Peterborough city council will be meeting as general committee at 6 p.m. on Monday (March 23).

The general committee meeting will follow a closed session at 5 p.m. on three matters related to litigation or potential litigation that are subject to solicitor-client privilege and a matter related to signs that is subject to solicitor-client privilege.

Here are some highlights of what’s on the agenda:

Public meeting on draft Community Planning Permit by-law

During a statutory public meeting under the Planning Act, city council will consider the city’s draft city-wide Community Planning Permit (CPP) by-law and consider next steps for final approval of the by-law and implementation of a Community Planning Permit System (CPPS).

According to a staff report, the CPP by-law aims to modernize the city’s planning framework to conform with its 2023 official plan, while accelerating development approvals to meet targets and commitments under the Ontario Building Faster Fund and the Federal Housing Accelerator Fund.

The CPPS would replace the city’s existing zoning by-law by consolidating multiple approval processes into a single framework, with the aim of reducing approval timelines and supporting increased housing supply.

“The implementation of a city-wide CPP by-law will modernize development standards and significantly streamline the development approvals process,” the staff report reads. “Once enacted, the framework of the CPP by-law will empower the city to collect tangible community benefits, such as affordable housing by leveraging increased building heights.”

The city released the draft CPP by-law to the public on January 19 and, as part of the consultation process, undertook four in-person open houses, a virtual open house, an online survey, working sessions with community and business advisory groups, roundtable sessions with Indigenous groups, and briefings with the mayor and councillors.

Public comments made during the meeting will be provided to city staff for review, and will help inform the recommendation report that city staff will bring forward to council by June 30, along with a timeline for implementation.

Amendment to council’s code of conduct to prohibit use of racial slurs

On January 19, city council directed city staff to review and amend the council code of conduct to explicitly prohibit the use of racial slurs regardless of context or circumstance.

The direction came in response to public delegations responding to a December 2025 report by the city’s integrity commissioner that found Mayor Jeff Leal had not contravened the code of conduct when he used the N-word during a guest lecture at Trent University on March 19, 2025.

While the integrity commissioner described the slur as “odious” and said the mayor’s use of the term was “not acceptable,” he found that the code of conduct does not currently apply to speech made in an academic setting where the mayor was not acting in his official capacity. He suggested council may wish to amend the code to address conduct that occurs outside council chambers but affects community trust.

A staff report recommends that the section of the code of conduct that states that members of council must not “use indecent, abusive or insulting words, or expressions toward any other (member of council), and member of staff or any member of the public” be amended to read “use indecent, abusive or insulting words, expressions or racial slurs.”

Report of the Office of the Ombudsman’s review into complaints about a closed session

The Office of the Ombudsman has concluded that a closed session held on September 3, 2025 to discuss a staff report about renovations to two police stations did not contravene the Municipal Act.

The previous day, council meeting as general committee had voted to defer an update on the project to renovate and expand the city’s police stations that included a $25.4 million increase to the project budget. Councillor Alex Bierk had put forward a motion to defer the report back to city staff for details on what costs are related to mandatory versus discretionary requirements.

Bierk’s motion was up for final approval at the regular city council meeting on September 3 when councillor Gary Baldwin — a member of the police board — put forward a motion to move the discussion into closed session, referring to an unspecified matter of solicitor-client privilege and related communications.

The motion was approved, and council moved into closed session. Around half an hour later, councillors Bierk, Joy Lachica, and Keith Riel left the closed session. It was later revealed that the police chief, as well as the chair and vice-chair of the police services board, were invited into the closed session.

When council returned to open session, they voted against Bierk’s motion and approved the staff report, thereby approving a $25.4 million increase to the project budget, for a total estimated budget of $91.9 million — an increase of over 38 per cent from the originally approved budget of $66.4 million.

“We got railroaded last night in our attempt to defer the police renovations budget,” Bierk later told kawarthaNOW. “Council was pulled into an unplanned closed session, and when the discussion shifted from solicitor-client privileged advice to discussing my motion, I left. I believe those conversations and other elements of what happened — which I am not at liberty to discuss — were completely out of order and should have taken place as part of the public debate.”

