[0:33] >> Well, it's great to have you

[0:34] all here.

[0:39] There's quite a few of you here.

[0:41] It's always good for democracy.

[0:52] -... Demande écrite de quatre

[0:55] conseillers municipaux peut

[0:57] également forcer la tenue d'une

[0:59] réunion. Cette réunion spéciale

[1:02] du conseil municipal a été

[1:04] convoqué malgré des objections.

[1:07] Par une demande écrite des

[1:12] conseillers Eric Stork, Brent

[1:13] Cowan et Cynthia Homan est Tara

[1:16] Stainforth. Je répète: Tara

[1:21] Stainforth, Eric Stork, un Brent

[1:22] Cowan, et Cynthia Homan. Le seul

[1:23] but de cette réunion est de

[1:24] voter sur la résolution visant à

[1:26] mandater notre directrice

[1:28] générale pour entamer des

[1:32] négociations avec

[1:36] (---)

[1:37] Fairview afin de faire un plan

[1:38] pour développer les zones Mu1,

[1:40] Mu2, la forêt Fairview et le

[1:43] stationnement Fairview. Je me

[1:44] poserai à cette résolution et je

[1:47] crois que des consultations

[1:49] publiques devrait d'abord avoir

[1:50] lieu.

[1:53] Though it is the role of the

[1:55] Mayor of Pointe-Claire to call

[1:56] meetings of the City Council, a

[1:59] written request from for City

[2:01] Councillors can also force

[2:03] meetings to be held. This

[2:06] special meeting of City Council

[2:07] was called over my objections by

[2:10] a written request from

[2:13] councillors Stainforth, Stork,

[2:15] Cowan and Homan. I repeat

[2:18] Stainforth, Stork, Cowan and

[2:20] Homan. The sole purpose of the

[2:22] meeting is to vote on a

[2:23] resolution to mandate our city

[2:25] manager to begin negotiations

[2:27] with Cadillac Fairview to create

[2:29] a comprehensive plan to develop

[2:31] zones Mu1 and Mu2. The Fairview

[2:34] forest and the Fairview parking

[2:35] lot -- I will be opposing this

[2:39] resolution and believe that

[2:41] public consultation should be

[2:43] held first. I am going to read

[2:47] you one clause of the

[2:48] resolution. There are others

[2:49] that I don't like. But this one

[2:51] is probably the most indicative.

[2:53] Be it resolved that this Council

[2:56] desires the city manager,

[3:01] Katrina -- meet forthwith with

[3:03] representatives of Cadillac

[3:04] Fairview in-camera in an attempt

[3:06] to work out with them a mutual

[3:09] agreeable path forward that will

[3:11] engage public participation in a

[3:13] structured process haven't as

[3:15] its objective, the creation of a

[3:18] comprehensive plan for zones Mu1

[3:20] and Mu2. Now, to translate --

[3:25] what that means is that you --

[3:30] the type of public participation

[3:31] you are going to have is going

[3:33] to be determined before you get

[3:35] it by City Council, or the city,

[3:40] and Cadillac Fairview. So, there

[3:42] is a prioritization here in the

[3:43] process that I don't like very

[3:45] much. And that is why I am quite

[3:47] offended by this whole exercise.

[3:49] And I hope you are too. Thank

[3:51] you.

[3:53] >> Comment --

[3:56] >> I just want to clarify

[3:58] something in your opening

[3:59] statement. In French, you said,

[4:01] too --

[4:04] In a global plan -- and an

[4:06] English, put a comprehensive

[4:08] plan together. If you read the

[4:09] resolution, it means, for the

[4:12] purpose of ensuring public

[4:14] participation in determining the

[4:16] future of zones Mu1 and Mu2 --

[4:18] and I repeat, for the purpose of

[4:21] ensuring public participation in

[4:23] determining the future of zones

[4:25] Mu1 and Mu2, that is not a

[4:27] global plan, nor is it a

[4:29] comprehensive plan. Thank you.

[4:30] >> It is a plan affecting zones

[4:33] Mu1 and Mu2 --

[4:35] >> Please read the --

[4:38] >> Councillor Stork, I am the

[4:39] chair of this meeting --

[4:41] >> Yes, you are --

[4:42] >> I was not finished --

[4:44] >> Is there anyone else --

[4:45] >> The councillor is not allowed

[4:47] to speak twice. You had already

[4:49] finish your comment. You are not

[4:50] allowed to speak twice on the

[4:51] same issue. Is there anybody

[4:55] else or --

[4:56] >> -- Thomas -- I would like to

[5:00] point to my objection to using

[5:02] your public privilege platform

[5:03] to comment on a resolution

[5:04] before we even make it to put

[5:08] your opportunity to speak that

[5:10] resolution occurs at the same

[5:12] time as the rest of us. And I

[5:13] would like it reported that, in

[5:15] my view, you have used your

[5:17] position and you have distorted

[5:19] the purpose of the resolution --

[5:24] and that was the reason for your

[5:26] abuse, to distort the resolution

[5:27] right from the beginning. But at

[5:28] any rate, everybody will have

[5:30] the opportunity to hear us all

[5:34] that out, when the motion is

[5:35] actually before the floor.

[5:36] >> Okay. I would like to remind

[5:38] Councillor Cowan that I am

[5:40] actually the Mayor of

[5:41] Pointe-Claire and I am allowed

[5:42] an opening statement. But that

[5:44] may have been overlooked. Should

[5:45] I proceed to the agenda?

[5:50] >> Yes. You must first approve

[5:52] the agenda.

[5:54] Approuver l'ordre du jour.

[5:57] >>

[5:58] Do I have a mover?

[6:00] >> Kelly Thorstad-Cullen,

[6:01] district three.

[6:03] >> Seconder? Cynthia Homan,

[6:05] district five.

[6:06] >> All in favour?.

[6:08] >> Okay.

[6:09] >> We can proceed with a

[6:10] question period. But first, I

[6:12] need to remind citizens in the

[6:14] room that the question must bear

[6:16] on items on the agenda --

[6:18] La période de questions peut

[6:19] s'ouvrir, je rappelle aux

[6:20] personnes présentes que les

[6:21] questions doivent porter

[6:23] uniquement sur les thèmes à

[6:24] l'agenda ce soir.

[6:29] >> Does anybody want to ask a

[6:30] question?

[6:37] - Et ce qu'il y a des questions

[6:38] dans la foule? Seulement au

[6:42] sujet de la résolution demandée.

[6:45] >> My

[6:46] Name --

[6:47] >> Closer to the mic, sir.

[6:52] >> My name is -- we did already

[6:55] in the meeting.

[6:56] >> We can't hear you. They are

[6:58] correct. Put your mouth closer

[7:00] to the microphone, sir.

[7:08] >> We did already the

[7:09] consultation in the chalet on

[7:11] the spring. And the majority of

[7:13] people, they refused about this

[7:15] project. I don't know why the

[7:18] City Council did bring it back

[7:19] again. That is my question. Why?

[7:24] The two of them was -- Brandt,

[7:29] Torah, and Eric. And there was

[7:32] over 100 people there. They

[7:33] refuse the project. So, why are

[7:35] they coming back again for it?

[7:37] >> I will give you another

[7:38] example. There were 500 people

[7:39] in the room against the

[7:40] demolition of the pioneer. And

[7:42] it still happened.

[7:43] >> I have no idea why these

[7:45] people working for the citizens

[7:46] of Pointe-Claire or working for

[7:49] -- please, I want to know.

[7:52] >> I can't answer that.

[7:54] >> I'm -- may

[7:55] >> I?

[7:56] >> Citizen for 30 years -- I

[7:58] never saw that. Please, I will

[8:01] ask very simple question. When

[8:04] we -- my wife and me, we both go

[8:08] to my kids. They ask us for

[8:12] credit about, do I have a

[8:14] criminal record or -- so we have

[8:16] to pass this test. So, when they

[8:21] do Election about citizen, City

[8:23] Council, or mayor, did they do

[8:26] that test, to get about the --

[8:30] do they have a criminal record

[8:32] or not?

[8:33] >> I can't speak to that either.

[8:34] >> Because that is what you are

[8:37] --

[8:38] >> Sir -- you are right, that is

[8:40] correct. Sir, correct, we have

[8:43] to speak to the resolution. Not

[8:46] -- speaking to the characters of

[8:47] people.

[8:48] >> Okay. We did all that in the

[8:50] spring. And all, the majority,

[8:52] refused it --

[8:54] >> The project --

[8:55] >> So, why you have to come back

[8:56] again?

[8:57] >> You have asked that and it's

[8:57] a very good point. I concur. I

[8:59] concur with you. I see no need

[9:00] for. I see no need for. I find

[9:04] this exercise rushed, hurried

[9:06] and unnecessary, and

[9:07] unfortunate.

[9:08] >> --

[9:09] >> Mayor Mister Mayor -- point

[9:10] of order, please.

[9:13] >> -- Councillor Cowan --

[9:14] >> Councillor Cowan, I am the

[9:16] chair. Would you like to speak?

[9:18] >> Yes, I would.

[9:19] >> Point of order, when you

[9:21] speak in question period your

[9:22] answers are not supposed to be

[9:25] -- your own personal opinions.

[9:26] Once again, I must record my

[9:30] protest against you abusing this

[9:32] process.

[9:33] >> Please do, Councillor Cowan,

[9:34] my job, I feel, is to protect

[9:36] this beautiful city. And I will

[9:38] respond accordingly. I feel I

[9:39] have been elected to protect the

[9:42] future of Pointe-Claire and I

[9:43] was on the mandate of allowing

[9:44] the citizens their right to

[9:47] equal participation in the

[9:49] future politics of Pointe-Claire

[9:50] and that is what I am trying to

[9:51] do right here, now, with my

[9:54] sincerest endeavours.

[9:55] >> Then please follow the rules.

[9:57] >> Please, Councillor Cowan,

[9:58] before you speak, you have to

[9:59] ask the chair to speak. Those

[10:01] are the rules. Why are you

[10:02] breaking the rules you are

[10:05] talking about?

[10:06] >> Because you are, sir.

[10:07] >> No, I'm not -- I'm just

[10:09] asking --

[10:10] >> Respect --

[10:11] >> Councillor Cowan I --

[10:12] >> Know, I'm not. I'm respecting

[10:14] them. Sir, is there another

[10:15] question?

[10:16] >> Am I able to speak now?

[10:18] >> Yes, you have asked one

[10:19] question. You have one more. You

[10:22] have a preamble, and you have

[10:23] had your preamble. You have one

[10:24] more question, sir.

[10:28] >> So, that is -- my question.

[10:30] Why are they already coming back

[10:32] again?

[10:34] >> You asked that when --

[10:36] >> I asked that one? But I

[10:38] didn't get an answer. Why?

[10:39] >> May I answer? There is no

[10:41] project. The only reason we are

[10:43] here tonight is to ensure that

[10:44] the public is aware of all the

[10:45] steps that are being taken in

[10:47] the back rooms, so to speak. We

[10:49] want to make sure that everyone

[10:51] understands what is happening

[10:53] and so for the past five months,

[10:56] my guess, since February, last

[10:57] year, it's almost been a year we

[10:59] have been discussing how to move

[11:01] forward with the new urban plan.

[11:04] We obviously cannot complete the

[11:06] entire urban plan all in one

[11:07] sitting. It has to be piece by

[11:09] piece. And so, tonight, we are

[11:12] coming forward. We want to

[11:13] ensure that the public is aware

[11:14] and that we are transparent of

[11:16] everything that is going on. So,

[11:18] we are coming forward to let you

[11:20] know where we are in this

[11:21] process. That is all this is,

[11:23] there is no project. There is

[11:26] nothing. All it is is, if you

[11:28] read -- if you read what is on

[11:29] here -- it is about mandating

[11:33] our director general to have a

[11:37] conversation. There is no

[11:38] project. And everybody was fully

[11:40] on board with this until we said

[11:42] we would go public with it. So,

[11:44] all we want to do is let the

[11:46] public know where we stand in

[11:48] this process. It has been one

[11:50] year we have been looking at

[11:51] this. I should hope we are going

[11:53] to move forward at some point.

[11:57] >> Okay --

[11:58] >> But --

[11:59] >> Excuse me, excuse me, Sir --

[12:01] >> Already consulted --

[12:03] >> Excuse, me excuse me, excuse

[12:05] me --

[12:06] >> Yes, sir?

[12:07] >> What is being determined here

[12:09] behind closed doors -- would you

[12:11] please stop making fun emotions

[12:13] and faces, ma'am, it's quite

[12:15] rude. In the pink, with the

[12:17] face, with a mask on? Could you

[12:19] please stop being so rude. I

[12:21] find that quite rude. -- don't

[12:23] play innocent. They did not see,

[12:25] but I did. Please stop that.

[12:27] Okay? Thank you very much. What

[12:28] is being determined here tonight

[12:32] is the back rooms -- are you

[12:34] mimicking or mocking? Thank you,

[12:36] Councillor Stork. Okay, excuse

[12:38] me --

[12:39] >> What's being determined here

[12:42] tonight is -- would you stop?

[12:45] What is being determined here

[12:47] tonight is how you are going to

[12:49] be allowed to participate. That

[12:51] is being negotiated on your

[12:55] behalf. How you are allowed to

[12:57] participate. That is the

[12:58] offensive part of this

[12:59] initiative.

[13:02] >> Can I finish what I have to

[13:03] say?

[13:04] >> One more question, sir. One

[13:06] question. Don't -- you have had

[13:07] your --

[13:08] >> -- or letter to every citizen

[13:13] to vote and to get the right

[13:15] result. And instead, maybe, it's

[13:20] just -- Cadillac Fairview in

[13:22] favour people are here to vote

[13:23] for it? So, really, the right

[13:25] solution to send to everybody in

[13:27] the -- or just the district,

[13:30] what is going to build, big

[13:33] tower, that, to get the right

[13:35] decision from them? They accept

[13:37] it or not? Is that make sense --

[13:43] >> Pretty much. Well, no. They

[13:44] are starting the process of

[13:45] dialogue. The process of

[13:47] dialogue is being initiated. But

[13:49] the structure of the process is

[13:51] being determined in negotiation

[13:53] with Cadillac Fairview to

[13:54] determine the structure of the

[13:55] process. The structure of the

[13:59] process includes your

[14:00] participation.

[14:02] >> --

[14:03] >> That's where the inequity

[14:04] occurs. Yes, Councillor Cowan?

[14:07] >> What you just said is totally

[14:09] wrong.

[14:10] >> It's not.

[14:11] >> Yes, it is.

[14:12] >> What you said is totally

[14:13] wrong.

[14:14] >> It's not. It's not wrong?

[14:17] >> Okay, I will made it until my

[14:19] turn.

[14:20] >> Please -- do

[14:21] >> In order to explain how wrong

[14:22] you are, how misleading you are,

[14:23] and how you try to distort this

[14:24] --

[14:25] >> We will see by the end of the

[14:26] meeting how the public perceives

[14:28] this. Excuse me, sir. Thank you,

[14:29] you have had your two. Thank

[14:32] you.

[14:37] - Geneviève Lucie,

[14:38] Pointe-Claire.

[14:39] >> So my, understanding of the

[14:40] resolution is to allow the

[14:41] director general of the city

[14:42] could have a conversation with

[14:43] Cadillac Fairview. For

[14:45] furtherance of a settlement of a

[14:46] litigation -- so, that is at the

[14:47] bottom of the resolution, right?

[14:49] The bottom of the resolution? Is

[14:52] that it --

[14:53] >> No, it is not to further the

[14:54] settlement of the litigation.

[14:55] >> To help solve the settlement

[14:57] of the litigation.

[14:58] >> Well, it's separate.

[15:03] >> My first question is -- oh

[15:07] Merci, excuse-moi, O.K.,

[15:08] parfait.

[15:09] The supposed intent of this

[15:11] resolution is to allow for

[15:13] participatory process with

[15:14] residents, why is discussion of

[15:15] these options not actually

[15:16] happening with the public input?

[15:18] And is that happening with a

[15:19] developer who has a vested

[15:21] financial interest in the

[15:22] outcome?

[15:23] >> Excellent question. I can't

[15:25] answer that question. I have the

[15:28] exact same question.

[15:29] >> -- I can answer --

[15:31] >> Please, Councillor Cowan, go

[15:32] ahead.

[15:33] >> There is litigation with

[15:35] Cadillac Fairview. That is a

[15:38] lawsuit that was brought against

[15:39] the City a while ago. There can

[15:40] be no conversation with Cadillac

[15:43] Fairview that can involve the

[15:45] public because of that

[15:46] litigation. So, it has to be

[15:48] in-camera. It is like when you

[15:50] -- are if you are going to have

[15:51] a settlement discussion, the

[15:56] litigate ease litigatees -- just

[16:04] to get the conversation going.

[16:06] The conversation you --

[16:09] -- recognized as necessary.

[16:11] There has to be conversation

[16:12] with Cadillac Fairview. And so

[16:13] all this is doing the starting

[16:16] that conversation.

[16:17] >> -- party involved in the

[16:18] discussion about what

[16:20] participatory process is going

[16:21] to happen.

[16:22] >> That is only to start.

[16:24] Cadillac Fairview has not even

[16:25] agreed to this discussion. I

[16:27] >> Understand that.

[16:28] >> Once this discussion gets

[16:30] underway, then maybe we are

[16:31] going to have the starting point

[16:32] to what you want. That is all we

[16:34] are trying to do, get to the

[16:35] starting line.

[16:36] >> So, since there is

[16:37] transparency -- you are saying

[16:38] everything is in-camera, there

[16:41] is transparency, this was to be

[16:42] transparency, but we can't hear

[16:43] anything about what's gonna

[16:44] happen in the meetings between

[16:45] the director general and

[16:46] Cadillac Fairview.

[16:47] >> That's correct. Because

[16:48] there's litigation going on. But

[16:50] what pops out of that, that is

[16:52] where we start. And there is no

[16:53] commitment. The City won't be

[16:54] bound. Cadillac Fairview would

[16:56] not be bound at that point. But

[16:57] that is the start of the

[16:59] conversation. That will be

[17:00] public.

[17:01] >> I think our concern as public

[17:03] is that there is not -- I'm

[17:05] speaking for myself -- is that

[17:10] is there really no other option

[17:11] available that would involve a

[17:13] more participatory process, in

[17:15] saying, what is the best

[17:16] solution for our city? What is

[17:17] the best solution for the city

[17:18] center that would not involve

[17:20] in-camera meetings with Cadillac

[17:21] Fairview that we are not privy

[17:22] to?

[17:23] >> Well I don't see how you can

[17:25] have a conversation about

[17:26] somebody else's property without

[17:27] bringing them in.

[17:28] >> Kirkland -- did Kirkland do

[17:30] that?

[17:32] >> They brought them in.

[17:33] >> Okay. Exactly.

[17:35] >> The whole idea is to try to

[17:37] model what worked in Kirkland.

[17:38] >> There are enough, but if we

[17:39] can't be in those meetings, or

[17:40] we can't even know what is in

[17:42] those meetings and how do we

[17:44] know that we are not being told

[17:45] what is the best for us?

[17:49] >> Because, as I said, the

[17:51] meetings are only to get to the

[17:52] starting point. That is it.

[17:54] >> Allow me to intervene here.

[17:57] >> --

[17:58] >> The Kirkland process started

[17:59] this way at the outset and

[18:00] failed. Because what happened

[18:01] is, too much was behind closed

[18:02] doors. And by the time it got to

[18:04] the public, it was not

[18:05] acceptable. That is exactly what

[18:07] we are on a path to do right

[18:08] now. At the current moment, your

[18:10] questions are excellent. At the

[18:13] current moment, there is nothing

[18:15] stopping us from starting public

[18:17] participation right away,

[18:18] yesterday, the day before. We

[18:19] can do consultations or we can

[18:21] have open meetings and find out

[18:23] what you people want tomorrow.

[18:25] >> I think that is the confusing

[18:26] --

[18:27] >> And that is what I would like

[18:28] to have happen before the

[18:30] conversations even start. That

[18:31] would be a preferable option

[18:33] from my perspective, to get with

[18:35] the public says first before we

[18:36] start the process, so that it

[18:38] structures how we think and how

[18:40] we engage the process as a

[18:42] Council or as a City Council.

[18:44] So, that would be my option,

[18:46] just let me get that on the

[18:47] record. And there is nothing

[18:49] that in is in this process that

[18:52] stops -- engaging in public

[18:55] participation tomorrow.

[18:56] >> Mister Mayor?

[18:57] >> Yes?

[18:58] >> I would like to say, that's

[19:00] what I hear --

[19:01] >> You are awfully

[19:03] conversational, Mr. Cowan. I

[19:05] wasn't

[19:06] >> I was impatient and called

[19:08] for public participation process

[19:09] -- in July, in 2022. Nothing

[19:12] happened since. At Tuesday's

[19:13] meeting, you called for public

[19:15] consultations five months ago.

