[0:37] >> Hi

[0:38] - Bonjour tout le monde.

[0:39] Everybody. It's not having glass

[0:40] we don't have the partitions

[0:41] which are normally

[0:42] Here.

[0:45] - Je vais commencer avec le

[0:47] changement du nom de la rue

[0:52] Columbus. En novembre dernier,

[0:53] nous avons eu une demande de

[0:55] modifier le nom de la rue

[0:57] Columbus à Pointe-Claire, nous

[0:58] nous sommes engagés à vérifier

[1:00] dans les archives pour savoir si

[1:01] le nom de la rue était à la

[1:04] mémoire de Christophe-Colomb, et

[1:05] maintenant, nous savons que

[1:06] c'est bien le cas. Néanmoins,

[1:09] les rues nommées en la mémoire

[1:10] de Christophe Colomb sont

[1:11] présentes à Montréal, à Québec,

[1:13] à Ottawa, à Toronto et ailleurs

[1:15] au Canada et aux États-Unis. À

[1:19] Montréal c'est une rue de 8. 5

[1:22] kilomètres qui traverse quatre

[1:27] arrondissements. Cette rue à

[1:28] Pointe-Claire est petite et

[1:29] compte deux adresses, nous

[1:33] pouvons penser que les

[1:34] conséquences d'un changement de

[1:36] noms seraient beaucoup moins

[1:37] importantes pour Pointe-Claire

[1:39] que pour la Ville de Montréal.

[1:41] Souvent ce sont les citoyens qui

[1:43] habitent la rue visée par les

[1:46] changements et surtout les

[1:47] entreprises qui s'objectent à

[1:50] des changements de noms de rue,

[1:52] compte tenu des désagréments et

[1:55] des coûts que cela représentent

[1:57] pour eux. Je crois qu'avant de

[1:59] décider de ce changement pour

[2:02] Pointe-Claire et de prendre une

[2:03] décision en séance du conseil,

[2:06] nous devons considérer l'impact

[2:07] que cela pourrait produire aux

[2:08] autres villes du Québec, car

[2:12] vous comprendrez que compte tenu

[2:14] de la sensibilité du sujet,

[2:17] notre décision présente un très

[2:19] grand potentiel de répercussion

[2:20] chez nos voisins et ailleurs et

[2:23] nous devons décider si nous

[2:24] voulons être un chef de file à

[2:26] cet effet. À mon avis, c'est un

[2:33] sujet qui demande une plus

[2:34] grande analyse et qui sort du

[2:36] simple cadre de notre

[2:38] municipalité, je vais donc

[2:40] apporter ce point pour

[2:41] discussion aux membres du

[2:43] conseil et la directrice

[2:45] générale et je vous tiendrai au

[2:47] courant des prochaines étapes.

[2:56] Three name in Columbus Street --

[2:57] last November we have a request

[2:59] to change the name of Columbus

[3:00] Avenue in Pointe-Claire. We

[3:02] committed to checking the

[3:03] archives to find out whether the

[3:05] name of this Avenue is a name of

[3:08] Christopher Columbus and we now

[3:09] know that it was indeed the case

[3:11] nevertheless, streets named in

[3:13] name memory of Christopher

[3:16] Columbus are found Montréal

[3:17] Québec, Ottawa, Toronto and

[3:19] elsewhere in Canada and the

[3:21] United States. In Montréal, it

[3:23] is an eight have kilometer

[3:24] avenue that runs through four

[3:26] boroughs. This avenue in

[3:28] Pointe-Claire is short and has

[3:30] two addresses. We can -- the

[3:32] consequences of a name change

[3:33] would be less less important for

[3:35] Pointe-Claire than for the City

[3:37] of Montréal. I or we believe

[3:40] that before deciding on this

[3:42] change for Pointe-Claire making

[3:43] a decision at the council

[3:44] meeting we must consider the

[3:45] impact this could have on other

[3:46] cities in Québec. It is a

[3:48] subject that requires greater

[3:49] analysis and goes beyond a

[3:51] simple framework of our

[3:52] municipality. So I will bring

[3:54] this point up for discussion

[3:55] with Council and the general

[3:57] manager will keep you informed

[3:58] on our next steps.

[4:03] Le mois de l'histoire des noirs

[4:04] Chaque année, le mois de février

[4:05] nous permet de reconnaître et de

[4:06] promouvoir la contribution des

[4:07] Québécoises et des Québécois des

[4:08] communautés noires à l'histoire

[4:11] du Québec, à son développement

[4:13] économique, social et culturel.

[4:17] Les gens de partout au Canada

[4:18] participent aux activités et aux

[4:20] festivités du Mois de l'histoire

[4:22] des Noirs qui honorent

[4:23] l'héritage des personnes noires

[4:25] au Canada et de leurs

[4:32] communautés. excuse. En 2021

[4:34] c'est plus de 1, 5 millions de

[4:35] personnes au Canada qui ont

[4:36] déclaré être noire. A

[4:39] Pointe-Claire, nous soulignons

[4:40] ce mois grâce à l'engagement du

[4:41] service des loisirs et de la

[4:42] culture qui ajoute des activités

[4:44] pour nous permettre de découvrir

[4:47] cette belle communauté, tant par

[4:49] la lecture, la cuisine et les

[4:54] récits. Je vous invite à

[4:55] consulter notre programmation à

[4:56] cet effet sur nos réseaux

[5:02] sociaux.

[5:06] Black History Month. Each year,

[5:08] the month of your allies is to

[5:09] recognize and promote the

[5:10] contribution of Quebecers from

[5:11] black in the 80s to the history

[5:13] of Québec, through its economic,

[5:15] social and cultural development.

[5:18] People across Canada

[5:19] participated black history month

[5:21] activities and festivities that

[5:22] honour the heritage of black

[5:23] people in Canada and their

[5:26] communities. In 2021 more than

[5:29] 1.5 million people in Canada

[5:32] declare themselves to be black.

[5:33] And Pointe-Claire, we are

[5:34] celebrating this month thanks to

[5:35] the commitment of the leisure

[5:36] and culture department which is

[5:38] adding activities to allow us to

[5:40] discover this beautiful

[5:41] community through reading

[5:43] community gawking and

[5:44] storytelling. I invite you to

[5:46] consult our storytelling on our

[5:48] website and social networks.

[5:51] Plan urbanisme Nous amorçons

[5:52] auprès des citoyennes et des

[5:53] citoyens les démarches de

[5:54] développement du plan

[5:56] d'urbanisme. Vu l'ampleur du

[5:57] projet, celui-ci se fera par

[6:02] étapes. La première étape

[6:03] consiste en un exercice de

[6:05] consultation, en ligne, sur les

[6:08] éléments de la vision de

[6:09] développement, nous vous

[6:12] invitons à vous inscrire dès

[6:14] maintenant sur la plateforme de

[6:19] consultations Pointe-Claire

[6:20] c'est Nous, pour participer et

[6:22] donner votre opinion sur les

[6:23] éléments qui vous apparaissent

[6:25] comme étant les trois priorités

[6:26] de la vision.

[6:36] la deuxième étape qui consiste

[6:38] en une activité de consultation

[6:40] citoyenne, le 15 marche

[6:41] prochain, les détails seront

[6:43] communiquées plus tard cette

[6:44] semaine. Le premier thème abordé

[6:47] sera le développement du cadre

[6:50] bâti afin de clarifier ce thème,

[6:52] le cadre bâti comprend des lieux

[6:54] et des espaces permettant de

[6:57] répondre aux besoins

[7:00] d'hébergement, de déplacement et

[7:03] de récréation. Le site

[7:06] Pointe-Claire c'est Nous, est la

[7:08] plate-forme de consultation

[7:09] idéale pour nos échanges et

[7:11] contiendra plusieurs

[7:12] informations au sujet des

[7:15] stratégies de développement de

[7:16] l'urbanisme. Je vous invite à

[7:19] vous y inscrire et à le

[7:22] consulter.

[7:23] We are initiating the process of

[7:25] developing the urban plan with

[7:26] citizens. Given the scale of the

[7:28] project, it will be done in

[7:30] different stages. The first step

[7:32] consists of an online

[7:34] consultation on the elements of

[7:35] the vision of development. We

[7:38] invite you to register on the

[7:41] Pointe-Claire it's who we are

[7:42] platform to participate and give

[7:44] your opinion on the elements

[7:45] that you feel are the top two

[7:48] priorities of this vision. Top

[7:52] three priorities of this vision

[7:53] Je m'excuse.

[7:54] -- the second step consists of a

[7:56] citizen participation activity

[7:57] that will take place March 15th.

[7:59] We are now finalizing the

[8:01] details which will be

[8:03] communicated later this week.

[8:05] The first thing we will address

[8:06] in this public participation

[8:07] will be the development of the

[8:10] built environment. In order to

[8:11] clarify the steam, the built

[8:13] environment includes places and

[8:15] spaces that meets the needs of

[8:17] housing, travelling and

[8:19] recreational activities. One of

[8:21] my favourite chapters of a book

[8:23] I once edited was called a space

[8:25] for community in the built

[8:27] environment. The buildings that

[8:29] you put in determining how you

[8:31] interact as a community. So it's

[8:33] more than just affordability and

[8:35] other things. It is how it

[8:36] creates interaction amongst

[8:37] people. My favourite example is

[8:41] Falcone Ville, which some of you

[8:43] may be familiar with, it's a

[8:45] famous play about the plateau,

[8:47] and how people lived in a very

[8:49] convivial range mint and it led

[8:51] to a legendary form of living,

[8:53] which made it a play which is

[8:59] quite famous in Québec --

[9:00] because we have to think of how

[9:02] it will influence how people

[9:04] live afterwards.

[9:13] Décès de Gregory Bielby C'est

[9:14] avec une profonde tristesse que

[9:15] nous avons appris le décès

[9:16] soudain de Greg Bielby, décédé

[9:17] le 16 janvier 2023. Résident de

[9:20] Dorval, M Bielby était un membre

[9:23] éminent de la communauté de

[9:24] Pointe-Claire, faisant du

[9:26] bénévolat au Centre aquatique de

[9:28] Pointe-Claire et aux ALPs

[9:30] pendant plus de 25 ans. Au

[9:36] Centre aquatique de

[9:37] Pointe-Claire, il a débuté en

[9:38] 1996 comme chronométreur et au

[9:40] cours des années suivantes, il a

[9:44] appris d'autres fonctions. Sa

[9:47] spécialité pendant de nombreuses

[9:48] années, a été de travailler

[9:50] comme opérateur électronique

[9:51] pour les rencontres à domicile

[9:52] et à l'extérieur. Lorsque

[9:57] Pointe-Claire a accueilli les

[10:00] Championnats canadiens d'été en

[10:01] 2011, 2013 et 2015, M. Bielby

[10:04] était le « Meet Manager » pour

[10:07] ces 3 championnats de haut

[10:08] niveau,. Le « Meet Manager » est

[10:13] le directeur de la compétition.

[10:15] Il a des tâches avant, pendant

[10:16] et après la rencontre.

