Council Meeting

Note: Official minutes for this meeting have not yet been published. This page currently shows the meeting transcript only. Once official minutes are available, this page will be updated with full meeting details including agenda items, motions, and votes.

---

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 (3 hours, 41 minutes)

Okay, thank you, please be seated. Well, even though it’s December, this is the first meeting of municipal council for the next year, and I’m going to start with the land acknowledgement. We acknowledge that we are gathered today on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabak Haudenosaunee, Lene Peiwak, and Adewan drawn peoples. We honor and respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home.

We acknowledge all of the treaties that are specific to this area, the two-row Wampum Belt Treaty of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, Silver Covenant Chain, Beaver Hunting Grounds Treaty of the Haudenosaunee Nant Van Treaty of 1701, the McKee Treaty of 1790, and the London Township Treaty of 1796, excuse me, the Huron Track Treaty of 1827 with the Anishinaabak and the Dish with One Spoon Covenant Wampum of the Anishinaabak and Haudenosaunee. Three indigenous nations that are neighbors to the London are the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation, Oneida Nation of the Thames, and Muncie Delaware Nation who all continue to live as sovereign nations, each with individual and unique languages, cultures, and customs. The City of London is also committed to making every effort to provide alternate format and communication supports for meetings upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact council agenda at London.ca or 519-661-249 extension 2425, and now it’s my pleasure to introduce our performer today.

Rebecca Bertie has been performing and London her whole life as a choirster with Annabelle and a Royal Conservatory Train pianist and classical flutist. See, I didn’t bring my glasses. I actually got old enough that I need glasses now, so I like it is determined to get you singing along with her carefully calibrated blend of emo rock, punk, indie folk music. Make sure to catch her at the Holly Jolly Market on December 14th and 21st as part of downtown for the holidays festivities.

Please rise and join me in welcoming like who will now perform the national anthem for us. Our home and native land, Blue Page in Love, us come in with glowing hearts, we see thee rise, the how true north strong and free, from far and wide, O Canada, we stand on guard for thee, God keep our lands and free, O Canada, we stand on guard for thee, O Canada, we stand on guard. Okay, next we’ll deal with disclosures of pecuniary interest, I look for colleagues who have disclosures. Councillor Frank.

Thank you, yes, I will be declaring a conflict of interest on item. You can find the number 63 Byron Ave on the planning agenda, which is number 6 or 3.2 due to being living within the notice period area. Okay, perfect. Anyone else?

Okay, great. With that, it turns us to recognitions. I have Councillor Pribble first. Thank you and good afternoon, everyone.

It is true, my great pleasure and honor to recognize Alfredo Kachai, who was appointed to the Order of Canada this week and Alfredo is an immigrant refugee who came to London to Canada and has been bringing joy through Sunfest over 30 years ago and many, many other events. And all his events, they truly bring our community together, everyone, all the Londoners and even outside and he brings over 100,000 people to the Sunfest and over 40 bands each year. So thank you very much, Alfredo, and thank you for everything you do for our community. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you. Any others? Seeing none, we have a review of confidential matters to be considered in public. There are none, Councillor and close session, we have three items, a look for motion to go into close session.

Moved by Councillor Ferra, seconded by Councillor Cuddy, any discussion ongoing in close session? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Councillor votes yes. Opposed in the vote.

Motion carries 12-0. Okay, great. We’ll be moving to Committee Room 5. For the public, we should have a short in-camera session, we should be back pretty soon.

All right, we’re on to Item 5, which is confirmation and signing of the minutes of previous meetings. We have two sets of meetings to approve today. We have the 18th meeting from November 25th and the 19th meeting from November 26th. I’ll look for a mover of those minutes.

Councillor Vameh-Mereberg and seconded by Councillor Hillier, any discussion on the minutes? Okay. Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Councillor votes yes.

Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 12-0. All right. Next, we have communications and petitions.

Each of these has a different point in the agenda that they can be referred to. We have a motion prepared for that. I’ll look if there’s someone willing to move all of that, Councillor Hillier, seconded by Councillor Ferra. Any discussion on moving these items to different parts of the agenda?

Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Motion carries 12-0. Okay. Next, we have motions to which notice is given.

There’s one that’s from Councillor Frank who will need to ask for leave and because it’s on the notice of motions, it’s simple majority for leave. So I’ll go to Councillor Frank for moving leave. Thank you. I’d like to move that leave.

Do you need any other? No, I just need a seconder for moving that. Councillor Ferra is going to second. Okay.

So this is just for leave to allow Councillor Frank to introduce the motion as she’s put it in her communication. Okay. And there’s no discussion on that. So we’re just going to open that for voting.

Plows in the vote. Motion carries 11-1. Okay, Councillor Frank, you have leave. So now you can introduce the motion.

I’ll say because you put it in the communication, it has to be exactly as you put in the communication. So if there’s any changes to it, it’ll have to be amended. But you can put it on the floor as it was written. Thank you, yes.

And I circulated this in a couple attachments and they also correlate to the written submission from the board chair, Dean Trintowski of the Upper Thames. Oh, one second. I just need to get a seconder for your motion. Councillor Ferra is willing to second.

Okay. Now you can continue on. Thank you. And so this is in regards to the proposed amalgamation of conservation authorities across Ontario.

There is a sample resolution included and I did submit to the clerks wording that took out the municipal name and replaced it with London. So I would want to put that one on the floor if this were to move forward. But in regards to some feedback and some input for the amalgamation that the province is suggesting, there are a couple areas of concern that various conservation authorities have highlighted. Some being continuing to have local authority and local input on local matters.

Another one being funding. So right now municipalities contribute around 35% of most CA’s budgets and the province provides around 2%. So you can see there’s a lot of significant local investment within these organizations and wanting to continue to have local oversight and accountability of these finances. And there’s a couple other key highlights that folks could review in the added documents, but including, for example, when these conservation authorities become amalgamated, everyone’s assets and reserve funds will all go into one big pot of money.

So some conservation authorities might have more buildings or more reserve funds than others. And really trying to figure out what this all looks like in a forest amalgamation. So I was seeking some support on this resolution that other municipalities have supported, including member municipalities of upper Thames. And the attach one was based on a resolution from the county of Stormont Dundas and Glengary.

But I did submit to the clerks the change where it says municipal name to list London. And so just seeking the support of other members of council to provide this feedback back to the province, because the ERO deadline for this is on December 22nd, which is why I brought it as an emergent motion before the holidays, because we want to provide this input to the province that we don’t necessarily see that the extreme value of this forest amalgamation, especially in absence of any kind of clear rules and regulations that they’re proposing. And in addition to if it does go forward, we would continue to seek more opportunity for collaboration with the province as to how this rolls out and looks like. So that’s my summary of the motion, but there’s a couple of different pages that folks can reference if they want more information.

And looking forward to seeing if there’s support for this. Okay, I’ll start as speakers list on this. Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair.

So I will not be supporting this. I do not think that telling the province that they should not go ahead with the amalgamation is actually consistent with dealing with challenges that we as municipalities face from our own conservation authority on which we have representation. So I’m not convinced that even under the current structure, we are being heard by RCA’s. I’m aware of a number of planning application files, including one of my own ward, where Upper Thames was trying to regulate a man-made ditch.

As one example, we’ve had legal appeals over Section 28, so we’ve had all kinds of situations that have come forward from our own conservation authority. So I don’t feel that the system we have is actually respecting our local independent, municipally governed watersheds. I think that we have a real challenge with RCA’s. I think RCA’s are also the way they’re structured currently in Ontario, a bit of an outlier compared to what other jurisdictions in Canada and around the world do in terms of how the watersheds are broken up.

I think that this is absolutely within the government of Ontario’s purview to do. I also will say that things like the financial sharing of assets, while I agree with Councillor Frank that those are discussions that need to be had, those are developed through ORAGS after legislation is enacted and has received royal assent. They’re not written into the legislation themselves. We see ORAG changes from the province all the time that are consistent with existing regulations, including in planning area with building code and things like that.

ORAGS do change and that moving forward, I absolutely think, frankly, that we have had numerous issues and concerns. I mean, I don’t know how many times I’ve referenced the fact that we’ve been waiting eight years for updated floodplain mapping from upper Thames, among other issues. I’m going to be honest. I don’t think the government structure is working.

I’m not satisfied with how it is today and if the province wants to move ahead, now I would certainly say that discussion needs to be had about uploading the cost of conservation authorities. If it’s going to be a provincially governed body, it should be provincially funded. So I agree with Councillor Frank in the fact that the funding that municipalities are provided are being provided to the CAs needs to be addressed by the province. But again, that’s something that happens through the discussion of what regulations are appropriate once the regulation or once the consultation period has been closed.

So I am not going to support this. I think the province is actually on the right track in moving forward in the way that they’re proposing. Other speakers to this? Go ahead.

Councillor Troso. As I mentioned through the chair, I serve on the Kettle Creek Conservation Authority Board. Kettle Creek is one of the three conservation authorities within the municipal boundaries in London, lower Thames being the other one. Our Conservation Authority joins with the upper Thames in posing this measure.

It’s going to take away a lot of the local control and the local expertise that resides within the individual watersheds. These jurisdictions are not based on artificial municipalities. They’re actually based on the natural contours of the watersheds, which make a lot of difference. These watersheds are all different.

There’s a certain level of expertise that comes with understanding what’s going on within each watershed. And as a member of the Kettle Creek Conservation Authority, along with Councillor Privel, I just have to say how happy I am with the governance of the Conservation Authority, with the special expertise that the Kettle Creek staff brings. Now I know from my own experience over the years that this goes without saying with respect to the upper Thames, which most of the city of London is within the upper Thames watershed. I think this is a dreadful piece of legislation and it should be opposed because for me what it is is yet another, yet another attempt on the part of this provincial government to strip local decision makers who have the on the ground experience and expertise to deal with these issues.

And believe me, the Kettle Creek Conservation Authority really spent a lot of time and research and effort in coming to this position. So I’m not just speaking for, my comments were my own, but the result here is I feel as if I’m also speaking for the Conservation Authority. So please do support this motion. The only thing I would request is that the words lower Thames Conservation Authority and Kettle Creek Conservation Authority be added to the motion to reflect that we actually have three conservation authorities in London and the clerk can put that in an appropriate place.

I don’t think that’s, I don’t think that’s substantive. But this is not the time to be stripping powers away from the Conservation Authority who often ask, who often act in a very, very, well, I’ll leave it at that. I won’t start to talk about issues that we’ve had here in London because I think that goes beyond the resolution. Thank you very much.

I just need one sec. Okay. A question for Councillor Trostoff. So you want to add the other two conservation authorities everywhere that per Thames is referenced because some of these are referenced with specific things like initially formed in 1947.

Like there’s some, there’s some details attached to it. I’m not sure it’s as simple as just adding in the other pieces. No, it doesn’t have to be each time. Just so somewhere in the body of the resolution, it’s acknowledged that these two conservation authorities are within the municipal limits of the City of London because it’s just the first time it’s mentioned.

Okay. So I think the only spot that we would add it is, whereas the Corporation of the City of London established the Upper Thames Conservation Authority initially formed in 1947. And I think we could list the other CAs there and then just leave the rest of it. I just don’t know when they were formed.

Anyways, it’s not as simple as you’re asking for Councillor. So I could ask for consensus, but I don’t know what I’m asking for consensus on. So I think if you want to do that, you just got to make an amendment and add it in where you want it. Okay.

So I’ll move that after it mentions the Upper Thames established in 1947, it could also say to my colon, the City of London also contains the Kettle Creek Conservation Authority and the Lower Thames Conservation Authority. Yeah. Okay. So is there a seconder for that?

Councillor Roman seconds. Okay. This is just the amendment, adding those pieces. It’s going to say it’s pretty much exactly as Councillors have described it.

It’s going to have another piece there after that first and the whereas clause to include the other two conservation authorities. Is there any discussion on that? Just on the amendment? Okay.

Seeing none. We’ll open that for voting. Wasn’t vote. Motion carries nine to three.

Okay. So as amended, same mover and seconder, a look for speakers. Go ahead. Councillor Roman.

Thank you. So my read on the legislation is basically that they’re talking about making conservation authorities bigger, but they would still have the same authority, but just a larger mandate by which to do that with within the context of a larger conservation authority. So for us as a community, what’s the benefit to the amalgamation? I guess is my question, not expecting anybody to answer it because I understand this is proposed by the province.

But the way that I see it is that maybe they imagine that there are efficiencies to be found by putting conservation authorities together. My concern would be, though, as we discussed already, is there’s a lot of work on the plates of these conservation authorities, especially upper Thames. And so amalgamation doesn’t, in a way, help us to address the workload or the issues. It actually just puts in a layer of complexity to now deal with, hey, now you’re all one big group, figure it out.

So I understand why the province is looking for efficiencies, and I generally appreciate it when different levels of government look for those. But in this case, I have some concerns that this may be too big to manage. And at this point, I would support the motion on the floor. Thank you.

Other speakers? Go ahead, Councillor Preble. Thank you. And I will not be supporting what’s in front of us.

And in addition to what Deputy Mayor Lewis said, I just want to add, it’s not just the delay of the updated mapping. Right now there are quite a few residents in my ward that have been very negatively affected by it. Even though it has been proposed yet, it was delayed from yesterday to next month. But one of the things, for example, is what I found out that different conservation areas throughout Ontario are using different models.

And potentially, this could be a way to more standardize it. But at this moment, I’m not ready to support this based on the fact stated by Deputy Mayor Lewis and myself in the addition. Thank you. Councillor Layman.

Thank you, Chair. I’m not going to repeat a lot of what Deputy Mayor Lewis said, but I just want to confirm that from my perspective in chair planning, there’s been a lot of frustration experienced with upper tems from the micro one offset that he mentioned. But also, I want to emphasize the floodplain mapping. For years, we’ve been promised that we would see this project completed.

It’s delayed year after year after year. What I heard was, essentially, it looks like it comes down to lack of resources. So for sure, I think where the province is moving is to address efficiencies that Councillor ramen referred to. But I also think it’s the sharing of resources.