[19:16] Well, where were you, five

[19:18] months ago? We could have had

[19:19] public consultations in some

[19:20] kind of structured form five

[19:22] months ago. But you did not do

[19:24] anything.

[19:25] >> I tried to encourage and beg

[19:27] for that on the numerous RCI

[19:29] meanings we had along the way,

[19:31] and Councillor Tremblay did the

[19:32] same. We tried in those

[19:34] meetings. But we are, of course,

[19:36] outnumbered, to have that

[19:38] happen. But it was structured in

[19:39] a different direction. And I'm

[19:40] very glad that it is being

[19:42] transparent now. And let me say

[19:44] that -- this process that we are

[19:46] engaging in now is not what I

[19:48] would call public participation.

[19:50] This process is not public

[19:52] participation. This is anything

[19:53] but. It's a last-minute meeting

[19:55] called when you guys have had no

[19:57] preparation, no time to

[19:58] research. This is not public

[20:00] participation.

[20:01] >> It's definitely throwing out

[20:02] a lot of red flags for me, and

[20:03] that's why -- I think a lot of

[20:04] us have questions about the

[20:05] process. I know I as a lot of

[20:08] questions. Will you permit me to

[20:10] ask a second question?

[20:11] >> Yes. Yes, one more.

[20:12] >> Okay. Thank you. My

[20:14] understanding about the purpose

[20:15] of the freeze originally, that

[20:16] everybody voted on, was that it

[20:19] would give us time to take a

[20:21] look at the entire city, look at

[20:22] everything, how everything works

[20:23] together, look at things

[20:25] holistically. So, what I see

[20:26] coming down the line is that Mu1

[20:29] and Mu2 are going to end up

[20:31] coming out of the freeze and

[20:32] they're going to be seeing

[20:34] separate separately from the

[20:35] entire city. However, they are

[20:36] the biggest project that is

[20:37] going to be happening in

[20:40] Pointe-Claire God knows how

[20:41] long. And it's going to affect

[20:42] so much of our city. And yet we

[20:45] are left -- to get out of the

[20:47] freeze, and let that just happen

[20:49] on its own, while we are

[20:50] considering everything else in

[20:51] the city. So, okay. Tara, you

[20:54] are saying that's not -- Mu1 and

[20:58] it Mu2 are not coming out of the

[20:59] freeze them. That's the --

[21:03] purpose

[21:04] >> May I comment, Mr. Mayor?

[21:05] >> --

[21:06] >> The final outcome of this is,

[21:08] every property should come out

[21:09] of the freeze. That is how the

[21:12] since. The RCI --

[21:13] >> I understand -- that

[21:15] >> But no one is coming out of

[21:17] the freeze here. As you said, it

[21:19] is probably the most important

[21:21] and focal, central point of our

[21:23] city. And so, we need to start

[21:25] somewhere. And so we are

[21:27] starting here. We are looking at

[21:28] this. And actually, I mean --

[21:32] this is where we need the input.

[21:34] And what we are doing is, we are

[21:37] asking our D G DG to move

[21:42] forward -- and at that point, we

[21:43] do want to establish a committee

[21:45] of citizens. And citizens will

[21:47] elect in all likelihood. And

[21:48] they are the ones that are going

[21:49] to be working on this project,

[21:51] much like Kirkland did. This is

[21:54] just us trying to show you where

[21:56] we are going with this moving

[21:57] forward. And we need a starting

[21:59] point. It has been a year, as we

[22:01] said. And public consultation --

[22:02] we talked about five months ago,

[22:03] and it did not happen. And we

[22:05] are talking about who we have

[22:07] now got a contract with. And it

[22:09] is being objected. And so, once

[22:11] again, we are talking about not

[22:14] doing public consultations due

[22:16] to objections to who picked up

[22:18] the contract. So, when will

[22:19] these public consultations

[22:20] happen? We want people to come

[22:22] in and share our opinions. We

[22:24] want people talking about this.

[22:25] And that is what this is about.

[22:27] This is about us being

[22:28] transparent. Us saying, look,

[22:30] this is where we are -- we want

[22:31] you guys in on this. We are not

[22:32] trying to do this behind closed

[22:34] doors. We are trying to move

[22:36] forward. Nothing is being

[22:37] planned. There is no project

[22:38] here. There is nothing other

[22:42] than our DG going and saying,

[22:44] are you willing to talk? Are you

[22:45] willing to participate with the

[22:46] citizens?

[22:49] >> Well --

[22:50] >> It just looks like a. Setup I

[22:51] set up, for a set up, for a set

[22:52] of. It's just concerning because

[22:53] there's a lot that we don't know

[22:54] at this point. And there is --

[22:56] to me, there is a lot of red

[22:57] flags. And so --

[23:00] >> Well, things need to be

[23:01] structured. We can't just grow

[23:03] the doors open --

[23:04] >> Councillor Stainforth --

[23:05] >> You are allowed to respond --

[23:08] >> And I respond

[23:10] >> He certainly can, Councillor

[23:11] Stork.

[23:12] >> Thank you, Mayor Thomas. Just

[23:13] to go back to the point in terms

[23:14] of public participation between

[23:16] the conversation between the DG

[23:18] and Cadillac Fairview, whatever

[23:20] comes out of that can still be

[23:21] questioned. It is not whatever

[23:24] comes out of that is final. It

[23:25] just to establish a public

[23:27] participation process, to lay

[23:28] down the framework of general

[23:29] guidelines of where we want to

[23:32] head. We can disagree with what

[23:34] comes out of it. We are here

[23:35] because we want to be

[23:36] transparent, because we do not

[23:37] want to hide anything.

[23:39] Resolution like this, it would

[23:40] have had but -- some other

[23:42] people would have liked, it

[23:43] would've been passed at the

[23:45] Public council meeting and slid

[23:46] through the backdoor. --

[23:49] >> Who would that have been?

[23:52] >> Excuse me, sir, I'm talking.

[23:53] >> Who would that have been?

[23:55] That's incredible. That's

[23:56] incredible.

[23:57] >> You need help.

[23:58] >> Nope, I don't.

[23:59] >> You need help. Thank you. Let

[24:03] me finish, please --

[24:06] >> Councillor Stork --

[24:08] >> Excuse me, sir. Excuse me --

[24:10] >> -- process --

[24:15] >> This is democratic. So, to

[24:18] your point --

[24:20] >> Excuse me --

[24:23] >> Stainforth --

[24:24] >> --

[24:26] >> That's why we are here, to

[24:28] actually be transparent. The

[24:30] reason we are at this stage is

[24:33] because, for seven months,

[24:34] nothing has happened. And we

[24:36] need to move this dossier

[24:37] forward. It is spinning its

[24:39] wheels. And, through resolution

[24:41] is the only way we can force the

[24:43] conversation to be had. It is

[24:44] the only way we can force the

[24:46] conversation to be had. And it

[24:48] is not -- they are not going to

[24:49] come back with, this is what is

[24:50] this, this is what is that. No,

[24:52] there isn't a come back with a

[24:53] structure for public

[24:54] participation policy. And once

[24:55] we get, that we can review it

[24:56] and see if we like it or not.

[24:59] Like we said, we need a starting

[25:00] point.

[25:01] >> If I could speak Ms. Lucia

[25:07] Lucier -- public participation

[25:11] at the outset, despite

[25:15] councillor Tremblay's and mine

[25:16] my objections, -- happened

[25:17] sooner -- that process was --

[25:21] along with, us which and hasn't

[25:23] been attended properly, and I

[25:25] have been at every single

[25:26] meeting and so have not missed

[25:28] one but others, can say the

[25:30] same. I have been ready and

[25:31] eager to get this process going.

[25:33] And I would have liked, had I

[25:35] had more control of the process,

[25:36] to have had public participation

[25:38] much earlier in the process. The

[25:40] key to remembering all of this

[25:42] is, what is going on here is

[25:44] that, another party, a

[25:46] developer, is being asked to

[25:48] help determine -- or help

[25:50] structure -- how this process

[25:52] should occur. They should not

[25:53] have special powers over above

[25:54] the average citizen. And that is

[25:57] my objection here. Thank you.

[25:59] >> The mayor --

[26:00] >> Speak --

[26:01] >> Of course, Councillor Cowan.

[26:02] >> There's another bit of

[26:04] misinformation. The developers

[26:05] not having any role at all in

[26:08] the -- structural -- they are

[26:10] only going to have a role in how

[26:11] they will participate in. And

[26:12] then if we accept the way --

[26:17] they will be agreeable going

[26:18] forward, they will -- sum -- the

[26:21] public. As I said, this is all

[26:23] to get to the start line. That

[26:24] is it. The start line will be

[26:27] completely open to the public.

[26:28] But we have to get there first.

[26:30] And we have got a catch 22. You

[26:31] have to talk to the property

[26:34] owner. You have to -- them into

[26:35] it. And this is the way to --

[26:41] them into it. They have got to

[26:42] build up trust in the process.

[26:43] They are not going to be wasting

[26:44] their time. They have a court

[26:45] case going because, well -- we

[26:47] can guess why they have a court

[26:49] case going. We have got to get

[26:51] around that. We have got to get

[26:53] through that. We have got to

[26:55] build mutual trust and we can

[26:57] start talking, with the public.

[26:58] So, yeah, we are asking -- we

[27:00] are putting our trust in the

[27:02] director general to be able to

[27:04] engage in that conversation and

[27:05] gather some. Where we are not

[27:07] talking with Cadillac Fairview,

[27:09] she is. And the mandate letter

[27:11] that will be distributed -- I

[27:15] don't know, perhaps tonight --

[27:16] but the mandate letter we will

[27:18] see from that, exactly, with the

[27:22] limits of her powers or ability

[27:30] -- engage, Cadillac Fairview,

[27:31] for the sole purpose of building

[27:32] trust. The mayor wants to

[27:35] destroy trust. That is what he

[27:36] is doing tonight.

[27:37] >> I am trying to -- I'm trying

[27:39] to encourage trust in the

[27:40] citizen -- Ms. nearby Lussier --

[27:44] the way, because there's lots of

[27:48] people online. The process --

[27:51] allowing citizens to the -- in

[27:52] the process at the same time,

[27:53] maybe even before the developer.

[27:55] That is the point that

[27:56] Councillor Cowan just detoured,

[27:58] which is crucial to it. You, the

[28:01] citizen, should be speaking

[28:02] before we are speaking to the

[28:03] developer. Thank you.

[28:04] >> -- I agree with that. But

[28:07] just to radio rate, Councillor

[28:09] Cowan, you are saying the -- is

[28:11] gonna be coming with to -- ideas

[28:17] the Cadillac Fairview. And not

[28:18] the other way around?

[28:19] >> It's reciprocal.

[28:20] >> --

[28:23] >> And we don't have a mandate,

[28:25] though? That's going to be

[28:26] public?

[28:27] >> Yeah, I will be. Absolutely.

[28:29] And that -- know exactly what

[28:32] the limits of her conversation

[28:33] is to get us, again, as I said,

[28:37] to the start line. Ms. --

[28:40] >> Ms. Verdone, you had

[28:44] something to say? Thank you. Ms.

[28:47] Lussier -- there's a lot of

[28:48] people online.

[28:53] >> Good evening, Mark Ably,

[29:01] district one. -- two of the

[29:03] statements that are made, or two

[29:05] of the phrases that are used to

[29:07] figure out exactly what they

[29:10] mean and so, Mister Mayor, I

[29:12] hope you can give a good answer.

[29:14] But I would be happy if other

[29:16] councillors wanted to weigh in

[29:18] on this. How much of the forest

[29:23] has the Québec Ministry of the

[29:26] Environment mandated the

[29:27] protection of? The preamble says

[29:28] the protection of the wetland.

[29:29] Do we know how many hectares

[29:32] that covers and how much it

[29:38] excludes? And is it the same

[29:40] area, or is a different area

[29:41] that is already covered by the

[29:43] interim freeze on development

[29:44] passed by the sea M M CMM?

[29:51] >> We are not exactly sure what

[29:53] those numbers are from the

[29:55] Québec Environment minister. We

[29:56] are not clear on that. As of

[29:58] yet, it is not clear to us.

[30:02] >> And none of the councillors

[30:05] --

[30:06] >> Of course --

[30:07] >> On this

[30:08] >> Yes, we are waiting for the

[30:10] response from them. We haven't

[30:11] requested, that absolutely.

[30:12] >> So, when the Québec Ministry

[30:14] of the Environment issued its

[30:16] mandate, what exactly did it

[30:18] say? Are we allowed to know?

[30:20] >> We don't have it.

[30:23] >> Mr. Mayor --

[30:24] >> Yes?

[30:25] >> We have a communication from

[30:26] Cadillac Fairview that they

[30:28] received a specifications about

[30:31] what lands had to be protected

[30:32] because they are in a wetland.

[30:34] But we, as the city, has not

[30:36] received, itself, an official

[30:38] word from the government. That

[30:39] is my understanding.

[30:41] >> That seems quite

[30:42] extraordinary.

[30:43] >> Doesn't it?

[30:46] >> -- the right --

[30:50] >> Excuse me, you are supposed

[30:53] to speak to the comm before you

[30:56] get to speak -- Councillor

[30:58] Stainforth --

[30:59] >> I would say, Councillor

[31:00] Stainforth, that they may be the

[31:01] owners, but the citizens of

[31:03] Pointe-Claire have a right to

[31:04] that kind of information coming

[31:06] from the provincial government.

[31:08] Do we know how much land is

[31:10] covered by the interim freeze on

[31:14] development passed by the CMM --

[31:16] >> We do, we do. -- all of it at

[31:19] the moment.

[31:21] >> And so, I know there are a

[31:22] lot of people -- so, I will just

[31:23] ask one more related question,

[31:24] and then I will sit down. What

[31:28] role or what is the interim

[31:30] freeze passed by the CMM that is

[31:32] not mentioned in either

[31:33] resolution or the preamble --

[31:36] so, what role does that play?

[31:37] Are we simply ignoring that or

[31:38] pretending it does not exist or

[31:40] are we saying this will become a

[31:44] relevant when it's passed? What

[31:45] does that leave us?

[31:46] >> That's an excellent question.

[31:47] And it has not been considered

[31:48] in the process.

[31:49] >> --

[31:51] >> Address that --

[31:52] >> No, Councillor -- I'm tired.

[31:54] I want to hear Councillor Stork.

[31:59] >> Cede the floor to Councillor

[32:00] --

[32:01] >> Okay, thank you. You did

[32:04] express the need to speak.

[32:05] >> -- interim control bylaw. And

[32:06] for my understanding, what it

[32:08] does is, it's putting a freeze

[32:12] on certain areas of green spaces

[32:13] on the island of Montréal that

[32:15] appeared in the final version.

[32:16] They were not there in the

[32:17] draft. In the first draft, it

[32:22] only applied to the crown around

[32:23] Montréal with a --

[32:26] We only green space on the

[32:27] island of Montréal that was

[32:28] identified. Again, from my

[32:30] reading of it, it appears that

[32:31] what they are saying is that

[32:34] they are going to ask the

[32:36] provincial government to make it

[32:38] a straightforward process to

[32:39] define the market value of land

[32:42] that is identified frozen in the

[32:46] interim controlled bylaw, so

[32:47] that, if a City wanted to buy or

[32:51] expropriate that land it would

[32:52] be a fast track to determining

[32:53] the value. So, you would not

[32:54] have to go into years in court.

[32:56] And then, in the end, once that

[32:59] law is in place, if it gets to

[33:03] be ever put in place, then the

[33:06] city would have the ability to

[33:07] buy the land at market value.

[33:09] That is the way -- and then once

[33:11] it bought the land, then the

[33:13] Montréal metropolitan community

[33:14] with allow to be rezoned green.

[33:19] >> -- -- more, Mr. Ably, that's

[33:24] Councillor Cowan's

[33:26] Interpretation. -- next

[33:27] prochaine question? Question?

[33:31] - Bonsoir! Hello

[33:35] . Regardless --

[33:37] >> Excuse me --

[33:39] >> Sorry, before you start, can

[33:40] you state your name, please?

[33:42] >> Yes, sure. I don't come

[33:44] Nathalie Leconte. Very often --

[33:47] Natalie -- regardless of how

[33:49] this meeting has come into play,

[33:51] I'm still grateful it's

[33:52] happening. I'm grateful for

[33:54] everyone who has made it happen.

[33:55] I know there's a lot of polar

[33:57] positions on it. I'm just here

[34:00] as a resident. Who was involved

[34:03] in Valois district three

[34:06] revitalization from 2016 to

[34:07] 2019, which I found super

[34:09] helpful, and then radio silence

[34:12] and -- I'm actually here because

[34:14] I assisted Cadillac Fairview's

[34:16] public information session that

[34:17] they organized on March 30th.

[34:19] And I had heard of it through my

[34:22] personal network, not through

[34:23] online publications or, to my

[34:24] knowledge, to the City's

[34:26] website. So, that was very much

[34:29] a presentation with regards to,

[34:30] here is what we are planning to

[34:31] do. And it was more of a public

[34:33] approval, in my opinion, as I

[34:35] experienced it. So, I'm really

[34:37] excited when I hear Ms. a

[34:40] Stainforth -- my pronouncing

[34:42] that correctly -- yeah? Thank

[34:44] you? -- presentation. --

[34:46] legalese, but I can understand

[34:47] the process of what you are

[34:48] trying to achieve. What I'm

[34:50] concerned about is what you is

[34:51] going to happen after that

[34:52] process has begun to be

[34:53] achieved. I was a community

[34:57] mobilize or for a few years in a

[34:59] neighbourhood in NDG. And I am

[35:02] still a community worker today.

[35:03] So, my question that I am coming

[35:06] to is something that has been

[35:07] brought up. But I would like to

[35:09] know, given Cadillac Fairview's

[35:13] economic goals, impact, vision

[35:16] and lack of communication, I

[35:19] want to say bilateral

[35:21] communication between

[35:22] yourselves, the public and so

[35:23] forth -- even if you have not

[35:26] fully decided yet -- because it

[35:27] seems we are not at that point,

[35:30] who do you plan to be ahead of

[35:31] this public consultation

[35:32] process? You mentioned --

[35:35] committee. I just want to make

[35:36] sure that it's not just going to

[35:40] be the CF. Because when I read

[35:41] Cadillac Fairview -- and I read

[35:43] mutually agreeable, I was a

[35:44] little bit nervous with the

[35:45] people that have all the money.

[35:47] Having an equal position and

[35:48] something they should not have

[35:49] an equal position in -- even

[35:51] though they are the owners of

[35:52] the property, I do believe the

[35:53] City of Pointe-Claire has more

[35:55] power than that. And number two,

[35:57] can you promise me, as an

[36:00] individual, as someone who would

[36:01] like to have my family here,

[36:03] that passing this resolution and

[36:04] removing the ICB does not mean

[36:08] that Cadillac Fairview will be

[36:09] the primary rent on this

[36:11] project, with their own

[36:13] objectives? And that the City of

[36:15] Pointe-Claire will not be swayed

[36:16] by their financial and

[36:17] litigation threats?

[36:21] >> I won't be.

[36:23] >> May I respond?

[36:24] >> Sure, absolutely, Councillor.

[36:25] >> These a few things I just

[36:27] want to highlight. When there

[36:30] was the public meeting at

[36:32] Cadillac Fairview, that was

[36:33] Cadillac Fairview a's public

[36:34] meeting. It was not the cities.

[36:35] That is why it was on their

[36:36] website, they advertised. It it

[36:38] was not something that we

[36:39] advertise. People were welcome

[36:40] to go. That was something that

[36:42] they were sharing with you. It

[36:44] was not approval, disapproval.

[36:46] We have not begun that public

[36:47] participation. They wanted to

[36:49] share with you. This is not a

[36:51] resolution to remove them from

[36:53] the RCI. Because you said, I

[36:56] just want to be clear that it's

[36:57] not -- it's a resolution, as has

[36:59] been mentioned tonight, for

[37:00] starting point, because, in my

[37:02] opinion, if we don't do this

[37:03] resolution, we are going to go

[37:05] nowhere. We need to start having

[37:06] the public participation. We

[37:08] want that process to start. We

[37:10] want to move forward. We must

[37:12] move forward. And so, that was

[37:13] the whole point of coming here

[37:15] today, or passing the resolution

[37:17] today, and to try to structure.

[37:19] It's not, they are going to

[37:20] dictate to us or we are going to

[37:22] dictate them. It's about talking

[37:24] about what can work best to

[37:26] truly have your public

[37:28] participation valuable, count,

[37:29] interactive, registered,

[37:31] structured, not just haphazard,

[37:35] here and there and everywhere.

[37:36] Because this is very important.

