[0:09] - Bonsoir. Bienvenue à la
[0:10] réunion de séance ordinaire du
[0:12] conseil municipal de
[0:14] Beaconsfield, Dieu lundi, le 18
[0:16] novembre.
[0:18] Welcome to the regular meeting
[0:19] of the municipal council among
[0:22] the, Monday November 18th. And
[0:25] now I will ask the city clerk to
[0:30] introduce the agenda. - Adoption
[0:31] de l'ordre du jour de la séance
[0:33] ordinaire du conseil de la ville
[0:34] du Beaconsfield du 18 novembre
[0:37] 2024.
[0:38] - Proposé.
[0:39] - J'appuie.
[0:41] All in favour? - Nous manquons
[0:46] deux conseillers ce soir. There
[0:49] are two councillors that are
[0:51] missing. They are both out of
[0:54] town. So there is Roger Moss
[0:56] whose district five and Robert
[0:59] Mercuri, district 3. So we have
[1:03] a very tight council tonight.
[1:09] [Laughter]
[1:10] Okay, we will go into the
[1:12] written question because the --
[1:15] is not here tonight to give us a
[1:17] report on the activities of the
[1:22] SPVM. So go straight to the
[1:28] questions we got in writing. The
[1:30] first question is from Michael,
[1:35] from plane. The subject's Park
[1:41] tax. Hi, all. Thank unit Vance
[1:43] for taking the time to address
[1:44] my question. I was wondering if
[1:47] any considerations have been
[1:49] made to amend the current Park
[1:52] tax rule. In my personal
[1:56] situation, I have lived in
[1:57] Beaconsfield for 25 plus years.
[2:00] In my current home for six. It
[2:02] was built in 1936. It has many
[2:06] issues and it has outgrown our
[2:08] growing family. We would love to
[2:10] stay in the area and for us, the
[2:12] most practical solution is to
[2:14] build. However, the additional
[2:16] fees related to the park tax
[2:20] make this unattainable. This
[2:22] said, for those not looking to
[2:24] capitalize on a quick flip,
[2:26] buying a home, tear down, build
[2:28] and sell for profit, could there
[2:30] be additional clauses or
[2:32] exemptions for citizens such as
[2:34] me? This model is contributing
[2:36] to the rising cost of homes and
[2:39] inability for families like mine
[2:41] to remain in Beaconsfield. A
[2:45] question via this example. Could
[2:46] we consider exemptions for
[2:48] residents who have lived in
[2:49] their Beaconsfield home for more
[2:50] than five years and do not plan
[2:53] to sell right after build? This
[2:55] can be done by a simple fee
[2:57] structure, reduction based on --
[3:00] a refund if the person building
[3:03] remains in this said residents
[3:05] for five years. Thanks again for
[3:09] fielding my questions. Sir, the
[3:14] rules that -- regarding park tax
[3:18] are governed by the provincial
[3:21] act respecting land use,
[3:23] planning in development. In
[3:26] other words, it's a provincial
[3:31] act. These types of measures
[3:34] that you are suggesting are not
[3:37] provided in the act. And we have
[3:40] very little latitude to act. In
[3:43] fact, we have none. So, I hear
[3:47] you and I think that you will
[3:50] make a lot of sense.
[3:57] But the act or the rules will
[3:59] not permit us to do anything
[4:02] that you are suggesting. The
[4:05] next question, and I will read
[4:08] the question. There's a very
[4:10] long preamble which I will not
[4:13] read. But the question is from
[4:16] Mr. Derek pounds. The subject is
[4:21] to reduce the speed limit on 820
[4:23] in the city sector from 100
[4:25] kilometres per hour to 70
[4:27] kilometres per hour in
[4:30] installing photo radar. First, I
[4:33] can tell you that all cities and
[4:37] that would be concerned, whether
[4:40] it be Dorval, Pointe-Claire,
[4:43] they derby, are not in agreement
[4:47] with the reduction of the speed
[4:51] of a 20. Reducing the speed only
[4:55] in a section Beaconsfield does
[4:57] not make much sense. So, you
[5:01] know, there is no agreement
[5:03] between the different cities
[5:05] that are on A20.
[5:14] As far as the photo radar is
[5:17] concerned, I indicated to you in
[5:19] October and that the City made a
[5:22] request to the MTQ in 2012 and
[5:26] again in 2019 for photo radar's.
[5:30] On May 20. And the MTQ indicated
[5:34] both times that the request did
[5:36] not meet the applicable criteria
[5:39] for the installation of photo
[5:43] radar's. And we've had
[5:46] conversations with the MTQ. And
[5:50] certainly, they are not in
[5:51] favour of reducing the speed on
[5:55] A20. In fact, they will tell you
[5:58] that the reason that they built
[6:00] that highway was to increase the
[6:03] speed 200 kilometres per hour.
[6:06] So, we do not plan on making any
[6:07] of the requests after our two
[6:10] requests. But if you wish,
[6:15] Mister Powell, to contact the
[6:17] FTQ the -- MTQ directly, to make
[6:20] it request, please go ahead and
[6:22] hopefully you will have a better
[6:25] chance than we did in trying to
[6:28] make that change. The next
[6:32] question, we have three
[6:33] questions here. And I will
[6:36] handle all three. From Nicole,
[6:40] Saint Andrew, a landscaping
[6:43] contract. In regards to the
[6:45] contract for landscaping along,
[6:47] hear the company suggested --
[6:51] uses very loud rides on mowers
[6:55] and leaf blowers. Leaf blowers
[6:57] are not allowed in a certain
[7:00] period of the year. So anybody
[7:03] using a leaf lower during that
[7:05] period of restriction should be
[7:09] reported to Montréal, to the
[7:14] municipal patrol. And they will
[7:16] go right away and will issue a
[7:19] fine if that person is still
[7:20] using a leaf blower. Is it
[7:23] possible to find a contractor
[7:24] who uses electric batteries or
[7:27] mechanical mowers that would be
[7:30] quieter and uses rigs and --
[7:33] instead of Lee floors? That
[7:35] would also cut down on fossil
[7:37] fuels. In regards to the
[7:39] demolition on Kirkwood and the
[7:41] proposed new buildings on
[7:43] Madison and many other streets,
[7:44] there are many -- far too many
[7:47] demolitions and rebuilding's in
[7:49] Beaconsfield. These last four
[7:51] months, the homes -- somewhat
[7:55] affordable price are torn down
[7:57] and replaced with houses no one
[7:58] can afford. I hope that the
[8:02] people that are putting up those
[8:03] houses can afford it because
[8:04] they did buy that property and
[8:08] had it demolished. These
[8:10] rebuilds go on for months,
[8:13] subjecting residents to a lot of
[8:15] noise and dust. It's also a
[8:16] waste of resources and puts
[8:18] trees at risk. Miss, I thank you
[8:22] very much for your suggestion
[8:24] and we will refer them to the
[8:27] administration and they will
[8:28] follow up with you. The second
[8:31] question is on mental health. 25
[8:37] Fieldfare is now friends for
[8:38] mental health. When it was -- it
[8:42] provided support services to
[8:44] everyone but now the current
[8:47] owners, friends for mental
[8:48] health deny services to anyone
[8:51] with a mental health condition
[8:54] or a neurodivergent condition,
[8:56] especially if they live on their
[8:59] own. Even though I am autistic
[9:01] and could use some help from
[9:07] Friends for Mental Health,
[9:08] Friends for Mental Health
[9:09] refuses to provide me with
[9:10] services because I am my own
[9:12] caregiver. Being my own
[9:14] caregiver is really tiring and I
[9:16] could you support. Hopefully,
[9:20] you can convince them to give
[9:22] you support in the future.
[9:25] Please consider a tax exemption
[9:27] for another organization,
[9:29] preferably Christchurch
[9:31] Beaconsfield United, Briarwood
[9:33] Presbyterian and other
[9:35] organizations that except
[9:37] everyone. Well, the churches
[9:40] that you mentioned in your
[9:43] question are all tax exemptions.
[9:47] And tax exemptions are requested
[9:49] by building owners. So the
[9:52] church is mentioned are tax
[9:56] exempt. So there is not much we
[9:58] could do to reduce their taxes,
[10:01] they don't pay any taxes.
