages adjacent to those animals were not. That’s something that’s long been known.

But as this whole discussion developed in London, we decided to, even though we knew this, we’ve been involved in a long time dealing with this particular permit and these issues. We obtained written clarification on the provincial jurisdiction from Tamara Gomer, the senior wildlife policy analysis with the Fish and Wildlife Policy branch of the government. And she said quite unequivocally, the requirements of the license to keep specially protected and gain wildlife in a zoo apply only to the species being held under the license, i.e. those regulated as game or specially protected wildlife under the Ontario Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act and not, and I repeat not to other species that may be kept in the same facility.

And then I looked at the reptilia submission. I believe it came in today, but it may have been a little bit before that. And you can actually see this reiterated by other government staff in a letter from, or an email to Brian Child, President of reptilia, from Stephen Mills in the government. He says, “A zoo license issued under the FWCA only authorizes the keeping of those species scheduled in the FWSCA and neither authorizes nor prohibits the keeping of any other species.” Seems pretty clear to me.

Last fall, we consulted with a number of our legal colleagues and then solicited an opinion from the wherefolds law firm, which is a very well-respected law firm. And they confirmed exactly what we had already heard from others and what we knew. And they said, and this is just in a nutshell with regard to this exemption issue, reptilia cannot rely on the exemption in section 36 of London’s by-law to keep animals beyond those held under the license. So that license only applies to native wildlife.

And I think that legal opinion was provided in the AWAC, as an addition to the AWAC report. And then again, we’ve heard from city staff as well, similar kinds of things that sort of affirm this fact. George Costovitz, deputy city manager in a February memo to counsel said, “If there are matters outside of their license, they may be subject to the city’s animal control by-law.” Now, the limits of the permit seem clear. It only applies to native wildlife in the AWAC, not to any other animals.

The fact is, there has never been a provincial license for exotic animals and captivity, despite numerous attempts to obtain one. And we’ve been involved in all of those attempts over the years. There’s been about 12 since the 1980s that began with Bill 79 introduced by MPP Van Horn. And that was to regulate and establish licensing for wild animal and reptiles sanctuaries.

There was another bill in 1988— 30 seconds, sir. 30 seconds. Animal wealth, OK. Animal wealth for review committee under the Liberal government in ‘94 and ‘97, another bill— 154, a number bill, Bill 50 in 2008.

And I can go on and on. We’ve been involved in every one of them. And the purpose of every one of these was to establish provincial zoo licensing. It’s never happened.

So there is no license that covers exotic animals. And therefore, no exemption for exotic animals held by Rapilia. They should be subject to the city of London by-law. And I hope you provide the clarification that that is the fact by supporting the AWAC recommendations.

Thank you, sir. Thank you. So that takes us to our next delegation, which is W. Brown, the chair of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee.

Which one? There you are, Ms. Brown. Go ahead.

You have five minutes. Thank you. In February 2022, the president of Rapilia Zoo is quoted in CBC News. It almost looks like the left hand and the right hand don’t know what’s going on in the city of London.

What has unfortunately brought the issue to the agenda today is what appears to be confusion and contradiction as it relates to London’s animal control by-law, business licensing by-law, zoning for zoos, and what does and does not apply. The Animal Welfare Advisory Committee believes that clarification would benefit Rapilia Zoo and the city, and most importantly, for the welfare of animals and human health and safety. A great deal must be considered for safe transport in terms of the stress of relocation and the complex needs of reptiles and costs to Rapilia Zoo as well. We believe that communication is key and recommend that council clarify and affirm that the exemption in the animal control by-law for animals licensed by the province is limited to the animals held under that provincial license, which Rob just explained.

To be helpful, CASA, the Canadian Association of Zoos and Aquariums is a private charitable organization representing the private zoo industry with no licensing authority. Some CASA accredited zoos have been issued orders and charged under animal welfare legislation. The 2021 staff report from the city of Toronto in collaboration with the economic development and culture in Toronto Public Health, which we sent to you outlines animal welfare concerns related to Rapilia’s operations, in which it was noted, and I quote, “As part of this review, staff requested information from the Ontario Ministry of the Solicitor General’s Provincial Animal Welfare Services. They go on to say, based on the information received, staff have significant concerns regarding the outcomes of past investigation and inspections by PAWS, which is short for what used to be the OSTCA.

London’s animal control by-law restricts the keeping of class five animals. Non-venomist snakes, lizards and spiders and prohibits the keeping of class seven animals, such as crocodilians, alligators and venomous snakes, lizards and spiders to name a few. There’s no province of Ontario Zoo license to own or operate a zoo, nor is there a municipal license to keep animals in a private zoo in London. At December’s 2018 council meeting, council rejected Reptilia’s proposal to open a facility in London.

Council declined to amend the business licensing by-law to regulate private and mobile zoos. In 2011, in order to address animal welfare and animal control concerns regarding private zoos, the zoning for them was removed, and council was assured in 2018 by the chief building officer that both the business licensing and zoning would not allow for a private zoo in London moving forward. What we have here is a private zoo, operating out of a mall under a place of entertainment. However, under the definitions, Reptilia and Zoo is a private zoo.

In conclusion, clarification on the limitations of the animal control by-law exemption is essential to avoid any unnecessary waste of time and city resources to have to deal with prohibitions after the fact, avoid animal welfare complications related to the stress of transport and relocation, as well as costs, as I’ve said before. The circumstances before us today is disconcerting. As a decision made today, sets a precedent for other like private zoos and mobile live animal programs wishing to bring exotic and potentially dangerous animals to London offsite, posing significant health and safety risks to the public due to incidents of handling the animals and exposure to infectious disease, putting the young immunocompromised and elderly at great risk. Thank you for hearing our concerns.

