February 20, 2024, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting was called to order at 1:01 PM.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

2.1   2nd Report of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee

2024-02-01 AWCAC Report

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by H. McAlister

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2nd Report of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on February 1, 2024:

a)    any discussion of the coexistence strategies for Canada Geese and ducks BE FORWARDED to the Co-Existence with Geese Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee Sub-Committee for consideration; it being noted that P. Yeoman, Director, Parks and Forestry will provide an update in the spring, 2024;

b)    a representative from Corporate Communications BE INVITED to the March 6, 2024 Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee meeting to provide an outline of the proposed images for the bird friendly glass and light applications display for public education and awareness; and,

c)    clauses 1.1, 1.2, 3.1 and 5.3 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   Housekeeping Amendments - Yard and Lot Maintenance By-law - Administrative Monetary Penalty System By-law

2024-02-20 SR Yard and Lot Maintenance By-law

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by H. McAlister

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated February 20, 2024, related to the Yard and Lot Maintenance By-law and Administrative Monetary Penalty System By-law:

a)    the revised attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 5, 2024, being “a By-law to require the owner or occupant of land to clean and clear the land, or to clear refuse from the land, not including buildings” to repeal and replace the City’s existing Yard and Lot Maintenance By-law No. P.W.-9;

b)    the revised attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 5, 2024, to amend By-law No. A-54, being “A by-law to implement an Administrative Monetary Penalty System in London” to increase the penalty amounts in Schedule A-4 pertaining to the Yard and Lot Maintenance By-law; and,

c)     the revised attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council Meeting to be held on March 5, 2024, to repeal Council Policy CPOL. -172-424, regarding Naturalized Areas and Wildflower Meadows. (2024-C01)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Trosow

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by J. Pribil

Seconded by S. Trosow

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   Regulation of the Display of Graphic Images

2024-02-20 SR Regulation of the Display of Graphic Images - Full

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the staff report, dated February 20, 2024, BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration and the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward a draft by-law with respect to the Regulation of the Display of Graphic Images to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee for consideration by the end of Q2 2024;

it being noted that the communications, as appended to the Added Agenda, from J. Gunnarson, A. Polizogopoulos, A. Honner, M. McCann and J. Jeffs, with respect to this matter, were received. (2024-C01)

Additional Votes:

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by D. Ferreira

Motion to approve:

“That the staff report, dated February 20, 2024, BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration and the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward a draft by-law with respect to the Regulation of the Display of Graphic Images to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee for consideration by the end of Q2 2024;“

Motion Passed (4 to 1)

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by D. Ferreira

Motion to approve:

“it being noted that the communications, as appended to the Added Agenda, from J. Gunnarson, A. Polizogopoulos, A. Honner, M. McCann and J. Jeffs, with respect to this matter, were received.”

Motion Passed (4 to 1)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   (ADDED) Councillor E. Peloza - Rescheduling of Community and Protective Services Committee Meeting - April 8, 2024

2024-02-20 Sub. Change of April CPSC Meeting Time - Peloza

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by E. Peloza

That the Community and Protective Services Committee meeting scheduled for April 8, 2024 at 1:00 PM BE RESCHEDULED to commence at 10:00 AM on April 8, 2024. (2024-C04)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

6.   Confidential

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by H. McAlister

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 the regulation of the display of graphic images.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

The Community and Protective Services Committee convened In Closed Session from 1:54 PM to 2:55 PM.

7.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 3:34 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 (1 hour, 49 minutes)

Good afternoon, this is the fourth meeting in the Community Heritage Services Committee. The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Nanoshbak, Haudenosaunee, Lamok, and Adawandran. We honor and respect the history, language, and culture, the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. The city of London is currently home to many First Nation, Métis, and Inuit today.

As representatives of the people of the city of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. For everyone’s information, I have all committee members in chambers with me, being myself, Councillor McAllister, Privel, Troso, and Ferrera. We also have a visiting guest in Councillor Stevenson and Chambers, and I believe Councillor ramen’s online. The city of London is making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request.

To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact CPSC at London.ca, or 519-661-2489, extension 2425. I will start by looking to committee members for disclosures of pecuniary interest. Seeing none, in the consent items, we have the second report that Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee, looking for a mover and a seconder to accept this report. Moved by Councillor Ferrera, seconded by Councillor McAllister, any discussion?

Okay, calling the question. Sorry, the vote’s open. So just pause, Councillor Troso, you had discussions on the second report, the Animal Welfare Welfare Community Advisory Committee. No, just voting yes or not.

Oh, you’re voting yes, okay. Mr. Troso will need your microphone. Voting yes.

Opposing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, under scheduled items, we’re perfect. We have the public participation meeting for housekeeping amendments, yard and lot maintenance by-law, administrative, monetary policy, penalty system by-law. I will start with an overview of the report from Mr.

Catolic and his staff, and then after that, we will go to a motion to open the public participation meeting. Mr. Catolic. Thank you, and through the chair, throughout this year, you’ll see a number of reports from our service area with respect to housekeeping amendments to a number of our city by-laws.

This is the first one. The focus of this review is really to have a balance between what people can grow in their property, how they can maintain their property, and balance that with public safety. So that is the principle of this by-law. We really wanted to get back to basics and simple language with respect to the by-law, ‘cause it really hasn’t had a full overview in many, many years.

Ethan Ling, out of our service area, will do a high-level summary of the changes. Thank you. Thank you very much, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I am here to introduce and provide some highlights to the yard and lot maintenance by-law being considered this afternoon.

The proposed by-law seeks to remove aesthetics from the discussion around naturalized yards. We believe the new by-law strikes that balance, between those who seek to naturalize and diversify their property, those that wish to maintain more traditional lawns or gardens, and those that ignore their property and create a potential public nuisance. The new by-laws intended to reflect municipal goals, excuse me, around climate action, and is supportive of environmental policies and programs, such as diversification, supporting pollinators, urban agriculture, stormwater mitigation, and others. Some of these changes include introducing visibility triangles to the by-law to ensure that vegetation is not left to grow, so tall as to create a hazard at driveway and street intersections.

Creating a prohibited plants list, that while not superseding the weed control act, will allow city ecologists and officers to identify and act on species that are locally significant in a more urban context where necessary. Removing specific definitions with regard to naturalized areas, perennial gardens, and wildflower meadows from the old by-law to permit an encouraged species diversification, and remove confusion about what one can grow on their property. Amending the definition of refuse to help the public and officers with identifying and removing waste materials from their properties, including adding unlicensed donation bins to that definition. Staff believe, as indicated, that the proposed by-law will help provide clarity to the public around yard naturalization, modernize our approach to yard and lot maintenance regulation, and align with the 2023-2027 strategic plan regarding health and well-being and climate action.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Is that motion to open the public participation meeting? I usually do that after the public participation meeting.