[10:03] Question number two, winter
[10:05] power outage planning for
[10:07] animals. Please include animals
[10:09] in this plan. Animals should be
[10:12] allowed into emergency shelter
[10:14] or heating areas, or at least
[10:16] provide generators for
[10:18] vulnerable animals. Cats and
[10:20] dogs have for, but many exit
[10:23] there make animals, like
[10:26] reptiles and fish, at the pet
[10:31] stores and zoo at the St. Louis
[10:33] bus stop would die without
[10:35] power. They need to be included
[10:36] in the plan. Along with
[10:39] guardians in -- guardians of
[10:44] vulnerable animals would
[10:45] voluntarily register their
[10:46] animals with the City. Ideally,
[10:49] all animals would be registered
[10:51] with the City and window
[10:53] stickers put in similar to the
[10:57] vulnerable registry for human so
[10:58] that the city is aware of how
[11:00] many animals and who needs which
[11:03] supports during a power outage.
[11:05] Yes, the city has a lot of
[11:09] animals and a lot of dogs.
[11:12] Anytime I'm walking around the
[11:14] streets I see people walking
[11:15] their dogs. Yes, we have a
[11:21] 20,000 population and I would
[11:22] bet that altogether we have at
[11:24] least 10,000 dogs and cats in
[11:27] Beaconsfield. And Miss, we do
[11:32] have an agreement with the
[11:34] Humane Society international
[11:36] Canada to provide assistance in
[11:40] Beaconsfield in case of natural
[11:43] disasters.
[11:44] >> Mister Mayor, if I may also
[11:47] add, we also do have a byline
[11:50] Beaconsfield, as you know, that
[11:51] no animals are to be sold
[11:53] anywhere in Beaconsfield? That
[11:55] includes all animals, not just
[11:56] dogs and cats. Madame maybe can
[12:01] look into it.
[12:06] >> Thank you, Councillor.
[12:14] The next question is
[12:21] , let's see, who is it from?
[12:25] From Alan Kerry from Churchill.
[12:30] And it is --
[12:39] (---)
[12:40] Qui sont une autre rue de façon
[12:41] régulière. Monsieur Carrie, nous
[12:46] vous remercions d'avoir porté
[12:48] certains problématiques à notre
[12:50] attention. Et je vous assure que
[12:52] les travaux publics feront les
[12:55] suivis requis avec le
[12:57] fournisseur à ce sujet. And now,
[13:03] this is the question that we got
[13:05] in writing. And it is now open
[13:09] to the floor for questions. Yes,
[13:14] you have to identify yourself
[13:17] and because --
[13:24] >> Cheryl, on Sussex Drive. I've
[13:27] been speaking to Martin
[13:29] Saint-Jean about the situation,
[13:31] two incidents, three now, and I
[13:36] am bringing it to your
[13:38] attention. Sorry that the
[13:40] commandant is not here, it
[13:41] would've been fun to have this
[13:42] discussion with. I'm just so you
[13:44] know, the police station is
[13:46] aware that there's a band of
[13:50] bandits being rotated through
[13:52] Beaconsfield that are actually
[13:54] robbing our older people at
[13:57] seniors -- seniors, as they
[13:59] shop. It's happening quite
[14:00] frequently at metro. Metro has
[14:03] been very supportive to the
[14:05] people that have been affected
[14:07] by this. They've been
[14:09] pickpocket, had their purses
[14:10] have been stolen, the money has
[14:11] been drained out of their bank
[14:14] accounts. It has just been
[14:16] horrific. Identities stolen. The
[14:19] police are on, it they are
[14:20] working on it. Metro has been
[14:24] incredibly good at sharing their
[14:26] video and helping to track these
[14:29] people. But because these people
[14:30] are being flown in and out, the
[14:32] police do know this, it's a
[14:34] trafficking of thieves. It's
[14:37] hard to arrest them because
[14:38] they're not staying in town for
[14:40] anytime long. So we need to
[14:42] think of a program, and I'm
[14:44] willing to make myself available
[14:45] in any way possible to make sure
[14:46] we can educate our seniors and
[14:49] make them understand that they
[14:51] are vulnerable and that there is
[14:53] this activity going on. And we
[14:56] hope that more people would put
[14:57] video cameras around. But not
[15:00] only, that when you do put a
[15:01] sign that says you are being
[15:03] filmed so that it could kind of
[15:05] remind people to be aware in
[15:07] their surroundings and also
[15:09] maybe deter any other kind of
[15:12] thieves, that's one issue. The
[15:14] second issue is my grandchildren
[15:16] go to Sherbrooke academy senior.
[15:20] About a month or so ago,
[15:23] unfortunately, in the little
[15:24] forest that is the property of
[15:27] that school, weapons were found.
[15:31] Knives, of BB gun and another
[15:33] gun. Police were called, the
[15:36] children found it at recess,
[15:37] they were partially buried.
[15:41] Again, another thing where I
[15:43] think for us to be sensitive
[15:45] about things that are going on.
[15:48] I'm actually talking with
[15:50] parents of that school to talk
[15:51] about putting cameras in the
[15:53] trees to do video surveillance.
[15:56] So that we can maybe close the
[15:58] barn door before the horse
[16:01] actually gets out. I would hate
[16:02] to see anything happen. God
[16:04] knows what the plan was going to
[16:06] be to use those weapons. I think
[16:09] one of them was a toy. But the
[16:11] rest were real knives and BB
[16:13] guns and other things like that.
[16:15] So those are my two things to
[16:17] kind of flag and in a kind of
[16:20] security way that we can keep
[16:21] our eyes open and let's talk
[16:23] together about what we can do to
[16:25] protect the citizens.
[16:27] >> I totally agree with you. I
[16:30] think we have to create
[16:32] awareness that this happened --
[16:34] this is happening all the time.
[16:36] And we do have a vulnerable list
[16:38] of older people that we are in
[16:41] contact with all the time. So we
[16:44] certainly will make sure that
[16:46] they are aware. But also, we
[16:49] have a program now called
[16:53] connection. It's going to try to
[16:56] get people pulled in the
[16:57] neighbourhood together and work
[17:01] together. That's a program. I
[17:04] think it has just started. Now
[17:07] it's going on in Beaconsfield.
[17:10] There is no doubt. Over and
[17:12] above what you said, there are
[17:15] too many stolen cars in
[17:18] Beaconsfield as well. My own
[17:24] son, by the way, had his car
[17:26] stolen a couple weeks ago in
[17:28] Toronto. So it happens
[17:30] everywhere. But, yes we need to
[17:34] create awareness. I think we
[17:35] need to work with people that we
[17:38] know that our older people and
[17:41] make sure that they understand
[17:45] their vulnerabilities to these
[17:49] acts. And you know what?
[17:55] Everybody gets caught, no matter
[17:57] how much you do, the
[18:03] grandparents approach on the
[18:06] phone, these guys, it works. It
[18:10] works. And I can't believe
[18:11] people are not aware that when
[18:14] you are getting a call like
[18:17] this, you know, I'm just saying,
[18:20] I will get in touch with my
[18:21] grandson or my granddaughter.
[18:24] And I will make sure that I can
[18:26] help them. That will be the end
[18:29] of the call. But people will get
[18:33] caught and it will continue. So
[18:37] we have to work hard to make
[18:39] them aware of what can happen to
[18:45] them. And certainly, anything
[18:47] that does happen should be
[18:50] reported right away to the
[18:54] police because they will act on
[18:58] it. And we have our municipal
[19:02] patrol going around all the time
[19:03] to see if there is anything that
[19:04] is unusual. They will reported
[19:07] to the police as well.
[19:10] >> I just wanted to add, we also
[19:13] do provide -- we talk about it
[19:17] and we do provide conflicts with
[19:20] the police that are open to
[19:22] seniors. They do go through a
[19:23] whole list of what kind of scams
[19:25] are going on, what kinds of
[19:29] rings of that after going on and
[19:30] all that. We do try to make them
[19:32] aware. It's very user friendly.
[19:34] And we do this about every three
[19:36] months or, so the police come in
[19:37] and they do talk to them and
[19:38] they make them aware of what is
[19:40] going on. If this is going on
[19:42] and you are talking to the
[19:43] police, perhaps this is a
[19:45] subject that they can bring
[19:46] forth.