Thank you, Ms. Brown. So our next delegate is Ms. Van Linden, but she cannot be with us today.

So she has rather attached or sent us a submission that will be attached to the report going forward. And so that takes us next to Mr. Lerner, who is a delegate today and next on my list. Are you with us, Mr.

Lerner? I know we saw your face earlier in the meeting. When you joined us, here we are. And once again, I am advised that the video is not permitted, the host has stopped it.

We are trying to get you in right now, Mr. Lerner. Thank you. Madam Chair, my request will be that my submission be deferred and that the committee here from Mr.

Child and Dr. Murphy before I make my comments. I can accommodate that, Mr. Lerner.

So we will stop trying to get your video working and we will instead move to Jay Van Dale. We have Jay Van Dale. Yes. There we are.

I’m here. Thank you so much. You have five minutes, go ahead, sir. Good afternoon, committee and Madam Chair.

I’m the former chair and president of the London Humanities Society and a former director of the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, who the OSBCA acted on the committee updating provincial standards defining animals in distress. And I feel quite strongly that London should not allow a by-law exemption to reptilia. First, zoos are significant sources of animal distress because the seemingly natural surroundings which zoos often present don’t replace the normal habitats of the animals they imprisoned. Imagine life for a reptile in a plexiglass case.

Next, human animal interactions. Zoos allow activities that cause animal distress and can be unsafe for visitors such as padding and feeding. This is even true for members of the World Association of Zoos and Aquarium, the global umbrella organizations. And they’re also accredited, they also accredited zoos.

Zoos have a terrible record for sticking to their own guidelines, new research from the Global Charity World Animal Protection and the Change for Animal Foundation showed that wild animals are abused in zoos and the members only about 75% of them offer at least one activity which is cruel or where visitors have direct contact with live captured wild animals. Zoos, reptile zoos provide other dangers to the public aside from toxic bites and other physical injuries. The American Center for Disease Control states it’s important to be aware that reptiles carry germs that make people sick, that’s a quote. Young people, people with weakening immune systems and adults 65 or older are at risk of getting sick from germs carried by reptiles and amphibians.

Other sites and sources elaborate and confirm stating that potential illnesses include campy, bacteriosis, leptoporosis, worms and ticks. My experience with London and Ontario Humane Society and OSBCA confirms that zoos are profit making enterprises first, they ignore animal sufferings with threats of injury, issues around cruelty, track records of poor adherence to their own standards and potential health risks. Why would London make an exception to their bylaws and allow reptilia in our city? And on a final note, the morality of zoos is being questioned in the Western world.

The New York Times alone said three articles in the last couple of years, discussing the morality of having a zoo. And I realized that you’re probably focused on legal considerations, but there are those considerations as well which should be considered. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr.

Van Diehl. That takes us next to F Morrison. We have F Morrison with us. Yeah.

My name is (indistinct) Go ahead, Ms. Morrison, you have five minutes. Okay, I’m Flora Morrison and as most of you know, I have found long history working to better the lives of animals in London. Three years ago, my husband and I moved to BC to be near our daughter and our family, but London will always be home.

As a property owner and someone who has invested years to end zoos in London, I’m speaking out in favor of the AWAC recommendation. Firstly, I wanna note that I am very concerned about the welfare of animal network Tilia. I read the City of Toronto report that resulted in Rook Tilia’s request for a bylaws attention. It highlighted issues of animal welfare and public safety as reasons not to support the exemption.

Furthermore, I’ve reviewed documents received through the Freedom of Information Outlining orders issued by the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Authority regarding serious animal neglect at Rook Tilia. Yeah, to do in London, Cola could be spent that had similar problems. I was one of many people from London who were pleased when the Council removed the zoning for zoos, saying they never wanted a situation like that to occur again in our city. And here we are again, considering how to deal with another small zoo.

As a taxpayer, I am also very concerned that Rook Tilia will show up in London with animals prohibited under our animal control by law that will not only create a welfare issue for the animals, but also may result in an unnecessary and very expensive enforcement challenge for the city. It’s evident for Mr. Costas’ last comments at the last council meeting that the exotic animals are not examined as little bylaws and they are not subject to the prevention license held by Rook Tilia. This is also consistent with legal opinion provided by Zuchek from We’re folks, one of the most esteemed natural law firms in Canada.

No laws have been changed since Rook Tilia applied for the building permit or as the city created any new barriers to the business for their business. There’s nothing stopping Rook Tilia from opening its facility with the native species of animals that are held under the provincial license and any that are not otherwise prohibited or restricted under law, London’s bylaw. This was already in place prior to Rook Tilia applying for the building permit. That said, it’s evident from the comments that Rook Tilia’s owner made to the media that he may be confused about which animals he is allowed to put on display and which are prohibited.

Given this is unfair to everyone involved, not to be fully transparent about the limitations of the provincial license and to clarify what animals are restricted and prohibited under our bylaw that are subject to that license. When businesses are going to set up in a city, it’s not uncommon for staff to make business owners aware of local lives already in place that may impact the business so they can plan accordingly and not end up in the enforcement situation. In case of a new business that has live animals, that would include the animal control bylaw. But recommendations by a lock are fair to ever and involved and will help the city avoid a very expensive enforcement problem that may also harm animals.

We sincerely hope you will support those recommendations, thank you. Thank you Ms. Morrison. Next up we have Emma Hamer, the wildlife campaign manager for World Animal Protection.

Hello Ms. Hamer, go ahead, you have five minutes. Thank you and thank you so much for letting me speak today and providing me with the opportunity to register our concern and to voice our support for the recommendation of the animal welfare advisory committee. I’m making this allegation on behalf of World Animal Protection.

