[Items 1 - 3: 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST]
[00:00:06]
WE'RE LIVE. CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER, THIS IS SPECIAL MEETING OF COUNCIL FOR CITY ELLIOT LAKE THURSDAY, JULY 16, 2020.
AS FAR AS ROLL CALL MEMBERS ARE PRESENT, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF COUNCILLOR CYR WHO IS JOINING US THIS EVENING VIA TELEPHONE.
YOU CAN HEAR US. OK? YES, IT'S NOT LOUD, BUT I CAN HEAR.
ASK IF THERE'S ANY DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST THIS EVENING.
NO PUBLIC PRESENTATION OR CORRESPONDENTS.
REPORTS, SIX POINT ONE MEMO FROM THE CITY CLERK CONSIDER OFFER TO PURCHASE PROPERTY OWNED
[Item 6.1: Memo from the City Clerk re: consider offer to purchase property owned by the Municipality on Timber Road As this matter deals with potential disposition of property owned by the municipality it may be discussed in closed session under section 239(2)(c) of the Municipal Act]
BY MUNICIPALITY ON TIMBER ROAD.AS THIS MATTER DEALS WITH POTENTIAL DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY OWNED BY THE MUNICIPALITY, IT MAY BE DISCUSSED IN CLOSED SESSION UNDER SECTION 2392C OF THE MUNICIPAL ACT.
I HAVE A MOVER TO PUT THAT CLOSED SESSION MOVED BY COUNCILLOR MANN, SECOND BY COUNCILLOR FINAMORE QUESTIONS, QUALMS QUERIES.
THAT'S CARRIED OVER TO CLOSED.
SIX POINT TWO MEMO FROM THE CITY CLERK REQUEST TO LEASE MOORING SPACE AT.
[Item 6.2: Memo from the City Clerk re: request to lease mooring space at 13b Timber Road As this matter deals with disposition of property owned by the municipality it may be discussed in closed session under section 239(2)(c) of the Municipal Act.]
HELLO? REQUEST TO LEASE MOORING SPACE AT 13 B TIMBER ROAD, AS THIS MATTER DEALS WITH DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY OWNED BY THE MUNICIPALITY MAY BE DISCUSSED IN CLOSED SESSION UNDER SECTION 2392C OF THE MUNICIPAL ACT.I HAVE MOVED TO PUT THAT IN CLOSED.
ANY QUESTIONS QUALMS QUERIES ON THIS ONE? SEEING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR.
SIX POINT THREE, A VERBAL UPDATE FROM THE CITY CLERK, SIDEWALK LEASES DURING COVID 19, AS
[Item 6.3: Verbal Update from the City Clerk re: Sidewalk Leases during Covid-19 As this mater deals with potential disposition of property owned by the municipality it may be discussed in closed session under Section 239(2)(c) of the Municipal Act]
THIS MATTER DEALS, A POTENTIAL DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY OWNED BY THE MUNICIPALITY IT MAY BE DISCUSSED IN CLOSED SESSION UNDER SECTION 2392C OF THE MUNICIPAL ACT.CAN I HAVE A MOVE TO PUT THAT CLOSE SESSION.
SIX POINT FOUR. MEMO FROM THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER.
[Item 6.4: Memo from the Chief Administrative Officer re: Review of Residential Waterfront Development Options As this matter deals with the potential disposition of property owned by the municipality and/or a trade secret or scientific, technical, commercial, financial or labour relations information, supplied in confidence to the municipality or local board, which, if disclosed, could reasonably be expected to prejudice significantly the competitive position or interfere significantly with the contractual or other negotiations or a person, group of persons, or organization, it may be discussed in closed session under sections 239(2)(c) and (i) of the Municipal Act.]
REVIEW OF RESIDENTIAL WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS AS THIS MATTER DEALS WITH THE POTENTIAL DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY OWNED BY MUNICIPALITY AND OR TRADE SECRET OR SCIENTIFIC, TECHNICAL, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL OR LABOR RELATIONS INFORMED, SUPPLIED AND CONFIDENCE TO THE MUNICIPALITY OR LOCAL BOARD WHICH, IF DISCLOSED, COULD REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO PREJUDICE SIGNIFICANTLY THE COMPETITIVE POSITION OR INTERFERE SIGNIFICANTLY WITH THE CONTRACTUAL OR OTHER NEGOTIATIONS OR PERSON, GROUP OR PERSONS ORGANIZATIONS.IT MAY BE DISCUSSED IN CLOSED SESSION UNDER SECTIONS 2392C AND I OF THE MUNICIPAL ACT.
I HAVE MOVER TO PUT THAT IN CLOSED.
QUESTIONS QUALMS, QUERIES COUNCILLOR PATRIE.
BASED ON THE REPORT THAT'S ATTACHED, I DON'T AGREE THAT THIS SHOULD BE GOING INTO CLOSED SESSION. IT DOESN'T FIT INTO ANY REPORT THAT'S ATTACHED, DOESN'T FIT INTO ANY OF THE RULES THAT ALLOW US TO PUT THIS IN CLOSED SESSION.
IT'S NOT TO DEAL WITH DISPOSITION AND IT'S NOT TO DEAL WITH COMPETITIVENESS.
AND THERE'S NO CONTRACT OR NEGOTIATIONS TO DEAL WITH THIS.
I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THE RATIONALE OF TRYING TO PUT THIS IN THE CLOSED SESSION IS FOR. MR. GAGNON. WELL, AS USUAL, IT'S DIFFICULT TO DISCLOSE TOO MUCH ABOUT THE RATIONALE, BUT I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THERE ARE PARTS OF THAT THAT ARE RELEVANT TO LAND ACQUISITION OR DISPOSITION THAT IF WAS DISCLOSED, WOULD, IN FACT OUR COMPETITIVE POSITION, SENSITIVE NEGOTIATIONS, PERHAPS ALL KINDS OF DIFFERENT ANGLES THAT ARE RELATED TO LAND, MOSTLY RELATED TO TO LAND DEVELOPMENT.