[10:22] Suite à la période COVID, le

[10:23] Championnat de l'Est canadien a

[10:26] eu lieu à Pointe-Claire en avril

[10:29] 2022 et encore une fois, M.

[10:31] Bielby était le directeur de la

[10:37] compétition. Il aimait

[10:38] travailler avec les officiels de

[10:39] natation, et passait beaucoup de

[10:40] temps à faire du bénévolat lors

[10:41] des compétitions à l'extérieur,

[10:43] comme à la piscine olympique, au

[10:45] parc Jean Drapeau et dans les

[10:47] piscines locales autour de

[10:50] Montréal. Il aimait aussi

[10:51] enseigner, et était

[10:52] l'instructeur de plusieurs cours

[10:53] pour officiels, donnés au Centre

[10:54] aquatique de Pointe-Claire. Il a

[10:58] également siégé au conseil

[11:00] d'administration du Club

[11:02] aquatique depuis sa création, et

[11:04] a occupé le poste de trésorier.

[11:08] Beaucoup de gens se souviendront

[11:09] de lui pour sa gentillesse et sa

[11:15] générosité. Nous saluons son

[11:16] fils Chris, qui est entraîneur

[11:17] sénior du Club aquatique dans le

[11:20] cadre des programmes

[11:21] sport-études, ainsi que le

[11:25] programme national de

[11:28] développement. Nous offrons nos

[11:29] plus sincères condoléances à son

[11:30] épouse Karen Walker; ses fils,

[11:33] Christopher et Steven, sa

[11:34] famille et ses amis. It is with

[11:42] profound sadness that we learn

[11:43] about the sudden loss of Gregory

[11:45] Bielby. He passed away on

[11:48] January 16th, 2023. A resident

[11:52] of Dorval, Mr. Bielby she's a

[11:53] prominent member of the

[11:55] Pointe-Claire community,

[11:56] entering at the Pointe-Claire

[11:58] aquatic center and Al Peace for

[11:59] 25 years. At the Pointe-Claire

[12:01] aquatic center he started in

[12:03] 1996 as a timer and over the

[12:05] next three years he learned

[12:07] other positions. A specialty for

[12:08] many years was working at the

[12:10] electronics operator for home

[12:11] and away meets. When

[12:13] Pointe-Claire host of the

[12:14] Canadian summer nationals in

[12:18] 2011 2013 and 2015, Mr. Bielby

[12:22] was the meet manager for these

[12:27] important -- after the COVID

[12:32] shut down, the Canadian eastern

[12:34] championship was held at

[12:35] Pointe-Claire in April of 2022,

[12:37] and once again he was the meet

[12:39] manager. He enjoyed working with

[12:42] swim officials and spent a lot

[12:43] of time volunteering -- away

[12:47] competitions at the Olympic pool

[12:51] Jean-Drapeau, and local poles

[12:52] around Montréal. He also enjoys

[12:54] teaching and was the instructor

[12:55] from any of the courses for

[12:56] officials held at the

[12:59] Pointe-Claire aquatic center. He

[13:00] also served on the board of

[13:01] directors for the aquatic club

[13:02] ever since it was established

[13:04] and held a position of

[13:05] treasurer. Many will remember

[13:07] him fondly for his kindness and

[13:10] selflessness. We salute his son

[13:11] Chris, who is a senior coach for

[13:13] the aquatic club, for the sport

[13:16] study program, as well as the

[13:17] national development program. We

[13:18] offer our deepest sympathies to

[13:20] his wife, Karen Walker, and his

[13:23] sons Christopher and Stephen,

[13:25] and to his family and friends.

[13:27] 4. Début de la période de je m'

[13:33] >> Mr. Thomas --

[13:34] Excuse, oui, je m'excuse.

[13:36] >> --

[13:37] Go back to the agenda. But

[13:39] first, I will have a

[13:41] modification to bring item 16.4

[13:47] in the English version. We

[13:49] should read in the agreement to

[13:51] be entered into with his majesty

[13:53] and not her majesty. I am sorry.

[13:57] The French version is okay. And

[14:03] before going further, Mr. Mayor,

[14:06] I would like to mention that if

[14:08] some views would like to express

[14:11] views on the bylaw adopted --

[14:12] they can do so during the

[14:15] consultation provided for in 5.3

[14:17] instead of the question period.

[14:20] - Avant d'aller plus loin, je

[14:22] souhaite mentionner que si

[14:23] certains citoyens veulent se

[14:24] faire entendre par le conseil

[14:26] concernant le règlement adopté

[14:28] au point 5.4 ils peuvent le

[14:31] faire à la consultation prévue

[14:34] au point 5.3 au lieu de se

[14:36] présenter à la période de

[14:37] questions, merci.

[14:38] >> And at

[14:40] 18.2, it is also -- not --

[14:43] >> Force I forgot about this

[14:46] one.

[14:47] >> Ahead of it is a very good

[14:49] friend of mine. So we better get

[14:50] it right. Thank you. The agenda?

[14:55] - Je pense?

[14:56] >> --

[14:57] Approval of the agenda.

[15:01] >> Do I have a mover?

[15:04] >> -- district too.

[15:07] >> Kelly Thorstad-Cullen,

[15:08] district three.

[15:09] >> All in favour? Okay.

[15:17] 3. 1 Approuver les

[15:18] procès-verbaux de la séance

[15:19] ordinaire du 17 janvier 2023 et

[15:20] des séances extraordinaires du

[15:21] 19 janvier 2023 et du 30 janvier

[15:23] 2023.

[15:25] >> Do I have a mover?

[15:27] >> -- district, two.

[15:31] >> Kelly Thorstad-Cullen,

[15:32] district three.

[15:35] - Maintenant... oui... je

[15:36] m'excuse!

[15:38] >> All in favour?

[15:39] >> All in favour.

[15:41] 4.

[15:42] >> -- Période de questions all.

[15:43] Against? Nobody is against. I'm

[15:45] eager -- to eager, perhaps.

[15:46] Ce soir, à la période des

[15:47] questions, vous avez été

[15:48] accueilli à l'entrée pour vous

[15:50] inscrire à la période de

[15:51] questions. L'intention de cette

[15:52] démarche est d'abord de

[15:53] permettre aux personnes de

[15:54] demeurer assises jusqu'à l'appel

[15:56] de leur nom, et d'accorder la

[15:58] priorité aux résidentes et

[15:59] résidents de Pointe-Claire. Les

[16:02] non-résidents présents pourront

[16:04] poser leurs questions par la

[16:06] suite; si le temps n'est pas

[16:14] écoulé. Tonight, during question

[16:15] period, you are greeted -- the

[16:17] question period. The goal of

[16:18] this approach is to allow people

[16:19] to remain seated until their

[16:21] name is called and give clear

[16:24] priority to Pointe-Claire

[16:25] residents. -- if they are still

[16:26] is time. Also an additional note

[16:31] -- if you have a question, you

[16:33] can -- is it Lucy? I think it's

[16:37] Lucy. Or who do we signal during

[16:39] the exchange to get themselves

[16:41] back on the list -- will take it

[16:43] down? Okay.

[16:46] - Ça va durer 90 minutes. We are

[16:47] going to go

[16:49] 19 minutes. And I guess that's

[16:51] about it. You can proceed with

[16:53] question period. All right? Oh,

[16:57] yes. Sorry. First name? Season

[16:58] Weaver. Susan Weaver.

[17:13] >> Okay. Preamble and one

[17:15] question -- preamble is three

[17:17] minutes. I was unable to attend

[17:21] January 30th special meeting.

[17:22] So, I would like to have my

[17:23] support for the decision

[17:25] councillors took regarding the

[17:26] resolution. It is the best

[17:29] possible approach in hopes to

[17:31] begin a dialogue with the

[17:32] property owner. If the Council

[17:34] was to keep pushing the date

[17:35] forward, perhaps for years, we

[17:37] will not have any say at all.

[17:40] All could be decided by Québec

[17:43] and the CMM. We would be left

[17:45] out. If I remember correctly,

[17:48] the description of Pointe-Claire

[17:50] as a satellite city with a

[17:52] downtown was first announced

[17:54] during a council meeting under

[17:56] mayor McMurchie in 2011. Later

[17:58] to the next year, followed the

[18:00] urban year plan, Todd's and

[18:02] updates. Some say it has been in

[18:05] the work at least -- in 2010.

[18:08] So, I cannot say. I would like

[18:11] to know the timeline and the

[18:13] stages of the project. Will it

[18:15] be ten, 15 or 20 years? The

[18:18] forest should be preserved, as

[18:20] should all green spaces on the

[18:21] island. In October 2020, see if

[18:23] put out and over the top photo,

[18:26] giving birth to Fairview forest

[18:28] group. Both raised awareness to

[18:30] this green space. The group

[18:32] still drives to the weekly

[18:34] protest. The heart of the force

[18:36] is spectacular. But with the

[18:38] fragmented teas spreading in the

[18:40] northwest corner, and most

[18:41] likely other invasive plants, it

[18:43] should be maintained. It was a

[18:45] missed opportunity on the part

[18:47] of the Fairview forest group not

[18:50] to speak about the forest with

[18:52] Mr. Salpeter when he reached out

[18:54] to a group member at a -- in

[18:58] March 2022. I do not take sides.

[19:00] But I asked for honesty. So, to

[19:02] set the record straight, twice

[19:04] it has been stated that C F did

[19:07] not want to speak to the group.

[19:09] Once, in a Gazette report, July

[19:11] 2022, a group member was quoted

[19:13] as saying, not a peep from C F.

[19:16] And again at the January 30th

[19:18] meeting when a concerned woman

[19:19] from district six said that CF

[19:22] did not contact anyone, March

[19:25] 2022, Mr. Salpeter gave out his

[19:28] business card to contact him.

[19:30] There was no response until we

[19:33] CF wanted to install a fence a

[19:35] month later. Too late. I

[19:36] imagine, with good reason, after

[19:39] listening to months of

[19:40] bad-mouthing from some people --

[19:42] also, in regard to the last

[19:43] meeting, the same woman

[19:45] questioned the councillors if

[19:46] they had contact with CF -- why?

[19:51] In a Gazette article, January

[19:52] 29th, Mr. Fletcher is quoted as

[19:54] saying, one is left to wonder,

[19:56] what possible interest could

[19:57] prompt the councillors? And that

[19:59] was uncalled for. These two

[20:01] statements, in my opinion

[20:03] implied that the councillors

[20:04] were not honourable. No. The six

[20:08] dissident councillors are not on

[20:09] the take. Many are our

[20:11] neighbours. As for being a

[20:13] dissident councillor I, was

[20:15] surprised by a description made

[20:17] on January 19th, that dissidents

[20:19] are opposing their authoritarian

[20:21] figures everywhere. Now my

[20:22] question is, for public

[20:24] participation, or consultation,

[20:26] will you try to get other

[20:28] citizens from the community

[20:30] rather than we who attend

[20:32] council meetings always? You

[20:33] know our opinions. We need new

[20:34] ideas.

[20:37] >> Yeah. It's a good point. Yes,

[20:39] the answer is, to that.