The Office of the Ombudsman subsequently received complaints about the closed session and began a review. In his letter to council, which does not identify the complainants, Ombudsman of Ontario Paul Dubé concludes that the move into closed session was appropriate as the city solicitor provided legal advice to council, which councillors subsequently discussed. He also states that the police chief provided “information relevant to the legal advice which council was considering.”

“Although the police chief is not legal counsel, information provided by non-lawyers may still fall within the exception for solicitor-client privilege if the information is needed to meaningfully understand and discuss the legal advice being sought,” Dubé writes.

“The information provided by the police chief was necessary for the purpose of receiving solicitor-client privileged advice. The information was intertwined with the city solicitor’s legal advice to council and was used by council to meaningfully understand and discuss that advice. Accordingly, council’s closed session discussion fit within the exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege.”

Amendments to portfolio chairs by-law

In response to a direction from council on January 19 that city staff review the portfolio chairs by-law and report back to council with recommended amendments, a city staff report is proposing changes to the by-law that would come into effect on the first day of the next term of council.

Council’s direction followed a report by the city’s integrity commissioner into a city staff complaint against councillor Keith Riel, alleging that he treated a staff member of city’s people and culture division disrespectfully in relation to the city’s eviction of a homelessness encampment in July 2024 and creation of a temporary shelter.

While he dismissed the complaint against Riel, the integrity commissioner noted Riel’s emails to staff were expressing “frustration that he and the other portfolio co-chair did not receive advance information about the location of a temporary shelter during the eviction of an encampment” and that the portfolio by-law gave him “a reasonable belief that responding to media and public inquiries was part of his role and gave him a reasonable belief that he should receive from staff the information necessary to handle those inquiries.”

The integrity commissioner also found that the city’s portfolio system “perhaps blurs the line between the role of councillors and the role of the staff” and that council may want to consider clarifying expectations around portfolio co-chair roles, access to information, and staff relationships “given that the managerial and operational responsibilities reside with the city’s staff.”

The proposed changes to the portfolio chairs by-law includes collapsing the “Community Services (except Homelessness)” and “Community Services (Homelessness)” portfolios into a single “Community Services” portfolio (thereby also reducing the number of co-chairs for those portfolios from four to two) and changing the authority to appoint councillors as portfolio co-chairs (and revoke those appointments) from the mayor to council.

Another change includes the section of the by-law pertaining to the roles and responsibility of portfolio chairs so that they no longer “consult with third parties,” “consult with individual members (of council),” and “consult and share information with the commissioner (responsible for the portfolio) including respecting matters under consideration by the commissioner related to the portfolio.” Instead, the proposed section now only reads that a portfolio chair “may share information with the commissioner including respecting matters under consideration by the commissioner related to the portfolio.”

The proposed changes also strike out the section of the by-law that states that a portfolio chair may establish and dissolve citizen advisory committees, as well as the line that “a member who is not a portfolio chair should share with the portfolio chairs any type of motion relating to the portfolio.”

Councillor motions on guaranteed basic income, Alto high-speed rail, parking meters, and “orphaned garbage”

Motions from four individual councillors are also on the agenda for Monday’s meeting.

Councillor Matt Crowley is proposing a motion that council call upon the provincial and federal governments to implement guaranteed basic income for all Canadians and the provincial government to reinstate its cancelled basic income pilot.

Councillor Kevin Duguay is proposing a motion that council formally express its full support for the inclusion of Peterborough as a designated station stop within the planning and development of the Alto high-speed rail network.

Councillor Joy Lachica is proposing a motion that fines for parking violations be suspended for vehicles parked at non-functioning parking meters, and that those parking spaces continue to be available until the parking meters are repaired.

Councillor Alex Bierk is proposing a motion that fines against downtown property owners and business owners for “orphaned garbage” left by others on city property and owner boulevards be paused until July 1 and that city staff report back to council “with recommended amendments to improve clarity and fairness in enforcement.”