AGAIN, IT'S HARD TO GET TOO DETAILED WITHOUT DISCLOSING IN OPEN SESSION AND MAKING IT KIND OF MOOT. COUNCIL IS ALL SEEN THE REPORT.
YOU KNOW THAT THERE'S VARIOUS ANGLES IN THERE THAT ARE SENSITIVE AND RELATED TO LAND DISPOSITION, COMPETITIVE POSITION, POSSIBLY EVEN LABOR ISSUES.
I DO BELIEVE THERE IS ISSUES WITH CONTRACTUAL ISSUES IN THERE ALSO.
IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS ITEM GOING TO CLOSED SESSION.
STARTING WITH COUNCILLOR PATRIE.
[00:05:02]
IN FAVOR. COUNCILLOR FINAMORE.SIX POINT FIVE MEMO FROM THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER RE UNSOLICITED OFFER TO PURCHASE
[Item 6.5: Memo from the Chief Administrative Officer re: unsolicited offer to purchase various municipal land As this matter deals with potential disposition of property owned by the municipality it may be discussed in closed session under Section 239(2)(c) of the Municipal Act]
VARIOUS MUNICIPAL LANDS AS THIS MATTER DEALS WITH POTENTIAL DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY OWNED BY MUNICIPALITY MAY BE DISCUSSED IN CLOSED SESSION UNDER SECTION 2392C OF THE MUNICIPAL ACT. CAN I HAVE A MOVE TO PUT THIS IN CLOSED SESSION? MOVED BY COUNCILLOR PATRIE.SECONDER. SECOND BY COUNCILLOR PEARCE.
QUESTIONS QUALMS QUERIES ON THIS ONE.
COUNCILLOR FINAMORE, WITHOUT DISCLOSING TOO MUCH ABOUT THIS, BUT I'M JUST WONDERING IF THIS IS A RECONSIDERATION, AS I BELIEVE THIS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED BEFORE AND [INAUDIBLE].
WE DID IN A CLOSED SESSION AT ONE POINT.
I DON'T RECALL DISCUSSING IT, BUT IT COULD HAVE BEEN I COULD BE WRONG.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COUNCILLOR PATRIE.
TO MY RECOLLECTION, BASED ON THE REPORT THAT WE HAVE, THIS IS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT ASPECT THAN WHAT THIS PROPONENT HAS PROPOSED PRIOR.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS AND SEEING NONE, I'LL CALL FOR THE VOTE THEN ALL IN FAVOR.
NO NOTICE OF MOTION, UNFINISHED BUSINESS, EIGHT POINT ONE MEMO FROM THE CHIEF
[Item 8.1: Memo from the Chief Administrative Officer 3 re: ongoing pandemic safety measures]
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER. RE ONGOING PANDEMIC SAFETY MEASURES.YOUR WORSHIP, THIS IS AS COUNCIL REMEMBERS MONDAY NIGHT WAS GIVEN DIRECTION TO COME UP WITH A POLICY, IF NOT NOT A BYLAW, BUT A POLICY THAT WOULD REITERATE THE ALGOMA PUBLIC HEALTH'S ONGOING ORDERS FOR MASK USE.
SO THAT IS MY ATTEMPT HERE TO.
WELL, FIRST OF ALL, WE NEEDED TO PASS THIS AS A BUSINESS ORGANIZATION IN ELLIOT LAKE IN THE ALGOMA DISTRICT. SO THIS POLICY IS COMING DIRECTLY FROM MPH AND IS WHAT IS RECOMMENDED. WHICH BASICALLY MEANS WE'RE REINFORCING THE APH'S GUIDELINES THAT MASK USE IS MANDATORY EXCEPT FOR THE EXCLUSIONS THAT ARE LAID OUT IN THE POLICY.
IF COUNCIL WISHES TO SORT OF FURTHER REITERATE AND REINFORCE THE PUBLIC HEALTH ORDERS, THEY'RE WELCOME TO PASS A MOTION TO DO THAT.
BUT THIS POLICY GOVERNS MUNICIPAL SPACES.
AND, YOU KNOW, IF COUNCIL WISHES TO REITERATE THAT IN ANOTHER MOTION, THEY CERTAINLY CAN.
REGARDLESS, THE ALGOMA PUBLIC HEALTH DOES HAVE THE ABILITY TO ENFORCE THE MASK, THE MANDATORY MASK USE IN THE SENSE THAT THEY WILL ENFORCE THAT ALL BUSINESSES HAVE A POLICY SIMILAR TO THIS ONE OR DEVELOP THEIR OWN.
REGARDING THE MASK USE AND THAT THEY NEED TO ALSO BRING THE MASK USE INTO PRACTICE.
THEY DO HAVE AN ENFORCEMENT TEAM.
I GUESS YOU CALL IT THE INSPECTORS THAT WILL BE DOING ENFORCING.
THEY ARE ABLE TO FIELD COMPLAINTS AND THEY'RE EVEN ABLE TO USE THE OBB TO REINFORCE THEIR THEIR PUBLIC ORDERS AS WELL.
SO THIS WAS OUR ATTEMPT TO PUT THE TO MEET COUNCIL'S MANDATE FROM MONDAY NIGHT.
WE'RE HERE READY TO MOVE ON WITH THAT.
