[0:28] - Bonjour, tout le monde.

[0:30] >> Can you hear me well? Good to

[0:34] see our friends from Cadillac

[0:35] Fairview are with us tonight.

[0:36] Welcome. Ce soir, nous sommes à

[0:39] une réunion convoqué par les

[0:47] conseillers pour voter sur la

[0:50] résolution de notre directrice

[0:52] générale. Nous ouvrons les

[0:55] négociations pour sorti la forêt

[0:58] Fairview et les stationnements

[0:59] Fairview du gel, le

[1:01] développement de notre règlement

[1:03] de contrôle intérimaire, et de

[1:05] les intégrer dans un plan de

[1:07] déménagement. J'ai donné mon

[1:12] veto à la résolution initiale

[1:13] afin de donner mon soutien pour

[1:17] s'informer et se faire entendre

[1:18] sur cette question. J'aurais

[1:23] également préféré qu'elle fasse

[1:25] l'objet d'un nouveau vote, lors

[1:26] de notre prochaine réunion

[1:27] régulière le 7 février.

[1:32] À l'heure habituelle de 19

[1:33] heures, afin que davantage de

[1:35] citoyens puissent y assister.

[1:38] Bien que j'ai toujours que

[1:42] Fairview devrait être consulté

[1:44] dans le cadre de la mise à jour,

[1:46] je m'oppose à ce que cette

[1:49] résolution... à cette résolution

[1:50] pour les raisons suivantes: tout

[1:52] d'abord, elle permettra à

[1:55] Fairview de concevoir son propre

[1:57] processus de consultation

[1:58] publique en tant que partenaire

[2:00] égal de la ville, au lieu de

[2:02] faire partie du même processus

[2:04] de consultation que les autres

[2:06] propriétés dans le cadre de

[2:08] notre plan de

[2:10] (---)

[2:11] global. Deux, le plan

[2:14] d'aménagement venant et de la

[2:16] structure juridique moins

[2:19] contraignant que notre règlement

[2:21] de contrôle et notre plan

[2:22] d'urbanisme prévu. Et l'accord

[2:26] avec lac Fairview permettra de

[2:29] rédiger et de soumettre son

[2:31] propre règlement de zonage

[2:32] directement au conseil

[2:33] municipal. Trois: je me pose à

[2:37] la décision de traiter de la

[2:39] même façon la forêt Fairview et

[2:40] le stationnement Fairview. Même

[2:43] si le stationnement fait l'objet

[2:47] d'un certain type de

[2:48] développement, j'aimerais voir

[2:49] quelque chose de plus proche

[2:51] d'un minimum de 69 unités

[2:55] (---)

[2:56] au lieu des tours de 25 étages

[3:00] proposés, qui sont plusieurs

[3:01] fois plus grande. Je crois que

[3:03] les citoyens veulent que toute

[3:05] la forêt Fairview soit préservée

[3:08] du développement à la fois pour

[3:10] le bénéfice de notre communauté

[3:11] et pour atteindre nos objectifs,

[3:13] et ce, des autres paliers de

[3:17] gouvernement en matière de

[3:18] protection des arbres et des

[3:19] espaces verts et de la lutte

[3:20] contre les changements

[3:21] climatiques.

[3:29] >> Tonight, we are at a meeting

[3:31] called by Councillor Stainforth,

[3:33] the stork, Thorstad-Cullen, and

[3:34] Bissonnette, to vote on the

[3:36] resolution mandating our city

[3:39] manager open negotiations with

[3:40] Cadillac Fairview to take

[3:41] Fairview forest and Fairview

[3:42] parking lot out of the

[3:43] development freeze of our

[3:45] interim control bylaw and put

[3:46] them into a comprehensive

[3:47] development plan. I veto their

[3:51] original resolution to give

[3:52] residents more time to learn

[3:53] about and be heard on this

[3:55] issue. I would also have

[3:57] preferred it be voted on again

[3:58] and our next regular meeting on

[4:00] February 7th, and at the normal

[4:03] schedule time, 7 pm, so our

[4:05] citizens can attend. I have

[4:09] always said that Cadillac

[4:10] Fairview needed to be consulted

[4:11] as we update our urban plan, I

[4:13] pose this resolution because,

[4:16] number one, it will allow

[4:17] Cadillac Fairview to design its

[4:19] own separate public consultation

[4:21] process as an equal partner with

[4:23] the city, instead of being part

[4:24] of the same consultation process

[4:26] as other properties within our

[4:27] overall urban plan. Three, a

[4:32] comprehensive development plan

[4:33] is a weaker, less and forceful

[4:37] interim control bylaw and

[4:39] revised -- and gives Cadillac

[4:41] Fairview special treatment,

[4:42] allows it to right and submit

[4:44] its own zoning bylaw directly to

[4:47] City Council. I objected the

[4:50] decision, three, I object the

[4:52] decision to treat both Fairview

[4:54] forest and Fairview parking lot

[4:55] in the same way. While the

[4:57] parking lot will be subject to

[4:59] development of some kind, I want

[5:00] to see something closer to the

[5:02] 60 units per hectare minimum

[5:04] actually required by which are

[5:06] metropolitan community -- 25

[5:08] floor luxury towers proposed by

[5:10] Cadillac Fairview, which are

[5:11] several times that. I believe

[5:13] citizens want all of Fairview

[5:14] forest to be preserved from

[5:15] development, both for the

[5:18] benefit of our community and

[5:19] meet our targets and those of

[5:21] other levels of government for

[5:23] the protection of trees and

[5:24] green space and fighting climate

[5:25] change. I will quickly deal with

[5:31] a couple little mythologies

[5:33] floating around now that need to

[5:34] be corrected. We have heard a

[5:39] lot of expression about tactics

[5:41] of delay, delay, delay. It has

[5:42] been repeated over and over

[5:43] again. The problem here is that

[5:46] sometimes when you repeat things

[5:47] so often, people think they are

[5:48] true. In fact, they are not.

[5:51] There has been no or delay

[5:53] whatsoever. I have here multiple

[5:55] copies for all of you in the

[5:56] room of a process and timeline

[5:58] which we decided on last year.

[6:00] And that timeline was decided,

[6:03] decided on by all the

[6:04] councillors and myself and we

[6:06] have proceeded to follow this

[6:07] timeline, which we can have a

[6:09] copy of, religiously. The only

[6:11] problem being we have not met as

[6:13] frequently as I would have

[6:14] liked. We will are -- we there

[6:16] has been no delay on my part

[6:17] whatsoever. You can get a copy

[6:20] of this timeline, agreed upon by

[6:22] all of us, all of us agree to

[6:25] this timeline, which we are

[6:26] following and have followed

[6:28] ridges from the outset. There

[6:29] has been no delays. That is myth

[6:30] number one. Myth number two, in

[6:36] today's because it -- because

[6:40] that, she writes however,

[6:42] Thomas's opponents have called

[6:44] another special meeting to

[6:45] introduce that resolution on

[6:47] Monday arguing that Mayor's

[6:48] decision didn't satisfy the

[6:49] criteria for using a veto.

[6:52] Québec law, however, and I

[6:54] quote, doesn't stipulate

[6:57] criteria for mayors with the

[6:59] veto. There are no criteria.

[7:04] Councillor Stainforth, who

[7:05] endorses of the resolution

[7:06] discussed on Monday, Mrs.

[7:08] straight out of the Montréal

[7:09] Gazette. The Montréal Gazette

[7:12] referred to a statement she

[7:14] posted on her Facebook page on

[7:15] Sunday. Stainforth said the

[7:17] mayor can use his veto power

[7:18] only if new information becomes

[7:19] available or if circumstances

[7:21] have changed, if absences

[7:24] allowed a vote to carry, that

[7:25] would have otherwise failed or a

[7:27] resolution creates an illegal or

[7:28] irresponsible outcomes.

[7:29] Completely false. None of these

[7:33] apply. And the veto should not

[7:34] have been used by the mayor,

[7:36] Stainforth wrote. For this

[7:37] reason, I have agreed to support

[7:39] and the proposed date in order

[7:41] to deal with the issue

[7:43] immediately and leave our

[7:45] regular monthly meetings for

[7:46] regular business. However,

[7:50] Goulet writes, having called a

[7:52] couple of municipal lawyers, the

[7:56] city and towns act grants the

[7:58] mayor to, I quote, exercise the

[8:00] right of superintendent,

[8:02] investigation and control over

[8:04] all the departments and officers

[8:06] or employees of the

[8:07] municipality, except the chief

[8:09] auditor. Municipal affairs

[8:13] department, and describing the

[8:14] mayoral vita, sets out no

[8:17] criteria for its use. That is

[8:18] the law.

[8:20] [Applause]

[8:27] >> Mister Mayor! Can you

[8:31] maintain order place!

[8:32] >> I am still speaking. I have

[8:33] more to say.

[8:35] >> Mister Mayor! Please!

[8:38] >> Councillor Cowan, I am still

[8:42] speaking. And the mayor can

[8:43] exercise a right of veto over

[8:45] any Council decisions by

[8:47] refusing to approve them and,

[8:49] consequently, to sign the

[8:50] documents relating to these

[8:51] issues. I quote, this is the

[8:54] municipal affairs. Councillor

[8:55] Cowan, you would like to speak?

[8:58] >> Carry on, Mister Mayor. When

[9:00] you are done, we can carry on

[9:01] with our business.

[9:03] >> I am waiting for you to

[9:04] speak.

[9:07] >> Thank you, Mister Mayor. I

[9:08] move that the mayor's --

[9:12] >> Can we just first approve the

[9:16] agenda, please?

[9:17] >> I move that we approve the

[9:19] agenda.

[9:20] >> Do I have a seconder?

[9:21] >> Kelly Thorstad-Cullen,

[9:22] district three.

[9:23] >> All in favour?

[9:27] - Juste un instant!

[9:43] The resolution?

[9:45] >> 1.1. Do you want to go? First

[9:50] >> Yes. I move the Mayor's abuse

[9:52] of the use of veto be over

[9:54] carried in district eight.

[9:57] >> You have a seconder? Can they

[9:59] move? It's not on the agenda.

[10:04] Nor can they move to remove it.

[10:06] >> We need a mover for the exact

[10:08] same resolution you adopt on

[10:12] last Thursday. The exact same

[10:16] resolution. I can read it if you

[10:17] want. It has to be the exact

[10:21] same resolution.

[10:22] >> Or if they can move to have

[10:24] the veto overturned, can they

[10:25] not? In which case --

[10:28] >>

[10:29] - La résolution, lors du jour,

[10:31] c'est celle adoptée jeudi passé.

[10:34] Okay. Okay.

[10:35] >> I moved to reinstate the

[10:37] resolution and that was passed

[10:39] on the 19th of January.

[10:42] >> Do I have a seconder?

[10:45] >> I second. It

[10:46] >> All in favour?

[10:49] >> Please know that everybody

[10:50] voted all against. Borough, is

[10:55] your hand up? There you go. And

[11:01] we now proceed to question

[11:02] period? Okay. The mic is open.

[11:12] >> Good evening. District. One

[11:16] before I ask a brief question I

[11:18] would like to make a statement

[11:19] in response to the question

[11:21] asked on a public Facebook group

[11:23] by none other than Councillor

[11:27] Cowan. He wrote, I am sorry that

[11:29] there is such little trust in

[11:30] the political process. You fear

[11:34] the people elected to serve the

[11:35] public. Mr. Cohen, here are a

[11:39] few reasons. I offer them

[11:40] politely and without sarcasm or

[11:41] hostility. First, because the

[11:45] resolution you fast tonight to

[11:47] direct city managers to

[11:48] negotiate in private with

[11:50] Cadillac every on the basis of a

[11:51] mandate letter which knelt

[11:52] members of the public have been

[11:53] allowed to see. And the public

[11:56] had no way of knowing if the

[11:57] mandate letter was truly in

[11:59] their interest. Surely, it would

[12:02] be weird and wrong if members of

[12:04] parliament and national assembly

[12:05] voted on a new law before any

[12:07] members of the public had a

[12:08] chance to know what the law

[12:09] contained. Second, it because

[12:12] councillors chosen the Cadillac

[12:14] Fairview absolute veto and

[12:15] deciding what kind of purchase

[12:18] -- this suits the corporate

[12:19] agenda but I don't believe it

[12:20] suits the public agenda. Third,

[12:23] because as you yourself stated

[12:25] at the last council meeting, in

[12:26] 2022, the Pointe-Claire planning

[12:28] department had proposed

[12:29] discussions get underway with

[12:31] Cadillac Fairview. Council sent

[12:33] a letter to the company on that

[12:34] basis. As he went on to say,

[12:36] Cadillac Fairview stipulated,

[12:39] not requested, not proposed,

[12:43] Cadillac Fairview stipulated

[12:44] that in year to the Fairview

[12:46] forest would also be part of the

[12:47] discussions and Council agreed

[12:48] to this demand. Fourth, because

[12:51] as you have again made clear,

[12:52] the fear of legal action has

[12:54] played a major role in

[12:55] determining how this process is

[12:56] taking shape. In your remarks to

[13:01] Madam Lucia, you said, whether

[13:03] there is litigation hovering in

[13:05] the background, closed door

[13:07] litigation has been the only way

[13:08] to move towards settlement

[13:10] without going into court. I

[13:12] would put it more vividly and

[13:14] say all the -- the puppet can be

[13:17] left dangling outside the closed

[13:19] door. Fifth, because the

[13:20] resolution uses the -- mutually

[13:22] agreeable path forward and at

[13:24] the definition of mutually

[13:25] agreeable in the Pointe-Claire

[13:27] side appears to be the city

[13:30] manager and you and your fellow

[13:32] councillors. You make it

[13:34] abundantly clear that you don't

[13:35] trust the mayor, who is duly

[13:36] expect -- those of us who care

[13:41] about climate change and green

[13:42] space will remember that the

[13:43] Mayor's platform highlighted

[13:44] protecting the natural

[13:45] environment. Six, because while

[13:50] you and some of your fellow

[13:51] councillors have repeatedly

[13:52] spoken in glowing terms about

[13:53] the value of the city's long and

[13:55] deep partnership with Cadillac

[13:57] Fairview, I don't believe you or

[13:59] they have ever praised the value

[14:00] of the green space that is the

[14:02] Fairview forest or have spoken

[14:04] about how the Forest asserts of

[14:06] the needs of local walkers, dog

[14:07] owners, bird-watchers. I do

[14:10] recall you boasting you once lit

[14:11] a bonfire in the forest.