[20:41] Absolutely. There should be

[20:42] every effort to get across

[20:43] section of the community as best

[20:45] we can and not just those who

[20:49] are in the zone, as we say. As

[20:52] for the -- I don't think there

[20:53] was an implication that someone

[20:55] was on the take. I cannot speak

[20:56] for the people. But there is

[21:00] also associations or

[21:01] relationships or friendships

[21:02] that have been established that

[21:04] could possibly assist influence

[21:07] people's decision-making. I

[21:08] suspect that is what Mr.

[21:09] Fletcher was alluding to and not

[21:11] to being on the take. But I will

[21:12] let him speak for himself. I

[21:14] just wanted to put that

[21:15] possibility out there. So,

[21:18] secondly, yeah, Mr.

[21:26] --

[21:28] >> Good day, Council, and

[21:30] attendees. I prepared a

[21:31] preamble. But it was really to

[21:33] prove that Columbus Street was

[21:35] named after Columbus and the

[21:39] street voyager in Columbus was a

[21:41] named at the exact same time and

[21:42] the exact same date. That proves

[21:44] it. Didn't really have to go

[21:46] into archives to see that --

[21:48] upon your explanation to be sad.

[21:52] Because the city is putting the

[21:54] responsibility -- it's more

[21:55] responsibility to be a leader of

[21:57] change on other cities that are

[21:59] not related to this subject. I'm

[22:02] a resident of Pointe-Claire. Not

[22:04] Ottawa or Québec city -- and you

[22:10] offered no cogent argument

[22:11] disproving any of the crimes

[22:13] associated with Christopher

[22:15] Columbus. These crimes are part

[22:18] of Yale University's genocide

[22:20] studies. I don't think the city

[22:21] would respond to this if we had

[22:23] a street called at all for

[22:25] something like mail or stolen.

[22:28] Historically, Columbus is put in

[22:29] the same category as these

[22:32] people. You mentioned Black

[22:34] History Month in the same breath

[22:37] you honour Black History Month,

[22:39] I do too, but at the same time,

[22:41] you protect the legacy of a

[22:43] slave owner, which is

[22:44] Christopher Columbus.

[22:47] I mean, that's basically it. I

[22:51] don't know if protest is needed.

[22:54] This whole obfuscation -- this

[22:56] puts shame on the City. That's

[23:01] basically it.

[23:02] >> Okay.

[23:03] >> It's pretty sad.

[23:05] >> I hear you are coming from.

[23:07] We don't disagree. The issue for

[23:08] a lot of us is, are we capable

[23:11] of resolving this issue? And are

[23:12] we the ones that should best

[23:14] raise all of it? We will venture

[23:17] into the issue as a Council with

[23:21] a lot of research and thoughts

[23:23] before we make such a decision,

[23:24] because it is a four bearer for

[23:27] all other cities and other

[23:28] streets named Columbus. And we

[23:31] feel that we are ordinary

[23:33] citizens who are somewhat

[23:34] knowledgeable and municipal

[23:35] affairs. But this is a pretty

[23:37] serious issue. And it's one

[23:38] that, morally and

[23:40] intellectually, we would not

[23:41] mind getting a little more

[23:42] opinion from others about as to

[23:45] how to proceed and --

[23:47] >> A leading human rights group

[23:48] has said that this street needs

[23:50] to be changed.

[23:51] >> Okay. The name of the group?

[23:54] >> Red coalition.

[23:55] >> Red coalition. Okay, we can

[23:58] reach out.

[23:59] >> -- global News segment cover

[24:01] this and they asked the city two

[24:03] days ago about this and three

[24:05] days ago about this issue. The

[24:07] city's official response was

[24:08] that the City Street was not

[24:10] named after Columbus, and that

[24:12] --

[24:13] >> I'm sorry to hear that.

[24:14] >> Mr. Brent Cowan, he gave his

[24:20] response from this building. So,

[24:22] I would think it represents the

[24:24] city. And global news says that

[24:27] they mentioned the city is

[24:28] giving that response.

[24:29] >> Mr. Mayor?

[24:32] >> I never said. That

[24:33] >> I said I --

[24:36] >> That's what I said --

[24:37] >> I didn't know for a fact -- I

[24:39] said, the first thing to do was

[24:40] to check it out.

[24:45] >> Okay.

[24:46] >> Will, the Québec registry of

[24:48] street signs to upon me

[24:54] -- is someone who explores by

[25:01] boat and encyclopedic

[25:04] puritanical, Columbus is the

[25:06] first example. I mean, how do

[25:09] you argue that. The City of

[25:12] Montréal, I mean, has nothing to

[25:13] do with the city of

[25:15] Pointe-Claire changing its

[25:16] street sign. I don't live in

[25:17] Montréal. And if they change the

[25:23] street sign, will the city of

[25:25] Pointe-Claire change theirs? I

[25:26] made that request as well.

[25:29] >> Who knows? We can possibly

[25:31] have a referendum on. It we

[25:32] could do all kinds of things to

[25:34] resolve the issue. We don't feel

[25:35] that we are morally endowed with

[25:37] that power. It's a pretty

[25:39] serious power. And we would like

[25:40] to be fully informed on that

[25:42] decision. Because it has

[25:44] implications for other

[25:45] municipalities as well as all

[25:48] kinds of -- residents. There's a

[25:54] gazillion residents that live in

[25:55] Christophe Colomb on Montréal.

[25:57] -- that should not supersede

[25:59] anything. But we would like to

[26:01] hear more about the issue and

[26:02] reflect on it more. That is all.

[26:04] We just simply more need more

[26:05] time to understand. Okay?

[26:07] >> Thank you.

[26:08] >> May I comment?

[26:11] >> Absolutely.

[26:12] >> Just going back -- especially

[26:14] from Black History Month, it's a

[26:15] slippery slope that we are on.

[26:17] Just in Northview a number

[26:18] seven, we have Walton Street and

[26:20] Livingston Street, which are

[26:22] named after, presumably, from

[26:24] research, to slaveowners. We

[26:27] have winter of avenue, came to

[26:31] after John wind threw up --

[26:32] there's a lot out there that

[26:34] needs to be digested and gone

[26:36] through to come to a proper

[26:39] conclusion. So, to this point,

[26:40] it's a big ball to unravel. I

[26:42] think it needs a bit of time and

[26:43] a bit of thought process. That

[26:45] is just north of you number

[26:46] seven with the quick research

[26:48] that --

[26:50] >> Can I just add?

[26:52] >> Mr. Quella -- I invite you to

[27:00] have a conversation -- best way

[27:01] to address this issue. We have

[27:05] noticed at the last yuan Q --

[27:09] that's the union conference

[27:10] where different elected

[27:11] officials of Québec get

[27:12] together, they have taken

[27:14] important issues that are not

[27:16] appropriate in culture. Violence

[27:18] against women, violence against

[27:20] children, for example, and

[27:21] discuss those issues, brought it

[27:23] out into the open and had a

[27:27] bringing it to light, so that is

[27:29] not buried, it is not erased,

[27:31] and try to move forward and also

[27:33] have our culture more aware of

[27:35] these wearable practices. In

[27:37] that case, it was still going

[27:39] on, it was violence against

[27:40] women. So, I just invite you to

[27:42] speak to Brent. Because there's

[27:44] also discussions going on in

[27:45] what the best way to move

[27:47] forward is, because, as

[27:49] Councillor Stork has shared,

[27:51] what is the right way when there

[27:52] could be multiple other issues

[27:54] other than the one streaked? So,

[27:56] it is not a lack of empathy for

[27:58] the situation at all. It's

[27:59] about, what is doing right? What

[28:01] would be most honouring? Do we

[28:03] want to honour storytelling? Do

[28:05] we want to have a different type

[28:07] of reconciliation? Things of

[28:08] that sort? So, just add -- but I

[28:10] invite you to have a

[28:11] conversation with Council to

[28:14] have more of the ideas and

[28:15] exchange. Because that is what

[28:16] we are looking for.

[28:18] >> I mean, there is some -- Joe

[28:23] or distorting in this country

[28:24] now -- and this is what this is.

[28:27] The only Joe -- genocides --

[28:32] commemorate -- genocide --

[28:34] streets and important history

[28:35] behind that -- and that's

[28:39] >> Thank you, Mr. Quella.

[28:43] Bridget Watson?

[28:53] >> Good evening. I guess I don't

[28:54] have to say my name. So, the

[28:59] mandate that the letter that was

[29:02] given to Madam the down, that

[29:04] city manager -- strain on civic

[29:08] engagement. You granted private

[29:11] talks between multibillion

[29:14] dollar Corporation and City

[29:15] representatives, while leaving

[29:16] the citizens out in the cold. I

[29:17] know we disagree on that. But

[29:19] this is how I see after having

[29:22] read the mandate letter. We the

[29:24] people of Pointe-Claire don't

[29:25] generally have access to the

[29:26] resources, financial or

[29:28] otherwise, and influence like

[29:30] how like Fairview does. So this

[29:32] is not a level playing field

[29:33] with how zones and we won an Mu2

[29:35] art to be approached. For that

[29:37] reason alone, I feel you have

[29:39] failed us and I have grave

[29:40] concerns and doubts over what

[29:41] kind of city we will end up with

[29:43] when all this is over. So my

[29:47] first question is, the mandate

[29:49] letter states that members of

[29:50] the committee are firmly

[29:51] committed to achieving the

[29:53] objectives set and respecting

[29:55] the framework established for

[29:57] the redevelopment of or

[29:59] treatment of Mu1 and Mu2 zones.

[30:01] A large number of citizens are

[30:03] in favour of -- does that mean

[30:10] that anyone that -- allowed to

[30:11] join the committee?

[30:15] >> I don't think so.

[30:19] >> It states in the mandate

[30:20] letter.

[30:21] >> Read it to me again, we

[30:22] swats?

[30:23] >> -- firmly committed to

[30:24] achieving the objective set and

[30:27] respecting the a framework

[30:28] established for the

[30:29] redevelopment or treatment at

[30:30] venue won it and you two zones.

[30:33] >> Okay. So they are linked

[30:34] together.

[30:36] >> So, there is no answer? Okay.

[30:41] >> You feel that they should be

[30:43] included?

[30:44] >> I think it's a

[30:45] misinterpretation of how you are

[30:46] reading. Like you said, your

[30:47] perception -- the point is, we

[30:50] want to, as was mentioned at the

[30:52] very beginning, different

[30:53] perspectives, different

[30:55] representation. We want from

[30:56] across the city. That, yes, we

[30:58] understand that there is a very

[30:59] strong group of certain

[31:00] individuals. But we want to hear

[31:02] from everyone and all aspects

[31:04] across the city. It does not

[31:07] preclude anyone from this group

[31:08] being on it. But something has

[31:10] to be built on Mu1 for sure --

[31:15] >> For sure --

[31:16] >> And that's the whole point --

[31:20] >> --

[31:21] >> -- regularly keep members of

[31:23] the Council of the city of

[31:24] Pointe-Claire informed of the

[31:25] process of the work process

[31:27] previously agreed upon between

[31:28] the parties, which I am assuming

[31:30] our Cadillac Fairview and city.