REGARDLESS, THOUGH, I THINK THE POLICY NEEDS TO BE ADOPTED THIS EVENING BECAUSE THE MANDATORY MASK USE BEGINS TOMORROW.
THANK YOU, MR. GAGNON. SO WE'D HAVE TWO SEPARATE MOTIONS AND PERHAPS WE COULD START OUT WITH A MOTION TO ADOPT THE CORPORATE POLICY FOR THE CITY OF ELLIOT LAKE.
THANK YOU. SO IT'S BEEN SECONDED FOR DISCUSSION, COUNCILLOR PATRIE.
THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY COUNCIL AT THE LAST MEETING STATED THAT IT WOULD MIRROR APH.
I WOULD LIKE APH'S POLICY ATTACHED TO THIS POLICY SO THAT IT IS 100 PERCENT SUCCINCT.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND THIS POLICY TO STRICTLY ADD THE APH POLICY SO THAT WE ARE FOLLOWING THAT POLICY 100 PERCENT.
THIS POLICY COMES DIRECTLY FROM APH.
ALL WE DID WAS ADD THE CITY OF ELLIOT LAKE TO THE POLICY SO VERBATIM.
THIS COMES DIRECTLY FROM FROM APH.
COUNCILLOR PATRIE. THEIR POLICY IS ACTUALLY A LITTLE LONGER THAN THIS.
THERE'S SOME OTHER INFORMATION ON THEIR POLICY AS WELL, AND THAT'S WHY I WOULD LIKE IT ATTATCHED. THE DIRECTION GIVEN WAS TO MIRROR THE APH.
[00:10:04]
SO IF WE ATTACH APH'S POLICY TO FOLLOW THEIR GUIDELINES 100 PERCENT.MR. GAGNON. I THINK IT MIGHT BE.
I THINK IT'S FRIENDLY. I THINK IT'S JUST SEMANTICS.
I THINK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PUBLIC ORDER THAT CAME FROM APH BECAUSE THIS POLICY CAME DIRECTLY FROM APH AND APH IS AWARE OF THIS.
WE WERE PASSING THIS THIS EVENING AND IT WAS SUPPORTIVE.
BUT IF WE WANT TO ATTACH THE ORDER FROM APH.
SCHEDULE A, I'M FINE WITH THAT.
ARE WE GOOD? THAT'S FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.
ARE WE ALL GOOD WITH THAT. YES.
AS AN APPENDIX FOR REFERENCE MATERIAL.
THANK YOU. JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, YOUR WORSHIP, WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS THE POLICY, THE RECOMMENDED POLICY FROM APH WHICH WAS SENT OUT TO BUSINESSES AND CORPORATIONS ACROSS ALGOMA. AND THAT'S EXACTLY AS MR. GAGNON STATED. THAT IS THE POLICY OF THE ALGOMA PUBLIC HEALTH.
THIS IS THE FORMAT THAT THEY RECOMMEND FOR ANY ANY ORGANIZATION THAT IS GOING TO IMPLEMENT A POLICY. IF COUNCIL FEELS YOU NEED TO HAVE THE ACTUAL ORDER ATTACHED, THAT'S FINE. THAT'S REDUNDANT, FRANKLY.
THANK YOU. COUNCILLOR FINAMORE.
THANK YOU. WHEN I WAS READING TODAY, THERE WAS A MENTION OF THE ORDER FROM THE PUBLIC HEALTH BEING IN PLACE UNTIL THE.
AND SO I'M NOT SURE I KNOW THE OTHER NIGHT.
THE MOTION WAS SET FORWARD UNTIL ELLIOT LAKE'S DECLARED STATE OF EMERGENCY WAS OFF.
SO IF WE'RE GOING TO FOLLOW APH'S RECOMMENDATION IS THAT ALSO WHAT WE'RE NOW FOLLOWING IS THE TIMEFRAME. MR. GAGNON. THAT ONE REFERENCE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, IT WAS BASICALLY THE THE MESSAGE THAT I GOT FROM APH THAT THE REQUIREMENT TO WEAR MASKS WILL BE IN PLACE UNTIL THE VACCINE IS READILY AVAILABLE. IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY THE ORDERS MAY CHANGE AT SOME POINT IN TIME, BUT WE WILL SEE THAT COMING AND WE CAN AMEND, REPEAL, PURSUE A BYLAW THAT TIME IF WE WANTED TO. BUT THAT WAS JUST LARGELY A SPEAKING POINT TO LET ON THE EDUCATION FRONT SIDE FOR COUNCIL AND FOR THE PUBLIC TO KNOW THAT WE SHOULDN'T BE EXPECTING THAT.
DOUG FORD IS GOING TO REPEAL THE EMERGENCY ORDER AND THAT THE MASK USE IS GOING TO GO AWAY. WE COULD BE VERY WILL LIKELY BE WEARING MASKS IN PUBLIC SPACES UNTIL THE VACCINE IS READILY AVAILABLE. SO IT'S NOT ENSHRINED.
IT'S JUST A MESSAGE I GOT FROM APH THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS GONNA GO FOR THIS IS GOING TO BE AROUND FOR A LONG TIME. AND IT COULD ALSO CHANGE IN A SENSE THAT THE ORDERS MAY CHANGE UNDER THE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT CIVIL PROTECTION ACT, BUT SOMETHING ELSE IS LIKELY TO REPLACE IT BECAUSE IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THAT WE WILL BE DEALING WITH MASKS UNTIL THE VACCINE IS READILY AVAILABLE SO THAT THE METHOD MAY CHANGE.
AND HENCE, I THINK THE MOTION FOR MONDAY NIGHT SHOULD STILL REMAIN.
WE'LL KEEP WATCHING WHAT'S HAPPENING AND ADJUST ACCORDINGLY.