We have a larger organization like upper tems, but there’s also these smaller conservation authorities that I don’t think have, the resources, in the case of upper tems, obviously not either. We would have had that flood mapping sooner. Conservation authorities play a very important role in protecting our watershed. I just don’t believe that this particular organization structure is serving us well.

I’ve made those frustrations known to Minister Flack, and quite frankly, I was pleased to see action taken at the provincial level to make some changes as we desperately need to get housing for folks faster, while still respecting the building codes, watershed, et cetera, that we do the proper due diligence. I don’t think this is being done in this case, so I will not be supporting this motion. I have myself next to those speakers, so I’ll turn it over to Deputy Mayor and I will recognize Mayor Morgan. Thanks.

So, I appreciate the perspectives that Councillor Frank has brought. I also recognize the other perspectives that Councillor Trostall, Councillor ramen, Deputy Mayor Lewis, Councillor Layman have shared. I’ll be honest with you, I’m relatively neutral on the proposal as I see it from the province. I do think I do have a number of questions and concerns that I would like to address.

The first and foremost being the municipal cost sharing apportionment. I think if the province wants to proceed in this direction of creating a provincial conservation authority with regional entities, there shouldn’t be any municipal contribution. I think that the whole cost should be uploaded to the province. That being said, the way that local decision-making plays into this is relatively unclear.

So, at this time, I’m not willing to take a position as outlined in the letter. I’ll tell you my intent and what I have asked based on the bill passing is I put out a request to the mayors of the areas where there are conservation authorities to get together for a discussion about this. I know that doesn’t meet the provincial timeline for feedback, but my intent would be to give feedback to the minister directly based on conversations with the mayors and have a discussion with them. Certainly happy to let council know how that discussion goes, but my desire is to have a conversation with those other municipalities and the leadership there before taking a position.

So, not willing to support Councillor Frank’s motion today. I think there are a number of things that need to be addressed as the legislation comes out and certainly committed to having conversations about that moving forward. And, again, although there’s a deadline for consultation on the bill, I still think there’s the ability to influence what’s going to happen beyond that and through regulations and different pieces that are of interest to not just municipality, but the many others who are tied in to the way that the conservation authority is currently structured. So, I’m not going to support the motion today, but I don’t think this is the end of the conversation if that happens.

I think there’s lots of conversations that can continue to happen on this. Thank you. Point of order, Councillor Trussell? Yes.

And I’m making this as a point of order because I’ve already spoken. The motion says include lower Creek Conservation Authority. It should say lower Thames Conservation Authority. It should be fixed now if you click refresh on current item, that was just typed in and then it was corrected.

Thank you. Never mind. Sorry. I answered that point of order for you, but I had the information.

You still have the chair, actually. And Councillor Trussell, the deputy manager, Mike. We do have the advantage of the clerks being beside you to help respond to that one. So thank you for that.

And I don’t have anyone else on the speaker’s list. I’ll return the chair to you. Okay. I’ll look for other speakers.

I don’t have speakers. Councillor Frayer. Go ahead. Thank you, Mayor.

Most of the comments that were said, I agree with on the support side. I just wanted to point out, like, I understand about efficiencies and I understand the look on that. But in the end, when you’re speaking about a conservation authority, you’re talking about the future of the land that we live on and the future of the watershed and how that serves the community. We have tapped into the watershed and it does help the environment as it is that we live on.

And if we are looking at everything from a top-down approach where we’re trying to amalgamate and find efficiencies there, I think that is not the proper way to look at it. In each area of the watershed and in each area of the sub watershed, you have different localized pockets of the ecosystem that all have different needs and different realities on each specific pocket that it is. If you were to have a more local looking government, a more local looking regulation on that, you’d be able to more serve the realities of what we live in and where we live as it is. So when you’re talking about a top-down approach, when you’re talking about an efficiency approach, when you’re talking about amalgamating everything, a huge land area, you’re going to be missing a lot of those different local pockets of the ecology as it is.

So with the motion that Councillor Frayer is bringing, that is looking at it from the bottom up. So the only point that I wanted to add to the discussion is you can’t be looking at it on a bureaucratic mindset. You can’t be looking at it on how it serves ourselves. You need to look at it how it serves the land that we live on.

You need to look at it how it serves the future of the land that we live on. This motion is exactly pointing towards that direction. So this is why I think we should be looking at it at a different approach. I think we need to look at it just in a way that not necessarily how it serves us, but how it serves us in the future and how it serves the future of the people that live here.

So that’s the only point that I wanted to add to that. Any other speakers? You see the motion as written, it’s got the correction that Councillor Rossell pointed out that’s all in there. And so we’re going to open that for voting.

Those in the vote. Motion fails. 4 to 8. Okay.

We’re on to reports. So we’re going to start with the Planning and Environment Committee. I’ll turn it over to Councillor Layman. Thank you, Mayor.

And please support the first report of the Planning and Environment Committee on the floor. And I would ask that item 6, 9, and 12 be pulled. Those are the ones that I’m aware of. Okay.

6, 9, and 12. Anybody want anything else dealt with separately? Okay. Go ahead, Chair.

Okay. Then I’m happy to move. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11. Okay.

The Chair’s put those in the floor. Any discussion on those? Go ahead. Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you. I just wanted to quickly say thank you to the Deputy Mayor and to the Planning Committee for support of the 455 Highbury Avenue North project. It’s greatly appreciated and I’m looking forward to seeing what comes next. Any other speakers to this group of items?

Seeing none. Then we’ll open that for voting. Close on the vote. Motion carries.

12 to 0. Okay. Go ahead, Chair. Thank you.

Put number 9 on the floor, this is regarding 1164-1170 Richmond Street, Councillor Stevenson requested this to be pulled. Okay. That’s on the floor. I look for any discussion.

Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. Yes, I did. With my vote at planning, I voted no to this refusal.

And I did just have a question through you to staff. Is there a scenario under which we would have received a recommendation of this project but at the 15 stories or is it just simply a yes or no to the project? I’m just wondering, as I’m learning more about this, knowing that it is approved up to 15 and this was an extension to 21, is there a scenario under which staff would have recommended an approval up to an amount less than what the proponent put forward? Go ahead.

Thank you. Through you, Your Worship. Yes, that’s correct. However, there would be an amendment through the zoning process if all the policy regulation, policy framework were in conformity.

Go ahead, Councillor. So, just so I understand, so if the policy framework was in alignment, then staff would have said yes to 15. Go ahead. Your Worship, yes, that’s correct.

15 stories within the policy framework and so staff would have supported that and that was also in the path to approval that staff had identified in the planning report. Go ahead, Councillor. Thank you. Yeah, this one’s, you know, I spoke on it at planning but we did, this is on Richmond Street.

It’s a main transit route regardless of what we call it. At one point, it was approved to 21 or 25 stories and I know, you know, we had delegations at the PPM who spoke thankfully for that and then there was an amendment that came subsequent where we dropped it down. So in that stretch, it’s been changing and, you know, in a housing crisis and in a time when we were looking for development charges and increased property tax revenue on a main artery, I just would have liked to have seen us willing to make a different decision on this one. And I, if it were to go to an appeal, I just wondered to how it would be impacted based on whether we had approved it to 15 stories.

So maybe a question through you to staff, if, if Council were to vote no to this right now, would we be able to move the 15 stories here at Council? I know, I know it’s, it’s not likely to happen. I’m just saying theoretically, is that possible? So I might be able to answer that.

We don’t have bylaw prepared for 15 stories, but I’ll go to our staff. So doing something at this Council, I don’t think would be possible, but I’ll just double check with staff. Just thank you through you, Worship, we would need a new application or referral back, then we would give more notice and review that based on the 15 stories. So there’s no path for approval of a different scenario today?

I get that. It’s a long shot, but I’m going to put forward a referral to the next planning and just see if I have a seconder. Can you give, so referrals need a reason? So can you just articulate a bit of a reason for it?

Or planning to consider approval of the project to 15 stories? Okay. Is there a seconder for that? Councillor Pribble?

Okay. So you can speak on the referral if you want, Councillor. Yeah. Thank you.

I think I pretty much said it already. I’m not going to talk too long, but it’s an opportunity for us to look at ways of being able to approve this project to at least the 15 stories that is allowed through the, through our current planning policy. And so to say no to this after the investment of time and money that both sides have put into this, I’d like to give us another opportunity to find a path forward to approve it to the height that is allowed. Any other speakers to the referral?

Go ahead, Councillor Trostav. A question through the mayor to staff. Where are we on the time deadline if there’s another referral? If there’s a referral, go ahead.

Thank you through your worship. We’ll be beyond the one, one, 20 days. And however, I just also like to add, if we’re looking at, it’s like a new application, because we want to look at the zoning, all the setbacks and things like that, that it’s not just about the height, how the building fits within the site. But I would suggest, if it is referred back, that either we can have a new application and close that file, open up a new file, but look at it in the context of a new site.

Having said that we could deal with the fees in terms of the cost of the notice, for public notice, but that’s the best path forward to deal with this site. Thank you. Thank you very much. I thought that would be the answer.

I think it’s very perilous for us to do anything except deny this right now. And let’s face it, I’ll put this in the form of a question to staff, if we deny this now, that is without prejudice for the developer to come back with a new application at 15 stories. Is that correct? I mean, he can do that if he wants.

Cap’s can do that. Go ahead. Thank you. Through your ship.

Yes, that’s correct. Okay. So I think the path forward here is we should go ahead and deny this understanding that will probably see a similar application that’s within the 15 story limit in the new year. And I do want to say, I think that that would require a public participation meeting.

I think people should be given the opportunity, not necessarily to oppose the 15 stories, because that’s what the framework is. But what are they going to be holding provisions? Are there going to be things that would come up in site plan review about the very, very many, many, many issues that were raised? A lot of the issues that were raised at the 21 story level are also going to be raised at the 15 story level.

Not so much for purposes of the 90 application, but for purposes of building up a robust list of things that would be addressed either through holding provisions or site plan review. And I just want to ask the staff, is what I’m saying here consistent with our practice and policy? Does this make sense? Go ahead.

Thank you. Through your ship. Yes, that’s correct. But in terms of the zoning, the setbacks, the step-backs, how the development would fit within the context of the neighborhood.

Thank you very much. I think with that I’ll just say thank you, thank you to the staff. I know the staff spent a lot of time working with residents of the neighborhood. And I think they came up with the right result here based on the 15 story limit.

And really, the fact that it was going to be 21 stories, but we made some very major changes to a very, very complex procedure that went to the province for approval down to 15, that doesn’t mean that we should be stopped somehow from applying to 21. And I think we got this right. And I know that in the new year we’ll be looking at a new application. And I look forward to, as the word counselor, I look forward to working with the residents and the staff and coming up with a coherent set of mitigation measures for the very legitimate issues that have been raised.

We all understand that the limit is 15 stories. So I don’t think you’re going to get a lot of opposition at that level, but I do think that there are some details here that really should not be worked out at council. So I’ll be asking you to both know on this referral. Thank you.

Any other speakers to the referral? Okay. Go ahead. Deputy Mayor Lewis and then Councillor Preble.

Thank you, Your Worship. So I agree with Councillor Trossa on this. I think that this is not the appropriate time for a referral. There are times when a referral would be in order to work with staff to come back with a new version or a new application with a transfer of fees, et cetera.

But contingent on those in the times when I have supported that has actually been a letter in writing from the applicant stating that they would be willing to do that and not seek an OLT appeal because we’re going to surpass the 120-day limit. The applicant would actually be in a position now if we don’t make a decision today if we refer it back to appeal for a non-decision. So if we had that in writing that they weren’t, that they were willing to go back and work with staff to develop a 15-story plan, I’d be amenable to that. But the last communication we had from the applicant’s planning consultant from Zilinke Primo was that they wanted the 21-story.

And that was on Friday. They didn’t come back and say we’re willing to wait and work with you on a 15. They said no, we still want the 21. And that’s why I can’t support a referral because I could support a 15.

If it went through the policy framework, had the — as Council trust our reference, had some holding provisions perhaps to address certain things, you know, for me I think certainly a lesson learned from the LUX development. Do we need a lay-by in the area, something like that? That could be things that are subject to site plan review. Those conditions need to be in there.

And my problem with the referral today to come back with a 15 is that — or to work with staff to hopefully come back with a 15 is we have no assurance that we’re not going to be in an appeal for a non-decision in that period. So for that reason, I can’t support the referral. I will say, and I know the applicants in the gallery, I am very happy to entertain an application for 15. I think that there is a path to approval as was identified in the staff report.

And if something like that were to come forward, I’d be very interested in the discussion as well as hearing from the residents in terms of what their concerns are because I do recognize that there were a couple of concerns that were not just about the height. And some of those might be addressed and some might not, but I’d be willing to have that discussion on a 15-story application. It’s just that the referral process without written confirmation that there wasn’t going to be an appeal for non-decision is something I can’t support. Councillor Pribble.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Your worship to the staff. I just wanted to actually, if the Supreme Mayor was accurate, he would answer my question by just my — his comments in terms of the OLT timeline and non-decision, can you please just respond if his statement was accurate?

Go ahead. Thank you through your worship. Yes, that’s correct. Thank you.

No more questions? Any other speakers to the referral? Okay. We’re voting on the referral.

We’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote. Motion fails. 1, 2, 11.

Okay. So back to the main motion. I’ll look for any speakers to the main motion. Okay.

So as it came through committee, we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries. 10 to 2.

Okay. Go ahead, Chair. Thank you. And the final item is item number 12.

This is regarding the Official Plan Review, Final Urban Growth Boundary Review. This was request to be pulled by Councillor Frig. Okay. This is on the floor.

I look for any speakers to this. Go ahead. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Sorry, Chair.

This is perhaps more of a point of order just to check with you through the committee chair. Think staff circulated a small technical amendment that had to be included. There was a note sent around or maybe, maybe I’m incorrect, but I’m just wondering if I think there was a small item forwarded last week that just indicated there was a technical piece that needed to be changed. If I’m wrong, that’s great.