[19:47] >> I think my point here right
[19:48] now was that this is the third
[19:51] time within six months that
[19:53] people have been victim eyes at
[19:56] the Metro store. And the thing
[19:58] is, when these people go to the
[20:00] police, which is the first thing
[20:01] you have to do because you have
[20:02] been robbed but you also have to
[20:03] go through the process of
[20:05] locking down your identity, the
[20:06] police already know, oh, was
[20:09] your bank account robbed? Oh,
[20:10] did they go and pull out money
[20:12] at the Walmart on Kirkland? They
[20:15] have the target, they have a
[20:17] pathway. They can just actually
[20:18] follow the group via thieves are
[20:22] -- the route the thieves are
[20:23] taking. Time and time again, it
[20:25] seems to be a formula that works
[20:26] for them. The point is that
[20:27] we've spoken to Metro directly
[20:29] and we've said, put signs out
[20:31] but you have cameras. Just let
[20:33] our people know. But it Metro
[20:36] has been so good at letting
[20:38] people, making their video
[20:40] surveillance cameras available
[20:42] to the police. We don't want to
[20:43] do anything that would harm them
[20:46] in any way. But that day, two
[20:48] weeks ago, when this happened to
[20:51] my friends grandmother, her
[20:56] mother, while she was getting
[21:00] robbed, a car was being stolen.
[21:02] So the police showed up at here
[21:05] Metro, and I thought it was for
[21:06] them. They said, no, we've gone
[21:08] because there is a car being
[21:09] stolen in the parking lot at the
[21:11] same time. So, it's not Metro,
[21:14] it's not their fault. It's just
[21:16] that somehow they found a
[21:18] vulnerability for this area and
[21:19] I think it has to do with a lot
[21:21] of, oh, maybe the greyhaired
[21:23] people.
[21:24] [Laughter]
[21:26] >> And you think Beaconsfield
[21:28] shopping centre is bad? Fairview
[21:31] is even a lot worse. So, I agree
[21:35] with you. Surveillance cameras
[21:36] are very useful. The police will
[21:39] use them. I know that there was
[21:41] a car stolen on my street few
[21:44] months ago. And they came to my
[21:46] house because I have
[21:47] surveillance cameras on my home.
[21:51] And they wanted to see if they
[21:53] could see what happened and the
[21:56] cars that went by and all that.
[21:58] So, the police will use
[22:00] surveillance cameras, no doubt
[22:01] about it. Yes, thank you.
[22:11] >> I. I just wanted to say I
[22:15] really liked what you are saying
[22:17] about better surveillance. And
[22:19] you mentioned the vulnerable
[22:21] persons registry. I'm a self
[22:24] registered user of the
[22:25] vulnerable persons registry.
[22:26] It's not just for old people,
[22:27] it's whoever identifies
[22:29] themselves as vulnerable. But
[22:30] the vulnerable persons registry
[22:33] only with Beaconsfield. One
[22:34] thing I would suggest is that,
[22:36] yes, the SPVM maybe have the --
[22:41] and the Montréal fire expand
[22:43] vulnerable persons registry to
[22:46] across the whole island. And
[22:47] another thing I would suggest is
[22:49] that there is a program with
[22:51] police called emerge in Montréal
[22:52] where we work with different --
[22:55] >> By the, way could you
[22:56] identify yourself? We don't know
[22:57] who you are.
[22:58] >> I'm Nicole Carrasco, I live
[23:01] in Beaconsfield. 130 St. Andrews
[23:06] Avenue. One suggestion I have is
[23:09] that right now, the immersion
[23:12] Montréal program with the police
[23:15] is only in, say, special needs
[23:19] schools and. That but they are
[23:21] only learning about people at a
[23:23] certain stage of their life.
[23:28] Schools like giant steps or K
[23:32] through 12, you're only looking
[23:34] at for the 17 year olds. You're
[23:36] not looking at adults or older
[23:38] adults. What I suggested is that
[23:41] they have a program similar to
[23:45] the above his program where you
[23:47] can sign up with a vulnerable
[23:49] persons registry across the city
[23:53] and you could have an off-duty
[23:56] police officer, in their
[23:59] training, or a cadet accompany
[24:01] any person who identifies as
[24:03] vulnerable.
[24:04] >> We have a vulnerable person
[24:07] registry in Beaconsfield. And
[24:09] that is for the Beaconsfield
[24:11] residents. We can't talk for
[24:12] anybody else. If you want to
[24:15] suggested across Montréal,
[24:18] suggested to the agglomeration.
[24:20] >> I have. What you could do
[24:22] already with the vulnerable
[24:23] persons registry that you have
[24:24] in Beaconsfield, for
[24:26] Beaconsfield residents, you
[24:28] could pilot this proposal in
[24:32] Beaconsfield. Using the existing
[24:34] VP are. That actually could
[24:37] work. That would be -- that
[24:40] could be through the immersion
[24:42] program. They could learn about
[24:43] people, vulnerable persons
[24:45] throughout their lifespan and
[24:46] not just from their childhood.
[24:48] >> Thank you very much.
[24:57] >> Good evening. Martha bond. I
[25:00] live in the borough of
[25:02] Pierrefonds-Roxboro and I'm also
[25:04] a member of the Beaconsfield
[25:05] historical society. My question
[25:07] concerns item 40.3 on page three
[25:09] of tonight's agenda. Request for
[25:12] a review of the demolition
[25:14] committee, demolition permit for
[25:17] seven Kirkwood Avenue approved
[25:20] Tuesday October 1st 2024. In
[25:22] addition to my original
[25:24] opposition and nine others,
[25:27] including a detailed history of
[25:29] the building and the importance
[25:31] submitted by the Beaconsfield
[25:34] historical society, I remark
[25:35] that after reading the extract
[25:37] from the minutes of the October
[25:39] 1st meeting, that the demolition
[25:41] committee seems more interested
[25:42] in preserving the appearance of
[25:45] the neighbourhood than
[25:47] preserving the heritage building
[25:49] built by owner Thomas Kirkwood
[25:52] in about 1891. Oppositions to
[25:55] the demolition should've been
[25:56] provided to the public online
[25:58] and to everyone who submitted
[26:00] and took the time and opposition
[26:03] as to provide as much
[26:05] information as possible about
[26:06] this historic house. The City
[26:11] should have provided a full
[26:12] historic evaluation of the house
[26:16] and in this historical value and
[26:20] age, along with the request for
[26:21] the demolition in the public
[26:24] notice that was posted in July.
[26:29] This way, the public understands
[26:31] that this building and it's
[26:33] important intrinsic value as
[26:36] well as its historical
[26:40] significance. The list of
[26:43] reasons to justify a demolition,
[26:47] given by the committee, seem
[26:48] quite arbitrary.
[26:50] >> What is your question?
[26:52] Because we have to get to the
[26:53] question.
[26:54] >> I'm coming to it in a
[26:56] sentence.
[26:57] >> That is a long preamble
[26:58] already.
[26:59] >> One sentence, I'm coming to
[27:00] it. All houses need repair, all
[27:04] properties need maintenance.
[27:05] There are bylaws that address
[27:07] this and they apply to all
[27:09] renters and owners in the city.
[27:12] Will Mayor Bourelle and Council
[27:16] preserve this historic house or
[27:18] will they be remembered as the
[27:21] Council that demolished the
[27:23] oldest and best preserved house
[27:26] on Kirkwood Avenue, and its
[27:30] original location, with original
[27:32] interior architectural features
[27:34] in Beaconsfield.
[27:38] >> I will ask, we have the
[27:40] chairman of the demolition
[27:43] committee, Councillor St-Jean,
[27:47] and I will ask him to give you
[27:48] the process that is being
[27:50] followed in Beaconsfield for a
[27:53] demolition. And that process, I
[27:57] think, is fair and just. I will
[28:01] let Martin explain to.
[28:03] >> Thank you, Mayor. Good
[28:06] evening. Thank you for your
[28:07] questions and your concerns.
[28:10] First, let's start with the last
[28:12] question that you had as to
[28:13] whether or not the building will
[28:15] be preserved and the decision of
[28:17] the committee will be reversed.
[28:19] Obviously, that is not a
[28:20] question I can answer right now.