BUT THIS IS ENOUGH TO GET US OUT OF THE GATE TODAY, TOMORROW.
YEAH, I THINK IT SHOULD BE ENSHRINED IN ANYTHING THAT WE'RE PASSING HERE TONIGHT BECAUSE WE'VE GIVEN THE DECLARED STATE OF EMERGENCY AS THE TIME TO LIFT THAT WHICH GIVES THAT TO THE CONTROL GROUP, NOT TO US, NOT TO APH.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT REMOVED BEFORE I VOTE.
I GUESS I'M ASKING FOR A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT OF THE TIME PERIOD TO BE ENSHRINED IN THE POLICY TO BE JUST TO SIMPLY STATE WHEN THE VACCINE IS AVAILABLE AND IF IT CHANGES BECAUSE OF WHAT THE PROVINCE SAYS, THEN AT THAT TIME WE COULD GO BACK AND CHANGE THAT.
AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, ANYONE AGREEING? NO.
I DISAGREE. THAT WAS ACTUALLY AN AMENDMENT THAT WAS VOTED ON LAST NIGHT.
SO WE CAN AMEND THIS POLICY LATER IF NEED BE.
BUT I AM I WOULD MUCH PREFER TO LEAVE IT IN THERE THAT THE CITY IS THE CONTROL.
I DON'T WANT IT TO STIPULATE THAT IT'S A VACCINE.
I KNOW THAT TRIALS ARE IN PLACE.
BUT THE SITUATION IS WHOSE VACCINE? IS IT GOING TO BE PROVINCIAL? IS IT GOING TO BE FEDERAL? THERE'S THERE'S TOO MUCH INVOLVED IN THERE.
I WOULD RATHER LEAVE IT THAT THE CITY DECLARES WHEN THIS POLICY IS OVER.
WE HAVE IT RIGHT NOW. BUT AS WHEN THE CITY DECLARES THAT THIS ENDS, WE CAN EXTEND THIS POLICY IF WE NEED TO AT THAT POINT IN TIME.
SO I DON'T WANT TO TIE IT TO ANYTHING SPECIFIC OTHER THAN THE CITY DECLARING THAT THIS POLICY IS NO LONGER IN EFFECT.
THIS IS JUST AN AUTOMATIC IN CASE WE DON'T BRING IT BACK.
THE PROBLEM IS WE HAVE AN AWFUL LOT OF ITEMS ON OUR BOOKS THAT ARE REDUNDANT BECAUSE
[00:15:04]
THERE WAS NO END DATE ON IT.SO I JUST. THAT WAS THE REASON THAT I WANTED AN END DATE.
THE PROBLEM IS IF IF THERE'S A VACCINE, BUT IT'S NOT A VACCINE THAT'S AVAILABLE TO EVERYBODY. IF IT'S NOT A MANDATED VACCINE, THERE'S TOO MANY IFS AND BUTS ABOUT THE VACCINE. SO I JUST WANTED IT VERY SPECIFIC TO BE AT THIS.
SO I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF CHANGING THE WAY THAT WE HAD PUT THAT MOTION FORWARD LAST NIGHT OR MONDAY NIGHT. SO, I MEAN, YEAH, I THINK I TEND TO AGREE WITH COUNCILLOR PATRIE.
I THINK RIGHT NOW WE START WITH THIS.
AND THEN IF WE HAVE TO MODIFY OVER TIME, I THINK WE HAVE THAT ABILITY.
AGAIN, I THINK IT'S KIND OF OPEN TO WHEN THE VACCINE IS AVAILABLE, AVAILABLE AND IN USE, OR AVAILABLE.
LIKE, AGAIN. I THINK WE'VE SPENT AN HOUR AND 15 MINUTES, I THINK, TO DATE ON THIS.
AND OBVIOUSLY WE'LL GET TO THE SECOND PART OF THIS AND IN A COUPLE OF MINUTES, I'M HOPING. BUT I THINK AT THIS POINT, I'M I'M HAPPY TO GET THIS ROLLING.
AND THIS IS FOR OUR FACILITIES.
AND IT'S IT'S SOMETHING THAT I THINK WE NEED TO DO.
SO I WOULD I WOULD MOVE FORWARD WITH THE WAY IT IS RIGHT NOW.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COUNCILLOR MANN.
JUST A REITERATION ALSO BECAUSE I'VE GOTTEN A LOT OF CORRESPONDENCE ABOUT THIS OVER THE LAST 48 HOURS.
A LOT OF THEM HAVING TO DO WITH THE THE PEOPLE NOT REALIZING THAT THERE IS EXEMPTION FOR THEIR PERSONAL HEALTH ISSUES.
THE EXEMPTION FOR PERSONS WHO CANNOT WEAR EITHER MASK OR FACE COVERING WITHOUT ASSISTANCE, INCLUDING PEOPLE WHO ARE ACCOMMODATED UNDER THE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIO ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OR ARE PROTECTED UNDER ONTARIO HUMANS RIGHTS CODE RSO 1990 CHAPTER 19 AS AMENDED.
SO THE MANY, MANY PEOPLE SENDING CORRESPONDENCE ABOUT THAT, IT'S COVERED RIGHT IN THE POLICY IT'S COVERED UNDER APH'S REQUIREMENTS ALSO.
COUNCILLOR PATRIE. I'D JUST LIKE TO ADD TO THAT.
AND THE MAIN REASON THAT I WANTED THAT APH PORTION ATTACHED IS THERE ARE AN AWFUL LOT OF EXEMPTIONS WHERE BUSINESSES DON'T NEED TO WEAR MASKING IN THE SITUATION WHERE WE ARE.