I don’t. The clerk started aware of anything. I don’t know. Staff, do you have anything?

Through your worship. Are you referring to the revised map for the keyhole land? I know that needed to be included just for council’s information, but that doesn’t need to be included in the motion. Just checking.

Through your worship, the maps for the bylaw would have been amended as well or changed. Yeah. Sounds like we’re good. I’ll look for speakers to what came through.

Ready? Go ahead, Councillor Frig. Thank you. I’ll just so I can vote against it for reasons which I’ve stated perhaps 15 times in this chamber.

So I will not make you go through that again. And originally I was going to bring a referral as discussed at planning, but I also don’t think that that will pass and I don’t want to waste anyone’s time. So I’m just going to be voting against this. Any other speakers?

Go ahead, Councillor Troz. Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much through the mayor.

I’m also going to be voting against this, but I don’t want to speak to the merits. I want to make a request that we go into closed session at the. So I will move that we go into closed session. I did send the city solicitor a list of the questions.

And so I would move that we go into closed session to receive advice regarding the duty to consult, including background information about the duty to consult, how this duty differs from the notice provisions of the planning act, whether the duty attaches to this matter currently before council, and what the implications of council are receiving. That’s not the wording that the like we have to go into camera for specific wording under the act. It usually doesn’t include a whole, a gamble of things that you may or may not ask in camera. Sure enough.

So the wording that we would use would be council convenes in closed session for the purpose of considering the following, a matter that is subject to solicitor client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose with respect to the city London’s consultation with neighboring indigenous nations regarding the urban growth boundary. So moved. Okay. Seconder for that.

Go ahead. Okay. Councilor Ferrera seconds it. I don’t know if anybody needs to debate going into closed session.

I’m not sure. I’m going to say, no, I know what has their hand up. So we’re just going to vote. Oh, then I’ve got to look to see if we can debate it.

Give me a minute. Thank you. That will save time. So I’m going to open the motion to go into closed session voting.

Closing the vote. Motion fails. Five to seven. So that fails.

So you moved a motion to go into closed session. That’s just a motion. So I’ll see if there’s other speakers. Okay.

I see no other speakers. So we’re going to open the motion as it came through. Go ahead. Councilor Ferra.

Thanks, chair. I’ll be really quick. The reason I wanted to go into camera and the reason that I will be, I guess, supporting what Councilor Frank originally brought is because I do want to just open up this chambers and hear what people have to say. I want to hear what the indigenous communities have to say.

I have been getting some communications that we need to just be kind of consulting a little bit more and getting a little bit more of input from them. So it’s just a general, I want to hear what is being said and what the concerns are. So that’s the reason why I wanted to go into camera and that’s the reason why I’ll be supporting what Councilor Frank originally brought. So we already voted on the going into closed session thing.

So this is, we’re debating the main motion as it came through committee now. So I think. I was just trying not to waste the time. That’s what I was just saying.

The reason why. I’m going to say when I took back my, okay, so, okay, thank you. Any other speakers to the main motion, okay, Councilor Trossau, you can speak to the main motion because all you did was rise and move a motion. So I’ll let you speak to it.

Well, I’m going to be through the, through the mayor. I’m going to be voting against this motion. We received a letter asking us to do further consultation. We’re just going to say no to that.

And I think that flies in the face of a lot of the policies that this Council has said that it’s taking with respect to reconciliation and the duty to consult. Now I thought it was a very reasonable thing for me to do to ask to go into closed session to get more information about the duty to consult because quite frankly, I think we’re heading into some uncharted and potentially perilous territory here. And I know people on this Council don’t want to hear what my opinion is about legal matters, but I can assure you I’ve studied this and the duty to consult is very different than the notice and opportunity to be heard provisions of the Planning Act. I think we’re making a big mistake.

I’m sorry that we didn’t get the benefit of hearing from Council, but I cannot in good conscience vote for this, knowing that this flies in the face, everything that we’ve been saying about the Reconciliation Program and the general vibes that we put out about how important it is for us to consult. Because really when push comes to shove, it’s not that important, apparently. We don’t even want to know what the answer is to a pressing question. And I think that that is very unfortunate.

And I’ll leave it at that. Thank you. So now I’m going to add myself to the speaker’s list, so I’ll turn it over to Deputy Mayor Lewis. Go ahead, Mayor Morgan.

Okay, so I’m going to have, first off, I’m going to separate the vote to take out I and I hide a vote separately. Those are the pieces that Deputy Mayor Lewis added in committee, because I’m very supportive of the expansion of the urban growth boundary. I’m going to be consistent with my voted committee on the other piece. I want to say, though, given the comments that were just made, is I set this as a committee.

So I’ll say it again. I had a conversation with the chief who was in Ottawa for national meetings about his concerns in the letter. The chief and I, as you’d seen for the correspondence, had had a back-and-forth dialogue about this. And I will reiterate, his concern was not necessarily with the urban growth boundary, but looking for information about protecting the lands within the expansion area, particularly those that about the western edge of the city, of which that information was provided and of the 400-some-odd acres of land, only how about 112 are developable.

But more importantly, the chief and I have been having discussions about partnerships on housing, on economic development. There’s new provincial legislation that allows just communities to access different provisions, which the chief is very interested in, and I’m interested in exploring with them. There was some, I don’t want to say confusion, but some not clear understanding about the ability to access bringing in lands for indigenous use for housing or development outside of the urban growth boundary process, which is why there was a request to consult at that time. I have spoken to our staff, and Mr.

Mathers was very clear at the meeting, that nothing we passed today, precludes Chippewa’s of the Thames or other local indigenous communities from engaging with us about bringing other lands into the urban growth boundary for indigenous purposes of use. In fact, Mr. Mathers said, “As we have to apply and create a private application process, you will be creating a specific process for indigenous communities to access so that they have a clear and dedicated pathway into having those discussions, nation to nation, community to community.” And so, I have communicated that with the chief, and he’s very interested in pursuing those discussions, which we will continue to pursue. So I’m happy with the consultation that staff have done.

I’m satisfied with the clarifications that I have been able to provide with the chief, and I look very forward to continuing our collaborative discussions about ways that we can partner as municipalities and as different entities and governments in this region for the collective good of all of the people of the region, including both housing and economic development partnerships. So I’m going to support what came to committee as a staff recommendation, and I’m happy to proceed. Thank you, Mayor Morgan. I will return the chair to you.

I don’t have anyone else on the speaker’s list at this time. Okay. So if there’s — is there any other speakers? So we’re going to vote on “I” and “I” first, and then we’re going to vote on all the rest of the clauses.

So under “A”, there’s “I” and “I”, we’re going to open that first for voting. “Close in the vote. Motion carries seven to five.” And on the balance of the clauses, we’ll open that for voting. I’ll just be second.

All right. We’ll open that for voting now. “Close in the vote. Motion carries nine to three.” Okay.

Thank you. Mayor, that concludes the first reported planning and environment committee. Okay. We’re now on the SPPC.

I’ll turn it over to Deputy Mayor Lewis to present that report. Thank you, Chair. I’ve had a request to pull item eight for a separate vote. I’ve had no requests for other items to be pulled from the SPPC.

So see if the colleagues want to, Councillor Frank, five — oh, the request to explore opportunities for Committee of Adjustment Meet. So we’ll pull five and eight. So I will move one through four, six, and seven with apologies to Councillor Frank because she did tell me she was going to make a small change to it. I left that in my inbox instead of all my iPad.

Okay. Great. Anybody want — so that’s one through four, six, and seven. Does anybody want any of those dealt with separately?

Okay. You’re willing to move that motion. Okay. That motion is on the floor.

One through four, six, and seven. Any discussion on those items? Okay. Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting.

“Close in the vote. Motion carries 12 to zero.” Go ahead. And I will now put item five on the floor. This is the Committee of Adjustment Meetings.

It’s been pulled for Councillor Frank. Okay. That’s on the floor. I’ll look for speakers.

Councillor Frank, go ahead. It’s an amendment that I circulated via email to folks. I’ll get you to read it out because I don’t think the public — it wasn’t on the agenda so the public doesn’t know what it says. Sure.

And essentially it’s the same motion, but I changed part one and split it into two. So I’ll just read maybe that part and then the rest is the same, that the following actions be taken with respect to exploring opportunities for Committee of Adjustment Meetings. One, the Civic Administration be directed to start video recording Committee of Adjustment Meetings moving forward and posting them publicly afterwards on YouTube to increase transparency and accessibility for the public and then I split and then that went into two. The Civic Administration be directed to report back to a future meeting of Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee on the Feasibility of Livestreaming the Video Recording Committee of Adjustment Meetings and then the rest is the same as was on SPPC’s agenda.

Okay. So that’s the amendment. As Councillor Frank has proposed it, Deputy Mayor Loose is willing to second it. So the amendment has moved and seconded, happy to let you provide your rationale now.

Thank you. And I just split these up and made them separate because apparently it is slightly easier to record the video than it is to do live streaming and that requires different rooms and different technology. And so I split them so that staff can, starting if this passes today, start recording moving forward those videos and putting them on YouTube and then report back to a set of future date in regards to the Feasibility of Livestreaming and what that would entail. So that’s why they’re separated.

Okay, any other speakers to just the amendment? Okay, we’re going to open that for voting. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 12-0.

Okay, so as amended, you’re willing to move, going to second? Okay, so the as amended motion is now on the floor, moved and seconded any discussion on that. Yeah, go ahead. Very briefly, I’ll just say having served on this committee prior to my election of this chamber, I think that this has some value.

I recognize and appreciate the change because live streaming is a different piece of technology. But as the meetings are already being held on Zoom, for participants to join that way, I think recording the Zoom and then making that post available is a relatively simple step and just does provide a little bit more understanding. Even for us as counselors, we can refer, if a resident emails us a vote a committee of adjustment decision that was made, we can refer them to the video if they want to see the debate on it. So I think that that’s a helpful tool, not just for transparency, but for us as well to be able to refer residents to take a look at when should they have questions about how a decision was reached.

Any other speakers? The as amended motion. Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote.

Motion carries 12-0. Okay. Back to you, Chair. And I will now put item 8, 5.1 from your committee agenda.

The request to declare a state of emergency, this was request by Councillor Stevenson to have this pulled. Okay, that’s now separate and on the floor by the Chair. Look for any speakers. Go ahead Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you. I pulled this so I could be consistent with committee and vote. No. Again, I made lengthy commitments there.

I’m not going to repeat them here, although I believe if we are going to be asking the province to declare a state of emergency, I’m hoping that there’ll be more opportunities for council to get involved in this crisis that’s currently happening on our streets and in our city and that, you know, we won’t just continue with the status quo while we’re asking the province to make that kind of a declaration. Okay. Any other speakers? I’ll open this for voting.

Those in the vote. Motion carries. 10 to 2. Go ahead.

And that Chair concludes the first report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee. Okay. Next, we’re on to the first report of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee. So we’ll turn it over to the Chair to present.

Thank you and through you. I’d like to present the first report of Infrastructure and Corporate Services. I’d like to put items 1 through 15 with the exception of 12 on the floor. Right.

Would anybody like anything else dealt with separately? So right now, only 12 is separate. Okay. So I’m going to put that on the floor.

Any discussion on those items? Everything with the exception of 12. Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Those in the vote.

Motion carries. 12 to 0. Go ahead, Chair. Thank you.

I’ll look to put item 12 on the floor. Okay. 12 is on the floor. I’ll look for any speakers to 12.

Go ahead. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair. So through you, I just want to share that I’m not going to be supporting the staff recommendation at this time.

I have heard from a number of residents. I’ve heard from home builders, I’ve heard from people who want to get into housing, from renting that adding significant costs at a point of purchase to a home sale at this point in time is something that they’re very concerned with. I know the recommendation is for staff to go back and study this further, but it’s very clear that its direction is to the point of sale. And for me, you know, I personally, I think that we need to be looking at this with a different lens.

I do think that we need to be looking at a way to start disconnecting weeping tiles so that we don’t have some of the challenges that weeping tile presents in terms of storm water entering sanitary sewers for and creating capacity issues. However, to me, I think, and I just haven’t heard enough from staff and I don’t understand enough. So I can’t support this because I think a better path forward is to look at this through our infrastructure renewal. When we are doing water mains and sewer replacements on roads and rebuilding roads as they reach the end of life cycle, I think that that disconnection program should be part of the renewal of a street or streets and then we’re taking 20 or 50 or 100 homes off the weeping tiles all in one project and we get the economies of scale of doing a whole lot at once.

We get the benefit of taking off a whole lot at once. I don’t think one offs at a point of purchase from a home sale is the way to actually achieve the results that we think we might achieve. We already have programs in place around some pump and private drain connection or replacements when those fail. Those are decent programs.

I think we need to look at this from a different lens though. I think we need to look at it from infrastructure renewal. I appreciate where staff’s coming from. In terms of the sanitary sewer capacity, I really do.

I’m just not convinced that this is the way and before we ask staff to do further research and work into this, I wasn’t expecting this report on the committee agenda. It’s a fairly complicated report and it still doesn’t have all of the information that would satisfy me to move forward with doing more work in this and so that’s why I can’t support it at this time. I do think we need to find a path forward. I’m just not convinced that the recommendation laid out is the best path forward.

Okay. I have Councillor Frank and then Councillor Ramen. Chair first, sorry, you may clarify what’s on the floor. Yes, committee chair.

Thank you. Sorry. So this was a bit of a confusing discussion at ICSC. So what’s on the floor is to refer this item back to the committee in Quarter 1, 2026 with the summary of all the alternative strategies.

So it’s not accepting the current recommendation. It’s basically at this point to bring everything back with the alternative strategies that were discussed in the report that were not provided in the executive summary to be able to have more folks some discussion. That’s what the floor is clarifying that. Councillor Frank.