[28:22] It's on the agenda for later on
[28:24] tonight and we will see how my
[28:25] colleagues and myself vote on
[28:27] that review process. The first
[28:30] comment you made was about the
[28:33] fact that the committee seemed
[28:35] more concerned about preserving
[28:36] the look of the neighbourhood
[28:39] than to preserve the building
[28:41] itself. As you may or I'm sure
[28:44] you are aware of, we had a first
[28:47] meeting in the first week of
[28:49] August. I don't have the exact
[28:52] date. Le dix? Le six. Merci.
[28:56] On August 6th. We have members
[29:00] of your historical society in
[29:02] attendance at that point. We
[29:06] have a number of items in the
[29:08] bylaw that we need to consider
[29:10] and a number of documents
[29:12] required for us to be able to
[29:14] provide a just assessment of the
[29:17] building. A building like this
[29:18] one, built in the 18 80s, and a
[29:22] building built in the 1960s.
[29:25] When we found ourselves to deal
[29:29] with was a building at that
[29:32] point that showed some obvious
[29:35] heritage value. But on a scale
[29:38] of 1 to 10, it wasn't quite
[29:39] obvious as to where it should be
[29:43] located. It wasn't a house built
[29:46] in the last 20 years by a famous
[29:49] person, in terms of heritage,
[29:51] and that would be one criteria.
[29:54] And it wasn't the move either,
[29:57] at the other end of the
[29:59] spectrum. What we did at that
[30:00] point to be able to assess
[30:02] whether or not the building
[30:04] should be maintained or
[30:07] restored, salvaged in part or in
[30:10] whole, was to request that more
[30:14] historical or heritage value
[30:16] assessments be conducted on the
[30:18] building. And that's why we
[30:20] reconvened in the first week of
[30:24] October. With the information
[30:27] that we had received, we
[30:31] essentially, and I think those
[30:33] reports after tonight's vote can
[30:36] be made available to the public
[30:37] if they are requested. So you
[30:39] can access what we have. But we
[30:42] came to the conclusion that
[30:43] there was very little original
[30:47] components to the house. The
[30:50] house or a house had stood there
[30:52] looking the way it does for 140
[30:56] something years. But pretty much
[30:59] every component of that house
[31:01] through that period had, at some
[31:04] point, been remodelled,
[31:08] refurbished, wood taken out,
[31:10] replaced by newer materials, so
[31:13] on and so forth. We were left to
[31:16] consider the cost of restoration
[31:17] if we weren't going to salvage
[31:19] the house and turn it into a
[31:22] museum. It just got to a point
[31:25] where financially, it didn't
[31:26] make sense given the fact that
[31:28] very few original components
[31:31] were remaining in the building.
[31:34] Unfortunately, it's one of those
[31:35] buildings where had we wanted to
[31:39] salvage it and save it for years
[31:41] to come, we should have acted as
[31:44] a community. 30, 40, 50 years
[31:48] ago. And earmarked that
[31:50] building, perhaps, that -- as
[31:53] something that needs to be
[31:54] cherished and protected. But it
[31:57] wasn't. And so, we are in a
[31:59] position where it is
[32:02] unfortunate, in my opinion, at
[32:03] least, what I have, in terms of
[32:06] information, too little too
[32:08] late.
[32:10] >> And so, going forward, but of
[32:14] course, as I said, all houses
[32:16] need repair.
[32:17] >> Yes.
[32:19] >> And the current owners bought
[32:22] it as it was.
[32:24] >> Yes.
[32:25] >> I don't think citizens should
[32:27] take on the cost of repairing
[32:33] most privately owned buildings.
[32:35] They have enough to maintain
[32:38] municipal buildings and parks.
[32:45] It is the demolition permit that
[32:50] perhaps, unbeknownst to us,
[32:54] there was a meeting and this
[32:58] house for years, which is a
[33:01] problem in Beaconsfield and
[33:03] other places, including where I
[33:04] live, in Pierrefonds-Roxboro,
[33:07] houses that have not been
[33:10] identified in any -- even --
[33:14] it's not a way to restrict the
[33:20] normal use of a facility. It's
[33:23] to keep it from being
[33:25] demolished. And so, the process,
[33:29] if it's not changed and as it
[33:31] was not changed, -- you are in
[33:37] the council then. I don't blame
[33:39] you for that. But I do find you
[33:42] all responsible tonight and
[33:46] moving forward for the
[33:48] preservation of heritage
[33:51] buildings. Is there a louvre? I
[33:56] know there are some magnificent
[33:59] houses in beacon field, but I
[34:01] doubt there is a Louvre. Like in
[34:05] France.
[34:06] >> Do you have a second
[34:07] question? Again, we are carrying
[34:09] on the same conversation.
[34:13] >> And also, I didn't get to say
[34:16] this about the documents. These
[34:19] documents were not made public.
[34:23] So, this was taken out of
[34:25] context in the extract of the
[34:28] minutes.
[34:29] >> Well --
[34:31] >> There's no documents to look
[34:32] at.
[34:33] >> I respectfully disagree with
[34:36] you. That was taken out of
[34:39] context. What I will grant you,
[34:40] is that members of the committee
[34:42] have context that you don't yet
[34:45] have. And they had context that
[34:47] tonight other members of Council
[34:49] have to vote. The process, to
[34:53] some extent, cannot be open to
[34:55] the public before a decision is
[34:57] made. Those documents have a
[35:02] certain amount of
[35:04] confidentiality that cannot be
[35:09] shared until a decision by
[35:11] Council has been made. And to
[35:16] answer your question, is there a
[35:17] louvre in Beaconsfield? Yes,
[35:20] there is Thompson Point.
[35:21] >> I did see some exceptional
[35:23] houses. But I'm not sure I would
[35:25] call -- as fantastic as that
[35:27] house is, the Louvre.
[35:29] >> Beaconsfield is not Paris
[35:31] either. All things proposed --
[35:34] proportional, perhaps it is our
[35:36] move. But that is a debate to be
[35:38] had it another time.
[35:39] >> That is not a standard that
[35:41] has to be met by houses of
[35:43] heritage value.
[35:45] >> Thank you for sharing your
[35:46] views.
[35:47] >> Thank you.
[35:57] - Pauline
[35:58] (---)
[35:59] . Vous dites, on peut avoir
[36:02] accès au dossier demain? Parce
[36:04] que madame Day Berman semblait
[36:07] dire que ce serait seulement en
[36:08] janvier qu'on aurait le droit
[36:09] d'y avoir accès.
[36:12] - Écoutez, je veux pas me
[36:14] prononcer, je suis pas la
[36:15] personne responsable de l'accès
[36:16] aux documents mais ma
[36:18] compréhension, et peut-être
[36:19] qu'elle est erroné, ce que je
[36:20] peux vous dire, c'est que ma
[36:21] compréhension est qu'une fois
[36:22] que le Conseil a été en mesure
[36:25] de consulter un document pour
[36:29] prendre une décision, il y a
[36:34] quelque chose qui vous permet
[36:36] d'avoir accès au matériel que
[36:38] nous avons eue entre les mains
[36:40] pour décider.
[36:42] - Est-ce qu'il va être tout...
[36:44] comme on appelle ça, noircis?
[36:46] - Je suis pas la personne
[36:47] responsable de l'accès aux
[36:49] documents. Si jamais vous
[36:50] recevez une décision avec
[36:52] laquelle vous n'êtes pas
[36:54] d'accord, la loi vous permet un
[36:57] droit d'appel ou de révision
[36:59] auprès de la Commission d'accès
[37:00] à l'information.
[37:01] - Nathalie, est-ce que tu peux
[37:02] me confirmer, si c'est seulement
[37:04] en janvier aussi c'est
[37:05] maintenant qu'on peut avoir
[37:07] accès à la demande?
[37:08] - Puisque c'est un immeuble qui
[37:10] date d'avant 1940 et qui a un
[37:12] délai de 90 jours provinciales,
[37:15] mon interprétation, c'est qu'on
[37:17] attend la décision du
[37:18] gouvernement provincial pour
[37:21] émettre... qui fera la décision
[37:23] finale. Ils peuvent quand même
[37:24] s'opposer à la démolition, donc
[37:25] qu'il y a encore une décision à
[37:28] être prise.