We are the largest international animal welfare organization in Canada with more than 160,000 supporters in Ontario. We are a science based organization that works on projects with local partners, governments and businesses to find practical, sustainable and long lasting solutions to animal welfare issues. I’m the wildlife campaign manager and I’m a master’s in animal welfare and biology from Essex University in the UK and with a specialization in captive wildlife behavior and welfare. I’m a member of the Royal Society of Biology and hold the designation of European professional biologists.

And I’m one of the few people in Canada that has done extensive research into the issues associated with the keeping of wildlife in zoos and private nagaries. I guess the question today is if reptilia should receive an automatic exemption from the city because of their OMNR permit. I’m not a lawyer, but what I do know is that in my 10 years of doing zoo inspection, it has always been very clear to me that when I go to a facility, I could look at the tigers and their enclosures, but not, for example, at the black bear. This is because the keeping of native wildlife and exotic wildlife falls under two different ministries and are therefore doubtless separately, including different agencies who are responsible for the enforcement of the different regulations.

Also, if reptilia would be granted this exemption based on their permit, this would set a very concerning precedence because it means that anybody in the city of London, it has a similar native wildlife permit, could not own any exotic animal regardless of their expertise, capacity, or knowledge. We are not only concerned about setting such precedence, but we’re also concerned about the management of the current zoos. As mentioned by the previous speaker, you may note it last December, the city of Toronto turned down a reptilious request for an exemption for their animal control by law. During consideration of that request, a comprehensive review of reptilia was conducted by the city of Toronto staff, and the report highlighted several issues that were obtained from an FOI request.

Those documents showed a number of concerns, including animals without access to drinking water, staff that wasn’t able to locate vet records, exhibits weren’t clean, five exhibits without working lights, animals that had retained their shed due to improper humidity and temperature, discrepancies in feet rotation with some animals not being fed up to four weeks while they are supposed to be fed every two to three weeks. Five animals that had such concerning body conditions that an order was made for them to see a vet, and the FOI showed that at least 30 animals were moved to any of the reptiles. These findings refer to relatively basic, simple husbandry requirements that were present at the time, and they are concerning to us, but also like to address the suggestion that reptilias animals are housed in natural environments. I would describe, based on my experience as an animal welfare scientist, that most of their exhibits are highly artificial.

For example, in the wild, crocodiles are social, they spend a lot of time together. They’re highly active, especially at night. They can swim on the water for at least 30 minutes, and they can be found in a wide variety of habitats. The crocodile exhibits at reptilia are small and simplistic, and do not replicate the animal’s habitat or give them opportunity to engage in a full range of natural behaviors.

And this is just an example. But what I have seen during my visits to reptilia, many other exhibits are also rudimentary and small. Finally, I would like to raise the issue where reptilia promotes the keeping of exotic wild animals as pets, and how this practices are thinkable for any institution that is a professional zoo. Reptilia actively promotes the keeping of exotic pets through the sale of husbandry equipment and feed in their zoos and online store.

Other Canadian zoos, whether large or small, don’t do this. You can go in through their gift stores and buy housing and husbandry equipment for exotic animals. And in fact, most of them will tell public not to keep exotic animals or not to support exotic pet trade because of the impact it has on animal welfare, public health and biodiversity loss. Reptilia’s messaging on this is exceptionally odd.

Decide the sale of reptile equipment and feed. We are also concerned with the use of reptiles in live animal shows and presentations. But children and adults are encouraged to interact with wild animals. And thereby normalizing the keeping and use of these animals and conveying the wrong kinds of messages about animals, animal welfare and wildlife conservation.

You have about 20 seconds left. Thank you. In closing will them protection support the recommendation of the AY committee for animal welfare, public health and safety issues and other issues associated with this kind of commercial zoo business. Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you so much. We’re just under five minutes, so I do appreciate that. Next, we have R Murphy, the acting director of animal welfare. Wonder if you are here, R Murphy, Bob Murphy.

Go ahead, you have five minutes. You are muted, Mr. Murphy. I have not started your time yet until I hear your voice.

There, is that work? Go ahead, sir. Hello, okay. That I’m chair committee members and visiting counselors.

I appreciate the opportunity to meet with you today. Let me first give you a little bit of my background. I’m a professor. I’m the volunteer director of animal welfare at reptilia.

And my other hat, I’m the senior curator of reptiles and amphibians at the ROM, a position I’ve held for almost 40 years. And I’m a professor in the department of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Toronto. But I’m here today representing reptilia and not my employer. I earned my PhD at UCLA in 1982, which is the number one great public university in North America right now.

I did postdocs in cancer diagnosis during close cytometry and fish conservation genetics. And I’m an elected member of the executive of the World Congress of Perpetology. I have more than 50 years in education. I have about 400 peer reviewed publications, mostly on amphibians and reptiles, but also birds, mammals, fishes, viruses, which are important, insects, and a variety of other organisms.

And in the ranking, I hit in the top 2.5% globally in my field, which is the highest level that one can achieve. My research centers on conservation and evolutionary genomics, as well as biodiversity. And in my department, the most frequently read member in terms of research gate, which is an open source. And I tell you this, not to brag about myself, but to give you some background about some of the concerns that I had.

First, I would not be volunteering at reptilia. If reptilia and I did not agree entirely that the pet industry should be banned from selling wild caught animals, period. We are adamantly opposed to selling wild caught animals. I’ve personally seen the destruction that describing a new species can do in terms of pet trade, immediately responding thereafter.

At reptilia, we have a safety first. We are a casa accredity, which is a three day visit by three people who go over our animal welfare and training protocols, staff safety, visitor safety, and economic plans. We also are currently working proactively with pause, which you’ve heard about. We asked them to come and give us feedback to make sure we complied with current laws with it.