[31:32] There is no mention of citizens

[31:35] being involved in this process.

[31:37] And this is the mandate letter

[31:38] that was given to madame Verdun

[31:40] or she gave this to the

[31:42] representative from Cadillac

[31:43] Fairview. These are the

[31:44] instruction she is to go on,

[31:45] where it states that if people

[31:47] are not committed to and firmly

[31:52] -- achieving the objective said

[31:53] by the parties, then they are

[31:55] not to be on the committee. So,

[31:56] it's not my interpretation. It

[31:58] is what is written. The second

[32:01] question -- at the

[32:03] >> That's --

[32:06] >> January 30th extraordinary

[32:07] meeting, I remember Councillor

[32:08] Stork and perhaps others saying

[32:09] that if you weren't happy with

[32:10] the talks between the city and

[32:12] Cadillac Fairview, you would

[32:14] walk away. Now nowhere does that

[32:15] state that in the mandate

[32:17] letter, so, are we to assume

[32:20] that Cadillac Fairview knows and

[32:21] understands us? Or will they see

[32:22] you for this to what they decide

[32:23] to walk away?

[32:29] >> The mandate is to start

[32:31] discussions to establish the

[32:32] process. The mandate does not

[32:35] state that we are going to agree

[32:37] on whatever Cadillac Fairview

[32:38] wants. I think that's a

[32:40] misinterpretation. We want

[32:43] madame Verdun to start the

[32:44] discussion so that things can

[32:46] move forward so that we can

[32:47] establish a best process to work

[32:49] together.

[32:50] >> Then I wish you would say

[32:51] that more clearly in here.

[32:53] Because

[32:54] >> -- well, that's her

[32:55] administrative right, to be able

[32:56] to negotiate with the person.

[32:58] She is a DG of the city. And so

[33:00] we are giving the mandate for

[33:01] her to go and start the process.

[33:04] >> From what I understand these

[33:05] mandates are your instructions,

[33:06] though.

[33:07] >> Yes, to start discussion.

[33:09] Yes, to start discussions --

[33:10] >> Well, it's more than starting

[33:12] discussions.

[33:13] >> Okay. Well -- any other

[33:16] comments --

[33:17] >> If I could weigh in -- my

[33:21] belief and desire is for the

[33:24] discussions to not involve

[33:26] Council at the early part of the

[33:28] process or politicians. The

[33:31] elected official should not be

[33:33] involved. And it should be urban

[33:35] planning and the parties

[33:36] involved and the citizen. And

[33:38] the sooner we get the citizen

[33:40] involved, the better, and that

[33:43] is why we are moving along. And

[33:45] I like the way we are headed.

[33:48] And I take exception to the way

[33:49] it's written and the resolution.

[33:51] Because I feel that we have

[33:52] moved away from them, the

[33:55] priority of the importance of

[33:58] citizen participation and I

[34:01] would have -- greater structure

[34:03] on this process and -- as long

[34:05] as it is after the facts.

[34:07] >> I'd like to comment, please.

[34:09] >> Go ahead, Councillor Stork.

[34:12] >> Contrary to what you just

[34:13] said, the elected officials are

[34:14] not involved in this process.

[34:16] This is a process involving our

[34:18] DG, members of our

[34:19] administration, and Cadillac

[34:22] Fairview, to set up a public

[34:24] participation policy to bring

[34:26] the citizens of Pointe-Claire at

[34:28] a table and discuss. Whatever

[34:30] comes out of that is brought

[34:32] back to Council -- and this has

[34:33] been noted before -- it's

[34:34] brought back to Council. It has

[34:35] to be agreed upon. And it will

[34:38] be discussed with the citizens.

[34:40] So, at no point are elected

[34:44] officials. I don't know what --

[34:45] the are of that but at no point

[34:47] are elected officials in this

[34:49] process.

[34:50] >> How is the letter structured?

[34:51] >> Thank you for clarifying

[34:52] that, Councillor Stork. At what

[34:55] frequency will the updates be

[34:57] coming from the de G?

[34:58] >> We have to see what comes out

[35:00] of it. We have to find out.

[35:02] That's what will be part of this

[35:03] discussion.

[35:04] >> I'm just really puzzled on

[35:06] how the public is not allowed to

[35:07] leave the process on the public

[35:10] participation process -- why

[35:12] couldn't you start with us? And

[35:13] then, I hear -- I was there for

[35:15] all the meetings. I know all the

[35:16] stuff that you said. And I'm

[35:18] glad you did say that. However,

[35:20] it is still confusing. So, I

[35:23] thank you for your time. And

[35:25] I've got to go.

[35:30] >> Ms., if I could just add, the

[35:32] letter itself had influence --

[35:35] it was influenced. And so, there

[35:38] has been a role. We've cleared

[35:42] the process of how -- I would

[35:45] prefer to have a citizen

[35:47] involvement and greater citizen

[35:49] involvement and I feel that

[35:50] letter was a step forward, with

[35:52] too much involvement of

[35:53] Councillor not enough of the

[35:54] citizen. That is my take on it.

[35:56] >> Just one last little comment.

[36:00] >> --

[36:01] >> Yeah, thank you, Tim.

[36:03] >> -- Mayor Thomas --

[36:05] >> Thank you, Mayor Thomas --

[36:08] for clarifying that elected

[36:10] officials will not be involved

[36:11] in the process.

[36:13] >> That would be my hope.

[36:21] Gregory Forchette?

[36:28] >> Mister Mayor, my name is

[36:30] Gregory -- please make an

[36:34] attempt to correct my name.

[36:36] >> I apologize.

[36:38] >> When you speak ill of me when

[36:40] I'm not in the room --

[36:42] >> I never speak I love you sir.

[36:44] >> That's -- excuse me it's

[36:47] unfair -- I don't speak ill of

[36:49] you, sir.

[36:50] >> You made a comment about my

[36:52] preamble's., So --

[36:54] >> In the meetings here?

[36:58] >> -- I was speaking about --

[37:01] >> The preamble's are the

[37:02] preamble's.

[37:03] >> That's me.

[37:06] >> --

[37:07] >> So, given that the letter has

[37:08] come up and the letter that you

[37:10] are post on Facebook has come up

[37:12] multiple times already this

[37:14] evening, I am -- I'm mildly

[37:18] confused. And I think a lot of

[37:20] the residents are mildly

[37:21] confused about some of the

[37:22] statements that are being made.

[37:23] You have made some very very

[37:25] strong statements in your posts

[37:28] on Facebook regarding

[37:31] commitments. And what a

[37:32] contract, one of mandates. I

[37:36] really want to truly understand

[37:39] how -- and that will get to my

[37:40] questions -- how you make these

[37:42] statements and why you make the

[37:46] statements. It's in reference to

[37:48] the agreements or discussions

[37:50] with Cadillac Fairview. I'm

[37:51] going to keep it simple. My

[37:53] first question is, please

[37:56] elaborate and explain to us

[37:58] where you see in this letter.

[38:01] And I will add, there was some

[38:03] loose translation to this letter

[38:06] being shared around that where

[38:09] we are committing the City

[38:13] clearly commits. And I use this

[38:16] several times going to force the

[38:21] City to allow as Cadillac

[38:23] Fairview to write their own

[38:24] bylaws. We are in this statement

[38:26] -- in these two pages that I

[38:28] have read now, multiple times

[38:31] does that say that?

[38:32] >> The CDP allows --

[38:36] >> Is there are contract --

[38:38] >> Mr. Frechette, -- I'm trying

[38:39] to answer your question.

[38:42] -- far greater role than

[38:44] otherwise. And my initial

[38:47] objection to this whole process

[38:49] the letter and the resolution is

[38:50] that there isn't mutual joint

[38:53] role in the process -- city and

[38:56] developer together. And that I

[38:57] don't accept. So, that's where I

[38:58] see the problem. That's where I

[39:00] see the issue with the process

[39:02] that we are engaged in, right

[39:03] now. And I would not allow the

[39:07] developer that kind of rollover

[39:09] -- control over the service in

[39:12] citizen participation. I don't

[39:13] think that's fair. So, that is

[39:16] my feeling on it.

[39:17] >> My second question is, please

[39:20] provide us, the citizens, with

[39:22] the documentation and the proof

[39:23] that we have entered, signed

[39:26] into a CDP, into a contract,

[39:29] with Cadillac Fairview that is

[39:33] going to -- allows Cadillac

[39:34] Fairview to design the bylaws at

[39:35] the city of Pointe-Claire can

[39:37] say no. If the in CC can say no

[39:40] to the federal government on

[39:42] development in downtown Ottawa,

[39:44] I am certain Pointe-Claire can

[39:46] say no to Cadillac Fairview on

[39:49] development and what happens.

[39:51] Prove to me -- prove to the rest

[39:52] of the city of Pointe-Claire

[39:55] where this CDP is, and where

[39:58] this contract that you clearly

[40:00] stated on Facebook today,

[40:01] exists.

[40:03] >> Mr. Frechette, what CDP does

[40:07] is allow Cadillac Fairview to

[40:09] propose. And what I don't want

[40:10] is for Cadillac Fairview is to

[40:12] propose. What I would like is

[40:14] for the citizen to create a

[40:16] framework and a CDP allows the

[40:18] developer to propose. And that

[40:22] is where we are already a step

[40:26] along in the -- it's. Once it's

[40:29] been proposed and the process

[40:31] starts it's very hard to relate

[40:32] back where is I would like to

[40:36] have a clue to citizen

[40:38] decision-making process prior to

[40:39] the proposal, prior to anything,

[40:41] so that we don't have to reel

[40:42] anything back after the fact. So

[40:44] that is where I'm going with

[40:46] that one. And we aren't in a CDP

[40:49] yet. We are working towards one.

[40:51] >> Thank you. We are not in a

[40:53] seedy tee it.

[40:54] >> Not yet --

[40:55] >> And this letter today -- that

[40:57] you shared, this email --

[40:58] >> It does not say we are in a

[41:01] CDP already.

[41:03] >> Okay.

[41:04] >> We are not in the CDP --

[41:06] >> This is now the signed

[41:08] contract --

[41:09] >> There is a mandate letter.

[41:11] There is a mandate letter.

[41:13] >> There's a mandate letter to

[41:14] start some discussions.

[41:16] >> The process is -- without sin

[41:19] participation. So, that is the

[41:22] issue here. Mr. Fréchet, that is

[41:24] the issue here.

[41:27] >> A pretty short says

[41:29] participation of citizens in

[41:30] here. Thank you.

[41:32] >> May I comment, Mister Mayor?

[41:34] >> Absolutely.

[41:35] >> Just for clarification,

[41:37] basically, this resolution once

[41:38] again, if you start the process

[41:40] to set up a public participation

[41:42] process with the citizens. Once

[41:44] that is established, it's how to

[41:46] set up a framework for the

[41:48] citizens to be involved in the

[41:49] process. It's their thoughts,

[41:51] their beliefs, whether it be

[41:52] three meetings, 20 people, or

[41:54] 100 people. That's to set up the

[41:56] process. In my view, in my

[41:58] opinion, then that happens.