[14:14] Finally, before because of the

[14:17] vicious, dehumanizing, an ugly

[14:19] rhetoric that certain

[14:20] councillors have directed at the

[14:22] mayor over the past weeks and

[14:23] months, I've been personally not

[14:25] just disappointed but appalled

[14:27] at one of the councillors used

[14:28] the word loathsome in a Facebook

[14:31] post attacking the mayor with

[14:33] another councillor claiming

[14:34] people who believe the hollow

[14:36] statements of other elected

[14:37] officials have been drinking the

[14:38] Kool-Aid. This kind of language

[14:41] may become normalized in the

[14:42] USA, but I believe it's

[14:43] inappropriate in a civilized

[14:45] debate. I except councillors may

[14:47] have legitimate frustrations

[14:48] about mayor Thomas. For him to

[14:50] be constantly mocked, vilified,

[14:52] and demonized by at least three

[14:54] councillors does not foster any

[14:56] trust in the political process.

[14:58] Nor did that frequent complaints

[15:00] about media bias, whenever there

[15:02] is a TV or a video clip or

[15:04] newspaper article that casts

[15:06] doubt on what the majority in

[15:07] Council say. If you want, Mr.

[15:10] Cowan, you can reply to what I

[15:11] just said. My very brief

[15:13] question is directed to the

[15:14] Mayor. Can you assure the

[15:16] citizens of Pointe-Claire that

[15:17] despite the resolution that just

[15:18] passed, he will look hard and

[15:20] work hard for possible ways to

[15:22] prevent the destruction of the

[15:23] Fairview forest?

[15:25] >> You know to the answer to

[15:27] that question. Absolutely, 100%.

[15:28] I will do my darndest work. I

[15:30] will throw my body in front of

[15:31] it. Absolutely.

[15:36] [Laughter]

[15:41] [Applause]

[15:43] Apparently we are not allowed to

[15:44] clap, folks. Again.

[15:48] >> Good evening. My name -- I'm

[15:52] very disappointed, really. All

[15:56] the six city councillors from

[15:58] the last previous

[16:00] administration, you follow

[16:03] exactly -- what he run for is

[16:07] citizens first, but we are the

[16:08] citizens of real estate and

[16:11] developer. You are still doing

[16:12] the same thing. I'm asking them,

[16:14] all of them without hurting the

[16:19] city and ashamed, really. I

[16:21] asked them to all resign. She

[16:30] resigned. Please, I'm asking you

[16:33] to all resign, the six of you,

[16:34] so we can have peace of mind and

[16:37] we elect somebody better to work

[16:38] for the city. How we think about

[16:42] it, Mister Mayor? I know you

[16:45] work and you run for good for

[16:46] the city. How you feel working

[16:50] with all of them? Can you tell

[16:51] us, please?

[16:52] >> I won't be explicit. Suffice

[16:55] it to say, I am doing my best to

[16:57] work with the people in this

[16:58] council.

[17:00] >> I know you are doing your

[17:01] best. But them, they are doing

[17:03] nothing. All just for the --

[17:09] >> That's for you to decide.

[17:12] >> Does this have to do with the

[17:13] resolution?

[17:14] >> Excuse me. Excuse me. Excuse

[17:17] me.

[17:20] >> Cadillac Fairview to develop

[17:25] 25 high rise buildings and also

[17:27] develop in the green space.

[17:32] >> What specifically to the

[17:33] resolution?

[17:35] >> What we can do as a citizen

[17:37] here to help you to get through

[17:39] all of this?

[17:40] >> You are doing it.

[17:41] >> Thank you!

[17:44] >> I will respond to that,

[17:45] actually. My vote is based on

[17:47] the majority of the citizens of

[17:49] district three who have spoken

[17:50] to be a return to me about this

[17:51] issue. Sure, there are people on

[17:52] the other side. But I am telling

[17:54] you, I vote with the majority. I

[17:56] have a majority of district

[17:58] three support in how I voted

[17:59] this evening. I'm sorry that's

[18:00] not what you want to hear. But

[18:02] that is the fact. I discussed

[18:04] with him the first time when I

[18:05] was voting. The, I different

[18:08] aspects of the Cadillac Fairview

[18:09] areas, both of them. Tonight, I

[18:11] stand by it. I am doing with the

[18:12] majority of my citizens want me

[18:14] to vote with. Understand you

[18:16] have a different perception.

[18:18] What I have been advised that my

[18:20] citizens, I'm doing what they

[18:21] want. I think it's important to

[18:22] be able to state that.

[18:24] >> I answer you for that.

[18:25] District one, mostly affected.

[18:30] It doesn't affect district.

[18:31] Three district one -- they vote

[18:35] against. You don't respect. You

[18:38] respect only what you are going

[18:39] to get elected again. Trust me,

[18:42] knowing you get elected again,

[18:44] I'm going to work hard to get

[18:45] all of you out of there.

[18:47] >> Excuse. Me I'm going to speak

[18:48] to that as well. I too won a

[18:51] majority there. I want a

[18:52] majority in most of the

[18:53] districts in this city. I won

[18:55] more votes than all the people

[18:56] sitting at the staple here. I

[18:58] think that point should be duly

[18:59] noted as well.

[19:01] >> That's what we said. We get

[19:03] elected from all citizens of

[19:05] Pointe-Claire. And they get --

[19:06] >> Only district. Not the entire

[19:07] city. None of them has a

[19:08] mandate. Excuse me, Councillor

[19:15] Court Thorstad-Cullen. We are

[19:16] speaking to a resolution. The

[19:18] citizens of Pointe-Claire care

[19:19] deeply about. We are speaking to

[19:21] a resolution that will alter, or

[19:23] may alter their city in a major

[19:25] matter. They are speaking about

[19:26] the resolution in that matter. I

[19:28] think that's appropriate.

[19:29] >> Can we stick to the

[19:30] resolution.

[19:31] >> We are. We are talking about

[19:32] the resolution. It's about --

[19:35] >> 61? Votes 61 votes?

[19:37] >> I'm not finished.

[19:41] >> 61 votes. We won by 98.

[19:46] >> Excuse. Me I will speak to

[19:47] Councillor Stork. Councillor

[19:50] Stork, I have far more votes

[19:52] than you do from citizens of

[19:53] Pointe-Claire. You sound like

[19:56] you are questioning my mandate,

[19:59] which you clearly have been

[20:00] doing from the outset of the

[20:02] administration. I think it's

[20:04] highly indicative that we have

[20:05] seen a councillor who questions

[20:06] my mandate. He's commenting it

[20:08] at the margin of victory, 61,

[20:10] denies my mandate. He's implying

[20:12] that in his rhetoric. I think it

[20:15] speaks volumes to what we are

[20:16] watching and listening to today.

[20:19] Yes, sir.

[20:20] >> I will allow you to continue

[20:22] with your soap box speech.

[20:26] >> When a person dies, you feel

[20:29] sorry and cry for that person.

[20:31] But when somebody, their

[20:35] conscience dies, we support him

[20:38] and somebody even follow him. I

[20:40] wish you all to have good

[20:43] conscience and wake up, got

[20:45] bless you all to work for the

[20:47] citizens of Pointe-Claire. Thank

[20:48] you.

[20:49] >> Thank you, sir.

[20:52] >> Good evening. On a personal

[20:56] note, I found my glasses, Mayor

[20:59] Thomas.

[21:00] >> Good. In the parking lot.

[21:03] >> Before you start, can you

[21:04] state your name for the record?

[21:05] >> Yeah, Patricia. I've been a

[21:12] resident of Pointe-Claire for

[21:13] over 60 years. I'm presently

[21:14] residing at stone's throw away

[21:15] from Fairview in district six. I

[21:17] want to be heard by all of you.

[21:22] I want to let all the City

[21:24] Councillors know how I feel

[21:27] about of a 25 storey

[21:29] extravaganza which has been

[21:30] proposed by Cadillac Fairview. I

[21:33] invite you to come up north of

[21:38] the 40. Most of you do not come

[21:40] up north of the 40 because we

[21:43] have traffic wounds we are

[21:46] dealing with now and we

[21:48] anticipate how it will be after

[21:50] this extravaganza is built. At

[21:53] this point, it seems some of you

[21:55] have taken it upon yourselves to

[21:57] enter into negotiations with C

[21:59] F, who have already shown bad

[22:02] faith by immediately turning to

[22:05] litigation when the city opted

[22:06] for public consultation. See if

[22:09] is not interested in the

[22:12] residents of Hermitage, or how

[22:14] they are proposed project will

[22:16] impact our quality of life. They

[22:19] have not stepped forward to talk

[22:21] to us about our opinions, our

[22:25] suggestions, and of course, are

[22:26] objections. They have a plan.

[22:34] Mr. Cohen and his allies are

[22:36] preparing to bow to their

[22:37] wishes. From those of us who are

[22:39] --

[22:41] >> Mister Mayor, point of

[22:44] record. She's now -- this is

[22:47] completely against the rules.

[22:48] >> I don't feel it is.

[22:50] >> Mister Mayor, it is!

[22:53] >> It's not for you to decide,

[22:55] sir.

[22:56] >> Mister Mayor! It's entirely

[22:58] against the rules!

[22:59] >> Councillor Cowan, it's not

[23:00] for you to decide. You are in no

[23:01] position to decide that.

[23:05] >> Let's ask the department to

[23:08] make a ruling. Not a ruling --

[23:09] >> I can move on.

[23:12] >> Is it out of order for a

[23:15] citizen to question the

[23:17] motivation or integrity of the

[23:18] Councillor?

[23:21] >> Go ahead. I've had my

[23:22] motivation questioned

[23:25] extensively for months on end.

[23:28] Oh my goodness!

[23:29] [Applause]

[23:33] >> Not here you haven't, not

[23:34] here.

[23:39] >> Yes, ma'am. You may continue.

[23:41] >> From those of us sitting on

[23:43] the sidelines, it is clear that

[23:46] negotiations may have already

[23:47] started with whatever perks and

[23:50] promises these may produce.

[23:52] Shame on you who have failed to

[23:54] reach out --

[23:55] >> Point of order, we are not

[23:56] taking perks and promises.

[23:57] >> This is a preamble. Is this a

[24:00] preamble to your question? Much

[24:04] like Miss Weaver's preamble. Or

[24:06] Mr. Fréchette's. This is much

[24:11] like Mr. Frechette's -- like

[24:15] Mrs. weaver's preamble. It pales

[24:18] in comparison. Go straight to

[24:21] the question.

[24:22] >> So sensitive about what I'm

[24:23] saying.

[24:25] >> It's not true, that's why.

[24:27] It's not. True some of you have

[24:29] already entered into

[24:30] negotiations. No. This was about

[24:35] seven sentences ago. And now

[24:36] you've reiterated that and

[24:39] mentioned perks. Neither of

[24:40] those things are true. None of

[24:42] us have accepted -- except for

[24:44] the mayor -- have ever met with

[24:45] Cadillac Fairview. It's patently

[24:48] untrue. That's the first thing

[24:51] you said untrue. We can go with

[24:53] the video if he would like,

[24:55] although you are reading, I'm

[24:56] sure you can see it in front of

[24:57] you. Once again, it's a point of

[24:59] privilege.

[25:00] >> Councillor Stainforth, nobody

[25:02] up here has ever met in any way,

[25:05] shape, or form --

[25:07] representatives of Cadillac

[25:08] Fairview. You are willing to go

[25:09] on record you've never done

[25:10] that?

[25:12] >> Yeah.

[25:13] >> Okay.

[25:16] >> We've been in the same

[25:17] location.

[25:18] >> Not socially, not outside of

[25:19] your workplace? Anybody? Are you

[25:24] going to deny all that? Yes,

[25:27] ma'am. Would you like to

[25:28] continue?

[25:31] >> And now I'm probably not

[25:32] allowed to say whatever I want

[25:33] to say.

[25:35] >> If you can imply it, you can

[25:36] ask a question.

[25:40] >> My question was going to be

[25:41] for Mr. Cowan. I was going to

[25:44] preface it by saying there was

[25:45] no need to attack, divert, or

[25:50] extrapolate, and just honestly

[25:51] answer my question. Simply, have

[25:55] you, Mr. Cowan, have any contact

[25:58] with any personnel of Cadillac

[25:59] Fairview, either by email, text

[26:04] messages, telephone

[26:06] conversations, or in person

[26:09] meetings within the last six

[26:11] months? It's a yes or no. Thank

[26:12] you so much for listening to me.

[26:15] >> You want me to give the

[26:16] answer?

[26:18] >> I don't have the stand there.

[26:20] >> Of course.

[26:23] >> Of course what?

[26:26] >> Of course, I talk to

[26:27] everybody. I talk to all my

[26:28] citizens. I talk to anybody who

[26:29] is going to call me. That's what

[26:33] I do. That's why I am an elected

[26:35] representative everybody.

[26:39] >> Did Cadillac Fairview elect

[26:40] you?

[26:44] >> I will answer as well. I may

[26:47] have confirmed reception of an

[26:48] email at some point in time.

[26:52] >> Mr. the point?

[26:59] >>

[27:00] - Je voudrais lire le Règlement

[27:02] numéro 53. Résolution adoptée

[27:04] par le conseil et les

[27:06] obligations des contrats qui

[27:09] sont présentées au maire par le

[27:12] greffier dans les... 26

[27:16] heures...

[27:17] - 96. En

[27:18] - 96 un, excusez. Suivant les

[27:20] adoption et là approbation. Si

[27:21] dans ce délai, le maire avise le

[27:24] greffier qu'il ne l'approuvent

[27:26] pas, celui-ci seuls les soumet

[27:30] de nouveau au Conseil, la séance

[27:33] suivante, pour les considérer

[27:36] d'urgence ou en priorité. Alors,

[27:38] ce soir, c'est pour la prochaine

[27:42] séance du conseil. Alors, je

[27:44] demande que la résolution soit

[27:46] reporté à la prochaine réunion.

[27:47] C'est selon la loi.

[27:50] - Oui, absolument.

[27:52] - Alors, la prochaine séance...

[27:55] quand la loi utilise le mot

[27:57] séance seule, c'est soit une

[27:59] séance ordinaire où

[28:00] extraordinaire. Quand c'est

[28:01] extraordinaire, on le précise

[28:02] dans la loi. Alors, le mot

[28:04] séances dans la Loi sur les

[28:05] cités et villes est utilisée

[28:07] seul, il signifie séance

[28:09] extraordinaire ou ordinaire.

[28:10] Alors, la prochaine séance, dans

[28:12] le cas qui nous occupe, c'est ce

[28:13] soir.

[28:15] - Mais c'est le maire qu'il a

[28:17] reporté cette journée-là.