Okay, so we do have people on Zoom and perhaps in the gallery with us today, so I would need a motion to commence the public participation meeting as it is past 105, moved by Councillor McAllister, seconded by Councillor Travsau, and then calling the question. Closing the vote, the motion carries, five to zero. I’ll be rotating between the gallery and those on Zoom. So I will start with Lorraine Johnson, who should be on Zoom.

Hi, yes, thanks, I’m here. Can you hear me? I can’t hear you. Perfect, we can hear and see you.

You have up to five minutes, so please begin. And welcome. - Okay, thanks so much. Thank you very much.

First, I just wanna say thanks for this opportunity to speak today to the committee, just for a little context about myself. I write books about native plant gardening and naturalization. So I’ve written about 10 books, most of which are on this subject. And so the whole time that I’ve been writing books about naturalization and native plant gardening, which is for more than 30 years, I’ve also heard so many instances of conflict where there are un-modernized bylaws, so old and outdated bylaws around brass and weeds.

It then conflict with the municipalities’ goals around climate action, biodiversity support, that sort of thing. So I’ve been involved in efforts in numerous municipalities across Canada to modernize bylaws. So that’s the context for my comments today. And really what I really wanna stress and say first off is just to commend the city of London, to commend staff, counselors, everyone who’s been involved, the community groups, in what a fabulous effort this is, what an incredibly positive report has been submitted to the committee, I think that it’s just excellent.

So I just wanna say thank you and commend you for this. So in my role as a subject matter expert for a number of municipalities, including Toronto, for example, I’ve also been involved in a number of lawsuits over this, where again, where municipalities have not modernized their bylaws and there have been these conflicts that have then gone to court. So I guess I’m submitting my main comments in a letter after this. So I really just wanna make a couple of quick comments.

One is in the context of just so much in support of what you’re doing and commend you for it. In the context of drawing up the prohibited plant list, I would suggest making clear that the consultation will include First Nations in Indigenous consultation. That’s crucial in the context of reconciliation and drawing up a prohibited plant list to make sure that you’re not including medicinal plants, for example, ceremonial plants. In the definition of refuse, one thing I would suggest, I see that you’ve included tree cuttings, limbs, and brush.

So that basically those are prohibited and have to be removed. I would just like to point out that in terms of biodiversity support and the climate action goals that are parallel or an impetus for modernizing this bylaw, I would suggest actually not a blanket prohibition on tree cuttings, limbs, and brush, but add something that says tree cuttings, limbs, and brush that create a safety hazard. So that people who are adding the very important habitat features of nurse logs, for example, in ways that don’t create any safety hazard, or who are leaving standing snags, again, in a way that does not cause a safety hazard, that that be allowed. Under enforcement and interpretation, I would suggest adding an appeals process.

Even with the best training of bylaw officers, I mean, bylaw officers have so many details and things to be expert on, and plant identification can be tough. There are lots. So whatever you come up with as the prohibited plant list, there will definitely be instances where some of those plants are easy to confuse with other plants that are allowed. So I would suggest having some kind of appeals process in there.

And then finally, I just want to mention that policies around enforcement are crucial. The success, I’ve seen this over and over again in municipalities, even municipalities that have really modernized their bylaws in a great way, that they’re clear and they’re full of great language. If the policies around enforcement aren’t good or rigorous or very clear, the bylaw can still, even a good bylaw can still be a disincentive or place barriers in the way that are remaining. So I think what’s really important is to have a mechanism so that complainants are encouraged, possibly even required, and I know that can be tricky, to identify what the contravention of the bylaw is when they submit a complaint, and that the city gen does do diligence before a work order is sent.

Okay, so as I said, I’m sending these comments by in a letter, but mainly I really want to commend you on the work you’re doing. And thank you for the biodiversity support that your revised bylaw will be. Thank you. Hi, thank you.

And the committee clerk has confirmed that they have already reached out to you so we can receive your correspondence going into council. So please do forward it and thank you for joining us. Looking to the gallery to see if someone would like to speak. Hey, I will start with the top microphone.

Welcome if you just state your name and you have five minutes. So please begin when you’re ready. My name is Anne-Marie of Elastro. And maybe after this public participation meeting, I would appreciate if staff could better define what’s a public nuisance.

I understand that there’s a definition in the preamble to the bylaw as being, I think a safety hazard, but I think it’s important to define it or provide examples so that people can comply. If there’s any ambiguity, it opens people up to being ticketed. And it also is good for people that may want to file a complaint to help them better understand whether their complaint is actually a public nuisance or if deep down it’s really an issue of aesthetics. So I would appreciate if staff could provide more definition today as what is a public nuisance.

Oh, so I do have, before I go on, I just wanted to say that if you do want to get a garden certified as a natural pollinator garden by the Canadian Wildlife Federation, one of the requirements is that you do have like a sheltering type of habitat, which could be an accumulation of branches, sticks and logs inside the garden, inside the garden. So that if you can’t do that, it starts to take away your ability to get a certified garden based on national standards. I have concerns about the prohibited plant list. I actually think it’s a good idea, but what I’m concerned about is what’s going to be on that list.

I have concerns that some native plants might be on that list and they won’t be assessed based on ecological value. For example, plants that seed out laid in the season like in the fall produce an abundance of seed and that seed stays on into well into the winter and that has an ecological purpose to feed overwintering birds. But I can see how someone else might decide that that is an invasive species like a Virginia creeper, golden rod, asters. All those plants are in abundance with an abundance of seed for a reason.

And so they have ecological purpose. And so I’m hoping that the prohibited plant list will be specific to commercial plants. And I know several years ago, the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority did embark on a similar list that they worked with garden centers not to sell. And some of them were very popular plants like periwinkle and lily of the valley, bumbleweed.

And for a while, the garden centers complied, but I’ve noticed that they’re back on the shelves again. And those plants are problematic because they get into the ravine system along the river and you can’t get them out. Lily of the valley’s poisonous, nothing grows with it, it chokes out all other plants. And it’s, so I think the prohibited plant list should really be very informative and helpful for people to comply with.

And I think it needs to go hand in hand with garden centers to also let them know that these are plants that the city is trying to remove from garden settings because they actually invade natural areas. Now, one of the plants was a cherry tree. The Upper Thames has issues with cherry trees seeding out into natural areas. So things are quite calm and actually very problematic.

So I would appreciate if you worked with the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority on making this list ‘cause they’ve already done this. And I think this is a good idea. Oh, and I also think this bylaw might be very difficult to enforce. And because of the knowledge of bylaw officers, I think that’s one reason why the bylaw has to be very clear so people can comply.

I had an experience where a bylaw officer was unfamiliar with a perennial garden. And while my garden was in bloom, there had flowers in it. There were stems coming up that were not blooming as of yet because they were gonna bloom later in the summer. And I recited as having weeds in my garden when in fact, they were just plants that were gonna bloom later on.

