Urging Ontario to keep Guelph's consumption site open

All right. Good morning, everybody. It's Wednesday, December the 11th, 2024. It is 09:00 so I'll call the meeting to order officially. And now I will ask everyone to stand if you're able. As we recognize our national anthem.

Great. Thank you. And just a moment of silent reflection as we continue. Thank you and for our territorial acknowledgment. As we gather, let us take time to reflect on the privilege we have to live and work here in Guelph a city built over rich indigenous histories. We're guests here, and we should reflect upon the responsibility to care for this land, people. Who live here today. In generations to come, for actions today can move us towards reconciliation. We should take pause and make those decisions with intention and gratitude. This place we call guelph has served as traditional lands. And a place of refuge for many peoples over time, but more specifically, the Anawana rock and the Honoshoney. This land is held as the treaty lands and territory with. The Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation and Guelflies directly adjacent to the Haldeman track and is part of a long established traditional hunting grounds for the six nations. Of the grand river, many First Nations, Inuit and may t people who have come from across Turtle island called Guelph home today. Thank you. Is there any disclosure of pecuniary interest or any general nature thereof for

the items in front of us. Okay. Thank you. I do have a minute that this need to look to be confirmed. The minutes. Of the Councillor meeting held November 13, 19th, 26 and 27th, 2024, and the committee of the whole meeting, held on November 5, 2024, be confirmed as recorded and without being read. Billings and. Galler. Thank you. Any changes on that or any edits? No. Call to vote. Is anyone against that? Nobody. That's unanimous. Thank you. We'll move on. We do have the consent report. Which was the 2024 third quarter budget monitoring report. And that's the only one. Does anyone need that pull? No. Maybe chair Koran could move it because. It's under corporate. All right, perfect. And then Downer can second. Thank you. And anything on that, I'll call the vote. Is anyone against that consent? No. Okay, that's unanimous as well. And now we've got three items added to the agenda. The

first one is impact from closure of the Guelph consumption and treatment services. Site, then we will get. To the support of charter rights and freedoms. And then after that, A motion for the solve the crisis campaign in regards to the impact of the closure of the Gulf consumption and treatment services site. This was asked to be extracted from Councillor alt. Councillor alt I think maybe I'll just turn it over to you, if you don't mind. Just because I think it's important for you to set the stage before the delegates come. Up. Thank you very much. Mayor Guthrie, do you wish me to read out the four motions in front of us that are on the. Paper. I'm so sorry I interrupted you, but no counsel. I'll let you table them as soon as the delegations are done. You can be high level right now as to why it's here. Very well. Thank you. Very much. The reason that I brought this forward is that I believe it's very important. For this Councillor to reaffirm its support for safe injection sites. Similar to the unanimous motion. That was passed here a time ago. Quoting from Guelph's own overdose prevention site. The Gulf overdose prevention site offers consumption and treatment services to ensure supports are available long

term. This was launched in 2019 and from all reports has been tremendously successful. I think it's really important that we also acknowledge that most opioids here and elsewhere. And other life threatening substances are taken within a home setting. The safe injection sites. Admittedly do not dampen consumption, only more money for mental health support. Addiction services and treatment can do that, but regrettably, within the province. There's far more words than there is action. Our money being put toward this, similar to what is being done in housing. What concerns me is by removing safe injection sites, we are giving health care workers. An opportunity to go into a battle with only half the tools and the example that I use. A metaphor is it's like putting a boxer into a boxing match with one hand tied. Behind the individual's match. As much as I dislike boxing, and though I do not agree all the time with John Tory. I think his points about the need for a value for money. Audit and to actually embrace evidence based decision making is really important, and I liken as to how we dealt with HIV. And we dealt with Covid

and even earlier on, how we dealt with reproductive choice and the dangers associated with that not so long ago. I also point out that Toronto Board of Health has made a recommendation to Toronto that despite what the province is doing. Toronto Board of Health should continue to support. Financially safe injection sites. So really, what I'm stating is that we need to listen to the experts. We need to listen to frontline staff, we need to listen to the police. We need to recognize that this will have short and long term financial and human resource implications. If we do not reaffirm this, and if we do not continue on safe injection sites and this is clearly evident from such things that we could actually do which have not been done by the provincial government, which is provide. For money audits to determine how effective these are. I worry that wealth could become an unsafe injection site if we remove a safe injection site, right? Now there are people who choose to go to safe injection sites for many reasons. We have university students who wish to check the safety. Of their drugs. That's a fact. We have

people on the street who use safe injection. Sites and dispose of sharps and other dangerous. Appliances. Safely. We have medical staff standing by. Our challenge is that we are going to raise our costs for paramedics, for police, for on street social workers and increase workload stress significantly. It's imperative to me that we send a message that we need to put money into. Mental health, put money into housing, put it into the economy and security and well being of people. And that includes continuing to fund safe injection sites. The problem is not going to go away. It will go underground. We will have many individuals, good, caring individuals, who will set up what they consider to be safe. Injection sites, and these will be not only dangerous, they will be illegal. This is something that needs to be left to medical practitioners so that we. Ensure that we are doing our damnedest to make certain that. The fentanyl and the opioid crisis is dealt with effectively with all the tools at our disposal and all the

tools that the provincial government should finance. Thank you for setting the stage of why you wanted this forward. We will go to delegations. We have a few. Some in videos, some in person. So thank you for coming. And just so everyone knows, it's no more than five minutes. And at the four minute and 32nd mark, you'll hear a chime. And that gives you the 32nd warning that your time is almost up. The microphone does get shut off at five minutes, so just don't get there because we want to hear what you have to say in that allotted time, okay? Brad Evoi is here from Disability Justice Network of Ontario. Come on down, Brad. And Emilia Meister is going to join us after that on video. Yes. Thanks, Brad. And the green light is on, so you are ready to go? I'll turn it over to you whenever you're ready. All right. Thank you very much, folks. My name, as mentioned, is Brad Evoy. I'm a member. Of the hollaboo McMond Nation, and I'm the executive

director with disability. Justice Network of Ontario. Some of you may remember me from when I was a gulf resident, a number of years ago and worked around the onta. Ontario public Interest research group. So it's lovely to be back here in guelph. Again today. A place that I still consider. Very close to my heart and home. So I want to first start this by thanking Councillor alt for bringing forward this motion. I think it's really important. To continue the broad support of overdose prevention sites here in Guelph, the folks who run the Guelph ops have been valiant in serving this community for so many years. I knew them when I lived here and. Their lives and the lives of the wider community. Are being upended to satisfy the anti evidence and ideological positions of our conservative premier. Moving the violence and precarity of our systems, then out of sight might temporarily appease. Some in business or in Nimby crowds, but it won't last. For those opposed to community supports in their neighborhoods, it might be

uncomfortable. To see local police violence. And violently arrest unhoused and folks and drug users to observe drug use in public due to closed or distant supervised consumption sites. Or all of the related pieces of violence that come from those realities. But this discomfort pales in comparison to the actual dangers faced by living through these conditions and for folks who are at higher risks for both structural and interpersonal violence. I'll remind folks that no one has ever died from an overdose. At a supervised consumption site. That people in Ontario instead are dying alone from the toxic drug crisis and toxic drug supply in their homes all over this province. Further claims that these sorts of things will benefit children. Don't address the reality that children have loved ones who use substances and thus are putting their lives in health at greater risk as well, aside from

the fact that the unregulated drug supply also directly. Affects teens and young adults. The alternative, then, to these systems? That's often being suggested by some. A minority, I would say. Is that a forced treatment? Harkening back to the days of the regional centers, an asylum system where so many disabled folks have suffered throughout this province. And if you think that this is hyperbole or based in a distant past, In another province, Manitoba. The last of these institutions closed literally yesterday. And this is to say nothing of sheltered workshops and questionable group homes that are targeting and exploiting disabled communities that are still alive and well here in Ontario. Ultimately, friends, the closure of the Guelph ops is an open form of social murder. We know. What's going to happen here. We know our. Friends and

neighbors will die. Without these services. Instead, we need expanded, broad support for overdose prevention and social action. We need raising social assistance rates. We need building real, accessible, affordable housing. We need rent control. These are the things that will instead improve the lives of everyone, including drug users and their families. The actions of this province again. Are open. Social murder. And I hope that Guelph continues in its long tradition of progressivism to take a firm stand against all fronts of Doug Ford's war on the poor and marginalized in this province. Thank you, Brad, for coming. And thank you for your presentation. Is there any follow up questions? There isn't. So thank you again for coming and starting us off today. Amelia Meister is going to join us by video. And then after that. Sarah bales.

Sarah here? Okay. Amelia, we see you. Can you just check your mic for us? Yes. Can you hear me okay? Yeah, you're coming through. Perfect. I'll turn it over to you. Go ahead. Thank you, counsel. I want to tell you a story about a friend of mine who died on November 8 because. Of tainted supply. This was a death that could have been prevented if he had had adequate access. To a CTS site at the time of using. My friend's name is miles. He was 20 years old when he died. He was an incredibly caring person, a brilliant. Visual artist, and he often talked about his dreams to make art for a living or to become a social worker so he could help people who are in the same position he once was. He was so silly. And he could always make me laugh. He would send me silly selfies. And nonsense memes and videos and joke around all the time. I always found this incredible because his life had been so hard. People don't just fall. Into addiction because they want to. They do so because life feels so hard that the only escape. Feels through that brief moment of getting high. And he was no exception on the street at 14. Living in

shelters vulnerable, without a consistent, loving adult to guide him, to ensure he had food, shelter, or education. It's no wonder. When someone offered him meth, he accepted. Despite that, he wanted to get sober. In the 18 months that I knew him, he had gotten sober countless times, sometimes for a week. Sometimes for over a month, but without proper housing, mental health and community support needed, it was nearly impossible to stick to it. I tell you all of this because I want you to understand that. People who use drugs are people with loved ones. Friends and community who care deeply about them. They are people with hopes and dreams, many of them want to get sober, but a lack the ability to do so because there aren't social systems in place to properly support them. And even if they didn't want to get sober. They should still have access to safe supply. It may feel easy to think of folks using drugs as numbers or some far removed idea from your life. But they are all humans, and I urge you to see their humanity today. I also want to remind you that we already have tons of safe consumption sites downtown. One, right. Next to

the CTS site that is being shut down. Alcohol is a drug and bars are safe consumption sites. They are staffed by people who are legally mandated to be trained in identifying the signs of alcohol poisoning and refusing service to anyone who exhibits it. And yet we allow and even celebrate the existence of these safe consumption sites despite. Alcohol abuse being a major cause of health issues and death in this country and community. A 24 hours accessible CTS site would have saved my friend Miles's life. I often think of what his life could have been. Had he been able to access this life saving service? I don't want any lnls to die because of lack of access to safe. Supply. I want to see those who use drugs in our community to be treated with respect and care. And their lives valued. I urge you to vote for this motion to protect people like my friend. Miles as I see any vote against it as a vote for death of our community members. Thank you. Thank you, Amelia, for your presentation. Is there any follow up?

There isn't. So thank you again for joining us today. Now, is Sarah Bayless here? No. Okay. And what about Paige Hutchinson? Okay, come on down. Yes, I'll allow it.