Thank you. It was actually exactly what I was going to do. So I’ll just say I’ll be supporting it coming back with the summary of the alternative strategies. I didn’t support it at committee, but I have been hearing from residents that they want to see alternatives.

And one of the ones I’ve discussed with some residents is the idea of doing a whole street at once. Which out of some staff, weeping tiles are somewhat separate to doing those local improvement changes. Like you’d still have to do the additional work no matter what, but whatever, it would be one time that you’d have to do construction for the whole street, so maybe there’s some cost benefit. I’ll just say a list of alternative summaries and strategies and they’re costing, because another one that someone suggested, a resident suggested was why doesn’t say you just build giant water tanks and collect all this water during the extreme things, and I think it’d be good to understand what the price points are for those as well, because we’re talking about whether we’re putting the cost on the tax base or whether we’re putting on the individual homeowner.

So, I didn’t support a committee, but I will support it here. Okay. Any other speakers to this? I’m just going to make the point of personal privilege, point of personal privilege.

Go ahead. I just want to thank the chair, because I did watch your video on YouTube, and I found the conversation itself confusing, so thank you for clarifying that so I can cast my vote accordingly. Yes, I think what the community did was do a bunch of work, add a bunch of amendments, but then refer the whole thing. So if you watched the work, you probably thought that they were doing those things, but they actually ended up putting a package together, then referring it, so I do appreciate the clarification.

I always want everybody to be able to vote accurately. Then we avoid reconsideration votes later, which is always nice to do. So everybody’s clear on what we’re voting for. It’s the committee’s recommendation.

It is a referral back to administration to get more information and Q1 of 2026 on all of these things. Okay. We’ll open that for voting. Motion carries 12 to zero.

Thank you. Great job. We’re on to the next committee, which is the community and protective services committee, and I believe, Councillor Pribble, you’re going to present this as the vice chair. Go ahead.

Thank you, Your Worship. I would like to present the first report of the committee and protective service committee, and currently I did have a request for 0.4589 pulled, so if there are no additional requests, I would like to put on the floor 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 10 for this. So you want 4, 5, 8, and 9 dealt with separately? That is correct.

Okay. Has anybody want anything else dealt with separately? Okay. So vice chair, you’re willing to move 1 through 3, 6, 7, and 10.

That is correct. Okay. That’s on the floor. Moved by the vice chair.

Any discussion on those matters? Okay. Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Those in the vote, motion carries 12-0.

Thank you, Your Worship, I would like to put on the floor, 0.4, which was requested by Councillor Stevenson. Okay. Number 4 is on the floor. I look for a discussion on that.

Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. I still have ongoing concerns about this project. I did, and thanks to staff for getting back to me on some of the answers to the questions that I had, and maybe it’s something that can still be looked at as this project moves forward.

But, you know, we understood that the highly supportive housing units were, or I understood, I’ll say, that they were going to be occupancy agreements and not tenancy agreements so that we weren’t going to have these issues of not being able to address the issues that we’re having at 122 baseline and other areas. The answer that I got back says that, because if you look at the agreements, they talk about tenancy and rent, that the organization is at choice about what they use. They can have rental agreements or occupancy agreements. This is going to be a building of 82, highly supportive units.

It’s going to be the biggest one that we’ve seen. I have some real concerns about it. I don’t even want to get into them all now. I’m going to be voting no against this the same way I’ve been voting no about this so far.

I am hopeful that this is a more positive project than residents in nearby buildings have experienced thus far. So, although I remain hopeful, I’m going to be voting no. I would like to move an amendment that I just circulated or I just worked on with the staff. And this really comes out of we just had the housing collaborative initiative report where it said that one of the things that we should have, we were to learn from that was to ask to see the amendments when they come through.

And so, again, this, we delegate the authority to make and execute amendments. And so, the amendment that I’d like to move is D, the civic administration be directed to report back to the community and protective services committee on amendments executed under delegated authority to the property management agreement. So, it’s just a simple amendment that takes into, puts into practice what was recommended by staff from the housing collaborative initiative that when there are amendments done that we just get a report back with a summary of what was what happened. So, I’m hoping there’s a seconder amongst council for that.

Okay. So, you read out the language. That’s great. Is there a seconder for that?

I don’t see a seconder, councilor. Okay. Thank you. And that’s fine.

It’s just that, I don’t know, I mean, the issues that we’re seeing happen are happening in amendments that happen after council approved something. So, I was hoping to see a different going forward, but I’ll be talking to my colleagues and helping them understand why I feel so passionately about this. And hopefully we can see the amendments that are done after we approve something going forward. Other speakers to this one?

Okay. We’re going to open it for voting. Those in the vote, motion carries 11 to 1. Go ahead, councilor Cribble.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Your worship, I would like to put on the floor 5 and which was requested to be pulled by councilor Stevenson. Okay.

Number 5 is on the floor, pulled by councilor Stevenson. I look for speakers. Go ahead, councilor Stevenson. Thank you.

I’m just looking to pull this. I have an amendment that I will read out. It was distributed to council, but not publicly. And it’s an amendment to the end of C, which puts on to the end of that clause, and tenant safety concerns with a report back to a future meeting of the community and protective services committee by Q2 2026 with the expedited tenant transition plan as recommended by staff.

And then in D that the report back be quarterly in 2026 and annually thereafter rather than just annually, and that a part D I be added that says the civic administration be directed to bring forward a summary report outlining any subsequent amendments, financial implications or scope changes to the community and protective services committee. And that’s directly the wording that came from that recommendation that I was just speaking about, about how to, okay, it would be in council’s best interest to make that request. I believe I have a seconder in Deputy Mayor Loose. Okay.

Deputy Mayor Loose, you’re going to second? Okay. So that, so we got, we have all that in the system. We’re going to get that up for you.

I’ll start a speaker’s list on just the amendments. Go ahead. Thanks. I’ll just quickly outline.

It’s really just three things. It adds tenant safety concerns to the long-term financial sustainability that staff recommended. It asks for the reports to be quarterly in 2026 and annually thereafter instead of annually right away. And then it just says to get back a summary of any amendments that are made.

So I am really looking for council support on this. It’s our opportunity to increase the oversight on this and just let the public know that we’re just keeping a little bit closer eye on this so that they have the information and we have the information to learn from this and make sure that things go smoothly going forward. Okay. I’ll look for speakers on the amendment, further speakers, I should say.

Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Loose. Thank you, Chair. So I seconded this because I think it’s important to have the discussion, although I am not necessarily committed to supporting all of these. And I have a couple of questions through you for our staff.

And it starts with part C, the expedited tenant transition plan. I recognize that the addition of tenant safety concerns might also include a need from LMCH for capital dollars. Some safety concerns may need to be addressed through capital changes to the physical plant. But at the core of my concern is being on LMCH, knowing full well, we have no special priority status under the Residential Tenancies Act or under the Landlord Tenant Board when end notices are served on matters of eviction or that sort of thing for behavior that creates an unsafe environment.

I’m wondering if staff can comment on what they perceive as an expedited tenant transition plan when so many things related to tenant placement once they’re in a unit are related to Landlord Tenant Board matters. Mr. Mathers, go ahead. Through your worship.

So just going back to the original resolution language. So this transition plan, it’s not our transition plan, it’s a tenant transition plan that LMCH is developing and we’re going to work very closely with them and try to develop it and try to provide them as many opportunities to be able to transition people as possible. So as far as the timing, we’ll of course do whatever we can to help them meet any kind of timing that’s provided by Committee and Council. And however, we’re not actually in control of that process.

So we’re not at this point, even really necessarily aware of exactly what the content will be, whether those are pieces that might even have items that are identifying individuals and things like that. So we’ll of course work with LMCH, but at this point like we will move forward with ever Council directs us to do, but this isn’t the city’s plan, it’s LMCH’s plan. Okay, and that’s helpful because I wanted to make sure that staff, if staff had anything they envisioned beyond what LMCH is doing, I needed to know what that was. I have an idea of what the LMCH transition plan is.

I think it’s a good plan. I still question the use of the word expedited because I think that there are limited things we can do to expedite. And when we say expedited, and certainly I know Mr. Mathers and Ms.

McNeely would appreciate this in the planning division, when we say expedited, the customer expectation might be a little different than the delivery expectation. So I can support the change to see because it adds in the tenant safety concerns, which there are some physical plant changes that may still need to be done. There are some, there is progress being made at baseline. There have been some tenant transitions.

There have been some physical changes to the building more may need to be done. So I’m willing to support that. I do want to ask through you your worship with the plan not even coming back until Q2 of 2026 clause D adds a quarterly reporting for the first year. So I’m seeking from staff your response to, and I know you’ll always say we’ll do whatever council asks, but how many reports does this add to your cycle in 2026?

And realistically, if we’re not getting the expedited transition plan until Q2, are we going to have updates in Q3 and Q4? Or realistically, is it likely given the processes that are involved going to be Q4 before we have any meaningful movement anyway? Mr. Mathers.

Through you, worship. So the recommendation was to have a Q4 report. Of course, as mentioned, like we’re happy to bring forward whatever council would like. There’s very, it’s unlikely we’ll have much to report on in the first quarter.

But if you’re looking at having a Q2 report that’s looking at the transition plan and us bringing that forward, we can provide that information and that update as part of that report as well. So it’s just whether you want to have that Q3 report as well would probably be the other opportunity to get some information to be able to provide you. But as far as a Q1 report, it’d be difficult to have that kind of content for you by that time period. Go ahead.

And so to follow up on that through you, a Q3 report, I’m going to assume based on earlier answers, but I’m looking for staff confirmation, would also be dependent on LMCH’s staffing capacity, provide you data and updates on where they are in executing the plan? Through you, worship. Yes, that’s correct. Okay.

So I will say while I support clause C, I’m not as supportive of clause D in the quarterly reports, mainly because I think Q3 will be a report for the sake of a report. I think we’ll have made limited, if any, progress on the expedited plan at that point in time. We’ll have it. We’ll have an initial report back in Q2.

The original recommendation to come back to us with a Q4 report would satisfy it to me an update for 2026. So that piece I’m not as supportive of. And then again, on clause I, a summary report, any subsequent amendments, financial implications or scope changes, that would only be in the event that there were scope changes, subsequent amendments given that LMCH would be initiating any future changes to the agreement. Is that correct?

Go ahead, Mr. Withers. Through you, worship. So if there’s any kind of like a substantial scope change, that’s not something I would be comfortable to approve through a delegation.

That would be something we need to bring back. And if it was like, if you’re looking for the actual agreement, then we’re looking at opportunities to be able to share that publicly. And we’re working with our teams internally to be able to do that, to be able to provide that information in a different way as well. So if it’s anything, it’s a scope related piece, that’s not something that we would be doing through a delegated authority as an amending agreement.

We would have to come back to Committee and Council. Go ahead. Okay. So that satisfies my question about I.

So I can support the change to see and I can support I, it’s just D that I’m not interested in the Q3 report. So I don’t need three reports quarterly in 2026, 30 seconds. And I am just happy to support the Q2 2026 initial report and then a Q4 update. Okay.

So we’re just going to separate all those pieces then just to make it easy. So we get to voting. We’ll vote on all three component separate. Other speakers to the amendment?

Go ahead, Councilor Trossal. Thank you. To the, to the mayor. I think what bothers me about this is there are a lot of aspects of the operations of LMCH that I think need more review, more attention, more public scrutiny and more reporting back to Council.

The main one being really for me at least the condition of the premises across the portfolio, which in the, in the asset management plan was, was identified as being generally poor to very poor. Now you’ll, you’ll recall that at the annual shareholders meeting, I attempted unsuccessfully to get LMCH in conjunction with civic administration to provide more wholesome reports on the condition of premises and also to institute inspections. I think get any support and go anywhere. Yes, go ahead.

Chair, we’re straying well beyond the scope of the baseline update and management agreement by which baseline is a not even an LMCH owned property. They manage it on behalf of the city. But we are straying well beyond what is before us today for a committee decision or for a council decision. And we’re moving into relitigating past decisions of Council, which is not the purpose of this report being before us.

Yes, so I don’t disagree. Sometimes we can wander in the scope of our comments. And so I actually agree with the point of order. We want to keep it to the matter before us.

I think Council will show us how you’ve made very clear points about some other matters related to the London Middlesex community housing very clearly in the past. If you could keep it to this amendment and what’s being asked for in this amendment, that would be fantastic. So you can continue with your comments. Okay, let me thank you for that and I’ll respect that decision.

I’ll start over with what bothers me. What bothers me is I believe that there’s a double standard that’s being applied to how this Council is scrutinizing and the level of scrutiny, different aspects of the administration of this housing program and the city’s obligation to supervise it. Recall that and this is relevant to what’s on the floor. It’s relevant to every aspect of our relationship with them LMCH.

We hold the contract with them and we have agreements with them. We don’t we don’t need to make such requests. We could ask for them at any time. The service manager could be asking for these requests.

Is it am I correct in saying that if the service manager wanted to, the service manager could do this without further direction from Council? Mr. Mathers. We had eye contact, so that means you wouldn’t be answered.

Through the chair, so it would be very specific to what the ask is. If it’s within the specific to this report, we’d need to make sure that it aligns with the agreement, but it would be up to Council to be able to provide that direction as the owner of the property and the ones that are contracting the service. Let me close by saying if this was amended to include a consideration of conditions on the premises, I’d be more likely to support it. But as it’s drafted, it’s a very very specific thing that excludes everything else or doesn’t include anything else, everything else.

So I just think the implication of this would be we’re not really worried about these other things. We’re just focusing on this. So I’m going to vote no on this. But please don’t take that.

Don’t take that as by indication that everything’s just fine and dandy with this agency and the way we’re administrating our programs because there are a lot of problems. Okay. Other speakers to the amendment. Alright, so as requested, we’re going to vote on these three pieces separately.

Oh, Councillor Ferra. Sorry for the late handout, Mayor. I have to agree with Councillor Troceau here. Like, what about Walnut?

What about Simco? What about Limber Lost? So Councillor, no, okay, point of order. Go ahead.