And I don’t think people should have to go through that process. And so I think you need to meet the bylaw so that people can self-regulate so that it takes away pressure on bylaw officers to 30 seconds to fill in the gaps. Thank you. Ms.

Waller, you were done. I was just gonna be with 30 second morning if you. Yes, you still had 30 seconds if you were wrapping up. I didn’t mean to startle you.

Okay, thank you. Okay, I’m looking in chambers to see if anyone else would like have a microphone on both sides. If not, I have people on Zoom. You don’t need to speak yet.

I just don’t wanna. Okay, so I’m gonna go to the microphone on this side. And then following the speaker, I will go on Zoom to Jenna Lowe’s. Thank you.

My name is Nora Fraser. I live on Wildwood in London. Okay, sorry, just one second. Can I have the volume a little bit up?

I’m not sure. Could you just introduce yourself again? I just wanna make sure we could hear you. Nora Fraser, I live on Wildwood Avenue in close to Greenway Park.

And I really appreciate Lorraine Johnson’s comment about needing an appeal process. ‘Cause that is relevant to what I have to my story. My front yard is a native plant garden and people who walk by it seem to appreciate it, kids stop and look and ask questions. It’s a good habitat for bees and butterflies and birds.

I use no water, much less water than lawn, no chemicals, and there is no runoff into the stormwater system because my plants absorb all the rainwater. I have had two run-ins with city staff. The first was a matter of just miscommunication. They didn’t read a letter that I had sent.

And they sent somebody out to talk to me about so-called weeds in my garden because this city hadn’t put mulch down where they when they had agreed to put mulch down. So that was worked out many years ago. But more recently, I had a problem because somebody complained that my cedar hedge was blocking the view from their driveway, which was true and I cut down the hedge to a 30-inch height from the curb to nine feet in. So that was a little more than necessary.

But I kept getting notices from the city and eventually a city staff person came out to tell me that I had to cut the hedge down from the curb 19 feet in, which was most of the hedge. And so this was a matter of how he chose to interpret it. The bylaw, apparently there are two references in two different bylaws to the distance that the driveway triangle should be cut to. And I ended up having to come down the city hall to talk to staff to get it worked out.

So that’s why we need an appeal process and we also need extreme clarity. In this case about the driveway visibility triangle, where is it measured from? And exactly how the regulation is to be applied because some city staff don’t seem to understand. The regulation is the same way that other staff do.

Thank you very much. Thank you for those comments going online to Ms. Lowe’s. You’re just perfect.

If you want to just check your audio and you have up to five minutes, there you are. Not overly. Do you increase my volume here? Perfect.

All right, I am Jean Lowe’s. I’m a gardener. I like to consider myself a permaculturist. So most people don’t necessarily know what that is.

So I will go with the horticulturalist landscape or sort of designation. I just wanted to underscore some of the points that were already made, they’re great. I like a lot of what is being set up here so that it does open things up a little bit more for people to do, more environmentally sustainable practices and things that work for the creatures, not just us. The comments on the prohibited plants, that also does concern me.

There are some plants that would automatically be considered that or nuisance plants by a lot of people in conventional gardens, but they do have definitely a lot of different uses for medicinal study, wildlife, so forth. So I would just like to make sure that there’s some sort of consideration for people who are properly using these plants, even if they are a situation where they’re perhaps being considered for the banned list because I know of several, that as long as you keep on top of using all of their fruit and keeping their roots in check, you can manage it. There is a way to still manage what would otherwise be considered unmanageable plants, and that could also be helped out by some more education access, which a lot of people don’t wanna do that’s understandable, but if there are some more options for people to look into the bylaws and be educated at the same time is what some of these contentious points might be about, that could be helpful. If we’re going to be going ahead with increased fines for people who do qualify as a nuisance, I would like to see it considered that we would have some specific hiring or job creation around people who are able to manage these areas with more traditional organic natural practices in mind.

I know in the past, there’s been a fragments, for example, not in somebody’s yard, but in public areas, the response is generally to spray, whereas this can be used as a food source. This could be managed in other ways. It is difficult to get a hold of, but it is possible. And if we did have proper experts in place, this might be an option.

And perhaps that money being collected from the increased fines isn’t way to open this up. I’d also like to underscore the comments on refuse, especially that the logs and brush, this can be used in something called Hugo Culture, which helps to work with water usage and can help to conserve it or to direct it in better ways. That’s involving logs and brush. It could be used as compost.

It could be used as wildlife refuge. There’s a ton of things that people would necessarily want to hold on to their refuse, quote unquote. Even with the use of the green bins that have been so kindly provided this year. I think the visibility laws are a good idea.

It’s very helpful. Of course, we want to keep everybody safe, but I wonder if we might be able to make sure that there’s a limit, say, of a foot and a half, two feet, something that’s reasonable for the lowest of low cars to still be able to see over without completely eliminating the possibility of people using their boulevards or maximizing the space that they do have access in whatever way they possibly can. And I guess that would also go to in the refuse category. Sometimes people like to use novel objects as pots or a way to increase their gardening space.

So just some consideration in that direction as well. Case by case basis appeals process. That seems also to me a good sensible approach. I’m open to yielding my time to somebody else who might need extra.

That’s all that I really had. Thank you. Thank you. And just for everyone’s note, it’s five minutes per speaker.

We’re not able to share it. So if you had final comments that you want to use up, you have 40 seconds. If not, I do have other speakers. So just wanted to let you know, perfect.

Thank you and welcome. I’m going to go to the gallery, top microphone, please. Welcome, just your first and last name if you want mine spelling it. And then you have five minutes.

I will commence after that. Thank you. My name is Brendan Samuels. It’s B-R-E-N-D-O-N-S-A-M-U-E-L-S.

And I am the chair of the City of London’s Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee. Our committee submitted a recommendation last year for this bylaw to be reviewed. The city also received a letter of support from community with over 200 signatures on it. And in the time since, the committee’s produced recommendations for public education about this bylaw, which were acknowledged by staff as being received.

Outside of presenting the advisory committee’s official recommendations as its chair, I don’t mean to speak on behalf of the committee. And so today I’m only here to speak to you personally as a resident. I want to begin just by thanking staff for the work on this file. I think it’s a really outstanding report.

And I would recommend that council could pass this bylaw update as written. I think it represents substantial improvements. It addresses many of the community’s concerns about the existing bylaw language being too vague. I recognize the comments earlier today during the meeting.

I have some validity, and I look forward to discussion about those, particularly the appeals process and moving forward with the prohibited plants list. But I think this is a necessary step to reassure residents that naturalizing their yard is an acceptable thing to do without fear of getting into trouble with the law. As somebody who spends a lot of time cleaning up garbage in our city, I also support London maintaining strong property standards through bylaws that focus on health and safety of residents that prevent degradation to the environment and public nuisances. The yard and lot bylaws serves many important functions and limited enforcement resources really should be addressing the real issues like garbage spills and risks to people and adjacent properties.