[42:00] Those public participation

[42:02] happens. From there, we get the

[42:05] information from the feedback,

[42:06] from the citizens. And at that

[42:07] point we have confirmed an idea

[42:09] once that ideas formulated on

[42:11] what the soft thoughts of the

[42:13] citizens are, to my opinion I

[42:15] think that's the actual process.

[42:18] And from that point, we would

[42:19] open discussions, potentially,

[42:21] with Cadillac Fairview to CDP.

[42:24] So, we would not speak to the

[42:27] citizens after we negotiate a

[42:29] CDP. It happened, we will speak

[42:31] to the citizens, and bake based

[42:33] upon the information we would

[42:34] take back, we would potentially

[42:37] discuss a CDP -- it would have

[42:38] to be mutual and it would have

[42:39] to be -- council resolution, it

[42:43] would have to be passed by us.

[42:44] And the citizens would have

[42:46] public participation, even after

[42:47] we get to the citizen of what

[42:49] the --

[42:52] >> So, just to clarify -- there

[42:54] is no CDP discussions until the

[42:59] Public receives all the

[43:00] information from the public

[43:01] participation policy to be

[43:04] digested.

[43:10] >> To make it clear for all of

[43:11] you -- I gave you all a schedule

[43:14] last time, last meeting. Have a

[43:16] look at that schedule and --

[43:21] process that is about to unfold

[43:22] in this process. And analyze

[43:24] this process and see when in

[43:26] fact there actually is citizen

[43:28] participation. And you will see

[43:30] that it is quite a ways along

[43:32] the process. Have a look at it.

[43:33] You all have a schedule last

[43:35] meeting. So, you will know the

[43:37] citizens are far down the

[43:39] process. A lot can happen and

[43:42] it's very difficult to roll

[43:43] things back, wants to get

[43:44] rolling. I would wait prefer it,

[43:46] have a look where the citizen

[43:47] involvement is in that process

[43:49] -- it is produced and out there

[43:50] and you have it. As for the

[43:53] other thing that is very

[43:54] concerning, disconcerting, for

[43:55] me, it's that in the Kirkland

[43:57] process and another processes,

[43:59] the citizens got to choose their

[44:01] own representative. I'm worried

[44:03] that that is not in fact going

[44:05] to be the case, if this process

[44:06] proceeds in the way it is

[44:07] structured. So, these are my

[44:09] concerns. I'm putting out red

[44:11] lights. That's what I'm trying

[44:12] to do. And it's open to change

[44:17] -- to influence when the

[44:19] citizens get involved and and I

[44:27] think and to get citizens

[44:32] involved -- and -- no Claude

[44:38] Claude casino?

[44:56] The

[44:57] >> Way understand it, Mister

[44:58] Mayor, is that -- and one

[45:04] question left -- do you remember

[45:07] the deal?

[45:10] >> Yes, I respect deals. And I

[45:13] should know better -- and I'm

[45:18] going to throw it out there.

[45:20] Since there are by-elections

[45:22] coming up are you going to

[45:24] support me?

[45:30] >> There is all around -- you

[45:31] put it in plural. Can you allow

[45:33] me time to reflect? That's a big

[45:35] decision.

[45:40] >> And that will be determined

[45:45] -- if you are the best of all

[45:47] the candidates entered --

[45:49] >> I'm convinced of that.

[45:53] - Merci beaucoup, and --

[45:54] Monsieur, c'était une très bonne

[45:55] question, merci beaucoup!

[45:59] >> -- Tracey --

[46:01] >> Thank you --

[46:02] >> You will pass?

[46:03] >> Okay.

[46:13] Normand Lapointe?

[46:21] >> -- not here. We need the

[46:24] resolution the 30th. And -- come

[46:27] see you -- in 2017 -- novella

[46:39] and good day -- and the three of

[46:44] them councillors, that they were

[46:45] here --

[46:52] - Monsieur Lapointe, pouvez-vous

[46:54] vous approcher du micro, s'il

[46:55] vous plaît?

[46:56] - Hockey.

[46:59] (---)

[47:00] ça, c'est des P, c'est un

[47:07] exemple exactement de ce que

[47:08] vous êtes en train de faire en

[47:09] ce moment. Il y a un contrat qui

[47:11] a été soumis le 16 janvier, 27,

[47:15] dans ce contrat-là, il y avait

[47:21] trois

[47:22] (inaudible)

[47:23] qui ont été faites: possibilité

[47:24] de...

[47:53] >> -- and the 27 87 -- and they

[47:59] -- answers compact between the

[48:01] city of Pointe-Claire and the

[48:03] company, 3:35, dash or seven, 91

[48:08] and that includes some people

[48:14] from -- the contract was done

[48:18] between the DG we missed and --

[48:22] Pointe-Claire. The same night

[48:25] the adoption. Everything was

[48:31] done and already public

[48:37] consultation -- and the contract

[48:39] was signed by the City. And

[48:42] everything went on -- it with

[48:46] some public consultation. And it

[48:49] was a chance for everyone --

[48:52] they were changing the type of

[48:56] height and the number of -- that

[48:59] was supposed to be. It went from

[49:04] 40 apartment acre to have. Tara

[49:10] Stainforth today we get RCI. If

[49:11] we have to change anyone to a

[49:14] park and we this and

[49:24] -- and going to 25 storey

[49:27] We're gonna go only 15 storeys.

[49:30] And you agree, there is no

[49:33] change of the zoning, and they

[49:40] want to go to 15 if you want. An

[49:42] argument is gonna be done

[49:46] between the C C F, and the

[49:48] general manager. So, there will

[49:52] be no, if the citizen wants to

[49:57] have any two zones of the park,

[50:00] we have to go through RCI, and

[50:03] be able to do a referendum, and

[50:07] the people that are in Mu2. The

[50:13] contiguous zoning, that are

[50:18] right beside it they will have

[50:19] to vote to first of all get the

[50:23] visitor to start and then have

[50:27] the necessary number to vote yes

[50:29] or no.

[50:45] All the time right now, see of

[50:46] what they want is to build right

[50:49] away. You can see on their

[50:51] website, the timeline that they

[50:56] have. So for us, if we really

[51:00] want to change the zoning of

[51:04] Mu2, to park, the only way to do

[51:07] it is by the RCI. And that's the

[51:12] question is very important,

[51:13] because the other way if

[51:15] Cadillac Fairview decides to go

[51:20] to 15 storeys. This anyone, any

[51:25] two, zoning of a public

[51:27] consultation, but they can't go

[51:29] to a referendum.

[51:31] >> Okay.

[51:32] >> Is that right?

[51:33] >> From my understanding, I'm

[51:34] not sure, but I think that is.

[51:38] - But I ask, non, c'est pas

[51:39] correct? --

[51:40] >> I can help clarify if you

[51:42] wish. Actually, Madam Thibeault,

[51:46] you are nodding your head.

[51:49] Madame Thibault

[51:50] >>?

[51:51] Yes, want me to answer the

[51:52] question? Monsieur normal à

[51:55] point, je peux vous répondre en

[51:57] français, si vous voulez, je ne

[51:58] sais pas par où commencer, votre

[52:00] question était... bon, vous êtes

[52:01] allé un peu dans tous les sens.

[52:02] Je voulais juste ramener,

[52:03] peut-être, un fait: si vous

[52:05] permettez, Monsieur le Maire, je

[52:06] vais juste ramener un élément,

[52:07] là. Vous avez parlé que dans une

[52:12] certaine séquence, il y avait le

[52:16] RCI, ensuite, qu'il y avait un

[52:18] référendum.

[52:19] - Qu'il y avait une possibilité

[52:20] d'avoir un référendum quand ils

[52:21] y avaient un RCI.

[52:22] - Non.

[52:23] - Si on change la zone de MU2 à

[52:32] PAC, il y a possibilité de

[52:33] référendum.

[52:34] - C'est beaucoup plus compliqué

[52:35] que ça, le RCI permet à un

[52:39] conseiller municipal de faire un

[52:40] temps d'arrêt pour vers le plan

[52:42] d'urbanisme. C'est une condition

[52:44] sine qua non, légalement, un RCI

[52:46] est en place dans l'optique ou

[52:48] un conseil municipal est en

[52:50] révision de son plan

[52:51] d'urbanisme, c'est la base.

[52:53] C'est exactement ce qui se passe

[52:54] en ce moment. Au terme de

[52:57] l'opération de révision du plan

[52:59] d'urbanisme, il y aura

[53:01] concordance dans les règlements

[53:05] d'urbanisme entre les zonage,

[53:09] les PIA, la, construction tous

[53:11] les règlements d'urbanisme qui

[53:12] découlent du plan tombe anis

[53:13] mais seront ajustés en fonction

[53:15] des nouvelles orientations du

[53:16] plan d'

[53:17] Urbanisme. Je ne parle pas de

[53:19] référendum ici. Je ne parle pas

[53:20] de référendum. Ce que le conseil

[53:23] municipal de la Ville de

[53:24] Pointe-Claire est en train

[53:25] d'établir, c'est un processus de

[53:26] consultation publique des

[53:28] citoyens dans le cas de la

[53:30] révision du plan d'urbanisme, et

[53:32] ultimement, les règlements

[53:34] d'urbanisme seront changés,

[53:35] alors à aucun moment, ici, on ne

[53:38] parle d'une relation entre un

[53:39] RCI et un référendum. Alors ce

[53:41] serait faux de dire cela. Et

[53:43] votre question, encore, c'était,

[53:44] quoi précisément?

[53:46] - Il faut changer MU2 à PAC

[53:50] (---)

[53:51] , ça prend une...

[53:54] - Ça prend un changement dans la

[53:57] réglementation d'urbanisme.

[53:58] Est-ce que le plan d'urbanisme

[54:01] est ultimement, et ultimement,

[54:03] la concordance des règles moteur

[54:04] bannisse, même donc le règlement

[54:06] du zonage, viendra changer cette

[54:08] zone-là pour la rendre PAC?

[54:14] Règlement d'urbanisme? Les

[54:16] citoyens en décideront lors

[54:18] d'une révision du plan

[54:19] d'urbanisme, en date

[54:20] d'aujourd'hui, ce n'est pas le

[54:21] cas, ça pourrait être le cas,

[54:22] mais il y a des mécanismes dans

[54:23] la loi qui existe pour arriver à

[54:25] faire ça. Pour l'instant, ce

[54:26] n'est pas ça. Il n'y a pas de

[54:29] relations de changer MU2 en PAC

[54:32] en référendum au plan... au

[54:34] moment où on se parle. Elle

[54:36] - Met le CD et ne permettra pas

[54:39] de changer...

[54:40] - Le plan d'aménagement

[54:41] d'ensemble, c'est complètement

[54:42] autre chose, si on est dans un

[54:43] autre outil d'urbanisme, si vous

[54:45] voulez que je vous fasse un

[54:46] résumé de ce qu'est un plan

[54:48] d'aménagement d'ensemble, ça va

[54:49] me faire plaisir. Monsieur le

[54:50] Maire, voulez-vous que

[54:52] j'embarque dans cette

[54:54] explication-là?

