[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.