It makes sense to me to have a list of specific prohibited plants that are prone to causing issues like poison ivy or aggressive invasive species. But there shouldn’t be any legal question of whether someone is allowed to grow naturalized cover on their property, borrowing any health or safety concerns. Just to be clear, this does not mean people cannot continue to have lawns. It also doesn’t mean that cases have neglect and allowing properties to fall into disrepair will be ignored.

The updated bylaw has clearer definitions and prohibitions that make it easier for officers to distinguish such cases from where a yard has been intentionally naturalized. This will open the door to greater mutual understanding between neighbors and more diverse uses of land in our city, especially in residential areas where natural vegetation has been mostly removed. It is in those areas that natural cover can play the greatest roles in mitigating overheating and flooding and restoring biodiversity. I know that members of council receive communications from constituents very often related to this bylaw.

And so I wanna quickly address some priority aspects that might be points of concern. There’s a lot of speculation about the risks that come with naturalized yards that are not really substantiated by evidence. For example, having a naturalized yard on its own does not increase the occurrence of mosquitoes or ticks. There needs to be standing water for mosquitoes to breed and specific types of unkept vegetation in specific ecological contexts for ticks to be present and pose an issue for humans.

If there are issues with either of these, they can still be subject to complaint under the new bylaw. Another concern is rats and rodent pests. Naturalizing generally is not going to attract rodents to the point of causing issues. Where you have a growing population of rats or mice, there’s usually an artificial food source like mismanaged garbage and bird seed.

If you’ve got rodents entering buildings, reducing vegetation outside doesn’t really help. You actually need to identify where the rodents are getting in and seal those points of entry. And of course, people might be concerned about property values. Well, I know that most Londoners want to live in communities with gardens and wildlife, with pollinators and locally grown food, with a healthy urban canopy.

Greener neighborhoods tend to be more resilient to extreme weather under climate change. These aspects increase property value and make London a more desirable city to live in and do business. I believe this updated bylaw will be easier for the city to enforce and it will require less resources when combined with proactive public education. When people want to submit a complaint, usually they begin by visiting the city’s website.

Moving forward, based on the new bylaw language and communications to be displayed online, it should be crystal clear what is and is not against the rules for landscaping. Naturalized yards which follow the city’s rules are no longer liable to receive complaints for no good reason and do not need to qualify for an exemption. The last two points I just want to make, we’re going to be taking a look at the urban forest strategy for London later this year. And the survival of trees into maturity depends on what grows around the tree.

Trees interact with understory plants, with soil. Naturalizing is consistent with the city trying to grow the urban canopy. I would also say that as a city committed to truth and reconciliation, it’s really important that we look at the policies and practices in our city that underlie our culture and influence our relationship with the land. The land is not just the ground under our feet, it’s also all the other living things that occur as part of nature here.

So I just want to thank again staff and you for your time and I look forward to working with the city on improving those education pieces. Thank you. Thank you, five minutes on the dot, excellent. And thank you for your work with the Community Advisory Committee.

It was noted within page seven of the staff report, the information that came forward. So thank you for your work in that space and for making time to join us today. Looking to see if Lori Miller is available on Zoom if you would like to put on your caremen, you’re welcome to, perfect. And if you want to just do a sound check.

Checking. Perfect, it sounds coming through clear and you have up to five minutes. Please proceed. I won’t take five minutes.

I first want to say a very big thank you to the city of London and all involved in just listening to this. I mean, change is difficult and change often requires small steps, but it’s time. Other cities around the world have shown that this works and London, I think we want London to be a desirable place to live. And I know the younger, I’m not of that generation, but the younger people really do understand their place in the ecosystem.

They do understand climate change. They do understand food scarcity. They do understand the need for habitat improvement all around the city. And if families, young families with children, individuals can have an opportunity to have a small piece of native naturalized garden, probably aesthetically beautiful.

If you’ve ever seen a field of wildflowers or you’ve ever been to a forest along the stream and seen what really is a natural rain garden occurring, the draw of insects and pollinators and birds and wildlife, it will all be there in a natural controlled number. That’s the way nature works. We invest a lot of time in battle with nature and it’s a sad thing to go into a new subdivision and see miles and miles of turf. Gardens give people pleasure and I really feel as homeowners, they should have that privilege to engage in some of the new trends that are basically global trends for naturalization and habitat enhancement.

We’re the forest city, we’re the bird-friendly city. We have a great climate change initiative and I think this is all part of that big piece of the image of who is London. Are we progressive or are we not? And having taken the time to read through the yard maintenance by-law, it’s time for change.

It’s time for some definite tweaks on that. And I think we all know the difference between a property that’s not being maintained and disrepair in a property with a naturalized garden that has been painstakingly cared for by the homeowner. I just really hope that they consider the package that has been put together by Brendan Samuels and his organization. There’s some excellent stuff in there and I know there’s gonna be hiccups, just like with the green bin, invasive species, that’s gotta be on the list.

There’s tons of it around the golf course areas that still have to be dealt with but they’re on city property. And I know we need to be careful of sight lines and all of those things in education. I think what you’ll see out of this is a grassroots movement of Londoners taking pride, maybe some friendly competition amongst neighborhoods for gardens and certificates and recognition and all of those things. So I look forward to these changes and I think everyone for their time in considering, considering something a little, it’s hard to move forward.

It’s hard to be progressive and I wanna say thank you. Thank you for those comments and joining us today. That concludes the list of speakers I have joined us by Zoom that have shown up, looking to the gallery to see if there’s any for their speakers up there. If not, I will move to close the public participation.

So it’s kind of a last call for speakers. Hey, seeing nobody available online as a further speaker or in chambers looking for a motion to close the public participation meeting moved by Councilor Pribble, seconded by Councilor Travsau and then just one moment calling the question. Motion passed, five to zero. Okay, looking to committee, usually procedurally.

Next, I would put the revised by-law on the floor and then commence our speakers list, looking to see Councilor Travsau. You’re willing to move it? Yes, I am, thank you. Okay, so I have a mover and Councilor Travsau, a seconder and Councilor McAllister.

Councilor Travsau, I know you had some technical questions. We could certainly go to Mr. Catolic to reply to some of the comments that he’s heard from the public participation meeting since, if you wish, or you can start with your technical questions. Thank you very much through the chair.

I think they’ve mostly been raised through the questions that people asked, developing the list, training enforcement officers, some more refined definitions. So I think I’ll just turn it back to you and ask you to respond to what you heard. Hey, thank you, Mr. Catolic, having heard from the community, looking to see if you want to give an overview of the things that you’ve heard, and then we can continue with our speakers list of committee and visiting counselors.

Yes, thank you, and through the chair, there’s four comments I’d like to make with respect to the public participation comments made. The first one is the prohibited plans list. There’s a number of municipal bylaws that we have in place where the Council has delegated authority to staff to deal with operational matters. So we feel that this is one of them, where the list of prohibited plans is best dealt with, delegated to staff.