This is page, but Paige is going to read Sarah's message. And then we'll count to two, and then. Page will do their own presentation, okay? Pardon. This is Mars. I'm so sorry. No, it's okay. There's no pushback. So you're here on behalf. Of Sarah Bayless. So go ahead and we'll listen. We might not have any questions just because it's not Sarah, but we'll let you do? Her talk. Okay, go ahead. So. Thank you. My name is Mars Russell, and I'm reading. On behalf of Sarah, dear Mayor Guthrie and counsel, I'd like to start by expressing my sincere gratitude to Councillor Phil alt for this motion. I'm consistently impressed by his ability to speak to truth, to power, to engage with us in earnest and to show what is to be. An advocate in his community. For maybe the first time in my life, I feel completely speechless. I don't know what to say to make those with power withhold another blow to our community. Closing the CTS. Sites is an act of social murder. Labeling its ineffective replacement a heart hub is rubbing our noses. In it. Every individual on this Councillor knows that the war on drugs is ineffective and a waste. Of our money and time if it was effective. We wouldn't be having the same conversation that we had during the Reagan

administration, to quote Dr. Carl Hart. It is impossible to talk about drugs without addressing the elephant in the room or more aptly, the albatross around the necks of the vulnerable. The war on drugs. As with previous drug crises, the opioid problem is not really about opioids. It's mainly about cultural, social and environmental factors such as racism. Draconian drug laws defunded police apologies defunded public health and social services resistance to evidence based practices and a grossly bloated police budget. I, Sarah, have met with multiple of you, shown you the data, given you academic and personal stories. And begged for municipal aid. I know this is a provincial decision and that you're sending a letter that you're hoping to get a few scraps for the hearth hub, that. You think you're doing the most you can, but you must do more. We are still in chambers discussing the threat looming over our community as if it is a faraway. Notion. Those of us who have known the pain of an overdose begged a higher power. When resuscitating a community member or had a loved one killed by the drug poisoning. Crisis knows that we are staring down the barrel of a gun. In essence, the war on drugs. Is not a war on drugs. It is a war on all of us. Instead of following the science of fiction and evidencebased practices of harm reduction. We seem dedicated to burying our young our pained and are vulnerable.

The politicians who wax poetic about hearthubs fail. To speak to the graves that we will dig, the families who will lose, and the lives that will be stolen. On November 18, 2024, I attended a memorial vigil for not one, not two, but six people who died in a two week period. I didn't see any Councillor. Except for Councillor Katen there. I didn't see any of you helping folks pack their few belongings in the biting cold day of the St. George's square eviction, either similar. To the law. Passing Councillor seems to be fine with dishing out destructive policies as long as they don't have to see the aftershock. Given our collective history, I ask you. All to rise above. Not only do I beg for you to sign these letters and resist the violence from the Ford administration. I beg you to go further. Be creative in your resistance fund, grassroots. Organizing fun, a harm reduction coalition of local folks. To distribute gear. Take naloxone courses and carry some on your person at all times. Offer your time and institutional power to folks who are already doing these things on a smaller budget. There is so much more to be done here, and you are more than just a letter asking. For? To put the gun down. Be creative and be courageous. You never let a serious crisis go. To waste, Ram Emanuel once remarked. And what I mean by that is, it's an opportunity to do things you think could not be done before. Thank you. Thank you. Sarah. I appreciate it. So. I'm so

sorry. When I didn't have my glasses on, I thought that you were Paige, but you are not Paige. Okay. Is Paige here, then? No. Okay, so, Melissa, you are our next. Melissa Kwarkowski is from the Guelph Community Health center. Now, Mars. You are here, so you will be after Melissa. Okay. Thank you. Hi, Melissa. Welcome. Go ahead. Good morning. Mayor of that three counselors. And staff, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Melissa Kwaikowski. I'm the CEO at Guelph Community Health center, and I'm here to advocate. For the motions under 4.1 urging the province to continue funding and permitting the Guelph consumption and treatment service site. Today I'll share why this facility is indispensable to our community's health, safety and financial stability. The auditor general's report makes it clear. Closing CTF sites will have dire consequences. The ministry's own analysis predicts more drug poisoning deaths, increased emergency room visits. A rise in public drug use and more discarded drug supplies in

our streets. This is not speculation. It is what happens when proven solutions are removed. Since opening in 2018, the Guelph CTS has hosted over 41,000 visits, offering supervised compassionate care. We've made nearly 1000 referrals to addiction treatment and primary care. Reversed 311 overdoses, with only twelve requiring hospital transfer. Most notably, there have been zero fatalities. These are lives saved, families kept whole, and resources preserved for other critical needs. In addition, the work that CTS staff do to prevent drug poisonings from happening in the first place also diverts from emergency services. Health teaching and education by staff and our drug checking program give clients the information they need to stay safe. For example, almost 20% of people made a different decision about their substance use after receiving testing. Data from the drug checking program. They either lowered their dose or did not use the substance. CTS facilities don't just save lives, they save money as well.

Calgary's safeworks. Program save 2.3 million in health care costs by reducing ambulance trips and emergency room visits. If CTS services are discontinued, these costs will shift back to hospitals, paramedics and taxpayers. All while worsening outcomes for people who use substances and the broader community. Supervised consumption sites are essential to community well being. A us study found that 76% of individuals using CTS services would otherwise consume substances in public. By offering a safe and supervised alternative. These facilities reduce public drug use and syringe litter. Making our streets safer for everyone. While the province's heart hubs proposal is a step in addressing addiction, it is not a direct replacement for CTS. I need to make that point again. It is not a direct replacement for CTS. The AG's report highlights that the hubs lack the scale, planning and comprehensive services required to meet the needs of vulnerable populations. Without harm reduction services like those at CTS, the continuum of care is incomplete. Leaving gaps that put lives

at risk. By supporting these motions, Councillor can deliver a powerful message to the province in a public health crisis. We must prioritize evidencebased solutions that save lives, reduce cost, and strengthen community safety. This is about more than health policy. It's about who we are as a community. The data is clear, the evidence is compelling, and the stakes couldn't be higher. Let us stand together to protect what works and to ensure that no more lives are needlessly. Lost in Guelph. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you, Melissa. I have a question from Councillor Clawson. Yes. Thank you. Through you, Mr. Air, to the delegate. Thanks for your presentation. I had a question with regard to some of the partners, and partners in the community, social services. And local boards like the hospital, the police, the library. I was wondering if you have had a chance to connect with some of these partners and talk about what potentially some. Of the consequences could be if and when the CTS site closes next year. Thank you

for your question through you, Mayor. This is happening on a few different fronts. Some of this work is happening. At the Wellington Gulf Drug Strategy table some of this work is happening at the oh. Oht and I was just on a call yesterday. With EMS, public health, the hospital, et cetera. And we are working on a work plan for trying to mitigate the harms that will happen. And this includes trying to get supplies and things out to people. We're also hosting a training today, welcoming streets and part of what we will be doing over the coming weeks and months is really ensuring that the community is equipped because businesses and community members will now have the responsibility for managing overdoses in public spaces, so we'll continue. To offer training. For community and. Resources as well. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And then last is O'Rourke. Go ahead. Thank you, Mayor Gustris, for you to Ms. Kwatkowski speaking to the second clause of the motion

to expand the heart hubs. I'm wondering if you can describe sort of the expectation around those heart hubs. They've been described as. Housing and wraparound services. And first of all, is there any possibility the hard hubs will be open in time to align with the closure of the cts and second. Will the hard hubs really provide, like, housing and wraparound services? Thank you for your question through you, Mayor. So the first question about the timelines is not really within our control. We submitted our application. For a heart hub for this community, the Guelph Wellington hearth so it serve both Gulf and Wellington counties. We submitted that the third week of October. We have yet to hear back about the status of our application. So the timelines for when we can implement really depend on when we have approval to move. Forward, and then when we have a funding letter that says we're receiving the funding, So right now we're waiting, we hope. We'll hear in a timely way that we can have services up and running or at least some of the services up and

running on April 1. And, Councillor, can you remind me your second question? Yeah. The second question is, I think people have. An expectation that the hearth hub is housing and wraparound services, which sounds like a much better model. But I'm wondering, is that a fair expectation? What the hearth hubs will offer, and what ours will offer here is access to wraparound. Support teams to support people with housing and their health needs. It will also offer some bedded services, specifically crisis stabilization beds and detox beds. In this community as well as increasing support of housing capacity. What it is taking away from community. Is. A really important part of the comprehensive continuum of care for addiction services, which. Is all of the harm reduction. So no needle exchange, no supervised consumption, and no safer supply and. I just want to really highlight the importance of a full, robust continuum, if you think about any chronic condition like take heart disease, for example. You wouldn't say. Well,

we're removing cardiac bypass surgery, but we're going. To increase the number of medications that are available to treat heart disease. You just wouldn't. Do that. You need a full continuum of prevention, harm reduction, and then also. Really high level interventions, like surgery, for example. So those are life saving interventions. We need the same full continuum. So what we're saying is. We definitely need the hearth hub resources. We need more housing. We need more detox beds. Crisis. Stabilization, and we need consumption and treatment services, because for many people, that service is the only doorway into the more formal healthcare system and addiction treatment services, and we're essentially closing that door. Into the system. Great. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Richardson. Sorry. Has a question as well. Thank you. Through you, mayor. To the delegate. My understanding is. Part of the reason, or the main reason for closing the Guelph site was proximity to school or daycare. So would there be an opportunity to move the site or relocate it to a more suitable location. Thank you. Through you, Mayor, I think we have to be clear.

This was never about proximity to child care facilities. If it were, we would have been given the option to move our site, which we have clearly not been given. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much, very much. Mars. You are coming back down. And then Andrea Baker will join us by video. And you can begin whenever you're ready. In, Councillor. I'm here today to voice my support for all motions brought forward at this. Meeting from both Councillor Kayton and Councillor Alt. Specifically, the first agenda, item 4.1, the impending closure of consumption and treatment sites across the province weighs heavy on my heart and the hearts of those aware of the dangers of bill. Two, two, three. Yes. This bill is passed by our provincial government. But I am standing here before my counsel asking that. You condemn this decision and do more to care for our community. Removing CTS sites will lead to more drug poisonings and overdose deaths. Increased drug use and dependency are direct results of rising rates of poverty, lack of mental health supports, gaps in accessible housing

options, toxic supply, and many other issues within. The province. If this bill was truly about the location of CTS sites, the part of said bill prohibiting future sites from being built anywhere would cease to exist, assuming many of us within this room, have entered bars and consumed alcohol. We have utilized safe consumption sites. Liquor laws exist to limit alcohol poisonings. They are clear examples of harm reduction regulation surrounding the quality of. Alcohol sold to the public are in place to ensure safe supply. Both work in tandem to keep members of the public safe. As shown numerous studies, the closures of CTS sites will lead to more preventable deaths. There have been zero reported overdose related deaths at CTS sites in the country, according to health Canada. This finding alone shows their effectiveness in providing safety for some of the most vulnerable members of our community and in turn, safety for all of us. Alongside an increase in fatalities, instances of non. Nonfatal overdoses will rise. The province's proposed hearthub recovery model ignores the root of many drug poisoning, which is an increasingly toxic drug supply. Hart's failure to provide safe supply, drug testing options or needle exchange programs will have impacts that will ripple throughout our healthcare. System, which we know is already struggling following numerous budget cuts, staffing shortages and an active pandemic. Scrapping needle programs will aid in the transmission of bloodborne infections

such as HIV or hepatitis. Both of which cts sites have been proven to reduce the spread of yet another rule. The sites play in public safety, drug overdoses can cause a slew of complications following instances of bridypnia, a lower breathing rate, which can lead to hypoxia, lowered oxygen levels in the blood. Tissue lengthen. Periods of hypoxia will harm vital organs with the heart and brain. Being exceptionally vulnerable to damage or acute failure. Further complications, swelling and overdose can include neurological damage, which can impact memory, coordination, mobility, and lead to abnormalities that can negatively impact one's quality of life on a day to day basis. When these poisonings happen outdoors, specifically during the winter months. Where overdoses have been shown to increase, victims run a higher risk of hypothermia and other health issues following prolonged cold exposure. Survivors of overdoses face an increased risk of developing depression, anxiety disorders, and PTSD. The same can also be said for those in the position of witnessing an overdose, especially members of the public who are untrained and unprepared. To assist in responding to one. Work that was once in the hand of trained nurses, all equipped with naloxone to reverse overdoses that may occur at CTS sites will fall in community members who will be far more likely to find folks using substances in public spaces and using a loan, solo or unsupervised substance use is a leading