[28:19] - Non.

[28:20] - La loi... vous aviez lu

[28:22] l'article 53 de l'ordre sur les

[28:23] cités et villes, et ce que la

[28:25] loi prévoit, c'est que si le

[28:29] maire m'avise... avise le

[28:30] greffier de la ville qu'il

[28:31] n'approuve pas une résolution où

[28:33] les résolutions, le greffier

[28:34] doit, à ce moment-là, les

[28:37] soumettre au conseil à nouveau à

[28:39] laisser en ce qui suit et cette

[28:41] résolution-là est traiter

[28:45] d'urgence, en priorité à l'ordre

[28:47] du jour. C'est ce qu'on a dit.

[28:48] - O.K.. Merci.

[28:52] - Merci, Monsieur Lapointe.

[28:53] Alors, c'est intéressant.

[28:56] - Ma deuxième question...

[28:57] - O.K..

[28:59] - On a une période de questions

[29:01] qui dure 1 heure 30. Au dernier

[29:05] meeting, on a passé à peu près

[29:07] 30, 40 minutes avec les

[29:09] conseillers à argumenter. Alors,

[29:12] je crois que la période des

[29:14] questions devrait être prolongée

[29:17] pour compenser pour le temps que

[29:20] les conseillers se dispute entre

[29:21] eux.

[29:23] - C'est le maire qui décide du

[29:24] début et de la fin.

[29:26] - C'est moi qui décide. On a 90

[29:30] minutes comme toujours.

[29:31] - Mais si vous parlez une

[29:33] demi-heure de temps, les

[29:34] citoyens n'ont plus de temps.

[29:35] - Oui, c'est vrai. Vous avez

[29:36] raison, monsieur Lapointe. C'est

[29:37] un bon argument. J'entends bien.

[29:40] C'est mieux les citoyens que...

[29:41] on

[29:42] - Va mettre une minuterie, et on

[29:44] va ajouter après.

[29:45] - C'est intéressant. C'est un

[29:46] argument intéressant. Monsieur

[29:47] le point, c'est une autre

[29:48] observation. C'est intéressant

[29:50] qu'on ait cette réunion à cause,

[29:53] supposément, de la faiblesse de

[29:55] la façon le... veto que j'ai

[29:58] utilisé. Mais on a la preuve que

[30:01] ce n'est pas le cas, alors la

[30:03] raison que l'on a, la réunion,

[30:04] elle est fausse. Complètement

[30:06] fausse. J'ai utilisé le veto

[30:09] dans une façon complètement

[30:10] légale, parfaitement. Merci.

[30:16] >> Good evening, my name is

[30:17] Sandra Maggie, Pointe-Claire,

[30:19] district two. Like Mr. ably, I

[30:22] am concerned about climate

[30:23] change. Mr. Councillor

[30:26] Thorstad-Cullen you said you are

[30:27] a part of the sustainable

[30:29] committee and the protection of

[30:32] forests and biodiversity is a

[30:34] priority. Like they say, actions

[30:39] speak louder than words.

[30:42] >> Can I respond to that? I'm

[30:45] responding to the person.

[30:46] >> She's not finished yet.

[30:48] >> Can I respond to the first

[30:49] part? There are some sustainable

[30:52] principles that feel -- and we

[30:53] will discuss them so praying

[30:55] these when we have our public

[30:58] precipitation, in certain areas

[30:59] if you go higher, it is

[31:01] suggesting or mandating that we

[31:02] have to have a certain amount of

[31:04] development in the city. We need

[31:05] to optimize that, make it as

[31:07] sustainable as possible to save

[31:09] as much green space as possible.

[31:11] I understand the perception may

[31:13] look like, oh, we don't care.

[31:14] The perception from where I

[31:16] stand, I want to be sustainable

[31:18] as possible. Some people say the

[31:19] higher you go, that's more

[31:20] sustainable. We want all the

[31:21] facts. We want all the

[31:23] information, we want it all to

[31:25] make an influence decision, what

[31:27] sustainable means will be

[31:28] different between any person

[31:29] sitting in this room. We want

[31:30] all that information at the

[31:31] table. I want to correct. I

[31:33] don't want to imply that I'm not

[31:35] about sustainable development.

[31:36] Thank you.

[31:38] >> You can can continue with

[31:39] your preamble.

[31:41] >> My understanding is there is

[31:42] a freeze on the property by the

[31:44] CMA. I am wondering if this

[31:48] resolution passes, as you have

[31:52] requested, does that

[31:53] automatically remove Cadillac

[31:54] Fairview from that freeze?

[31:56] >> No.

[31:59] >> Anybody? Else no.

[32:01] >> It's automatically removal.

[32:02] >> I can speak.

[32:05] >> Can you elaborate on yet,

[32:06] please?

[32:08] >> The process that has been

[32:11] designed will allow a

[32:13] comprehensive development plan

[32:14] to work towards a comprehensive

[32:17] development plan at which time

[32:18] it will happen. Prior to,

[32:23] sufficient, in my opinion,

[32:25] public participation. What is

[32:26] disturbing about the resolution

[32:27] tonight is that it allows the

[32:30] public precipitation process to

[32:32] be controlled by the City in

[32:34] conjunction with the developer

[32:35] as opposed to vice versa. I

[32:37] would prefer to have the

[32:38] participation first.

[32:41] >> That is false. That is false.

[32:43] That is false.

[32:44] >> Mayor Thomas, you

[32:45] specifically just said that your

[32:47] belief is that -- before any

[32:50] public participate participation

[32:52] which is absolutely false. It is

[32:54] a bum matter of record. You just

[32:55] said. That

[32:56] >> Public participation has to

[32:57] be defined. Some of us the final

[33:01] public participation in a

[33:02] completely different manner.

[33:05] >> May I speak?

[33:07] >> Would you please share your

[33:09] definition that you shared with

[33:10] all of Council f of late

[33:13] participation versus public

[33:14] consultation as well as and the

[33:18] information pertaining how and

[33:20] when this CP would become

[33:23] enacted by law and --

[33:25] >> From my understanding, from

[33:27] my understanding, we are in

[33:30] question period here. It's not

[33:31] the Councillors who have to ask

[33:32] questions. It's the citizens who

[33:33] are to ask questions. From what

[33:36] I understand, from what Mr. low

[33:38] point was suggesting in

[33:42] replying, last, time last

[33:43] question period was dominated by

[33:44] councillors as it is starting to

[33:46] happen tonight as well so I

[33:48] would like to hear, I would like

[33:51] to hear -- absolutely. I would

[33:53] like to hear from the citizens,

[33:55] I would like to hear from the

[33:56] citizens.

[33:58] >> Actually outlined the actual

[34:00] answers.

[34:01] >> You don't want them to know?

[34:03] >> You don't want them to know

[34:04] the truth. I want them to know

[34:05] all the truth. All the truth. I

[34:08] would love you all to know all

[34:09] the truth. Please inquire. We

[34:11] are in a meeting right now based

[34:13] on a veto I supposedly used

[34:17] illegally and --

[34:19] >> Improperly.

[34:20] >> Improperly. I bring to you a

[34:22] gazette article and the

[34:24] Municipal code suggesting

[34:26] otherwise. Who are you going to

[34:27] believe? Tonight will we have a

[34:28] debate over credibility? Will we

[34:30] go to questions from the

[34:31] citizens? Please, ma'am, go

[34:32] ahead.

[34:34] >> Thank you very much. I was

[34:36] also wondering, does the

[34:39] resolution remove Cadillac

[34:40] Fairview from public

[34:41] participation, including the

[34:43] urban plan?

[34:44] >> There is a conversation

[34:45] going. On I can't really hear

[34:46] you.

[34:47] >> Sorry. I will repeat the

[34:48] question. Will this resolution

[34:49] also remove Cadillac Fairview

[34:51] from public participation

[34:52] included in the reopening of the

[34:54] urban plan?

[34:55] >> No. They will be a functional

[34:56] part of it.

[34:57] >> Okay. Thank you.

[34:59] >> Mister Mayor, I would like a

[35:00] moment to be able to speak to

[35:02] some of the points that have

[35:03] been raised either in question

[35:05] period or here at the table. It

[35:07] is a statement to read

[35:09] reflective of my perspective on

[35:10] this process, if you allow me.

[35:15] Will you allow me, Mister Mayor?

[35:16] >> Absolutely.

[35:20] >> The reason I'm doing this is

[35:22] I think it's important that I

[35:24] clearly state my position in

[35:26] terms of why I voted against the

[35:28] resolution. There were a number

[35:30] of questions asked.

[35:31] >> Point of order. That's when

[35:34] we vote for it.

[35:36] >> Councillor Cowan! Councillor

[35:39] Cowan! Councillor Cowan!

[35:43] >> You just said you were, I am

[35:45] stating my position on some of

[35:46] the questions that have been

[35:47] asked. I have the right to speak

[35:48] as anybody else.

[35:53] - Cette résolution, d'après moi,

[35:56] a produit des dommages

[35:57] collatéraux de toutes sortes.

[36:00] Elle a créé des nouvelles

[36:02] divisions dans notre ville, elle

[36:03] a écourté le travail stratégique

[36:05] du Conseil de l'administration

[36:07] et a introduit un possible

[36:09] risque rue juridiques et a mis à

[36:11] mal la démocratie municipale et,

[36:13] par intérêt politique, elle a

[36:15] peut-être menotté la ville pour

[36:17] de nombreuses années dans le

[36:18] domaine de la participation

[36:19] citoyenne. La résolution est

[36:23] également prématuré. La

[36:24] réflexion du conseil sur la

[36:27] participation citoyenne n'en a

[36:28] qu'à ses débuts. Il y a encore

[36:32] beaucoup de travail à faire

[36:33] avant que nous puissions

[36:34] commencer à communiquer

[36:35] correctement avec les citoyens.

[36:39] Les promoteurs et autres sur la

[36:41] façon dont nous proposons

[36:42] d'aller de l'avant. Je crois que

[36:47] nous aurions eu une telle

[36:48] histoire à raconter, mais dans

[36:50] la hâte d'être transparent et de

[36:52] matraquer le maire

[36:53] politiquement, nous avons

[36:55] peut-être maintenant assurer que

[36:56] nous serons dans un débat

[36:58] permanent sur les décisions de

[37:00] planification et de la façon

[37:01] dont les développements seront

[37:02] organisées à l'avenir. Il y a

[37:05] une grande différence entre la

[37:08] participation citoyenne et la

[37:09] consultation citoyenne. La

[37:12] participation offre aux citoyens

[37:13] une implication directe dans le

[37:15] processus décisionnel.

[37:23] Il s'agit d'événements à long

[37:25] terme qui prennent la forme de

[37:26] comité ou de groupe de travail,

[37:29] les consultations, quand, elle

[37:31] vise simplement à obtenir notre

[37:32] avis, votre avis, ateliers d'un

[37:35] jour, questions et réponses,

[37:37] tables rondes, merci d'être

[37:38] venu, vous avez confirmé notre

[37:40] décision. C'est ce que vous avez

[37:42] c'est... ce que vous obtenez

[37:43] dans le cadre des obligations

[37:46] légales d'un plan de Gainey

[37:47] majeur ont ensemble, par

[37:48] exemple. La participation

[37:51] citoyenne est un choix du

[37:53] conseil sans obligation forme

[37:54] dans la loi. Elle devient de

[37:56] plus en plus un outil privilégié

[37:58] des villes, car elle met tout le

[38:00] monde sur la même longueur

[38:01] d'onde. Elle est équitable et

[38:04] permet d'éliminer les

[38:05] complexités dès le départ.

[38:07] Alors, cette résolution propose

[38:11] implicitement une approche

[38:12] partagée dans la création d'un

[38:13] temps de participation

[38:15] citoyenne, une démarche

[38:17] mutuellement accepte Haas. Je ne

[38:18] peux pas accepter cette

[38:21] proposition. Elle injecte un

[38:23] parti pris évident qui pénalise

[38:24] les citoyens.

[38:34] Une personne qui possède une

[38:35] maison de 400000 dollars, elle a

[38:38] les mêmes droits qu'une personne

[38:39] qui possède un immeuble de 10

[38:41] millions de dollars. Notre DG

[38:43] va-t-elle rencontrer les

[38:44] résidents pour le demander ce

[38:46] qu'elle pense de notre plan de

[38:47] participation naissante? Non.

[38:51] Des gens, certains conseillers,

[38:52] s'opposent à un comité citoyen

[38:54] était pour une participation

[38:57] plus imposant des conseillers.

[38:58] Et si un promoteur est d'accord

[38:59] avec cette approche parce qu'ils

[39:01] pensent que ça va le favoriser,

[39:03] devinez comment ce vote

[39:05] mutuellement acceptables va se

[39:06] dérouler. On passera à l'heure

[39:07] de la participation à la

[39:08] consultation. La raison pour

[39:10] laquelle j'ai voté contre.

[39:16] >> I will try to be quicker in

[39:18] English to catch up on question

[39:19] period. This resolution is

[39:23] irresponsible and has produced,

[39:25] in my opinion, collateral damage

[39:26] of all kinds. This created

[39:28] further division in our city,

[39:30] short circuited of the strategic

[39:31] work of Council and the

[39:32] administration, it introduces

[39:34] possible legal risks, it has run

[39:36] roughshod over municipal

[39:38] democracy, political gain has

[39:40] possibly handcuffed in the city

[39:41] for many years to come in the

[39:42] area of public participation.

[39:45] The resolution is also

[39:46] premature. Councils public

[39:50] participation thinking remains

[39:51] in the early stages. There's

[39:52] still a lot of work to be done

[39:53] before we can begin to properly

[39:55] communicate with citizens,

[39:56] developers, and others on how we

[39:57] propose to move forward. I

[40:01] believe we would've had a very

[40:02] good story to tell. But in a

[40:04] rush to be transparent and

[40:06] bludgeoned the Mayor

[40:07] politically, we may have now

[40:08] ensured we will be in a

[40:09] permanent debate over planning

[40:10] decisions and how the

[40:11] developments are staged in the

[40:12] future. There is a difference

[40:16] between political -- sorry,

[40:17] there is a difference between

[40:19] public participation and public

[40:20] consultation. Participation

[40:22] offers a direct involvement in

[40:24] decision-making process for

[40:25] citizens. Very are long term

[40:27] events that take the form of

[40:29] committees or task forces.

[40:31] Consultations, on the other

[40:32] hand, simply seek your opinion,

[40:34] your advice. They workshops,

[40:37] Q&As. Thanks for coming. You

[40:40] have confirmed our decision.