We made ad plans to that list. We may remove plans. When we amend the administrative regulations, we do have a standard operating procedure that we, on our website, we post the draft regulations to allow for industry feedback or public feedback. The second comment I’d like to make is with respect to the appeal process.

We didn’t outline it as obviously is clearly in a report, but there is an appeals process within the administrative monetary penalties bylaw. So at first, it can go through a screening, and this isn’t only for parking regulations. This is for all bylaws where there’s amps associated with them. So at first, it can go through a screening process, and then actually it could go to a hearings officer to make a decision.

My third comment is with respect to tree cuttings. We have an operational concern with that, because that is a common violation that we deal with. And I think we need to leave it to the discretion of the officers. Obviously, if there’s tree cuttings within a intentionally naturalized area, that’s one thing.

But if we remove tree cuttings from the definition of refuse, that would mean that many of our bylaws’ violations will not get enforced, because you as counselors will get comments that neighbors have trimmed the tree, left beside their garage, can’t get it out to the environmental depot, and it’ll sit there and sit there and sit there, because it is no longer defined as refuse. So my advice to committee is to leave that within the definition, and we will use officer discretion and focus on intentionally naturalized gardens. My fourth comment is with respect to the visibility triangle. And there are several bylaws that deal with hedges as they are located next to streets and sidewalks, and the principle behind this regulation is strictly focused on health and safety, specifically the health and safety of children.

Walking, riding their tricycles on a sidewalk, you can’t see them when you’re pulling out your driveway. So that is a specific focus of this bylaw, and that’s why we included specific measurements with respect to the visibility triangle, not only for corner lots, but also for driveways. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Troso, a follow-up?

Yes, there were some very specific requests for getting feedback, which I certainly hope will be taken into account, but I do have a specific question. What happens if a complaint about an invasive species is filed and it’s about an invasive species on an enclosed property that’s going over the fence and doing damage to an adjacent property? And I’m not gonna get into any particular cases, but I wanna make sure that people who are filing these types of complaints will get a level of service that looks at this even though the actual invasive plant is an enclosed private property. How would we deal with that type of complaint?

From a bylaws perspective, Mr. Kertolik? Through the chair, from an operational perspective, we will deal with that complaint in consultation with our weed inspectors, several officers, our weed inspectors. We would consult with our planning ecologists.

We’ve actually had examples of that with giant hogweed, which is a very dangerous plant, and we have had to get advice from Omaphra, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, with respect to the rhizomes and roots that not only are underground, but could migrate to neighboring properties and then sprout stems specific to that plant. So we do have experts that we rely on on specific prohibited plants. Councillor? Thank you very much, that’s helpful.

And my last question is, how will the compliance staff be given more training, become more familiar with the prohibitive plants list? And I think this is a comment that’s run through a lot of the different people who spoke to us today. Mr. Kertolik?

Yes, through the chair, as I mentioned, several of our municipal law enforcement officers are currently designated as weed officers. Weed inspectors through the province, and we will continue to continue that training through Omaphra and the University of Guelph. No further questions. Thank you, I have Councillor McAllister next.

Thank you, and through the chair. I do appreciate all the work that’s gone into this from staff perspective. Councillors are currently designated as weed off. Sorry, just one second, we’re gonna pause there.

Mr. Turner has joined us. Mr. Turner, we’re actually already completed the public participation meeting, but you’re welcome to send any written feedback into us that will be considered at council.

So we had that discussion, so you’re just joining in now at the deliberation process. So thank you for coming, just unfortunately the public participation section has closed. Councillor McAllister, I’ll restart your time. So please.

I was there. Sorry, are you still getting feedback or are we okay? Sorry, thank you, and through the chair. Yes, again, just appreciating the work that went into this.

My question, and this came up in the public participation meeting, I don’t know if we need specific language in here, but in terms of indigenous gardens and those plants, is that something staff has taken into account, or is that something we should give explicit direction on? Mr. Catolic. Through the chair, we’ve actually had complaints on indigenous gardens and medicinal gardens.

So we get advice from our planning ecologist in that regard. Councillor. So sorry, just through the chair, just as a point of clarification, so those are prohibited, or are they exempt just for clarification? Mr.

Catolic. Through the chair, we exempted and took no action on those medicinal plants. Councillor, a follow-up? Yes, thank you.

I actually don’t have any follow-up, but I just want to end by saying, thanks for, again, all the hard work that’s gone into this. I appreciate the community feedback everyone who spoke today. It’s definitely something we’re seeing in other cities, and I think it’s a long overdue that London did something with this as well. So I appreciate this coming for us.

Thank you. Thank you. I will have a question when we’re done to staff. Looking to see if there’s any further questions from committee members, or visiting Councillors in chambers or online.

Okay, just a question to staff, as a member of the public did raise it, so garden centers and retailers potentially selling what we would deem to be prohibited plants that are on our list. Is there any enforcement of that? Realizing we went through similar discussions with the fireworks by-law and at least handing out public information of how to handle this. Is there any control of what’s offered in a retail environment?

Through the chair, the focus of this by-law is specifically to property and not to selling. So my advice would be if council wanted to go down that route, we would likely want to explore licensing garden centers and focusing on the types of plants that they’re selling. We do something very similar to pet stores and what they can and can’t sell. Thank you.

So that’s not a today item. That’s a future item if we wish to move forward with it. Looking for further speakers, as it’s been moved and seconded. Follow up, Councillor Traussa, you have used two minutes so far.

Okay, well on the merits, I really want to thank staff for turning this around so quickly. I’m very pleased. We brought this forward and I just am thrilled that you’ve come back with a very good looking by-law that has a lot of support. There are a few tweaks that may need to be used.

So I guess my question is, is this the time to try to tweak amendments or should we just, as it was suggested by the chair of the advisory committee, just move on to pass the by-law now and work on them later? I’m just not sure. ‘Cause I’m prepared to go forward with this. Okay, I’ll note I don’t have any amendments that were circulated in advance.

Mr. Catolic. Through the chair, in the past, we’ve always passed by-laws and we wanted to get this to committee quickly because in a couple of months growing season starts and that’s where the 4,000 complaints will come in over the years they did last year. So my advice to committee is to allow us to go through the summer, spring, summer, fall season.

And if there’s any tweaks to by-laws, we’re always updating by-laws as you’ll see throughout the year. So bring the suggestions in. Thank you, Mr. Tresso.

Yes, thank you. And I’m prepared to accept that advice. And I’m sure we’ll have other things to say as this unfolds. I think the public education piece of this is gonna be very important.

I recall that the advisory committee has done some substantial work. I believe in conjunction with your staff on producing the leaflet. I don’t think we need to put this in the motion right now, but I very much would like to see that released both in print and on the webpage and through social media, et cetera, before the planting season starts. And again, I really wanna thank the advisory committee for getting this started and for staff being so responsive to them.