And in fact, we’re setting up a online monitoring system that they can log into to help us achieve the highest possible standards that we can achieve. So there’s a lot said about animal welfare concerns. And we absolutely agree with most of these concerns. And these are for wild animals.

These are animals taken out of their habitats. The animals that reptilia has and uses for display in programs are all captive born. They have not been taken from the wild. They would not survive if they were reintroduced back into the wild.

And so many of the concerns about wildlife being brought in simply just are not relevant to the practice that we’re doing right now. There’s much made about the zoonotic disease and how it’s going to transfer an impact. If you look at Center for Disease Control, data in the United States, you find out that onions are more dangerous. Backyard poultry is far more dangerous.

And when you do your homework, you find out that versus about 150 cases of infection of salmonella per year from reptiles, mostly from freshwater turtles, which we do not encourage people keeping as pets. There’s 40,000 people a year who need emergency treatment by being hit by eric golf balls. And 15,000 people a year who need emergency treatment from golf cart accidents. So let’s put this zoonotic disease in terms of public threat into a little bit of perspective.

You have 20 seconds, sir. So one big concern that I have with this is climate change. Habitats are changing. They’re not gonna be suitable for animals in the future.

What’s going to happen to these animals? And in this slide, zoos play the leading and controlling role in learning how to breed and how to educate people in terms of keeping and maintaining these animals for perpetuity. Mr. - Major conservation efforts.

And I thank you very much for your time. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. I appreciate that.

So next we have Mr. Child, the president of reptilia. You are next on my list, sir. I see Mr.

Child in my list of participants, but I don’t hear you. There you are. I’m, there we go. So, sir, if you’d like to go ahead, you have five minutes to address the committee and make sure you unmute your microphone, sir.

I’m still seeing that you’re muted, sir. Does that show differently? There you go. Perfect.

Thank you. Thank you. I’d like to give you a brief history of the relationship between the city of London and reptilia as a background. Janet or Jeanette, I guess it is, McDonald from LEBC and tourism later, I believe, approached us with a phone call to come to reptilia and Vaughn, and the purpose of the delegation, which she brought with her was to talk to us about the possibility of us considering London for a facility.

We had some questions, we had a good frank discussion, and she took her delegation back to London and then responded with all the answers to the questions. Our board considered it and they had some questions, and ultimately she brought another delegation, which included, I believe it was one for two of the counselors, and we worked through those questions and the board gave us permission to proceed. She made arrangements to have us come to London for three days and two nights to entertain us with two or three of the counselors and some other people from the city, and during that period of time, it was arranged by her to take us to different sites within the city for a facility. We responded by considering different sites and then pick westbound shopping center.

That’s how the history of London and reptilia began. You have and tab eighteen letters from Vaughn and from Whitby. Vaughn, we’ve been there for this is our 27th year Whitby, this is our fourth year. We won the Best Corporate Citizen Award from region of York and from Vaughn for our charitable work, which is just for one facility amounts to about a quarter of a million dollars a year.

We also won the Best Attraction Award against Canada’s Wonderland based on customer satisfaction. And as Bob has said, wild cots, we haven’t had wild cots ever. In 1996, when we began, we began with domestically bred animals or rescues only. The education in consultation with the city of Toronto, both school boards, we wrote the curriculum and Mike Harris put four curriculums in Ontario together.

It was the life strand section of the Ontario Science and Technology curriculum for the province. And over the course of time now, we’ve taught of more than 7,000 public and private schools. We also teach for Environment Canada. We wrote the curriculum for them in both languages and we teach the wildlife officers across Canada about reptiles, recognition, and what they have to do to help CBSA.

As far as the OSPCA goes, I’m not sure what was being said by the former director, but we’ve been a customer and a client and a supplier to the OSPCA back and forth for more than 12 years. So I’m not sure where it came from, but that’s fatally incorrect. We’ve trained the OSPCA people in reptiles. So they help CBSA as do the Environment Canada people.

Just before COVID, we trained 800 first responders for York reading. And we also trained the D&D for overseas troop deployment and their medical staff. We wrote your bylaw back in 1998 for reptiles, largely it’s still intact. As we did for all the major cities in Ontario, pro bono, I might add, and in 27 years of safe operations, no gas has ever been injured by one of our animals.

We’re a tourist destination like the aquarium with Toronto Zoo. One of our board members is the executive vice president retired from Disney Orlando, where he had a staff of 47,000 people run the operation. He’s a contributor to us on a regular basis through being a member of the board. We have about 25 seconds, sir.

Thank you, ma’am. Accreditation, we’ve been with CASA for quite a long time. We’re subject to the regular inspections of pause. I can explain anything you wish to know about those animals, which were in that report.

We have all the documentation, happy to provide it. And it was during COVID. So the benefits for London, we have a lot of guests that come from London. So we saved some drive time.

You’re in your five minutes, sir. May I have 30 seconds to just summarize? Go ahead, 30 quick seconds. Thank you, yes, ma’am.

Reduce animal care costs for the city by taking in and re-homing breastfeed reptiles. Be a resource for the city, as we are for many other cities, including Toronto for illegal or dangerous animals set free. We’ve picked up alligators off the 401 and ran out of condos out of people’s gardens, just as examples. We educate the public through our house.

You’re at 535, sir. I’m gonna have to ask you to stop now. I’m so sorry. Yep, okay.

Thank you very much for the time. Thank you. And now I’m gonna go back to Mr. Lerner.

There you are. See your face? Go ahead, sir. You have five minutes.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I wanna deal first with the issue that has been raised with regard to precedent setting. There’s an old saying that there’s always an exemption or a way out of a rule when it’s justified. And it’s my considered opinion that this is a perfect example where an exemption ought to be granted.