[54:55] - Si tout le monde veut

[54:57] comprendre les deux...

[54:58] - Oui.

[54:59] (inaudible)

[55:01] - Hein?

[55:02] - Bon, alors je vais expliquer,

[55:05] très brièvement la notion de

[55:06] plan d'aménagement d'ensemble,

[55:07] comme on l'entend, le CBP.

[55:14] Présentement, on va parler de la

[55:17] zone Cadillac Fairview, les

[55:18] zones MU2 et MU1 ne sont pas

[55:23] soumis à un plan d'aménagement

[55:24] d'ensemble. Est-ce que c'est, un

[55:25] plan d'aménagement d'ensemble

[55:26] pour une ville, c'est que la

[55:28] ville décide que certaines

[55:29] parties de son territoire, s'il

[55:30] y a développement dans ces

[55:32] zones-là, les développeurs

[55:34] devront soumettre un plan à la

[55:36] Ville, un plan d'aménagement

[55:38] d'ensemble qui est assujetti à

[55:40] des critères très précis. Alors

[55:42] une partie du territoire

[55:43] pourrait être assujetti à un

[55:46] développement qui devrait passer

[55:48] par un plan d'aménagement

[55:49] d'ensemble. La ville peut se

[55:51] doter d'un règlement sur les

[55:56] PAE, ce règlement est assujetti

[55:59] à une consultation publique, ça,

[56:00] c'est une chose. Une fois qu'un

[56:02] territoire de la ville est

[56:03] assujetti à un règlement de plan

[56:07] d'aménagement d'ensemble, un

[56:08] CDP, tous ceux qui voudront

[56:10] développer dans cette zone-là

[56:11] devront passer par le dépôt à la

[56:13] ville, donc au comité

[56:15] consultatif d'urbanisme, d'un

[56:16] plan d'aménagement d'ensemble

[56:18] pour le projet qui sera

[56:20] ultimement soumis au conseil

[56:22] municipal et devra faire l'objet

[56:24] d'une approbation par le conseil

[56:25] municipal. Si le conseil

[56:28] autorise le projet qui a été

[56:29] fait en vertu du Règlement sur

[56:31] les PAE, à ce moment-là, le

[56:36] projet étant accepté, le conseil

[56:38] municipal doit modifier sa

[56:41] réglementation d'urbanisme pour

[56:42] arriver à ce que le projet

[56:46] rentre dans les critères du

[56:47] règlement. Et ces modifications

[56:51] réglementaires-là sont une fois

[56:52] de plus assujetti à

[56:55] l'approbation des citoyens en

[56:57] consultation publique.

[56:59] - Est question référendaire?

[57:01] - Le processus référendaire,

[57:03] ultimement, c'est suite à la

[57:04] consultation publique,

[57:05] l'adoption des second projet de

[57:06] règlement, il y a des demandes

[57:08] suffisantes dans les zones

[57:10] concernées, tout à fait. Mais

[57:12] c'est les règlements, ça, ce

[57:13] sont des règlements d'urbanisme

[57:15] qui serait modifiée advenant que

[57:16] le conseil approuve un projet

[57:19] qui a été soumis au conseil en

[57:22] raison d'un règlement sur les

[57:23] PAE, ce sont quand même des

[57:25] choses distinctes mais qui

[57:26] finissent, au bout du compte,

[57:27] par se rejoindre.

[57:29] - Alors c'est Cadillac

[57:30] fluviaux... excusez.

[57:34] (signal sonore)

[57:38] Excusez. Six cadets fluviaux

[57:41] décide de respecter les règles

[57:44] de MU1 est MU2, il n'y aura pas

[57:48] de référendum?

[57:49] - Non. Ce que j'ai dit, c'est

[57:50] que si le Conseil décide

[57:54] d'assujettir les zones MU1 et

[57:58] MU2 sur un plan d'aménagement

[57:59] d'ensemble, ce qui n'est pas le

[58:00] cas en ce moment, si le Conseil

[58:03] décidait de le faire, il y a des

[58:05] critères qui devraient être

[58:08] analysés, mais avant d'arriver à

[58:10] ce stade-là, il y a des

[58:11] discussions à avoir avec

[58:13] Cadillac Fairview, mais non

[58:14] seulement, ça il faut que le

[58:15] plan d'organismes et les

[58:17] règlements d'urbanisme fasse en

[58:19] sorte que l'on puisse donner.

[58:22] Plan d'urbanisme, pardon. Que

[58:24] les données aux demandeurs la

[58:27] possibilité de faire un PAE,

[58:28] parce que pour donner

[58:29] l'autorisation, il doit déroger

[58:30] d'une façon ou d'une autre aux

[58:32] règles d'urbanisme, et en ce

[58:33] moment, cette zone-là n'a pas de

[58:36] règles d'urbanisme très claire,

[58:37] alors l'idée d'avoir un RCI, de

[58:38] revoir le plan d'urbanisme,

[58:40] c'est entre autres aussi pour

[58:42] donner à ce secteur névralgique

[58:43] de la ville des règles

[58:46] d'urbanisme très précis qui vont

[58:49] convenir dans la

[58:50] (inaudible)

[58:51] urbaine, la trame urbaine et le

[58:52] plan futur d'aménagement de

[58:53] Pointe-Claire. Alors je reviens

[58:54] à la question, alors MU1 MU2,

[58:56] s'il n'y avait jamais un PAE

[59:00] établi pour ce secteur-là,

[59:01] devrait déposer un projet à la

[59:02] ville, la ville l'analyserais à

[59:04] la lumière du règlement sur les

[59:06] PAE et viendraient, à ce moment,

[59:08] là ajuster...

[59:11] (signal sonore)

[59:12] Vous êtes un homme occupé,

[59:13] monsieur Lapointe?

[59:14] - Oui...

[59:15] (intervention en anglais)

[59:16] - O.K., merci!

[59:17] (inaudible)

[59:26] Am I allowed to reply place?

[59:29] >> The question has been

[59:31] answered by madame to Merci,

[59:32] Madame Thibault. Go.

[59:33] >> I'd like to clarify, Mueller

[59:35] to respond?

[59:36] >> Is the

[59:37] Legal department allowed to have

[59:40] the overarching authority, or my

[59:42] chair of the meeting.

[59:43] >> I don't, know I'm asking.

[59:46] >> To the Councillor ask for the

[59:47] right to speak, Chairman Shaw

[59:51] gave him the opportunity.

[59:53] >> It's just a simple

[59:56] clarification from, 2017 of

[59:59] course this went through

[1:00:03] September 12th, which I call the

[1:00:05] long nights of Pointe-Claire,

[1:00:07] which is when they all went from

[1:00:10] -- September 12 2019, from

[1:00:13] commercial to mixed-use

[1:00:14] residential. At that point the

[1:00:15] zoning has been change. Correct

[1:00:18] me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty

[1:00:19] certain right now, we don't

[1:00:22] require icy I for making a

[1:00:24] zoning change, we just have to

[1:00:25] apply for it on our behalf, we

[1:00:28] could potentially try to resolve

[1:00:31] Fairview forest into parks, and

[1:00:33] RCIs not required. Now that I

[1:00:34] think it's in the RGI, I think

[1:00:37] that would be possible. So I

[1:00:39] want to clarify that RCIs not

[1:00:41] required to rezone something.

[1:00:49] >> Okay, now certainly Abe.

[1:00:55] >> Good evening Mister Mayor,

[1:00:56] and City Council.

[1:00:58] >> I witnessed since the

[1:01:00] beginning of last year, the same

[1:01:06] City Council, the freeze of

[1:01:13] Cadillac Fairview. And we can

[1:01:16] convince the citizen, so what

[1:01:18] they did in the spring, -- to

[1:01:27] get citizen consultation. So

[1:01:30] those over 100 people there, and

[1:01:33] the majority against against

[1:01:35] Cadillac Fairview, was very

[1:01:39] clear. So they couldn't convince

[1:01:42] the citizen. And after that, in

[1:01:46] July 27th. Mr. Frank Cohen, went

[1:01:52] to the newspaper, and he starts

[1:01:55] scaring people, people do not

[1:01:56] follow what's going on in the

[1:01:57] city. And like oh, if we not

[1:02:04] accept Cadillac Fairview, and

[1:02:06] all of the projects in the

[1:02:08] developers, they will increase

[1:02:09] the scare tactics.

[1:02:11] >> Mister Mayor, I never said

[1:02:13] anything remotely like that.

[1:02:14] Could you please intervene and

[1:02:18] --

[1:02:19] >> Actually, Councillor Cowan,

[1:02:20] it's not up to you to tell me to

[1:02:23] intervene. But I have read that

[1:02:26] article, and I think there's a

[1:02:28] lot of truth to that. There was

[1:02:31] a scare of greater taxation,

[1:02:32] link to the RCI, I don't get it

[1:02:35] because of a copy of that

[1:02:36] article, on bringing next

[1:02:40] council.

[1:02:41] >> I have it with me,

[1:02:43] Councillor.

[1:02:44] >> You've got it on you?

[1:02:45] >> I have, it and I had some

[1:02:49] copies. And please, a teacher in

[1:02:50] the school, you don't cut

[1:02:51] somebody off who's talking. So

[1:02:52] let me finish, and after you can

[1:02:54] say whatever you want. I also,

[1:03:00] we are always talking with the

[1:03:02] military. The military, you

[1:03:08] always follow the leader or the

[1:03:09] superior, not falling what they,

[1:03:10] like or who they like, but to

[1:03:12] make it clear, I know about the

[1:03:13] army, and I respect the army. So

[1:03:16] I hope you follow what you

[1:03:20] learned in the army.

[1:03:21] >> Sir, we don't need again to

[1:03:23] persevere.

[1:03:24] >> Are you coming off.

[1:03:25] >> You have a question?

[1:03:27] >> The same people, they can

[1:03:29] convince the citizens what they

[1:03:30] did, to convince the other

[1:03:32] three, City Council to alter

[1:03:36] that resolution. -- Mr.

[1:03:44] Tremblay, but when you charged

[1:03:48] district six, and you are the

[1:03:51] mayor against it. But they want

[1:03:53] to think on the beginning, and

[1:03:57] Cadillac Fairview. So I don't

[1:04:01] understand, why there is still

[1:04:03] insisting about all that, if the

[1:04:06] citizen again is all that, and

[1:04:07] we elect you. -- can you explain

[1:04:13] to me? Because we don't know

[1:04:15] what's going on behind closed

[1:04:17] doors. So please let me know.