IT'S NOT REQUIRED TO DO IT AT THAT POINT.
EMPLOYEES THAT WORK SOMEWHERE THAT AREN'T ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC DON'T HAVE TO SIT IN THEIR OFFICE AND WEAR IT.
THERE'S AN AWFUL LOT OF EXEMPTIONS IN THAT APH DOCUMENT, AND THAT'S THE WHOLE REASON THAT I WANT THE DOCUMENT ATTACHED.
THE MAJORITY OF THE EMAILS I WAS GETTING FROM PEOPLE IS OK.
SO UNDER THIS SINCE INSTANCE, DO I HAVE TO WEAR A MASK? WELL, ACCORDING TO APH, NO.
SO IF IT'S SOMEBODY THAT WORKS IN A IN AN OFFICE, IN A RETAIL STORE THAT IS NEVER GOING TO SEE THE PUBLIC.
THEY DON'T HAVE TO SIT IN THEIR OFFICE AND WEAR A MASK.
IT'S ONLY WHEN THEY'RE GOING TO BE DEALING WITH THE PUBLIC WHERE THEY CANNOT DO SOCIAL DISTANCING. WE HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT SOCIAL DISTANCING IS THE ANSWER TO THIS.
BUT THAT'S STILL NOT THE ANSWER.
SO IT'S IMPERATIVE THAT WE WHEN WE DO PUT OUR PUBLISHER INFORMATION OUT TO THE PUBLIC THAT THAT APH DOCUMENT IS WHAT WE'RE USING SO THAT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT IF YOU HAVE PEOPLE TOGETHER THAT NUMBER ONE OTHER ABLE TO SOCIAL DISTANCE OR NUMBER TWO ARE ALL IN CUBICLES AS WE ARE TONIGHT.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO SIT THERE AND WEAR THAT MASK.
AND THAT'S THE IMPORTANT THING THAT THE PUBLIC HAVE TO KNOW.
I'VE RECEIVED, I THINK, SIX E-MAILS SO FAR TODAY OR SINCE MONDAY OF PEOPLE ASKING QUESTIONS. WELL, WHAT ABOUT THIS? WHAT ABOUT THIS? AND ALL I'M DOING IS I'M FORWARDING THAT APH DOCUMENT TO THEM BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE RULES ARE THAT I WAS EXPECTING US TO FOLLOW AND THE AMENDMENT ADDING THAT AS THE ATTACHMENT TO THE AS A SCHEDULE, THEN THE PEOPLE CAN JUST SAY, OK, I UNDERSTAND YOU'VE GOT TO READ THE DOCUMENT.
AND THAT'S WHEN WE HAVE TO BE HAVE TO TRY AND ENFORCE OR REQUEST PEOPLE TO WEAR MASKS.
I THINK THAT'S WHY GETTING THE MESSAGE OUT TO THE PUBLIC IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT.
AND WE DISCUSSED THAT TODAY AT THE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT CONTROL GROUP WAS GETTING CLEAR, CONCISE MESSAGING.
SIX SIX FEET APART, SOCIAL DISTANCING IS THE TOP PRIORITY.
YES, WEARING MASKS. BUT THE DISTANCING IS A BIG DEAL.
AND I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY BENEFICIAL TO HAVE THAT OUT IN THE VARIOUS SORTS OF MEDIA TO THE PUBLIC. SO THERE'S LESS CONFUSION ALONG WITH CONTACT INFORMATION FOR THEM, ALSO FOR QUESTIONS TOWARDS APH.
COUNCILLOR CYR. CAN YOU WAIT A MINUTE? COUNCILLOR TURNER UP NEXT HERE.
OK, COUNCILLOR TURNER, THANK YOU.
I JUST WANTED TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF WHAT'S BEEN SAID ALREADY HERE.
I THINK ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS WE CAN DO IS GET THE MESSAGE OUT OF WHAT ALGOMA PUBLIC HEALTH HAS DIRECTED.
IT'S NOT LIKE WE HAD ANY CHOICE HERE.
[00:20:04]
WE'RE BASICALLY FOLLOWING THEIR DIRECTIVE, BUT WE'D LIKE PEOPLE TO KNOW WHAT THE DIRECTIVE IS. PERHAPS WE CAN ENSURE THAT IT'S ON OUR WEBSITE.WE ALREADY HAVE AN ALERT PAGE THAT POPS UP SOON AS YOU GO TO CITY HALL.
PERHAPS WE COULD PUT THE APH BULLETIN ON THERE AND AS COUNCILLOR PATRIE HAS SAID.
PEOPLE HAVE SO MANY QUESTIONS, BUT THEY'D BE ANSWERED IF THEY READ THE APH BULLETIN.
THEY WOULD TAKE SO MUCH OF THE MYSTERY OUT OF IT.
THANK YOUR WORSHIP, THROUGH YOU.
I DO AGREE WITH COUNCILLOR PATRIE ON THIS POINT.
I THINK IF WE MAKE THE POLICY BINDING TO THE CURRENT PUBLIC HEALTH INSTRUCTIONS WITH WHATEVER THEY ARE, IT BECOMES A LIVING DOCUMENT.
SO IF THE IF THE INSTRUCTIONS CHANGED, WE DON'T HAVE TO COME BACK THE COUNCIL TO AMEND THE POLICY. IT JUST STAYS CURRENT WITH THE CURRENCY OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH INSTRUCTIONS.
SO IT JUST IT MOVES BY ITSELF.
IT CHANGES BY ITSELF TO ADAPT TO WHAT CURRENT MEASURES NEED TO BE AT THE TIME.
SO I THINK I DO AGREE WITH THAT.
AND I DO APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE WITH THE SAMPLE POLICY.