Reptilia is a highly regarded, highly respected institution. It’s the recipient of many awards and it has promoted education within the communities throughout the province of Ontario. The concern with regard to precedent setting, I would hope and I would expect that the municipality would carefully scrutinize any application and it would not be a case of willy-nilly granting exemptions to every individual who comes forward. They would have to establish through a proven record that they were entitled to such treatment.

And then Mike considered opinion again. That is the case with Reptilia. The committee will know that I provided you with an extensive document brief last week, which I trust you’ve all had an opportunity to review. I think that if you read through that document that you will be impressed with the qualifications of Reptilia.

Mr. Child has referred to the safety record. Dr. Murphy has referred to the conservation and education component of Reptilia’s operation.

Reading specifically from a ministry policy statement, it says there are exceptions to the general prohibition that are addressed to the licenses and authorizations or rules in the regulations where the risk of keeping wildlife and captivity can be acceptively managed. The ministry also acknowledges that zoos can have a role in advancing public understanding and appreciation of wildlife and helping to advance species conversation. A zoo with a well-developed educational program can contribute to our understanding of wildlife species and zoos. At several of the tabs, I’d like to highlight them briefly if I could, in particular importance, I directed a tab for page, sorry, tab five, page 55, which deals with the licensing through the province.

I direct you as well to the TRIUM report prepared by the Ministry of Heritage and Tourism that has provided an impact, financial impact as onto the municipality and the manner in which it will significantly improve and positively impact the community. At tab 11, on page 78 is a statement of intent that was prepared at the request of Heather Chapman. It addresses the issues of venomous bites, escape and capture, safety precautions, and disease prevention. Mr.

Child has referred to the extensive training that Reptilia has asked to perform for the Department of National Defense and First Responders. You also have Mr. Winston’s note at tab 13 that confirms that Reptilia was to use the word recruited or invited to come to London and has since spent a considerable amount of money renovating the premises at the West Mount Mall. You have a letter of support from the West Mount Mall.

West Mount Mall, as we all know, has suffered at the hands of the big box stores. It is in the course of a revitalization and Mr. Cornelli’s opinion. The establishment of Reptilia will enhance the tenant mix and the attraction that is presented at the West Mount Mall.

You will also see a letter from Dr. Murphy to Mr. Laidlaw, inviting him to engage in some conversation to consider some misconceptions that appear in some of his material. That was never responded to and that meeting never did take place.

CASA has been impugned by some who have spoken today. CASA is recommended, membership and CASA is recommended in that same policy statement to which I previously referred. You have the letters from the different municipalities in support of Reptilia and the manner in which it has enhanced those local communities. When I first got involved in this, I asked myself the question.

You have about 20 seconds, sir. Thank you. Why would London not want to have Reptilia in its, within its boundaries? My question remains and I have not received no satisfactory answer to that question on that basis and the basis of the record that has been presented.

I strongly recommend the committee to grant an exemption to Reptilia to provide the attraction and destination that it does for the city of London. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Lerner.

Okay, so that is it for our delegations this evening. I’ll look for a quick motion just to receive all of those delegations moved by Councillor Hamoon, seconded by Councillor Hillier. We’ll vote on receipt of those delegations. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Committee and I see we have a number of visiting Councillor members, so welcome to all of you. We have in our added agenda, a report presented to us by Scott Mathers, the Deputy City Manager of Planning and Economic Development. I will check briefly to see if city staff, anyone on city staff perhaps, Mr. Kristolik, would like to give any sort of brief introduction to this report since it was on our added agenda and not the one that we received last week.

Through the chair, the added report was as a direction from Council to provide some further information and also to provide some legal advice. And I believe you have a report from our city solicitor also. The report from our service area is a summary of the comments made by George Kostafus and also a summary of a memo that was provided to Council in February and Mr. Kostafus summarized that memo during an inquiry at Council meeting in February.

As you can see in the report, since those discussions, the update to city council, there is no further information to share from our service area. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kostafus.

I will go to committee and/or visiting Councillors to see, I will go to you first, Councillor Hillier. Thank you very much. Just a question, I’m hoping legal can answer this without having to go on camera. It’s regarding the animal control by-law, where it says normally found in a wild and natural state.

Is that in reference to here in Southern Ontario? Because I can understand how none of the reptiles, the snakes or the venomous spiders would not survive, but I am concerned about the birds of prey. I’m just curious about that interpretation. Go to staff, see if somebody can answer that.

Madam Chair, it’s very hard. Yes, I’d be pleased to answer that question. I think the definitions suggest that it would be in the wild, wherever the wild is for that species. So it would be anywhere, not just in Ontario.

Thank you, Councillor. Any other committee members? Okay, I recognize you, Councillor Van Holst. Thank you, Madam Chair.

And thanks to all our delegates for the information. What I hope to do is first look at some of the issues that perhaps are not a concern. Actually, I would say that it was mentioned that this is largely a legal issue. And I think for us, definitely that’s the major one we have to figure out.

Perhaps first I can ask, since the idea of exemption came up, it looks like there’s maybe three situations or three possibilities here if we could and decided not to control zoos through our own bylaws. And frankly, I prefer that we not do that. It seems like a lot of work. There’s the suggestion that an exemption could happen.

And so my first question is regarding the exemption versus our own by-law. So right now, we seem to say that or it seems to be the case that some of the species would be not allowed to be kept here, but we are, we are at Liberty or we simply could create an exemption for this company. And then that would be all right. Is that a correct understanding?