[37:37] We all recognize this. We all of

[37:39] our beautiful city. We want the

[37:40] best possible outcome. That is

[37:42] truly the point. And so, there

[37:44] are some of us who really

[37:45] believe that this is step one,

[37:46] and if we don't do this, we are

[37:47] going to go nowhere. So, that is

[37:49] really what it is about. We will

[37:51] have ongoing dialogue. I am

[37:52] always there to answer any

[37:54] further clarifications. But I

[37:55] just want to want to clarify

[37:57] some of those points for you.

[37:59] >> We have been participating.

[38:01] We have been meeting on a

[38:03] regular basis on exactly these

[38:05] matters. And it was no need for

[38:07] this. We have been moving along.

[38:09] We have had progressive

[38:10] meetings, productive meetings,

[38:12] extensively, since we started

[38:14] the process. It was a process

[38:16] given to, us decided upon by

[38:17] Council and the administration.

[38:19] We have not missed -- we have

[38:22] met our goals. We have gone

[38:23] along, as we were going. And

[38:25] there is no need to do this. We

[38:27] were proceeding accordingly. And

[38:29] we should, absolutely, before

[38:31] doing this, have public

[38:33] participation. We should -- if

[38:35] -- before doing this process,

[38:36] which has nothing to do with

[38:37] what we were doing -- nothing to

[38:39] do with it -- this is an

[38:41] accelerated, I, think artificial

[38:42] exercise. And we were doing just

[38:44] fine. And nothing about this --

[38:47] I would love to accelerate

[38:49] public participation. I would

[38:50] love that. If that is the result

[38:52] of this, and we agreed to do it

[38:54] tomorrow, I'm a happy camper.

[38:55] And I think we should have that

[38:57] public consultation and

[38:59] participation prior to any

[39:01] mandate letter or any discussion

[39:04] with Cadillac Fairview. And

[39:05] what's being done right now is

[39:06] that Cadillac Fairview is being

[39:07] allowed into a process where it

[39:09] controls and determines, as has

[39:11] a say, in what type of public

[39:13] participation is going to occur.

[39:15] Read that resolution.

[39:17] >> May I comment?

[39:18] >> Of course, Councillor Stork.

[39:21] That's

[39:22] >> Your interpretation, once

[39:23] again.

[39:24] >> No.

[39:25] >> Yes, that's your

[39:26] interpretation. So, if

[39:27] everything is online and on par,

[39:29] wasn't that stated just two days

[39:31] ago that we were five months

[39:34] behind?

[39:35] >> Who stated that?

[39:36] >> You did.

[39:37] >> No.

[39:38] >> -- five months behind the we

[39:42] are five months behind, in my

[39:43] opinion, in public

[39:44] participation. In fact, we

[39:45] should have been doing public

[39:46] participation right at the

[39:47] outset.

[39:48] >> And Councillor Tremblay, and

[39:50] I, if we had had our way, would

[39:52] have liked it much sooner, and

[39:54] Councillor Tedford, who is no

[39:55] longer on Council, we are all

[39:57] arguing to have that far sooner

[39:58] in the process then what is

[40:00] still in the system.

[40:01] >> -- like it much sooner. And

[40:04] we are behind on public

[40:05] participation.

[40:06] >> May I finish? Because I was

[40:08] not finished.

[40:10] >> Let's --

[40:12] >> You said on Tuesday that you

[40:14] would like this process to start

[40:15] five months earlier. So, in our

[40:17] --

[40:18] >> Participation start --

[40:20] >> -- in our plan, when should

[40:23] the consultations, in Council,

[40:25] to discuss this process, when

[40:27] should they have started?

[40:29] >> Are you asking me? It's

[40:32] question period. It's not for

[40:33] you to question, Councillor

[40:35] Stork. It's a question period

[40:36] for the citizens, Councillor

[40:38] Stork. They are to come up to

[40:40] the mic. Councillors are not to

[40:41] take the time away from the

[40:42] citizens to ask questions and

[40:44] circumvent the process away from

[40:45] the citizens. Thank you. It --

[40:48] >> I will let the next person

[40:49] go. But I do see that, given all

[40:52] the different voices on the

[40:54] council, I appreciate everyone

[40:56] making an effort in trying to

[40:58] come to an agreement. I, even

[41:01] though I am a full-on supporter

[41:03] of Fairview, because I care

[41:04] about the forest, I care about

[41:06] green spaces, I am also going to

[41:09] trust that everyone is trying to

[41:11] do the best they can. But I will

[41:13] be knocking on peoples doors if

[41:15] I don't hear about public

[41:17] consultations. And I want to

[41:18] trust the process. But, just

[41:23] saying that, if this is what

[41:24] happens in public, I am

[41:25] concerned about what happens

[41:27] behind closed doors. And I that

[41:28] at every level. So, thank you.

[41:34] >> Mr. Mayor --

[41:36] >> Next question --

[41:39] >> Councillor Tremblay --

[41:40] >> An opportunity to speak --

[41:42] >> Yes, a -- voice.

[41:44] >> -- pitched as an exercise in

[41:45] transparency. Being privy to a

[41:49] lot of the documentation that

[41:50] all of my fellow councillors are

[41:52] exposed to, I tend to feel that

[41:56] the word transparency and that

[41:59] this is just merely an attempt

[42:02] to begin the process, we only

[42:04] want to communicate, is a little

[42:08] light. I think that the

[42:10] resolution that we have before

[42:12] us is not as innocuous as you

[42:14] might believe it to be. I think

[42:16] it is a serious document that

[42:20] will pushes, potentially, in a

[42:22] direction that exposes us to a

[42:26] situation that will not allow us

[42:28] to control the way we should

[42:31] control the process of

[42:36] participatory urban planning

[42:37] exercises that we need to go

[42:39] through with the public. In

[42:44] addition to, that I just want to

[42:46] speak to the matter of the

[42:48] urgency or not behind the whole

[42:51] process. Both Councillor Cowan

[42:55] and myself, at the urging of Mr.

[43:02] Weemaes at the time, were very,

[43:03] very bullish, in terms of

[43:05] meeting aggressively in the

[43:06] summer. The first meeting that

[43:07] was scheduled for July 9th. It

[43:09] got cancelled because no one

[43:10] could attend. The second meeting

[43:12] was July 16th. The same result

[43:14] -- the first meeting was July

[43:16] 30th. It was a wonderful

[43:17] meeting. The meetings we have

[43:19] had since that point have been

[43:21] excellent. The administration

[43:22] has provided

[43:28] -- the administration has

[43:32] provided a great deal of

[43:34] information, well presented,

[43:36] well exposed. It still needs

[43:38] some work in terms of what we

[43:40] can do in terms of public

[43:43] participation and what that

[43:45] process might involve. But the

[43:47] meetings have been far too

[43:50] infrequent and irregularly

[43:52] attended, so that we can create

[43:54] a momentum to the point where we

[43:56] want to be able to get to. So,

[43:58] the idea that we are trying to

[43:59] throw this in as a moment of

[44:02] transparency or that we are

[44:03] dragging our heels, I think, it

[44:06] is generous. I will leave it

[44:10] there. I have other comments to

[44:11] make regarding the resolution

[44:13] later. But I just want to make

[44:15] it -- I want to be able to

[44:17] stress my point of view in that

[44:18] regard, and allow you to ask

[44:19] your questions.

[44:24] >> Good evening, my name is

[44:27] Andrea Allen Guy -- Cadillac

[44:36] Fairview being a massive project

[44:38] that has potential massive

[44:40] effects going forward, so we

[44:42] really can't afford to get this

[44:44] wrong. So, my question -- and I

[44:46] will explain why I'm asking this

[44:48] question is, what kind of

[44:49] safeguards will be put in place

[44:51] if there are issues with the

[44:53] Fairview project? And the reason

[44:55] why I am asking this this is

[44:57] that I am living the aftermath

[44:58] of the Sotramont project. As

[45:01] residents of Austin, we have

[45:04] asked for contingency plans in

[45:06] case there were issues with this

[45:07] project. But we were told it

[45:09] would not be necessary and if

[45:10] there was a profit problem that

[45:12] came up, it would be dealt with.

[45:14] So, as you know, this project

[45:16] was also built on wetlands. And

[45:18] so now we are dealing with

[45:20] numerous issues, including

[45:22] residents houses flooding. And a

[45:25] hedge -- a privacy hedge that

[45:27] has not been able to hold up, we

[45:30] are stuck with a ditch that

[45:32] breeds a bunch of mosquitoes.

[45:34] And so this is the situation

[45:35] that we are faced with. And so,

[45:41] when we asked what facility will

[45:43] do about this, we are told it's

[45:45] a case study on how something

[45:47] should not be done. So, the

[45:49] Fairview project looks, feels

[45:50] very similar to what I have

[45:53] experienced, but in a

[45:55] potentially much bigger

[45:57] experience scale. Again, what I

[45:59] would like to know is, what is

[46:02] the safeguards and contingency

[46:03] plans that will be put in place

[46:06] to ensure that this is not a

[46:07] repeat of the Sotramont

[46:11] disaster.

[46:13] >> A very good question.

[46:14] >> Mr. Mayor -- a friendly

[46:17] reminder that the question must

[46:19] bear on the --

[46:20] >> It does, absolutely. She is

[46:22] hoping that what we are engaging

[46:23] in that won't result in the same

[46:24] result. And she is worried that

[46:26] this process that we are

[46:27] discussing will have a negative

[46:29] result, much like the one she

[46:30] has lived through. I think that

[46:31] is totally apropos of the

[46:33] subject and not off-base at all.

[46:37] And I think I would like to say

[46:39] that it is absolutely on my

[46:42] mind. A bad example is paramount

[46:44] to me. I got elected to prevent

[46:47] that kind of thing. And I hope

[46:48] that I can in this instance. And

[46:50] we are talking about this

[46:52] instance. And I will do my

[46:53] absolute best. And that is

[46:55] engineering, that is the city

[46:56] administration. That is every

[46:58] single department working at

[46:59] their utmost to make sure that

[47:01] we don't duplicate what happened

[47:02] there. I think we -- do that. I

[47:04] think we have an excellent

[47:05] administration. And I think that

[47:07] that can be done. I think that

[47:08] is -- keep reminding us.

[47:10] >> --

[47:14] >> Are there any other comments?

[47:18] All right. Thank you.

[47:19] >> Thank you.

[47:26] Bonsoir, je vais faire une

[47:29] introduction...

[47:30] - Juste s'il vous plaît

[47:31] mentionner votre nom.

[47:35] (rires)

[47:36] (inaudible)

[47:37] Pour tout le monde... va

[47:39] seulement pour madame. Je ne

[47:41] suis pas offensé du tout. On

[47:46] sait très bien que ce projet-là,

[47:49] le projet, la loi doit être

[47:54] observé de tous. Ça inclut

[48:02] Fairview, ça inclut la ville, ça

[48:04] inclut, dans ce cas-ci, le

[48:07] gouvernement à propos des terres

[48:09] humides et toutes. Est-ce qu'il

[48:12] y a un potentiel que la Ville ou

[48:19] Fairview... je ne peux pas

[48:20] parler pour les autres, qu'ils

[48:22] brisent la loi. Est-ce qu'il y a

[48:25] un potentiel?

[48:28] - Je pense que non. Je pense que

[48:31] non.

[48:32] - Ça me rassure déjà.

[48:33] - Il peut faire un projet les

[48:35] mais briser la loi, non.

[48:37] - Absolument.

[48:38] - Il peut faire un projet qui ne

[48:40] s'agencent pas avec la ville

[48:41] mais illégale, non.

[48:45] - Je le sais par expérience

[48:46] qu'il y a beaucoup de projets

[48:47] qui ont été déposés, étudié par

[48:52] notre personnel, par

[48:54] l'ingénierie légale, finance ou

[48:56] quoi que ce soit. Et puis, le

[49:01] projet est modifié en chemin.

[49:08] Vous comprenez ce que je dis?

[49:10] Des fois, même moi je parle et

[49:11] je me confonds. Comment

[49:17] pouvez-vous vous objecter à

[49:22] quelque chose qui n'a pas été

[49:23] présenté? C'est l'essentiel d'un

[49:29] dialogue. Ça ne compromet pas la

[49:31] Ville, ça ne compromet pas

[49:33] Fairview. Je suis sûr qu'ils ont

[49:37] du personnel compétent,

[49:41] ultra-compétents qui ne

[49:42] présenteront pas quelque chose

[49:43] de tout croche mais advenant que

[49:47] l'ingénierie arrive ou

[49:49] l'urbanisme, quoi que ce soit,

[49:53] advenant qu'il y ait un

[50:00] accroc... ça, je peux parler

[50:02] pour Fairview, quand tu as un

[50:03] investissement de cette

[50:05] grandeur-là, si c'est déplacer

[50:07] une porte, un trottoir, une

[50:11] entrée, ils vont le faire. Alors

[50:15] tout ce que je trouve de ne pas

[50:17] correct... tout ce qui n'est pas

[50:18] correct avec ça, c'est qu'il n'y

[50:19] a pas de date. On sera amorcé au

[50:21] même point. Donnez-vous, je ne

[50:23] sais pas moi, si Fairview est

[50:25] prêt à présenter quelque chose à

[50:28] notre directeur général et

[50:32] commencer avec ça? Parce que

[50:34] moi, je peux lancer une rumeur,

[50:36] il paraît que Fairview veut

[50:39] faire une mine d'Asbestos avec

[50:40] le terrain. Il y a des citoyens

[50:47] qui disent ça. Il n'y a jamais

[50:51] été question que la forêt soit

[50:53] coupé net. La loi existait avant

[50:59] et elle existe toujours alors

[51:02] c'est mes commentaires. La seule

[51:05] réponse qu'il y a...

[51:07] - Pour moi, Claude, les choses

[51:10] importantes ici, qu'on a déjà

[51:14] proposé, pas des projets

[51:16] officiels mais des images, des

[51:19] idées, des édifices de 27 étages

[51:22] déjà. Alors la Ville de

[51:25] Pointe-Claire ne voudraient pas

[51:26] ça. Ils avaient déjà présenté

[51:28] ça. Mais ce n'est pas le débat

[51:29] ici, le débat, c'est le

[51:34] processus pour décider ce qu'ils

[51:35] vont créer. Et ça, on est en

[51:39] besoin, la perspective des

[51:41] citoyens pour faire ça. Avant

[51:43] qu'on parle ou qu'on accepte une

[51:48] proposition de Fairview, on

[51:52] voudrait les idées, le goût des

[51:56] citoyens, c'est ça qui est

[51:58] absolument nécessaire. Je vous

[51:59] comprends très bien mais le

[52:03] citoyen en consultation ne peut

[52:06] pas discuter d'à peu près

[52:08] n'importe quoi. Il faut qu'il y

[52:09] ait quelque chose de présenter

[52:13] sérieusement. Oui, ensemble,

[52:15] dans un processus sérieux. Un

[52:17] processus légal et juste. On ne

[52:22] va pas arriver et discuter si le

[52:23] projet a Fairview... sans avoir

[52:26] la moindre détail... le moindre

[52:29] détail vous chercher à choisir

[52:31] la couleur des rideaux. Voyons,

[52:34] ça n'a pas de bon sens. Il faut

[52:36] commencer avec une base. Merci

[52:38] de m'avoir écouté.

[52:39] - Merci, Claude. Merci beaucoup.

[52:43] -

[52:44] >> Excuse me, Mister Mayor,

[52:45] Madison asked --

[52:46] Madame Verdun, est-ce que c'est

[52:47] possible de monter la

[52:48] température un petit peu? On

[52:49] gèle.

[52:51] (brouhaha)

[52:56] >> -- make a call --

[53:00] >> Okay.

[53:01] >> I agree. It's freezing in

[53:03] here my hands are ice.

[53:05] >> -- Watson, Pointe-Claire. Can

[53:08] you hear me?

[53:10] >> --

[53:11] >> I agree with what was said

[53:13] before, regarding the red flags.

[53:16] And for me, what raise the red

[53:18] flags, if you recall, when there

[53:20] was RCI and there was discussion

[53:22] of exempting Cadillac Fairview

[53:23] from the freeze, a lot of you

[53:25] held town halls and you gave a

[53:26] lot of information about how,

[53:28] instead of doing the RCI -- I

[53:31] forget what it was you kept

[53:32] proposing -- and then you all

[53:33] realized, oh, no, it wasn't

[53:35] really the right way to go. And

[53:36] then we put Cadillac Fairview in

[53:39] the freeze. So, I am troubled

[53:42] that this has come up, this

[53:45] resolution. Because it feels

[53:46] like you are doing the same

[53:47] thing. And I wish -- I mean, is

[53:50] there a legal requirement for

[53:52] this resolution? Is it legally

[53:54] required to do this? Is it?

[53:57] >> No. We don't have to do it

[53:58] legally, no. There is no --

[54:02] >> -- process --

[54:03] >> This resolution -- this is an

[54:06] unnecessary process that is not

[54:08] legally required. We could have

[54:09] continued our process along, as

[54:10] we were doing. This is an

[54:13] unnecessary -- just after

[54:15] Christmas.

[54:16] >> Is it possible to hear from

[54:17] the director general? --

[54:20] Madame Verdun, est-ce que c'est

[54:22] légalement requis d'avoir cette

[54:23] réservation-là pour avoir les

[54:24] démarches pour les consultations

[54:26] et etc.? D'avoir des

[54:32] discussions, aujourd'hui, c'est

[54:34] une résolution qui me donne une

[54:36] orientation du conseil municipal

[54:39] sur mon travail que j'ai à

[54:40] faire. Donc la majorité du

[54:44] public veut s'assurer que j'ai

[54:45] un mandat clair.

[54:46] - Mais ce n'est pas légalement

[54:47] requis?

[54:50] - Je ne vais pas répondre à

[54:51] cette question, je vous

[54:52] répondrai demain.

[54:53] - D'accord, merci.

[54:57] >> Okay. So, thank you for that.

[55:00] Je ne sais I don't pas... know

[55:02] why -- it's to me tomorrow.

[55:03] Pourquoi ce sera demain. -- en

[55:04] tout cas. What I would like to

[55:06] know, also, is that there has

[55:08] been some talk about public

[55:11] participation and public

[55:12] consultation. So, can someone

[55:13] please explain the difference?

[55:15] Because I'm concerned that there

[55:16] is some sort of legal

[55:17] ramifications to one and the

[55:18] other. And I don't want us to

[55:21] get screwed over by having a

[55:22] public consultation and not a

[55:23] participation --

[55:24] >> Participation is the better

[55:25] term, Ms. Watson. Because --

[55:29] something went -- where's

[55:31] participation, you are getting

[55:33] people in greater in the

[55:35] process.

[55:36] >> Mr. Mayor, may I please

[55:37] clarify?

[55:38] >> Absolutely.

[55:39] >> There are several points in

[55:40] the process of passing a bylaw,

[55:43] where the law requires public

[55:46] consultation. So, that is when,

[55:48] here, in Council, before voting

[55:51] on a bylaw at that point, the

[55:53] public must be allowed to weigh

[55:55] in. So, in order to prevent

[55:58] confusion, we are talking about

[56:01] public participation is, the

[56:02] stuff that happens out there.

[56:03] And public consultation is the

[56:06] formal consultation required by

[56:07] law.

[56:08] >> Thank you for clearing that.

[56:09] That's very helpful. Because --

[56:11] okay. Now I am also confused by

[56:15] what we said earlier. So, you

[56:18] all have been meeting regularly

[56:20] for this RCI process, but

[56:22] apparently, not all of you have

[56:23] been able to make it and

[56:26] attendance is sketchy or

[56:27] whatever. So, this is the

[56:28] answer? Doing this resolution?

[56:31] Okay.

[56:32] >> May I speak to that?

[56:33] >> You can. We

[56:34] >> Were mostly at the meetings.

[56:36] But the last meeting that was in

[56:38] December was this vehicle for

[56:39] some people because they were --

[56:40] during the day and there are

[56:42] some of us who work full-time.

[56:45] Initially, we were meeting every

[56:47] other Friday. But closer to the

[56:49] holidays, it became impossible.

[56:50] -- as of January, every other

[56:52] Friday afternoon would be a

[56:53] meeting. And then the other one

[56:54] would be in the evenings to

[56:55] allow for those of us who have

[56:57] full-time jobs to be able to

[56:58] attend as well. Because this is

[56:59] not our only job that we do. And

[57:01] it is not sketchy. I would say

[57:04] our attendance -- I would say

[57:06] those standing have maybe missed

[57:07] one or two based on certain

[57:09] personal issues.

[57:10] >> Oh. Okay.

[57:11] >> It's not sketchy. It's just

[57:12] that we had to get the

[57:13] scheduling down. That was easier

[57:15] for everyone to be able to

[57:16] attend and we wanted something

[57:17] to be more regular. But that is

[57:20] a different process than the

[57:21] resolution. The RCI is the total

[57:23] process that we need to do for

[57:24] our entire city. But we

[57:27] recognize that we want to also

[57:28] move forward in other

[57:30] directions. Because we just way

[57:31] to do the whole entire thing,

[57:32] it's going to take us six years.