risk factor in drug poisonings becoming fatal. We will see an increase in 911 calls for overdose responses. More ambulances, therefore longer wait time for emergency services. And when it comes to responding to an overdose or any emergency. Every second counts. Hospital beds risk filling with those who relied on CTS. Sites to survive and access to safe supply, which is an often overlooked step of recovery for many who are unable, for a plethora of reasons, to simply stop using. I recall the early days of lock. Lockdown in 2020. And I remember the liquor stores remaining open, and I asked why. I learned that our hospitals could not handle the results of those who were dependent on alcohol losing access to it. Our hospitals were and remain unprepared for a surge in patients. Why would we support a bill that will inevitably lead to more strain on an already unstable health care system. We simply do not have the resources, the beds, the budget or the staff. To handle the crisis that will follow these closures. Yes, recovery models sound great. Of course, we want those who are struggling to receive treatment. But you cannot put a dead person into rehab. No. Recovery program will bring back anyone lost to drug poisoning from unsafe supply, as it is so often said each overdose death represents a policy failure. CTS sites and their impact exist as proof that. There are tangible ways to prevent overdose deaths and to care for our community. The promises of increased housing alongside hearth hubs is a wonderful promise, but the facts we

are being presented with are too powerful to ignore. Bill two two, three will have a body count. Increased funding and housing options. Need to be explored alongside CTS sites remaining open and properly funded to continue saving lives and assisting in community. Safety. Thank you for your time, and I welcome any question. Thank you, Mars. Let me just see if there's any follow up for you. There is. Not. So again, thank you for coming down. Andrea Baker is going to join us by video. No. Okay. Is Joe Francis here? No. Okay. And what about Gene Hopkins? I know. I see. Teen. Yes. Thanks, Gene. And whenever you're ready, go right ahead. Thank you. Good morning. My name is. Gene Hopkins. I'm the manager of the Wellington wealth drug strategy. Thank you for having me. Here today to speak about the impacts of the CTS closures and what our responses the Wellington Gulf drug strategy is a coalition. Of partner agencies and members of the lived experience community who are working to implement a four pillar drug strategy in Guelphon, Wellington County. The four pillars

are prevention, harm reduction, treatment and recovery, and community safety. The reason that we have these four pillars is really to recognize that substance use and addiction is complex and no single tool is enough. Each of these pillars is necessary to support our community through the drug poisoning crisis we continue to experience. I'm delegating in support of this motion. While many other delegates have spoken to the devastating impacts of the CTS closures. That will happen to public health and safety. I also want to speak to the economic impacts of the closures as well, and some of the recent activities that we've been involved in. Provincially over the past week. So, as we've heard today, CTS sites offer specialized medical supports and treatment with dignity. And care, even amidst the grief and loss being experienced by those most impacted, drug poisonings claim the life of someone in Ontario every two and a half hours. In Guelph and Wellington. We lost 62 people last year, and so far, data shows that we've lost 41 members of our community this year, and we anticipate these confirmed cases will grow as more data becomes available. We know that drug poisonings are driven by the unregulated drug supply. That is. Increasingly toxic and increasingly unpredictable. And we know that the closures

will not improve the supply and won't prevent people from using substances. The substance use landscape, both provincially and locally, is changing rapidly, and I just want to provide a bit of an overview about some of the key events that took place last week. So last Monday, December 2 as expected, legislation was pushed through that effectively ban CTS sites within 200 meters. Of schools or daycares. Bill 223 forces sites to close and makes it nearly impossible to open new sites. The following day, on Tuesday, December 3, the auditor general released their annual report, including information about the opioid crisis. The report confirmed that CTS sites work sites prevented over 1500 overdoses in the past year. That could have occurred in the community. They reduced the risk of hep C and HIV transmission, which increase overall cost to the healthcare system. And they're cost effective. They reduce the overall burden on emergency services by providing specialized care. On site. The report also notes that. Their internal government documents stating that the ministry recognized that there would be impacts on our health system. Including financial and operational burden on emergency departments and states, quote, the decision was made

without proper planning. Risk analysis or public consultations. In response to this on the following day, Wednesday, December 4, the Wellington Guelph drug strategy and Ingrid Oles, who's a staff member with the Guelph CTS site. Attended a press conference at Queens park along with a drug strategy network of Ontario and Guelph MPP Mike shriner. We called on the Auditor General to take on a value for money audit to further assess the financial implications of these closures on communities across Ontario, including our own. A fulsome audit will add to the evidence base and will ensure that we have a comprehensive picture of the impacts. So now what? Now we must prepare for an increased strain on our healthcare system with reduced ambulance availability and more. People competing for life saving care in the emergency room. Wound care needs which are currently provided at the CTS will get more severe. We can expect to find more discarded equipment in our public spaces. We know that there is irrefutable evidence that CTS sites save lives and connect people to the dignified care they need and deserve. We know this. And we now need to anticipate the health and safety

and financial impacts and consider what we can be doing collectively. To mitigate those risks. How can we, as a community, as Councillor, prepare to respond in ways that are rooted in compassion? And evidence. And I'd like to close with a quote from Ingrid Oles, who spoke at the press conference last week. In grid states. The CTS is a place where people can come to feel safe and accepted. And that is a huge step on the path to creating trusting relationships for a lot of people. It's the first step to feeling safe enough to seek health care. Cts workers are grieving every day, but we work hard to provide the most accessible supports possible. Thank you. Thank you. Any follow up for this, delegate? Seeing none. Thank you, Gene. Thank you very much. Councilor alt, I'd like to ask you to table your motions, please. Thank you very much, Mayor Guthrie, in tabling these motions. At this point, I have nothing further. To express. I will have, including remarks. There are four motions in front of us. They are on the order sheet for the day. Would you like me to read them? Secondary, Councillor Galler.

Thank you. And reading the motions. Number one, the well city Councillor urges the Ontario government to continue to permit the operation and funding of the Guelph consumption and treatment site beyond the proposed termination date. In March 2025. Number two, that Guel city Councillor encourages the Ontario government to maintain if. Not expand funding for the proposed homeless and addiction recovery treatment. Heart hubs. Number three. The Gulf City Councillor encourages the Ontario government to not take steps to prohibit the establishment of supervised consumption sites, including urgent public health needs sites otherwise known as uph ns. Number four, that this resolution be forwarded to the Premier of Ontario, to the Minister of finance. The Minister of Health, the association and Municipalities of Ontario, and to municipalities that currently have an operating consumption and treatment service and or supervised consumption sites moved alt seconded to Galler. Great. Thank you. Now, and just so you know, I just want to

state that much of these three motions that are these three different items that are in front of us today. Our staff have made it pretty clear this is a Councillor decision. These are support motions. They're not wanting to really wade into this. This is more political, right? So this is an opportunity for questions of staff, if need be, but really. These are Councillor statements. We agree or disagree, and we should probably treat them as such. So this is an opportunity for questions to staff. If need be. Okay, Councillor Clausen. Thank you. Through you, Mr. Mayor. I just have a question. I did ask it during budget. And it's related to a question asked. To the delegate as well, so. We've budgeted. In the contingency reserve. About $500,000, I think, for paramedics. We don't know what the unintended consequences of the closure of the safe injection. Site will be. I know that. We have that set aside. That said, have we been having discussions with our local boards and partners, like the hospital, to monitor and keep track of what will happen after the closure of

the CTS site. Through the mayor, guest Chief Doer, participates in those meetings that I think Ms. Kaikowski referred. To involving the drug strategy in the hospital and public health, and they are having conversations about how to monitor it. As you indicated, there was money set aside in the reserve because we don't. Know whether there will be an impact on paramedic services. Our commitment to the joint social services and land am. Ambulance committee was that we would monitor and track the data. As a paramedic service, we will always respond to whatever the needs of the community are. But until. We get further along, we won't know. What the actual impact is. And so that's why the decision was made to put that money aside, it's not in the base paramedic services budget. It's simply set aside in a reserve in case it's needed. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor O'Rourke, I believe. You have an amendment? I do. Marigot three. I just sent the amendment to clerks and it's amendment. To clause one. And so it's just to add to the end of clause one, at least until the heart hub is fully operational. I think the

data is clear that. There'll be definitely a gap. Notwithstanding the information that we've heard about. Truly the good work that's happening. At the CTS site right now, but there's likely to be a gap between the opening of the Hardhub and the closure of the cts, and so I'm proposing we add the words, at least until the hearth hub is fully operational to the end of clause one. Okay, thank you. And is that seconded by somebody? Councillor Richardson. Okay. I'll look to call the okay Councillor alt before I call the vote. Go ahead. Well, as well intended as this might be, I have to speak against this because I have heard from experts today that we must have a comprehensive support system in place that includes safe injection sites. And heart hubs. To remove safe injection sites at the advent of hearth. Actually continues the same problem, only in another. Guise. Consequently, I can't support this. I believe we need to support. The continuance of safe

injection sites, recognizing that hearth hubs are another tool in the box to address this social malaise. Okay, thank you. And busatill and then back to the. And then I'll go back to the mover. Thank you. And thank you to Councillor. O'Rourke for raising this in listening to the delegations. I will not be supporting the amendment. I think it's very clear that there's a continuum here in the hearth. Hub. Does not support the continuum, the prevention, the harm reduction process there. So I agree with Councillor art. Alt I will not be supporting the amendment. Thank you. Councillor Cayton, please. Thank you. Through your mayor so similarly to Councillor Busill and alt. I will not be supporting the amendment. I know it's well intentioned, but it will not meet the needs of the community. And I think that without the surfaces that are not going to be offered at the hearthubs, that we will see more community deaths. Thank you. And to the mover. And then I'll call the vote. Thank you, mayor. Guthrie. It's just to say the motion says at least until the opening of

the hearth. Hub and doesn't preclude it being open. Past that date. I'm just trying. We know that in the immediate. There could be a gap, and I am just trying to create a bridge so that at least. There is less of a gap. And clause three asks the province to maintain those supervised consumption sites. So I'm more comfortable with clause one, with that amendment, and it is really about trying to not have a gap. Okay? And now I'm over to Councillor Downer. I just say this respectfully, but the gap is endless. Because. The heart hub does not replicate the safe consumption site. So it's a bridge to nowhere. Because it doesn't include that. As part of what we heard is the continuum. So the heart hub we heard does not replicate. Or replace the consumption site. So I won't support it, but I understand the intent. Okay. Thank you. I'll call the vote. But before

I do that, just if the clerks could put it. Back up on the screen. For me. I don't quite remember the wording.

Okay, I'll call the vote. All those against, please raise your hand. So that would be Keaton and Alt and busatil and. Clawson and downer and galler and. Quran. So that fails. Okay, so we're back to the main motions. I would like to personally just ask them. To be split. If you don't mind, we'll just do one at a time. If that's okay. Perfect. So I'll call the vote on. I've got final remarks. Okay, go ahead. Thank you very much, Mayor Guthrie, because this is an issue of policy and an issue of principles. I do want to provide some closing remarks. Nobody wants to be an addict. And I don't want drugs on the street. Nobody ever put on their resume that their career goal was to be homeless, to be on the streets, and to be addicted to anything but in every family and in every friendship. I am sure that we have seen people suffering from either mental illness or addiction. My father was an alcoholic, and I. Can tell you that that was not pleasant. He was also addicted to cigarettes, which is

one of the most addictive. Nicotine being one of the most addictive substances on earth. This was not fun to live in. I do not want to see this replicated. I do not want to see us stop the campaign to end. The misuse of fentanyl and other opioids, but I want safety. Many people use safe injection sites as the first step toward assistance. Many people have for the first time ever. The medical care that they need that is a result of addictions and. The use of street drugs. Safe injection sites I do not believe will disappear, but I do fear that they will go underground. They could be run by churches, earnest citizens, or, as in BC, outside hospitals, by doctors and other healthcare workers. They won't be as effective, and I do believe they will be categorized as criminal behavior. Which is something that I do not wish to see. What we end up doing by abolishing. Safe injection sites is lead to an underground much like we had many, many years ago when as I said earlier, We were addressing issues of reproductive choice.