Sir Cart, is that something for a public? Yes, Madam Chair, I can deal with that. There are exemptions in the by-law in section three. None of those exemptions would apply in this situation.

So what would be necessary if reptilia were to operate with animals that would otherwise be banned by as class seven animals is further to be an exemption that would apply to the keeping of those animals by reptilia, similar to the exceptions that exist for other operators. However, not operators that have zoos, my true operators that take animals in, animals in distress or animals found in oil. So that would require a by-law amendment. And otherwise, the animals that we’ve been talking about the wild animals, the class seven animals would not be permitted to be kept in London.

And the, as has already been said, the provincial license does not authorize the keeping of animals of that type. The provincial focus is on animals that are wild in Ontario, such as a Great Wolf and not the kind of animals that would be on display at reptilia. Thank you. - Councilor.

Okay, thank you. And so then I see two objections, Mr. Lerner was looking for what the objections were on. I see, and I hear one is a moral objection to the idea of zoos, and I guess the other, the legal challenge then is the matter of species being kept.

I also know, and I appreciated, of course, Ms. Hamers and others bringing up the challenges, but especially for Professor Murphy for telling us how significant those particular things are, so for instance, harm is to a visitor very unlikely as well as disease. And of course, the distinction that these are not wild animals. Now, where the bylaws says something normally found in the wild, is there a distinction between the captive bred and wild animals?

So for instance, I would normally not find a captive bred animal in the wild, but are we talking about the fact that the animal is bred in captivity, or are we talking about the species of the animal that is normally found in the wild? Is that a clear distinction? Mr. Card?

No, Madam Chair, under our bylaw doesn’t make any difference. The prohibition applies whether or not the animals were collected from the wild, or were born in captivity. Thank you, Councilor. Okay, well, I think that’s an important distinction.

And one thing I might ask if I don’t know if it’s possible to extend questions to our guests, but the issue of stress for the animals came up, certainly the idea of stress in traveling is obviously an issue if they don’t have to, if they can’t come here, then traveling here and having to send them home, I suppose it’d be some stress, but I’m interested in the kinds of stress and maybe the significance of the stress that happens in a facility like Reptilia has. And so perhaps I could ask Professor Murphy about that. No, Councilor, I’m not gonna open this up. There are so many delegates and there were so many competing opinions.

I would invite you to contact anyone you wish to contact offline, but I’m not gonna do that today. Okay, thank you, Madam Chair. I was gonna set up a little debate between Ms. Hamers and Mr.

Murphy, just to understand that a little better, but obviously I could reach out and get that information. So anyway, look at my notes in terms of the cursory questions I had here. I think those pieces of information were valuable to bring some clarification. So thank you.

Thank you, Councilor. Are there any other visiting counselors or committee members who would like to ask questions or discuss this at all? Councilor Van Mierberg, go ahead, sir. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Appreciate being acknowledged. As you’re aware, this location of Reptilia will be in the West Mountain Mall, which is dead center in the ward. I represent Ward 10 right in the middle of West Mountain. And a big facility, a big impotence, positive impotence for not only Southwest London, but for London as a whole.

This mall has been making great strides in bringing itself back like a phoenix from the ashes. And this Reptilia proposal and eventual reality is a big part of that. It is win, win, win, so positive in so many directions that I have to pick up from Mr. Michael Lerner when he says, why wouldn’t you want Reptilia?

And I have to thank Dr. Murphy, Brian Child, and of course, Michael Lerner, for helping to steer the debate and bring up facts and clear up some misconceptions about what we’re talking about here. We’re not talking about any type of cruelty to animals or anything of that sort. In fact, it’s quite the opposite.

You only have to look at this history that Reptilia and the reputation that they’ve built up for themselves over more than a couple of decades. My understanding is each of their locations have staff veterinarians to make sure that the animals are well cared for. There’s the education component, schools from all around come to learn firsthand about the wonders of reptiles. It becomes a tourist draw from not only the city of London, but from all cities all from all around.

Then there’s the net effect of getting hotel rooms and going to restaurants and just spreading the word that London’s a great place to visit. This in so many ways is something that has to be done and should be done because it is when, when, when. I mean, we know that many, these animals are from captive, they’re captive animals. They’re not coming from the wild.

We see these very positive effects that are coming from this proposal. And I have to say, Madam Chair, to the rest of the committee and fellow counselors, what if Ripley’s, what if Ripley’s came to London and said, we’d like to build an aquarium here similar to the one next to the CN Tower? Are we going to say no, believe it or not, no to a Ripley’s aquarium because it somehow violates our municipal bylaw? No, I think we would find a way to accommodate them.

I certainly hope we would. And this is in a similar vein. You’re dealing with a world-class organization. We’ve heard enough here today at committee.

They have got, as I said, a great reputation. They can only contribute to the community, to the education of our young people, to the entertainment of Londoners. Let’s show fellow Ontarians and indeed fellow Canadians that London is not a place where good ideas come to die. Let’s show that we embrace these ideas and turn it into wonderful opportunity and a great prospect and events for people in London and from all over.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. OK. Councillor Hopkins, welcome. Go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And just to follow up on Councillor Van Mirrenberg and his comments, I know his concern around revitalizing Westmount and the importance of that revitalization. I share his concerns. I understand that we’re here tonight to allow an exemption in our animal control bylaw for animals licensed by the province and a particular exotic animals.

That’s what we’re here to discuss. And I just want to go back to that because I think it’s really important that we address our animal control bylaw and understand it and how it will allow or not other zoos to be in our city. Because I, as a Councillor, assumed we do not support zoos in our city. It’s been a longstanding council direction for a number of years.

And if anything, I think we should understand that or not because that is a really important part of my concern. I do want to sort of go back to the licensing. And I really appreciate Mr. Murphy’s comments around reptilian not being allowed to sell animals.