[57:34] That is not realistic.

[57:35] >> Well, when you are looking at

[57:37] the future of the city, the next

[57:39] 50 -- because, as you know, the

[57:41] next 50 to 100 years is what we

[57:42] have to look ahead, I think six

[57:43] years is nothing --

[57:44] >> We are --

[57:46] >> Six years --

[57:47] >> Excuse me, Councillor --

[57:51] >> -- impact of --

[57:52] >> It's not going to be even

[57:54] remotely close to six years. On

[57:55] the route we were going, it was

[57:56] not even going to be close to

[57:58] two. So, I agree with what you

[58:00] are saying. It has already been

[58:02] close to -- yes, it has been

[58:04] already -- and we are almost

[58:05] through. And we have to get the

[58:06] public participation. And by the

[58:08] way, the term going forward --

[58:12] the term better uses public

[58:14] participation.

[58:15] >> Okay.

[58:16] >> Because it involves the

[58:17] citizens prior, not after.

[58:19] >> Okay. Well, thank you very

[58:20] much.

[58:21] >> May I speak just for a

[58:22] moment?

[58:23] >> Of course, Councillor.

[58:24] >> I just want to address --

[58:25] because you brought up the

[58:26] attendance thing. And Kelly

[58:28] mentioned it. I have missed one

[58:30] or two meetings. Unfortunately,

[58:31] I require substitute. I can't

[58:33] just leave my students alone,

[58:35] they are five. We have planned

[58:38] on almost all the meetings on

[58:39] days where I could either take

[58:41] the day off or it be a PED day

[58:47] and I -- unfortunately, I

[58:48] believe there was one day,

[58:50] maybe, where I was unable to

[58:52] attend, because my substitute

[58:55] cancels. It's

[58:56] >> Really, okay I'm just trying

[58:57] to understand.

[58:58] >> It's because it's been

[58:59] brought up numerous times -- so

[59:00] I would like to clarify.

[59:01] >> You have all brought it up,

[59:02] actually. And I was just trying

[59:04] to clarify the origin of this

[59:05] resolution. That's. All

[59:06] >> Mister Mayor -- I can help

[59:08] there.

[59:11] >> The process that the mayor is

[59:14] talking about, that process has

[59:16] led to the overture to Cadillac

[59:18] Fairview. The overture to

[59:20] Cadillac Fairview -- which is

[59:21] underway. We are just talking

[59:22] about -- that overture was just

[59:24] in writing. What we are talking

[59:26] about now, like exchange of

[59:27] letters, what we are talking

[59:28] about now is trying to get to

[59:29] the next phase where people

[59:32] actually sit in a room and talk

[59:33] to each other. So, that process

[59:35] is the part of the process that

[59:36] the mayor was talking about. The

[59:37] only thing that is different

[59:40] about today is that we are doing

[59:41] this publicly. We are now making

[59:43] that what we have been doing. We

[59:45] are now putting it out there in

[59:47] public, number one. And two, by

[59:51] doing it in a public resolution,

[59:52] we are giving the director

[59:55] general specific instructions

[59:56] from Council to guide that

[59:58] conversation. So, the special

[1:00:02] meeting itself was not part of

[1:00:04] this ongoing process. But the

[1:00:08] conversation was and is.

[1:00:11] >> I really wish I could support

[1:00:13] this resolution. I really do.

[1:00:14] But because of the words

[1:00:16] mutually agreeable are in their,

[1:00:17] scared the Jesus out of me. And

[1:00:21] unfortunately, with that kind of

[1:00:23] resolution, I cannot support

[1:00:24] this resolution. But -- because

[1:00:25] of the language of the

[1:00:27] resolution, I cannot support,

[1:00:28] it. Sir

[1:00:29] >> Ms. Watson, when I think.

[1:00:31] This will end up in a process

[1:00:32] where people will sit in a room

[1:00:33] and talk to each other without

[1:00:35] public input.

[1:00:39] >> Mr.

[1:00:40] - Monsieur Lapointe?

[1:00:46] LaPointe --

[1:00:50] >> And that it's actually a

[1:00:52] political intervention at this

[1:00:53] point.

[1:00:54] >> Okay.

[1:00:56] Si je peux, Madame la greffière,

[1:00:58] est-ce que je peux mentionner le

[1:00:59] nombre de réunions qu'on a eu?

[1:01:14] -- where we can actually get to

[1:01:17] the point where we can deliver

[1:01:18] on a variety of things that we

[1:01:19] want to do, where we want to get

[1:01:20] to. So, I'm very happy -- I'm

[1:01:26] happy that Councillor

[1:01:27] Thorstad-Cullen that we are

[1:01:28] going to increase the cadence of

[1:01:30] these going through the years,

[1:01:31] and that's an important thing as

[1:01:33] well. And then, I think, based

[1:01:37] on the fact -- I will wait.

[1:01:39] Because I've got comments later.

[1:01:40] I want to wait and summarize

[1:01:42] everything -- I will let other

[1:01:45] people speak.

[1:01:46] >> Thank you.

[1:01:47] >> --

[1:01:48] - Monsieur Lapointe ou Linda?

[1:01:49] >> Or, Linda?

[1:01:50] >> Linda do with

[1:01:55] DeWitt -- at length about how

[1:02:00] back from conversations with

[1:02:01] Cadillac Fairview had obligated

[1:02:03] the city to a certain course of

[1:02:05] action, and that we were

[1:02:06] reneging on our backroom deals.

[1:02:08] And now --

[1:02:10] >> Near Mr., point of privilege

[1:02:11] --

[1:02:12] >> No idea what she's talking

[1:02:13] about, backroom -- we

[1:02:15] >> Did not use that expression.

[1:02:16] It's my expression but --

[1:02:18] >> Yes --

[1:02:19] >> You are saying --

[1:02:21] >> Right now --

[1:02:23] >> No. You stated that --

[1:02:26] >> Councillor Cowan, you don't

[1:02:28] operate a citizen. If he has to

[1:02:29] alter her question, she will

[1:02:31] alter her question. But please

[1:02:34] refrain from operating a

[1:02:35] citizen.

[1:02:36] >> You said --

[1:02:37] >> Mr. I Mayor, I'm just asking

[1:02:39] her to be respectful. That's.

[1:02:41] All

[1:02:42] >> -- obligations to Cadillac

[1:02:43] Fairview and all these

[1:02:44] obligations were not done in

[1:02:45] public. They were done in

[1:02:46] private. And now, in response to

[1:02:47] that, you would like to hold

[1:02:51] in-camera meetings with Cadillac

[1:02:52] Fairview. And the -- that was

[1:02:55] imposed, including the Cadillac

[1:02:57] Fairview property, is absolutely

[1:02:59] necessary if we are to redo our

[1:03:01] planning program properly. And I

[1:03:03] submit that gross incompetence

[1:03:05] on the part of previous

[1:03:08] administrations allowed the

[1:03:10] zoning Mu1 to be created, which

[1:03:12] has no maximum density, no

[1:03:16] minimum setbacks, no maximum

[1:03:17] height, nothing about the kind

[1:03:20] of buildings that can be put

[1:03:21] their. So, when Cadillac

[1:03:24] Fairview submitted a project

[1:03:25] with over 1200 dwellings per

[1:03:26] hectare, when the TOD recommend

[1:03:30] 60 dwellings per hectare, there

[1:03:32] is nothing in the zoning

[1:03:33] regulations that would have

[1:03:34] prevented. The only thing the

[1:03:36] City can really do is to rezone

[1:03:38] it properly. And I submit, also,

[1:03:41] that Pointe-Claire does not need

[1:03:42] this huge development. It would

[1:03:43] be like importing a city to our

[1:03:45] city. Why? What good would it do

[1:03:48] for us? And besides which,

[1:03:51] Pointe-Claire has no idea when,

[1:03:53] if our infrastructure could

[1:03:57] support this --

[1:03:58] >> Ms. DeWitt, we are not

[1:03:59] debating the project -- we are

[1:04:03] debating --

[1:04:04] >> I know --

[1:04:05] >> We are debating -- I am

[1:04:07] saying, --

[1:04:08] >> We don't need to do a side

[1:04:09] view of Cadillac Fairview right

[1:04:10] now. -- it's not to the

[1:04:12] advantage of the city. It's not

[1:04:13] to the advantage of the

[1:04:14] citizens. And I would like to

[1:04:15] see us go through the -- of our

[1:04:18] new planning program with the

[1:04:19] zoning that we want and then let

[1:04:22] Cadillac Fairview negotiate with

[1:04:23] the zoning that is created.

[1:04:25] [Applause]

[1:04:28] >> Apparently, we are not

[1:04:29] allowed to applaud.

[1:04:33] >> So, I think that this

[1:04:34] resolution is completely

[1:04:36] unnecessary. And why would you

[1:04:39] do something that is so

[1:04:40] unnecessary. There is no need to

[1:04:42] move forward, to hurry the long,

[1:04:43] to get it done. No need at all.

[1:04:45] It's not to Pointe-Claire's

[1:04:47] advantage. It is not to the

[1:04:48] taxpayers advantage. It is not

[1:04:49] to the citizens advantage. I can

[1:04:51] see that it is to the developers

[1:04:52] advantage. But that is a

[1:04:54] different story. So, I would

[1:04:56] like to know, why would you even

[1:04:58] think of doing this when there

[1:05:00] is no advantage to the citizens

[1:05:01] of Pointe-Claire whatsoever,

[1:05:04] when we are already in the

[1:05:05] process of -- our planning

[1:05:06] program?

[1:05:10] >> Thank you.

[1:05:13] >> Mr. Mayor --

[1:05:14] >> Go ahead, Councillor Cowan.

[1:05:16] >> First of all, what I was

[1:05:17] referring to, months and months

[1:05:18] ago, with the fact that Cadillac

[1:05:19] Fairview had been engaged with

[1:05:21] conversations with the planning

[1:05:24] department and exchange of

[1:05:27] documents in, I think, July of

[1:05:28] 2021, and February of 2022. And

[1:05:32] Council was completely in the

[1:05:33] dark. Both mayors kept us in the

[1:05:37] dark. -- Mayor Belvedere and

[1:05:39] mayor Thomas. We had no idea

[1:05:41] these conversations were

[1:05:42] ongoing. So, I was actually

[1:05:43] criticizing that at that time.

[1:05:46] We should have, though. If we

[1:05:48] had known, maybe we would have

[1:05:49] been able to intervene and the

[1:05:52] --

[1:05:53] >> Excuse me -- it was in the

[1:05:55] papers. It was in the newspapers

[1:05:58] -- and you as a city councillor

[1:06:00] missed it?

[1:06:02] >> -- let

[1:06:05] >> Let Councillor Cowan --

[1:06:07] >> Ms. but DeWitt let Councillor

[1:06:09] Cowan --

[1:06:10] >> -- it's all there in, writing

[1:06:12] you will see it. As far as this

[1:06:17] process is concerned, it has to

[1:06:19] move. We have to be talking to

[1:06:22] Cadillac Fairview at some point,

[1:06:23] of how you are going to do it.

[1:06:25] It's a question of how. But it

[1:06:26] has to happen. They can't be

[1:06:28] held indefinitely in an interim,

[1:06:31] temporary measure. It is

[1:06:32] temporary. We have to work

[1:06:34] through this.

[1:06:35] >> No one is suggesting --

[1:06:36] >> Ms. DeWitt, allow Councillor

[1:06:40] Cowan to finish --

[1:06:42] >> -- its only discussion of

[1:06:44] methodology. This methodology,

[1:06:46] this plan that Council is moving

[1:06:48] on now is something that has

[1:06:50] been in process for months. We

[1:06:54] only very recently that the

[1:06:55] mayor voiced his objection. But

[1:06:56] other than that, if he had any

[1:07:01] disagreement, he did not say

[1:07:02] anything. He kept it to himself

[1:07:04] until just before the Christmas

[1:07:05] break. So, as I said before,

[1:07:07] what we are doing now is the

[1:07:10] continuity of a plan, an

[1:07:12] approach that was begun in July.

[1:07:14] And I have detailed all this. I

[1:07:17] will address it when the actual

[1:07:19] motion is before the floor. And

[1:07:21] I will point out the timeline of

[1:07:24] how we arrived at the point we

[1:07:26] are at now. And hopefully that

[1:07:28] will start to unpack all the

[1:07:30] pieces and bits of information

[1:07:31] we are getting tonight, and put

[1:07:32] them in some kind of sequence

[1:07:33] that is more understandable. At

[1:07:34] least, that is what I hope.

[1:07:37] >> I still cannot see why there

[1:07:39] is any reason to step outside of

[1:07:41] the process that is ongoing for

[1:07:43] the planning program, to give a

[1:07:45] special deal to Cadillac

[1:07:46] Fairview, and possibly makes

[1:07:48] ideals with them in-camera that

[1:07:50] would legally obliged to someone

[1:07:52] --

[1:07:53] >> Point of -- order

[1:07:54] >> No, no -- please allow her to

[1:07:56] -- finish

[1:07:57] >> That would be in

[1:07:58] contradiction to the planning

[1:07:59] program we eventually put in

[1:08:00] place. And if Cadillac Fairview

[1:08:02] is now in litigation, well, look

[1:08:04] at what happened in

[1:08:07] Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue when

[1:08:09] they litigated -- the developers

[1:08:15] litigated against St. and

[1:08:16] develop Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue

[1:08:17] -- they got back, essentially,

[1:08:18] what they paid for the land.

[1:08:19] They did not get an composition

[1:08:20] for that. However,

[1:08:21] Pointe-Claire, in so ideals,

[1:08:23] previously with quorum, already

[1:08:26] lost the city $2 million. And

[1:08:27] with Sotramont, we have the mess

[1:08:28] that we have now. So, I think we

[1:08:30] should stick to the process and

[1:08:32] get a proper planning program in

[1:08:34] place, and then follow our own

[1:08:37] bylaws. Thank you.

[1:08:39] [Applause]

[1:08:43] >> No applauding --

[1:08:44] >> -- I don't believe that our

[1:08:46] wonderful square in the

[1:08:48] Pointe-Claire village is a lot

[1:08:49] of money. I just don't think

[1:08:50] that that should be stated

[1:08:54] publicly -- it's a beautiful

[1:08:55] skating rink.

[1:08:57] >> --

[1:08:58] >> Throwing away money is not

[1:09:00] appropriate -- we

[1:09:01] >> Did a beautiful job in that

[1:09:02] property. But we paid way too

[1:09:04] much for it. Anybody doing their

[1:09:06] homework, research that one, and

[1:09:08] see what we paid for that. It is

[1:09:10] a wonderful result. But we paid

[1:09:11] an awful a lot for it. Now, if I

[1:09:14] could get back to the

[1:09:16] conversations with Cadillac

[1:09:18] Fairview, both mayors -- we had

[1:09:21] the RCI almost immediately when

[1:09:23] I got into power. All these

[1:09:26] conversations or these

[1:09:27] negotiations with Cadillac

[1:09:28] Fairview, if they were

[1:09:29] happening, they're happening

[1:09:31] without my knowledge. I spoke to

[1:09:33] Mr. Weemaes and I had no

[1:09:36] recollection of any meetings

[1:09:38] happening with Cadillac Fairview

[1:09:39] when I was first Mayor. I have

[1:09:41] no recollection of that. It may

[1:09:42] have been happening, but not

[1:09:43] from what he told me.

[1:09:48] >> I would like to comment on

[1:09:49] that, please. It was actually

[1:09:51] December 9th, when you actually

[1:09:53] met with Cadillac Fairview, with

[1:09:55] Mr. Weemaes at their site.

[1:09:59] >> At the site --

[1:10:00] >> --

[1:10:01] >> And that was withheld from --

[1:10:02] us

[1:10:03] >> No, it wasn't withheld. It

[1:10:04] was the first week, I think, or

[1:10:05] to, as mayor. And Mr. Weemaes

[1:10:07] urge me to go and meet. We walk

[1:10:09] through the mall and they showed

[1:10:10] us the renovation they had done.

[1:10:11] That was it. And he regrets

[1:10:13] having asked me to do that. That

[1:10:15] is the only time it happened. We

[1:10:17] met. The conversations were

[1:10:19] civil. We went and walk through

[1:10:20] the mall, showed us the

[1:10:23] renovations. They were nice. We

[1:10:25] all had a nice conversation and

[1:10:27] went home. Nothing about a huge

[1:10:29] 27 storey or 25 storey

[1:10:31] development -- nothing of that

[1:10:33] came up whatsoever, this Mr.

[1:10:37] LaPointe. He

[1:10:40] Je voulais juste donner

[1:10:42] peut-être un aperçu de ce qui

[1:10:43] s'est passé depuis une quinzaine

[1:10:45] d'années concernant la forêt. Le

[1:10:48] 6 septembre 2005 qu'il y a eu un

[1:10:51] rapport...

[1:10:52] - Par les plus proches du micro.

[1:10:55] >> Right parlez plus proche du

[1:10:56] micro. Into it, Norm. Almost

[1:10:57] right into it.

[1:10:59] - Il y a eu un rapport le 6

[1:11:01] septembre 2005, un rapport

[1:11:04] forestier fait par monsieur

[1:11:06] Duval concernant la propriété...

[1:11:10] la forêt Fairview. Sur 23

[1:11:14] hectares, on retrouve le

[1:11:16] Règlement dans le Règlement 27 -

[1:11:18] 87 de la Ville de Pointe-Claire.

[1:11:21] La recommandation de la page 3,

[1:11:24] on devrait conserver une

[1:11:27] superficie de 37% du lot. Ce qui

[1:11:30] représente 8,51 hectares. Le 1er

[1:11:34] mars 2011, on est entré en

[1:11:38] vigueur le Règlement 26,75

[1:11:42] concernant la mosaïque des lieux

[1:11:44] naturels.

[1:11:45] (inaudible)

[1:11:46] La biodiversité, tout projet

[1:11:48] d'implantation d'une nouvelle

[1:11:49] construction

[1:11:50] (inaudible)

[1:11:51] d'engagement de terrain dans la

[1:11:55] mosaïque naturelle de la zone

[1:11:56] aime d'eux et la zone 30 cette

[1:11:58] eau être conçus et réalisés de

[1:12:00] manière à maximiser la

[1:12:04] conservation d'un boirai d'un

[1:12:05] milieu humide

[1:12:06] (inaudible)

[1:12:07] une mise en à l'heure... en

[1:12:08] valeur de son

[1:12:10] (---)

[1:12:12] Sa biodiversité. Ceci est en

[1:12:15] 2011. À l'alimentation en eau,

[1:12:20] l'implantation de

[1:12:22] l'agrandissement d'un bâtiment

[1:12:23] et la...

[1:12:25] (---)

[1:12:26] en milieu naturel de la zone

[1:12:27] aime deux, un terrain contiguës

[1:12:29] à cette zone ne doit pas

[1:12:33] contraindre à l'amélioration en

[1:12:34] haut du secteur naturel. Déjà,

[1:12:37] on

[1:12:38] (inaudible)

[1:12:39] a déjà fait des changements en

[1:12:40] complément dans l'alimentation

[1:12:41] en eau par le drainage à son

[1:12:44] empreinte de la station

[1:12:45] terminus, stationnement et

[1:12:46] (inaudible)

[1:12:47] . En 2013, un rapport

[1:12:58] d'Environnement du site a été

[1:13:00] fait sur le lot au nord-ouest de

[1:13:04] l'autoroute 40, rue Harvey, sur

[1:13:07] l'ancien heureux qui est

[1:13:09] aujourd'hui une avenue,

[1:13:12] l'inspection pour le compte de

[1:13:14] Corporation

[1:13:15] (---)

[1:13:16] et par la suite, l'achat en août

[1:13:18] de la choppe. Donc déjà là,

[1:13:22] Cadillac Fairview savait que

[1:13:25] cette zone-là était protégée,

[1:13:28] des arbres centenaires, c'était

[1:13:31] dans les règlements de la ville.

[1:13:35] Lors de la séance de

[1:13:36] consultation de 2017 au Conseil

[1:13:39] du 4 juillet 2017, les agents de

[1:13:41] consultations publiques,

[1:13:44] monsieur Brian affalé, président

[1:13:47] de faire rouler association et

[1:13:50] madame

[1:13:51] (inaudible)

[1:13:52] représentants de Cadillac

[1:13:55] Fairview.

[1:13:56] (---)

[1:13:57] Cadillac Sergio était en accord

[1:13:58] avec la vision de la ville et

[1:14:00] monsieur Fairview a remis une

[1:14:01] lettre à l'assistante comprenant

[1:14:03] des propos annoncées dans cette

[1:14:04] séance de consultation. Par la

[1:14:06] suite, monsieur Serge Laporte on

[1:14:10] demande une question: la limite

[1:14:12] à hauteur des bâtiments qui

[1:14:14] devraient être construits sur le

[1:14:20] Mu1 et Mu2 j'. Je répète la

[1:14:22] question à monsieur le maire, et

[1:14:24] madame Giguère répond à cette

[1:14:25] question-là. France Giguère,

[1:14:29] oui, quand il y a des zonage,

[1:14:34] selon des zones, surtout en

[1:14:35] fonction de l'environnement

[1:14:38] immédiat, adjacent aux zones du

[1:14:41] centre-ville dont les auteurs

[1:14:43] vont varier et graduelle et en

[1:14:45] partie de l'existence vers le

[1:14:48] centre...