So this is just a wonderful situation and I’m prepared to support this. And I hope that this is something that everyone else on council approves. Thank you. Thank you.

I’ll note that it was noted within the report too that they will work to create educational outreach material, including a webpage to educate the public boat plants better prohibited in London. Okay, I have no further speakers online or in chambers calling the question. I’m closing the boat, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, we are gonna have an item for direction coming up, but we also have a closed session for confidential item information to be considered for solicitor client privilege.

So looking for a motion to go in camera to receive the solicitor silent privilege information before we come back out and start that conversation. So I have a mover and counselor, Freira and a counselor, Mick Alister as a seconder calling this question on that. I’m closing the boat, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you.

So our stream will be momentarily paused. We are staying put for confidential sessions. So members in the gallery will need to leave for a bit. I do not have a time of how long it’s anticipated taking closed session.

And we will reconvene in public session once we’re done with that. Hey, we’re back in open session now. I’m looking to Councilor Freira to report out. Thank you, Chair.

And from our closed session meeting progress was made. Thank you. I’ll note that I have all members of committee in chambers with me and to visiting council. There’s one in line one in chambers.

So that takes care of item 6.1, our agenda. So that moves us back into open session for items for direction. So looking to committee for questions of staff that you might have as there’s no emotion currently on the floor as well. Councilor Ramen, not sure if you had a question.

Sir, Mick Alister. Thank you and through the chair. I would like to put a referral on the floor. Okay, and what would your referral be if you want to read it out?

The clerk will capture it and then we can start discussion and look for a seconder. Okay, thank you. The referral would be to have staff take this back to then bring back a report at the end of Q2 guards to a draft by-law on this issue. Okay, would staff be able to meet a Q2 deadline?

I just don’t want to pinch and hold us and that the information could be back in time? Through the chair, yes, we would. Thank you, and I see a seconder and Councillor Ferreira. Just getting that information into eScribe so everyone can actually see the motion before I start the speaker’s list.

Okay, so the information is still going in. Councillor, would you consider adding into it the acceptance of all the correspondence we had today as well that showed it on the agenda? Yes. And so we’re just refreshing.

You can refresh and see it on the screen. Didn’t know if you want a clarification of what kind of by-law, sign, street, stand-alone or anything or just throw it the net-wide, Councillor? I would like all options presented, please. Through the chair, Councillor, the mover, would you clarify whether you’re requesting just staff report back at a future meeting with a by-law to come later or do you want them to report back with a by-law at the next report back?

Thank you, and I would like, through the chair, staff to report back in terms of draft by-laws under the options presented. Okay, Mr. Catolic, is that a wording adequate to bring back draft by-laws within the end of Q2? Through the chair, that’s clear to civic administration.

As a mover, you’re okay, you’re approving of what’s up? Yes, I would like an opportunity to speak to it, Mike. Okay, the seconder is good with what’s up. My speaker’s list can certainly commence with the mover and I’ll draw it out from there.

Thank you, and through the chair, in terms of what’s presented before us with the referral, I do believe that this by-law does need more work. I have heard in terms of what’s being presented before us. I think, unfortunately, there’s been a fair bit of misinformation in terms of what we’re actually looking to do even with regards to this referral. It’s the regulation of the display of graphic images, and so for me, and I would like to convey this to the public that we are looking at options in terms of how to deal with this issue.

This is a regulation. This is perhaps restriction or limitation. I understand there are a lot of concerns in terms of charter challenges, and that’s why I do believe that staff need more time to look into this issue and draft something that can be presented to the public for our PPM so that they understand exactly what we’re trying to do and what our intention is. We’re not trying to weigh into territory that is not going to be able to stand up to a charter challenge.

We’re trying to do something to protect the public, and we want to be mindful of all the concerns we’ve heard to date. So I do believe requesting more time from staff to come back with a revised by-laws or best path forward at this time. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Trosto, next.

First of all, I’d like to separate the motion into the first part and the receiving of all the communication we received. Does this referral necessarily vacate the date of the public participation meeting that we’ve already set, if I may ask? I would say a couple of things that one, absolutely, the clerk is separating those A and B for you for the vote. And secondly, there’s been no public participation meeting circulated to the public on this matter.

Vacating is a long word. Not going ahead with the public participation meeting as it was anticipated in the initial staff report. Is my question, would we not hold that at this point? A referral would be sending everything back to staff, and there would not be a public participation meeting held procedurally at this time.

Okay, thank you for clarifying that through the chair, well, actually to the chair, to the rest of the, anyway. I’m not going to support the referral because while I don’t disagree with many of the things that you’ve said, I do think that a public participation meeting would help us considerably understand what we’re doing and why we’re doing it and the severity of the problem of people facing trauma when they see these signs on the streets. And I think a public participation meeting would be relevant to this ongoing process. So that’s why I cannot support this referral as it’s been stated.

Thank you, next I have Councillor Pervall. Thank you, I will not be supporting the referral as I don’t support any changes to the bylaw. And it’s really interesting that we are proposing this or we are talking about this. And just recently, if you look at the current worst happening, Hamas, Israel, and Russia, Ukraine, if you look at the protesters in London, they are displaying images to increase the awareness, they’re displaying images of dead children.

And I don’t understand that we are addressing this issue specifically to specific advocacy group and we are not, why shouldn’t we address it then as a whole. And therefore, and I would never address it as a whole because I do feel it’s freedom of speech and I’m not supporting any of it. And if we are moving ahead with this, I consider this as a discrimination of one specific advocacy group, which I don’t think it’s right. I will not support the referral and I don’t, and the reason why I’m not supporting the referral because I’m not supporting any changes to the current bylaw.

Thank you, looking for further speakers on committee, Councillor Ferra. Thank you, Thieve. I do intend to bring a public participation meeting. I’d like to see one once we have this referral come back ‘cause I think it is important, whether that’s in the language now or not.

It’s something that I wanna see. I would also say that we’re on a new frontier here. It’s a new frontier as in what can we do to reduce harm on the street? So as Councillor McAllister has said, we, there’s more options that we need to look into ‘cause we need to do this right.

So considering that, this is why this referral is here ‘cause we need to, a little bit more time because there are more questions that we need to get answered at this time because we are on this new frontier. We don’t have that much precedent, direct precedent that necessarily will lead us or guide us in this situation. So I just would like to be diligent on how we move forward. And this is why you see me seconding this motion.

With respect to the public participation meeting, if that has to be on this language now, I’d be amenable to that. Or if not, it would be something that I will definitely be asking for when this comes back. Thank you, Mr. Catula comments on a public participation meeting or anything else that you’ve heard.

Thank you and through the chair, just a point of clarification, the report from this committee will go to council on March the 5th. And we have already prepared a notice for a public participation meeting because of timing. So the next, the March CAHPS committee meeting is on the 18th. So depending on what council decides, we will post a second notice saying, either we’re going ahead with the public participation meeting or we’re canceling it and have a future one after the debate on the motion that’s on the table at the end of Q2.