Cost effectiveness is another problem. Policing paramedics on street social workers currently have rapport with these sites, they will see workload increase, and I worry about burnout, workload stress already. Is extreme. We know that we should continue to support the experts and support safe injection sites and what we have here in Gu. Gua thank you very much to all the delegates who spoke. Okay. Thank you. So we'll just move through the motions, one by one, if you don't mind. Clerks just putting it up. There. Okay, so I'll look to call the vote on the first one. I'll. Do that now. Is anyone against? Please raise your hand. All right, so that's Richardson and Guthrie. So that passes. And then. Put it back up on the screen for me. The second one. The expansion and funding for the proposed to hearth hubs, okay? So I'll have to call the vote on that. If anyone is against, raise your hand. On that one. Okay, so that's unanimous. And

then the third one. Is encouraging the onto our government to not take steps or prohibit. Consumption sites, so I'll call the vote on that. If anyone is against that, please raise your hand. Okay. That's Richardson and Guthrie and Billings and O'. Rourke. And then on the fourth one is to send this resolution. To the premier, the Minister of Finance, Minister of Health, Amo, Municipalities currently that have consumption, treatment. Sites, so I'll call the vote on that. Is anyone against that? Okay, and that one's unanimous. All right. Thank you very much, and we'll move on. Next Councillor Cayton. Just similar to what I did with Councillor alt, if you want to. Sort of set the stage just a little bit about what will be introduced, and then I'll have the delegations come up, and then you can table the motions after that. Okay, so. I'll turn it over to you. So we've heard a lot about. The notwithstanding clause. And the notwithstanding clause. Has been called.

Out as an option by the premier of the province, and a call was made to the Ontario big city mayors. To come forward and say whether or not you, as a mayor would like to have this used. In terms of encampments. And for many other requests. That were outside of the vote of the Ontario big city mayors. And we're not the only ones who are discussing this topic in the province. 79 city Councillor have signed a letter opposing the use of this clause. The mayor of St. Thomas has rescinded his endorsement of using the notwithstanding clause. And there's also a letter. From 450 lawmakers against the use of it. Recently, even Branford and Aurelia voted to oppose it. If you have to use the notwithstanding clause to have legislation upheld, then you are by default on the wrong side of our charter of rights and freedoms. We have these checks and balances in place for a reason, so we don't descend into the depths of authoritarianism. We as a Councillor are supposed to create policies through a lens of consideration that includes rights and freedoms. I'm a very proud Canadian and I have lived in other countries. Our values and rights set us apart. The notwithstanding clause has been framed as a process tool by

the province, but it's more on par with using a nuclear missile to dig a hole. We vote to support a nuclear process response which disallows the courts to weigh in. On the human rights and impacts of a bylaw, of all things. What does that say about our value. Values. And this isn't about our public space use by law. This is about every municipality being above the law. And our charter of rights and freedoms being cast aside. And I hope that none of us truly want that. Similarly, our healthcare Consent act has thoughtful process in place that have been given consideration by the medical community, and no one outside of a qualified medical professional should be making a determination that someone needs to be put under an involuntary hold. We know that involuntary treatment very often leads to drug poisoning upon release and death. This is not a policy that should be forced through the courts or even broached by politicians. Our focus should be on requesting proven, supportive solutions and increasing Ohip. Coverage for voluntary mental health and substance use treatments. Thank you very much. And we have delegations both in person and by video

that might be joining us here today. Brad Evoi is up again, starting us off on this topic. Welcome back, Brad. Excuse me. And then Amelia Meester is joining us again. By video after you've read. So go right ahead, Brad. Whenever you're ready. Thank you very much. Bluntly, folks, I want to first. Thank Councillor Katen for this motion. But put bluntly, every use of a notwithstanding clause to override the charter rights and freedoms of the most marginalized people in our society. Is a direct and immediate threat against the well being and safety of all of us. And even though the newly proposed legislation. Has said that this will not be directly referenced. It is still on the table and remains a live threat to all of us. And in particular, disabled people. We know that. The vast majority of unhoused folks in this province are themselves disabled. And are a part of our communities that have

been failed by all levels of government. In every municipality, in every part of this province and by the federal government. Now just some quick statistics for you from the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Office of the federal housing advocate people with disabilities are more likely to experience. Homelessness because of violence and abuse, and that these figures were even higher for women with disabilities. 63% of women with disabilities who experienced homelessness in their life said it was because of violence, compared to 54% of women without disabilities. 53% of people with disabilities who experienced homelessness in their lifetime said it was because of violence compared to those without at about 36%. Ultimately, we are more likely to be forced to move for economic reasons, including financial hardship related to the Covid-19 pandemic, and that ultimately financial hardship was the main reason that people with disabilities were forced into homelessness. These are the people. That legislation from

Doug Ford will be targeting. These are the people. That the notwithstanding clause would be used against. Ultimately, we know that the number of unhoused folks on OW and ODSP have doubled since the pandemic began and that many of our unhoused neighbors are kept from these services due to barriers arising from being unhoused. Ultimately, in opposing the use of this constitutional sledgehammer, You would also be increasing your own ability as a municipality to affect change and refusing to give over all authority to Doug Ford and becoming his rubber stamp. Ultimately. This use of the notwithstanding clause as it becomes normalized threatens your ability to govern yourselves effectively. As a municipality. Folks, as we've seen. With proposed legislation drafts that we've seen out there. There are direct and immediate threats to municipalities that choose to continue to

support. Encampments potentially and direct possibilities and impacts on your funding. Through the Ministry of Community and Social Services. I think we can say pretty clearly here that any use of the notwithstanding clause. Is not to further your ability to govern or further. Your ability to. Serve residents of wealth, but instead. Is intentionally designed to undermine you and to undermine the rights and safety of all citizens. So the question before you then to me is very simple. What do you value more? The rights of all Ontarians and Guelphites, or the comfort of some business. Owners, homeowners and Nimby's when it comes to dealing with the problems that are on the table here. Councilor Canton's motion, then turns back reactionary ideals that are counter to everything I hope we all stand for together. We hope that this

Councillor firmly embraces the safety and rights of voluntarians. There can be no freedom for. Any disabled people in this province. Where there is to be a vile body of legislation like this, backed by the notwithstanding clause that threatens us and our communities. Thank you. Thank you, Brad. Is there any questions for Brad? Councillor Caitan has one. Go ahead. Thank you. Through you, Mr. Mayor. I've heard from various members of the disability community that the intersections of the expansion of maid, and along with the possibility for involuntary treatment, seems like a very dangerous. Landscape. Could you comment on that? Absolutely. I think that disabled folks in this province are being kind of pushed into a vice here. On one hand, we have the threat of forced treatment, which, as I spoke about in my first delegation is very reminiscent. To the broader regional center system, the asylum system, and then, on the other hand, There is

the threat of maid, which. Is deeply and fundamentally being incentivized for those who. Are on social assistance or should be and should be supported in this broader society. When we look at the rates here in Ontario. For someone on Ontario works, if you are housed as a single person. That's $733 a month. Can you have a home in this city effectively at that cost? And the fact is you can't. And we know that Ontario works for many folks who are disabled in this province because of difficulties. In getting access to ODSP is the holding area for folks with disabilities in this province. That don't get through the bureaucracies of that system or are stuck in. Repeated excessive appeals or dealing with medical racism or facing other issues. So, ultimately. I think that the reality is that this legislation that is being proposed by Doug Ford, these realities are tightening the vice, and at some point

it's going to break. Thank you. And thank you again for your presentation. Amelia Meister is going to join us again by video. And is Sarah Bayless here? No. Is Paige Hutchinson here? No. Is Kate Nixon here? Yes, I think. Yes. Kate, you'll be in the wings, okay? After. Amelia. Okay, Emilia. Thank you and welcome. And go right ahead. Thank you so much, Councillor. First, I want to speak about the concerning degradation of democracy and democratic. Rights that I'm seeing in this, Councillor. First we had the use of strong mayor powers. For the budget. And now we are seeing the potential use of the notwithstanding clause against people living in encampments in our city. The notwithstanding clause is supposed to. Be used only in the most desperate of situations where no other options are available. I see its potential use around people living in encampments to be completely inappropriate and a concerning slippery slope for the loss of basic human rights for our citizens in Guelph, I see a vote against this motion as a vote against the humanity of not just the residents living. In

encampments, but all residents of Guelph. Because if this Councillor is willing to. Use it for encampments. What other group will it attack next? Now, I want you to come along on a little imagination. Journey with me. I want you to imagine for a moment that you got injured in a car crash. You get prescribed opioids because they are the only thing that help with the pain. However. After taking all your medical leave, all your sick days and unpaid leave and every benefit you can you still can't return to work because the pain is so bad. You then go through all your savings to survive. But still the pain is too bad to go back to work. You've been diagnosed. With nerve damage and you're told that you'll likely live with this level of pain or higher for the rest of your life. Your doctor prescribes you a new experimental nerve medication that actually helps, and you start looking. For work again, but it's $350 a month and not covered by OHip. You. Use your credit card until it's maxed out. You can't go into any more debt because you're not working. Because finding a job is a lot harder when you have a three year gap on your resume and. You have a disability. Eventually you sell your house, pay off your debts and move into a rental. You live off the sale of your

house for a couple of years, getting occasional part time work. Eventually you're evicted because the landlord's son wants to move in, even though, you know, he lives in Kingston. Since he last looked for housing, rent has drastically spiked. On top of that, the meds that have helped so much for the last couple of years, have just stopped helping as much. You stopped. Being able to work again. You have little money and few options for pain, so in a fit of desperation. You try heroin and the pain goes away. But you become addicted. You lose friends. And the goodwills that allowed you to couch surf for the last year has dried up. You end up on the street. Shelters are often full and don't feel safe. You don't understand how five years ago, you were a successful professional, and now you're a heroin addict trying to find a shelter bed. You make friends, though with some of the other folks in similar positions. You find community you decide to pitch a tent in the encampment because it's close to your social worker and the safe supply. Site and your friends are all there, and you feel like you've been forgotten and abandoned. By your politicians, you feel like maybe, just maybe, if you had homelessness, if people had homelessness shoved in their face every day. They might want to make a solution for it. Maybe they'd want to see you as human. This is the story

of my friend Jeannie, who I met when she was living in an encampment and who is tragically no longer with us. Her story is just one of many. Jeannie was doing everything right, and through no fault of her own, she ended up in an impossible position. But even if she wasn't doing everything right, she would still be a person. A person with rights, family. Friends, hopes and dreams, pains and sorrows, joys and gifts. When you consider using the notwithstanding clause to remove encampments. You're removing people like Jeannie's access to. Safety, access to services, community, friendship and care. You're removing visibility that forces us all to remember the humanity of those in need. People like my friend Genie don't just go away because you remove their human rates. It just makes their lives much worse and the ability to change their circumstances significantly harder by removing their human rights, you're condemning them to an even harder life. You're condemning them to more suffering. Please remember that people living in encampments are people. Please remember that removing their human rights will not solve any problems and only make them worse. Please remember that our charter of rights and freedoms. Is in a very important legislation and following