That is not part of the licensing. If you looked at all the documentation that Mr. Lerner provided, it is very clear that it states that sales aren’t allowed at reptilia. In fact, what is allowed is a well-developed education program and a conservation program.

I think that is part of the licensing. And I’d like to know a little bit more about the licensing because it does say that the licensing agreement is valid. It’s only for a specific time. And it must be renewed.

And maybe through you, Madam Chair, if I can just have those general answers, maybe just staff or whoever could provide that, the information about the licensing. Thanks, Councillor. So I will go to staff for that. I just did want to clear something up, though there’s nothing on the agenda that says we are here to consider an exemption.

The staff report does not talk about granting an exemption to any of our bylaws. It’s something that was brought up by delegates tonight. But it’s not on the agenda, necessarily. So I will go to city staff, Mr.

Card, probably, for your question. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. The provincial licensing scheme deals with animals that are found in the wild in Ontario, as I mentioned, such as the Great Wolf.

The provincial licensing scheme does not deal with many of the non-native animals that you would typically find exhibited in zoos— tigers, lions, monkeys, and things like that. All of those animals are banned by our bylaw as class 7 animals. So the provincial license does not apply to those animals, because the provincial license is focused on Ontario animals, and the bylaw prohibits those animals, and there are no present exemptions available. I hope that answers the question, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Card. Councillor, does that answer the question? No, it doesn’t.

But I do appreciate that information. I would like to know, having a better understanding of the licensing that Ratelia has, specifically in the time period of the— Madam Chair. -of Ratelia’s licensing. What do you want to know about the time period, Councillor?

The dates? Oh, I see. Do you know that information, Mr. Card?

No, I do not, Madam Chair. It may have been in the material that Mr. Lerner provided, but I was directed to specific parts of that material. I did not see that particular license, so I can’t speak to the time.

I’m not sure that staff do know that, but possibly Mr. Lerner would, or perhaps Mr. Catolic. I will remember— That’s through the chair.

I do not have that information, either. It is a provincial license. It’s not a municipal license, and it’s under provincial jurisdiction. I will remind Councillors as well that— and committee members, there is an in-camera report as well, so I will leave that as well up to the discretion of the committee on how they would like to proceed that way.

You saw at the floor, Councillor Hopkins, if you have other— No, I just think that we should have a better understanding about the licensing of Ratelia as we move forward with Ratelia locating at West Mount Mall. Any other questions, comments? Oh, Councillor Halmer, go ahead. I’d like to move into closed session, whatever point.

The rest of my colleagues are happy to do that, so we can ask questions of City’s solicitor about the closed session report. OK, thank you. I moved by Councillor Halmer, seconded by Councillor Hillier. Thank you.

Any discussion? Seeing none, the motion is that we would go in camera to hear advice from our City solicitor, and I will put that vote to the committee now. Councillor Halmer, closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to 0.

All right, we are back in public session. Thank you for the patience of everybody that we’re waiting for us. I’m going to go first to Councillor Hamo. I moved to receive the staff report.

Thank you, Councillor. Do I have a second for that motion? Seconded by Councillor Hillier. Thank you.

Any discussion or comments? I’m not seeing any hands going up. We have a motion on the floor to receive the staff report. Been moved and seconded.

I’m going to call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries 5 to 0. Thank you very much. Thank you again to all of the people who appeared before us today to share your thoughts with us.

We’re going to move on in the agenda to item 5.3. It’s a graphic flyer deliveries to residential properties. And before we start with this, I will mention that there is a trigger warning for this item. This subject matter may create feelings of discomfort and may be triggering to some individuals.

It’s important to practice self-care when engaging this with this material. Our employee and family assistance program offers immediate and confidential support 24/7. To speak with a Councillor immediately, simply call 1-844-880-9142. After selecting your preferred language, select option 1 to be transferred to one of Morneau Shepels tele-counselers for real-time support for as long as is needed.

They can also help you book additional support as required. Alternatively, individuals can also contact ANOVA’s 24/7 crisis and support line at 519-642-3000 or the London Abuse Women’s Center at 519-432-2204. So this is item 5.3. Is there anybody who wishes to comment or have any questions about this?

Councillor Halmer, go ahead. Thank you. As a way of hopefully focusing the discussion, I’m happy to move that we recommend the by-law that has been drafted by the City Solicitor’s Office. If there’s a seconder for that, then I’ll make some comments about why I think that’s a good idea.

Thank you for putting that motion on the floor, Councillor, and I see Councillor Hillier are seconding that motion. So go ahead, Councillor Halmer. Thank you. I know colleagues, we’ve had a lot of discussions about how to deal most effectively with this issue and the harm that the unwanted delivery of this material is causing in the community.

And I think it’s taken us a long time to get to this point. I think we’ve landed in a pretty good place, which is we’re not going to prevent people entirely from distributing the material, but we are going to try and reduce the harms by insisting that it be wrapped and that it be a notice so that people have some kind of warning that they’re about to encounter this material and if they don’t think it’s appropriate within their household, they can just recycle it or they can have some control over it and rather than just picking it out of their mailbox. I don’t think it will resolve all problems. Sometimes people open the mail without noticing what it is.

It will still probably have some issues, but I think it would really deal with the widespread harm that was being caused by the way things were done in the past with the delivery of this material. So I think the narrow focus dealing with the real problem that we’re experiencing and the community are not casting such a huge wide net over all kinds of offensive imagery, really focusing on what’s causing the harm in the community, I think is very good. I want to commend the staff who’ve worked on this. I know it’s a difficult issue to deal with and how to regulate it effectively and reduce the harms while still allowing free, open discussion about important political issues.