AND I KNOW THAT'S WHAT SOME OF US REALLY ASKED FOR.
BUT THINKING ABOUT IT, I THINK IT WOULD BE MORE PRUDENT AND MORE EFFICIENT TO JUST LEAVE THE POLICY FREE FLOWING WITH WHATEVER HEALTH INSTRUCTIONS ARE AT THE TIME.
IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? OK, I'LL CALL FOR A ROLL CALL, VOTE ON ADOPTING A CORPORATE POLICY ALONG WITH ALGOMA PUBLIC HEALTH IS DOCUMENTATION, AS APPENDIX AS MENTIONED IS A LIVING DOCUMENTS.
SO I'LL START OUT WITH COUNCILLOR PATRIE.
COUNCILLOR CYR. FAVOR. COUNCILLOR TURNER.
IN FAVOR. COUNCILLOR FINAMORE.
SO THE SECOND POINT HERE WOULD BE LOOKING FOR A MOTION THAT COUNCIL PASS A RESOLUTION FOR A COMMITMENT TO SUPPORT APH ORDERS THROUGH BYLAW.
IS THERE A MOVER? THAT WAS A BIG PART OF THE DISCUSSION THE OTHER NIGHT, WHETHER WE WANTED TO. TO REITERATE THE SUPPORT FOR APH AND THEIR ORDERS.
COUNCILLOR PATRIE. WHEN THIS POLICY COMES BACK AS A BYLAW TO COUNCIL, WE WILL PASS THAT BYLAW AT THE TIME.
SO WE WILL BE PUTTING A BYLAW IN PLACE, AS WE NORMALLY DO, TO PROVE ANYTHING.
SO IN ALL ACTUALITY, THIS POLICY IS NOT EVEN IN EFFECT UNTIL WE PASS THE BYLAW.
I DON'T KNOW IF OUR CONFIRMATORY BYLAW WILL APPROVE THAT.
SO ARE WE APPROVING IF WE APPROVE THE CONFIRMATORY BYLAW? WE ACTUALLY HAVE A BYLAW THAT APPROVES THIS POLICY, AND THAT'S THE BYLAW THAT WE'VE BEEN PUTTING IN PLACE. BUT JUST TO CLARIFY, THIS IS THE CITY'S CORPORATE POLICY WITH WITH APH'S POLICY ATTACHED.
THE OTHER NIGHT, THE DISCUSSION WAS WAS A BIG PART OF THE DEBATE THE COUNCILLOR MANN PUT FORWARD WAS OUR COMMITMENT TO REINFORCING APH'S STANDPOINT THAT EVERYONE, EVERY BUSINESS IN THE COMMUNITY FOLLOWS SUIT.
SO IN ORDER FOR US TO DISCUSS THAT, THAT WOULD BE RECONSIDERATION.
SO WE CAN'T EVEN DO THAT AT THIS POINT.
SO IF WE'RE BRINGING BACK THE EXACT SAME THING, THAT'S DIFFERENT.
BUT I HAVE NO ISSUES WITH VIRTUALLY WHAT WE'VE DONE IS WE'RE AGREEING THAT APH'S RULES ARE SUCCINCT WHEN WE DO A CORPORATE POLICY TO ATTACH THAT APH'S IS GOING TO BE THEY PUT STUFF IN PLACE AND THEY HAVE INSPECTORS IN PLACE TO ENFORCE WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO ENFORCE.
SO. WE CAN'T TELL THEM YES OR NO EITHER WAY.
WELL, THAT THAT WAS A BIT OF MY POINT THE OTHER NIGHT, IS WE HAVE TO HAVE OUR POLICY.
THEY'VE ALREADY PUT IT FORWARD.
BUT GOING THROUGH THIS, IT WAS THE OTHER NIGHT.
AND IN THIS REPORT FROM MR. GAGNON, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR COUNCIL TO PASS AN ADDITIONAL MOTION TO RECONFIRM COUNCIL'S COMMITMENT TO THE EXISTING MANDATORY ORDER BY ALGOMA PUBLIC HEALTH.
THE ORDER BY APH COVERS ALL BUSINESS AND INDOOR SPACES WITHIN THE CITY OF ELLIOT LAKE.
SO CURRENTLY WHAT WE JUST APPROVED WAS A CORPORATE POLICY, ALONG WITH THE APPENDIX OF
[00:25:04]
THEIR THEIR POLICY.SO THE QUESTION BEING, DO WE WANT TO RECONFIRM THROUGH RESOLUTION THE COMMITMENT TO THE MANDATORY ORDER BY PUBLIC HEALTH COVERING ALL BUSINESSES? BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, THAT'S NOT WHAT'S THERE.
SO MOVED. SECOND BY COUNCILLOR PEARCE.
SO WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW IS AGAIN OUR COMMITMENT TO THE MANDATORY ORDER BY ALGOMA PUBLIC HEALTH THAT ALL BUSINESSES AND INDOOR SPACES IN THE CITY OF ELLIOT LAKE FOLLOW THE ORDER QUESTIONS ALL OVER THE PLACE.
COUNCILLOR TURNER. I SAW YOUR HAND FIRST.
I'M JUST WONDERING, WHAT DO WE ACHIEVE BY DOING THIS? WHEN APH ISSUES IN ORDER, THAT'S THE END OF IT.
THERE'S WE'VE ALREADY MOVED THROUGH WHAT THE MUNICIPAL POLICY WOULD BE AS REQUIRED BY THE DIRECTIVES. COUNCILLOR MANN I HAD YOU UP NEXT.
MAYBE YOU CAN HIT ON COUNCILLOR TURNER'S QUESTION.
GETTING A LITTLE BIT OF DEJA VU.