it makes us a more democratic, just and human society. Please vote for this motion. Thank you. Thank you. Amelia, is there any follow up question for this delegate? No. Okay. Thank you again. And Kate Nixon is coming up. And then Diana Chan McNally is going to join us on video after Kate Nixon. Welcome, Kate. I'll turn it over to you. Go right ahead. Thank you. Good morning, members of council. City staff and all who filled the gallery. I'll never forget the horror of turning over the cold, lifeless body of an unconscious man face down on a freezing night with no vital signs. We administered nasal naloxone and performed CPR. Praying with every second that he'd come back. Each minute stretched into what felt like decades as we fought to save his life. I'll always remember. The pain of fear etched into the eyes of community member barely able to stand due to debilitating physical pain. As police cuffed him and rubbished through his belongings. His belongings, the only things he had left. Taken in a

so called crackdown on drugs downtown. The sense of security he clung to, already fragile, was stolen as he cried. I'll forever carry the memory of a fellow peer, a youth lying on the cold cement. In the square after a community vigil with no blankets or means to stay warm. And I can never forget the faces of those we've lost. Far too many and far too young. Their favorite snacks, their favorite colors, their hopes and dreams, their unique presence. All gone. These lies, these memories are a stark reminder of the cost of inaction and the devastation. These policies bring upon our community. These are the realities we face, the consequences we live with, when harmful policies take precedence over human lives. The notwithstanding clause was intended as an extraordinary measure for rare circumstances, not a tool to override. The charter rights of society's most vulnerable. It's used to target encampments with strip unhost people of their rights. To life, liberty and security of the person and the fundamental protections that should never be compromised. Encampments are not a choice. They are a reflection of systemic failures. A lack of affordable housing, many in our community not

having access to permanent, safe shelter. Closure is a safe injection sites. Without these life saving services, preventable drug poisonings rise, criminalization of poverty, policing unhoused individuals, perpetuating cycles of trauma rather than offering solutions. Using the notwithstanding clause to displace encampments does nothing to address these root causes. It criminalizes survival, forces people into unsafe conditions and destroys the little stability they have left. The harm of criminalizing encampments is visible every day. People lose their belongings, their safety. And too often their lives. When safe injection sites close and encampments are dismantled, our community becomes less safe, not more. The invocation of the notwithstanding clause would send a chilling message that human rights can be disregarded. When some people deem lives as an inconvenience. It criminalizes survival, forcing people into unsafe, hidden conditions where they are most likely to pass away. From drug poisoning or other health crises, suffer violence or die alone. This is not just a policy. Failure. It is a moral failure. Each life lost is a preventable tragedy, and every displaced encampment is a

testament to the systemic neglect of those who need support. Not punishment. This clause would also set a dangerous precedent, normalizing the use of extraordinary powers to bypass fundamental rights. It undermines trust in our institutions and diverts resources away from real solutions. Instead of punitive measures, this Councillor must focus on compassionate, evidence based approaches. Keep investing in affordable housing. Stable, permanent housing is the foundation of addressing homelessness. Reinstate harm reduction services, both safe injection sites and harm reduction within housing. These save lives and connect people to support work with advocates, collaborate with those with lived experience and frontline workers and volunteers to create lasting solutions. The lives of those experiencing homelessness are not disposable. Invoking the notwithstanding clause is not only unnecessary but profoundly harmful. It criminalizes people for existing rather than addressing the systemic failures that put them in this position. I urge this counsel to reject the use of an outwithstanding clause. Instead, invest in policies. That respect human rights, uphold dignity and create. A more compassionate, safer wealth for all. Thank you. Kate.

Is there any follow up for this delegation? Seeing none, thank you very much. And Diana is good to join us. Now, by video, I believe. And then. Is Michelle Bellak here? No. Can you see me? Hear me? Yes. Hi, Diana, it's Merrick. Three we can see. And hear you. So thank you very much for coming. And you have up to five minutes. Don't get to the five minute mark, so we don't cut you off, okay? So I'll turn it over to you. Go ahead. My name is Diana Chan McNally. And I represent the shift, which is a canadian based international housing rights organization led by the former UN special rapperteur on the right to housing our municipal encampment guidance, which has been adopted in Saskatoon and Halif. Halifax is the only guidance currently endorsed by the association of Municipalities of Ontario, and I am here today because of Councillor Katen's motion in support of charter rights and freedoms. Now, why? Is this motion necessary? And why am I joining you from Toronto? Because your mayor, Cam Guthrie, is. Among just 15 of 444 Ontario mayors who. Signed onto a letter requesting legislative changes that would impact all of Ontario. This legislation would create repercussions. For

communities across diverse geographies, populations, public service availability and resources, and their request was made, seemingly with little thought as to the broad implications to the province. It. Was also made without engaging in local democratic processes. Your mayor, among many others, did not engage with this, Councillor, with the public more broadly on this decision, and it isn't within legislative strong. Mayor powers for any mayor to bypass counsel in making significant decisions in this case of such significance. That intended. Or not, the request would violate the rights of vulnerable people as protected under the Canadian constitution. Now as members of Councillor, you should be consulted before such decisions are made. Your municipal logo ended up on a document that bypassed your authority and that should concern you regardless of whether or not you do. Agree or disagree with your mayor? You are elected to represent your constituents, and in the absence of your voice, let alone with no opportunity for public consultation. Your constituents were not represented. So this is why it is so important that Councillor Kate Motion is on the agenda today because although the

damage has been done and we may see provincial encampment legislation table. Tomorrow at least. Well, fights have a chance to talk, and you have a chance to listen and. I do hope that you listen deeply. Homelessness is a provincewide crisis, and it has been greatly exacerbated by poor provincial policy, including the erosion of rent control, a failure to create and protect decent jobs and a failure to. Address affordability. We also have a dearth of voluntary mental health and addiction support. The declining investment in evidence based harm reduction programs and in an adequate income security system that has doubled. Doubled the number of disabled people on the street in Ontario in the past year. Homelessness has had minimal provincial attention until now, and we are all suffering through inadequate funding for shelters transitional housing funding that has long been based on historical funding levels. And very outdated statistics. Almost a decade old, not on actual population need we all continue to suffer. Through the province's utter inability to build ontarians the housing that they promised in fact, our housing starts are the lowest that they've been

since 1955, and so. Your city. My city? Every municipality has been saddled with homelessness. We get no help from. The province and you know this. So I actually really get where Mer Guthrie is coming from. The frustration. You have been saddled with the burden of poor provincial policy which is manifested as encampments. You have been forced to pay, including by raising taxes for addressing encampments while receiving the bulk of criticism for their existence, but your hands have been tied, and that's been completely unfair. But responding by infringing on people's Charter rights won't solve the problem. It won't create the crisis services needed at the scale that they're needed, and just 19 hearth hubs across Ontario certainly does not match the scale, let alone the gaps. It won't build enough safe, decent shelter for everybody who needs it, and it won't. Build the housing. That is the ultimate. Solution to homelessness. These are things we should write to the premiere about. There is nowhere for people to go now. Human rights are not contingent on your housing status. Everyone has human rights or no one does. And the right to life is a basis for all

other human rights we enjoy. It is. The foundation. In fact, now I hope wealth will join 450 lawyers now 80 counselors. Dozens of civil society organizations and the municipalities of Smith Falls, Brandt County, Hamilton, Aurelia, Toronto and yes, St. Thomas, who changed their mind about the notwithstanding clause. In upholding the integrity of the canadian constitution and by embracing the evidencebased solutions to homelessness we know will work. Thank you, and please vote in support of this motion. Thank you, Diana, thank you for your presentation. And is there any follow up for the delegate at all. There isn't. But I just want to say one comment. We might be on opposite sides. On some things, but I see a very large vinyl collection behind you, and I think that's. An alien face hugger above your right. So we are probably more aligned on some things, but maybe not on others. But thank you very much. For being here today. Appreciate it. Thank you. All right. Michelle Billock

here. No. Okay. And is Anna McGregor here? Yes. Great. And then Morgan Dandy just walked in the room. You're in the wings, Morgan. Welcome, Anna, and thank you for waiting, and go right ahead. Good morning, everybody. My name is Anna McGregor. I live in ward one, the east end of Guelph. I'm here as a senior director of community impact at the Canadian alliance to end Homelessness with a national charity. And I'm also here as someone that has over 30 years experience in social services, I'm here to support Councillor Kayton's motion. To build in some of the comments that were already raised. While. The most recent noise. News information from the province has been a little softer on this issue. With an indication that the notwithstanding clause may not be proactively invoked. What's sadly detailed was a plan that clearly does indicate a response to homelessness. Would be rooted in enforcement and criminalization. Not in housing.

Housing ends homelessness. We must also remember that this response comes from a provincial government that does not necessarily hold all the experience, skill or knowledge to offer such a solution for illness. Social community, public housing, whatever you call it was downloaded from the province in the year 2000. It went to 47 service managers across Ontario. Interestingly, many of them were not involved in these discussions. On this table today there is another motion from the mayor solved the crisis campaign. It too highlights this provincial gap. There is an ask there for a specific ministry to tackle the problem. So nobody believes that living in a park. Is an appropriate place to be. Sadly, with no other options and a worsening housing affordability crisis. That's where many people find themselves. But let's be clear. That result. Encampments. Are a system problem and not a person problem. The plan outlined by the province will not reduce homelessness. Or

encampments. Sadly, it will lead to more people in prison for the crime of not having a place to call home. More people will be dying from overdoses, hiding from criminalization and hiding in alleviate we will spread homelessness further into our communities. As a resident of Guelph, as someone who's worked in this field and is someone who works in a national charity dedicated to ending this. I am incredibly concerned for our neighbors. We need to do better. Now I want to turn the tables. There is actually good news here. That is phenomenally hard. Good work being done in wealth. Guelph was recently recognized as having a 76% reduction in youth homelessness since 2018. Guelph wellington. Have supported 1655 people who were previously experiencing chronic long term complex homelessness to move into housing. Being the champions to

end homelessness and supporting action through. Your affordable housing strategy, working with your community partners, and continuing to advance the permanent solutions to end homelessness rather than just manage it. Are excellent steps to keep this work going. Housing. Is not a reward. Housing is a right. Wealth. Focus and solutions with the delivery of new permanent supportive housing units and housing focused approaches have been the not so secret sauce and actually doing some really great work. And must be central to the ongoing work to address homelessness. Last year, Guelph City Councillor unanimously voted in favor of the city adopting a human rightsbased approach to housing, including a housing first philosophy to align with the national housing strategy. So let's not forget that. Really good work. Let's not take a step backwards. And react. Grelf has proof. Compassionate care and housing are the solution to housing. Our most

vulnerable. I ask you to support Councillor Cayton's motion. Reject the tools rooted in enforcement and criminalization. Continue to lead in to housing and compassionate solutions. Ramparp your outreach. Support those experienced homelessness and continue on the path for affordable housing. And you can do all of that without. Using the notwithstanding clause. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there any follow up at all for this delegation? Okay. No. Thank you very much for your time. Morgan Dandy is good to come right on up. Is Mars back in the room. Oh, you've moved. Yes, I see you. Okay, you're in the wings. Welcome and go right ahead. Morgan. Hi again, everybody. I'm here personally today. When I read that Mayor Guthrie. Had signed on to the letter to use the notwithstanding clause. It was one more

nail in the coffin. That I feel like. I've been forced into. Since the dissolution of my marriage in 2019. As my friend Amelia. Was talking about her friend who was in a car accident. It really felt like I was hearing my story. Except it was dissolution of marriage that sent me from a three bedroom house. To a wonderful basement apartment. Living off of the proceeds of the sale of that house for a year and a half. And then getting evicted. Because I developed a disability that made it impossible for me to. Be. A reliable employee. If you needed me there at a specific day and time every single week. I still can't guarantee that. I don't know how many of us here were actually paying any attention. While the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was

being discussed. By our federal government. Back in the late 70s, early eighty s. I know some on Councillor weren't even a live event. I've been a policy geek for a long time. And because of the interest that my parents held. In the charter of rights and freedoms. I actually paid attention. I didn't remember a lot, so I went back. And looked. At why the notwithstanding clause was put. In. And it was because. The politicians at the time had. An abject fear that. The courts. Would misinterpret. Laws in ways unintended. I look at the notwithstanding clause.