It’s not easy and I want to recognize the people who’ve worked on it to get at this point. I’m hopeful that it will be a reasonable good solution and actually reduce the harms that this is causing the community. If it’s not, maybe revisiting the issue again. And I hope we don’t have to, but I’m optimistic, at least at this point, that this is going to make a difference in a good way.

So hopefully, my colleagues will support that. I want to commend the community members who’ve really been pushing on this issue for so long, trying to find a solution to reduce the harm. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Hillier.

Thank you very much. First of all, I’d like to thank my colleagues and all of legal staff for taking the time to move this forward. It has been a long time coming. And I know a lot of people of my award will be very happy with this.

I just want to say thank you to everyone. And hopefully, we will protect a lot of London’s children. Thank you very much. Thanks, Councillor.

Any other comments? I will just add my thanks, then, to staff for this. I think this is a really good compromise. I think nobody’s freedom to express their opinion is being infringed upon.

And yet, again, there are those protections in place for people that really don’t want to be exposed to this material. And I see Councillor Lewis here. And with his hand up, I will go to you, Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Chair Acastia, no apologies.

I was trying to find my video on button and my raise hand button, because I was listening in. So through you, I’m generally supportive of the direction. I’ve got two particular concerns. And these are around how we approach the punitive measures for violations.

And so through you, the staff, it’s my reading that we’re recommending a one-time violation fine. How would that dissuade in staff’s opinion? How would that dissuade repeat offenders from simply paying the fine wants and then doing whatever they want? Through the chair, the report from the city solicitor also includes an amendment to the AMPS by-law, which includes three AMPS penalties at $350 each.

An active discretion of a municipal law enforcement officer fines could be doubled for any and all subsequent repeat offenses. We also have the possibility where there are continuous repeat offenses to lay a part three information. And the fine and any probation or prohibition orders would be determined by the courts. Councillor— Through you, Chair, thanks.

Thanks to staff for their clarification on this. I know there’s an additional legal report that there may be some desire to go on camera for. But I do think that this is addressing a problem. I concur with Councillor Halmer’s comments about the balance that we need to strike here.

So I’ll look to see if there’s any other comments on this. And I might reserve anything else. I have to thoughts on this for Council. But I will also echo Councillor Gillier’s thanks.

This has been a long, long, long process. And I hope that we’re at the point where we are going to make a decision. So thank you. Thank you, Councillor.

Good morning. Any other comments? I’m seeing none. And the motion is on the floor, moved and seconded.

So I’ll call the vote. Holding the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Next up, we have the deferred matters list. And I know based on a conflict that you declared at the last time, Councillor Hillier, I was going to pull item two from the deferred matters list separately.

So let’s deal with two first, any comments on that item on the deferred matters list? No, then I’ll need a mover and a seconder for that. Moved by Councillor Hamou. Seconded by somebody else.

And I’ll second that since I’m not seeing any hands jump in the air. So we’re voting on item two on the deferred matters list. I see count as well as before we vote. I’ll go to you, Deputy City Clerk.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m just, I would just request that Councillor Hillier make that declaration. Councillor Hillier, go ahead. Sorry for that, yes, my family does run one of the festivals in the park, and this does relate directly to them.

Now we can vote. In the vote, the motion carries four to zero with one. So we have a number of matters remaining on the deferred matters list. I have a couple of questions, but I will check.

See if committee has any questions or comments on the remaining items on the deferred matters list. First is item five and item four and item five. I believe those items have been handled, and I think they can be removed from the deferred matters list, but I just want to get confirmation on item four and five. Through the chair, item five was recently addressed and can be removed.

Thank you, Mr. Catolic. Oh, and I see you, Mr. Dickens, go ahead.

Yes, and thank you through you, Chair. The road map to 3,000 units that was presented to council with all the financial details and the plan would indicate that number four can also be closed up. And while I have you, Mr. Dickens, item…

Nope, I don’t need you. Thank you, though. I do was hoping for an update on item one, the accessible vehicles for hire and item six as well. The recognizing the impact of hosting the assessment center.

I know we handled Oak Ridge, but not yet, Carling Heights. So let’s go to Mr. Catolic about item one first. Yes, through the chair, on an annual basis, civic administration goes through a process of internal aorta funding, and this item is on the table this year for funding.

So I’m not sure a report is necessary in this regard. Does that mean it should come off the deferred matters list, Mr. Catolic? Yes, I would recommend that.

And we have constant communication with the industry, and they would be involved in any internal funding that we could offer through aorta. Sure, but so, and then what about, so I guess is Ms. Smith, if she’s still with us on the assessment center recognition, there you are. Thank you, and through the chair, you’re correct.

We have recognized the impact of the COVID assessment center of Oak Ridge Arena, but as we still have an COVID assessment center at the Carling Heights Optimus Community Center, this remains on the deferred matters list until such time as we can undertake that engagement with the community. Wonderful, thank you so much, okay. So unless anybody else has any further comments or questions on these matters, we need the rest of the deferred matters list moved and seconded, moved by Councillor Hameau, seconded by Councillor Hillier. Thank you, and I’ll call the question.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. And one final item is the third report on our added agenda. It’s the third report of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. There are no direction items in there, so I’ll look for a mover and a seconder to receive that report, Councillor Hameau.

And seconded by Councillor Hillier, thank you. Any discussion on that report? I’ll call the question. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Staff and committee and visiting Councillors, we had a pretty full house today and it was a very productive meeting. And with that, I will ask for a motion to adjourn. Moved by Councillor Hillier, seconded by Councillor Hameau. I can do a hand vote on that.

All those in favor, I’m seeing everybody clerk. That motion carries, we are adjourned, thank you.