[37:31] - Quels sont les documents qui
[37:32] sont envoyés à Québec par
[37:35] rapport à une demande de
[37:36] démolition? Est-ce que vous en
[37:37] voyez tout le dossier?
[37:38] - Au complet.
[37:40] - Tout ce qui a été soumis au
[37:42] comité de démolition, c'est ça?
[37:44] - C'est un dossier pas
[37:45] nécessairement aussi complet que
[37:47] celui du comité de démolition,
[37:48] il faudrait que je vérifie
[37:49] l'entièreté de documents. C'est
[37:51] assez complet pour qu'ils
[37:52] puissent comprendre pourquoi le
[37:53] comité a pris telle décision.
[37:57] Donc c'est un dossier où on a
[37:59] les arguments, les différentes
[38:01] informations par rapport à cette
[38:03] demande-là.
[38:04] - Incluant le dossier sur les
[38:06] patrimoines?
[38:07] - Les études ont certainement
[38:08] été... je pourrais valider, mais
[38:09] il me semble qu'elles ont été
[38:11] envoyées, oui.
[38:13] - O.K..
[38:15] - Ils ont besoin des outils pour
[38:17] pouvoir prendre la décision.
[38:18] S'ils n'ont pas les études, ils
[38:19] ne pourront pas avoir la même
[38:21] information que le comité.
[38:22] - C'est ça. Est-ce que vous
[38:23] envoyez aussi les lettres
[38:26] d'opposition?
[38:27] - Il faudrait que je valide mais
[38:28] c'est certainement dans le PV
[38:29] qu'il y a des lettres
[38:33] d'opposition.
[38:34] (inaudible)
[38:35] - On dit pas le contenu des
[38:36] lettres? On fait juste
[38:37] mentionner qu'il y a eu une
[38:38] opposition, deux oppositions,
[38:40] dix oppositions?
[38:41] - Mais le comité a accès au
[38:42] contenu des lettres, c'est sûr.
[38:44] - Mais Québec aussi? Ou pas?
[38:45] - Il faudrait que je vais aller
[38:46] de. Il faudrait que je regarde
[38:47] le dossier. Ça fait quand même
[38:48] un bout de temps qu'il a été
[38:49] envoyé. Il faut que je regarde.
[38:51] D'accord?
[38:55] - Merci. Alors, nous allons
[38:59] continuer la réunion. Avant
[39:05] qu'on continue la réunion,
[39:07] j'aimerais mentionner une couple
[39:08] de choses pendant que tout le
[39:10] monde est ici. C'est le 22
[39:16] novembre, à 8 heures 30, de 8
[39:19] heures 30 à 9 heures, le train
[39:21] de Noël sera à la gare de
[39:26] Beaconsfield. Alors, tout le
[39:27] monde est bienvenu à venir voir
[39:29] le train de Noël. Ça fait
[39:32] plusieurs années que le train de
[39:36] Noël arrête le train... s'arrête
[39:40] à Beaconsfield, pardon. Donc
[39:42] tout le monde est le bienvenu,
[39:45] je sais qu'il y a beaucoup de
[39:46] gens qui viennent de l'extérieur
[39:48] qui viennent voir le train parce
[39:50] qu'il y a aussi un spectacle de
[39:54] quelques minutes, quand le train
[39:56] est arrêté à Beaconsfield. Alors
[40:01] je voulais tout simplement
[40:03] mentionner ça. And on the 21st
[40:07] of November, there is a market
[40:11] which is going to be in the
[40:13] parking lot at Christmas park
[40:16] from 11 am to four PM. Is there
[40:22] anything, Dominic, that you
[40:24] would like to add to the market
[40:26] that is going to take place in
[40:29] your district?
[40:30] >> We are hoping mother nature
[40:32] cooperates. But, yeah
[40:33] everybody's welcome. 11 to 4,
[40:34] there's something for everyone.
[40:38] I am sure you will find all your
[40:40] Christmas gifts there and get
[40:41] your fill of community funds, 11
[40:45] to 4, Christmas Park, the
[40:48] Saturday.
[40:51] >> Thank you. And now we go back
[40:53] to the agenda.
[40:57] >> Approval of this -- of
[41:00] October 11th 2024 at 8:15 a.m..
[41:04] Approval of the minutes of the
[41:05] City of Beaconsfield's special
[41:06] Council meeting of October 11,
[41:07] 2024, at 8:15 a.m.
[41:08] - En faveur?
[41:09] - À l'unanimité. Approbation du
[41:11] procès-verbal de la séance
[41:12] ordinaire du Conseil de la Ville
[41:13] de Beaconsfield du 21 octobre
[41:14] 2024.
[41:19] - Proposé.
[41:20] - Secondé.
[41:21] - En faveur.
[41:23] - À l'unanimité.
[41:25] >> The wording of a contract
[41:31] GRE-COMM 2024-02 for the
[41:32] printing of the City of
[41:33] Beaconsfield's communication
[41:34] tools for 2025
[41:35] (Contact and Info-flash)
[41:36] to the lowest conforming bidder,
[41:40] Accent Impression Inc., In the
[41:42] amount of $58,321.06, all taxes
[41:46] included.
[41:47] >> Proposed.
[41:48] >> I second.
[41:49] >> In favour. - À l'unanimité.
[41:55] Octroi du contrat TP 2024-10
[41:56] concernant la fourniture d'une
[41:57] (1)
[41:58] surfaceuse de glace électrique
[41:59] au soumissionnaire unique et
[42:00] conforme, soit Engo Equipment
[42:01] Sales inc., Pour la somme de 146
[42:02] 364,75 $, toutes taxes et
[42:06] échange inclus.
[42:10] >> Proposed.
[42:11] - Secondé.
[42:13] >> In favour. - À l'unanimité.
[42:17] Awarding of contract
[42:21] 24-SP-206-EL for electrical
[42:22] services to hook up the new
[42:24] generator at Public Works to the
[42:25] lowest conforming bidder, Poulin
[42:26] Électrique Inc., In the amount
[42:29] of $86,001.30, all taxes
[42:32] included.
[42:34] >> I propose.
[42:35] >> I second.
[42:36] >> In favour. - À l'unanimité.
[42:41] Renouvellement du contrat TP
[42:42] 2023-02 pour la tonte et le
[42:43] nettoyage des espaces verts de
[42:44] la Ville pour l'année 2025 avec
[42:46] Lee Ling Paysagement au coût
[42:49] approximatif de 215 000 $,
[42:50] toutes taxes incluses.
[42:53] - Proposé.
[42:54] - Secondé.
[42:55] - En faveur.
[42:57] - À l'unanimité.
[43:03] Authorization of a payment to
[43:04] the Union des municipalités du
[43:07] Québec for the sum of $64,859
[43:08] non-taxable, representing the
[43:09] City's share of the group's
[43:12] deductible for civil liability
[43:14] insurance and payment of an
[43:15] amount equivalent to 1% of the
[43:16] premium's cost
[43:22] ($2,631.62, all taxes included)
[43:25] for the responsibilities assumed
[43:27] as representative of the
[43:28] Regroupement des municipalités
[43:29] de l'Île de Montréal for the
[43:31] year 2024.
[43:32] >> Proposed.
[43:33] >> I second.
[43:34] >> In favour. -
[43:37] - À l'unanimité. Approbation de
[43:40] la liste des comptes à payer au
[43:41] 18 novembre 2024, et de la liste
[43:42] des paiements préautorisés pour
[43:43] la période du 10 octobre 2024 au
[43:44] 20 octobre 2024 et du 22 octobre
[43:45] 2024 au 6 novembre 2024, pour un
[43:50] déboursé total de 4 256 832,44
[43:53] $.
[43:58] - Voici les montants importants.
[44:07] 973665,52
[44:08] (---)
[44:09] pour un décompte trois et
[44:10] décomptes quatre concernant les
[44:11] travaux de réhabilitation de
[44:13] l'ajouter San Antonio, au parc
[44:15] San Antonio. 279134,32, travaux
[44:23] routiers, métropolitain qui pour
[44:24] des comptes numéro 1 conservant
[44:26] les travaux ponctuels sur le
[44:28] réseau d'égouts pluviales. Les
[44:35] 259898,46, construction Arcade,
[44:38] pour des comptes progressifs
[44:39] numéro 4 conservant...