As the last piece. That allowed us to finally have almost all of the provinces sign onto a charter of rights and freedoms. It was never intended to be used in a manner. Such as is being proposed. By the premier of Ontario and the signators of the letter. I'm now living in a basement apartment again. I've got a room. I pay more than 75% of my income just for shelter as an individual on ODSp. I cannot go and stay in a shelter. Because of this little guy right here. Part of his job is to protect me. In the current shelter system. Nobody would get rest if I went in there. He'd be barking all night long just. The students upstairs last night. Were still moving around when I went to bed, and he kept barking because.

He sees that as a potential threat, and he is warning me. So when I saw this about the notwithstanding clause, I'm like, I have mental health issues. And one of the things that really scares me as a woman, Is a lot of the women that I see. That are accessing services have acquired brain injuries. And anyone that hasn't acquired brain injury. Is incapable of correcting behaviors and forcing them into treatment. Isn't a solution. I just want everyone to please understand. That. I could be affected. You all know me. I'm a frequent flyer, as the mayor likes to say. And I can't countenance. Having this. Be part of our toolbox. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. And is there any follow up for Morgan? There is not.

Thank you very much. And mars. Mars. You're next. And then Andrea Baker is going to join us. By video next. If Andrea is not available. By video is Jill Francis here? No. Okay, Mars, you might be wrapping it up for us, so go right ahead, okay? Yeah. I was looking over the notes that I had made and what I had written down and honestly, most of it's been said, and probably a lot more eloquently than I could have addressed it, and I just wanted to take my short time up here to thank the delegates who spoke up, especially those who shared personal stories and are showing why these conversations are so important. I want to thank those who brought these motions forward just to highlight how important they are and I also want to recognize. I've sat in this chamber multiple times and I've heard a lot of these. Topics get discussed over and over and over again. And I'm sure Councillor can relate to that, and we know that a lot of these are relevant on a federal, provincial and municipal level. And I think when you cover the same things and information gets repeated and things are said over and over. It can

be really easy for things to. Get jumbled and to essentially not listen. And, yeah, I think I just want to close off by saying that I really hope. What's? Been said is being heard and being taken into account as we move through these decisions and yeah. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Kane. I support what you've brought forward, and that's. Essentially it for me. Okay. Thank you. Is there any follow up? No. Okay. Thank you very much. And the others aren't available, so I'll go back to you, Councillor Katen. If you want to table the three motions. And just indicate the seconder. That would be great. Yes. The second is Councillor alt. And the motions are that the city Gulf city Councillor opposes the use of the notwithstanding clause as requested by a collection of Ontario mayors to circumvent the court's ability to rule on charter rights on the subject of encampment relocations due to the municipal bylaws throughout Ontario. Further, that Councillor opposes the use of force in an involuntary treatment. Of people with substance use disorders or mental illness who are protected under disability legislation outside of the existing process. And three that a letter be sent. To the association of Municipalities of Ontario, the

Ontario Big City Mayors and the twelve municipalities included in the 13 mayor request letter for information regarding Gulf City council's opposition. Thank you so much. Council. Is there anybody that has any questions on this? Okay, I'll go to Richardson and then alts. Thanks. I'm just wondering if someone could explain to me exactly what is meant by outside. The existing process. Through the mayor. So there's already an existing process for involuntary. Holds. And so that would include medical professionals. Who oversee and make sure that. You are not. A threat to yourself or others. And then there's a certain number of days and then check ins and. Other provinces, like British Columbia. Have been trying to expand that so that it's not just medical professionals that can make those decisions. And. That it would be expanded past people who have mental health issues to substance use disorders

and. Other neurological conditions. So right now I'm saying that. The existing circumstances are sufficient. Sorry through you, mayor. So who would those people be outside of a healthcare professionals do we know? We don't know. It's just kind of an open call right now. Thank you. We can split them. Councillor gaullers asked for it to be split, and then alt and then. Downer. Thank you, Mayor Guthrie. Mine were comments. Do you want those now? Yeah, go ahead. Sure. It's a bit of a history lesson, but I am very concerned for the arbitrary and. I believe the inappropriate use of the notwithstanding clause. In fact, I have real concerns with using it. At all. I do believe that it's a simple approach to addressing underfunding and what we've omitted is to understand what the original intent of the notwithstanding clause was, which was to bring Quebec into the charter and to assure that provinces could have a key role in language and cultural rights, and that was its intent. Pierre. Trudeau did not foresee this. He did not like the notwithstanding clause, but. It was something to

throw to Quebec so that Canada could repatriate its constitution and in 1982, become a country for the very first time. By the way, Canada was not a country when Britain held the British North America Act. Guelstick Challenger was a person who helped frame the charge of rates and freedoms. He's probably Guelph's greatest unsung resident. Regrettably late. He did this with Roy Romano, Roy McMurtry and Pierre Trudeau. He certainly did not foresee this. Quebec, however. Used this and is intending on using this again to ban public prayer, I'm not certain. That we necessarily feel comfortable with that. Ontario clearly wishes to use it in the current circumstances. Alberta has used this to overrule. Federal energy targets and Saskatchewan. Forgive me, I can't remember what they used it for, but. In all cases, none of these was ever intended or ever foreseen. My problem with this is the charter, using the notwithstanding clause, absolves the province of the duty to fund housing and mental health addiction support.

The province can then say, well, we've just made it illegal. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense as a city. We who. We are only drawing 8% of the whole tax bill that people pay. Are responsible for housing, are responsible for welcoming streets, responsible for a myriad of issues associated with this including a police budget that many people believe. Is overbloated. We cannot let the province off the hook for underfunding. By passing this, we, as a city owe it to our taxpayers to make certain that we see the province funds these services appropriately. And does not get away with saying we're just going to make some people illegal. Okay. Thank you. Downer. Yes. Can we have these separated out? The first one I do support. I want to make it clear that I still support and stand. By the use of public spaces bylaw that the city has passed. I think that was.

Municipalities need to have a right to do that outside of encampments. Anyway. The use of public space. However, number two. Around involuntary treatment. And I'm a layperson. I just don't think I know enough. Even as a layperson looking at some studies. And again, I don't know how to. Really how to read these studies, but it seems like there are some positive outcomes through the criminal court case. I did read the stat about some people overdose when they come out of treatment that also happens when they come out of voluntary treatment. And even in that study, it said, however, there are still some positive outcomes. So I don't know enough to assess that. You can be right. And. I respect you, Councillor Cayton. But I'm not an expert. And I don't know that anybody around this horseshoe is either. Point of order. I recognize your point of order. Through the merit. This is not specifically about involuntary treatment. It's about the use of the notwithstanding clause no. Number two. Number two, literally, your motion that you

wrote literally says the force, involuntary treatment and that's what she's talking about. So I don't recognize you any further, and I'm going to go back to. Councillor Downer, I support number one. So I just don't support number two for the reasons I have basically stated. I don't know enough and we didn't. Have any medical experts coming to speak to this either today? So that are in the community. They're not here. Opposing. Suggesting that motion either. Right now. I mean, down the road, I might change that if I could be convinced, but right. Now I'm not. Thank you. Thank you. And so I'll go to Quran and then Ork. Supporting all three motions. When it comes to addiction, we often think of drug poisoning because so many of our citizens experiencing homelessness. We've put that forward as being one of the primary reasons, but alcohol has been mentioned. In our delegations. Alluded to that as well. So involuntary treatment. For alcoholism. I can't imagine that that

is something even tenable in a province that does not. Have the facilities, the healthcare facilities, and addiction treatment centers to accommodate the scale of what that could mean so absolutely. These supporting clause. Too. I think in terms of. My commentary, I have to say that. Diana Chad McNally's delegation really struck me because. I recall those feelings of shock and disappointment. When I heard that the mayor had signed the letter on behalf of the city of Guelph. Using the city of Gulf logo and knowing that the mayor is the head of Councillor and from a governance perspective, that really deeply disturbed me. Although the mayor and I respect. That you put that forward. For your own reasons. And. We don't have a motion here before us today where we can direct you. To take action. That you took as an individual, but I would encourage you, and I'm not placing a motion on the floor. As I said, it's a governance issue. But I encourage you,

as other mayors have done to withdraw your support for use of them, notwithstanding clause. So I urge you to do that after. If these motions all pass and you have direction. From Councillor that we as a Councillor are not in favor of the notwithstanding clause that as head of Councillor that you will withdraw your support from the letter. Thanks. Thank you. I'll go to O'Rourke, and then it looks like I have an amendment from. Katen. So. O'Rourke. Thank you, Mayor Guthrie. So to clause one, I will absolutely support. Because undermining the canadian constitution. Is absolutely not the answer. I think that moving people around from city to city are place to place. Is a waste of resources, it's harmful for the people involved, and it's actually not the solution. We know the solution. We talked about it last night at length. The solution is. More housing and more social supports. So I think the province's focus is misplaced in terms of pursuing this as an avenue, especially when we know that since. 2018, Ontario's ramped its spending up on homelessness about 80%, but lowered what

it spends on community housing by 70%. So the answer, again, as we talked about last night, is housing. And supports. So support clause one, clause two. Much like Councillor Downer, I'm not a medical ethicist. I'm not an expert in this field. And I know people who have or would benefit from. Treatment and who aren't in a position to make those decisions themselves. Councilor Chu and I have a constituent who is regularly contacting us with issues about somebody. They care about a lot. Who's just in and out of the system and who may benefit from. Additional intervention. And I heard the mayor of Vancouver talk recently about if we had people with dementia. Who were out exposed in the cold. Wouldn't society expect us to take care of them? So. There isn't always a loved one to take somebody to care or treatment or for those 48 hours holds. Those holds aren't always sufficient. And it is with full compassion, because I have a very close friend who's been in this situation. There's lots of people

in my life who've been involved or adjacent. And so tomorrow night, the Homewood Research Institute has a webinar. On involuntary treatment. So we don't have a mechanism at Councillor to abstain. I'd like to. Abstain from this motion because. As Councillor Downer said, I'm a layperson, and I do not understand what all the implications are not a lawyer, I'm not a doctor, I'm not an ethicist. And so. Around this table. Abstaining is the same as a vote against. But I am abstaining because. I'm not in a position to make a decision on that, and I'll support. Clause three. Okay. Thank you. So we have an amendment that's potentially going to be tabled by. Councillor Katen that she's wanting to bring forward. I had a question for the clerks. If I may. So is it better for me to move an amendment against number two? Or for me too. Withdraw my motion and then retable it with. The. Easier to do. The amendment. Through you, Mr. Mayor, we do have the motions on the floor, so if you're looking to make a change to one of those clauses. Amendment would be the appropriate way to do it. Okay, so then I would like to make an amendment.

As per the email that I sent, because my intent. Was. Just a matter of the language and the structure that I did in the motion was. That further counsel poses the use of the notwithstanding clause in the use of force, involuntary treatment. So before we talk any further, We would need. A second error. To Councillor Caden. If you could just confirm that I've added that in the right section. Of the clause. In the use of force.