[40:44] This is what you get in the

[40:46] legal obligations, of the

[40:47] comprehensive development plan

[40:48] process, for example. Public

[40:50] participation is Council's

[40:51] choice. There are no legal

[40:53] obligations under the law to

[40:54] offer such a program. It is

[40:57] increasingly becoming a

[40:57] favourite tool of cities because

[40:58] it puts everyone on the same

[40:59] page. It's equitable. It gets

[41:04] the complexities out of the way

[41:05] at the beginning. And this

[41:07] resolution implicitly proposes

[41:09] or subtly suggests joint

[41:10] ownership in the creation of a

[41:12] par bleak participation plan, a

[41:16] mutually agreeable path forward.

[41:17] I can't accept that. It injects

[41:19] a bias and shortchanges

[41:21] citizens. Someone who owns a

[41:23] 400,000 dollar home is someone

[41:25] with the same rights as someone

[41:26] who owns a 10 million dollar --

[41:30] was they think of our embryonic

[41:32] participation plan? No. Already,

[41:34] certain councils are objecting

[41:36] to's fewer citizens committee

[41:38] and arguing for more opposing

[41:39] Councillor involvement. What if

[41:42] a developer agrees with that

[41:43] approach because he thinks it

[41:44] will favour him? Guess how that

[41:46] mutually agreeable vote will go.

[41:48] The next thing you know, we've

[41:49] gone from participation to

[41:50] consultation. These are some of

[41:54] the reasons why I voted no

[41:55] against that process.

[41:57] [Applause]

[41:59] >> Thank you.

[42:02] >> Mister Thomas, that was

[42:04] really useful and excellent

[42:05] speech. Unfortunately, it

[42:09] would've been much better said

[42:10] somewhere within the last five

[42:11] months when we were actually

[42:12] discussing all this and we

[42:16] agreed to proceed with this

[42:17] path. Why did you not say event?

[42:19] Why did you not -- why did you

[42:20] not do it?

[42:23] >> Point of privilege, Mister

[42:24] Mayor?

[42:26] >> Hang on. Councillor Cowan,

[42:28] you are not sharing this

[42:29] meeting, okay? Can Councillor

[42:33] Tremblay respond now and we can

[42:34] move on to Mr. logo?

[42:35] >> I would more than happily

[42:36] respond to that. First of all,

[42:40] your proposal, which came over

[42:41] the holidays, to get into a

[42:45] resolution on this, came

[42:47] quickly. I think it was the

[42:51] first or second week of January

[42:52] when you wanted to move ahead

[42:53] with the proposal. We spoke on

[42:55] the phone. I believe it was a

[42:56] necessary at the time. I thought

[42:58] we were making some progress in

[43:00] the meetings we have. We have

[43:02] meetings generally together. I

[43:03] find those meetings go well. I

[43:05] find -- allow me to answer

[43:06] before you shake your head.

[43:09] >> Cans Councillor Tremblay

[43:11] please talk? You have talked

[43:14] extensively for the last two

[43:15] meetings. Could you let

[43:18] Councillor Tremblay talk? I

[43:20] would like Councillor Tremblay

[43:21] to talk. He's answering

[43:26] Councillor Cowan. Then we are

[43:27] getting back to question period.

[43:29] >> I will answer his question

[43:31] and let it go to question

[43:32] period. I don't want to take too

[43:33] much time.

[43:39] >> He asked me a question. I

[43:40] asked if I could answer.

[43:42] >> Please continue, Councillor

[43:44] Tremblay. I know it's not easy.

[43:45] >> The problem is the resolution

[43:47] was dropped. We had a discussion

[43:48] as to whether or not the mandate

[43:49] should have been in place. The

[43:53] resolution was being discussed

[43:54] before we had seen the mandate.

[43:57] Once I was able to see the

[43:59] mandate letter and other

[44:00] documents I don't want to raise

[44:01] here do for reasons of caucus --

[44:05] I thought we were entering into

[44:07] a dangerous strategic path by

[44:08] adopting this resolution. I

[44:11] thought hard about this. I

[44:12] believe it's important that we

[44:14] have communication with all

[44:15] parties involved. Through a

[44:18] public parse participation path

[44:19] that would include developers,

[44:20] experts, and others. I've been

[44:22] more than willing to discuss it.

[44:24] In the last caucus meeting we

[44:25] had, I was heckled. I was told,

[44:28] delay, delay, delay. I didn't

[44:30] have an opportunity. You wave

[44:31] your hands at me and said you

[44:32] didn't want to hear from me

[44:33] anymore. What am I to say? I

[44:36] would more than happily have

[44:37] this taken off the table and

[44:39] discuss it in a caucus meeting

[44:41] appropriately. We could at

[44:44] length go through the ups and

[44:45] downs of doing this kind of

[44:46] process. That's where I met. In

[44:51] honesty, that's the direction I

[44:52] took.

[44:53] >> Mr. logo?

[44:56] - Monsieur Legault, vous étiez

[44:57] là longtemps. Je -- m'excuse.

[44:58] Merci pour votre patience.

[45:02] - Monsieur Thomas demande aux

[45:04] citoyens d'agir avec décorum,

[45:06] mais je regarde les conseiller,

[45:07] là, et je trouve que vous parlez

[45:10] quand c'est pas votre. Tour vous

[45:13] parlez par-dessus le maire.

[45:14] Votre compotes E ment, c'est

[45:15] honteux!

[45:16] (applaudissements)

[45:23] >> Keith Kelly. I'm not a

[45:26] speaker, I'm not highly

[45:27] educated. I would like to talk

[45:31] about -- however, I am a

[45:32] lifetime resident of

[45:33] Pointe-Claire. Mister Mayor and

[45:37] Councillor, I am very, very

[45:41] disappointed in the council

[45:44] taken action today. I have never

[45:48] seen anything like it. The back

[45:50] room, when it was there, and

[45:52] where it was before, that's

[45:54] where the discussions took

[45:55] place. Unfortunately, that's not

[45:59] the case. It's very evident here

[46:01] today. Now, Mayor, you were

[46:06] elected. You got 21 votes, or 61

[46:08] vote, whatever it was, while the

[46:12] population of about 20,000

[46:13] people -- that goes to show the

[46:17] people here aren't out their

[46:18] voting like they should be. We

[46:20] need to change, that was your

[46:25] proposition. I agree. We need a

[46:26] change. Now, I personally think

[46:30] lately and with some of the

[46:32] changes that were made, and

[46:34] perhaps more close to me, some

[46:36] of the changes made with of the

[46:38] condo in Pointe-Claire village.

[46:39] I was born in the village. I

[46:41] think it's a disaster.

[46:44] Unfortunately, it happened. The

[46:49] parking lot as well and was

[46:51] lost. The local merchants last

[46:52] that.

[46:54] >> Point of order. I'm sorry

[46:58] This has nothing to do with

[46:59] what's on the agenda.

[47:00] >> Is your preamble --

[47:02] >> The preamble --

[47:03] >> What is the subject matter of

[47:07] the question, sorry Mr. Kelly to

[47:09] interrupt?

[47:10] >> -- which would appear to be

[47:13] -- we want to slow down, I agree

[47:15] we have to slow down and have

[47:17] some control. The Mayor and

[47:21] Council -- the Mayor and two

[47:22] councillors came into this

[47:24] committee and were involved.

[47:26] That's not the first time people

[47:27] have come to the Council and

[47:30] haven't been able to get along.

[47:31] Unfortunately, it hasn't worked.

[47:33] Some changes are bit desperately

[47:36] needed. The general consensus of

[47:38] the public's we would like and

[47:40] poet in what we're doing and I

[47:42] think this resolution does that.

[47:44] As I understand it.

[47:46] Unfortunately, our new city

[47:49] managers got stuck with the job

[47:50] to do it and that's a part of

[47:52] life, I guess. And I see these

[47:56] resolutions in every way. Last

[47:58] of all, my question is, I'd like

[48:01] the answer -- Councillor

[48:04] Stanford's question that she

[48:06] asked Council earlier tonight.

[48:08] >> She asked Council or --

[48:10] madame Verdun? Madame Verdun,

[48:12] you want to answer the question

[48:15] that Councillor force with asked

[48:16] to her? No, that's okay.

[48:18] >> It's okay, I can -- the

[48:20] difference between public

[48:22] participation and public

[48:24] consultation, the public I like

[48:27] to call the citizen

[48:29] participation in the public

[48:30] participation just to make sure

[48:32] that -- process is non monetary,

[48:36] it's unlike other public

[48:38] station. It's part of the way

[48:40] that we added by law in the

[48:43] urban planner. And the citizen

[48:45] participation is the result of a

[48:47] political wheel. So it's really,

[48:50] you know, something that we can

[48:52] do with county or some workshop

[48:54] and stuff like that. The City

[48:57] Council will provide to the

[48:58] citizen. The public consultation

[49:02] is mostly, you, know in the

[49:04] bylaw for example each by law in

[49:07] urban planning in public

[49:09] consultation, some of them also

[49:11] in the public consultation can

[49:12] lead to a referendum.

[49:15] >> Yes, Mister casino?

[49:18] Vous

[49:19] - Voulez voir en français aussi?

[49:20] - Oui.

[49:21] - Je peux te dire, pas de

[49:22] problème. Ça va être un peu

[49:27] différent, parce que j'ai pas

[49:28] lu. Donc, c'est une traduction

[49:29] libre. La participation

[49:31] citoyenne, c'est un processus

[49:32] qui n'est pas obligatoire par la

[49:34] loi. C'est un processus qui,

[49:37] dans le fond, vraiment, résulte

[49:39] d'une volonté politique d'aller

[49:41] consulter... consulter les

[49:42] citoyens. Aller chercher

[49:44] l'opinion citoyenne. Ça peut

[49:45] être par des comités, des

[49:46] ateliers de travail, différentes

[49:47] choses. Tandis que des

[49:50] consultations publiques, c'est

[49:51] vraiment un processus légal, la,

[49:53] qui est enchâssé dans la loi au

[49:54] niveau de l'urbanisme, et

[49:57] certains types de consultations

[49:59] publiques qui vont mener, aussi,

[50:00] à un référendum.

[50:03] >> Can I just ask for a

[50:06] clarification?

[50:07] >> No, that's okay Councillor

[50:08] Stainforth. We are going to get

[50:09] -- we've delayed it until now.

[50:13] You've got to give it to you.

[50:14] Now we are going to Mr.

[50:16] Cousineau, your question please?

[50:18] - Merci. J'aurais pas besoin de

[50:19] me nommer. J'adresse la question

[50:22] à vous, Monsieur le Maire. Je

[50:24] l'adresse en français parce

[50:26] qu'il est assez direct. Si vous

[50:28] voulez me répondre en anglais,

[50:29] soyez bien à l'aise. Je

[50:33] comprends la langue de

[50:35] Shakespeare moyennement bien. Ma

[50:39] question est: quelle est votre

[50:42] compréhension d'un CD B?

[50:46] - C'est un processus

[50:49] intermédiaire, et c'est une

[50:51] négociation qui inclut les

[50:53] conseillers pour elle la

[50:55] création du plan avec le

[50:58] développement, qui inclut le

[51:00] Conseil plus que le RCI. O.K.,

[51:04] merci.

[51:06] >> No, you can't. No. I would

[51:09] like -- is there another

[51:10] question, Mr. casino?

[51:11] - Oui, il y a une autre

[51:13] question, parce qu'on a pas la

[51:15] même interprétation, quoi que

[51:16] vous ayez donné les grandes

[51:17] lignes, mais ce qui circule sur

[51:22] le Web, Facebook et compagnie...

[51:25] - Beaucoup circulent.

[51:26] - Oui, beaucoup. Ma question

[51:29] est, d'abord, pourquoi est-ce

[51:30] qu'on est ici?

[51:33] - On est ici parce que un groupe

[51:36] de conseillers pensent qu'on a

[51:38] été trop lent avec la création

[51:40] du plan d'urbanisme. Ils disent

[51:44] que c'était le cas, mais c'était

[51:45] pas le cas. On a eu plusieurs

[51:48] réunions. On a décidé de cette

[51:49] formule. Depuis 1 an. J'ai une

[51:54] copie pour vous, Monsieur

[51:55] Cousineau. Nous avons une copie

[51:56] en main.

[51:59] >> We are up to date. We're

[52:01] following the program that we

[52:03] all decided on. We all decided

[52:05] cumulatively on this process.

[52:07] And we've all been following it

[52:10] and our -- On a créé des

[52:13] réunions, on a présenté

[52:16] d'information pour créer notre

[52:17] plan d'urbanisme. Des plantes

[52:18] est.

[52:19] >> They've helped us, the urban

[52:20] -- their Planning Department has

[52:21] worked with, us they've given us

[52:24] educational systems, we've

[52:25] talked about all the districts.

[52:27] As was all agreed upon. But I

[52:28] Council. So there, here

[52:33] apparently, because of that. And

[52:35] also because I misused a veto

[52:37] which I didn't. That's another

[52:39] reason why we are here tonight.

[52:40] I find the reason for being here

[52:43] completely false. I don't think

[52:44] we need to be here, I would

[52:45] think we could be at our age

[52:49] medium -- public meeting next

[52:52] February. There was no need for

[52:53] this. I think it's artificial.

[52:55] I'm sad that it's happened. Just

[52:58] getting back to the slowness of

[53:01] the perceived delay, we're at

[53:03] this meeting tonight against my

[53:06] wishes. This meeting I did not

[53:08] want to have this meeting.

[53:11] Could've had the regular

[53:12] meeting. It's been called

[53:13] against my wishes which goes to

[53:15] show that I absolutely don't

[53:17] control the agenda. We're here

[53:19] tonight as evidence that I don't

[53:21] control the agenda. So if

[53:22] anybody wants to expedite or

[53:24] speed the agenda, we are seeing

[53:25] it happen right now against my

[53:27] wishes. So the blame for

[53:30] stalling is not mine. It's

[53:34] shared collectively. Everybody,

[53:35] especially the councillors, have

[53:37] complete control over the speed

[53:38] of the process. Thank you.

[53:39] - Merci, Monsieur.

[53:44] - Oui, Madame. May I speak,

[53:46] Councillor? Does the -- do we

[53:50] need to remove them from the RCI

[53:53] in order to do the process of

[53:57] the City p? I'm asking you,

[54:01] carrying.

[54:02] - Désolé, Madame. Sorry. Do you

[54:05] need -- pour faire le processus

[54:07] décisionnel...

[54:10] >> This is kind of unfair,

[54:12] Councillor state fourth. I

[54:13] thought you wanted to speak --

[54:14] to

[54:15] >> I do.