[44:41] concernant la rénovation de la
[44:43] patinoire. 235289,78,
[44:47] (---)
[44:48] pour des comptes progressifs
[44:49] numéro 2 concernant la
[44:50] réhabilitation structurelle de
[44:52] conduite d'aqueduc. Et
[45:00] 141273,75,
[45:02] (---)
[45:03] pour des comptes numéro 1
[45:04] concernant le marquage de
[45:06] chaussée ponctuelle et axial. Et
[45:09] finalement, les salaires,
[45:14] 490370,19.
[45:15] - Je propose.
[45:18] >> Second.
[45:19] -
[45:20] - En faveur. >> Deposit by the
[45:26] Treasurer of two comparative
[45:27] statements as of August 31,
[45:29] 2024, of revenues and expenses
[45:30] for the year 2024 in compliance
[45:33] with Section 105.4 of the Cities
[45:36] and Towns Act. It's a deposit.
[45:43] Opinion, à la Commission
[45:44] municipale du Québec
[45:45] (CMQ)
[45:46] , de la Ville de Beaconsfield
[45:47] concernant la demande combinée
[45:48] de reconnaissance d'une
[45:49] exemption aux fins de taxes
[45:50] foncières pour un immeuble situé
[45:51] au 25, Fieldfare.
[45:56] - Proposé.
[45:57] - J'appuie.
[46:00] - En faveur.
[46:02] - À l'unanimité. Donc il y aura
[46:04] deux opinions favorables et une
[46:05] opinion défavorable.
[46:10] >> Renewal of the City of
[46:11] Beaconsfield's membership with
[46:12] the Union des municipalités du
[46:14] Québec for the year 2025, in the
[46:15] amount of $22,714.54, all taxes
[46:23] included.
[46:24] >> I propose.
[46:25] >> I second.
[46:26] >> In favour. - À l'unanimité.
[46:31] Approbation d'une contribution
[46:32] financière de 4750 $, il
[46:35] s'agissait de 19 membres à 250
[46:36] dollars chacun,
[46:38] (19 membres à 250 $ chacun)
[46:39] à l'Association des marchands du
[46:40] Village Beaurepaire pour
[46:41] l'année.
[46:45] >> In favour. I second --
[46:51] >> Authorization to proceed with
[46:52] budgetary transfers.
[46:54] >> Proposed.
[46:55] >> Second.
[46:56] >> In favour. - À l'unanimité.
[46:59] Modification de la source de
[47:00] financement de la résolution
[47:01] 2024-02-034 intitulée « Octroi
[47:03] du contrat 649-24-GC concernant
[47:07] la réfection des chaussées
[47:08] souples au plus bas
[47:09] soumissionnaire conforme, soit
[47:10] Roxboro Excavation inc., Pour la
[47:11] somme de 1168462,08 $, toutes
[47:14] taxes incluses ».
[47:17] - Je propose.
[47:19] >> Second.
[47:20] - En faveur.
[47:21] - À l'unanimité.
[47:30] >> Filing and notice of motion
[47:31] of Draft By-law BEAC-161
[47:32] entitled « By-law on tariffs;
[47:33] January 2025 ». - Je donne
[47:38] l'avis de motion.
[47:39] - Merci.
[47:40] - Merci. Dépôt et avis de motion
[47:44] du projet de Règlement
[47:45] BEAC-120-1 intitulé « Règlement
[47:46] modifiant le Règlement BEAC-120
[47:47] concernant les travaux et les
[47:48] aménagements dans les emprises
[47:49] municipales ».
[47:50] - Je donne l'avis de la motion.
[47:52] - Merci.
[47:57] >> Request for a review of the
[47:58] Demolition Committee's decision
[47:59] of October 1, 2024, pertaining
[48:01] to the building located at 7
[48:02] Kirkwood.
[48:03] >> Proposed.
[48:04] >> Seconded. - Il s'agit de...
[48:13] pour confirmer la décision du
[48:14] comité de démolition.
[48:15] - Confirmer la décision du
[48:17] comité de démolition. À l'heure,
[48:19] en faveur? Alors voilà.
[48:25] - À l'unanimité.
[48:27] - Oui.
[48:29] - Demande de dérogation mineure
[48:30] pour la propriété située au 109,
[48:32] Brentwood. La recommandation est
[48:34] d'approuver.
[48:39] - Proposé.
[48:40] - Secondé.
[48:41] - En faveur.
[48:44] - On a unanimité.
[48:48] >> Request for the approval of
[48:49] the Site Planning and
[48:50] Architectural Integration
[48:51] Programme relating to a building
[48:52] permit application for a new
[48:53] main building located at 10
[48:54] Madsen.
[48:55] >> Proposed.
[48:57] >> Seconded.
[48:58] >> In favour. - À l'unanimité.
[49:03] Demande d'approbation du Plan
[49:04] d'implantation et d'intégration
[49:05] architecturale
[49:06] (PIIA)
[49:07] relatif à la demande d'un permis
[49:08] de construction pour un nouveau
[49:09] bâtiment principal situé au 114,
[49:10] Brentwood. La recommandation est
[49:12] de refuser.
[49:13] - Proposé.
[49:14] - Secondé.
[49:15] - En faveur.
[49:16] - À l'unanimité.
[49:19] Request for the approval of the
[49:20] Site Planning and Architectural
[49:21] Integration Programme relating
[49:23] to a building permit application
[49:24] for a new main building located
[49:25] at 127 Evergreen. The
[49:28] recommendation is to refuse.
[49:29] >> Proposed.
[49:31] >> Seconded.
[49:32] >> In favour. - À l'unanimité.
[49:37] Demande d'approbation du Plan
[49:38] d'implantation et d'intégration
[49:39] architecturale
[49:40] (PIIA)
[49:41] relatif à la demande d'un permis
[49:42] de construction pour un nouveau
[49:43] bâtiment principal situé au 130,
[49:44] Jasper. Le recommandation est de
[49:46] refuser.
[49:47] - Vous posez. Opposé, pardon.
[49:50] - Je seconde.
[49:51] - En faveur.
[49:52] - À l'unanimité.
[49:57] Request for the approval of the
[49:58] Site Planning and Architectural
[49:59] Integration Programme relating
[50:00] to a building permit application
[50:01] for a new main building located
[50:02] at 535 Cedar. The recommendation
[50:04] is to refuse.
[50:05] >> Proposed.
[50:06] >> Seconded.
[50:08] >> In favour. - À l'unanimité.
[50:14] Je vous demande d'approbation du
[50:17] Plan d'implantation et
[50:18] d'intégration architecturale
[50:19] (PIIA)
[50:20] relatif à la demande d'un permis
[50:21] de construction pour
[50:22] l'agrandissement du bâtiment
[50:23] principal situé au 233,
[50:24] Cadillac. La recommandation est
[50:25] d'approuver.
[50:26] - Proposé.
[50:30] In favour. - À l'unanimité.
[50:33] Request for the approval of the
[50:34] Site Planning and Architectural
[50:36] Integration Programme relating
[50:37] to a building permit application
[50:38] for the modification of the
[50:39] facade of a main building
[50:40] located at 29 Gables. The
[50:42] recommendation is to approve.
[50:44] >> Proposed.
[50:46] - J'appuie.
[50:47] >> In favour. - À l'unanimité.
[50:53] Demande d'approbation du Plan
[50:54] d'implantation et d'intégration
[50:55] architecturale
[50:56] (PIIA)
[50:57] relatif à la demande d'un permis
[50:58] de construction pour la
[50:59] modification de la façade du
[51:00] bâtiment principal situé au 211,
[51:01] Westcroft. Le recommandation est
[51:02] d'approuver.
[51:03] - Opposé.
[51:04] - J'appuie.
[51:05] - En faveur.
[51:07] - À l'unanimité.
[51:08] Requests for the approval of the
[51:11] Site Planning and Architectural
[51:16] Integration Programme relating
[51:17] to a building permit application
[51:18] for the modification of the
[51:19] facade of a main building
[51:20] located at 261 Milton. The
[51:22] recommendation is to approve.
[51:24] >> Proposed.
[51:25] >> Second.
[51:26] >> In favour. - À l'unanimité.