[1:14:49] (inaudible)

[1:14:50] supposé déranger le voisinage

[1:14:52] existant, c'est toujours fait en

[1:14:54] fonction, oui, des limites et en

[1:14:57] fonction du voisinage immédiat.

[1:15:02] C'est sont là la mission du

[1:15:04] conseil de ville, il a adopté le

[1:15:07] règlement pour Mu1 et Mu2 sans

[1:15:10] aucune spécification du nombre

[1:15:12] de planchers, ce que toutes les

[1:15:15] autres zones de la Ville de

[1:15:19] Pointe-Claire procède.

[1:15:22] (inaudible)

[1:15:23] Était d'accord avec la vision de

[1:15:25] la ville.

[1:15:26] (intervention en anglais)

[1:15:27] Wow. The skies the limit.

[1:15:31] - Normand, est-ce qu'il reste

[1:15:32] beaucoup? Parce que...

[1:15:34] - Juste... trois

[1:15:35] - Il y a quatre autres

[1:15:36] >> Okay.

[1:15:37] Questions.

[1:15:38] - Deux minutes.

[1:15:39] - O.K..

[1:15:40] - Avant Mu1, c'était C6, il

[1:15:46] était permis 60 mètres, 15

[1:15:48] étages, avant Mu2, c'était une

[1:15:55] zone CP3, et heures 46,

[1:15:57] boulevard Brunswick, le nombre

[1:16:00] d'étages était 15, et la

[1:16:02] longueur maximum de 60 mètres.

[1:16:09] C'est à nous d'élus... à nos

[1:16:11] élus de corriger ça, nous sommes

[1:16:15] tous d'une crise climatique. Vu

[1:16:20] les changements climatiques, il

[1:16:22] est acquis que plusieurs

[1:16:25] désastres et anomalie causeront

[1:16:28] des pertes de vie à travers le

[1:16:29] monde, nous devons prendre des

[1:16:32] décisions importantes et

[1:16:33] faites... faire notre part de

[1:16:35] changement pour la survie de la

[1:16:36] planète et la protection de la

[1:16:39] biodiversité, et protéger les

[1:16:41] marécages qui sont les poumons

[1:16:42] de notre planète. New York à

[1:16:47] Central Park, nous pouvons avoir

[1:16:49] à Pointe-Claire notre parc

[1:16:50] naturel de la forêt Fairview.

[1:16:52] De, plus lors de la réunion...

[1:16:57] réunion du comité stratégique le

[1:16:59] 13 novembre dernier à

[1:17:00] Pointe-Claire, sur le territoire

[1:17:04] de Pointe-Claire, la superficie

[1:17:06] totale est de 73 kilomètres

[1:17:08] carrés. Seulement 66% de cette

[1:17:12] superficie est un parc ou des

[1:17:13] ex-... des espaces verts, sur

[1:17:17] 2,8 kilomètres carrés, soit 1,38

[1:17:23] kilomètres carrés sur 138

[1:17:24] hectares, c'est ce qu'il manque

[1:17:27] pour atteindre l'objectif de 10%

[1:17:28] de protection pour la Ville de

[1:17:31] Pointe-Claire et l'île de

[1:17:32] Montréal. Pour atteindre cet

[1:17:33] objectif, il faudrait augmenter

[1:17:35] ou acheter huit fois la

[1:17:37] superficie de la forêt Fairview

[1:17:42] de 9,6 hectare et 142 acres que

[1:17:44] le Cadillac Fairview possède, il

[1:17:46] faudra acheter huit fois cela

[1:17:50] pour avoir le 10% à la Ville de

[1:17:51] Pointe-Claire. Comme élue, votre

[1:17:55] devoir est de préserver

[1:17:58] l'héritage centenaire de cette

[1:17:59] forêt, la biodiversité, la

[1:18:02] couleuvre brune...

[1:18:03] - Est-ce qu'il reste...

[1:18:04] >> Come on, Norm.

[1:18:05] Allé, normalement... il reste

[1:18:06] sans que personne...

[1:18:08] - Le but de la résolution de ce

[1:18:11] soir, est-ce qu'il peut y avoir

[1:18:13] une consultation publique comme

[1:18:15] la loi le... l'exige?

[1:18:17] - La question?

[1:18:18] - Ça, ma question.

[1:18:19] - Enquête. Pour moi, la réponse,

[1:18:21] c'est qu'on a toujours besoin

[1:18:23] d'espaces verts à Pointe-Claire,

[1:18:26] on en a pas assez. Notre

[1:18:28] pourcentage d'espaces verts

[1:18:29] n'est pas assez élevé. On a

[1:18:31] l'opportunité, maintenant, de

[1:18:32] garder le minimum pour protéger

[1:18:37] la

[1:18:38] >> Forêt -- to protect the

[1:18:39] forest --

[1:18:40] . En plus, si on permet un gros

[1:18:44] projet du calibre de ce que

[1:18:46] propose le Cadillac Fairview, et

[1:18:48] ils ont besoin d'un espace vert

[1:18:50] correspondant, mais l'espace est

[1:18:51] déjà là, c'est déjà là. Pour

[1:18:54] moi, c'est évident que si vous

[1:18:57] voulez fabriquer quelque chose

[1:18:58] d'aussi gros que ça, il faut

[1:19:00] avoir un espace vert,

[1:19:02] abracadabra, l'espace vert

[1:19:03] >> Abracadabra --

[1:19:04] Est là, il n'est pas nécessaire

[1:19:05] d'en créer un. On a une bonne

[1:19:08] solution minimale pour notre

[1:19:09] ville est déjà.

[1:19:13] - Parce que Cadillac Fairview

[1:19:14] quand ils sont arrivés ici en

[1:19:15] 60, cinq ils ont coupé des

[1:19:17] arbres, avez-vous vu la grosseur

[1:19:19] de la canopée de ces arbres-là?

[1:19:22] 15 pieds, 20 pieds?

[1:19:23] - Oui. Non... Norman, il faut

[1:19:27] qu'on parle... on parle ici

[1:19:30] de...

[1:19:31] - C'est justement...

[1:19:32] - Le processus, ici.

[1:19:34] - O.K.. Merci.

[1:19:35] - Merci, Monsieur.

[1:19:39] >> Susan Weaver, Pointe-Claire.

[1:19:41] I don't know what you are

[1:19:42] discussing in the past. It was

[1:19:45] -- but I would like to know what

[1:19:47] public participation is, what

[1:19:48] you expect of it.

[1:19:49] >> To hear from citizens.

[1:19:51] >> What citizens?

[1:19:52] >> All the citizens, as many as

[1:19:54] can come out.

[1:19:55] >> Citizens? Where

[1:19:56] >> The people of Pointe-Claire.

[1:19:59] >> Just Pointe-Claire? Good

[1:20:02] luck.

[1:20:05] >> Thank you.

[1:20:07] >> When the cruelly,

[1:20:08] Pointe-Claire. I'm a little

[1:20:09] concerned. I just feel this is

[1:20:10] rushed.

[1:20:11] >> Closer to the microphone,

[1:20:15] Miss -- everybody, behind,

[1:20:16] please speak right into the

[1:20:18] microphone.

[1:20:19] >> Is this good?

[1:20:20] >> Right after. Put your lips

[1:20:22] almost on it. Serious -- oh, I

[1:20:24] didn't -- owe, everybody stop.

[1:20:28] >> I'm just concerned. I feel

[1:20:30] it's rushed. I have a question.

[1:20:32] I will try to be specific about

[1:20:33] point A of the resolution. The

[1:20:40] special planning program for the

[1:20:41] City shows the entirety of Mu2

[1:20:43] as being a natural habitat

[1:20:45] mosaic. Point A of the

[1:20:48] resolution says the

[1:20:49] comprehensive plan for Mu2 and

[1:20:51] Mu1 will establish the

[1:20:52] protection of wetlands and

[1:20:53] existing natural habitat mosaic.

[1:20:56] I just want to make certain that

[1:20:58] -- this is mean that the city's

[1:21:01] planning on protecting the

[1:21:02] entirety of the force? I just

[1:21:03] want to --

[1:21:07] >> I would -- speaking for

[1:21:09] myself, yes. Absolutely.

[1:21:11] >> It seems to say that --

[1:21:13] >> The entirety of the forest

[1:21:15] would be the minimum objective.

[1:21:16] >> The minimum objective?

[1:21:19] >> Yes.

[1:21:22] >> Mr. Mayor --

[1:21:23] >> Yes, sir?

[1:21:24] >> What happens up there will be

[1:21:25] the result of public input,

[1:21:26] public participation, including

[1:21:28] Cadillac Fairview. So, what it

[1:21:30] is saying is that, currently,

[1:21:33] there are regulatory protections

[1:21:36] already required for those

[1:21:37] zones. And definitely, that

[1:21:39] would be part of the plan going

[1:21:40] forward. I can't see that

[1:21:42] changing. What they are going to

[1:21:44] be, that will be the result of a

[1:21:47] process that involves the

[1:21:49] public. It is not up to me, it's

[1:21:51] not up to the mayor to dictate

[1:21:53] whatever our views are. That is

[1:21:54] the whole point of this whole

[1:21:55] thing, so that you will have an

[1:21:58] opportunity to present your

[1:21:59] point of view and see where that

[1:22:04] takes us. With the point that

[1:22:09] Ms. Weaver was making about

[1:22:11] public participation, we need to

[1:22:12] have some kind of structure for

[1:22:13] that to happen. What are you

[1:22:14] going to do? Go to the Montréal

[1:22:18] Olympic stadium and try to get

[1:22:20] 32,000 people to go in there and

[1:22:21] say, okay, what are your ideas?

[1:22:23] Obviously, you have the

[1:22:24] structure that conversation

[1:22:25] somehow. We are trying to get

[1:22:26] there. We are trying to figure

[1:22:29] out a structure to have that

[1:22:30] conversation. That is why I

[1:22:31] referred to the start line. The

[1:22:33] start line is, once it is

[1:22:36] settled -- mutual agreements

[1:22:41] only, where that start line is

[1:22:43] going to be -- the reason why it

[1:22:44] has to be a mutual agreement is

[1:22:46] because Cadillac Fairview is

[1:22:47] part of it. Well, we want them

[1:22:48] to be part of it of that

[1:22:51] discussion. And where does it

[1:22:52] lead? Who knows. That is why we

[1:22:56] have the public involved. We

[1:22:57] don't know what the outcome is.

[1:22:58] We might have our own

[1:22:59] preferences. But the idea is to

[1:23:00] allow the public to weigh in.

[1:23:02] And then we see --

[1:23:03] >> It would be nice if the

[1:23:04] public could weigh in before --

[1:23:06] >> That's what we are trying to

[1:23:08] do --

[1:23:09] >> Sorry, go ahead -- sorry

[1:23:13] Councillor Cowan -- what were

[1:23:15] you saying --

[1:23:16] >> -- before hand.

[1:23:18] >> I agree.

[1:23:19] >> But I don't want to keep

[1:23:20] going over that same point. My

[1:23:22] second question is just about

[1:23:23] the mandate later, that is to

[1:23:25] provide guidelines for the

[1:23:26] desire dialogue. When does that

[1:23:27] come into it? And where do we

[1:23:28] get to see that? I don't know

[1:23:29] where that leads to. I don't

[1:23:32] know.

[1:23:36] >> We cannot publish it until

[1:23:38] tomorrow because we don't know

[1:23:40] the result of the resolution

[1:23:41] tonight. So, when we have --

[1:23:44] public tomorrow, probably

[1:23:46] tomorrow. Yeah.

[1:23:49] >> Okay.

[1:23:50] >> Ms. -- the key to your

[1:23:51] question, the first point, is

[1:23:52] that key to the public

[1:23:55] participation process will be

[1:23:57] can determine in conjunction

[1:23:59] with Cadillac Fairview.

[1:24:00] >> Right.

[1:24:01] >> That's the key point in all

[1:24:02] of this.

[1:24:03] >> Thank you.

[1:24:06] >> Good evening. Good evening,

[1:24:09] Mr. Mayor, good evening

[1:24:12] councillors, manager, everyone.

[1:24:13] Thank you so much --

[1:24:14] >> I'm sorry, can you please

[1:24:16] state your name.

[1:24:17] >> Kim Matthews?

[1:24:18] >> Kim Matthews -- two T's -- I

[1:24:26] thought that would at least get

[1:24:27] a bit of a giggle. Because I

[1:24:28] think we need a bit of a giggle

[1:24:30] with what's going on -- with the

[1:24:34] intentions of this -- are likely

[1:24:36] very positive. I am finding it a

[1:24:38] little bit difficult to follow,

[1:24:40] however. We've got a resolution

[1:24:42] for the purpose of ensuring

[1:24:44] public participation in

[1:24:45] determining the future of zones

[1:24:46] Mu1 and Mu2. That's the title of

[1:24:49] a resolution. But then, I have

[1:24:52] been listening, and I took a few

[1:24:53] notes. And at one point -- maybe

[1:24:56] I misunderstood, Councillor

[1:24:58] Cowan. But I heard that you

[1:25:00] mentioned, really, Cadillac

[1:25:01] Fairview would not have a say in

[1:25:02] how this participation took

[1:25:04] place. But then when I read the

[1:25:07] actual resolution, it says that

[1:25:09] a mutually agreeable path for

[1:25:11] that will engage public

[1:25:12] participation in a structured

[1:25:14] process would be one of the

[1:25:15] goals of this particular

[1:25:18] resolution. I am really at a

[1:25:21] loss as to why we need a

[1:25:23] resolution to allow for public

[1:25:26] participation in this particular

[1:25:27] process. I have heard already

[1:25:30] from Ms. Watson -- thanks to Ms.

[1:25:34] Watson's question -- that

[1:25:35] legally, that that is not

[1:25:36] required, that the inclusion of

[1:25:38] Cadillac Fairview in this

[1:25:39] process is not required. So, you

[1:25:42] already have a committee. And I

[1:25:44] would just like to understand,

[1:25:45] why don't you, as a committee,

[1:25:47] just strike up a situation where

[1:25:48] we end up with public

[1:25:50] participation? I took place in

[1:25:54] something just at the end of

[1:25:56] 2022. It was lovely. We were

[1:25:57] down by the water. And we had an

[1:25:59] evening where we gave input on

[1:26:01] what we would like to see from

[1:26:02] the city. So, that was fabulous.

[1:26:04] And I met a number of you there.

[1:26:05] And I'm just wondering -- as I

[1:26:08] said, I think the goal is

[1:26:09] excellent. But I just don't

[1:26:11] understand. And could someone

[1:26:12] tell me why we can't just have

[1:26:14] the same thing without,

[1:26:17] especially if we are in

[1:26:18] litigation -- without consulting

[1:26:21] with Cadillac Fairview? Let's

[1:26:22] get everybody together, discuss

[1:26:25] things and then, from their,

[1:26:26] come up with a resolution that

[1:26:28] would then bring Cadillac

[1:26:30] Fairview into the occasion. So,

[1:26:32] if someone could just explain

[1:26:33] why we need, that would help me.

[1:26:36] >> I don't think we do. So, I

[1:26:38] agree with your question. But I

[1:26:40] will allow someone else that

[1:26:41] thinks we do to answer it.

[1:26:43] >> Mr. Mayor?

[1:26:45] >> With --

[1:26:46] >> The idea is, we want to

[1:26:48] eventually have a comprehensive

[1:26:50] development plan. We can't

[1:26:53] impose that I'm Cadillac

[1:26:54] Fairview. They have to

[1:26:55] voluntarily sign it. They have

[1:26:56] to voluntarily come into it. So,

[1:26:58] the idea is, they will want to

[1:27:00] participate in this process that

[1:27:02] is going to give them an

[1:27:04] opportunity to influence --

[1:27:05] influence, not dictate --

[1:27:08] influence an outcome -- they

[1:27:09] will only be part of this

[1:27:11] process. It will also include

[1:27:12] the public. And the advantage of

[1:27:14] a comprehensive development plan

[1:27:15] is, it goes much further than

[1:27:17] zoning. It goes much further

[1:27:18] then -- so, it is not required

[1:27:22] by law. There is -- we don't

[1:27:25] have to do this. We could go

[1:27:26] directly to public participation

[1:27:27] and have meetings, consult -- we

[1:27:30] could do all that. But we want

[1:27:32] Cadillac Fairview to be there. I

[1:27:34] think it makes sense that they

[1:27:35] are going to be there. Right

[1:27:36] now, we are in litigation with

[1:27:37] them. So, the sole purpose of

[1:27:40] this is to build that trust with

[1:27:42] Cadillac Fairview, each will

[1:27:43] trust, so that we can get to the

[1:27:46] point where we can talk to the

[1:27:47] public. It's not going to

[1:27:50] structure -- we can't work out

[1:27:54] an agreement with Cadillac

[1:27:55] Fairview -- can't get that

[1:27:56] mutual agreement going forward,

[1:27:58] then we will go on our own. It

[1:28:00] is preferable to have our

[1:28:03] partner there. Because they are

[1:28:04] a partner. They own a lot of

[1:28:06] land. That is the preference.

[1:28:08] But if it doesn't work out, it

[1:28:09] does not work out. But we have

[1:28:10] got to give it a shot.

[1:28:12] >> I'm just -- thank you for

[1:28:14] your response. I'm just --

[1:28:16] further to this response, then,

[1:28:17] is there a possibility of maybe

[1:28:18] a friendly amendment on this

[1:28:21] resolution if this were to ever

[1:28:22] go forward? Because, as I am

[1:28:24] reading it, it's that the mutual

[1:28:29] agreeable Pat would also involve

[1:28:31] Cadillac Fairview being in

[1:28:32] favour of the type of public

[1:28:33] participation that takes place.

[1:28:36] And I am -- I don't say that

[1:28:38] that was necessarily the intent.

[1:28:39] But the way I am reading it, it

[1:28:41] is how I am understanding it.

[1:28:42] Thank you.

[1:28:44] >> And if I could just add to

[1:28:47] that, our partner in this city

[1:28:51] -- there are 34,000 residents.

[1:28:54] Each and every one of you has

[1:28:56] equal say to Cadillac Fairview.

[1:28:59] And Cadillac Fairview is not our

[1:29:00] partner. Cadillac Fairview is a

[1:29:02] participant in our city. And you

[1:29:04] all really matter in how we

[1:29:07] engage in this process. And I am

[1:29:10] here to protect you and your

[1:29:11] voice. And it is not a 50/50

[1:29:14] thing here. There are 34,000

[1:29:16] people and a large company. And

[1:29:20] it does not work in a

[1:29:21] partnership. The company has to

[1:29:25] respect and deal with something

[1:29:27] that represents 34,000 people.

[1:29:29] And I want some of them to have

[1:29:31] their voices heard.

[1:29:33] >> --

[1:29:37] >> May I comment?

[1:29:40] >> Of course, Councillor --

[1:29:42] >> Would have come to this

[1:29:43] process, whatever comes out of

[1:29:44] this discussion, will be brought

[1:29:45] back to the administration,

[1:29:47] Council, and directly through to

[1:29:49] you. You will know with this is.

[1:29:51] And if we don't like it as a

[1:29:52] group, like Mr. Cowan said, we

[1:29:56] can change. We can say, no, we

[1:29:57] don't like it. But there has to

[1:29:59] be a start point. So, whatever

[1:30:02] they discuss as brought back,

[1:30:04] it's a setup that communication

[1:30:06] link. Because, whether we like

[1:30:07] it or not, we are falling

[1:30:09] behind, we are not moving

[1:30:10] forward. And the purpose of this

[1:30:12] resolution is to ensure that the

[1:30:14] public is aware that -- that

[1:30:17] Cadillac Fairview is aware, we

[1:30:18] are all aware, that the citizens

[1:30:20] are aware that we are going to

[1:30:21] begin something with them. And

[1:30:22] it basically gives full

[1:30:26] authority to our G G to speak

[1:30:27] with them. And whatever they

[1:30:29] come back will be under the

[1:30:30] review, and our review. So we

[1:30:32] are making sure we get to the

[1:30:34] start line. Again, it will come

[1:30:35] back to us. And we will see. And

[1:30:37] it will be discussed.

[1:30:38] >> Thank you. Thank you,

[1:30:40] Councillor Stork.

[1:30:41] >> May I ask one more question?