As you just heard from Mr. Mather, this is a purchase of service agreement to run a city owned property and it is not within the scope of what we’re dealing with here today, Councillors. So through you through the chair, again, I want to ask that we stick to what’s on the floor. Yes.

And so you called the point of order before I was able to get to it. Next time, give me a little more window. Councillor, you’re bringing up properties unrelated to the motion on the floor before us. If you could, this is an amendment to a motion with a very specific ask for this particular entity.

You can be for it. You can be against it, but try to speak to this. There’s lots of discussions we can have at committee on many properties and pieces that we can talk about, but let’s keep it tight to what’s before us today. Okay, thank you.

All right. Any other speakers to this amendment? Okay, I’m going to separate them as requested. We’re going to deal with C first.

So this is just part C. You can see it in the describe. We’re going to use the same mover and seconder for all these. But just part C, we’re going to open that for voting.

Because then the vote motion carries nine to three. Just D, not the I, under D, just D, isn’t what’s next. So this is the quarterly reporting one year and you’re reporting after that. We’ll open that for voting.

Closing the vote motion fails two to 10. Okay. And not to confuse anybody, but we’ll vote on I now, but when we pass this, I will become the new D because there’s no D anymore because that was just defeated. So we’re voting on I, but when you see, you might see language at some point during the meeting with that that’s now D because we just have to have the items in order.

So we’ll go with the vote on I though. I’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries ten to two.

Okay. Now I need someone to move an as amended version of all this. Councillor Stevenson, you’re willing to move the as amended. So that means, okay.

So seconder for the as amended. Deputy Mayor Lewis, okay, as amended. So the amendments are in the past and everything else is there. I’ll look for any speakers to the as amended motion now.

Okay. Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries eleven to one.

Okay. Go ahead. Councillor Peravelle. Thank you.

So your worship, I would like to put on the floor eight, which was requested to be pulled by Councillor Stevenson. Okay. We have eight on the floor now. I’ll look for speakers to eight.

Go ahead. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. As circulated to Council earlier today, I’d like to move a referral.

Okay. I would ask that you read the referral out just because the public hasn’t seen it. Okay. So that the housing stability service procurement framework be referred to the January 26, 2026 meeting of the community and protective services committee and to enable Councillors an opportunity to work with staff with respect to potential amendments to include good neighbor agreements in the upcoming contract renewals under delegated authority.

It being noted that current contracts do not expire until March 2026. So no contract gap would result from a referral. And I believe I have a second during Deputy Mayor Lewis. Only a second.

Yes. Okay. Confirmation. So this is moved and seconded.

We will have debate on the referral. Go ahead. If you’d like to provide your rational account. I’m going to wait if that’s okay.

Hold on. I’ll look for any other speakers to the referral. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Go ahead.

I will just say briefly your worship. I attended a meeting with Councillor Stevenson with some stakeholders from her ward with some representatives from the city. And I heard really loud and clear that a good neighbor clause is something that they’d like us to really be moving forward with to ensure that particularly not exclusively but particularly in areas where we have business districts and residential areas. We are maintaining properties in a reasonable state from the exterior so that it doesn’t cause additional neighborhood problems.

There are jurisdictions where good neighbor clauses are inserted into contracts given the time frame and the fact that we can still have these done and in place. And I want to be clear. I’m going to support the renewal of the service provisions at the end of March. But I think that taking a little bit of time to insert a good neighbor clause to address some of the concerns that we’ve heard is time well spent in terms of just making these a little bit better for how these happen in our community.

Councillor Schosau, go ahead. Thank you, through the mayor. I’m going to try to frame this in a way that I don’t get ruled out of order. Okay.

So I guess I’ll start with the hypothetical question. What’s a good neighbor clause? I’m not going to ask anybody to answer a hypothetical question. If you have an actual question, I can ask our staff.

I would argue that as the amendment is drafted, it’s vague. I’m not sure what a good neighbor clause is. Does it apply to the condition of the premises? Because if it does, I think that we’ve got a lot of good neighbor problems.

And I’ve spoken to a lot of people who live in proximity to some of these properties. Their concern about the good neighbor is that these premises are kept in the state of dilapidation. The trash, the vermin, the infestations, don’t say, well, I’m at 345, one cliff right now, just to use an example. But I’m not going to go bother the other neighbors.

I mean, so I’m not sure what a good neighbor policy is. And I could be persuaded to support this because I think we do need better relations with the neighbors. But as this is written, it’s very vague. So I’m not there yet.

Thanks, Councillor. Other speakers to the amendment? Go ahead, Councillor Ferra. >> Thank you, Mayor.

I guess for some of the questions, how would a good neighbor clause be enforced exactly? I don’t know if that’s a question I can pose to staff. I do see some thickness. I did quickly Google it.

But I just wanted to know the enforcement of such a clause. >> I mean, I can go to staff. I think that might be better question for after they’ve written the clause and come back to committee on how it would be enforced. But I can see if I can get an answer.

Go ahead. >> Thank you and through the chair. It’s something too individual. So, for example, the neighbor and the landlord and a tenant or something like that.

It’s not typically in a separate agreement because the enforceability can be difficult at times. So it’s something we would have to go and look and report back on whether it’s even enforced. >> Okay, go ahead, Councillor. >> Thank you.

Well, with respect to that, the enforcement or the lack thereof, I don’t know really how to take that. I obviously like the idea. I just don’t know the enforceability of that. Without that question being answered, I’m wondering kind of what would transpire from this?

What would this translate into? I’d be very interested to see if we bring out some type of clause and put it into our agreements and then we’re not able to enforce it. So, with that, I’m just a little skeptical. >> Any other speakers to this?

Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. >> Thank you. As the deputy mayor said, we had a really productive meeting. Thank you to the city manager for organizing it.

Some things came forward where we thought, you know, what we can make some improvements to what we’re currently doing. And I think this gives us an opportunity to do that. It also forces us to do it on a very short timeline. We could have moved it to February, but I like the idea of getting on it right away.

Happy to talk with my colleagues as we do the work so what comes forward is something that colleagues have had a chance to have input into. This is just a referral. This is an agreeing to the good neighbor agreement. It’s not getting into the weeds on purpose.

It’s asking for the opportunity to have a little bit of time to come forward to the committee with some ideas on how we can improve what we already have. So, I’m asking for my colleagues’ support on this so that it will allow us to implement some of the good ideas that are coming forward as we do the engagement and the consultation. >> Okay. Any other speakers to this?

Go ahead, Councillor Frank. >> Thank you, yes. I’m probably going to be supporting this at this point because I feel like most people do want to be good neighbors and I think perhaps some of the discussions about the amendments could be if there are agencies that need additional financial support in order to improve their whatever issue people might suggest they be having. I think that, again, would be a welcome opportunity to take a look at that because I think, again, perhaps some of these changes or requests might come with some financial request as well and I think it should give us some time to have those conversations.

The only thing I would say is it would be good to have a discussion between counselors and staff but I’d also include agencies in that. I’m not going to add it to this motion but given that we kind of give ourselves an open slate for here, it would be one of my requests to be to talk to agencies as well. >> Councillor Pribble, that is all your hand up. >> You did.

Okay, great. You look surprised when I said that. >> I’m surprised you saw me. >> I see everything.

So to worship to the staff. I do have questions both regarding the deadline June 26 and from two perspectives, sorry, January 26, from two perspectives. The organizations that will be signing the agreements with, if you see an issue with that and also we just heard from the legal but I didn’t hear unless I missed it. If the legal department is going to come with some proposals in terms of the good neighbor clauses, how is the deadline as well to January 26?

If I can receive a feedback, thank you. >> Thank you and through you. Perhaps I can ask for some clarification about the wording of the referral is to enable counselors to work with staff and I know we cannot give individual legal advice to counselors. It would be to counsel as a whole.

So I guess I would be looking for some direction as to whether counselors are anticipating that they would bring some potential clauses to us or if they want us to go and do the research for them. >> So let me just try to answer the question as I understand it and as the clerks understand it. So when we ask staff to do some work, you’re going to go do work and bring it back to us and if we have some challenges with that work or some suggestions to it, that’s what we have the committee process for is to provide some feedback back and then maybe it takes another cycle to get done, it’s possible. I don’t think that precludes any counselor from sharing an idea with staff about some things that they found or other municipalities have done that but our expectation would be your professional advice and your opinion is what you would give back based on that feedback.

I wouldn’t anticipate there would be a big, there wouldn’t be a negotiation with the mover and seconder of a motion behind the scenes on what they want. When counsel, this is counsel’s motion now, even though it was moved in second and so if it passes, counsel is asking for this work to be done but I would anticipate staff would always be open to hearing some suggestions but no one counselor would own process and so I’m not sure, so I’m not sure because it’s not in the motion that we’re going to add more direction unless someone makes an amendment but I anticipate if someone’s got an example of a clause, they could share that with you and it could be in your considerations and your report back and this is with potential amendments to a good neighbor agreements. It may be staff’s advice that there aren’t functional good neighbor agreements out there that we could use so I anticipate that there’s in my opinion a passing on and a trusting of your professional expertise and giving advice back to us with the inputs is that, I don’t know if that’s helpful to clarify, I’ll go ahead. Through the chair, thank you and we’ll endeavor to get back for the January 26 meeting.

Okay, thank you. Councillor ramen. Sorry, Councillor Cribble, were you done? Actually, I didn’t receive their reply in terms of the organizations that they would be signed to sign the agreements with if you think this delay would be an issue with operations of these agencies.

Oh, based on the timing. Yeah, that’s a question about the renewal of the contracts. Go ahead, Mr. Pickens.

Through you, Your Worship, based on the last line of the motion, there’s no impact to the existing agreements. Whether this would cause any additional workload for organizations, I imagine there’s going to be lots of questions as civic administration has lots of questions about what entails or what covers a good neighbor agreement. So it may create more work to happen between January 1 and the report deadline for submission, but I can’t speak on behalf of the organizations. Councillor Pribble, go ahead.

Thank you. No more questions or comments. Councillor ramen. Thank you and through you.

I appreciate the discussion we’re having about this item. One thing I will say is just looking at examples of these, the one that I found most helpful was from Edmonton, which involves an agreement between a business association, police forces in the area, it involved a bunch of different owners, as well as care providers. And the interesting thing was central to the agreement is an understanding that these services are essential, required, and needed in the neighborhood. So if that’s the component that we’re looking to put into a good neighbor agreement, I’m all for that.

And setting out parameters for how everyone’s going to work together and for the mutual best interest of the area sounds really good to me. Looking forward to seeing what comes back, thanks. Any other speakers who have spoken yet? Okay.

So this is just on the — well, actually, it’s on the referral. So it is the referral. Everybody’s spoken, so we’re going to open that for voting. Opposed in the vote.

Motion carries. 11 to 1. Go ahead. Councillor Pribble.

Thank you. Is your worship — I would like to put on the floor 9. And we just requested to be pulled by Councillor Forever. Okay.

That’s item 9 from the committee on the floor. I’ll look for speakers. Councillor Forever, would you like to speak? Go ahead.

I don’t necessarily want to speak yet. I just want to put an amendment on the floor. Can I do that? Yes.

You can put an amendment on the floor. And then there would be an amendment on the floor. And then we could speak to the amendment. You could choose to do that right away.

Or you could choose to do that later. I just like to put the amendment that I originally brought to the committee and protective services committee. And then I’d like to hold my speaking time — Okay. So I would like you to read it out.

Because there’s no piece of — I don’t think you included a piece of correspondence on the committee’s agenda. I did. So if you could just read it, that would be great. I did.

I did add it. I don’t have it in front of me. If you refresh, we put an e-scribe for you to give you a hand there. Yes.

I would like to amend the receipt from committee. And I’ll read the motion. It’s that the motion be amended to read as follows. That civic administration be directed to report back to the community and protective services committee with recommendations on a spectrum of municipal options to limit or prevent bad faith tendency evictions for reasons of demolitions or conversions of use for a purpose other than a residential premises or premise, including but not limited to amendments to or a new municipal by laws policies and programs.

It being noted that a communication as a pendant to the out of the agenda from V-flare, London A-corn was received with respect to this matter. Yep. That’s perfect. So is there a seconder for that?

Councillor Trost, I was willing to second. Okay. So that’s on the floor. Now I’ll look for a speaker’s list.

Do you still have a chance to speak when you’d like? Are there any speakers to this? Go ahead, Councillor Cutty. Thank you, Your Worship, and through you.

I’m going to speak — I’m going to do this a two-pronged discussion, Your Worship, and I do want to recognize in the gallery the A-corn members. Thank you. So two years ago, Your Worship, we put together one of the most constructive, productive bylaws we’ve seen in this country. And that’s not just me telling you that, Your Worship.

That’s other communities and municipalities telling us that because we put together the run eviction by law, which today is considered by many municipalities that I put told us to be one of the best in the country. I worked with former bylaw chief or scrotolic on it. Deputy Mayor Lewis worked closely with me on it. Members of council gave me their contribution, including Councillor Ferra, who’s the mover of this motion.

Today, I still believe Your Worship, this is the best bylaw in the country. If I were an owner of a property and I looked at the motion that Councillor Ferra has moved, I would sell my property because I think this is doing it a service to landlords. I think we’ve pushed them as far as we can with a run eviction bylaw. And I think we’ve gone as far as we can.

And I have spoken to landlords who’ve told me this. I won’t go on any longer Your Worship because I know there’s others who want to speak to the subject. But I do want to say that our current bylaw is very, very effective. It’s doing its job.

I actually used it this past summer, Your Worship, for balcony construction at 1280 Webster Street that was being done illegally by the terms of the bylaw. And the bylaw took effect, thanks to our bylaw officers. So Your Worship, in conclusion, I will not be supporting this motion by Councillor Ferra. And I would encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Thank you. Okay. Other speakers to the amendment. I had Councillor Trostoff.