[1:04:21] >> Well, I can lay the facts up

[1:04:23] before, you that I disagree with

[1:04:26] the resolution, and the mandate

[1:04:27] letter, because I feel like it

[1:04:29] goes against what I got elected

[1:04:34] on. That's my objection, so

[1:04:39] others can explain. Others can

[1:04:42] explain why you chose to --

[1:04:46] that's counter to what I told

[1:04:48] you was gonna, do I want to

[1:04:50] promise to do. That's my

[1:04:53] feeling, so I want to live up to

[1:04:54] what I said I would do, and I

[1:04:59] thought a give the citizen a

[1:05:00] greater role. I will say with

[1:05:05] the citizens force of the city,

[1:05:08] as opposed to force development,

[1:05:09] which people objected to after

[1:05:13] the fact. Which I think are

[1:05:18] examples of, but should we now

[1:05:21] be doing a forward, we should

[1:05:22] learn what's going on in the

[1:05:23] past. So if there are showers

[1:05:25] to, allows the citizens, to get

[1:05:27] involved, so we can prevent some

[1:05:29] of what I think are urban

[1:05:32] planning areas of the past. When

[1:05:34] we can reflect, and great in a

[1:05:41] city that we can all be proud,

[1:05:42] of there is nothing wrong with

[1:05:43] the built environment, let's

[1:05:44] have one we all enjoy. So that's

[1:05:46] where I'm at here, I think for

[1:05:48] us to get it approach X, or

[1:05:52] developing city that we all

[1:05:53] enjoy, you need to be involved.

[1:05:56] Because to know where they're

[1:05:57] gonna enjoy it or not, we have

[1:06:01] to hear what you want.

[1:06:02] >> Thank you for standing firm,

[1:06:04] I guess of what is going on from

[1:06:08] the administration. The second

[1:06:10] question, we have a lot of,

[1:06:12] issue very serious issue, -- the

[1:06:20] Environment, is very, very

[1:06:22] important. The water, the air

[1:06:34] . For future generations. This

[1:06:39] is very important. Housing for

[1:06:44] young families, and next

[1:06:45] generation, especially

[1:06:48] affordable housing and green

[1:06:49] housing. That's for the next

[1:06:52] generation. The taxes what we

[1:06:55] pay increasingly. We pay 16 and

[1:06:59] a half percent taxes. -- is that

[1:07:03] not an issue to lower cost of

[1:07:05] taxes? The road, the traffic.

[1:07:12] That's not all shoes to work on?

[1:07:16] On Cadillac Fairview, and all

[1:07:17] the developments. So please,

[1:07:20] City Council, if you are not

[1:07:23] serious to work about all that.

[1:07:27] Because I saw on the north side,

[1:07:32] someone on the same, we have to

[1:07:34] trust a politician. I agree, but

[1:07:37] the politician has to be honest,

[1:07:38] trust, and respectful for the

[1:07:43] environment, and people who

[1:07:45] elect them. Not for who work

[1:07:49] with them, so please, if you're

[1:07:52] not able to work in a serious

[1:07:55] way, for us in the next

[1:07:56] generation. Just step down. Get

[1:08:02] somebody else who is smart, and

[1:08:05] have the vision to see all these

[1:08:07] problems. We have two choices,

[1:08:10] we work on a serious issue --

[1:08:11] >> Is our question?

[1:08:13] >> That's what I'm asking, sir.

[1:08:15] >> But I can intervene.

[1:08:18] >> Yes.

[1:08:19] >> There is an insinuation

[1:08:20] there, that these people aren't

[1:08:21] doing that. Which there are

[1:08:23] arguments that they are, we just

[1:08:25] have different ways of doing it,

[1:08:26] right? So, is another question?

[1:08:34] What is the question.

[1:08:35] >> We have the serious issue to

[1:08:37] work on it. But they all just

[1:08:43] focus on developers, when we

[1:08:45] have all the traffic, housing,

[1:08:49] the environment. They preserve

[1:08:52] all the green spaces. We have to

[1:08:57] solve all these problems before

[1:08:58] you start building, so what

[1:08:59] that's what I'm asking.

[1:09:01] >> But there is an argument out

[1:09:03] there, it is environmental to

[1:09:06] develop. And in fact, it's

[1:09:08] preventing urban sprawl. You are

[1:09:12] being an environmentalist. You

[1:09:14] can't just say that the motive

[1:09:15] is not that. Can't say the

[1:09:20] motive is not an environmental,

[1:09:21] because there is an equal

[1:09:22] argument to that effect. That is

[1:09:27] shared by some of the Council,

[1:09:28] and that is that the more you

[1:09:30] built, the less we roll into

[1:09:33] urban sprawl. Problem with that,

[1:09:35] in my opinion, it means

[1:09:38] annihilating every single green

[1:09:39] space in urban setting. Which to

[1:09:41] me is somewhat contradictory.

[1:09:44] And of course the problem with

[1:09:45] that as well is, most

[1:09:49] Pointe-Claire eons, do you do

[1:09:52] not want to leave unidentified

[1:09:55] Hong Kong or -- Environment, or

[1:09:58] like even downtown Mississauga.

[1:10:03] As regards to densification of

[1:10:05] densification issue, it's also

[1:10:07] the quality of life issue. So to

[1:10:10] say that these councillors are

[1:10:14] not environmentalists, I don't

[1:10:15] think it's fair.

[1:10:16] >> I'm not saying -- I don't see

[1:10:19] serious work about the

[1:10:20] environment.

[1:10:23] >> You have another question?

[1:10:24] >> We are just criticizing. With

[1:10:25] no question.

[1:10:26] >> Okay, God bless you, and

[1:10:28] thank you for working for the

[1:10:32] citizens seriously, and to solve

[1:10:33] our problems before starting

[1:10:36] building some more. Especially

[1:10:38] what we see -- don't repeat all

[1:10:45] that again. Thank you and God

[1:10:46] bless you.

[1:10:54] >> Conway?

[1:10:57] >> Good evening Mayor.

[1:11:08] Today, as a citizen of

[1:11:10] Pointe-Claire. I must say I'm

[1:11:13] concerned with some common manse

[1:11:15] councillors have expressed,

[1:11:17] especially in recent council

[1:11:18] meetings. I'll start with what's

[1:11:20] closest to me, and I'll say this

[1:11:23] without Carson. I'm especially

[1:11:28] disappointed with the comments

[1:11:29] of Mr. Stork, at the last

[1:11:31] extraordinary meeting, January

[1:11:33] 30th, at the 20th minute in the

[1:11:35] meeting, Mr. Stork said you, our

[1:11:42] mayor. -- continue your soapbox

[1:11:44] speech. Previously on January

[1:11:47] 19th, the 23rd minute in the

[1:11:51] meeting, Mr. Stokes said twice,

[1:11:54] you need help. Moreover, on a

[1:11:58] post I commented on Facebook

[1:11:59] group, Mr. Stork replied without

[1:12:02] a word, he put a link to a

[1:12:04] YouTube video, that was titled

[1:12:08] narcissistic. When I asked for

[1:12:10] clarification explanation, I did

[1:12:11] not receive one word. This is an

[1:12:14] attempt to denigrate me, because

[1:12:18] I was directly in their

[1:12:20] misleading information, I

[1:12:21] presume. And promote himself

[1:12:23] during the election campaign, on

[1:12:26] a flyer reading better together,

[1:12:29] transparency, dedication,

[1:12:31] integrity. I don't think anybody

[1:12:35] ran a campaign with trust me I

[1:12:36] know it's good for you, or I do

[1:12:38] want to hear from you've known

[1:12:39] for my opinion. Also Mr. Stork,

[1:12:41] has been in the past -- I

[1:12:48] would've expected better

[1:12:49] behaviour. I'm disappointed by

[1:12:52] these comments to make me feel

[1:12:54] exasperated I have to stop that,

[1:12:55] it is not democratic,

[1:12:57] councillors have to listen to

[1:12:58] the citizens that elected them.

[1:13:02] Now, the last extraordinary

[1:13:04] meeting of January 30th, they

[1:13:08] asked for certain councillors

[1:13:09] might have been talking in

[1:13:13] contact with Fairview. He was

[1:13:15] clearly upset of the comment,

[1:13:16] and spoke on behalf of all the

[1:13:20] other councillors by saying, --

[1:13:22] they knew the Mayor gave the

[1:13:24] opportunity for Council to -- no

[1:13:29] one here has ever met any

[1:13:34] representatives from Cadillac

[1:13:36] Fairview. She said no, and

[1:13:39] minutes after that, she and she

[1:13:41] might have responded to an

[1:13:42] email. A few minutes later when

[1:13:45] Councillor Cowan was asked

[1:13:47] directly he admitted it that in

[1:13:50] the 25th minute on January 30th.

[1:13:54] My question earlier Thomas is it

[1:13:57] not a good call isn't not

[1:14:00] ill-advised one or more of your

[1:14:03] council members represent the

[1:14:04] city that will be talking

[1:14:06] privately to a developer

[1:14:10] corporation, --

[1:14:21] I've gotta say that one of the

[1:14:25] biggest surprise to me, when I

[1:14:29] was first elected mayor was a

[1:14:36] discrepancy between what a

[1:14:37] perceived one around me. I was

[1:14:38] told it was by my motto, do not

[1:14:41] meet with developers, it's not

[1:14:46] generally a thing to do in front

[1:14:49] of one. And I think early in my

[1:14:53] first mandate, she pointed out

[1:14:59] that she had absolutely gone out

[1:15:01] to dinner with a developer, two

[1:15:03] days before the demolition

[1:15:05] meeting. And that did seem to be

[1:15:07] a problem. I've seen councillors

[1:15:12] meet with representatives, and

[1:15:14] Councillor very out to the

[1:15:15] meetings. When met with one

[1:15:17] right before but we are

[1:15:19] confronted the parking lot.

[1:15:22] Person who confronted us,

[1:15:23] actually talk about the

[1:15:28] councillors. Maybe that's the

[1:15:32] way things are normally done,

[1:15:34] but from it's somewhat

[1:15:35] surprising. It's not what I

[1:15:36] anticipated when I got elected.

[1:15:38] I didn't think this kind of

[1:15:40] thing is standard operating

[1:15:44] procedure. Maybe I'm just naive.

[1:15:51] >> Miss yes Mr. Cowan?

[1:15:52] >> I'd like to point out, there

[1:15:54] is one member of Council, who is

[1:15:58] been -- for unethical manager in

[1:16:01] very.

[1:16:02] >> The motion of censure that

[1:16:04] exist, it was a political stunt,

[1:16:07] not expected in Canadian

[1:16:09] jurisdiction. Just so you know,

[1:16:19] -- I am talking, I'm talking. If

[1:16:25] I can replay that, and the role

[1:16:30] it plays in Canadian politics

[1:16:33] and government.

[1:16:35] >> I have a commonplace.

[1:16:38] >> Yes?

[1:16:41] >> Is it that exasperating?

[1:16:42] >> I kind of like to -- excuse

[1:16:47] me Councillor stark.