Perfect. Okay. We don't have a seconder for that. Councilor alt will second it. Okay, and so now we have questions on this amendment only. So, Councillor Downer. So I know what the first one. That there was a threat by the provincial government. Sorry. The letter to the mayors and then. The premier has been talking about the notwithstanding clause around the relocations of encampments, but. I haven't. Heard anybody discuss publicly about the notwithstanding clause. For mandatory treatment. Is that anywhere on anybody's agenda has been talked about. I haven't seen. I would need to reread the letters that were sent to the mayors. That requested the use of an outwithstanding clause, but I believe it was referenced.

That they could use that. In the medical treatments. In that letter. I'm trying to find it right now.

So the letter. Okay. I can withdraw. Motion. Clause number two for the time being until I find that and I can bring it back to. Councillor at a later date. I would rather it just be dealt with now.

If people are confused and we need to have more information, then I'd rather withdraw it. Right now so that. We don't make a decision without the full information on clause number two. Are you okay for removing that, then? And then Councillor. Who seconded. Yeah. Just clause number two. Yeah. Okay, so clause number two removed. Does anyone object to that? I have to ask through the process. Okay, so just 1 second. I'll go to the clerks. Mr. Mayor, just to clarify, what we'll actually be doing is withdrawing first the amendment, which is currently on the floor, and then. We're withdrawing just clause two and retabling that motion. That's right. Because. Technically. Your amendment was on the floor. So what we just did and what I did the rounds of. Questioning on was just to remove the amendment. Now I'm going to do my process again. You're okay to remove number two. Completely. And you're okay to remove the seconder. And is anyone against that? No. So now number two has formally been removed, okay? Okay. I

don't have anything more. Go ahead. Thank you. And I will be supporting. One and three. As a new Councillor. My frustration and my desperation. Knowing full well from all the research and what community agencies tell us, the solution is permanent housing. Capital and sustained operating funding for public supportive and transitional housing. I think it was Brad that was talking about the vice, and I was saying, yes, I feel like I'm in a vice. Here that we have the community. In camins the issues and homelessness, but not the tools to address us. And one of the other delegations. I don't believe that the notwithstanding clause is a tool. And one of the delegations clearly said, I think it was Diana, that everyone has human rights or no one does. And I think that to me, really, whose rights rises on top of who's and I think that. That is the level playing field. That is what the constitution is about. That is what this is. About. So I will be supporting both of these motions, but also recognizing that. We're all extremely frustrated with all levels

of government, including the federal government and the lack of response to the housing crisis. In a very concrete way, which is permanent. Public supportive and transitional housing. That is what we need. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Do you want to wrap it up as the mover? Go ahead, Keaton. Thank you. Through. Mr mayor. I think that the call out. From Premier Ford was bait. It was bait. Because the policies that the province has been making and the underfunding of our social services. Which we have been taking up on our property taxes. Is the cause for this crisis worsening? And the use of the notwithstanding clause gives them the ability. To not solve the crisis, which is something that we'll be talking about shortly, and I think that. We should be defending our charter of rights and freedoms and not. Giving them the free pass. We really need to be standing up for people. And the

solutions that we know are proven. So I hope you'll all agree with me. On that. Thank you. Thank you. So I'll look to call the vote. Now we have only a number one and number two. We're going to call it, okay? And I think I was still asked to have it separated. So. We'll do that. We'll just keep it separated. Before the vote is taken, though, I have no problem. Giving my comments on this. I love this moment because. It is. Freedom of speech is also important. Differences of opinions is also important. And so this is where I stand on this issue. I believe that if an encampment takes over a playground, And we can't move it. That we should be able to move it. I believe if an encampment takes over a splash pad or takes over St. George's, square and starts to impede. On the well being and the public space and order that should be safe and welcoming for everybody. I believe we should be able to remove it. And. That's why

I do support. If necessary. That's what the letter did say. That's word for word, if necessary. The use of the notwithstanding cause because. I believe that. Our public space. Should be free. Of some. Of the issues that come with. Some. In a minor encampment, issues that. Are. Very problematic for the public, and I would argue the very people that are there. That's my position. And. Of course. As the head of Councillor, I would respect the decision of counsel. Of course. But I will always maintain that I have my personal opinion. My voting record today will obviously show that, and I will never, ever back away from trying to keep our community spaces safe. For everybody. And to try to bring some public order, as I would define it, back to this situation. That we are

all frustrated, on which we can all agree on that finally, there's been some commentary. That what the province is looking to table? Is not going to work. Well, we don't even know. I don't even know. We don't even know what the legislation is. Maybe it won't work? I don't know. But we don't know until tomorrow. Till we actually see the legislation. So I'm also thankful that the premier and the province seems to have walked back the preemptive use of the notwithstanding clause. That I'm in favor of 100%. I'm in favor of. But if it gets to a point where we have encampments, That are taking over playgrounds and splash pads. And even with our bylaw that we did pass here. We try our best to work with those people to say you can't be here, but. You can be over here. You can be right over there, but. You can't be here. And those people say, no, I'm staying. And it goes to a court challenge. I am very thankful that the province has indicated that they would be with us as an intervener. Status

on that to try to uphold the democratically voted on bylaw that this Councillor ten to three voted on. And. I'm very passionate about this because I'm passionate in both ways. And I want to help the people that are in these circumstances, but I also want to be having our public spaces safe for everyone. That's where I stand on this. Moment for us to express ourselves. I thank Councillor for allowing me to do that. Now, obviously, I have a difference of opinion on. This particular matter, but that's okay. That's why we all have different thoughts and opinions on things. And so I'm looking forward to hearing with the premier. And the province does tomorrow. I'm very much looking forward to hearing from it, and I hope it will be great. And guess what? I'm the type of person. You guys can't slam me for this. I will critique where critique is warranted. I have done that over and over again. But I will praise when praise is warranted for upper levels of government legislation too. Tomorrow

will be an opportunity for me to consider of critique or praise. We'll see. But I think even the fact that it has been a frustrating. Issue for us all to deal with, and it's bubbled to this point. I believe that has moved the dial. I believe the letter from myself and others. Actually has moved the dial. And I would argue, and I can only cross my fingers because I don't know that. If there is praise warranted tomorrow in the legislation that comes forward. From the province, then I would thank myself and the other mayors that actually stood up and said, we have to have this problem solved. So we'll see what happens. We'll see. What happens. So thank you. Thank you for letting me give my opinions on that before the vote so we'll just vote on number one. And so all those against on number one, please raise your hand. All right, so it's Billings and Richardson and myself, Guthrie, so that passes. And then I'll call the vote now on only number. Pardon me, Mr. Marin, sorry for. The interruption. I just want to ask Councillor rourke because she had indicated she wanted

to abstain. From voting only on number two. Well, the original number two, which is now gone. Okay. Yeah. So. That's a vote in. That's the way I took it. Am I right, Councillor? That's correct. So her vote on the first. One was in favor. Okay. And then now on the second one, which is just to send the letters. All those against, raise your hand. Okay? And that's fine. Okay. All right. Now we're going to move on to the final one. And there's only one. Delegation in regards to this third time is a charm. Brad, come on up. This is in regards to this, all of the crisis campaign. And just as you're coming up. I'm not going to belabor this. Over 200 organizations and municipal Councillor have voted for this. And after Brad speaks, I'm very thankful that. Clawson and Galler have indicated that they would move. And second, the motion for the solve the crisis campaign. So, Brad, I'll turn it over to you. Go right ahead. Excellent. Thank you very much. So on

this, folks, I think. A lot of our discussion today has been about broader reaction. To provincial legislation. And. The possibilities that are coming forward from the province and some of the very negative actions that the province is taking. In regards to the Solve the crisis campaign. I see the goals and things that are listed there, and those are all well and good, but. I would hope that Guelph and other big cities would consider some additional measures and actions. In future phases of your work rather than. Asking the province for things like more powers to police and engage in other things like that, that we've discussed today. As mentioned earlier, a full restoration of an expansion of overdose prevention sites I think is critical to the work relating to these issues. A firm commitment from this city and from all of the Ontario big city mayors and the broader group around fall. The crisis to increase social assistance rates to a level tied to rental rates

and ensuring that. There's renewed rental control and renter protections as part of any effort to solve the current many crises that we're looking at here, as well as looking at. Accessible housing standards, as the AODA lacks that entirely. And as does the building code. And ultimately. A plan and funds to really build. Actual affordable and accessible housing. As we've talked about, I think in all of the delegations today and a lot of our discussion. The reality is. That. A huge number of unhoused folks in this city and throughout the province are disabled. Ultimately, the campaign as written does not do enough to address these issues. It certainly does not. And so I hope that in future. In growing efforts in municipalities to actually solve the problems before us that we can look in these more

holistic ways towards. Bigger ticket pieces of provincial legislation that need to be changed and need municipal pressure to change and there are standards out there. For example, Toronto just passed accessible housing standards for its public housing that hopefully will be a move towards inclusive or universal form. Forms of design. For housing. And ultimately, folks, I think we need to resist legislation that forces municipalities and agencies to act. At the provincial will instead of making progressive actions on issues. Some of the drafts we've seen of legislation that are coming. Ties, certain pieces. Of the Ministry of Community and Social Services act related funding to following certain provincial directives and could result in fines for cities if that draft legislation moves forward. And also for nonprofits that do community service work. Ultimately, these are threats to your ability to govern and threats to your ability to solve

any crisis. Ultimately then, folks, I hope that you take what we've said today in the various delegations. And look at expanding your work beyond just the remit of where this campaign lies. And make firm commitments to the reinvestment of our social safety net throughout this province and throughout this city. Thank you very much. And thank you very much. Is there any questions for this? Delegate. Seeing and hearing? None, thank you very much. And so, as I indicated, Councillor Clausen and Galler are willing to move this for me. As you can imagine, all 29 municipalities that make up the Ontario big City marriage Caucus caucus. Are moving these motions. The most recent one was the city of Hamilton, who unanimously. Just voted for this as well. But over and above the 29. Municipalities of OBCM. As I said, there's been over 200 so far. I would like to just state to my Councillor members. That no

one else has ever amended or added or anything to this. This has been a support motion from OBCM. With that. I'm just going to let it stay because I think it's pretty straightforward. And I'll just open it up if there's any questions. Katen, please. Thank you. Through Mr. Mayor, I have an amendment. So the clerks have. My amendment. If we can put that on screen, please. So I am amending a paragraph that says and the provincial government strike attack task force with broad sector representatives, including municipalities, regions, healthcare, first responders, community services, and people with living experience of homelessness and substance abuse disorders to. Develop a maiden Ontario action plan, and I'm removing the business community and the tourism industry. And my reasoning behind that is I just need to know if there's even a seconder. Councillor. Okay, please continue. Oh, sorry. Is Councillor Corona actually said that. She would. You're on screen up there. I don't want to lose you. As a usually very

remote person. So. My apologies. Okay, no problem. Go ahead. You still have the floor. So my reasoning behind this is that this. Is essentially a health care and housing. Ask and that the business industry and the tourism industry. Are inappropriate stakeholders to be included in that discussion. And. Within. 2010, Canada joined the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the principles of nothing about us. Without us, we're guiding the convention's development. And this means that. People with disabilities and the organizations that represent them should be engaged in everything that affects them and so as we're talking. About people with living experience of homelessness and substance abuse disorders. They should be involved in that discussion more than anybody else because this is about them. This is a solution for them. This is about something that they know more than anyone else is how to help them. Canada act and the way that our government is going through creating standards for public services are accessible.

and inclusion we have been using that tenant and in our own engagement processes. As a city, we always make sure that we include people. And even within Canada and