[54:16] >> But I would like legal

[54:18] collaboration.

[54:19] >> Councillor state, for

[54:20] Councillor state for, would you

[54:22] allow me to speak.

[54:23] >> Which is untrue.

[54:24] >> Councillor state for, that's

[54:25] not what I said. Councillor,

[54:29] what we are here to do tonight

[54:31] is to answer questions from the

[54:33] citizens and I see no need for

[54:35] councillors to ask our staff in

[54:37] front of the citizens when it's

[54:39] our question period. I don't

[54:41] think that that's your right and

[54:43] I don't think that should

[54:44] happen. We are going to -- we

[54:47] are going to proceed with

[54:48] question period.

[54:55] >> Since your intro --

[54:59] - Ça, c'est votre troisième,

[55:00] hein. O.K., c'est votre

[55:01] troisième. I owe you one for

[55:03] next meeting. Your introduction

[55:09] that you read at the beginning

[55:12] of the meeting, the ordinary

[55:14] meeting, it is now part of the

[55:18] record. And I have a copy?

[55:23] >> Yes. I will give you a copy.

[55:26] >> What Councillor Tremblay red

[55:28] is also part of the --

[55:30] >> Councillor Tremblay, could he

[55:32] have a copy?

[55:33] >> You decide. There is nothing

[55:35] to force you.

[55:40] >> Sorry. Sorry.

[55:45] - Vous avez la chance, Monsieur

[55:47] Cousineau, de visionner le...

[55:50] enregistrement.

[55:51] - C'est bon, merci.

[55:52] - Monsieur Cousineau, c'est sur

[55:55] mon Facebook. C'est

[55:56] >> Là. C'était là.

[55:57] - I don't go there je ne vais

[55:58] pas là..

[56:02] >> Come on! Okay, leave him

[56:03] alone.

[56:07] - Monsieur Cousineau.

[56:19] >> I believe it. My name is

[56:22] Ralph. I live in district too. I

[56:27] live in district too. Early on

[56:34] in the council's mandate, I was

[56:36] so pleasantly surprised to see

[56:39] how the politicians overcame the

[56:41] visions and worked together to

[56:43] create the interim control

[56:44] bylaw. I generally thought it

[56:48] was quite impressive how people

[56:50] of diverse opinions and after a

[56:52] pretty raucous, rough-and-tumble

[56:53] election came together an

[56:55] accomplished that. When the

[57:01] councillors attempted to change

[57:02] that process for Cadillac

[57:05] Fairview's property only, and I

[57:07] would argue Cadillac Fairview's

[57:10] benefit, and instead have a

[57:11] comprehensive development plan

[57:14] like a lot of other PC

[57:15] residents, I was pretty

[57:17] outraged. I did not know what AC

[57:19] BP was. I did some homework. I

[57:23] went to the municipalities, read

[57:26] it up, read a number of

[57:29] different analyses and reports

[57:31] on CB peas. It became quite

[57:33] clear and obvious that they are

[57:36] designed to allow a developer to

[57:40] rewrite bylaws in order to

[57:41] favour their project and submit

[57:43] to the City for approval. The

[57:45] bias in favour of Cadillac

[57:46] Fairview was obvious. Pretty

[57:52] upset. I then saw the town halls

[57:55] that were being -- my different

[57:56] councillors. I went to the one

[57:57] for my district. It was a town

[58:00] hall for three districts. I was

[58:03] stunned to realize that none of

[58:06] the three councillors really had

[58:07] read the law or understood what

[58:08] it was. Gloriously promoted it

[58:14] as some way, a new fantastic way

[58:19] of democracy and bringing it --

[58:21] that clearly was not what it

[58:22] was, according to what I read.

[58:27] Then things were topsy-turvy. I

[58:28] was stunned yet again when the

[58:30] City Councillors retracted the

[58:32] resolution for a Cadillac

[58:33] Fairview comprehensive

[58:34] development plan. I was all over

[58:36] again really impressed. I

[58:38] thought, wow. To be honest, I

[58:45] didn't expect the councillors to

[58:46] realize that the original course

[58:47] was best. Much more importantly,

[58:50] to have the courage. I will say

[58:55] this specifically to Eric,

[58:57] because, Eric, I heard speak

[58:59] about and read his thoughts. I

[59:03] was really impressed that they

[59:05] had the courage to in fact

[59:07] change course again and do what

[59:09] was best for the city. To me, I

[59:14] applauded that and thought that

[59:16] was the way for councillors to

[59:20] responsibly protect the whole

[59:21] idea of -- forced participatory

[59:24] democracy that was being

[59:25] created. And then, bang! Stunned

[59:30] again to see that here we are

[59:33] once again, the City wants to

[59:34] give Cadillac Fairview yet

[59:35] another way of influencing or

[59:39] dramatically altering the role

[59:41] of this isn't in our democracy

[59:42] of Pointe-Claire. It is up and

[59:44] down and back and forth. Wow.

[59:49] Come on, folks. It reflects the

[59:53] big struggle that goes on in

[59:54] your caucus meetings. I know

[59:57] it's rough but the path should

[59:58] have been clear. With the CD

[1:00:04] Pete debate, this afternoon I

[1:00:09] saw by accident this name which

[1:00:11] I think reflected my feelings on

[1:00:13] it. With the CDP, I would have

[1:00:16] to say the old quote, only once,

[1:00:17] shame on you. And then with the

[1:00:22] current resolution I would have

[1:00:23] to say, fool me twice, shame on

[1:00:24] me. Since I believe, Eric, you

[1:00:30] are quite important in

[1:00:32] processing that whole debate and

[1:00:36] courageously seeing the

[1:00:38] inappropriate nature of the CDP,

[1:00:39] doing what was best for the city

[1:00:41] and altering course and putting

[1:00:42] us back on the path of an

[1:00:45] unaltered ICB, I want to direct

[1:00:47] the question to. Anyone else who

[1:00:48] wants to answer can. The

[1:00:55] resolution calls for the, quote

[1:00:56] unquote, creation of a

[1:00:58] comprehensive plan for zones A

[1:01:00] Mu1 and Mu2, Cadillac Fairview

[1:01:01] properties. And, so two

[1:01:04] questions. One, do you believe

[1:01:09] it's possible for a mere

[1:01:12] sampling of residents, of

[1:01:14] citizens, to match the power,

[1:01:17] the wealth, the dominating

[1:01:20] nature of Cadillac Fairview and

[1:01:21] come up with a truly

[1:01:23] independent, quote unquote,

[1:01:24] comprehensive plan? It sounds

[1:01:28] mysteriously like a sea DP with

[1:01:29] a little consultation. As an

[1:01:32] example, do you believe that

[1:01:35] citizens should point out to

[1:01:36] Cadillac Fairview that any

[1:01:40] bulldozing of any park of the

[1:01:43] tiny, vulnerable micro forests,

[1:01:45] the Fairview forest, which would

[1:01:49] destroy wetlands and or the

[1:01:54] separatist distinct area

[1:01:55] inhabited by the brown snake,

[1:01:56] because they are different?

[1:02:00] Where the wetlands are not

[1:02:03] present, it's a habitat of the

[1:02:04] brown snake. You can't have a

[1:02:08] compromise and destroy, raise

[1:02:10] part of the forest and have it

[1:02:13] as an intact viable, little tiny

[1:02:17] micro forest. Right now, it's

[1:02:19] remarkable in that it sustains

[1:02:22] itself independently as a whole

[1:02:24] little ecosystem. You destroy

[1:02:28] any part of it, you ruin it. You

[1:02:31] can't say, we will do 60 to 70,

[1:02:36] 40 to 60, some percentage. It's

[1:02:38] a tiny delirium. You screw it

[1:02:40] up, it will never be the same.

[1:02:42] It will be a tiny clump of

[1:02:43] trees. The question is, in what

[1:02:47] you are proposing, do you really

[1:02:49] expect there to be citizens

[1:02:51] representative of that concern,

[1:02:54] and that they are going to come

[1:02:55] to an opinion with Cadillac

[1:02:58] Fairview that everything is

[1:02:59] hunky dory? We will all agree

[1:03:03] that the forest should be

[1:03:05] preserved and intact for future

[1:03:06] generations of Pointe-Claire. I

[1:03:10] don't buy that. I don't think

[1:03:11] that's possible. I think the

[1:03:13] citizens need to be given the

[1:03:17] priority here to do what is not

[1:03:20] appropriate, just purely for

[1:03:23] profit, do what's appropriate

[1:03:26] for what we all know is the

[1:03:27] right thing to do. So that's the

[1:03:30] first question. And you believe

[1:03:33] it's a fair process where people

[1:03:36] can come to the right solution

[1:03:41] like that, considering the

[1:03:42] wealth and power of Cadillac

[1:03:45] Fairview with ordinary citizens.

[1:03:47] Eric or anyone else?

[1:03:51] >> Weigh in, yes. The ordinary

[1:03:52] citizens --

[1:03:58] >> Excuse me, Councillor Cowan.

[1:04:00] Councillor Stork was addressed

[1:04:01] the question. I will give him

[1:04:02] first right of refusal on the

[1:04:03] question.

[1:04:06] >> I -- I will answer after.

[1:04:09] >> Oh, Eric.

[1:04:13] >> The answer is absolutely yes.

[1:04:15] I don't know why you are afraid

[1:04:18] citizens are weak, look at you,

[1:04:20] citizens are -- citizens will

[1:04:21] voice their views. The future of

[1:04:25] the Fairview forest, it could

[1:04:27] very well be, according to the

[1:04:30] outcome, could very well be

[1:04:33] preserved forever. That's one of

[1:04:34] the -- that's on the table.

[1:04:35] That's definitely on the table.

[1:04:36] Whoever said it was not? And no

[1:04:37] one ever said it was not accept

[1:04:41] some forces of dissembling

[1:04:42] information. It's not off the

[1:04:43] table. -- once said in this

[1:04:50] council of Chamber that

[1:04:51] recognizing that if you are

[1:04:52] going to get concessions from

[1:04:54] the owner of the property maybe

[1:04:56] should be talking about the two

[1:04:57] zone so if you want to get

[1:04:59] concessions on Mu2, maybe you

[1:05:01] have it through a negotiation,

[1:05:03] you have concessions on Mu1.

[1:05:05] That is the other thing that's

[1:05:06] getting all dissembled. This

[1:05:08] whole process we are talking

[1:05:11] about to empower the resolution

[1:05:13] is not to have that negotiation

[1:05:15] at all. It's only to get to that

[1:05:18] negotiation! That's the only

[1:05:20] thing. We are trying to get the

[1:05:23] director general not to talk

[1:05:27] about comprehensive development

[1:05:28] plans, not to talk about

[1:05:30] anything 27 storey buildings or

[1:05:31] anything else! It's only to get

[1:05:33] Cadillac Fairview to agree to

[1:05:35] get to the table with citizens.

[1:05:38] If that mutually agreeable

[1:05:40] accord can't have, an Cadillac

[1:05:42] Fairview have to sit and watch

[1:05:43] on the sidelines. And that's

[1:05:44] what it's all about.

[1:05:50] >> Pretty much what Councillor

[1:05:53] Cowan said. I just want to go to

[1:05:55] the flip-flop that's always

[1:05:56] referred to and reference to the

[1:05:58] -- with Cadillac. There the

[1:06:00] primary reason for my change, I

[1:06:02] was given certain information

[1:06:04] saying that we had legal

[1:06:05] protection against Cadillac

[1:06:06] Fairview if we could keep amount

[1:06:08] of the espy. Premised midnight,

[1:06:09] I was informed that legal

[1:06:12] protection no longer existed.

[1:06:13] There was a change of

[1:06:14] information, change of I don't

[1:06:15] know. I wasn't very happy with

[1:06:16] it. So compelled to protect the

[1:06:19] citizens rights, I reversed my

[1:06:20] decision to put them back in the

[1:06:22] ICB. So I am not going to expose

[1:06:25] our citizens or city with any

[1:06:26] harm. And despite doing that in

[1:06:28] itself, yes, of course the

[1:06:30] powerful, they have money, but

[1:06:31] we're gonna fight for what we

[1:06:33] have -- for what's best for.

[1:06:35] Citizens but as Councillor Cowan

[1:06:37] said, we have to get to that

[1:06:38] stage. We have to listen to our

[1:06:39] citizens, we have to go through

[1:06:40] all the trade-offs, we have to

[1:06:41] understand the social impact,

[1:06:42] the environmental impacts. And

[1:06:43] even the financial impacts of

[1:06:46] what we do. But if we come to a

[1:06:47] consensus together, we will do

[1:06:48] what the citizens want. There is

[1:06:49] no question about it but we have

[1:06:51] to understand, you have to get

[1:06:53] to that point and that's what

[1:06:54] we're trying to get out and this

[1:06:56] is a non binding resolution. We

[1:06:58] disagree with it, they'll come

[1:07:00] back and say -- we don't agree

[1:07:02] with that, we just tell them to

[1:07:04] go home. So there's no, it's

[1:07:06] just a start to discussion,

[1:07:08] plain and simple.

[1:07:09] >> Dying to debate that I know

[1:07:11] that's not appropriate here.

[1:07:12] >> Let's get it over coffee.

[1:07:16] >> May I answer your answer?

[1:07:21] >> Yes you may, Councillor

[1:07:22] Stainforth.

[1:07:23] >> The reason I would favour

[1:07:25] this E DP over simply having the

[1:07:28] RCI with the rezoning and urban

[1:07:31] plan is that when we look at

[1:07:33] just a public consultation as

[1:07:38] Councillor Tremblay pointed out,

[1:07:39] it's very lacking, I would say.