[51:32] Demande d'approbation du Plan
[51:33] d'implantation et d'intégration
[51:34] architecturale
[51:35] (PIIA)
[51:36] relatif à la demande d'un permis
[51:37] de construction pour la
[51:38] modification de la façade du
[51:39] bâtiment principal situé au 320,
[51:40] Westcroft. La recommandation est
[51:41] d'approuver.
[51:42] - Opposé.
[51:43] - J'appuie.
[51:44] - En faveur.
[51:45] - À l'unanimité.
[51:49] Request for the approval of the
[51:50] Site Planning and Architectural
[51:51] Integration Programme
[51:53] (SPAIP)
[51:54] relating to a building permit
[51:55] application for the modification
[51:56] of the facade of the main
[51:57] building located at 570 Church.
[51:59] The recommendation is to refuse.
[52:01] >> Proposed.
[52:02] >> Seconded.
[52:03] >> In favour. - À l'unanimité.
[52:07] Demande d'approbation du Plan
[52:08] d'implantation et d'intégration
[52:09] architecturale
[52:10] (PIIA)
[52:11] relatif à la réalisation de
[52:12] travaux de remblai sur la
[52:13] propriété située au 211,
[52:14] Gilford. La recommandation est
[52:16] d'approuver.
[52:17] - Proposé.
[52:19] >> Second.
[52:20] >> In favour. - À l'unanimité.
[52:25] Acceptance of an amount of
[52:27] $80,586.00 for park fees to be
[52:28] paid by the owner of lot 1 417
[52:33] 246
[52:34] (10 Madsen)
[52:35] to the City, according to By-law
[52:36] BEAC-128 concerning
[52:37] contributions for the
[52:38] establishment, maintenance and
[52:39] improvement of parks,
[52:41] playgrounds and natural areas on
[52:42] the City of Beaconsfield's
[52:44] territory.
[52:45] >> I propose. - En faveur.
[52:50] - À l'unanimité. Nomination en
[52:55] vue de permanence à titre
[52:57] d'Opérateur Annexe A-1 au poste
[52:59] 5236 au Service des travaux
[53:01] publics.
[53:04] - Proposé.
[53:06] - J'appuie.
[53:07] - En faveur.
[53:08] - À l'unanimité.
[53:11] Nomination in view of permanency
[53:13] as Préposée à la clientèle to
[53:14] position 5003.
[53:20] >> Second.
[53:21] >> In favour.
[53:23] - À l'unanimité. Nomination en
[53:26] vue de permanence à titre de
[53:27] Contremaître, Bâtiments au poste
[53:28] 5205.
[53:32] - Proposé.
[53:34] - J'appuie.
[53:35] - En faveur.
[53:36] - À l'unanimité. >> Minutes of
[53:40] the Planning Advisory Committee
[53:42] meeting of October 30, 2024.
[53:45] >> Proposed.
[53:46] >> Seconded.
[53:47] >> Comments?
[53:49] >> No comments on the specific
[53:52] -- itself, but just a reminder
[53:54] for those that have -- where
[53:55] heading towards the end of the
[53:56] year now. For those that have
[53:58] pending projects, those that
[54:01] submitted, the deadline was
[54:03] today. The next planning
[54:04] advisory meeting will be
[54:05] November 27th. That's when we
[54:07] will have the next round of
[54:08] documents before the end of the
[54:09] year. And then we will pick
[54:10] things up in January. There will
[54:12] be no meeting in December. Just
[54:13] a reminder of that.
[54:16] >> Okay.
[54:17] >> That's the only comment. So,
[54:20] I propose --
[54:24] >> I second. Je propose le
[54:26] procès-verbal.
[54:27] - À l'unanimité. Procès-verbal
[54:29] de la réunion du Comité
[54:30] consultatif culture et loisirs
[54:31] du 25 septembre 2024.
[54:34] - Madame la Présidente? De
[54:36] commenter?
[54:37] - Rien en particulier mais
[54:38] j'encouragerais nos résidents à
[54:41] participer à l'atelier de jeudi,
[54:44] mercredi, pardon. Pour la
[54:46] planification de notre transport
[54:49] actif, ici. Je propose.
[54:57] >> Second.
[54:58] - En faveur?
[55:00] - À l'unanimité.
[55:07] >> Minutes of the finance
[55:09] advisory meeting Advisory
[55:12] Committee meeting of October 22,
[55:13] 2024.
[55:14] >> Whose? Proposing
[55:15] >> I will propose.
[55:16] >> I will second that.
[55:17] >> All in favour.
[55:18] - À l'unanimité. Dépôt du
[55:21] procès-verbal de la séance du
[55:22] Comité de démolition du 1er
[55:23] octobre 2024. Il s'agit d'un
[55:24] dépôt.
[55:26] - De commentaires, Monsieur?
[55:28] - Non, merci, Monsieur le Maire.
[55:31] Rien de plus à dire que ce qui a
[55:33] été mentionné lors de la période
[55:34] de questions et voilà. Merci.
[55:36] - Parfait.
[55:40] >> Appointment of Council
[55:41] members to the Demolition
[55:42] Committee.
[55:45] >> Proposed.
[55:46] >> Seconded. - Alors,
[55:49] félicitations à tous les membres
[55:50] qui sont renouvelés pour le
[55:52] comité de démolition. Merci.
[55:58] - On va voter.
[55:59] - À l'unanimité.
[56:02] (inaudible)
[56:03] (rires)
[56:06] Il y a deux membres du comité
[56:08] qui sont ici ce soir.
[56:10] (rires)
[56:14] - Dépôt d'un Plan particulier
[56:15] d'intervention pour pannes
[56:16] électriques en période
[56:17] hivernale. Il s'agit d'un dépôt.
[56:23] Adoption of a specific directive
[56:24] relating to the use of a
[56:25] language other than French, in
[56:26] accordance with the Charter of
[56:27] the French language.
[56:28] - Je propose.
[56:29] >> Second.
[56:30] >> In favour. - À l'unanimité.
[56:35] Autorisation de signature et
[56:36] dépôt du calendrier de
[56:37] conservation 2024 de la Ville de
[56:38] Beaconsfield.
[56:42] - Secondé.
[56:46] - En faveur.
[56:47] (rires)
[56:48] - À l'unanimité.
[56:51] Mayor's report on the decisions
[56:52] made by the Agglomeration
[56:53] Council at its meeting of
[56:54] October 24, 2024.
[56:58] >> Yeah, I will not comment on
[57:00] the October 24th meeting. It was
[57:03] a normal meeting with a lot of
[57:05] money spent. But I will comment
[57:09] on the meeting that will take
[57:11] place this Thursday. And on the
[57:17] agenda is the elimination of
[57:23] fluoridation in drinking water
[57:25] for the West Island
[57:28] municipalities that now enjoy
[57:30] it.
[57:36] It is a unilateral decision that
[57:38] was made by Montréal without
[57:43] consulting any of the affected
[57:48] municipalities. They made that
[57:50] decision. It's a decision that
[57:52] did not consult any of our
[57:56] residents in the affected
[58:01] municipalities. To me, it's --
[58:05] it reflects an admission of
[58:09] democratic failure in the
[58:11] workings of municipal
[58:12] authorities and a lack of
[58:14] respect of our population and
[58:17] our residents. It's a flagrant
[58:24] abuse of power by the majority.
[58:28] And you have to understand that
[58:31] at the agglomeration meeting,
[58:33] Montréal has 83% of the vote.
[58:36] And we have 87% of the vote. And
[58:39] we have 13% as all of the merged
[58:46] municipalities. No matter what's
[58:47] on the agenda, Montréal gets its
[58:50] way all the time. In this case,
[58:52] here, it will also get their way
[58:55] without any consultation, with
[58:58] health officials. None with
[59:02] municipalities, elected
[59:03] officials. None with citizens.
[59:07] And, you know, if we let that
[59:10] go, we have tried so far to try
[59:14] and get it removed from the
[59:17] agenda on the process itself.