[1:30:44] Not

[1:30:45] >> Yes -- if it's quick. --

[1:30:50] >> I've got a couple of

[1:30:53] concerns. -- when you enter into

[1:30:56] a dialogue with, for instance,

[1:30:58] Cadillac Fairview in this case,

[1:30:59] when you have the public undoes

[1:31:00] of commercial interests

[1:31:01] involved, when there are

[1:31:03] quasi-agreements made in those

[1:31:05] situations, trying to

[1:31:08] renegotiate them out can be

[1:31:09] very, very difficult. And I am

[1:31:13] still here wondering why -- I

[1:31:16] understand, eventually, Cadillac

[1:31:18] Fairview needs to be at the

[1:31:20] table. I hope if this ever does

[1:31:24] pass that madame Verdone will be

[1:31:28] with a lawyer. Because if we are

[1:31:29] already in court with him, I

[1:31:30] don't know how this negotiation

[1:31:31] is supposed to take place. But I

[1:31:33] don't see why we just can't have

[1:31:35] public participation fire to

[1:31:38] this step. And so far -- maybe

[1:31:42] when it's brought forward and

[1:31:43] you have a chance to debate it

[1:31:44] as a group I will understand

[1:31:45] better.

[1:31:46] >> --

[1:31:47] >> Thank you.

[1:31:49] >> Councillor -- that's enough.

[1:31:50] >> --

[1:31:52] >> With that to him? Or was that

[1:31:54] to me?

[1:31:56] >> Who is -- to be fair, I was

[1:31:59] actually responding to Stork. He

[1:32:02] acknowledged.

[1:32:04] >> Go ahead, Councillor Stork.

[1:32:05] >> --

[1:32:06] >> Whatever comes out of this,

[1:32:08] is nonbinding. Whatever comes

[1:32:09] back, it's not a written

[1:32:10] document we must adhere to. That

[1:32:12] is -- to the start. Line if they

[1:32:12] come -- back if we disagree with

[1:32:14] it, as a group, as a community,

[1:32:15] as a city, nothing is binding of

[1:32:17] this. It is just to open

[1:32:19] dialogue. It's like a first

[1:32:21] date. Just to understand each

[1:32:24] other. Get an understanding of

[1:32:25] -- how do we want the public to

[1:32:27] participate in this? And we have

[1:32:30] heard an outside firm who would

[1:32:33] be the ones who initiate and who

[1:32:35] would set it up and have the

[1:32:37] public consultations. And an

[1:32:38] outside from that's already been

[1:32:41] hired -- it's due -- to the

[1:32:42] starting line in terms of

[1:32:44] communicating and seeing how we

[1:32:45] can build one together.

[1:32:48] >> I suppose, in my limited

[1:32:49] experience of community work, I

[1:32:51] really like to get my ducks in a

[1:32:52] row with the community first and

[1:32:54] then go forward. But that's my

[1:32:56] own personal preference.

[1:32:57] >> Thank you.

[1:32:58] >> Thank you very much for your

[1:32:59] time.

[1:33:04] >> Hello -- Conway.

[1:33:07] - Le micro, Madame Conway, près

[1:33:09] du micro, s'il vous plaît, pas

[1:33:10] loin.

[1:33:12] >> This resolution was drafted

[1:33:15] by four councillors.

[1:33:16] >> Yes?

[1:33:19] >> Councillor Stainforth, Cowan,

[1:33:20] Eric Stork, and who is the

[1:33:21] fourth one?

[1:33:22] >> Ms. Homan.

[1:33:27] >> Okay. I guess we can ask you

[1:33:28] a question. Because we did not

[1:33:29] hear from you tonight so far. --

[1:33:31] this is your resolution.

[1:33:32] >> -- -- joint -- yes --

[1:33:39] >> I don't see anything about

[1:33:41] dates or timewise. Can you

[1:33:42] address that quickly.

[1:33:44] >> Sorry?

[1:33:45] >> Could you address that? There

[1:33:46] is no dates or limits of time.

[1:33:50] >> I can't --

[1:33:51] >> I can address that -- the

[1:33:54] only reference to time is that

[1:33:57] we would like the resolution, if

[1:33:58] passed, would ask the DG to

[1:34:02] initiate the conversation with

[1:34:05] -- Cadillac Fairview forthwith,

[1:34:06] with which means quickly.

[1:34:10] >> I see there's a mishmash of

[1:34:12] things in here. Why is there

[1:34:17] reference to, whereas a project

[1:34:19] to construct bicycle and

[1:34:21] pedestrian path crossing Highway

[1:34:23] 40 in the city centre -- that

[1:34:24] state of planning -- is this

[1:34:32] going to have an access to, on

[1:34:35] the Cadillac Fairview property,

[1:34:37] the bike path?

[1:34:38] >> That is the goal, ideally,

[1:34:40] yes. If it happens, yes.

[1:34:41] >> -- bike path that is going to

[1:34:44] happen, then it's not going to

[1:34:45] happen. I heard on and off so

[1:34:47] many times. Is this something --

[1:34:49] which government is paying for

[1:34:50] this?

[1:34:51] >> It's in progress. And we

[1:34:54] can't reveal any of the details,

[1:34:57] except that we are hoping -- we

[1:34:59] are hoping -- that we can have

[1:35:00] one.

[1:35:01] >> Is it imminent? Or is it like

[1:35:03] ten years --

[1:35:04] >> Can say. Can't say.

[1:35:06] >> Okay. But Cadillac Fairview

[1:35:08] have to be involved in the

[1:35:09] discussions with this?

[1:35:10] >> No. No.

[1:35:11] >> So, my question is, why is

[1:35:15] this in the document?

[1:35:18] >> That's a good question.

[1:35:19] >> --

[1:35:20] >> He Ms. Homan, we did not hear

[1:35:21] from you much tonight. --

[1:35:23] >> -- would you like Councillor

[1:35:28] Cowan -- would you like

[1:35:31] Councillor Cowan to answer, Ms.

[1:35:33] Conway?

[1:35:34] >> The answer is, that it's to

[1:35:35] indicate that things are moving

[1:35:36] up there, whether we are

[1:35:38] involved or not, whether we get

[1:35:39] through this process or not.

[1:35:40] Things are happening up there.

[1:35:42] >> Okay. So, my interpretation

[1:35:44] of that is that this is just a

[1:35:45] scare tactic. Because that

[1:35:46] sentence does not belong in

[1:35:48] there at all. And I keep hearing

[1:35:50] about the public, the public.

[1:35:52] Members of the public -- and

[1:35:55] mutually agreeable. So, Cadillac

[1:35:57] Fairview will pick which public

[1:35:59] can assist in this?

[1:36:01] >> Well, we don't know.

[1:36:02] >> -- mutually agreeable.

[1:36:08] >> Yep.

[1:36:09] >> So, they will decide which

[1:36:11] public --

[1:36:12] >> They will have an equal voice

[1:36:13] in how the public is to

[1:36:14] participate. They are,

[1:36:16] apparently, our partners,

[1:36:17] according to Councillor Cowan.

[1:36:19] >> They will be partners?

[1:36:20] >> Yeah.

[1:36:21] >> We don't know --

[1:36:22] >> We don't know what the

[1:36:23] partnership is going to result

[1:36:24] in and how you guys are going to

[1:36:25] be allowed to participate. We

[1:36:27] don't know the end result.

[1:36:28] >> Okay. So, that's very

[1:36:29] concerning, like everybody else

[1:36:30] that has mentioned it before me.

[1:36:32] And the last sentence being a

[1:36:35] settlement -- between the city

[1:36:37] and Cadillac Fairview. So, is

[1:36:39] this, like, relating to the

[1:36:40] RCMP? RCI? --

[1:36:46] >> -- City being sued because of

[1:36:48] the RCI? This is the only thing

[1:36:51] -- litigation --

[1:36:52] >> I can't speak to that. I

[1:36:54] can't speak to that.

[1:36:55] >> I think we have a right to

[1:36:56] know.

[1:36:57] >> It is being litigated. I

[1:36:58] can't speak to that. Ma'am --

[1:37:03] madame Conway, I can't speak to

[1:37:05] --

[1:37:06] >> -- legal. The RCI -- Legal --

[1:37:11] >> The RCI's legal -- yes.

[1:37:14] >> So, no judge --

[1:37:15] >> -- I'm not in position to

[1:37:16] speak to that.

[1:37:19] >> Okay. I think it was Eric

[1:37:25] that said it would be

[1:37:26] nonbinding. But if any

[1:37:28] discussions --

[1:37:29] >> Ms. Conway, you have had

[1:37:31] quite a few questions now. I

[1:37:34] will allow you one more. Do you

[1:37:36] have one final question? Is this

[1:37:37] it?

[1:37:38] >> Will any discussion as the

[1:37:40] City has be documented and have

[1:37:42] a legal consequence?

[1:37:43] >> That's a good question.

[1:37:45] Probably not. We are not there.

[1:37:46] I don't even know what the

[1:37:47] structure of the conversation is

[1:37:48] going to be.

[1:37:49] >> Can any member of the city

[1:37:51] that have a conversation, will

[1:37:52] have a legal consequence of what

[1:37:55] is said?

[1:37:57] >> Apparently, these

[1:37:58] conversations can be had in

[1:38:01] spite of the court case. That is

[1:38:04] my understanding. Am I wrong on

[1:38:10] that one, Madame table?

[1:38:11] >> That's correct --

[1:38:16] Mr. Thomas, you did mention at

[1:38:19] the beginning of the meeting,

[1:38:21] but if duration is -- that

[1:38:22] >> We are at the 90 minutes?

[1:38:23] >> We went two minutes farther

[1:38:25] last night. -- fast question,

[1:38:27] and then the man behind you can

[1:38:30] have a very fast question?

[1:38:34] - Daniel Montpetit. Depuis

[1:38:35] tantôt, j'entends parler du

[1:38:38] Cadillac Fairview, qu'est-ce que

[1:38:39] ça va nous prendre pour...

[1:38:40] >> Excuse, me excuse -- me hang

[1:38:43] on, Mr. --

[1:38:44] (interpreter)

[1:38:45] could we refrain

[1:38:46] - C'est from discussing in beau.

[1:38:47] Et là, on the room? Thank you.

[1:38:48] Parle de Cadillac Fairview qui

[1:38:49] veulent agrandir...

[1:38:51] >> Thank you -- avant de

[1:38:52] commencer à yes, -- parler de

[1:38:53] ça... yes excuse me -- attendez,

[1:38:55] monsieur Montpetit... someone is

[1:38:56] being assured out.

[1:39:05] Oui, Monsieur, je m'excuse.

[1:39:07] - Bon, on recommence! On parle

[1:39:09] de Cadillac Fairview qui veulent

[1:39:10] bâtir, pour savoir ce qu'ils

[1:39:13] vont faire, on a une place, ici,

[1:39:17] à Pointe-Claire qui ont été,

[1:39:18] fait, ça a été bâti, il y a du

[1:39:22] monde qui a des problèmes avec

[1:39:24] l'eau, ça se remplit, il me

[1:39:28] semble que Cadillac Fairview

[1:39:29] devrait passer après les

[1:39:31] troubles qu'on a avant de

[1:39:32] commencer à se faire d'autres

[1:39:34] troubles, ça ne serait pas une

[1:39:35] bonne idée, ça, régler un

[1:39:37] problème qui est encore là avant

[1:39:39] d'en causer un, autre peut-être?

[1:39:42] - Quelqu'un a déjà posé cette

[1:39:45] question. On en a déjà parlé, de

[1:39:48] ça.

[1:39:49] - L'autre affaire, on est assis,

[1:39:52] ça ne marche pas bien, le

[1:39:55] (inaudible)

[1:39:56] .

[1:39:57] - Les haut-parleurs ne marchent

[1:39:58] pas bien en bas. Oui, Monsieur?

[1:40:00] >> Just a point of

[1:40:01] Clarification, before I --

[1:40:02] >> The microphone? The

[1:40:04] microphone? Can't hear you --

[1:40:05] >> Can you please state your

[1:40:06] name?

[1:40:07] >> Yes, my name is David

[1:40:11] Fletcher. I'm not a resident of

[1:40:12] Pointe-Claire. I'm a resident of

[1:40:14] the West Island and I'm the vice

[1:40:16] president of the green

[1:40:17] coalition. It represents many of

[1:40:19] the people here in

[1:40:20] Pointe-Claire. Just before I

[1:40:24] make a comment --

[1:40:25] >> The microphone? The

[1:40:27] microphone, Mr. Fletcher,

[1:40:29] because nobody -- can hear you.

[1:40:31] Take it right out or maybe --

[1:40:33] >> Okay. Maybe a clarification

[1:40:34] is whether or not your council

[1:40:37] considers itself to be a

[1:40:38] sustainable development

[1:40:39] administration.

[1:40:42] >> We would hope to be. We are

[1:40:44] one year in --

[1:40:45] >> The you have a policy --

[1:40:47] >> We have a pretty good

[1:40:49] environmental policy. Hopefully,

[1:40:50] we can live up to -- it

[1:40:51] >> There are certain things

[1:40:52] about your policy, Mr. Mayor,

[1:40:55] that are questionable.

[1:40:56] >> Okay.

[1:40:57] >> Number one --

[1:40:59] >> Yeah, this is not on topic,

[1:41:02] Mr. Fletcher -- you have to

[1:41:03] speak to the resolution.

[1:41:04] >> The resolution --

[1:41:05] >> And the mandate --

[1:41:07] >> Well, can you make it up

[1:41:08] really quickly?

[1:41:10] >> Yes, yes. I just noticed --

[1:41:14] the whereas, and to the things,

[1:41:16] that are there, are having to do

[1:41:17] with the economics of the city

[1:41:18] center. There is no concurrent

[1:41:25] noting of the ecological and

[1:41:28] social vitality of the city

[1:41:29] center. That is something agree

[1:41:32] justly missing for a Council

[1:41:34] that considers itself to be

[1:41:36] committed to sustainable

[1:41:38] development. What is missing in

[1:41:40] your policy is, in fact, citizen

[1:41:43] participation. Even though it is

[1:41:45] included in Québec's

[1:41:47] sustainability law -- it is

[1:41:52] article six hyphen E --

[1:41:55] >> We are not, we are not --

[1:41:56] >> --

[1:41:58] >> Excuse me, Mr. Fletcher --

[1:42:00] minor standing is, there's no --

[1:42:03] emphasis on the environment in

[1:42:05] this resolution and the proposal

[1:42:06] that is going to be discussed.

[1:42:07] >> I would just like to point,

[1:42:09] what's in your policy, with

[1:42:10] respect to Cadillac Fairview.

[1:42:12] >> Okay.

[1:42:13] >> On page 37, what you don't

[1:42:15] have -- but

[1:42:16] >> We are not speaking to our

[1:42:18] policy right now, on the

[1:42:19] environment. We are not speaking

[1:42:22] to that -- Mr. Fletcher --

[1:42:24] >> That's the way your council

[1:42:27] decides on these issues.

[1:42:30] >> Okay.

[1:42:31] >> It should be, if you have a

[1:42:32] policy, your councillors should

[1:42:34] be deciding abiding.

[1:42:36] >> So, you are saying -- if we

[1:42:38] understand our by mental policy

[1:42:39] correctly, we should abide by in

[1:42:42] construction of resolution such

[1:42:43] as this?

[1:42:44] >> Absolutely.

[1:42:45] >> Okay.

[1:42:46] >> And you don't feel it is

[1:42:47] sufficient?

[1:42:48] >> Yes. Absolutely. And I will

[1:42:50] point out one thing, by the way.

[1:42:52] On page 37 of your policy,

[1:42:54] although there is no mention at

[1:42:56] the very beginning of the right

[1:42:59] -- the citizen participation

[1:43:00] that is included in Québec

[1:43:02] sustainability law, you do make

[1:43:06] reference to working with local

[1:43:11] players. Not citizens -- local

[1:43:13] players. May I point out that

[1:43:16] your policy -- according to your

[1:43:17] policy, Cadillac Fairview would

[1:43:19] get the honour of that rather

[1:43:22] than your own citizens, 34,000

[1:43:24] of them.

[1:43:25] >> Okay. Councillor

[1:43:27] Thorstad-Cullen?

[1:43:28] >> I would just invite you --

[1:43:29] please, all the comments, the

[1:43:32] sustainable development

[1:43:34] committee is --

[1:43:35] >> --

[1:43:36] >> -- talking about the

[1:43:37] resolution.

[1:43:38] >> -- much more pertinent --

[1:43:39] >> Is it about the resolution?

[1:43:41] >> --

[1:43:42] >> -- about the RCI --

[1:43:44] >> You should bring it back. We

[1:43:45] want to hear these things --

[1:43:47] >> May I, by the way, address

[1:43:48] myself to your mayor, and not to

[1:43:50] a councillor who, should, in

[1:43:53] fact be speaking only at the

[1:43:54] sufferings of your mayor?

[1:43:55] >> She actually asked me to

[1:43:59] speak, Mr. Fletcher --

[1:44:00] >> She did ask me to speak.

[1:44:03] >> Mr. Fletcher --

[1:44:06] >> RCI --

[1:44:07] >> Do you have a question? A

[1:44:09] question? A question? We are

[1:44:11] running low on time. If you have

[1:44:14] a pregnant question --

[1:44:15] >> -- very patiently, Mister

[1:44:16] Mayor.

[1:44:17] >> I know you have.

[1:44:23] There is a process that is going

[1:44:24] to take place in the next months

[1:44:27] in which there will be public

[1:44:30] input. In fact it's ongoing and

[1:44:33] municipalities in the CNN are

[1:44:34] going making our own been put

[1:44:38] I was there in 2011,

[1:44:40] participated in and contributed

[1:44:43] to the process that resulted in

[1:44:48] it being adopted.

[1:44:49] >> How is this relevant to what

[1:44:50] we are talking about tonight,

[1:44:52] Mr. Fletcher?

[1:44:53] >> This is important.

[1:44:54] >> But Mr. -- yeah, Mr. Fletcher

[1:44:56] --

[1:44:57] >> Allow me to make this point.

[1:44:58] >> Okay, but, can you summarize?

[1:45:01] >> Yes, I'll get to the point

[1:45:02] very quickly. When it was

[1:45:08] adopted, by the end of 2023,

[1:45:12] your council will have to bring

[1:45:14] its urban plan into conformity

[1:45:15] with it. So, any consultation

[1:45:20] that takes place, whether it's

[1:45:22] Cadillac vary, or any of your

[1:45:25] 34,000 citizens, it'll be

[1:45:27] irrelevant until you have a

[1:45:30] document presented to you by the

[1:45:32] PMAD that will establish the

[1:45:35] criteria against which you are

[1:45:37] going to have to act.

[1:45:38] >> Okay. Is that it? Is that

[1:45:41] your --

[1:45:42] >> That's pretty much it.

[1:45:43] >> Okay, right now, you know, I

[1:45:45] mean, with obstruction, in, oh I

[1:45:48] think this is really -- I've

[1:45:49] been watching your council, the

[1:45:51] way it operates, Mister Mayor,

[1:45:52] you should be exercising far

[1:45:54] more control over these

[1:45:56] dissidents councillors --

[1:45:57] >> They were --

[1:45:59] >> You have, by the -- way

[1:46:00] >> No clapping, please, no

[1:46:02] clapping.

[1:46:03] >> People who elected to these

[1:46:05] councillors, and put them in by

[1:46:07] a majority as councillors, are

[1:46:09] the same people who --

[1:46:10] >> Point of order, please. Can

[1:46:12] we end this conversation?

[1:46:14] >> Excuse me --

[1:46:15] >> Mister Mayor? Please --

[1:46:18] >> Excuse me.

[1:46:21] >> Civility --

[1:46:22] >> Excuse me. Excuse me. Now,

[1:46:26] thank you, Mr. Fletcher.

[1:46:28] >> I've been given a short --

[1:46:30] >> While, we are out of time,

[1:46:32] Mr. Fletcher, with all due

[1:46:33] respect, or out of time. Thank

[1:46:34] you, very much.

[1:46:40] >> Okay, so, let's proceed to

[1:46:42] voting on the resolution. I

[1:46:45] suggest we start with the people

[1:46:47] who created it. Councillor

[1:46:49] Cowan, would you like to explain

[1:46:50] your vote?

[1:46:53] >> First, we need to move --

[1:46:55] >> It has to be moved and

[1:46:56] seconded.

[1:46:58] >> What?

[1:46:59] >> Order to move the resolutions

[1:47:01] before us, I have a speech I

[1:47:06] prepared. I'm kind of

[1:47:10] apprehensive about it,

[1:47:12] delivering it, because it's been

[1:47:14] such a long evening, and it's

[1:47:16] going to go over points that

[1:47:17] have been raised. However, I

[1:47:18] think I really need to because I

[1:47:20] have to put, I think, I think we

[1:47:22] need to put things in order, in

[1:47:24] sequence. There is a timeline of

[1:47:27] this process that I think needs

[1:47:28] to be addressed. I will go

[1:47:31] through it. Please be patient.

[1:47:34] >> There is a 15 minute

[1:47:35] timeline.