[1:07:41] We're talking behind limits,

[1:07:42] we're talking about setbacks, et

[1:07:44] cetera. It doesn't get very much

[1:07:46] control to the citizen. With the

[1:07:49] CDP, yes, bylaw, we are mandate

[1:07:51] to have two public

[1:07:53] consultations. But as a Council,

[1:07:55] we have hired a firm for the

[1:07:58] participatory activities. We

[1:08:01] have supported the Mayor's

[1:08:03] proposal of following suit with

[1:08:06] the Kirkland -- the way they

[1:08:09] conducted theirs with citizens

[1:08:10] from all around the city as well

[1:08:13] as -- I had suggested that we

[1:08:14] waited more heavily for district

[1:08:16] six because that's where they

[1:08:17] live as well, so everyone can

[1:08:18] weigh in. What it does is, it

[1:08:23] allows us to have more detail in

[1:08:26] more complete plan. Why do we

[1:08:27] need the collaboration of

[1:08:29] Cadillac Fairview? Because they

[1:08:32] need to -- they need to agree to

[1:08:35] that plan. And if there agreed

[1:08:36] to that plan, then we write it

[1:08:38] into law. Once it's written,

[1:08:40] it's called chapter, once that

[1:08:41] chapter is written, then we can

[1:08:43] remove them from the RCI. But in

[1:08:45] the RCI, they're there in the

[1:08:47] entire process. At any point in

[1:08:49] time, we are free to walk away

[1:08:52] and just say, too bad, we will

[1:08:54] just proceed the way we are with

[1:08:56] all the other properties. But I

[1:08:58] don't think that's what anybody

[1:08:59] here wants because all you're

[1:09:01] gonna get to vote on is setbacks

[1:09:06] in heights and percentage of

[1:09:08] green space. I would like to

[1:09:10] know the types of promises that

[1:09:11] are gonna go, when the different

[1:09:14] types of housing, that's my

[1:09:19] personal opinion and that's that

[1:09:20] of my citizens. All my citizens

[1:09:22] that have reached out to me have

[1:09:24] supported this resolution in

[1:09:27] having Ms. ridden simply go and

[1:09:29] speak to them and see if they

[1:09:31] will at least done at the table

[1:09:33] and speak to us and potentially

[1:09:35] informing this committee or

[1:09:36] moving Ford in that sense. It's

[1:09:37] nothing more than that. And --

[1:09:42] >> Councillor Stainforth --

[1:09:44] >> We just put it back to the

[1:09:46] same plan as every other

[1:09:47] property and we will get to take

[1:09:49] your vote on your high

[1:09:51] preference and your setback

[1:09:53] preference, et cetera.

[1:09:57] >> Councillor, and Mr. -- the

[1:10:01] question here is what the

[1:10:03] citizens want and my question

[1:10:04] is, which citizens? The centre

[1:10:07] delusional but the Kirkland

[1:10:08] process which I met with the D G

[1:10:09] and the mayor of Kirkland a few

[1:10:12] days back is that, in their

[1:10:14] process, the citizens chose the

[1:10:17] representation. They entirely

[1:10:20] chose the representation.

[1:10:21] Whereas in the process and these

[1:10:23] resolution, there's going to be

[1:10:28] joint decision-making over the

[1:10:29] decision making -- the

[1:10:31] participation process. Yes, it

[1:10:32] does so and in that process

[1:10:34] they're giving a 50/50

[1:10:36] relationship between the city

[1:10:38] and Cadillac developer to

[1:10:39] influence the citizen

[1:10:41] participation process. That's

[1:10:43] where we -- that's where it

[1:10:45] deviates from the Kirkland

[1:10:46] process.

[1:10:47] >> Even on the last five months.

[1:10:50] >> Mr. Mayer, if I may. I think

[1:10:55] therein lies Mr. still second

[1:11:00] rift with what the previous

[1:11:01] three councillors expressed. The

[1:11:03] resolution which I worry about

[1:11:05] what this resolution might lead

[1:11:06] to. In my opinion, if you are

[1:11:13] going to approach, as your first

[1:11:16] step, one particular player in

[1:11:18] the process, you constantly told

[1:11:23] everybody that this is a

[1:11:25] development, developer-centric

[1:11:26] model. We are heading in that

[1:11:28] decision the direction first. We

[1:11:30] are certainly not heading in a

[1:11:33] community driven process,

[1:11:34] community driven meaning all

[1:11:35] members of community. Which is

[1:11:37] the residents that live in the

[1:11:38] area, the developers, the

[1:11:40] administration, experts, people

[1:11:42] who may have an opinion in terms

[1:11:43] of the process that we move in

[1:11:44] on. These discussions, I worry,

[1:11:49] may lead to another step that

[1:11:51] will just bring us to a level

[1:11:54] where we are increasingly

[1:11:56] becoming distant from actually

[1:11:57] speaking to the citizens

[1:11:58] directly. As I mentioned in a

[1:12:00] statement that I read, we are in

[1:12:02] an embryonic stage in terms of

[1:12:04] setting up our public

[1:12:06] participation committee. There's

[1:12:07] a lot of work still to be done

[1:12:08] on that level and I would have

[1:12:09] preferred to wait. I would

[1:12:11] prefer to wait before I

[1:12:14] approached citizens or a

[1:12:15] developer on this sort of thing

[1:12:16] to actually have something to

[1:12:17] sell to them. Right now, I'm

[1:12:19] worried that we're at a stage of

[1:12:22] pure with -- improvisation. That

[1:12:25] improvisation may not be

[1:12:26] favourable to the developer, it

[1:12:27] may or may not be in favour of

[1:12:29] what the councillors want to

[1:12:30] see. But what I stated earlier,

[1:12:33] I think this is a premature

[1:12:34] move. And but will come of it I

[1:12:37] don't know. I don't like to

[1:12:41] negotiate, do business, to

[1:12:43] prepare whatever entity I work

[1:12:45] for sort of thinking, let's go

[1:12:47] cc and talk and see what they

[1:12:48] think and if it works it will

[1:12:50] work. We need to be completely

[1:12:51] ready on our and to be able to

[1:12:53] engage in something like that in

[1:12:54] order to get to where we need to

[1:12:55] be. That, whether you agree with

[1:12:58] me or not, is a clear

[1:13:00] philosophical difference in

[1:13:01] terms of where we're going.

[1:13:04] >> Councillor still sick, I

[1:13:05] think you are up. You're done.

[1:13:07] You have one more?

[1:13:09] >> Second question. If the city,

[1:13:12] and Cadillac Fairview, hold a

[1:13:14] separate process inter along

[1:13:15] with some citizens participating

[1:13:17] and a, quote, unquote,

[1:13:20] comprehensive plan is produced.

[1:13:22] Well this plan, will in any way

[1:13:25] at all restrict, modify, alter

[1:13:29] the ability of citizens to

[1:13:32] decide in favour of something

[1:13:35] completely different option in

[1:13:37] the ICB public consultation?

[1:13:42] >> It's the same.

[1:13:44] >> Pardon me?

[1:13:45] >> It's the same.

[1:13:46] >> Yes, it's not a separate

[1:13:47] thing. Everything in the icy be

[1:13:51] -- the ICB is a --

[1:13:54] overdevelopment over parts of

[1:13:55] the city. Many different areas.

[1:13:56] The whole thing has to be dealt

[1:14:00] with. You can't deal with -- you

[1:14:01] know, it's just a question of

[1:14:05] procedural is aware -- how do

[1:14:06] you deal with the whole city,

[1:14:08] every territory, every square

[1:14:09] inch of it with one treatment?

[1:14:11] >> It's not just a consultation

[1:14:15] process first and the icy be

[1:14:16] after. The ICB then will no

[1:14:20] longer apply in the same way to

[1:14:22] Cadillac Fairview properties?

[1:14:24] >> Wendy -- Cadillac Fairview

[1:14:29] simply -- one of the areas, one

[1:14:31] of the areas has been treated

[1:14:34] with, several areas in the city

[1:14:35] have to be dealt with. It will

[1:14:37] be dealt with in the -- to use

[1:14:40] the expression goose egg, you

[1:14:42] have a problem on the map, you

[1:14:43] goose egg your objectives. The

[1:14:47] goose egg is one digestible

[1:14:49] piece you can actually get your

[1:14:51] hands around and plan and start.

[1:14:53] My concern about Councillor

[1:14:55] Tremblay's approach is we will

[1:14:56] never get started. He will never

[1:14:59] be -- there will never be enough

[1:15:01] information. We've been doing

[1:15:02] this for five months now, the

[1:15:04] planning department has been

[1:15:05] preparing this way forward for

[1:15:06] us for five months.

[1:15:09] >> I'm not certain I understand

[1:15:13] the answer specifically to the

[1:15:14] question. If they come to -- in

[1:15:18] the first process that you are

[1:15:20] building tonight -- a

[1:15:21] comprehensive plan, what then

[1:15:26] happens to Mu1 and Mu2 within

[1:15:27] the ICB? Is it no longer discuss

[1:15:32] in the same way the -- what it

[1:15:36] would have normally? Is it then

[1:15:37] cut out? Modified in some way?

[1:15:40] >> Let me try to say it again.

[1:15:44] It's one proposal, it's one

[1:15:45] process to deal with the whole

[1:15:46] city. We have one area up there

[1:15:48] that we will deal with. When the

[1:15:51] comprehensive development -- if

[1:15:52] a comprehensive development plan

[1:15:54] is arrived, it would only be

[1:15:55] arrived at with a high degree of

[1:15:57] consensus. That's the whole

[1:15:58] objective here. You were talking

[1:16:01] about the comprehensive

[1:16:03] development plan favouring a

[1:16:04] developer. Not necessarily and

[1:16:06] not in this case. A

[1:16:07] comprehensive development plan

[1:16:10] specifies what the City will

[1:16:11] permit to go up there in much

[1:16:14] more detail than zoning or any

[1:16:16] state bylaw will allow as

[1:16:17] Councillor Stainforth was

[1:16:18] saying. The process -- I get

[1:16:24] that people are suspicious about

[1:16:26] the process but the objective is

[1:16:29] to obtain a consensus, and if

[1:16:31] you have a consensus, then that

[1:16:35] problem is now solved. Now we

[1:16:38] can deal with other problems.

[1:16:40] >> When you have that process

[1:16:43] done, then there is no more roll

[1:16:45] vis-à-vis those properties in

[1:16:47] the interim control bylaw?

[1:16:50] >> The interim control bylaw is

[1:16:52] only a temporary freeze. That's

[1:16:54] it. As you deal with the areas

[1:16:57] within the city, you pull them

[1:16:58] out.

[1:16:59] >> Okay. So it is cut out.

[1:17:03] >> But if you are referring to,

[1:17:05] as Councillor Stainforth was

[1:17:06] mentioning, the urban plant, we

[1:17:08] have not even sorted that out

[1:17:09] yet. Are we going to have the

[1:17:11] full Urban Plan done first? Yes,

[1:17:13] quite possible. And then even if

[1:17:17] the comprehensive development

[1:17:18] plan is done, it sits on the

[1:17:20] sideline. It is finished, it's

[1:17:21] done, but we don't lift them out

[1:17:22] of the, exit we wait for the

[1:17:24] whole urban plan to be done and

[1:17:25] we move on to the rest of the

[1:17:26] city, one by one by one.

[1:17:28] Otherwise, how do we get started

[1:17:30] on this? It's been over a year

[1:17:31] now. And this approach with

[1:17:36] Cadillac Fairview, as I've been

[1:17:37] saying over and over again, has

[1:17:38] been worked on by the

[1:17:39] administration for five months.

[1:17:41] >> Originally, we had a process

[1:17:44] independent of Cadillac,

[1:17:46] somewhat independent of Cadillac

[1:17:48] Fairview's influence, potential

[1:17:50] domination. And now we don't.

[1:17:56] >> Mr. Tremblay.

[1:17:58] >> Go ahead.

[1:17:59] >> I want to get back to the

[1:18:00] idea of waiting and delaying and

[1:18:01] talking and delaying the whole

[1:18:02] project. Also the fact that it's

[1:18:06] been over a year that we have

[1:18:08] been wrangling with this. You

[1:18:10] have to remember the project

[1:18:11] we're looking at in that

[1:18:13] particular area is a centerpiece

[1:18:16] of what Pointe-Claire is all

[1:18:17] about. It doesn't just -- it's

[1:18:19] not just an area that's relevant

[1:18:20] to the citizens of

[1:18:22] Pointe-Claire, there are people

[1:18:23] from all over the West Island.

[1:18:26] It's important that we get it

[1:18:27] right. I don't see why taking

[1:18:29] your time and being reflective

[1:18:32] and thinking about how you want

[1:18:33] to approach this very carefully

[1:18:35] -- even in a way that may

[1:18:37] benefit the developer. I would

[1:18:41] want nothing more than to see a

[1:18:43] project by the citizens, the

[1:18:46] developer, anyone in

[1:18:47] Pointe-Claire is really proud of

[1:18:49] going forward. Rather than use

[1:18:52] the word delay, I would say it's

[1:18:54] just we are doing our homework,

[1:18:55] we are doing due diligence of

[1:18:56] going through the process. I,

[1:19:00] for one, would be prepared to

[1:19:01] meet every single way -- day of

[1:19:03] the week to get our ducks in a

[1:19:04] row, our studies, our planning

[1:19:06] process, our public

[1:19:09] participation methods and

[1:19:10] methodology, not just a few

[1:19:11] lines in a pie paragraph, but a

[1:19:12] real platform. Why didn't this

[1:19:14] resolution speak directly to the

[1:19:16] citizens and say, hey, we are

[1:19:17] inviting you to come over and

[1:19:20] you have a public participation

[1:19:21] plan that we are putting

[1:19:22] together. It will but it is --

[1:19:26] we will have to see where these

[1:19:28] discussions take us. I, like you

[1:19:29] are, Councillor Thorstad-Cullen,

[1:19:34] saw documentation that makes me

[1:19:35] worry about that. Hence, my

[1:19:37] decision to think, well, we need

[1:19:38] to slow down and really think

[1:19:40] carefully about what we are

[1:19:41] doing rather than doing what we

[1:19:42] are doing now which, to me, has

[1:19:45] not an aura but a hint of

[1:19:47] improvisation as we go along. If

[1:19:48] they don't like, it we will see

[1:19:49] what we do. We are not done yet.

[1:19:51] There is much work to be done

[1:19:52] that will benefit the developer,

[1:19:53] that will benefit the citizens.

[1:19:56] Hence my argument that we are

[1:19:57] rushing through this

[1:20:00] unnecessarily. It has created a

[1:20:01] lot of animosity and destruction

[1:20:03] within the town when there are

[1:20:06] issues such as taxation we could

[1:20:07] be assessing. And that's where I

[1:20:12] stand on it. I appreciate the

[1:20:13] points of view of my colleagues

[1:20:16] on Council. I would have

[1:20:17] preferred much more time to go

[1:20:18] over this. Unfortunately, we are

[1:20:20] where we are. We will see what

[1:20:21] comes out of this.

[1:20:23] >> Mr. -- if I could.

[1:20:25] [Applause]

[1:20:28] Apparently we are not allowed to

[1:20:29] clap. Councillor Cowan, how do

[1:20:34] we get started, from your

[1:20:35] perspective? Ideally, he would

[1:20:40] speak to the all the citizens of

[1:20:42] Pointe-Claire in an even equal

[1:20:43] manner and come up with the

[1:20:45] framework of how we see our city

[1:20:46] going forward and then present

[1:20:47] that. To any potential developer

[1:20:52] down the road. That's what I

[1:20:54] envisaged when we did the

[1:20:56] measure. That's what I would

[1:20:57] still like to see happen, have

[1:20:58] to have happen. Doesn't seem

[1:21:02] like it answers your question.