It’s just because of the timing of all the— So a question for clarification that committee votes no one to refer it today. You’d still put out a hold the date for a PPM? We would through the chair because I don’t know what the direction of council will be on this. And council meetings on March the 5th.

The next CAHPS committee is at the Q1, is March the 18th. Thank you for that clarification. Further speakers on this item? Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you, question to staff. Council could not support the referral and then choose to just file the report and be done with this, correct? We don’t have to have a public participation meeting if council doesn’t want it. That’d be correct, Mr.

Catolek, if you want to talk procedurally. Yes, that is correct because we take direction from council and we don’t know what the decision of council on May 5th will be. Okay, thank you. Yeah, I just want to say I don’t vote at this committee but when it comes to council, I will not be supporting a referral for the same reasons as councilor Pribble.

I do not support any amendment to the by-law to regulate images. I don’t want to see this municipal council be at risk of violating the charter rights of Londoners, specifically the fundamental freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression. And I don’t think that the majority of Londoners want us to wade into this territory. And so for that reason, I will not be supporting any movement forward on an amendment to the by-law.

Thank you and for clarity to help procedurally out council. This is being divided today into receive the by-law portion and then the receive the communication. So we’ll be set up for a full discussion at council based on where members want to go. I believe I saw Councillor McAllister’s hand and then I saw Councillor Trousa’s hand and then Councillor Ferris’s hand.

Thank you and through the chair. I also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the hard work that the previous council did in terms of the regulation of the distribution of graphic images through mail. I can understand the opinions of some of my colleagues in terms of I’m not thinking it’s an issue but I would counter that by saying I have heard from Londoners in terms of this being an issue that does disturb them and frankly traumatizes some of them as well. In that case council took the direction to restrict.

They put these images within an envelope and put a disclaimer on the cover. I think that’s an option perhaps we can look at. I know other cities as we have seen have taken action on this file. I do think that we should debate it.

I think it’s an important issue that does matter to Londoners. Not all of us will be on the same page, absolutely. There will be a division for sure on this but I do think it’s a conversation worth having because there are a lot of Londoners who frankly suffer in silence on this topic and I do think it causes a lot of people pain. On one side, sure, a lot of people are more than happy to speak up in terms of their opinions on it but I also think we have to acknowledge those who suffer in silence and those who have the courage to come before us and talk about how this impacts them.

And I don’t think that we should discredit how they feel as well and that’s why I do think that this is a topic that we absolutely should be discussing at council. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Traussell. Thank you, through the chair, I fully agree with everything that the Councillor just said.

In fact, I agree with it so much that I think that’s why I feel it’s important not to vacate the public participation meeting. Now, when I talked about this before, I was told not to use the word “decade” but now we’ve been told that the meeting has been set. So I think we would be canceling in vacating the public participation meeting and I think that sends a long signal. And I see no reason why we can’t go ahead with the public participation meeting at the same time that we continue to look at all the different options.

So I was, I’m wondering whether the maker and who seconder would consider it a friendly amendment to allow the public participation meeting to go forward while at the same time we get this additional information? Just looking procedurally, I don’t think it matters. If it’s friendly or not, it would still be amendment to the main motion. So, Councillor Traussell, would you be moving a motion to amend the motion that’s currently on the floor?

Yes, to continue. I wanna use the right word because it’s already been scheduled so we would be vacating it. I’d like to add to the motion that we not vacate the public participation meeting that has been noticed and we proceed otherwise according to the motion. Would there be a seconder for that as we get the wording into the eScribe?

Councillor Ferra, I don’t understand lip reading at all. Is there a question procedurally or? It’s a question to the date of the PPM. I would like to see now language of a new date for a PPM in this motion and I would consider it friendly.

I don’t think the PPM as scheduled as it is would work with the timeframe that we have here. So I would— - Okay, so I’m gonna stop that it doesn’t matter if it’s friendly or not. And the date in question I believe is the March 18th one, which would be the next meeting of caps that Councillor Traussell is meeting that staff already has on hold should council decide to proceed that time set aside. You mean the 18th, Councillor?

Let me say not the 18th necessarily but the 18th or as shortly thereafter as the matter could be heard. I would note that any by-law that would come would require a public participation meeting regardless at a future meeting so whether it’s the March 18th one of council decides to go that way or a future one if committee decides to go that way in the future, Mr. Catolic? Through the chair, yes, that’s correct.

The reason we’re in the debate we’re in now is civic administration was following council direction. Come back at the end of Q1 with a PPM and that’s what we did. Thank you. I would note as chair in a second term counselor, I’ll be more mindful of wording like that going forward and will not be supporting it going forward as it gets us in this predicament that we’re not actually losing or taking away anything.

It’s just procedurally, I would say we put the part before the horse and now we’re in this circle. So I was still looking to see as we do have a mover of a future PPM date, Councillor, you’re still looking for a second or? Okay, yeah, the clerk was just pointing out that if we do move forward with this PPM, we would still legally be required to have another PPM when staff brings back a report and those future by-laws. Just for clarity, you would end up with two instead of one.

So the counselor does have his motion on the floor for a future public participation meeting. It would require a seconder. Hey, I’m not looking for a seconder. This, are you seconding a public participation meeting?

I would second language for, as I heard staff say, we are expecting a public participation meeting but for language just to show some instruction to the city to add that in there. And I would just craft it not with a date, but when we get back that when we have the referral come back at the end of Q2 2024. So that’s not what we’re talking about. Councillor Trouson wants a public participation meeting in a couple of weeks before the staff report comes back.

So I wouldn’t support it before the staff report comes back. I’d like to see it after. Okay, so that would not be in alignment with the motion that’s on the floor. So I see no seconder from the motion on the floor, which would put us back to the main motion that is moved and seconded.

So resuming my speaker’s list on that one. Councillor Faire was next on my speaker’s list for the main motion. And then I saw Councillor Stevenson. The main motion as Councillor McAllister and I have, okay.

So I would like to bring a friendly amendment to bring back a public participation meeting at when we get this report back on Q2. I would hope that I’d like to look to the mover to see if you’d be amenable to that. Through the chair, I don’t believe we’d require one because the drafting of a new by-law would then require a PPM was my understanding. That’s why I wasn’t explicitly called out.

That’d be correct. The by-laws always require a public participation meeting before we put them into a forest, Mr. Patolic. Through the chair, it is our preference based on our experience in the courts to drop a by-law before the committee get council direction for a PPM.

We can likely do that at the very next committee meeting after Q2 so we can drop a by-law as per council direction by the end of Q2 with a recommendation that a future public participation meeting be held. That’s a standard process and has been accepted by the courts as being very open to public information and drafting by-laws. So you went and made an amendment to hold a public participation meeting ‘cause we’d already be holding one as per legal process. Okay, perfect.