THANK YOU. WORSHIP. YOU KNOW, CLEARLY, I THINK, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE'VE DONE IS WE'VE ESTABLISHED A POLICY FOR OUR OWN PREMISES, BUT WE HAVEN'T GOT ANY FURTHER.
CLEARLY, THERE'S BEEN GREAT DEBATE IN THE MUNICIPALITY OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS.
AND I THINK WE'VE ALL RECEIVED CALLS, EMAILS ABOUT IT.
AND I'VE TRIED TO TALK TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS I CAN.
YOU KNOW, THIS IS NOT ANY TYPE OF RIGHTS INFRINGEMENT.
OBVIOUSLY, PEOPLE ARE STILL ABLE TO CHOOSE WHETHER THEY DO IT OR NOT.
CLEARLY, THERE'S ENOUGH EXCLUSIONS IN HERE.
AND THAT'S WHERE MOST OF THE CONCERNED CALLS THAT I RECEIVED CAME FROM REGARDING EXCLUSIONS. AND I THINK ALL THE ONES THAT HAD APPROACHED ME.
THERE WAS ONE ACTUALLY REGARDING GYM USAGE, WHICH IS PRETTY CLEAR IN HERE.
THERE'S AN EXEMPTION FOR THAT AS WELL AS EMPLOYEES FOR BUSINESSES THAT HAVE THAT HAVE NO DESIGNATED PUBLIC SPACES AGAIN.
SO THERE'S. SO THERE IS AN EXEMPTION.
AND THIS IS INTERESTING AS WELL.
ONE INDIVIDUAL IN SPEAKING TO THEM HAD A QUESTION ABOUT WOULD COUNCIL CONSIDER? AND I'LL THROW IT ON BECAUSE IT IS PART OF THIS DISCUSSION CONSIDERATION ABOUT CHANGING THE SMOKING BY LAW, BECAUSE THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT ARE STANDING IN LINE IN CLOSE QUARTERS TO OTHER PEOPLE WAITING TO GET INTO BUSINESSES THAT ARE SMOKING.
AND, YOU KNOW, OWNERS ARE COMING OUT TO ASK.
YOU WOULD YOU PUT THAT OUT? SOME ARE SOME ARE COMPLYING AND SOME AREN'T.
BUT AGAIN, SO IT'S AGAIN, FALLOUT FROM SOMETHING THAT WE MAY CONSIDER TO BE A QUICK AND EASY BLACK AND WHITE ANSWER.
YOU KNOW, WE HAD A VERY LENGTHY DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS THE OTHER NIGHT.
AND I THINK MY INTENTION AND MY PURPOSE FOR SAYING WHAT I DID WAS NOT TO AGAIN INFRINGE ON ANYONE'S PUBLIC SAFETY.
IT WAS SIMPLY TO TRY TO ASSIST.
AND I KNOW THAT THERE'S A GREAT DEAL OF BUSINESSES THAT I'VE BEEN IN IN THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS THAT HAVE APH SIGNAGE OUT ALREADY, YOU KNOW, FOR WARNING AND ADVISING OF THE IMPENDING CHANGE TOMORROW, WHICH I THINK IS GREAT.
AND I THINK THOSE BUSINESSES FOR DOING THAT.
YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, THIS IS IN TALKING TO A COUPLE OF PEOPLE, IT'S THE SAME AS BUCKLING UP AND HAVING A SEAT BELT WHEN YOU'RE DRIVING.
IT'S NOT EASY TO BREATHE AND SPEAK DEPENDING IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
BUT AGAIN, BESIDES COUNCILLOR PATRIE'S POINT TO SOCIAL DISTANCING.
THIS IS ANOTHER ANOTHER MEASURE TO PUT IN PLACE BECAUSE, AGAIN, WE ALL HAVE PLEXIGLASS, BUT I'M NO LONGER PROTECTED AND WE REGULARLY SIT BACK IN OUR CHAIRS.
BUT I THINK THE ADDED MEASURE OF THE MASK IS IMPORTANT AS WELL.
SO I THINK WE TRY TO REINFORCE WITH PUBLIC HEALTH, WE'RE NOT CREATING SOMETHING DIFFERENT. YOU KNOW, IT'S AN APPENDIX TO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO TO SUPPORT WHAT THEY'RE DOING. SO THAT'S WHY I THINK WE NEED TO DISCUSS IT AGAIN TONIGHT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COUNCILLOR MANN.
VERY, VERY CLEAR THAT WE'RE EMBARKING ON THE BEGINNING OF A NEW NORM ACROSS THE WHOLE COUNTRY HERE THAT COULD BE AT LEAST A YEAR LONGER.
I THINK THE BIGGEST DEAL IS GOING TO BE EDUCATION, EDUCATION, EDUCATION OVER OVER THE MONTHS TO COME. ALL RIGHT, COUNCILLOR FINAMORE NEXT.
TO GIVE SOME OF THE PEOPLE COMFORT LEVEL AROUND THE WORD "ALL" WE COULD SIMPLY INSERT IN THERE. ALL INSIDE SPACES THAT ARE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND THAT MIGHT STEADY SOME PEOPLE'S NERVES. I DID HEAR FROM PEOPLE THAT WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT ISSUE, PEOPLE THAT WORK ALONE IN OFFICES, WHICH IS JUST COMMON SENSE.
BUT I HEARD FROM MORE PEOPLE THAT HAD.
FAMILY MEMBERS WHO HAVE ILLNESSES THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO PROTECT.
[00:30:01]
THEM AS BEST THEY CAN.AND WITH SCHOOLS STARTING TO CALL THIS WEEK LOCALLY TO ANNOUNCE THAT KIDS WILL BE GOING BACK TO SCHOOL FIVE DAYS A WEEK.