[1:21:04] We will see, will it come, up

[1:21:05] will it be fair, what will the

[1:21:07] result be? And the process is

[1:21:09] being driven and not by the

[1:21:10] citizen but by other forces at

[1:21:11] first. I'm concerned like you.

[1:21:13] It is natural instinct. We are

[1:21:17] way better off if we speak to

[1:21:18] the public and get their

[1:21:19] sentiments first before going

[1:21:20] forward.

[1:21:24] >> Thank you very much for

[1:21:25] trying your best to give

[1:21:26] comprehensive answers.

[1:21:29] - Monsieur Lapointe, une

[1:21:30] autre...

[1:21:36] - Le CD paie, il n'y a pas de

[1:21:40] référendum, dans ça? Le CBP?

[1:21:46] - Pardon?

[1:21:48] - Le CBP, il n'y a pas de

[1:21:50] référendum? Il

[1:21:51] - Peut y en avoir un, oui.

[1:21:54] - Le assaillis, on a une

[1:21:56] consultation publique et on peut

[1:21:58] avoir un référendum?

[1:21:59] - Je pense que oui. Je pense que

[1:22:01] oui, mais je suis pas certain.

[1:22:03] - En 2017, on a fait 27 - 75 -

[1:22:12] 39, c'était de deux à 15 et

[1:22:15] cachent. Sur le pouvoir

[1:22:18] Brunswick, dans la forêt Mu2,

[1:22:22] deux étages à 15 étages. Et sur

[1:22:27] le bord de la 40, deux et 40 à

[1:22:30] 15 étages. Cette journée-là, un

[1:22:34] lobbyiste de Cadillac Fairview

[1:22:36] est un membre de la direction de

[1:22:39] Cadillac Fairview étaient

[1:22:40] d'accord pour le changement de

[1:22:42] la Ville de Pointe-Claire pour

[1:22:45] Mu1 et Mu2. Et ils avaient

[1:22:48] aucune restriction sur les

[1:22:49] auteurs, aucune restriction sur

[1:22:50] le nombre des tâches, et c'est

[1:22:51] ce que l'on veut changer

[1:22:52] aujourd'hui. Mu1, on n'a pas

[1:22:58] besoin d'avoir 15 étages et 25

[1:23:02] étages. On veut retourner. Ça

[1:23:04] cette méthode-là, on va pouvoir

[1:23:07] faire un référendum sur ça, et

[1:23:08] remettre ça comme c'était avant.

[1:23:12] Est-ce que vous allez faire ça?

[1:23:18] >> Councillor Stork would like

[1:23:19] to comment.

[1:23:21] >> You are 100 percent correct.

[1:23:24] That's when they passed --

[1:23:30] that's part of a special

[1:23:31] planning program. I remember

[1:23:35] watching the videotape on July

[1:23:37] 4th when they were asked a

[1:23:38] question about the height

[1:23:39] restrictions and such. Because

[1:23:40] it was a special planning

[1:23:42] program, it was subject to

[1:23:44] public consultation but was not

[1:23:45] subject to a public referendum.

[1:23:47] Having analyzed that file, we

[1:23:49] discuss it many times with a lot

[1:23:50] of work together to find that

[1:23:51] file. It's a valid point that

[1:23:53] needs to be looked at in

[1:23:54] reference to the CP and what's

[1:23:56] happening with the ICB. A bit

[1:23:58] more research has to be done to

[1:23:59] that.

[1:24:00] >> Councillor Stainforth?

[1:24:02] - Je peux vous répondre au

[1:24:04] niveau du référendum. Ce que

[1:24:06] vous voulez que je vous explique

[1:24:09] le processus? Légalement? Je

[1:24:11] - Comprends le processus, oui.

[1:24:13] - Alors, après la première

[1:24:16] consultation qui est pour la

[1:24:18] ville en entier et que l'on

[1:24:21] adopte les critères, la deuxième

[1:24:24] consultation, là, ils vont

[1:24:26] soumettre leur plan et, après

[1:24:28] ça, une fois que c'est soumis,

[1:24:32] on peut avoir un référendum dans

[1:24:39] les coller autour.

[1:24:41] - Et les autres citoyens, eux

[1:24:43] autres, ils ont pas d'affaire?

[1:24:48] - There is citywide and then

[1:24:49] contiguous for the referendum.

[1:24:51] That is in the legal process. We

[1:24:54] hired a firm in order to do the

[1:24:57] participants -- participatory

[1:24:59] activities that our city why.

[1:25:00] - Et ça, c'est le même qui a

[1:25:02] fait le code qu'il a joué.

[1:25:10] -

[1:25:11] >> Mister oui, absolument.

[1:25:12] Mayor, if I may?

[1:25:13] >> Yes, absolutely.

[1:25:14] >> If we could have that

[1:25:15] validated, whether that process

[1:25:18] -- Councillor Stainforth --

[1:25:21] could you ask if she agrees with

[1:25:24] the statement we just made?

[1:25:30] >> Do you want me to repeat it?

[1:25:32] >> Sure.

[1:25:33] >> Can you validate that and the

[1:25:36] process there are two mandatory

[1:25:38] public consultations. The first

[1:25:39] of which is citywide, the CCP

[1:25:42] criteria are adopted. At the

[1:25:44] second one, the -- only after

[1:25:47] the adoption of the criteria. In

[1:25:49] addition to public consultation,

[1:25:52] finally submitted. At the

[1:25:53] request of the citizens and

[1:25:55] contiguous areas to the reform

[1:25:56] process.

[1:26:01] >> If I may, Mrs. Stainforth. In

[1:26:03] order to have a precise answer,

[1:26:06] I will provide you with all the

[1:26:08] process and then you can publish

[1:26:13] it maybe on your Facebook or at

[1:26:14] the next meeting. Yeah. I want

[1:26:20] to make sure I will give you it,

[1:26:23] the right and precise

[1:26:26] information for the specific

[1:26:28] Cadillac Fairview project.

[1:26:32] >>

[1:26:33] - Merci, Monsieur Lapointe.

[1:26:34] - On va attendre la réponse?

[1:26:35] - Oui, la réponse de...

[1:26:38] - Je peux vous donner la

[1:26:39] réponse, si vous voulez. Venez

[1:26:40] me voir à mon bureau. Vous savez

[1:26:42] où il est. Sinon, à la prochaine

[1:26:44] séance publique, je pourrai vous

[1:26:45] en faire part.

[1:26:46] - O.K., merci.

[1:27:02] >> Lynn Conway. I wasn't

[1:27:04] planning on coming tonight and

[1:27:05] asking questions. I would much

[1:27:07] prefer to stay at home in the

[1:27:08] comfort of my warm house then to

[1:27:12] go out on a cold evening. I was

[1:27:13] a bit surprised of finding when

[1:27:15] I came home and I saw

[1:27:17] information about the protest

[1:27:20] about this meeting for the

[1:27:23] resolution and the meeting

[1:27:24] tonight. I don't think it was

[1:27:25] proper to have this meeting

[1:27:26] tonight. I found the article 53.

[1:27:35] Article 53 said, if such a time,

[1:27:37] the mayor advises the clerk that

[1:27:39] he does not approve, the latter

[1:27:44] shed submit it again to the

[1:27:45] Council of the next meeting.

[1:27:48] It's like what he was talking

[1:27:49] about the first time he came up.

[1:27:52] The next, what is not written

[1:27:53] there in brackets is the next

[1:27:55] regular sitting. There is

[1:27:59] nothing that says it's an

[1:28:00] emergency to do an extraordinary

[1:28:01] meeting. It says the next

[1:28:03] sitting, because last week Mayor

[1:28:04] Thomas said it could be

[1:28:07] discussed again or voted again

[1:28:08] in February. I'm really opposed

[1:28:11] to how this -- I think this

[1:28:12] council is stepping over the

[1:28:16] boundaries. I don't even know

[1:28:17] how it came about to be passed.

[1:28:21] I think they are taking the

[1:28:23] councillor is taking away from

[1:28:24] the Mayor's powers. I don't know

[1:28:27] why the clerk allowed this

[1:28:29] meeting to happen. I think it

[1:28:30] should all be re-visited. I

[1:28:32] don't know how this citizens of

[1:28:33] Pointe-Claire feel about. This

[1:28:38] was very upsetting for me.

[1:28:39] >> Miss Conway, the process was

[1:28:42] acceptable. That's the way it's

[1:28:43] done. I can deny the meeting and

[1:28:48] then four councillors can get

[1:28:49] together, sign and have a

[1:28:50] meeting called. They are allowed

[1:28:51] to do that.

[1:28:52] >> You had said at the past

[1:28:53] meeting it would be discussed

[1:28:54] again on February 7th or 17th

[1:28:56] and nobody said anything then.

[1:29:00] >> I was anticipating going to

[1:29:01] February. I wish we had. I, like

[1:29:04] you, don't see the need for this

[1:29:05] meeting. I feel it's

[1:29:06] unfortunate.

[1:29:07] >> Yes. Okay. That was the point

[1:29:09] I was making also. So Friday, I

[1:29:17] saw online all the discussion.

[1:29:20] Over the weekend, I participated

[1:29:21] in the discussion. In no time at

[1:29:23] all people wear replying that I

[1:29:26] was doing misinformation. I

[1:29:29] don't do misinformation. If

[1:29:31] anything, this document, of the

[1:29:33] resolution for the public

[1:29:36] participation in determining the

[1:29:37] future of zones Mu1 and Mu2 --

[1:29:41] at last meeting, it was repeated

[1:29:43] a few times that the meetings

[1:29:45] will be in-camera. Those

[1:29:49] meetings are going to be behind

[1:29:51] closed doors. Those meetings

[1:29:52] behind closed doors, does the

[1:29:55] public have access to what is

[1:29:57] being filmed in-camera? It's

[1:29:59] written in the resolution. I

[1:30:00] find this document is anything

[1:30:03] that is misleading. I want to

[1:30:04] know moving forward the

[1:30:06] documents that you are writing

[1:30:07] our -- you know, it's your eyes

[1:30:11] and cross your t's.

[1:30:14] >> If I may, camera -- in French

[1:30:17] and the equivalent is behind

[1:30:19] closed doors in private. Not

[1:30:22] accessible to others.

[1:30:26] >>

[1:30:27] - C'est une expression. When

[1:30:28] it's written --

[1:30:36] >> This, it means closed doors?

[1:30:39] Okay. I learned something. I

[1:30:43] hope the documents that follows

[1:30:44] this is going to be more

[1:30:47] straightforward and

[1:30:56] -- okay. I think that is it.

[1:31:07] >> That's it, Miss?

[1:31:11] >> I want to say I find the

[1:31:12] whole thing it is, you know, not

[1:31:17] very pleasant. I spent the whole

[1:31:20] weekend reading stuff that was

[1:31:21] posted online. Some of the stuff

[1:31:24] was not pleasant to read at all.

[1:31:27] I just wish you good luck moving

[1:31:28] forward.

[1:31:29] >> Thank you.

[1:31:36] >> I have no question. I would

[1:31:39] like for Mr. Johnson to go.

[1:31:48] >> My name is David Johnston,

[1:31:49] district one. I will stay my own

[1:31:55] personal -- first. I'm generally

[1:31:57] favourable to the scale of

[1:32:00] development Cadillac Fairview is

[1:32:03] proposing for Mu1. Generally

[1:32:05] favourable for preservation of

[1:32:07] the forest in Mu2. There are

[1:32:12] precedents for its in

[1:32:13] metropolitan regions. There is

[1:32:14] downtown Montréal and Mount

[1:32:15] Royal. I hope that happens.

[1:32:21] - Le diable est parfois dans les

[1:32:23] détails. Je connais ça. I have

[1:32:28] questions about consultation.

[1:32:30] Let me first say that I do

[1:32:34] support moving forward with

[1:32:35] talks with Cadillac Fairview, in

[1:32:41] view of the fact that there are

[1:32:43] other things happening in the

[1:32:44] environment. There is the legal

[1:32:47] proceedings in Québec superior

[1:32:49] court. There is also new rules

[1:32:51] coming down from the Québec

[1:32:54] government on densification.

[1:32:58] - Le conseiller Bisson a fait

[1:33:00] référence à cette politique

[1:33:02] québécoise à la fin de la

[1:33:03] dernière réunion. These new

[1:33:07] rules will not be favourable to

[1:33:11] intercity suburbs like

[1:33:12] Pointe-Claire. Their chief goes

[1:33:13] to protect farmland, fight urban

[1:33:14] sprawl, it's going to be heavy

[1:33:18] pressure on Pointe-Claire. I

[1:33:22] fear that the new rules maybe so

[1:33:26] stretchy that they will take

[1:33:28] away some maneuvering and

[1:33:30] negotiation for Pointe-Claire.

[1:33:33] As I said, the question has to

[1:33:35] do with consultation. I wonder

[1:33:37] whether we have not had it

[1:33:40] already, and if we had, what was

[1:33:41] wrong with it? Correct me if I'm

[1:33:44] wrong, we had the special

[1:33:45] planning program for downtown.

[1:33:48] There was some consultation with

[1:33:49] that. Then there was the draft

[1:33:53] of the revised urban plan. There

[1:33:59] was considerable consultation

[1:34:00] for it. Then there was the

[1:34:05] election, the controlled

[1:34:07] resolution and bylaw. There is a

[1:34:09] timeline on the website that

[1:34:10] shows what was to have happened

[1:34:14] over the past year. Certain

[1:34:15] boxes are clicked off. But the

[1:34:18] box for consultations, winter

[1:34:21] 2023 is empty. This is a five

[1:34:24] month problem. The City has not

[1:34:27] been able to, in five months,

[1:34:29] come together and find a way

[1:34:35] forward with that. Particularly

[1:34:38] with the election, all of a

[1:34:40] sudden it became a political

[1:34:42] issue. I take it that the

[1:34:49] elephant in the room really is

[1:34:50] Cadillac Fairview. It's not, we

[1:34:52] need some kind of plan, we need

[1:34:54] more time to think. It seems to

[1:34:55] me we've done a lot of that. It

[1:34:57] seems to me that the focus is

[1:35:00] really about the future of

[1:35:02] Cadillac Fairview, which seems

[1:35:06] to me to argue in favour of a

[1:35:08] separate approach, treating

[1:35:14] Cadillac Fairview and its plans

[1:35:15] in the future of the forest

[1:35:18] separately and giving it the

[1:35:20] primary attention. Have the

[1:35:27] consultations that have been

[1:35:28] done to date been inadequate? Or

[1:35:32] have they been useful?