An Oshawa man has been charged with two counts of attempted murder and multiple weapons charges in connection with a drug-related shooting in Peterborough earlier this month that left a Peterborough woman with serious injuries.

Police are continuing to search for a second suspect in the shooting, which took place around 4 p.m. on Sunday, March 8 at an apartment at 701 George Street North just south of Parkhill Road.

According to the police investigation, a 39-year-old Peterborough woman and 47-year-old Peterborough man were the victims of a targeted robbery connected to the drug subculture. While the suspects were robbing the couple of money, there was a physical confrontation and the woman was shot. The two suspects then fled the scene.

The woman was taken to Peterborough Regional Health Centre before being airlifted to a Toronto hospital. The man was not injured.

At around 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday (March 18), Peterborough police officers with the assistance of the Durham Regional Police Service Tactical Response Team executed a search warrant at a residence in the Simcoe Street South and Wellington Road area of Oshawa.

Police located the suspect with the home and took him into custody. During a search of the residence, officers also seized a loaded firearm found within the suspect’s belongings.

The suspect is currently bound by a 2024 order prohibiting him from possessing any firearm and any crossbow, restricted weapon, ammunition, and explosive substance for a period of 10 years and possessing any prohibited or restricted firearm, weapon, device, or ammunition for life.

A 23-year-old Oshawa man was arrested and charged with two counts of attempted murder with a firearm, robbery using a firearm, two counts of unauthorized possession of a weapon, possession of a restricted firearm with ammunition, two counts of possession of a firearm contrary to a prohibition order, and discharge of a firearm with intent.

The accused man is being held in custody and will appear in court on Thursday (March 19).

“This suspect already has a conviction for armed robbery involving a firearm and we are asking he be held in custody,” Peterborough police chief Stuart Betts states in a media release. “We are thankful that the shooting victim is continuing to recover from their injuries and will continue to search for the second suspect involved in this incident.”

The second suspect was described to police as a Black man with a skinny build wearing a black jacket, a grey hoodie with hood up, a grey toque, a grey backpack, and black shoes with blue soles.

Anyone with information is asked to call the Peterborough Police Service at 705-876-1122 ext. 555. To submit an anonymous tip, contact Crime Stoppers at 1-800-222-8477 or stopcrimehere.ca.

While another drug-related shooting took place at 701 George Street North on September 25, 2024, seriously injuring a Scarborough teenager, police says there is nothing at this time to suggest the March shooting is connected to that incident.

One City Peterborough is ending its outreach programs for unsheltered people in mid-May.

One City’s director of outreach services Auden Palmer communicated the “incredibly difficult” announcement in an email on Wednesday (March 18), stating that “shifts in funding were the catalyst for this change.”

Palmer says the funding shifts “prompted us to look carefully at where we can realistically sustain our efforts,” with the non-profit organization deciding to focus its resources at Trinity Community Centre, located in the former Trinity United Church on Reid Street.

That’s where One City operates a daytime drop-in program and an overnight shelter program, with both programs funded through a three-year service agreement with the City of Peterborough.

According to Palmer, One City’s original outreach efforts were temporary, small scale, and reactive, with a single staff member checking on people living outdoors only in the winter.

Over the years, One City expanded its outreach programs to include year-round daily check-ins, also building partnerships with healthcare providers, housing teams, harm reduction services, and municipal staff.

“We moved several individuals from their tents into our supportive housing program,” Palmer recalls. “We launched pilot projects to respond to unmet needs: the Unity team offering a rapid response for non-emergency crises in the downtown, and the LINK team providing case management services designed to prevent folks from getting stuck in the system.”

Palmer notes the number of people living outdoors has not decreased, and ending an outreach program built on accumulated trust and consistency “is difficult precisely because of its impact.”

“One of the hardest realities of ending outreach is knowing that people will be left with fewer touchpoints, especially those who distrust institutions or find it impossible to make it into a physical building,” Palmer writes.

Palmer says One City is “doing everything we can to transition responsibly” before the outreach programs end in May, including “sharing tools, information, and training with partners who may be able to carry forward pieces of the work within their capacity.”