[59:19] Because the process is
[59:23] undemocratic. It's totally
[59:25] undemocratic of a process. So
[59:28] far, we have not succeeded. If
[59:30] it's on the agenda on Thursday,
[59:32] it will be voted in. Any
[59:39] residents of Beaconsfield or any
[59:41] of the cities affected can send
[59:44] in writing to the agglomeration
[59:48] meeting questions about why the
[59:55] decision is made the way it is
[59:57] and question the process. So,
[1:00:00] any of you or anyone who is
[1:00:04] listening to us tonight or
[1:00:07] anybody that you know and who's
[1:00:13] able to ask questions at the
[1:00:15] agglomeration meeting that will
[1:00:16] take place on Thursday -- and I
[1:00:18] highly recommend that as many
[1:00:21] questions as we can put in front
[1:00:24] of the agglomeration meeting,
[1:00:27] the better. And it will have an
[1:00:32] impact. If we let this go, it
[1:00:34] will have an impact on future
[1:00:38] decisions. Unilateral decisions
[1:00:40] made by Montréal. It doesn't
[1:00:43] stop them from making uni
[1:00:45] lateral decisions and bringing
[1:00:47] them to the agglomeration where
[1:00:48] they can abuse their majority in
[1:00:53] getting it through. At one
[1:00:56] point, where we have autonomy
[1:01:00] and we will be able to manage
[1:01:02] our cities, that's a big
[1:01:04] question mark. It's a very
[1:01:08] serious, very serious and very
[1:01:10] dangerous situation. So far, it
[1:01:15] doesn't seem to affect the
[1:01:20] residents. So we'll see what
[1:01:22] happens on Thursday. Yes?
[1:01:29] >> Denis you know about this,
[1:01:31] where we ever told about? This
[1:01:32] did the City of Montréal
[1:01:34] communicate this to us?
[1:01:37] >> You are in Pierrefonds?
[1:01:38] >> Beaconsfield.
[1:01:41] >> Beaconsfield.
[1:01:42] >> Yes.
[1:01:43] >> No, they made us a
[1:01:45] presentation on September the
[1:01:48] 4th. And the presentation was,
[1:01:50] this is our decision.
[1:01:52] >> Okay.
[1:01:53] >> This is what we are going to
[1:01:54] do.
[1:01:55] >> So, I guess what I need from
[1:01:56] you as an email address. Because
[1:01:58] this is what I like to do
[1:01:59] lately.
[1:02:02] [Laughter]
[1:02:03] Because we are living in very
[1:02:05] rough times. If anybody follows
[1:02:07] me on Facebook, they will
[1:02:08] understand what I'm going
[1:02:09] through as I'm a dual citizen,
[1:02:10] I'm not really happy with what
[1:02:12] happened two weeks ago. I'm very
[1:02:14] concerned about what can happen
[1:02:16] here. So I'm all about democracy
[1:02:18] and making democratic decisions,
[1:02:19] the right off the bat, if you
[1:02:21] take fluoride out of the water
[1:02:23] arbitrarily like this, you are
[1:02:24] going to harm underprivileged
[1:02:27] people who don't have access to
[1:02:29] good dental care.
[1:02:30] >> Absolutely.
[1:02:31] >> You will hit all the
[1:02:32] vulnerable populations and you
[1:02:33] will see an increase in dental
[1:02:37] cavities. Which leads to more
[1:02:41] sicknesses, which will lead to
[1:02:42] more hospitalizations and more
[1:02:44] expenses and health care. So,
[1:02:46] this is unacceptable right at
[1:02:49] the face of it. The democracy, I
[1:02:50] understand. But I'm absolutely
[1:02:52] going to put a letter up on
[1:02:54] Facebook in the West Island
[1:02:55] community. Just tell me who I
[1:02:56] need to tell people to write.
[1:02:58] >> Well, thank you very much.
[1:03:03] Yes, the unbelievable thing is
[1:03:09] that they made us a presentation
[1:03:11] on September 4th. They said,
[1:03:13] this is a decision. They then
[1:03:15] quoted in their presentation
[1:03:19] that health experts are in
[1:03:21] favour and recommended. But they
[1:03:25] ignored that recommendation
[1:03:27] totally. So if you want to send
[1:03:31] a question to the agglomeration,
[1:03:35] if you want to leave your email
[1:03:39] with our secretary, I will send
[1:03:42] it to you. I will send it to
[1:03:45] you. I have the whole procedure
[1:03:47] on my computer. I will send it
[1:03:49] to you. And I will send it to
[1:03:53] anyone that can give me their
[1:03:55] email and wants to raise this
[1:03:59] issue. It's a very, very
[1:04:02] dangerous situation. No, yeah. -
[1:04:11] Bonsoir, je m'appelle
[1:04:12] Jean-Charles
[1:04:13] (---)
[1:04:14] , j'habite
[1:04:15] (---)
[1:04:16] .
[1:04:17] I have a question. I got busy
[1:04:18] with all the questions. You've
[1:04:19] got the infrastructure in the
[1:04:21] city of Beaconsfield about the
[1:04:26] canal-ization. I want to know
[1:04:27] the plan to modernize or fix the
[1:04:30] issue. Each year, we get
[1:04:32] flooded. I've contacted the city
[1:04:33] of Beaconsfield. The city of
[1:04:36] Beaconsfield very kindly have
[1:04:38] answered --
[1:04:39] >> I allow you to go to the mic
[1:04:40] because I thought you were going
[1:04:41] to make a comment.
[1:04:43] >> I'm talking -- about
[1:04:44] >> But the question period --
[1:04:45] >> We are talking about some
[1:04:46] other issue --
[1:04:47] >> The question period was over
[1:04:48] a long time ago.
[1:04:49] >> Can I ask my question
[1:04:52] quickly?
[1:04:53] >> I will speak to you after, if
[1:04:55] you want.
[1:04:56] >> Yes, I will see you after.
[1:04:57] >> Yes, you are in my district.
[1:04:58] I will be happy to.
[1:04:59] >> Okay.
[1:05:01] >> This, way you will get an
[1:05:04] answer.
[1:05:05] [Laughter]
[1:05:07] As I said, anyone that wishes to
[1:05:10] send in a question or comments
[1:05:14] to the agglomeration meeting
[1:05:15] next Thursday, give our
[1:05:20] secretary your email address and
[1:05:22] I will send you in the way to go
[1:05:26] about it has to whom to ask a
[1:05:30] question to at the
[1:05:32] agglomeration. Thank, you that
[1:05:34] was a long report from the
[1:05:36] agglomeration. Thank you.
[1:05:50] - Dépôt des rapports des
[1:05:52] directeurs.
[1:05:53] - Rien à signaler en
[1:05:54] particulier, Monsieur le Maire,
[1:05:55] sinon que les équipes se
[1:05:56] préparent pour l'hiver, avec
[1:05:57] l'installation des bandes de
[1:05:58] patinoires qu'on aimerait bien
[1:05:59] voir être utilisé, on va pas de
[1:06:00] neige dans les rues mais juste
[1:06:01] dans nos patinoires. Il y a des
[1:06:03] activités de loisirs qui s'en
[1:06:04] viennent pour le temps des Fêtes
[1:06:05] et on en aura plus à dire au
[1:06:06] Conseil du mois de décembre pour
[1:06:08] les activités de Noël et le
[1:06:09] début de l'année.
[1:06:12] - Merci. Alors, est-ce qu'il y a
[1:06:18] des affaires nouvelles?
[1:06:19] - Non. Ce serait la levée de la
[1:06:23] séance.
[1:06:24] - La levée de la séance?
[1:06:25] - Proposé.
[1:06:28] - En faveur? Tout le monde en
[1:06:30] faveur? Thank you very much for
[1:06:33] those of you that are here. And
[1:06:37] for those of you who stayed here
[1:06:38] for the whole meeting, I
[1:06:40] appreciate that very much.
[1:06:41] Normally, people leave after the
[1:06:43] question period. But tonight, I
[1:06:45] see most of the people that are
[1:06:47] here stayed through the whole
[1:06:50] meeting. So thank you very much.
[1:06:52] And I really appreciate your
[1:06:55] interest and you can --
[1:06:58] Beaconsfield. Merci beaucoup de
[1:07:00] nous avoir regardés sur la
[1:07:04] webdiffusion. Encore une fois,
[1:07:06] je vous remercie de votre
[1:07:08] intérêt dans la ville de
[1:07:12] Beaconsfield. On se reverra le
[1:07:14] mois prochain. Next weeding --
[1:07:18] meeting will be next month.