[1:35:33] >> Which consultations? What

[1:35:39] consultations? There haven't

[1:35:41] been any public consultations at

[1:35:42] all. We have had meetings. We

[1:35:47] haven't had consultations. The

[1:35:48] public have not been invited to

[1:35:50] consult on the urban plan at

[1:35:51] all. If I can speak to your -- a

[1:35:56] couple of the biases in the

[1:35:57] preamble, for densification,

[1:36:01] there are many ways to densify a

[1:36:03] city without going 25 storeys

[1:36:04] high. There is this thing called

[1:36:07] -- happens all over North

[1:36:08] America, where you can densify,

[1:36:11] you can do duplexes, triplexes,

[1:36:12] you can do semi detached homes.

[1:36:14] You can do all kinds of

[1:36:17] developments that identify in a

[1:36:18] way that is much more human

[1:36:19] scale, much more satisfying to

[1:36:21] the citizens of that city other

[1:36:23] than 25 stories. I take

[1:36:25] exception with your preference

[1:36:27] for that one. I think most of

[1:36:28] Pointe-Claire would. There has

[1:36:31] been debate along the way. There

[1:36:33] is this big thing called the

[1:36:35] election which elected a mayor

[1:36:38] who does not see 25 stories as

[1:36:40] the way to go. It was a pretty

[1:36:44] powerful statement of that.

[1:36:45] >> In fairness, Mister Mayor,

[1:36:47] they also elected six council.

[1:36:50] >> Correct, some of whom seem to

[1:36:51] be on that track. But to get to

[1:36:55] where I really take exception

[1:36:57] with your comment, and it shows

[1:37:00] perhaps a not complete

[1:37:01] understanding of the city of

[1:37:02] Pointe-Claire, this urban plan

[1:37:03] is not about Cadillac Fairview.

[1:37:07] I worried desperately about the

[1:37:08] plaza. Excuse me, sir. I'm

[1:37:10] answering. I worry desperately

[1:37:13] about the plaza. The

[1:37:20] Pointe-Claire plaza is a crucial

[1:37:21] development for the outcome of

[1:37:23] this urban plan. All of the

[1:37:25] other shopping centres are

[1:37:27] crucial to our urban

[1:37:28] development. There are others.

[1:37:31] There are four others. We are

[1:37:33] not just Cadillac Fairview here.

[1:37:34] It is just one part of it. The

[1:37:36] others are going to have to be

[1:37:38] treated -- it may night may not

[1:37:39] be treated the same way. The

[1:37:43] other thing is there are two

[1:37:45] villages. The development

[1:37:47] already in one of our cultural

[1:37:49] villages that wasn't acceptable

[1:37:51] to the citizens of

[1:37:52] Pointe-Claire, no matter which

[1:37:53] densification occurred. There is

[1:37:56] much more than Cadillac Fairview

[1:37:57] in this proposal. My final

[1:38:02] comment is that the most inside

[1:38:05] area in Montréal right now is

[1:38:08] the Plateau-Mont-Royal. It is

[1:38:09] three storeys high.

[1:38:12] >> And 200 years old. Three

[1:38:15] storeys high. It is the most

[1:38:16] densify. We can do it as well.

[1:38:20] >> Any other comments?

[1:38:21] >> Yes, I have a comment.

[1:38:23] >> From my understanding, when

[1:38:25] we hired -- there were two

[1:38:28] public consultations. One was

[1:38:29] urban, plan which happened a

[1:38:31] couple weeks ago. I think there

[1:38:33] were seven people who signed up

[1:38:35] and 20 people who attended. The

[1:38:36] second one was the actual public

[1:38:38] consultation with the citizens

[1:38:40] in reference to specifically

[1:38:42] Cadillac Fairview. We all agreed

[1:38:44] upon that. And that is my

[1:38:46] understanding of the public

[1:38:48] consultations.

[1:38:49] >> Very in mind, there is a

[1:38:51] difference between a strategic

[1:38:53] plan and the RCI. They are

[1:38:56] different creatures. The

[1:39:00] consultation for the strategic

[1:39:01] plan should not be confused with

[1:39:02] public participation.

[1:39:05] >> You are welcome for that

[1:39:06] clarification.

[1:39:07] >> Mister Mayor, one comment

[1:39:11] regarding and the terminology of

[1:39:13] public consultation versus

[1:39:14] public participation. Two big

[1:39:15] different things. As I explained

[1:39:18] earlier, public consultation

[1:39:20] tends to be a short term process

[1:39:22] where you ask for advice and

[1:39:24] opinions on a particular

[1:39:26] direction, more or less. Public

[1:39:31] participation would include the

[1:39:34] participation of citizens who

[1:39:36] live in the area, citizens

[1:39:37] outside of the area of

[1:39:39] Pointe-Claire would have the

[1:39:40] opportunity to be part of the

[1:39:41] decision-making process in terms

[1:39:42] of what they see being and

[1:39:45] integrated development in the

[1:39:46] area going forward. You have to

[1:39:47] be careful with those. We've not

[1:39:49] had a public participation

[1:39:50] opportunity with regard to that,

[1:39:52] or any discussion that pertains

[1:39:54] to that area. The other thing

[1:39:55] you have to remember, because

[1:39:58] everyone is always harping on

[1:39:59] the delays and talks and

[1:40:00] thinking and this and that,

[1:40:02] again, it is going to be a

[1:40:04] project that's going to have an

[1:40:05] impact and shape our city for

[1:40:06] the next 60 years. Getting that

[1:40:09] right, both for us and for the

[1:40:12] folks who currently owns that

[1:40:14] property, given all the

[1:40:18] different changes in their

[1:40:19] space, it is important. From a

[1:40:23] practical standpoint, I know I

[1:40:25] started my first mandate here,

[1:40:27] we were still looking for a

[1:40:28] director of urban planning. We

[1:40:30] do not have a director of urban

[1:40:32] planning. We also went through a

[1:40:34] process of waiting until we were

[1:40:35] able to get our new director

[1:40:36] general into place. We had to

[1:40:38] wait for some of these

[1:40:40] administrative things to happen

[1:40:41] in order to move forward on

[1:40:42] these procedures. There has also

[1:40:47] been hesitation with

[1:40:48] availability, tight schedules,

[1:40:50] et cetera, et cetera, that slow

[1:40:51] things down. I, more than

[1:40:55] anyone, would like to see this

[1:40:56] process over. It would be a nice

[1:41:00] thing for us to work on plans

[1:41:03] everybody agrees with going

[1:41:05] forward. I think we need more

[1:41:07] patients with regards to the

[1:41:08] process.

[1:41:10] >> If I could add, densification

[1:41:14] has happened in Pointe-Claire in

[1:41:16] the last ten, 15 years. We see

[1:41:18] evidence of densification. We

[1:41:20] see it. We see Hymus West. The

[1:41:24] difference, the men who are

[1:41:26] project is a different -- I'm

[1:41:27] not talking about the same

[1:41:28] thing. I'm talking about the

[1:41:30] Greenwich project behind the --

[1:41:32] these are two separate

[1:41:35] densification projects. These

[1:41:36] are what we've done so far as a

[1:41:37] city. I ask you, are they good

[1:41:42] enough? Are they what we want to

[1:41:43] do going forward? Have we done

[1:41:45] well? Have we identified in a

[1:41:47] way that is pleasing

[1:41:50] aesthetically or otherwise to

[1:41:51] the citizens of Pointe-Claire? I

[1:41:52] would argue for the most part,

[1:41:54] that may not be the case. I find

[1:41:58] the project is not for me. What

[1:42:01] I thought Pointe-Claire should

[1:42:02] look like. I find Hymus west is

[1:42:06] a series of hodgepodge

[1:42:08] high-rises that have no relation

[1:42:09] to each other and are devoid of

[1:42:11] any plan. There is nothing wrong

[1:42:15] with identifying. Going forward,

[1:42:16] as a city, let's densify in a

[1:42:17] way that we can prevent the

[1:42:19] mistakes of the past and do a

[1:42:20] better job going forward. There

[1:42:23] is no objection to

[1:42:25] densification. It's just, let's

[1:42:26] do it properly and I would argue

[1:42:29] -- let's go not 25 stories.

[1:42:34] [Applause]

[1:42:37] We are not allowed to clap. We

[1:42:38] are not allowed to clad.

[1:42:40] >> Time is up.

[1:42:43] >> Time is? Up sorry, ma'am.

[1:42:46] >> We are at the limit? Sorry

[1:42:47] about that. My apologies to both

[1:42:49] of you.

[1:42:55] >> No! No!! No excuse me sir. No

[1:42:58] thank you. Nobody wants to

[1:42:59] comment. Thank you very much

[1:43:01] sir, nobody would like to

[1:43:03] comment. This citizens and the

[1:43:04] chair have spoken. Thank you.

[1:43:07] These two will speak before you

[1:43:08] will, sir. They were waiting at

[1:43:09] the mic. Excuse me, sir. Go

[1:43:13] ahead, Paul.

[1:43:17] >> Thank you. I would like to

[1:43:19] repeat again, I think you are

[1:43:20] way ahead of yourself. The

[1:43:22] resolution tech concerns one

[1:43:23] thing. Because there's been a

[1:43:26] delay and we were complaining

[1:43:28] that we weren't moving fast

[1:43:29] enough, the two parties are the

[1:43:30] city and Cadillac Fairview. The

[1:43:34] city and Cadillac Fairview. It

[1:43:38] has been well over years since

[1:43:41] there's been any discussion,

[1:43:44] early 2020 when they had

[1:43:45] discussions. Nothing is

[1:43:48] happening. If nobody talk to

[1:43:49] each other, nothing is going to

[1:43:51] happen. The reason why we had a

[1:43:54] council as well as a city

[1:43:57] administration in early

[1:43:58] December, we had one RCI meeting

[1:44:01] and it was unanimous at that

[1:44:02] time. We wanted to have a

[1:44:07] meeting to see what's going on.

[1:44:10] What do they want to, do

[1:44:11] whatever their plans? Don't

[1:44:13] forget, they have gotten -- I

[1:44:15] believe it wasn't over in

[1:44:17] November, -- we have not seen

[1:44:23] it. We have asked for

[1:44:26] information to get that. That's

[1:44:29] another -- this type of thing

[1:44:30] you have to talk to somebody,

[1:44:31] you have to find out where they

[1:44:33] are coming from so we know where

[1:44:35] we are going to go on this.

[1:44:37] Based on that, we will consider.

[1:44:39] That's what the City

[1:44:41] participation is all about,

[1:44:42] which is a voluntary

[1:44:45] participation by citizens and

[1:44:48] that's we want to organize. The

[1:44:50] public consultation with a V CDP

[1:44:54] is a legal requirement. You have

[1:44:55] to talk about the criteria then

[1:44:56] look at the final plan. That's

[1:44:59] what we are looking at right

[1:45:00] now. If you talk about the --

[1:45:06] and what they did is go through

[1:45:08] different steps. They invited

[1:45:12] 770 households to a session

[1:45:14] where they explained what they

[1:45:15] were going to do and they told

[1:45:17] the people they were going to

[1:45:20] open with a task force with 20

[1:45:24] of 12 people, they had eight

[1:45:25] residents, they have NDG, the

[1:45:26] city manager, the director of

[1:45:30] planning, the owner of the

[1:45:32] property, and the construction.

[1:45:34] The president of the

[1:45:35] construction company. They

[1:45:36] formed a task force. They had

[1:45:38] roughly seven or eight meetings

[1:45:39] over the course of six months to

[1:45:42] three quarters -- I don't know.

[1:45:43] Six and 12 month. They worked

[1:45:47] out the difference. They came up

[1:45:48] with a plan and then they

[1:45:51] presented it to people. You are

[1:45:52] way ahead of yourself by talking

[1:45:54] about what's going to happen

[1:45:55] down the road in maybe a year,

[1:45:57] two years from now. We have not

[1:45:59] started to work, okay? Let's not

[1:46:00] run. The first things to talk to

[1:46:04] Cadillac Fairview and see where

[1:46:05] they are going. Like Mr. Cowan

[1:46:06] said, and other people have said

[1:46:10] tonight, if things are not

[1:46:12] compatible, that's another

[1:46:13] story. Then we will have to make

[1:46:14] a decision on that. First of,

[1:46:16] all we have to talk to them.

[1:46:24] >> If I could just add to that

[1:46:31] Councillor is starting a

[1:46:32] process. Michigan to talk to

[1:46:33] somebody. I think the people we

[1:46:37] should talk to first of the

[1:46:42] citizens on the timer framework

[1:46:44] among the citizens of what they

[1:46:46] have vision for the city going

[1:46:49] forward and then speak to all

[1:46:50] the rest of the development of

[1:46:52] the city based on the collective

[1:46:56] Aegean. That is the ideal

[1:47:00] scenario. I want to add more

[1:47:02] Serena but more. Then we will

[1:47:05] have closure. Go ahead.

[1:47:06] >> I don't make a point. The

[1:47:07] construction that took place in

[1:47:08] Pointe-Claire during the past

[1:47:09] few years wasn't something high

[1:47:12] in the sky in 2011 the City had

[1:47:17] a mass citizen participation.

[1:47:20] Which units John. Ronnie there

[1:47:21] were all kinds of informations,

[1:47:24] emails, other sections that were

[1:47:26] organized. So -- those all the

[1:47:33] residents that participated, not

[1:47:37] enough residences in

[1:47:39] Pointe-Claire. Not just the

[1:47:41] seniors and wanted to sell

[1:47:42] their, house they want to stay

[1:47:45] in Pointe-Claire.. There are

[1:47:48] more apartments put into the

[1:47:49] plan. It wasn't a full consult

[1:47:51] consultation for people. They

[1:47:54] knew without a surprise.

[1:47:56] >> Yet, now we have a fair

[1:47:57] amount of senior residences,

[1:47:58] don't we? We have the lowest

[1:48:00] number of zero to 12-year-olds.

[1:48:04] So, we all pictures our visions.

[1:48:14] >> District, for a move to

[1:48:15] close.

[1:48:17] >> Seconder? Colin, district

[1:48:20] three.

[1:48:21] >> All in favour?

[1:48:22] >> Right, folks thank you so

[1:48:23] much for being here.

[1:48:27] - Je vous apprécie.

[1:48:28] Merci pour vos efforts.

2023-01-30 Assemblée Extraordinaire de la Ville de Pointe-Claire

Transcript