Councillor Ferri, you satisfied with that? Yeah, sorry for really getting to that clarification ‘cause I just wanna do ensure that we do get one. So if we are gonna get a public participation meeting back just by the fact that it is a new by-law, then so be it. I do believe that Londoners do see this as a very big issue in the city and I do believe that a public participation meeting will show us that.

So if that’s how it’s gonna work, then I would just leave the motion as is with the expectation that we would see a public participation meeting. When that referral comes back. Thank you, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I just wanted to make a quick note.

There was a mention that somehow it might discredit those who find some suffering regarding these images by not proceeding to discuss this issue in the amendment and I just wanted to say that I don’t believe that to be true. I don’t think, absolutely there’s a lot of suffering in our city and with individuals for many, many different reasons and I don’t think it makes it incumbent upon municipal council to potentially violate charter rights in an attempt to make things better. So this isn’t about discrediting people’s actual experience, it’s about what is our responsibility and we have the charter of rights and freedoms for a reason and it’s of high importance, I believe, to Londoners. Hey, I wanna make sure that we don’t get into too much back and forth dialogue already knowing where some of us stand with what they’re gonna be voting for.

I do see Councillor Tro so, so I will recognize you and as of right now you’ll be the final speaker on my list unless someone indicates otherwise. Thank you very much through the chair. I do wanna take strong issue with what was just said because people are suffering because of this and they need relief as soon as possible, especially, especially people should be able to stand on the sidewalks, people should be able to stand on the sidewalks and go down the street without being subjected to this barrage and I think it’s a matter of urgency and that’s exactly why I went at public participation meeting at the earliest possible opportunity. Now, given the way this council seems to be dividing itself, I’m going to go ahead and support the motion because I think your motion will get us to the point that I wanna get to as quickly as possible.

I’m disappointed that my motion didn’t get a second but it didn’t get a second and I’m not going to stand in the way of moving forward with the public participation meeting even though it’s not as quickly as I would like it to be. So I am gonna support the motion that’s reluctantly that’s on the floor right now but I did want to explain that shift because I think some of the things that have been said here by other Councillors are number one just wrong and number two, not giving our constituents the ability to seek to kinda relief that they deserve. So thank you. Hey, thank you.

I recognize it’s your public opinion. I’ll just caution against saying that fellow Councillors are wrong. As we do have varying opinions, as we sit here, I will still call the question separately though just to make sure that it’s delineated before we get to council. I’m going to the point so that I’m gonna need a break.

As chair, I’m getting crispy and I recognize where I’m at. But I do have Councilor Pribble next, Councilor Stevenson and it was pointed out that I was supposed to and I failed to. So I will do it now. Read out a content warning that this part of the agenda has details of pregnancy loss which may cause discomfort.

If you know or someone requires support, please contact employee assistant program at 1-8-4-4-8-8-0-9-2-4-2 for London City staff and others may reach out 24/7 for phone services for confidential mental health and support services at 5-1-9-4-3-3-2-0-2-3. That was written on our public agenda and I was treated out and failed to do so. So I apologize at this time and certainly back in doing that now. And my speaker’s list continues with Councilor Pribble and then Councilor Stevenson.

Just a couple of comments. Charter of Rights and Freedoms is in place for a very good reason. And again, it is not, I truly believe it’s something on the municipal level that we should be making such amendments and some changes. And I just wanna repeat one more thing what I did before, I’m not supporting referral to respond to supporting the referral because I’m not supporting any changes to the bylaw.

If there are no changes to the bylaw, then there is no reason for public participation meeting. And again, we do have other advocacy groups, other protesters in the city of London that show images which I already mentioned of killed children and we are addressing it towards one single group. That in my eyes is a discrimination and I don’t think we should be changing anything and we certainly shouldn’t be changing it to all the other groups either because again, the freedoms are very valid and a lot of people come to Canada because of the freedoms that we have here and they leave the countries where these things do happen. Thank you.

Thank you. I’ll also note if comments have already been said, please don’t reiterate just if new ones come up through the course of conversation. Please feel free to raise those. Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you. I just feel that it would be remiss not to mention when we’re talking about traumatic images and what people are subjected to. Ward 4 resident was just featured in a Globe and Mail article that came out on February 16th where she talks about how her children often see people using illegal drugs that while playing in the park, riding their bikes or just going to the store for ice cream. I’m gonna ask you to keep the comments to the, this is supposed to be a by-law discussion.

That’s before us. So I’m gonna recognize the point of order, Councillor McAllister, was it along those lines? Please proceed. And it’s to the point that I’m gonna move, I don’t know, at some point, I would like to get to the vote.

I do recognize that I’m gonna need to break really soon. So I’m cautioning that caution where we’re at. Point of order recognizing it from the Councillor McAllister, please state it. Point of order in terms of the topic that is currently at hand.

I understand some of the other Councillors in terms of broader issues, but we are focused on one element of this discussion today. So I would just like Councillors to keep their conversation to the topic at hand. Thank you, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, Point Taken.

I was just responding to the trauma and suffering that does exist for a lot of Londoners in an area that is more under municipal purview. Thank you, I see no, there’s actually no Councillors online. Any longer looking to see in chambers from committee from visiting Councillors. Hey, I’m using the same mover and seconder for both, just as requested.

It’s still gonna be called in two parts to help when we get to council. So the first one is that the staff report dated February 20th, 2024, referred back to civic administration and civic administration be directed to bring a draft by-law with respect to the regulation of the display of graphic images to a future, meaning of the community and potential services committee for consideration by the end of Q to 2024. That is opening now for voting. And just for clarification, the draft by-law would be really plural as directed by the original mover and seconder.

Okay, I was told that S can be added without canceling the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to one. Okay, and the vote to open is that the motion be approved, stay mover and seconder. That communications does appeared on the agenda with respect to this matter be received and enlist the corresponds that was sent into committee.

Calling the question. Councillor Trussell. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to one. Okay, that concludes items for direction.

We have one deferred matters additional business. This was an added from me. It was a request based on feedback from a member of committee who wished to meet the meeting time of our April 8th meeting, which is when the solar eclipse occurs from our normally scheduled time at one o’clock to 10 a.m., assistants have checked our work calendars and believe this currently is available for everyone. So same day, just a few hours early to allow those who wish to partake in this, the celestial.

And this is a occurrence that it be taken. So I’m moving it and then I’ll start a speakers, or wait, no, I can’t move it ‘cause I want to give up chair ‘cause it makes things hard. So Councillor Ferra, will you move this? I’m happy to second it.

Looking to see if we need to really discuss it or if we’re just all happy in general ‘cause this is the last item before you get to go. Seeing no speakers on this item, calling the question. Councillor Pribble, closing the vote. The motion carries five to zero.

The adjournment. I would need a mover. Councillor Ferra, a seconder and Councillor Troso. A hand vote of all in favor.

That’s carried, thank you. Have a good afternoon. We are adjourned.