[1:47:36] >> It'll be far less than 15

[1:47:37] minutes, that's for sure.

[1:47:39] >> Okay.

[1:47:40] >> I'd like to speak to the road

[1:47:43] that's brought us to this point.

[1:47:44] Pointe-Claire has been buffeted

[1:47:45] by threats to the environment,

[1:47:48] pressures caused by

[1:47:49] identification, and an

[1:47:50] overheated real estate market

[1:47:51] that are opposing themselves in

[1:47:53] almost every aspect of what

[1:47:54] makes our city our community so

[1:47:57] special. There is a completely

[1:47:59] understandable and legitimate

[1:48:00] fear that our city will change

[1:48:02] forever, and those changes will

[1:48:04] ruin what we all love most about

[1:48:05] it. It's the manifest duty of

[1:48:07] Council to understand that very

[1:48:09] real and legitimate fear, and to

[1:48:12] act on it, to respect the

[1:48:13] concerns of our citizens, and to

[1:48:15] address those concerns, and in

[1:48:17] doing so, find a path forward,

[1:48:19] our citizens, our city could

[1:48:21] accept and follow. With that in

[1:48:23] mind, a year ago, Council passed

[1:48:25] the interim control resolution.

[1:48:27] Provincial law allows us this

[1:48:29] measure which creates a

[1:48:30] three-month temporary halt to

[1:48:32] development in a specific area

[1:48:33] of our city, in order to allow

[1:48:35] us the time we need to plan the

[1:48:37] next steps. We took those three

[1:48:40] months to complete a detailed

[1:48:42] path forward that would allow

[1:48:43] for full, public participation,

[1:48:45] and determination of their

[1:48:47] express collective vision of our

[1:48:49] future, and incorporate that

[1:48:50] vision into our planning

[1:48:51] program, and zoning bylaws. That

[1:48:55] plan mapped out a detailed

[1:48:56] two-year process that would end

[1:48:58] with a revised planning program

[1:49:00] and zoning bylaws coming into

[1:49:01] force in the summer of 2024. In

[1:49:05] May of 2022, council passed the

[1:49:07] interim control bylaw to extend

[1:49:09] the temporary hold of

[1:49:11] development so we could

[1:49:12] implement that plan. Last June,

[1:49:14] I sent a letter to mayor Thomas

[1:49:16] expressing my alarm that we were

[1:49:18] not progressing along the

[1:49:19] critical path timeline, the

[1:49:21] planning department had

[1:49:22] presented to us. I told him I

[1:49:23] felt my duty compelled me to

[1:49:25] bring this to his attention, to

[1:49:26] bring to his attention the lack

[1:49:28] of progress being made, to

[1:49:29] follow through on the interim

[1:49:30] control measure is authorized by

[1:49:33] Council five months earlier. The

[1:49:35] groundwork should already have

[1:49:37] been done then four would still

[1:49:39] waited to be done, and in fact,

[1:49:40] for what we are still waiting to

[1:49:42] be done. Like public

[1:49:44] participation. Steady progress

[1:49:46] ought to have been made that

[1:49:47] would lead to the participation

[1:49:48] of the public last fall. That

[1:49:50] was when it was on the original

[1:49:53] schedule. I received no response

[1:49:54] from Mayor Thomas, and so, with

[1:49:57] the five July public meeting of

[1:49:58] Council, I expressed my concerns

[1:50:00] and filed my letter so that all

[1:50:01] would be out in the open. The

[1:50:04] summer yield into the fall,

[1:50:05] which itself has given way to

[1:50:06] the winter of 2023. The act of

[1:50:09] participation of the public and

[1:50:11] open for still remains somewhere

[1:50:12] on the horizon. It keeps

[1:50:13] receding, like a shimmering rock

[1:50:14] in the desert. However, that's

[1:50:18] not to say that everything stood

[1:50:20] still. A workshop with Council

[1:50:22] and caucus, organized by the

[1:50:23] planning department was held two

[1:50:24] weeks after the five July public

[1:50:26] meeting. They, are we began to

[1:50:28] discuss the factors affecting

[1:50:29] our city, included in that

[1:50:32] discussion was the birth of the

[1:50:33] idea to work out with Cadillac

[1:50:35] Fairview and eventual

[1:50:37] comprehensive development plan

[1:50:38] for zone Mu1. That led to

[1:50:40] subsequent discussion of the

[1:50:43] means to get their, given to

[1:50:44] fundamental requirements, a, a

[1:50:45] comprehensive development plan

[1:50:47] would have to be entered into

[1:50:49] voluntarily by Cadillac

[1:50:50] Fairview, and to, be, the public

[1:50:52] would have to be intimately

[1:50:54] involved in the process. Off one

[1:50:56] of the planning staff, back came

[1:50:58] the planning staff with another

[1:51:00] idea. They had examined how our

[1:51:02] neighbouring city of Kirkland

[1:51:04] had angled a similar pattern

[1:51:05] with respect to the

[1:51:06] redevelopment of the mark frost

[1:51:08] property right beside the purity

[1:51:09] forest. After a false start that

[1:51:12] it provoked an immediate public

[1:51:13] outcry, they came up with a

[1:51:15] better plan B. The basis of

[1:51:17] their plan B was to establish a

[1:51:18] citizen based task force with

[1:51:21] support from the city's planning

[1:51:22] professionals to work with the

[1:51:24] developer and to bring in the

[1:51:25] larger public and regular

[1:51:27] intervals with the objective of

[1:51:29] establishing a project that

[1:51:30] could develop, and build and

[1:51:32] enjoy broad public support. It

[1:51:34] worked. That is why the planning

[1:51:37] department proposed we base our

[1:51:39] path forward for Mu1 on the

[1:51:42] Kirkland example. In order to

[1:51:43] get their, in order to bring in

[1:51:45] the public via this task force,

[1:51:47] and associate it at open forms,

[1:51:49] we had to reach out to Cadillac

[1:51:50] Fairview. Remember, we need them

[1:51:52] to agree to the terms of a

[1:51:54] comprehensive development plan

[1:51:55] that would specify what would go

[1:51:58] into Mu1 in far more detail than

[1:52:01] penetrating way that is possible

[1:52:02] through zoning or straight

[1:52:04] bylaws. Council and caucus

[1:52:05] approved this approach, and a

[1:52:06] letter was sent to Cadillac

[1:52:08] Fairview with an outlying

[1:52:09] proposal. Cadillac Fairview sent

[1:52:11] a response that was cautiously

[1:52:13] favourable. Details would have

[1:52:15] to be worked out, and they

[1:52:17] stipulated that Mu2 would have

[1:52:19] be brought in the scope of the

[1:52:20] task force approach. Now,

[1:52:23] bringing in Mu2 to this approach

[1:52:25] simply means that, through this,

[1:52:26] the public can now weigh in on

[1:52:27] the future of the Fairview

[1:52:29] forest, which you all want. That

[1:52:31] does not mean a single square

[1:52:33] inch of it will be developed. It

[1:52:35] means the public can weigh in in

[1:52:38] this process. A comprehensive

[1:52:40] development plan for Mu1 and Mu2

[1:52:43] could forever protect the

[1:52:44] Fairview forest as is. That

[1:52:45] would be on the table. Remember,

[1:52:48] agreeing to a process commits no

[1:52:49] one to an outcome, only a good

[1:52:52] faith effort to try. All

[1:52:54] together, public included, to

[1:52:56] find one. Furthermore, if this

[1:52:58] process would lead to a

[1:53:00] successful outcome, the lawsuit

[1:53:01] filed by Cadillac Fairview would

[1:53:03] itself be settled. This has been

[1:53:06] confirmed by our legal counsel.

[1:53:08] Caucus then deliberated on the

[1:53:10] next step. It was decided we

[1:53:12] would authorize the director

[1:53:13] general to offer to speak face

[1:53:15] to face with representatives of

[1:53:17] Cadillac Fairview in order to

[1:53:19] make it abundantly clear to all

[1:53:20] parties, including the general

[1:53:21] public, just what the objective

[1:53:23] and limits to the face to face

[1:53:25] would be, a mandate letter was

[1:53:27] drafted by the director general

[1:53:29] and presented to caucus for

[1:53:30] approval. That letter, and its

[1:53:33] formal approval Mu2, is being

[1:53:34] filed with this resolution.

[1:53:36] Suddenly, just before the

[1:53:38] Christmas break, after we have

[1:53:39] all, staff and caucus,

[1:53:41] participated in good faith, in a

[1:53:43] five month profits to move it

[1:53:45] along, this far, we abruptly

[1:53:47] confronted with an alternative

[1:53:48] strategy to delay, delay, and

[1:53:51] delay indefinitely. On January

[1:53:53] 3rd, I wrote an email to the

[1:53:55] mayor that began a thread, which

[1:53:57] I will now file, with the city

[1:53:58] clerk. In that email to the

[1:54:03] mayor, I ask him to call a

[1:54:05] special meeting so Council

[1:54:06] could, with complete openness

[1:54:07] and transparency, commit to a

[1:54:09] process, not an outcome, that

[1:54:11] would finally and delay, and

[1:54:13] lead us towards beginning the

[1:54:15] meaningful participation of the

[1:54:16] public, in determining the

[1:54:17] future of their city by first

[1:54:19] dealing with the most

[1:54:21] consequential sectors, Mu1 and

[1:54:23] Mu2. Once that is determined

[1:54:25] with broad public support, or at

[1:54:27] least is on a firm path in that

[1:54:29] direction, we can then serenely

[1:54:31] deal with all the other areas

[1:54:32] covered by the interim control

[1:54:34] bylaw. Four days later, I

[1:54:36] received the mayor's response,

[1:54:37] which shut the door on both the

[1:54:39] resolution and, shockingly, the

[1:54:40] whole Kirkland task force model

[1:54:42] we've been working on since this

[1:54:43] summer, and the outreach by the

[1:54:45] planning department to get

[1:54:46] elected to that began several

[1:54:47] weeks earlier. Flabbergasted, I

[1:54:50] assumed he did not understand. I

[1:54:52] send a follow-up email, included

[1:54:53] in the thread, where he detailed

[1:54:55] the exact argument for

[1:54:56] proceeding with the mandate

[1:54:58] letter dialogue with Cadillac

[1:54:59] Fairview suggesting we hold a

[1:55:01] special meeting before the

[1:55:02] regular meeting on the 17th of

[1:55:03] this month. I received no

[1:55:05] response. The only conclusion

[1:55:07] that could be drawn is the mayor

[1:55:09] had no intention to follow

[1:55:10] through on what this City staff

[1:55:12] had proposed, his staff, but

[1:55:14] Council and caucus had

[1:55:15] supported, and what the City

[1:55:16] staff had been actively pursuing

[1:55:17] since the summer before. Five

[1:55:20] months of effort was to be

[1:55:22] checked. Following the mayor's

[1:55:23] refusal in caucus to call for a

[1:55:25] special meeting, a letter was

[1:55:26] sent to the city clerk or the

[1:55:28] requisite number of signatures

[1:55:29] to override the Mayor's refusal,

[1:55:31] call for a special meeting to be

[1:55:32] convened on 19th of January,

[1:55:34] tonight. The purpose of the

[1:55:36] meeting is to put a resolution

[1:55:38] before Council that would

[1:55:39] formally and publicly ask the

[1:55:41] director general to offer to

[1:55:43] speak with representatives of

[1:55:44] Cadillac Fairview to explore

[1:55:46] within the limitations of

[1:55:47] authorities in the mandate

[1:55:49] letter, and nonbinding path

[1:55:51] forward that would ultimately

[1:55:52] lead to the full participation

[1:55:53] of the public, which includes

[1:55:55] Cadillac Fairview, and in

[1:55:57] determining the expression of

[1:55:58] the public's collective vision

[1:56:00] of the future for zones Mu1 and

[1:56:04] and Mu2, and integration of that

[1:56:07] vision that the public at large

[1:56:09] and Cadillac Fairview would both

[1:56:10] endorse. That is the aim. So,

[1:56:14] with that all said, I am done

[1:56:16] with my preamble. Without all,

[1:56:18] said the background fully

[1:56:20] explained as best I can, I will

[1:56:23] not proceed with the resolution.

[1:56:29] - Attendu que le règlement de

[1:56:31] contrôle intérimaire a été mis

[1:56:33] en place comme mesures

[1:56:34] tentait... temporaires afin

[1:56:36] de... donner aux conseillers le

[1:56:39] temps nécessaire pour réviser le

[1:56:41] plan d'urbanisme, que les

[1:56:47] conseillers répondent mieux aux

[1:56:48] préoccupations de nos citoyens

[1:56:49] en matière d'environnement,

[1:56:51] d'identification et de

[1:56:55] préservation des éléments

[1:56:56] particuliers de Pointe-Claire.

[1:57:00] Attendu qu'un secteur important

[1:57:01] de notre ville

[1:57:04] (---)

[1:57:05] ce qui exige que la

[1:57:06] planification de son avenir

[1:57:07] soient traités en priorité.

[1:57:09] Attendu l'arrivée imminente du

[1:57:11] service de trains légers REM a

[1:57:16] un impact énorme sur le

[1:57:19] potentiel économique du

[1:57:20] centre-ville, attendu la

[1:57:24] passerelle cyclistes et piétons

[1:57:26] qui traversent l'autoroute 40

[1:57:27] au-dessus du centre-ville a...

[1:57:30] est à un stade avancé, attendu

[1:57:36] que In la English, whereas an

[1:57:38] interim zone Mu2 est control

[1:57:39] bylaw has been un milieu put

[1:57:40] into effect as humide... a

[1:57:41] temporary

[1:57:42] Measure to give Council the time

[1:57:43] necessary to revise our planning

[1:57:45] program bylaws, such that,

[1:57:46] within the context of the

[1:57:48] planning objectives of the

[1:57:49] Montréal metropolitan community,

[1:57:51] it better addresses the concerns

[1:57:52] of our citizens regarding the

[1:57:54] Environment, Mr. Fletcher,

[1:57:56] densification, and preservation

[1:57:57] of those elements that

[1:57:59] contribute to the special

[1:58:00] character of Pointe-Claire.

[1:58:02] Whereas the most significant

[1:58:04] area of our city with respect to

[1:58:06] its continued economic vitality

[1:58:07] is the city center, which

[1:58:09] further requires its planned

[1:58:11] future be addressed as a

[1:58:13] priority, whereas the imminent

[1:58:14] arrival of the REM light rail

[1:58:16] service has enormously impacted

[1:58:18] the economic potential of the

[1:58:20] city center, or as the project

[1:58:22] to construct a pedestrian and

[1:58:23] bicycle overpass crossing

[1:58:25] Highway 40 in the city centre is

[1:58:27] in an advanced state of

[1:58:28] planning, whereas the Québec

[1:58:30] Ministry of the Environment has

[1:58:32] mandated the protection of the

[1:58:33] wetland within Mu2. Je, Brent

[1:58:44] Cowan, district numéro 8,

[1:58:49] propose que madame

[1:58:50] (---)

[1:58:51] rencontrent les participants du

[1:58:53] Cadillac Fairview à huis clos

[1:58:55] afin d'engager les démarches

[1:58:57] acceptables afin d'impliquer les

[1:59:01] membres du public dans un plan

[1:59:04] acceptable pour les zones Mu1 et

[1:59:08] Mu2, qui établira de un, la

[1:59:11] protection des zones humides et

[1:59:13] des mosaïques existantes, de

[1:59:14] deux, les limites d'aménagement

[1:59:17] qui répondront à la vision

[1:59:19] collective exprimée par les

[1:59:20] citoyens de Pointe-Claire, tout

[1:59:21] en tenant compte des intérêts

[1:59:24] commerciaux du Cadillac

[1:59:25] Fairview. Que la lettre de

[1:59:26] mandat du conseiller à la

[1:59:28] Chine... directrice générale qui

[1:59:30] doit fournir les lignes

[1:59:31] directrices pour le dialogue

[1:59:32] souhaité avec les représentants

[1:59:34] du Cadillac Fairview soient

[1:59:35] déposés lors de l'adoption de la

[1:59:37] présente résolution et qu'elle

[1:59:39] en fasse partie intégrante, que

[1:59:42] la directrice générale tiennent

[1:59:43] le conseil au courant de

[1:59:46] l'évolution des discussions et

[1:59:48] que la présente résolution et

[1:59:50] les démarches et les discussions

[1:59:52] qui en découleront s'inscrivent

[1:59:54] dans une volonté de régler le

[1:59:59] litige impliquant la ville et le

[2:00:00] Cadillac Fairview. That this

[2:00:01] council, be it

[2:00:02] Resolved, this council requires

[2:00:05] -- desires the city manager to

[2:00:07] meet forth with representatives

[2:00:10] of Cadillac Fairview in-camera,

[2:00:11] in an effort to work out with

[2:00:13] them a mutually agreeable path

[2:00:15] forward that would engage public

[2:00:17] participation in a structured

[2:00:18] process, having as a subject of

[2:00:20] the creation of a comprehensive

[2:00:22] development plan for zones Mu1

[2:00:24] and Mu2 that would establish, A,

[2:00:27] protections of the wetlands and

[2:00:28] existing natural habitat mosaic,

[2:00:31] be, development limitations and

[2:00:33] possibilities that will satisfy

[2:00:35] the express collective issue of

[2:00:36] the citizens of Pointe-Claire

[2:00:38] well concurrently addressing the

[2:00:40] commercial interests of Cadillac

[2:00:41] Fairview, and the mandate letter

[2:00:43] to the city manager from Council

[2:00:44] that is to provide guidelines

[2:00:46] with a desired ballot with

[2:00:47] officials from Cadillac Fairview

[2:00:49] be filed with passage of this

[2:00:51] resolution, and be integral to

[2:00:53] this resolution, and the city

[2:00:54] manager will update Council as a

[2:00:57] dialogue advances, and that this

[2:00:59] resolution and the steps and

[2:01:01] discussions that will result

[2:01:02] from it may aid in a furtherance

[2:01:04] of a possible settlement of

[2:01:05] litigation between the city and

[2:01:07] Cadillac Fairview. I so move.

[2:01:12] >> Okay. Councillor Tara

[2:01:16] Stainforth?

[2:01:17] - -- we need ça prend... oui. A

[2:01:18] seconder.

[2:01:20] >> Now, actually, I wrap

[2:01:22] something as well, but it seems

[2:01:24] Brent has covered all the

[2:01:26] topics, which is why I don't

[2:01:27] want to repeat. It's clear he

[2:01:30] hit all the buttons, and

[2:01:31] especially the need for a

[2:01:33] resolution, because a resolution

[2:01:35] is binding, and basically

[2:01:37] mandates our administration to

[2:01:39] follow forward with the request

[2:01:40] of Council, majority of Council.

[2:01:42] With that, I second the motion.

[2:01:43] >> Okay.

[2:01:48] >> Councillor Cynthia Homan?

[2:01:52] Now, we're not voting. Did you

[2:01:53] want to speak to it? Not yet,

[2:01:55] we're going to speak to it.

[2:01:58] Would you like to speak?

[2:02:01] >> I think Councillor Cowan and

[2:02:04] Councillor Stork has said

[2:02:05] everything, I'm aware of

[2:02:07] everything in the letter, and

[2:02:08] everything is there, so, I'm

[2:02:10] happy with that, nothing else to

[2:02:11] say.

[2:02:12] >> Thank you. Councillor

[2:02:13] Stainforth?

[2:02:15] >> I won't speak for long

[2:02:16] because I believe Councillor

[2:02:18] Cowan has really crossed all the

[2:02:20] t's and dot it all the ice,

[2:02:23] except just to reiterate the

[2:02:26] fact that, yes, this resolution

[2:02:28] is binding, so it means our

[2:02:30] director general must now take

[2:02:32] this step. It also means the

[2:02:35] letter that was not going to be

[2:02:36] public will now be public, so

[2:02:37] I'm happy about that. The public

[2:02:40] now knows exactly what we've

[2:02:42] been discussing as a Council for

[2:02:45] the last five months, and how

[2:02:47] things are going to move

[2:02:48] forward.

[2:02:50] >> Councillor Kelly

[2:02:51] Thorstad-Cullen.

[2:02:54] >> No further comments, much has

[2:02:56] been said this evening, thank

[2:02:57] you.

[2:02:58] >> Councillor Tremblay?

[2:03:03] - Oui, merci, Monsieur le Maire,

[2:03:04] j'ai des commentaires à faire.

[2:03:06] Premièrement, partout au pays,

[2:03:08] les villes donne aux citoyens

[2:03:10] les moyens de s'exprimer dans la

[2:03:12] façon dont les projets sont

[2:03:14] faites, c'est ce qui se passe

[2:03:16] dans notre propre cour, Dorval,

[2:03:18] Lachine... l'objectif de la

[2:03:20] démocratie participative est de

[2:03:21] faire en sorte que tout le monde

[2:03:23] a son mot à dire, les résidents,

[2:03:25] les experts, et les

[2:03:26] administrateurs de la ville et,

[2:03:27] oui, les promoteurs. La

[2:03:30] résolution actuelle ne respecte

[2:03:31] pas cette idée, d'après moi,

[2:03:32] elle est faite à l'ancienne.