I spoke to this through the mayor. I spoke to this at length at the committee. And at the committee, we had the opportunity not only to have a letter from our premier legal services provider telling us this was needed because the loophole has arisen in this otherwise fine bylaw that is allowing is allowing owners to take advantage of the fact that they can get around the registration requirement simply by reframing slightly really what they’re doing. So I think to make a claim that an owner would have to really consider selling their property, I think is a bit overly dramatic.

And the reason I say that is if you’re following the rules, you don’t have to worry about anything. This is not an across the board prohibition against doing something that you’re otherwise allowed to do. This is simply a continuation of the good bylaw, the good bylaw. And I will acknowledge that didn’t go as far as I would have liked, but it was a great bylaw.

I voted in favor of it. What we have here is the subsequent discovery that there are tiny little holes, but those tiny little holes can be climbed through to create major, major hardship for a whole class of tenants. So basically, we’re not enacting the bylaw on the floor today. We’re asking for a report back and it’s interesting.

We have people saying they want to report back with neighbor policy, but not a report back on a bylaw that’s actually going to save the tenancy of a lot of tenants at a time when now, now that people have acknowledged that there’s a homelessness emergency, I’m really glad to see the people have come over to that position. Very badly needed. The last thing we need to do as a city is to allow our bylaws to sit when they need to be fixed and not fix them because it’s just going to increase people being evicted. And maybe I shouldn’t use the word eviction because evictions often conjure up a formal process with a formal paper coming to the door.

People are displaced from their units. In many ways, short of a formal eviction process. Some of that is due to the fact that there’s unequal information. Some of it is due to the fact that people feel intimidated and scared.

As I said at the committee, when you’re in a landlord tenant dispute and the owner of your property has made it very clear that they want you out, there’s no peace. There’s no peace. Because even if you win the first round, even if you force an issue with the landlord tenant board, even if you win the first round, you’re not done. There’s no, okay, well, you won this so you can stay at your current rent.

Let’s face it, the current rents under the vacancy, the control provisions, not the doing of this city but the doing of the province, creating an imbalance in the rental market that is very prejudicial to tenants. So we as a municipality have to look at, well, we can’t change the landlord, we can’t change the provincial law, we can’t change the grounds for eviction. So what can we do? And we had a very fulsome discussion on that what can we do question when we enacted the by-law, the good by-law, it’s a very good by-law in the first place.

It’s a very good by-law, but experience has shown us that it needs to be fixed. So in closing, I want to stress that it’s the, I think it’s the obligation of this council. Given our clear policies on wanting to avoid homelessness, for us to take reasonable steps, take reasonable inquiries and just ask ourselves, what can we as a municipality do? 30 seconds.

Okay, and if in fact we can enact the rental eviction licensing section, 23 of our licensing by-law, question, is that been challenged yet? Is anybody brought an action against that? Go ahead, Mr. Mathers.

Through the chair, through the chair, through your workshop, sorry. No, there hasn’t been any challenge to that this time. Thank you. So changing a few, really, what we’re talking about is changing a few words in the by-law to sort of pick up and recognize something that’s happened.

We’ve got to do it. And it would be very unfortunate if this council didn’t ask for a report back. Time is up. Thank you very much.

I have Councillor Frank, and there’s a hand over here, but I missed you it was. Oh, definitely right of us. Go ahead, Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes.

I’ll be supporting this because I am interested in hearing back from staff on what these recommendations could possibly be. I do think it’s good that we have a renovations by-law. It’s my understanding that in the last six months of having it, only one actual application for the REUL has come forward is my understanding. And it’s at 140, or I won’t say where it is, but I know where it is.

Mr. Mathers, there you go. Through your worship, we’re currently at seven licenses now. Thank you.

And if I could follow up, are those all at the same location or are those spread out across the city? Go ahead. They’re all one applicant, but there are some licenses. Thank you, yes.

So again, I’m pleased that we have the renovation by-law in the last sentence. Again, I think it’s been around for six months. Please, correct me if I’m wrong. But we’ve had one location with seven applications come through.

So I do think that they’re based on my understanding, based on the report that we’ve heard back from staff that they’re, those are the only seven that I’m aware of. I do think that perhaps people are using other loopholes to evict tenants not following the proper processes. So I would be interested in hearing from staff if there are other opportunities for us to enhance this. So I don’t see this as making any decisions today.

We’re simply asking for a report back. And if staff recommend that there’s not anything that they would change or any additional options for us to pursue, then I believe that they would bring it forward at that time. So I will be supporting this. Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Thank you, Chair. So in his remarks, Councillor Trussa, I referenced that we should take reasonable steps. And the crux of the argument to me why I won’t be supporting this is I don’t see this as a reasonable step. The current renovation by-law that we have in place, which I did work with Councillor Cadyon, and that we have gotten through came into force and effect.

I believe it was April 1 of this year. So we don’t have 12 months of data on it yet. We do have an update that we’ve had seven licenses issued for those purposes. But now what we have before us is a motion.

And it actually does specifically say to prohibit or limit the bad faith evictions for reason of demolition and conversions to use for purposes other than a residential premises. So it actually is very specific. And through you, Chair, question to our staff, and probably it’s Mr. Mathers.

We have many properties in the city, particularly in the core, but not exclusively, where we actually already have, as of right, multi-use zones where we may have ground floor commercial, residential in the same building up above. Even along Dundas Place, we have some apartment buildings above some commercial spaces. Is that correct? Go ahead, Mr.

Mathers. Through your worship, yes, that is correct. There is multi-use zones that may have commercial or another use with residential. Go ahead.

So the follow up, the second question then is, if there’s not already as of right, multi-use zoning on a property, would that not require a zoning bylaw amendment to come through Planning Committee for a change of use if an applicant was seeking to add commercial space where currently they only had residential spaces owned for? Mr. Mathers? Through your worship, yes, that is correct.

Those would be any type of a change would have, from that perspective, would need to come back for a bylaw amendment. Deputy Mayor Lewis. So I’ve been a member of Planning Committee since the rent eviction bylaw has been in place. We’ve not received, to my knowledge, any requests that have come through for a change of use, that is to remove residential to create commercial space.

In so far as they haven’t put forward a planning application, it doesn’t mean that they might not be in the process of doing that, but we haven’t seen that yet. So we have a process by which ZBAs are in place. We also, as a council, are getting a report back in Q2 of 2026 as was shared with members of committee during this committee meeting on an update on the data points in our current bylaw after one year of use. So for me, I’m not prepared to start asking staff to do more reports until I’ve actually seen the results of the first report.

But I’m very mindful of the fact that to Councillor Cudi’s point, property owner can request a change of use. That is a legal right that they have in Ontario. They can come forward with a zoning bylaw amendment to request a change of use. And this request specifically asks for us to limit that change of use.

I don’t need a report back to tell me that planning applications can come through. Now, whether or not they fit the land use planning guidelines, the London plan itself, those other things, that is an evaluation that staff do through the planning process. But I’m also mindful of the fact that we’ve actually had oppositions to demolition of buildings where small numbers of units 6 or 8 are going to be demolished so that a 12, 15, 30 story in some cases apartment building can be built and add significant density to the housing inventory that we have in our city. Would we prohibit?

And in some cases, those include ground floor commercial in that high density residential. This potentially prohibits that. So at this point, I’m very satisfied that the current bylaw we have is working. We’ve all we’ve all agreed that we’re happy that we’ve passed this bylaw that it’s in place.

I am not going to support any further changes to this until I have at least seen the results of a year’s worth of data on a current bylaw. We have other processes in place for change of use. We have property owners who have a legal right to change of use. And we’re already getting a report back in Q2 of 2026 on the current bylaw.

So with those pieces in place, I do not feel that this is a reasonable step for us to take it this time. 30 seconds. Go ahead, Councillor ramen. Thank you and through you.

Okay. So I hear what the deputy mayor is saying and what Councillor cutting has said. But I actually think that we are speaking past each other, in my opinion, on matters that we actually have a lot of interest in. So I’m trying to find a way forward maybe because I think that what we’re looking at is something that’s already in place in Oakville already in the works in Brampton, in the works across other jurisdictions here in Ontario and clean wealth.

I think what we’re talking about really is about looking at bad faith tendency evictions where affordable units are in question. But some of the language in the motion calls into question any conversions or demolitions that have to do with any reduction of residential premise. But I think it actually comes back to replacing affordable housing with affordable housing. So I’m just wondering, is there a way that we can amend this to be able to address that issue if that’s the purpose of this motion?

It’s not the purpose? Okay, I’m seeing it shaking that maybe I’ve got it wrong, but that’s not the purpose. But I think that that’s a path forward that I can support. So I was honestly looking at this from the position that this was about addressing affordable housing coming out of the system.

But I feel like this actually doesn’t give us enough of the information in the report back that I need in order to support moving this forward. So I guess my question is, and I’m not sure how to word this, but I just want to ensure that there’s, can I ask a question to the movers? Is that possible? I can always pose it doesn’t have to answer it, but go ahead.

Thank you and through you. So I heard the speaking on this item, and I feel like the speaking on this item isn’t matching exactly what’s here. So that’s where I’m trying to get some clarity. So in the media, in stories and some of the stories that were shared by Acorn, it was really coming to the crux of addressing affordable units.

What’s here in front of me doesn’t necessarily speak to that. So what I want to know if that is the intent here or if the intent is different? I’ll answer it, Councillor, but you’ve got to just answer the question, not create a whole new debate. So go ahead.

If you want to. It doesn’t count towards my time, right? Absolutely not. Okay.

So unless you start debating and then what she is, I’m not going to do it. So go ahead. All of the things that Councillor Ramen’s speaking mo is correct. However, this is about fraud.

This is about fraudulently using an N13 to evict. This is what it’s about, fraud. Councillor Ramen, go ahead. You’re the seconder.

I need you to keep it really tight to the Councillor’s question, because I’m not getting into this very often. But go ahead, Councillor Troso. Yes, I’ll be really brief. The motion says explore a spectrum of options.

And I believe that what the Councillor is referring to would be within that spectrum. We don’t have legislation on the table. We’re asking for a broad staff report back to look at a spectrum of options. Okay.

Councillor Ramen, go ahead. Thank you. And through you, I appreciate the clarification. I will say that what’s in front of us isn’t brought.

It’s actually specific to changing residential premises to not being a residential premises. So I just wanted some clarification, because where I would see value is getting a report back that addresses — sorry, demavictions or demolitions and conversions, sorry, where affordable units are being replaced in the redevelopment and working to ensure that affordable units go back in place. So I think that that, to me, carries a lot of significance and weight in the language, because it’s language that I think is accessible to everybody here in support of addressing our affordability challenge. But I think where we’re getting a little bit caught up is some of the language that’s in front of us.

So I guess my question is for the clerk, are those two similar enough — or sorry, two different enough positions that I wouldn’t have to bring back, like if I wanted to bring this forward, I wouldn’t have to ask for leave or ask for reconsideration. >> Give me a second. That’s a good point of order question. Okay.

So I’m going to consider that kind of a point of order question, even though you didn’t say point of order. So here’s where we stand with this. The matter went to committee and it was defeated. The council has chosen to raise it here.

If this is defeated here in its current form, it’s a decided matter council. We’re not bringing it up again in this term. It is not definitive, although it’s possible that the affordable piece is necessarily contained within the spectrum. Like if staff could do that work, but it’s not — the direction is not clear for them to do that.

So your options are you could amend this and try to figure that out here. You could also refer this back to committee with the direction to develop language around affordability and have the committee go back and do that work and then bring it back to council later. Those would be the options, but I would say my clarity on your point of order is I can’t tell you that that’s different or not because it is not clear in this, so it could be and it couldn’t be. So it’s a little bit — but if it’s defeated, this motion is not coming back again without reconsideration in this current — in this current iteration.

So go ahead, Councillor Roman. >> Thank you, and through you, I much appreciate it. So I just want to express thanks to my colleagues for bringing this issue forward. I’ll support what’s here, but I do think that it needs to go further, but I think it is also in a different vein.

So if this doesn’t pass, my plan is to go back to committee, which I did not remember, and submit a letter, and ask for it from the affordable angle and bring in different options from other cities, because I think we have excellent examples of this work already done in place and being enacted. So that would be my way forward, I think, at this point, but I appreciate the work that’s been done so far. >> Other speakers to this? Councillor Pribble, go ahead.

Thank you. And thank you all for coming today and to kind of the interest that you have for representing your members. I did not support this at the committee, and I will not be supporting it today. Exactly for the past five, seven, eight minutes, what was the conversation between the Councillors?

We don’t have a clear vision. I believe we need to wait for that report coming in Q2 and give a specific direction based on those results to our staff. Already, at the committee, the staff did mention that even if we were to pass this, what’s in front of us, it would not be coming until Q3. I had a discussion with our staff.

I was hoping that we would have a Q1, but the staff made a really good sense that we are not going to have actual results until May 31st, when the one year is finished, which makes sense. I’m hoping that we will have it in Q2 at the beginning of Q2. It will give us time. So, we are not losing any time, but we will have a clear vision what this report, what’s already in place, the weaknesses, and how can we maximize the opportunities.

I don’t see any benefit of moving this forward now. We are not saving any time. We are not giving you, we are not giving you actually any advantage, except that you are going to walk out there now and say they passed it, because this would not be coming back until Q3. So, that’s the reason, and as I said, what was the conversation during the last five minutes shows clearly even to me that we are not ready to do a specific direction to our staff, and that is the reason why I will not be supporting it this time.

We will get back to report what was passed, and I just do want to mention one thing which I’m quite sure you are aware of, but I know at least three people that were here last time, they were, they would be under the restriction. I just want to read it to you, municipality cannot prohibit or regulate the demolition or conversion of a residential rental property that contains less than six dwelling units. I just want to let you know that I know at least three people that were here last time, they were, they would be in this category, which we would not be able to address anyways under the provincial regulation. But for the reason I just mentioned, I will not be super near this time.