Who? Have the main core. Of the need of the policies that we're crafting around them included in the discussion. So that's why I'd like to make that amendment. Thank you. Just a quick question to you as the mover, just based on what you just. Said there. Then would you suggest then are you suggesting that Skyline in town who is a business that gave millions of dollars to help build supportive housing is an inappropriate stakeholder to be a part of. This. They're a business. So you're wanting to remove the opportunity for the business. Sector to be involved in this, to try to help with this crisis. How would you describe Skyline in town that gave millions of dollars of their time and land to build support of housing for people who are experiencing homelessness. It's not relevant whether or not they've donated money, because. They shouldn't be involved in crafting policy. So if they want to help, that is absolutely wonderful. But they should not be involved in crafting the policy. We've got plenty of people who donate towards great causes. That. Aren't. Making up. The crux of the program that they're donating to, okay? So

you can be a supporter, but not stakeholder in that way. So again, counsel, I would just say of the over 200 that have done this. There's been no amendments to it at all. I'd. Like to try to maintain the integrity of the campaign if we can, but it is on. The floor speaking to this issue. We got Downer and then of busatill. So I understand the intent. I don't mind the amendment. About those with lived experience. I think, adding, that's fine, but to take out the business community and the tourism community. Is taking out stakeholders. So part of this is talking about housing. We've just passed an affordable housing strategy yesterday where we acknowledge that we need partners in the business community. To work with that. You need everybody at the table. You need everybody at the table. Anybody who's impacted needs to be at the table. Anybody. Who can be part of a solution needs to be at the table. To come up with a made in Ontario action plan without having all the

stakeholders at the table. It is a problem. So I agree with the addition. Of the lived experience. I think that's important because. They're the stakeholders. Right. They're one of the stakeholders. But I would disagree with taking out. The business community. So I can make an amendment to take that out. Okay, go ahead. Or you can withdraw it. I don't know what. No, we'll just do it, okay? I don't have it in front of me, so I don't know how do I need to send that in or can I? Yeah, if you could send it into the clerks. You're going to strike. The words business out of the removal seconded by Councillor O'Rourke. Through you, Mr. Meyer. It's certainly a chair's decision, but I would suggest if. The purpose of the amendment to remove is to remove them, then amending it to add them. Back in would be contrary to that original. Yes. So we could just vote one way or the other. And the outcome of that is sort of the result. That's the easiest way of. So I would vote against this. And if this fails, then. And the mover wants to put back in the ones with lived experience. I would support that.

Okay. Thank you. Busatille, then alt. Thank you. So this is my personal opinion. I actually disliked number five and number six. I am sick and tired of task force studying coming together. It's been overdone, and maybe I'm. Just showing my age around poverty and homelessness and years and years and years. And we don't need a provincial task force. What I would. Support is stakeholders at the table at a local level. With the ability to come up with. A local action plan that has capital, operational, sustainable funding to have those conversations with the local players. Maybe it's my 16 years experience. In education. But all this work that goes into a task force, all this money, all this delayed time, I'm frustrated and I'm fed up. So I will not be supporting any amendment or anything. I actually was going to try to remove both number five and number six. I know you. Don't want any amendments to this, but I'm sick and tired of all the task force all the reading and reports that. Say the same thing. We need permanent public. Supportive transitional housing.

Full stop. That's what we need. Let's get going. Thank you. Just as a response to that, since it's sort of my motion. The paragraph within their Councillor busatill literally says exactly what you were asking for. And at both levels of government, provide adequate, sufficient, and sustainable funding to ensure that municipalities have the tools and resources to support individuals suffering with mental health addictions, including unho. Unhoused people and from those vulnerable populations that may be disproportionately impacted. It does wrap up. It echoes and mirrors. Exactly what point of your privilege? Provincial task force. We don't need another provincial table. So I agreed with that. That's? In number eight. I think it's the two provincial task force above it that I disagree with. No, I absolutely agree with that. Land, capital, operating, maintenance, all of that for permanent, supportive and transitional housing. It is the provincial task force that I think is its sleight of hand. It's look over here. We're going to do a provincial task force. We're going to delay. We're going to delay, delay. Wait for the provincial task. Force. I'm fed up. Let's

get going. True. Thank you. Okay. Alton and Clawson. Thank you, Mayor Guthrie. Both of my colleagues have come up with some fairly important. Comments. And at least one resolution, possibly another. Like colleague Busatillo, I am not a fan of task force. I think that. What we have with the task force is an opportunity to delay any sort of real action task. Force take time. How can we act on the results coming from a task force if the task force is meeting over the time that we have a crisis. The other problem that I have. With this, actually, is what Councillor Katen said. And that is. The business and tourism. Is one sector. Of Ontario. 's community. But the question that I have is why not education institutions? Why not universities and colleges where we see issues that are very. Time critical related to these particular resolutions being dealt with all the time. Further. I question which businesses would become part of the task force, because this is a provincial task force. Will the insurance industries,

which often provide tremendous funding for addiction support and therapy, will they be involved? And as we know. Their job in many cases, is to deny funding for these things. Are we actually really thinking this out when we talk about businesses? This is a health care and a safety crisis, not an economics crisis. Although I acknowledge that there are many people that are working today that have substance abuse problems that need to be addressed. But we have many people in the homes that. Have substance abuse problems, and we have not included anything for that. And I think Councillor Cayton has addressed that quite effectively in a suggestion. Clausen and O'Rourke, and then I'd like to try to get to the. Vote on the amendment, please. Okay. Cost and then it'll work? Yes. Thank you and thanks. To my colleagues for their comments. Yeah, particularly. Councilor resonated with me. No more task force. We need housing. We need more housing. And we need more evidence based solutions. We know them. And part of my comments earlier were if the province wants to see what's happening in Guelph

and what evidence based solutions are happening. Come on down and see some of the projects that have opened up this year. Because we can keep doing those, and we know we can do them well. So let's continue to fund these projects because. That's really what we should be doing. My comment with regard to the amendment specifically. I have concerns with it because I think it actually contributes to the overall adversarial nature of what's happening with our homelessness community and our business community. The business community. And the tourism industry are there because they are also being impacted deeply by what's happening. We just heard from our delegates that our businesses are about to become frontline staff. So they're going to be administering Knox alone. They're part of our community. And I just heard councilor. Downer here say that it's a broad spectrum group of people on this task force. It's not putting one group against another group or one person's rights ahead of another person's rights. We need to all work together to come together with solutions that are better for everyone, and I find it

frustrating to pull out one community. That is deeply impacted by it, and I'd like to invite people to help solve these issues and look at some of the things going back to what I said earlier that are happening. Right here in Guelph. So. I don't want to support that section of I would support the other. Piece of. The motion, but specifically around the removal, I think. It's creating friction that I don't think we need. Okay. Thank you. And then O'Rourke, and then I'll call the vote. Thank you, Mayor Gusarie. I just wanted to say I concur with counselors. Downer and classin that. There are important stakeholders in our communities. Stakeholders who see their frontline staff, particularly part time workers who could be vulnerable. And so I don't support the removal of the business community or tourism. And I would support the addition of people with lived experience. It's part of what we do. At the health and housing community planning table at Wellington county in Guelph. So I do think they are important stakeholders. And then just as an aside, so I don't. Have to

come back. We have supported. Calling on the province motions. We have done support motions with far less scrutiny and far less consideration. Of all the ramifications. And is it perfect? I believe that OBCM and the other 200 organizations that have supported it have done a lot of their parsing. We know that this will not be implemented. This is not a bylaw. And so I don't know that we need to continue to dissect that. I will fully support the solve a crisis motion. Okay. Thank you. Sorry, Councillor Bustil. Go ahead, then. I'll let them call the vote if I can. Go ahead. Yes. Thank you. I'm wondering whether or not, when we vote on this, if we can separate them and give them numbers because I will not be in my line supporting number. Five and six. Or the amendment. The provincial task force. I think Councillor O'Rourke raised one. Of the points I was going to. Raise is that we are with our consolidated service manager, already working on a local solution. And what we need are those businesses and community agencies. In our local community to address our local issues. With the resources that we have, the province needs to step up with real

tools, which is funding for capital, land operating, all of those kinds of things we do not need, in my view, in my years of experience and working. In education at the provincial level as well. A provincial task force. What we need is immediate action. At the local level, and we're doing that now, and we need to continue on that. So I will not be supporting either. In my number five or six. Anything to do with provincial task force? Okay. Thank you. Let's just call the vote on the amendment. And I, again, would just stress before the vote to my colleagues. I also do agree. No problem with adding lived experience. I have no problem with that. But it literally. Says a broad sector. Representatives. To parse this out of who's in and who's out. We're spiraling is how I feel right now. So I'm going to call the vote on that. Anyone against? The

amendment, please raise your hand. Okay, so probably will be easier to just say the ones that are for, so. It would be alt and Katen and Koran. And so that fails. All right, so we're back to the motion and maybe downer. Would you like to move the one on lived experience? Would you like to do that? Try it just to deliver experience. Go ahead. I'd like to add in people with living experience of homelessness and substance abuse to that same paragraph without removing the others. Perfect and downer. Would you second that? Yes. Okay. All right, I'll call the vote on that. I think we could find unity on that one. Is anyone against that one? Okay. Just busatill so that passes. Okay, now we're back to the main motions. And the way I look at it. Therefore, I go. One, two, three. I think I look at three, four and five. Okay, so what we'll do is we'll show them up on the screen. I

think the clerks are going to try to. And then could you just yell out which ones you want to have separated, and then we can do the other ones as one full swoop. And then pull those two out for you. Yes. So just lets us, Councillor Busatill, tell us which ones that you don't. Want to vote on. Or you got to vote, but just maybe not support. Yeah. It's items number five and six that refer to the provincial task force. And so I don't know if I need a motion, but I will not be supporting that, okay? It's just to split them out so you can vote on it differently, so. I'm just going to do five and six only right now, okay? And then we'll. Do all the rest, okay? So I'll call the vote then. Who's against? Five and six. Alt and busatill. Okay? So five and 610 passes. And now I'll call the vote on the rest of the solve the crisis motion. All those against. Okay? And that's unanimous. Thank you so much, counsel. That's great. Just a procedural question. When

the letter is being sent, I assume that the whereas clauses are not. Part of the letter. It's just the emotions. Through you, Mr. Mayor. That's correct. Thank you. All right, everybody. Councilor Gibson had sent in regrets. So I'm just going to read out the bylaws. And then someone can help me move them. Okay? Bylaws 2002 4212-210-0321. Eleven, twenty one twenty, twenty one. Twenty one twenty one twenty seven, twenty one twenty eight be approved. Subject to section two eight four point one four of the municipal act. Richardson, would you be willing to move those bylaws for me? I'll look over. Here. Who wants to do that? Kawson. Will second those for me. Is there any questions on the bylaws? No. Okay, I'll call the vote. Is anyone against the bylaws? No, that's it. Okay. And mayor's announcements. Happy holidays. Merry Christmas. All of the joy, whatever

the joyous occasion is to everybody. That's my announcements, because we don't have another scheduled Councillor meeting for quite some time, so. I say this every year, but I just wanted you to know. I actually do mean it very much. So I just want to say thank you to my colleagues. For another year. Another year under the belt. It's all done. So we've done. A lot of heavy lifting and weighted through a lot of. Serious issues. And so kudos to all of us, not to all of you. So thank you very much. And then to staff, just want to say thank you very much again for everything. Over this last year. It's been great. And we look forward to 2025 working together on whatever the next. All items are that we got to deal with. So wishing everyone safe and happy holidays. As we move into the new year. That's my announcement. So, adjournment. I'm going to go to billings. And busatill. And is anyone against adjournment? Nobody. So that's unanimous. So all the best to everybody. Have a safe, wonderful time with friends and family, if you can. Thank you so much. Bye bye.