I THINK WE NEED TO DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO PROTECT THOSE KIDS AS THEY'RE HEADING BACK TO SCHOOL, BECAUSE LIFE'S GOING TO CHANGE FOR THEM.
WE HAVE TO SHOW THEM A NEW WAY THAT THEY HAVE TO ALSO BEHAVE WHEN THEY'RE IN THEIR CLUSTERS OR THEIR GROUPS.
AND I THINK AS ADULTS, WE NEED TO SET THE EXAMPLE.
AND I THINK THAT THIS WILL HELP ENFORCE THAT.
THE CITY OFFICIALS BELIEVE THAT APH IS IN THE RIGHT DOING THE RIGHT THINGS FOR THE GOOD OF ALL. AND THAT THAT'S WHERE THE EDUCATION STARTS.
IT GOES DOWN FROM US. THANK YOU COUNCILLOR FINAMORE.
ONE OF THE ISSUES I HAD THE OTHER NIGHT, MONDAY NIGHT HAD TO DO WITH THE ENFORCEMENT MEASURES AND THE POTENTIAL LIABILITY OF TRYING TO PUT FORTH SOME KIND OF FINE OR SO FAR AS FAR AS OUR ENFORCEMENT ANGLES CONCERNED.
BUT THAT THAT QUESTION HAS BEEN AND WAS ANSWERED CLEARLY TODAY AND IT'S CLEARLY ANSWERED WITHIN HERE IS RESPONSIBILITY OF ALGOMA PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE OPP, NOT OUR ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, NOT PUTTING THE CITY ITSELF ANY RISK.
SO MY CONCERNS WERE WERE ASKED TODAY.
I PUT A VERY, VERY CLEAR I'M JUST A SIMPLE POLITICIAN.
EXPLAIN TO ME CLEAR AND SLOW HOW THIS IS GOING TO ROLL OUT.
AND IT WAS EXPLAINED VERY, VERY CLEARLY THAT IS THEIR THEIR BONE, NOT OURS.
SO I'M QUITE, QUITE HAPPY TO SUPPORT THIS MOTION.
IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? CONCERNS? WHAT IS THE MOTION? THAT THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ELLIOTT LAKE COMMIT TO SUPPORT THE EXISTING MANDATORY ORDER BY ALGOMA PUBLIC HEALTH ON MANDATORY USE OF MASKS OR FACE COVERINGS.
THAT THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ELLIOT LAKE COMMIT TO SUPPORT THE EXISTING MANDATORY ORDER BY ALGOMA PUBLIC HEALTH ON MANDATORY USE OF MASKS OR FACE COVERINGS FOR ALL BUSINESSES AND INDOOR SPACES.
DID YOU HAVE ANY COMMENT OR QUESTION BEFORE I CALL FOR A VOTE? [INAUDIBLE]. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS? OK. COUNCILLOR MANN.
THE ORIGINAL COMMENTS FROM APH ALSO INCLUDED PUBLIC TRANSIT.
I THINK, AGAIN, AS CLOSE AS WE CAN TO THE ORIGINAL WORDING, I THINK IS IS IMPORTANT.
I THINK VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DID WITH OUR CORPORATE POLICY.
I WAS GONNA SAY I'M PRETTY SURE TRANSIT IS COVERED IN OUR CORPORATE POLICY ALREADY, SO.
HE'S NOT ASKING FOR AN AMENDMENT.
HE WAS ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION, BUT IT IS IN APH'S MANDATE THAT TRANSIT IS ALREADY ALREADY COVERED. OK. OK.
ROLL CALL VOTE. STARTING WITH COUNCILLOR CYR.
IN FAVOR. COUNCILLOR FINAMORE.
THAT'S CARRIED. THANK YOU. NO.
CLOSE SESSION. CAN I HAVE A MOTION TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION?
[Item 10: CLOSED SESSION BUSINESS]
MOVED BY COUNCILLOR TURNER. SECOND BY COUNCILLOR MABN.THANK YOU. NOW IN CLOSED SESSION.
HAVE A GOOD NIGHT. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILLOR MANN, SECOND BY COUNCILLOR FINAMORE THAT WE COME OUT OF CLOSED SESSION.
ALL RIGHT. SO WE'RE OUT OF CLOSED SESSION.
MS. BRAY. WE HAVE A WORDING FOR A RESOLUTION.
THAT THE CAO AND CLERK BE AUTHORIZED TO ENTER INTO SIDEWALK LEASE AGREEMENTS DURING COVID 19, PROVIDING ALL CRITERIA HAS BEEN MET AND THAT THE LEASE BE BROUGHT BACK TO COUNCIL TO BE RATIFIED AT A FUTURE MEETING OF COUNCIL.
MOVED BY COUNCILLOR PATRIE. SECOND BY COUNCILLOR MANN.
ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR.
[00:35:02]
BYLAW 11.1.[Items 11 & 12: 11. BY-LAWS 11.1 By-Law 20-50 7 Being a by-law to confirm the proceedings of Council at its special meeting of July 16, 2020 12. ADJOURNMENT]
BYLAW 20 - 50.BEING A DIALOG TO CONFIRM THE PROCEEDING OF COUNCIL AT ITS SPECIAL MEETING OF JULY 16, 2020. MOVE BY COUNCILLOR FINAMORE.
IN FAVOR. COUNCILLOR FINAMORE.
COUNCILLOR MANN. IN FAVOR. AND I'M IN FAVOR.
THAT'S CARRIED. MOTION TO ADJOURN.
MOVE BY COUNCILLOR MANN. SECOND BY COUNCILLOR TURNER.
WE'RE NOW ADJOURNED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.