If there would be a referral, if there would be a referral that to come back, when after the report comes back from what we have passed in April, I will be more than happy to support it because that makes sense to me. Instead of defeating it now or referring it to next month or month after, no, I truly believe we need that report first, so we make the proper evaluation and we can address it in the best manner to address the issues that are out there. Thank you. Sorry, can I, would I actually make a referral even though I don’t have the exact date to refer this when the staff report comes back, whenever it is in Q2, I don’t know if it’s possible or not without giving specific date?

Yes, that is possible because there is a staff report, so they would just be aligned. Did you want to refer it with that affordability kind of language lens under the councilor I was talking about? I just want to generally refer it because usually you refer for a reason. It could be just consideration of this and the lines with the report that would be fine too.

At this time, I really would like to just based on what’s in front of us. There is no need to be added affordability because what we will do is when we receive the report, we will evaluate and will give specific direction to our staff. So I don’t think there is need to or in my referral, I don’t plan to do anything except to bring this back to the council and deal with it once we receive the report back from our staff. Give me one second.

Okay, so yes, Councillor, I’ll give you some language that the motion be referred back to civic administration to bring forward to a future meeting of the community and protective services committee to align with the staff reporting Q2 of 2026. That’s the staff report on the results of the first year of the bylaw. That’s also really good to me. I just want to make sure that there is, does it stay after, because yes, it’s Q2, but does it stay, is there a word after, after we receive it?

Well, it could align at the same time committee could decide perfect that or perfect like it could land at the same time as a report. Perfect. Yes, that is good for me. Thank you.

So it’s okay. Well, I don’t have a second point of order. Go ahead, Councillor. That takes precedence.

Go ahead. No, no, point of order takes precedence. My point of order would be that if we get a report back from staff in Q2, we can move forward there without direction from council today. So I think it’s sort of a redundant referral.

No, so on your point of order, Councillor, the referral is in order. Any motion can be referred to at any point in time to any committee back. And so it doesn’t matter if other things can be done simultaneously. A referral can still be in order.

So the Councillor can refer this. So I need a seconder for the referral. That’s the ramen. The referral is moved and seconded.

We’ll have a debate on the referral now. So this is a referral. Okay, so the language will be on the screen. It’s as I read it though.

This is to refer this matter to come back to the committee at the same time as the Q2 report on the first year of the run of existence by law has its report. Debate on this. Go ahead, Councillor Ferra. Thank you, Mayor.

So this council a week ago asked the province to realize that we are a crisis, we have a crisis of homelessness. What does crisis mean? Does it mean business as usual? Does it mean we wait for a report back?

Or does it mean we act now? I’m confused. I think, I think the arguments I heard here are not swaying me for a referral. We are in a crisis.

We are recognizing that we are asking province to recognize that we can’t refer this back and wait a little bit longer. How many people lose their housing in that time? There are seven cases of the rental unit repair license that have came through. I have more than seven cases since then with this exact issue.

So that shows me the loophole is wide open. I don’t understand why we don’t want to act now. A crisis is a crisis. A crisis means we act fast.

So I would not support this referral. This is needed right now. On the referral, go ahead, Councillor ramen and then Councillor Pribble. Thank you and on the referral to three to staff.

Can they comment on if they were to do part two when they would have reported back? Sorry. You’re asking for what if this is referred and then they could ask us at that committee when a report back? We’ll get you some clarification, Councillor.

Sorry. I was reading the number of the motion. That’s why. So in the original motion, it had requested a report back.

That’s a big administration be directed to report back. So I’m just wondering when that if that had passed, what would that report back date have been? Mr. Mathers, through your worship, it would likely that would be Q2 2026 when we come back with it.

We have a substantial amount of workload in this group, but that’s what would be looking at it. But I’m happy to take any other future direction. Councillor ramen. Thank you.

So again, we are aligned on when this would be brought back. So I think that that’s important whether we take the referral or if we support the direction in front of us or aligned. Thank you. Point of order.

Go ahead, Councillor. On a point of order. Point of order, yeah. It would be or privilege.

I think this is order. What’s the purpose of the referral that? What’s the purpose of voting on a referral or voting on the motion? Councillor, that’s not a point of order at all.

It’s not a point of order at all. It’s not a point of privilege either. You cannot like the referral. You spoke against the referral, but the referral is not offensive.

It’s not a point of personal privilege. The Councillor asked a question about when the report, if we were to pass the motion, would come back. The referral is aligned. Two things are happening around the same time.

It’s not a point of order or a point of personal privilege. So I’m sorry, but it’s not. I just procedurally, I’m wondering these procedural steps on what’s really happening here. Well, procedurally, I can clarify that.

A motion was defeated at committee. He brought it back up again here. Councillors would like to refer that back to committee to give a chance to align it with a report that we know is coming on the renovations by law. That is procedurally as when it’s happening and that is procedurally in order for council debate.

Now, people can be against it. People can be for it, but that’s exactly what’s happening. So I have a point of order because in the report back, demonstrations are not included in the report. I have canvassed staff a lot on this.

It all started with, why is it not? Councillor, I’m going to cut you off here and because you’re kind of debating. So no, it’s not. You’re right.

The report back doesn’t include that. The Councillors are referring what you would like to do back to land and committee at the same time. Committee can deal with the content of the report and everything that is in it and your desire to take additional action at the same time. What I hear is a desire from some members of the committee to do that may not be everybody, but they’re allowed to move in second to motion to do that.

Even if it’s not what you’d like. That’s democracy. Sorry. Like we got a procedure by-law.

Everything is in order here. So there’s no point of order here. This is perfectly allowed. I’m going to ask you to sit down now.

Or you’re presenting a report. So you’re good. You’re on your amendment. You don’t have to sit down.

But your point of order is dealt with. Is someone in the middle of a debate, though? I mean, you’ve ended the floor. I have Councillor Preble on the speaker’s list.

Councillor Preble. Under referral, you heard we are acting now. Through the chair, Councillor Preble. We always speak through the chair even if you’re addressing.

Through the chair. Go ahead. You heard we are acting now. So the acting now means we are going to pass something that we are going to get back, report back Q3, sorry Q3 next year.

That’s in my eyes. That’s not really acting. Acting is if someone makes a decision and it starts tomorrow. What I’m proposing is actually when we have results from what we have passed and then make the clear direction to our staff.

That’s in my acting that makes complete sense. If we pass this Q3 next year, we are not saving any time. We are not being any proactive. We are not going to save any more individuals who are potentially addressed with this issue.

So that’s the reason why I’m putting this referral. And as I said, when you hear, we are acting now. Okay. So members of the audience don’t get to say things.

The next time I hear someone say the word shut up to a debate that is happening, I’m going to have to ask you to leave. There’s decorum on the floor as I’ve enforced. There’s also decorum in the gallery. It’s not a public participation meeting.

I certainly appreciate you being here to support your position, but you can’t comment like that or I have to ask you to leave. So I’m not going to ask anybody to leave. I’m just going to issue a caution because I’d like you to be here for the discussion on the debate. Councillor Pribble, you can continue.

You’re speaking to the chair and through the chair though, sort of chair and looking in the chair. No, I’m just going to add this. I really honestly don’t see based on why I put this proposal, the referral, because I believe we will have more information and we are actually not losing any time. When I was discussing it with the staff, we would be still looking at Q3 with the additional information that we are receiving in Q2.

So we are not delaying anything. We are not increasing any time frame. We are actually going to be making better direction to our staff and we will have bigger knowledge. So that’s the reason why I’m putting the referral on and if it’s defeated, I will leave it at that.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Your Worship. Right. Put myself in the speakers list.

I’ll turn it over to Deputy Mayor Lewis. Go ahead, Mayor Morin. Yes, I’m going to speak to the referral and I’m going to support the referral and I’ll tell you why is because I actually have been listening to a debate of colleagues and you know how I always strive for a wider consensus of counsel. There are some colleagues who would like to get information from the Q2 report back to be able to make this decision.

As Mr. Mather said, even if we passed the motion, the relative information that would come back would align with them. There might be a slight delay, but we’re not talking about half a year here. We’re talking about an alignment of two pieces of information coming back at a relatively similar time for counselors to make a decision.

The reason why I want to support the referral through the presiding officer to the the counselor originally brought the motion is because I think there’s some some consideration here that it might get defeated. Like I’m listening to debate. I’m not sure it would pass and that happens. It’s a decided matter of counsel.

This is a pathway that provides the opportunity for you to get a wider consensus of your colleagues on something that you obviously care very passionately about. And I think the referral is a good path forward for a wider amount of members of counsel to be able to make the decisions they make and have that debate at the time and get that information. I do want to say too, I support the referral, although I do like what Councillor ramen was saying about affordability. I think I respect what Deputy Mayor Lewis was saying about the ability of people to convert units to other uses, particularly within the confines of the different permissions, but losing affordable units in the city is something that we have to be very cautious about and I’m interested in in the comments that Councillor ramen was making and I’m sure she’ll raise them through the committee and the process as well.

So I’m going to support the referral because I think that that potentially leads to wider consensus, gets more people information, keeps your ability to make decisions on this matter alive without reconsideration being necessary. Thank you, Mayor Morgan, I’ll return the chair to you. Councillor Trozau. Thank you.

My prince won’t be on this once because he turns it on and off for me. I appreciate that. Well, I’m against the referral and the reason why I’m going to vote against the referral is we are running out of time this council turn. We’re done.

We’re going to be in the election season before anything even comes back. And yet we can act during the election season. But the fact of the matter is we have a demonstrated problem and you could say, well, I don’t want to be against this because I want more information. There’s no guarantee that that report that’s coming back is going to give us that kind of information.

It’s about the renovation by law as it currently exists, which we already know what the status is in terms of the applications. So don’t think that by saying, well, I want to refer this so I can get more information. You’re offering up a tenable compromise because we’re done. I mean, the shot clock is ready to expire.

We have to take a shot. And I just I think that given if this was a year ago, maybe maybe it would be different. I would feel a lot better about a referral if it was sent back to the next caps meeting, which we could actually deal with right right right away. And I would I know that Councilor ramen was talking about this before, but I would be willing to move that we refer that we substitute referral this to the next caps meeting and and have a further discussion about the purpose of the motion.

Since there were some questions raised about some some of the language. Could I call a timeout? Sorry, I was referring. I know it sounds like you’re trying to amend the referral.

So I’m just yeah talking to the clerks about that. Two two two meetings. Well, we’re not having our meeting in general. Councilor, you’re debating on the floor right now.

No, actually, I’m trying to communicate with the maker of my motion. Well, you’re the maker of your motion. So, okay, make an amendment or not. But we’re not gonna have a debate across the floor.

Okay, I will I will make a substitute motion then that this be referred to the next caps meeting, which is now scheduled for January. Yeah, it’s in January, but it’s not the fifth because that one was canceled. 26 and so you make it’s an amendment to the referral. Yes, and the date.

That’s what it is. Yes, because I don’t want to put this out and told. No, there’s no there’s not debate. You make the you make the amendment and then you get to debate it.

I have to look for a seconder. So what you’d like to do, Councilor, so I’m clear is change the referral to land at the next available caps meeting. There’s no signs. Councilor put it down.

Change it to the next the date of the next meeting. So the next available caps meeting. So that’s the January 26 meeting, either making the motion or not. You want to make the amendment or not.

I think that there’s information that I need to get from from from the person I’ve been collaborating with on this that I may be missing something and I would. Could you just do that with a magic marker and not a pen? Oh, yeah, I’ll make the motion because like, I mean, I don’t want to refer this. I want to deal with this now, but I could see where this is going and I could see how it counts.

You don’t get the debate yet. I have to see if there’s a seconder. If there’s no seconder, then there’s not going to be a motion. So that might be pretty clear whether the person wants to support it or not, because if there’s no seconder, there’s not going to be a second.

So you want to you want to move an amendment to the referral to align with the January the report back to be the January 26 community and protective services committee meeting rather than the way it was there. Is there a seconder for that? You don’t get to speak. You get to tell me if you’re if there’s a seconder for that.

That’s the current motion is the second quarter. No, so I’m going to be clear because people don’t understand. Right now, the motion that Councilor Pribble and Council Raman said is Q2. That’s where it’s landing.

Councilor Trossa wants to change that to January 26. So there’s no seconder for that right now, which means it’s going back to Q2. It just doesn’t change. It’s not it’s not change it.

There’s no seconder. So you’re seconding the change to January 26. Okay, that’s on the floor. Now you can speak just to the amendment.

You’re only speaking to the change of the date here. So keep your rationale to that. I’m very reluctantly making this motion to refer this because I think we should deal with it now. However, it would be better to deal with this earlier than later, given the exingency of what we’re seeing in the community.

And what we’ve been told by our service providers and people in the audience, actual testimony from people who are saying they need this now. So no, I don’t want to wait till June. I don’t want to wait till Q2. I want to get this done so people know that we’re taking care of things that need to be done, but certainly referring this to the next CAHPS meeting will allow us to address some of the, I think, some of the reasonable questions that some of the counselors have made.

I mean, some counselors have said they just don’t want to change this again this term. Others have said they would like more clarity in terms of what it is we’re asking for and maybe the report could be a little expanded. I’m okay with that. So I am supporting a referral to our next CAHPS meeting, not out a couple of months.

And I certainly will undertake to go around and talk to the counselors before the next CAHPS meeting and invite them to come. But you will all to come to the chair, of course, and talk about what you need. I’m really disappointed that this council is not saying, yeah, that’s a good point that was made in that legal services letter. And we need to act on this.

What’s the point of order, Councillor? So I need you to turn on your microphone. I’m not sure who else. I think you gave instructions clearly enough to Councillor Troso to speak to the date and he’s just going on in some verbal tirade.

So I know, okay, so yeah, I know you’re going to make a point of personal privilege. What’s your point of personal privilege, Councillor? I’ll withdraw that. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, so we have an amendment to the referral on the floor to change the date. Does anybody want to speak to the new date? Councillor Frara, go ahead.

Just quickly, this is about urgency. You know, we have seen the increase of homelessness. I have communicated this pretty vigorously. It’s about stopping homelessness before it starts.

