[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!