“We’re doing our best to make sure no one is left wondering where we went,” Palmer adds. “After May, our emergency efforts will centre on the Trinity Hub, where we’ll continue to offer food, washrooms, shelter, and a low-barrier place to connect to care.”

“Outreach was always about more than just a service; it was about the radical act of showing up. We are deeply proud of the years our team spent in the rain, the heat, and the quiet corners of this city. As we transition this work, we carry the lessons learned from the streets with us. The program, for now, is ending, but the work of seeing, supporting, and connecting our neighbours continues.”

Following lobbying of the federal government by the mayors of Kingston and South Frontenac and recent comments by Ontario premier Doug Ford, concerns are emerging in Peterborough that the city’s stop on the proposed Alto high-speed rail network could be at risk.

However, Alto says its plans have not changed.

The Crown corporation has confirmed that Peterborough remains one of seven planned stops on the proposed 1,000-kilometre high-speed rail line between Toronto and Quebec City.

On Wednesday (March 18), kawarthaNOW spoke to Alto’s senior advisor of corporate communications Crystal Jongeward, who provided the following statement:

“Our mandate from the government of Canada remains the same — to develop a high-speed rail network between Ontario and Quebec, which includes seven stations: Toronto, Peterborough, Ottawa, Montreal, Laval, Trois-Rivières, and Quebec City.”

“Nothing has changed in our mandate,” Jongeward added. “All of those station stops that we’ve been consulting on remain.”

Alto is currently conducting a public consultation on a 10-kilometre-wide corridor for the proposed rail network between Toronto and Quebec City, which includes a northern option and a southern option between Ottawa and Peterborough. Establishing the corridor is a preliminary step in determining the 60-metre right-of-way for Alto’s final alignment (route).

The northern option reduces travel distance and community impacts, but involves complex work in remote and sensitive areas. The southern option is less direct but simplifies construction and operations.

Since Alto began its public consultation, which included an open house in Peterborough on February 26, there has been pushback from rural communities in southeastern Ontario about the southern option for the corridor.

On March 9, the mayors of Kingston and South Frontenac issued a joint statement calling on the federal government to build the proposed Alto high-speed rail project along Highway 401 and add a stop in Kingston.

Kingston Mayor Bryan Paterson and South Frontenac Mayor Ron Vandewal have argued that the corridor’s southern option — which would travel just north of Belleville, Kingston, and Brockville — will result in the destruction and fragmentation of farmland, wetlands, and rural communities, disrupting agriculture and tourism and recreation businesses.

The two mayors have proposed that Alto instead shift the southern option further to the south along Highway 401, to minimize the impact on rural areas and alleviate fears of land expropriation, and that Alto add a stop in Kingston.

When asked by reporters at an event in Brockville on Monday (March 16), Ontario Premier Doug Ford said he supports the idea.

“I agree 100 per cent, follow the 401 corridor,” Ford said. “Don’t start taking farmers’ land and everything else out — just follow the 401 corridor. It makes sense. And maybe make a stop in Kingston.”

Since Highway 401 is located more than 80 kilometres south of Peterborough, Ford’s comments have raised concerns — including among city officials — that Alto’s southern corridor for the corridor would no longer encompass Peterborough.

On Tuesday, the City of Peterborough posted on Facebook that “Peterborough must be part of Ontario’s high-speed rail future,” encouraging locals to share their support through Alto’s online public consultation, which has been extended until April 24.

“Residents and businesses have a chance to advocate strongly for Peterborough to be included,” the Facebook post states.

In its statement, Alto says it is currently working to refine the alignment “within the corridors already under study” — implying that a Highway 401 option is not on the table.

As for concerns raised by rural communities, Alto states that “Whenever possible, the project will seek to follow existing infrastructure corridors such as highways, railways, or energy corridors in order to limit impacts on communities and the surrounding environment.”

“Given public consultations are still ongoing, and we’ve not refined the corridor yet, it’s too early to speak to specific routing considerations for a specific locale.”