It’s the most cost effective way. It will reduce our numbers before they even increase. We have seen a 600 person increase since 2022. I know this entire council is hearing from the rest of the city.

We have to do something about it. We have taken strong stances about doing something now and doing something real. And there’s an urgency here. And we have endorsed urgency a week ago, less than a week ago, a week ago maybe.

I don’t know. So I am confused on some of the comments and debates that I’ve seen here, but I just want this to pass. I want this to happen quick. I think Q2 or Q3 is too far or too long.

I was originally thinking Q2 to give staff some help, but I do want urgency. And if we can bring in an urgency a little bit faster, it’s exactly what we need. It’s exactly what this city needs. I know that everybody that I’ve spoken to are asking me, what are you doing with respect to your response to homelessness?

What are you doing? This is what we’re doing. And here we’re debating about procedure. And here we’re debating about this is not reasonable.

I’ve asked for a report back. I haven’t said what the tools are, what the steps are. We’ve already stepped into this space as it is with the rental unit repair license. On the change of date, Councillor.

It’s about urgency. Okay, keep going then. So keep it to the urgency. I think if we are serious, we should vote seriously.

And a serious vote is urgent. Report back. So if you want to amend this and have it brought back even sooner, which I guess we can’t because we don’t have the next community and protective services meeting, I would say do so. But it’s urgent.

And we all know that. I’m not going to stress that anymore. I know this council knows. Any other speakers to the amendment?

The Councillor Trostau, you’ve made an amendment. So if you can stand, that would be great. Councillor ramen, go ahead. Thank you and through you.

So I just want to clarify where we’re at right now. So we’re on vote four, which is an emotion to amend the date. But I just want to clarify that vote four is not related now to vote three because the original intent of what Councillor Preble moved was to tie the report back to the run evictions report that’s coming in Q2 2026. So that report wouldn’t show up in January 2026.

So then this would just be this item coming back in January of 2026. Okay, so I am clear on that. Thank you. That’s correct.

Thank you. And so just to be clear, that’s a report back that staff said they could only have ready in Q2 of 2026. That’s also correct. So I guess through you to staff, is there any ability for them to meet an expedited timeline to January 26th?

Well, staff will have to not do something else. I’m not sure Mr. Maynard’s will be able to articulate what that is. But everything can be done.

It’s just prioritization. But there are other things Mr. Maynard’s go ahead. Through your worship, through your worship.

So are you speaking to the annual, like the annual report that we would be reporting back or just a completely new report? Just this, this item. And by the way, there’s no report one sec. I’m going to just take one moment.

Okay, I’m going to clarify this, Councillor, because you’re raising a good point, but I’m going to be very clear. So Councillor Hillier, I need you to stop talking. Thank you. Councillor Hillier, thanks.

Mr. Maynard’s does not have anything to do with this referral, because this referral is Councillor Ferrara’s motion. The Council is not ready to act on today. Now being referred back to committee for further discussion.

The committee can decide what to do with that. But Mr. Maynard’s is not producing a report associated with that at all. It’s just this motion being referred back.

If this fails, this motion gets referred back for the committee to potentially take some action or discussion on with the Q2 report that Mr. Maynard’s is writing, which is landing in Q2. Nothing about that report is changing from a timeline perspective. Councillor Trossow’s motion is simply the thing that Councillor Ferrara wants to do today is going to land back a committee on January 26 for them to debate again and change or not and then send it back to Council.

That’s what is occurring at this moment. Okay, Councillor Raman. Thank you and through you. So just to be clear, so if this were to go back to committee and let’s say it came back packaged with information, let’s say from other municipalities whereby there’s there’s some already enacted by-laws, that would still be staff then working on something, reporting back and then going through the process that we normally would go through for approval of a by-law.

So the earliest possible date that this could end up being supported through a by-law is probably June or is that… I’m just trying to get a timeline. Mr. May, I don’t want to communicate to the timeline, and by the way, we’re not going to commit them to this, but can you give a rough estimate on whether that’s generally correct for the work?

Through you, worship. Yeah, so hypothetically, if this came back in January, Council decided to go ahead with the motion as it’s originally on the agenda. It would likely be Q2-2026 that we bring something back and form of a report. Thank you.

So I absolutely hear people when we’re talking about the sense of urgency, but urgency and hope needs a strategy, and we do that by making sure we make good decisions that give our staff time to bring back things that adequately meet our needs to be able to put in place to support people that need legislation and change. So I just want to make sure that we’re all clear and that we know the dates that we’re working with. Thank you. On the change of date, Councillor Pribble.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will say one more time what I said now with additional date, January meeting, or quarter two, or if you were to make a decision today, the staff is coming back at the same time. One of them when I asked about the scope of what they are coming back with in Q2, it does include comparative analysis with other municipalities.

So what I’m struggling with, we are throwing the dates out there, and the only difference is that I guess the people who are attending here or hearing, they say they did pass it, but we are actually not, I don’t see how we are doing any favor because staff is coming, still come back, doesn’t matter if it’s January, if it’s this, we’re already repeated. They are still coming back to us at the same time. When they are coming back with Q2, they are including the comparative analysis, what people are asking for. So therefore, I will not be supporting what’s in front of us, because I believe we are passing something with less knowledge and same result time-wise.

So I don’t see anything being speeded up and that we are acting today. I don’t. If I did hear from either one of the individuals who are putting this forward, we are going to cut time instead of Q3, it’s going to be earlier, or it’s going to be much earlier, but it’s not. We heard that.

Thank you. Okay, that exhausts. I have Deputy Ray Lewis. I’m going to be really brief on the referral.

I won’t be supporting either referral, and I come back to the part of the matter, a spectrum of options to limit conversions, and we have a process to deal with conversions through the Planning Act. So I don’t need a referral to get to the same decision point where I already am. I would certainly say that while I appreciated Councillor ramen’s comments around affordable preservation, it’s very clear that that’s not the intent here, so I don’t need a referral to get to something that’s not the intent of the motion. Okay, I have no other speakers on the change of date.

This is the change to January 26th, 2026. I’m going to open just that for voting. Who’s in the vote? Motion fails three to nine.

Okay, so now we’re back to the original referral, which is Q2 2026, to align with the staff report regarding the rent evictions by-law. I already had people speak to this. Is there any other speakers to this? I spoke for a minute, 23 on the referral to Q2.

It’s council, you only get to speak once, sorry, councilor. Anyone else? Okay, we’re going to open the vote on the referral to Q2 2026. Wasn’t the vote?

Motion fails five to seven. Okay, so now we’re back to the main motion that councilor Ferreira moved. Okay, so we’re back to that main piece. There’s a number of people who’ve spoken to this.

I look for any new speakers. You can do a point of order. What’s in front of us is right now the motion presented by councilor Ferreira or the decision from the standing committee. The motion that councilor Ferreira is doing?

Okay, think yes, which is the thing that he tried to move a committee. He’s now moving a council. Okay, it’s it’s the motion to direct its vote number two in his scribe. Just let everybody look at that.

Okay, other speakers to the motion that councilor Ferreira and council chose that moved. Okay, I’ve seen none. We’re going to open it. You already spoke to this motion, councilor.

For three minutes. Point of order, sure. I do want to clarification. What’s in front of us?

If we vote yes, are we supporting the committee’s recommendation? No, councilor Ferreira already put forward? Are we putting supporting his motion today? What he brought forward?

We’re supporting his motion today that he brought forward. If it fails, there is just a committee’s recommendation because he is amending the committee recommendation to include an action. That’s what we’re voting on and open that for voting. That’s right.

Councilor, you spoke to the main motion and then you move the amendment. You haven’t spoken, so yes, you can speak. Go ahead. Thank you.

I did that on purpose. So here we are. We don’t have a referral on the table. We have an urgent need.

We have all said this. All of us said it last week. Hopefully we can say it again. Staff will bring back this report when they can.

Q2, I would assume. If we were to vote on this right now, if they align it with the other report, align it with the other report, I think we should put it together. I do see it. We had a big conversation here on it.

Honestly, I would ask, who are we beholden to? Are we beholden to Londoners? Are we beholden to something else? People in the gallery are very smart.

They know what’s up. They know what we’re saying. They know what we’re doing. We need to support them.

And it’s not just the people in the gallery. It’s everybody in London. London is asking us, demanding us to do something. This is the most cost-effective way to stop homelessness.

It’s also the best way because it stops people from becoming homeless. And it gives them the peace of mind so they know that we’re on their side. It seems that other levels of government, I’m not going to say, may not be so much on their side. We are.

I am. I know most of you are. So why don’t we do this? The procedural discussion, reasons why.

I haven’t seen any real reason why not to. What’s a reasonable approach? I thought a reasonable approach was to go back to staff, have a report back. Maybe the reasonable approach was to go through some other counselors.

I don’t know. Honestly, we need to do this. They’re asking for us. They’re demanding us.

Like I said, this is time that we take action here. This is time that we actually bring something that is meaningful. There’s going to be no extra cost most likely because we have the rental unit repair license with only seven. Only seven licenses pulled.

We have a staff complement dedicated to this and they’re being underutilized. So there’s no cost there. The report back is just to add this to the current program that we have already. Now, I said before, this is about fraud.

Every single case that I’ve seen is about affordable housing, long-standing tenants, tenants that came to this gallery and spoke at the Communion Protective Services Committee, who are in their units for 50 years. We’re talking about senior citizens on fixed income. They are not able to go to another place and get rent at something they can afford. They’re simply not.

So what happens to them? And I don’t know why it’s not so urgent. I don’t want to see any more people get on the streets. I’m a little baffled sometimes.

But I think that this is the time when we need to show that we are on London’s side. We are on the citizens of this great city’s side. So let’s give our vote to them. Any other speakers who haven’t spoken yet?

You have spoken, yes. Okay, we’re going to open this for voting. Closing the vote. Motion fails.

Four to eight. Council approval. Oh, okay. So now just the Committee’s recommendation, Council approval.

You have that on the floor. Any other speakers to that? Okay, we’re going to open that for voting. Closing the vote.

Motion carries 12 to 0. Council approval. Dear Worship, that concludes the first report of the Committee on Protective Services Committee. Thank you.

I’m going to look to see if we can just power through and finish this meeting. There’s just an audit report left and then bylaws. So, Councilor Stevenson, if you can send the audit. Thank you.

Yes, I’d like to present the fourth report of the audit Committee. I haven’t been asked to pull anything. Okay, does anybody want anything pulled from the audit committee? Seeing none, we can, any, sorry, any debate?

Councilor Stevenson’s putting the whole thing on the floor. Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries 12 to 0.

Thank you. Added reports. Council approval is going to read out a report from Council in closed session. Thank you.

From the first report of the Council in closed session, your Council in closed session report. Replacement agreement, simulcast upgrade for emergency communication system, that on the recommendation of the peer-to-city manager enterprise supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report. They did December 1st, 2025 related to a single source procurement, SS-21-08, for base station replacement agreement, simulcast upgrade for emergency communication system. A, the above-noted staff report with respect to the limited tendering procurement for the base station replacement, simulcast upgrade with PSPC Canada systems, incorporated formerly L3, Harris Canada, be received and be the civic administration be directed to proceed with a limited tendering procurement in accordance with the subsection 13.3, 3A and E of the procurement goods and services policy with respect to base station replacement, simulcast upgrade with PSPC Canada systems, incorporated formerly L3, Harris Canada.

That progress was made with respect to IDAM 4.1 and 4.2, as noted on the public agenda, 6.11 PAC PC and 6.21 PEC. Thank you. Thank you. I’ll second that.

So that’s on the floor. Any discussion on that? Council probably you’re presenting a report, so you still get the stand. Any discussion on this?

Okay, we’re going to open that for voting. Council approval, could we have your microphone? Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 12 to 0.

Thank you. That’s great. Appreciate that. Deferred matters.

There are none inquiries. Any inquiries? Okay. There are none.

Emergent motions. There are none. Bylaws. We’re going to, okay.

So what we’re going to do is bill 11, which is the urban growth boundary bylaws first. Then we’re going to do bills 2 and 3, which were the items that Councillor Stevenson wanted to vote contrary on, unless you don’t want them separate. Well, I’m okay with 3 now that we’ve passed what we have. So I only need, I can vote yes to 2 and no to, or the vice versa.

Okay. So I only want to vote no to 2. Okay. So we’ll just have number 2 separated out with number 3 in the larger package of bills.

And then everything else will be together. So we’re just going to make that adjustment. Everybody’s okay with that. All right.

So bill 11 for urban growth boundary. I’m going to look for a mover. Is there a mover in a second for all the things today? Deputy Mayor Lewis and Councillor Cady.

First reading of the bill 11, we’re going to open that for voting. Carries 10 to 2. Second reading of the same bill, same mover and seconder any debate. See none.

We’ll open that for voting. Carries 10 to 2. Third and final reading of bill 11. We’ll open that for voting.

I suppose no. Carries 10 to 2. Okay. We’ll do bill 2 next.

Same mover and seconder. We’ll open first reading for voting. Carries 11 to 1. A second reading.

Same mover and seconder any debate. Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Carries 11 to 1. Third and final reading of this bill, same mover and seconder.

We’ll open that for voting. Motion carries 11 to 1. Okay. So everything else including the addeds will now be on the floor.

Same mover and seconder. We’ll open first reading for voting. Carries 12 to 0. Second reading.

Same mover and seconder any debate on these bills. Seeing none, we’ll open this for voting. Motion carries 12 to 0. And third reading.

This is everything we just did with the exception of a drainage by-law, which we only usually do the first two readings of. So this will be kind of everything the same with the exception of one bill related to drainage. We do the third reading of that later. So we’re going to open that for voting.

I just wanted to make that clear for everybody. Carries 12 to 0. Okay. That is it.

I just need a motion to adjourn now. Councillor van Mereberg and seconded by Councillor Stevenson. We’ll do that by hand. All those in favor of adjournment.

Motion carries. Okay. Great. There’s some sandwiches in the room.

It wasn’t sure how long we go and the the cafeteria is closed so we’re not going to take one home.