[2:03:35] Elle donne à un tiers parti,

[2:03:36] dans ce cas, si Cadillac

[2:03:39] Fairview, la possibilité de

[2:03:41] s'intégrer d'une manière ou

[2:03:42] d'une autre pour se donner une

[2:03:45] place à la table sur la façon

[2:03:47] dont nous aller organiser notre

[2:03:50] partie... processus de

[2:03:52] participation publique et de ce

[2:03:54] que devraient être les

[2:03:55] règlements au préalable. La

[2:03:57] résolution proposée ce soir par

[2:03:58] les autres membres du conseil

[2:04:00] n'est tout simplement pas

[2:04:02] acceptable.... Je ne reviendrai

[2:04:04] pas sur mon engagement et mon

[2:04:06] respect pour les citoyens de

[2:04:07] cette ville en acceptant cette

[2:04:10] résolution, ils devront veiller

[2:04:12] à ce que les résidents

[2:04:14] directement concernés par le

[2:04:16] projet de développement aient

[2:04:17] une chance d'égale à égale de

[2:04:20] s'inclure sans condition ou dans

[2:04:22] des discussions préalables.

[2:04:23] Néanmoins... nationwide, cities

[2:04:24] are giving

[2:04:25] Citizens a real voice on how

[2:04:27] developments are being planned.

[2:04:28] It's being done in our backyard,

[2:04:30] Dorval, Kirkland, St. ends,

[2:04:31] machine, et cetera. Very aim of

[2:04:35] participatory urban planning,

[2:04:38] public participation, to ensure

[2:04:39] everyone has an equal chance to

[2:04:42] express a viewpoint on a

[2:04:44] transformation of a space, the

[2:04:46] residents who live in the area,

[2:04:47] experts, city administrators,

[2:04:49] and yes, developers. The current

[2:04:51] resolution does not respect this

[2:04:52] idea, in my opinion. It does it

[2:04:54] the old-fashioned way. That

[2:04:57] gives a third-party, Cadillac

[2:04:58] Fairview, in this case,

[2:04:59] potentially, possibly, maybe,

[2:05:01] we've heard a few, slightly

[2:05:03] contradicting angles as to how

[2:05:04] this might happen tonight, a

[2:05:05] seat at the table on how we are

[2:05:07] going to organize our public

[2:05:10] criticism -- and what the rule

[2:05:11] should be beforehand. The

[2:05:13] concerns, I will pause here to

[2:05:14] address the concerns that Mrs.

[2:05:16] Matthews had at the beginning,

[2:05:17] or during the question period.

[2:05:20] You pretty much expressed the

[2:05:22] concerns that I have, that once

[2:05:23] you have begun these

[2:05:25] conversations, and you are

[2:05:28] involved in a process, you are

[2:05:29] going to take the entire thing

[2:05:31] into a direction that is

[2:05:33] somewhat unpredictable. I would

[2:05:35] prefer we give ourselves the

[2:05:37] time necessary, as difficult as

[2:05:38] it may have been, Councillor

[2:05:40] Cowan, and I agree, in terms of

[2:05:42] the speed, I think we need to

[2:05:45] give ourselves more time in that

[2:05:47] regard, and to work hard at

[2:05:48] this. Many of the citizens in

[2:05:52] the room have question with

[2:05:54] regards to the resolution. I

[2:05:56] don't think it necessarily takes

[2:05:57] us to where you want to take, us

[2:05:59] and it's understandable what you

[2:06:00] want to do. I don't think the

[2:06:02] resolution, as it's written

[2:06:03] today, is going to help us at

[2:06:04] all in the process. For that

[2:06:06] reason, I'm going to be voting

[2:06:07] against it.

[2:06:10] >> Thank you.

[2:06:12] >> Councillor Bissonnette?

[2:06:13] >> Yeah, thank you. I will be a

[2:06:17] lot shorter. I want to address

[2:06:19] the question of the resolution

[2:06:21] not be necessary. It is

[2:06:23] necessary, and that's why we did

[2:06:24] it. The summer, the Québec

[2:06:28] government presented, for the

[2:06:29] first time, there puts ignition

[2:06:32] out the less that's two --

[2:06:33] Politique nationale de

[2:06:34] l'development today architecture

[2:06:35] et du is very territoire.

[2:06:36] Different than it was 30 years

[2:06:38] ago. Today, basically, what is

[2:06:43] being sought is a neighbourhood,

[2:06:45] to develop a neighbourhood

[2:06:46] environment, minimize your

[2:06:49] movement, and mice having to go

[2:06:51] use a car, and in this national

[2:06:55] policy, they have four main

[2:06:56] themes. Les milieux de vie de

[2:07:01] qualité qui répondent aux

[2:07:02] besoins de la population, un

[2:07:04] aménagement qui préservent et

[2:07:06] met en valeur les milieux

[2:07:07] naturels et les territoires

[2:07:09] agricoles, une communauté

[2:07:11] authentique et dynamique partout

[2:07:12] au Québec et un plus grand souci

[2:07:14] du territoire et de

[2:07:17] l'architecture.

[2:07:18] I won't go into everything, but

[2:07:19] I will read out the topics

[2:07:20] included. These are things that,

[2:07:22] when you are preparing your

[2:07:23] plan, and our planning

[2:07:25] department, who is very

[2:07:27] knowledgeable, is looking into

[2:07:31] incorporating some of these

[2:07:32] things into the new development,

[2:07:34] it's not just building a

[2:07:35] building, and, like it was, like

[2:07:38] I said, so many years ago.

[2:07:39] Number one, Concevoir des

[2:07:42] milieux de vie complet à

[2:07:44] l'échelle humaine qui réponde

[2:07:45] aux besoins des communautés.

[2:07:49] Réduire les durée de

[2:07:50] déplacements et les distances

[2:07:51] entre les lieux de résidences,

[2:07:53] de travail, de consommation et

[2:07:55] d'autres types d'activités.

[2:07:57] Accroître l'offre de logements

[2:07:59] de qualité accessibles et

[2:08:00] abordables répondant à une

[2:08:02] diversité de besoins. Adopter

[2:08:04] des formes d'aménagement qui

[2:08:06] permettent de combler la perte

[2:08:07] de milieux naturels et de

[2:08:09] territoire agricole. Orienter la

[2:08:11] croissance urbaine vers des

[2:08:12] milieux déjà dotées

[2:08:14] d'infrastructures, de services

[2:08:15] publics situé au coeur de nos

[2:08:16] villages et de nos villes,

[2:08:19] limitant ainsi l'étalement

[2:08:20] urbain. Planifiez des

[2:08:22] territoires capables de mieux

[2:08:23] s'adapter aux conséquences des

[2:08:25] changements climatiques, visant

[2:08:29] la préservation des milieux

[2:08:30] naturels et de la biodiversité

[2:08:32] ainsi que l'affirmation des

[2:08:33] communautés résilientes,

[2:08:34] notamment par des pratiques

[2:08:39] architecturale durables, et

[2:08:43] concerter toutes les parties

[2:08:44] afin d'assurer une cohabitation

[2:08:46] harmonieuse, des activités et la

[2:08:48] mise These are some en valeur

[2:08:49] des actifs. Of the concepts that

[2:08:51] we have to incorporate in any

[2:08:53] future development. As we know,

[2:08:57] Cadillac Fairview already had

[2:08:58] some ideas on what they wanted

[2:09:01] to do with, certainly, Mu1. At

[2:09:05] our last internal control

[2:09:07] meeting on December 16th, it was

[2:09:10] attended by all of Council, as

[2:09:11] well as members of the

[2:09:14] administration, city managers,

[2:09:15] the city clerk, and the

[2:09:17] assistant director of urban

[2:09:18] planning. The consensus from

[2:09:20] Council was to have the

[2:09:22] Pointe-Claire city manager meet

[2:09:26] forth with representatives of

[2:09:28] Cadillac Fairview for the

[2:09:30] purpose of working out this

[2:09:32] agreement. The objective is, we

[2:09:34] have certain requirements, and

[2:09:35] we had to make sure, when you

[2:09:37] start off, right now, we have

[2:09:39] nothing to consult. We're going

[2:09:40] to consult a black sheet of

[2:09:41] paper. We have certain

[2:09:43] requirements, Cadillac Fairview

[2:09:45] has their plans, their

[2:09:46] requirements. The idea of the

[2:09:48] meeting, and that's, why because

[2:09:50] the mayor did not agree with

[2:09:51] having that meeting, therefore

[2:09:53] this is why we asked for a

[2:09:55] resolution, to have the meeting.

[2:09:58] The thing is, to meet with

[2:10:00] Fairview, and say, listen, this

[2:10:01] is where we're going, if they

[2:10:03] are in right field, and we're in

[2:10:05] left field, it's not going to

[2:10:06] work. If there's no cooperation,

[2:10:10] will move on. We have other

[2:10:12] activities. The thing is, you

[2:10:13] have to sit down with people who

[2:10:16] are there now and do you have

[2:10:18] plans to see at what level you

[2:10:21] come together. That's why the

[2:10:23] resolution was necessary tonight

[2:10:25] in getting back to the very

[2:10:28] basic gist of this meeting

[2:10:30] tonight. A lot of stuff was

[2:10:31] debated that should have been

[2:10:32] done in public consultation. It

[2:10:34] shouldn't have been done

[2:10:35] tonight. The consultation

[2:10:37] tonight was to have, to mandate

[2:10:40] the city manager to meet, set up

[2:10:42] a meeting with Cadillac

[2:10:43] Fairview, and discuss to see,

[2:10:45] this is what we want, what are

[2:10:47] you doing, what are you going to

[2:10:48] do? Are we on the same

[2:10:49] wavelength? Where are we? That's

[2:10:50] my point. Thank you.

[2:10:54] >> Okay. Early voting at the

[2:10:56] same time, Madam Thibault?

[2:11:00] >> If that debate is over, I

[2:11:01] will proceed with the vote.

[2:11:03] >> Could be vote before, and

[2:11:05] I'll speak after?

[2:11:06] >> You should speak now before

[2:11:09] the vote.

[2:11:10] >> All right, fair enough.

[2:11:15] - Depuis que j'ai été élu maire,

[2:11:16] j'ai toujours défendu le

[2:11:17] principe que les citoyens

[2:11:19] devraient être consultés sur

[2:11:20] notre plan d'urbanisme avant que

[2:11:25] nous négocions avec les

[2:11:27] promoteurs. Il ne faut pas leur

[2:11:30] présenter des affaires conclus

[2:11:31] et leur dire qu'il est trop tard

[2:11:33] pour faire des changements. Cela

[2:11:36] est particulièrement important

[2:11:37] pour les zones Mu1 et Mu2, la

[2:11:42] forêt devrait Viau et le

[2:11:44] stationnement sur lequel

[2:11:45] Cadillac Fairview propose de

[2:11:46] construire le plus grand projet

[2:11:48] résidentiel de notre histoire.

[2:11:52] Et qui couperait peut-être une

[2:11:53] partie de la forêt et

[2:11:55] construirait des tours

[2:11:56] d'appartements de luxe de 25

[2:11:58] étages dans une zone où les

[2:12:00] cibles de densité de la

[2:12:03] communauté métropolitaine de

[2:12:04] Montréal serait satisfait avec

[2:12:06] des bâtiments pas beaucoup plus

[2:12:08] grand que les complexités

[2:12:09] appartements de trois étages en

[2:12:11] face de notre hôtel de ville.

[2:12:13] L'année dernière, la majorité du

[2:12:16] conseil a tenté de faire adopter

[2:12:19] une motion visant à soustraire

[2:12:22] Cadillac Fairview au règlement

[2:12:24] de contrôle intérimaire et au

[2:12:26] processus de consultation

[2:12:28] publique afin de permettre à son

[2:12:31] projet d'aller de l'avant.

[2:12:34] Malgré mon objection, les

[2:12:38] conseillers

[2:12:44] Tara Stainforth, eux Eric Stork,

[2:12:45] Brent Cowan et Cynthia Homan,

[2:12:47] ont signé un document annulant

[2:12:48] ma décision et forçant la tenue

[2:12:50] d'une réunion spéciale pour

[2:12:52] approuver leur nouvelle

[2:12:54] résolution mandatant notre

[2:12:56] directrice municipale a entamé

[2:12:59] des négociations avec Cadillac

[2:13:01] Fairview sur le plan

[2:13:03] d'aménagement d'ensemble. Je me

[2:13:05] pose à leur résolution ce soir

[2:13:08] pour les mêmes raisons pour

[2:13:10] lesquelles je me suis opposé à

[2:13:11] leurs tentatives l'année

[2:13:12] dernière. On Cadillac Fairview

[2:13:14] ne devrait pas bénéficier d'un

[2:13:17] traitement spécial et les

[2:13:19] citoyens devraient être

[2:13:20] consultés en premier. Je

[2:13:23] m'oppose également à leur

[2:13:24] décision de faire voter cette

[2:13:26] résolution lors d'une réunion

[2:13:29] spéciale provoquer à la dernière

[2:13:31] minute au début du mois de

[2:13:32] janvier, un moment où le nombre

[2:13:35] de citoyens rentrant tout juste

[2:13:38] de vacances ont moins de temps

[2:13:42] pour comprendre l'initiative

[2:13:43] elle-même et les implications de

[2:13:47] ces applications. Je ne peux

[2:13:48] m'empêcher de penser que cette

[2:13:52] initiative reçoive moins

[2:13:53] d'attention de la part du public

[2:13:54] et des médias en raison de la

[2:13:56] démission de la conseillère Erin

[2:14:03] Tedford la semaine dernière.

[2:14:04] Enfin, ce processus est

[2:14:05] précipité et donne la prétention

[2:14:07] qu'il s'agit d'une tentative de

[2:14:09] faire participer le public. Les

[2:14:13] conseillers Tara Stainforth et

[2:14:14] Eric Stork ont affirmé aux

[2:14:16] citoyens qu'ils aient suivre sur

[2:14:18] leurs médias sociaux, mais ont

[2:14:19] donné à leurs citoyens un

[2:14:23] préavis de moins de 48 heures.

[2:14:25] Pour ces raisons, j'utiliserai

[2:14:28] mon veto suspensif pour empêcher

[2:14:30] l'adoption de cette résolution

[2:14:32] ce soir et la forcer à être

[2:14:35] considéré à nouveau lors de

[2:14:37] notre prochaine réunion du

[2:14:38] conseil. Le résultat sera

[2:14:40] peut-être le même, mais au

[2:14:41] moins, le citoyen aura plus de

[2:14:43] temps pour s'organiser et faire

[2:14:46] entendre sa voix. Since I was

[2:14:49] elected Mayor, I have always

[2:14:50] stood up for the principle that

[2:14:52] citizens should be consulted on

[2:14:54] our urban plan before we

[2:14:57] negotiate with developers. They

[2:15:00] should not be presented with

[2:15:02] data deals and told that it is

[2:15:04] too late to make any changes.

[2:15:06] This is particularly important

[2:15:09] for zones Mu1 and Mu2. The

[2:15:11] Fairview forest and the parking

[2:15:12] lot on which Cadillac Fairview

[2:15:14] is proposing to build the

[2:15:15] biggest residential project in

[2:15:17] our history -- they would cut --

[2:15:20] given submitted proposals,

[2:15:22] possibly cut into the forest and

[2:15:24] builds 25 storey luxury

[2:15:25] apartment towers in a area where

[2:15:29] the metropolitan communities

[2:15:31] density targets would be

[2:15:32] satisfied with buildings that

[2:15:33] much bigger than the three

[2:15:34] storey apartment building

[2:15:36] complexes across the street from

[2:15:37] their city hall. Last year, the

[2:15:38] majority on Council attempted to

[2:15:41] pass a motion to take Cadillac

[2:15:42] Fairview out of the interim

[2:15:44] controlled bylaw. And the public

[2:15:46] consultation process in order to

[2:15:48] allow the project to go forward.

[2:15:50] Despite my objection,

[2:15:55] councillors Stainforth, Stork,

[2:15:57] Cowan and Homan -- created

[2:15:59] document -- special meeting

[2:16:03] tonight to approve their new

[2:16:04] resolution mandating our city

[2:16:05] manager to begin negotiations

[2:16:07] with Cadillac Fairview on a

[2:16:08] comprehensive development plan.

[2:16:10] I oppose the resolution tonight

[2:16:11] for the same reason typos their

[2:16:13] attempt last year. Cadillac

[2:16:15] Fairview should not get special

[2:16:17] treatment and citizens should be

[2:16:18] consulted first. I'm equally

[2:16:21] opposed to their decision to

[2:16:22] have this resolution voted on at

[2:16:24] a special meeting, called on

[2:16:26] short notice in early January at

[2:16:27] the time when many citizens are

[2:16:29] just getting back from their

[2:16:30] vacations will have less time to

[2:16:32] adjust and the initiative itself

[2:16:33] and its implications. I also

[2:16:36] can't help but think that this

[2:16:38] initiative will be getting less

[2:16:39] attention from the public and

[2:16:40] immediate due to the resignation

[2:16:43] of Councillor Erin Tedford last

[2:16:44] week. Finally, this process is

[2:16:48] rushed and gives the pretends

[2:16:50] that it is an attempt to involve

[2:16:54] the public. It is a sham.

[2:16:56] Councillors Stainforth and Stork

[2:16:58] have claimed this to the

[2:16:59] citizens following them on

[2:17:00] social media but have given

[2:17:01] their citizens less than 48

[2:17:03] hours notice. I am doing what

[2:17:05] you voted need to do, folks. I

[2:17:07] am doing what you voted need to

[2:17:09] do. But I am outgunned and I

[2:17:11] need your help. For these

[2:17:12] reasons, I will be using my

[2:17:13] suspensive EDO veto to prevents

[2:17:18] prevent this resolution from

[2:17:19] being adopted tonight and force

[2:17:20] it to be considered again at our

[2:17:23] next next council meeting. The

[2:17:24] result might be the same. But at

[2:17:26] least citizens will have more

[2:17:27] time to get organized and make

[2:17:31] their voices heard.

[2:17:32] Pointe-Claire, help me save this

[2:17:34] beautiful city. Thank you.

[2:17:36] >> Mr. Mayor, I would like to

[2:17:38] exercise my right of reply.

[2:17:40] >> Of course, Councillor Cowan.

[2:17:41] We all get a chance -- to do we

[2:17:43] get a chance -- no, we don't get

[2:17:44] a chance --

[2:17:45] >> --

[2:17:48] >> We each get to explain our

[2:17:51] vote and that's the end of? It

[2:17:52] >> The councillor who moves has

[2:17:55] the right to reply. And it's the

[2:17:56] end of debate after that.

[2:17:58] >> Okay. Don't worry, I won't

[2:18:02] keep you. The mayor accused

[2:18:07] Council of orchestrating a sham.

[2:18:12] I'm just going to point that

[2:18:14] out. And I am not going to

[2:18:16] address any of his other

[2:18:18] comments. In the end, it is a

[2:18:20] question of trust. Who do you

[2:18:21] trust? Do you trust the man who

[2:18:26] labels his counsel sham

[2:18:29] meister's? I couldn't go there.

[2:18:35] Anyway, the mayor can't

[2:18:38] interfere with the passage of

[2:18:39] this resolution. He can

[2:18:42] certainly suspend it afterwards.

[2:18:43] >> I trust your instincts. Do I

[2:18:49] have a motion for a closer? Does

[2:18:50] someone move to close? We have

[2:18:52] an -- oh, I thought we had when

[2:18:53] we were speaking. Okay. All in

[2:18:56] favour of passing the

[2:18:58] resolution?

[2:18:59] - Wait -- okay. Juste un

[2:19:00] instant!. Hold the hands up,

[2:19:01] please.

[2:19:02] Everybody take note. Everybody

[2:19:04] please take note. All those --

[2:19:07] Councillor Homan says she will

[2:19:08] stand up -- all those against?

[2:19:13] -- une seconde! I'm voting this

[2:19:14] time. It is my right. Thank you.

[2:19:17] Thank you. Excuse me, Councillor

[2:19:19] Stainforth, I think -- a motion

[2:19:21] to close? Do I have a mover to

[2:19:23] close? Paul Bissonnette? Paul?

[2:19:30] You move?

[2:19:31] >> --

[2:19:32] >> Could you say? It

[2:19:33] >> I moved to close.

[2:19:34] >> Do I have a seconder?

[2:19:35] >> Seconded by Tara Stainforth.

[2:19:38] >> All in favour?

[2:19:40] >> Thank you, Pointe-Claire.

[2:19:41] Merci beaucoup!

2023-01-19 Assemblée Extraordinaire de la Ville de Pointe-Claire

Transcript