[1:16:50] [Inaudible]

[1:16:53] I answer your question, and I'm

[1:16:56] concerned about here, is that

[1:16:58] there is becoming a debate

[1:16:59] between councillors and mayors

[1:17:02] during a citizen question

[1:17:03] period. I heard you hear the

[1:17:04] question from the citizens, and

[1:17:05] not have to debate Council and

[1:17:08] father citizen, as a citizen

[1:17:10] question period. Now the next

[1:17:13] person appears --

[1:17:20] >> Thank you for that. I feel

[1:17:24] like I have a different question

[1:17:25] now. I got one from before. You

[1:17:29] had talked about public

[1:17:33] participation before, in online

[1:17:34] questionnaires. It is thinking

[1:17:35] about, it concerning the public

[1:17:37] participation. I like to say,

[1:17:39] having attended meetings in the

[1:17:42] pass, participation meetings,

[1:17:43] and I'd like something more

[1:17:44] concrete, let me get poster

[1:17:48] notes. Quite frankly, there's no

[1:17:51] guarantee south picket these

[1:17:52] notes, are have the impression

[1:17:53] that I times, good ideas

[1:17:55] getaways. I'd like to public

[1:17:58] steak to have something of more

[1:17:59] notice. For instance, proper

[1:18:01] minutes taken of what we

[1:18:02] actually say. I want this is a

[1:18:06] reminder of how citizens can

[1:18:07] participate.

[1:18:13] >> Following that, on the

[1:18:14] strategic meeting at 13th, the

[1:18:17] title presented was far from

[1:18:18] normal, and that the anyone

[1:18:19] development vision --

[1:18:26] this, along with the manner in

[1:18:28] which the last resolution was

[1:18:29] passed, leads me to suspect the

[1:18:34] by passing of severe sincere

[1:18:35] citizen input. As my member of

[1:18:37] the presentation. Pointe-Claire

[1:18:39] was shown, I have a runny nose.

[1:18:48] >> Could you also speak a little

[1:18:50] closer to the mic, if you don't

[1:18:51] mind?

[1:18:52] >> I like I'm in a podium,

[1:18:54] actually.

[1:18:56] >> As to my memory other

[1:18:57] presentation. Pointe-Claire was

[1:18:58] shown as having 6% natural

[1:19:01] spaces. This includes all the

[1:19:04] grassy areas like the parks in

[1:19:06] the soccer fields. That might be

[1:19:08] updated, at some of those fields

[1:19:09] are now turf. 2%, I believe

[1:19:11] approximately was protected for

[1:19:13] forest. These percentages are

[1:19:15] well below the 30% natural

[1:19:16] spaces that we need to be aiming

[1:19:19] for. I'm doing that by memory,

[1:19:21] because they did, think I was

[1:19:23] under the impression of the

[1:19:24] slide presentation is going to

[1:19:25] be made accessible to the

[1:19:26] public, but I can't find it

[1:19:28] anywhere. As one area that could

[1:19:30] be posted for citizens to see.

[1:19:34] >> Which slide presentation

[1:19:36] referring to?

[1:19:37] >> I'll be on some of the 13th,

[1:19:43] strategic planning workshop.

[1:19:56] >> Proposition company, with the

[1:19:58] City, came together with also

[1:20:01] serve statistics and graphs. I

[1:20:04] had some questions concerning

[1:20:07] the statistics, just as to

[1:20:08] methodology, but I haven't been

[1:20:09] able to see it.

[1:20:10] >> So you want to re-examine

[1:20:13] them?

[1:20:14] >> Okay, perfect. Oh, my second

[1:20:17] question is just a follow-up, my

[1:20:19] question that I had in January,

[1:20:21] two metro Thibault, concerning

[1:20:24] which of the councillors had the

[1:20:25] greatest number absences since

[1:20:27] 2017.

[1:20:32] >> We did the calculations at

[1:20:33] the city clerk's office. We did

[1:20:35] a calculation between for

[1:20:38] Council, sitting between 70 17

[1:20:41] in today, we were able to do

[1:20:45] public meetings, Special

[1:20:46] meetings, and caucuses. It's

[1:20:51] very big table, so we don't

[1:20:52] bring them with us. If you do

[1:20:55] the Mayor, email blinds in

[1:20:56] writing to your question.

[1:20:58] >> Okay.

[1:20:59] >> Okay, that's perfect.

[1:21:01] >> Thank you. Eric McQueen. Did

[1:21:07] I pronounce the name right? It's

[1:21:08] about with to seize?

[1:21:17] >> I, a long time resident,

[1:21:19] first time addressing Council. I

[1:21:22] followed along with the webcast,

[1:21:23] and I think it's probably time

[1:21:25] to stop lurking, and maybe give

[1:21:27] a commenter to. My first

[1:21:28] comment, a couple of comments on

[1:21:30] that question. First question is

[1:21:33] two councillors. I appreciate

[1:21:35] your work, I know that all of

[1:21:36] you are here out of a sense of

[1:21:40] doing the best for the city. And

[1:21:44] that also goes for our workers

[1:21:46] in the city, we all appreciate

[1:21:49] how the snow has been cleared

[1:21:51] better every year. We appreciate

[1:21:57] the recreation, facilities we

[1:21:58] appreciate many aspects of

[1:21:59] living here. And we look for it

[1:22:02] to the spring, when the asphalt

[1:22:04] will come back, and repair our

[1:22:10] roads. I'm particularly

[1:22:14] interested in, an environment of

[1:22:17] our city. I support the

[1:22:19] protection of Fairview forest,

[1:22:23] and another green space like

[1:22:27] Ponner Woods, which I'm

[1:22:28] particularly fond of. With

[1:22:30] regard to the resolution that

[1:22:33] the council's pastime

[1:22:34] supportive. I spent several

[1:22:35] years, decades advocating for

[1:22:38] human rights and social

[1:22:39] safeguards, a places like the

[1:22:41] IMF, the world bank, Department

[1:22:45] of Finance in Ottawa. And I know

[1:22:48] that you don't progress if you

[1:22:50] don't engage, we have to engage,

[1:22:54] that's why largely and support

[1:22:58] the resolution. My question

[1:23:00] regards the environment, I'm

[1:23:03] curious about where the

[1:23:06] environment committee is going,

[1:23:08] what its mandate is, what its

[1:23:10] focus is. So my question is to

[1:23:15] Council with a guard. Councillor

[1:23:19] Cowan. Two Kelly

[1:23:26] Thorstad-Cullen. Who's engaged

[1:23:27] in that committee, and asked her

[1:23:29] for an update on the environment

[1:23:30] committee.

[1:23:35] >> Thank you very much for a

[1:23:36] question, I do want to

[1:23:37] highlight, just reassure you,

[1:23:39] then in the previous

[1:23:40] administration, all available

[1:23:42] green spaces that belong to the

[1:23:45] city were protected, and cannot

[1:23:47] be developed on, so if we owned

[1:23:50] it we protected it so to

[1:23:52] reassure those come up a few

[1:23:53] times, the eighth anything we

[1:23:55] have the power to protect it has

[1:23:57] been protected and will

[1:23:58] certainly work on protecting as

[1:23:59] much as we can. I would say that

[1:24:02] every member of Council sitting

[1:24:04] at this table is committed to

[1:24:05] doing that for the environment

[1:24:07] committee, we actually are

[1:24:09] having our next meeting tomorrow

[1:24:11] evening. And I think I've said

[1:24:13] this before, it's a very robust

[1:24:15] group, as we know if you read or

[1:24:18] sustainable development policy,

[1:24:19] there are so many different

[1:24:20] categories, as was mentioned,

[1:24:22] there's air, there's water,

[1:24:23] there's waste management. There

[1:24:27] is canopy, forests, et cetera.

[1:24:29] So what we did in late 2022, was

[1:24:34] asked the committee to

[1:24:35] prioritize what they felt was

[1:24:37] the most challenging issues

[1:24:39] facing our city, and every give

[1:24:42] the feedback that, and we did a

[1:24:44] table, and came up with what

[1:24:46] would be our focus in 2022, or

[1:24:49] 2023, apologies. The reason for

[1:24:52] that is when you get all these

[1:24:53] passionate, committed vigils

[1:24:54] around the table, it can go

[1:24:56] anywhere. We wanted to have more

[1:24:58] of an issue I'll say, and have

[1:25:01] deliverables that we can share

[1:25:02] with community. For 2020, three

[1:25:05] we're focusing on water, because

[1:25:06] it's a very, special precious

[1:25:08] resource. And there is a new

[1:25:11] guideline from Québec, and how

[1:25:13] we can work with water

[1:25:14] conservation, protecting our

[1:25:15] water sources that are there.

[1:25:21] And then to bring back and see

[1:25:23] where we can impact. There's

[1:25:26] different cramps coming from

[1:25:27] Hydro-Québec, for water

[1:25:29] conservation. We can always

[1:25:30] practical for citizens, what's

[1:25:32] more global, we need to be

[1:25:36] policy changes. -- some of the

[1:25:40] developments of our special

[1:25:46] committees. That made, said with

[1:25:50] water being the primary source,

[1:25:51] we have items that are available

[1:25:55] as they come up, and we need

[1:25:57] opinions of the Environment

[1:25:58] committee, or if they it comes

[1:25:59] they bring it to us and we put

[1:26:02] it on for discussion, that's

[1:26:06] more timely. So so we are

[1:26:08] working on everything we, can

[1:26:10] even looking at City bylaws,

[1:26:13] when you should be water in

[1:26:14] your, Lance just to make sure

[1:26:16] that Pointe-Claire is as

[1:26:17] responsible as possible with

[1:26:19] water preservation. That's for

[1:26:20] 2023, a previous project that

[1:26:22] they worked on and put an

[1:26:23] enormous amount of effort into,

[1:26:25] was to look at our recent splash

[1:26:28] park that went into place

[1:26:29] that'll gust of park, and

[1:26:31] whether that should be

[1:26:32] continuous flow or recycled

[1:26:33] flow, and a whole report

[1:26:35] evaluating all the impacts from

[1:26:37] a sustainable perspective, and

[1:26:38] give us the recommendation, so

[1:26:42] that we as a city are making the

[1:26:45] best possible decisions for

[1:26:47] citizens, with expertise feeding

[1:26:54] into that..

[1:27:00] >> I think would be great if

[1:27:01] more the activity could be

[1:27:03] shared on the website. One final

[1:27:05] note, I do admire the stamina of

[1:27:09] all your folks on Council,

[1:27:11] having watched meetings over

[1:27:13] several nights, thank you.

[1:27:16] >> Mister Mayor, if I may just

[1:27:19] respond here, comments and just

[1:27:23] a backup councillor,

[1:27:28] Thorstad-Cullen. I don't know

[1:27:29] where you, and there you are. I

[1:27:30] was just reading recently, that

[1:27:34] we have available to us all the

[1:27:37] technological means, and the

[1:27:38] policy tools and everything we

[1:27:39] need, to start making a

[1:27:41] difference on the environment.

[1:27:43] Number one problem be climate

[1:27:44] change, and the greatest

[1:27:46] difficulties that we have today,

[1:27:48] our speed as a society, to be

[1:27:50] able to get this going. In other

[1:27:52] words, the same issues we have

[1:27:54] in terms of keeping an, shape

[1:27:56] dropping bad habits, are present

[1:27:59] in society. So that those

[1:28:01] commitments, they need to make

[1:28:02] to yourself, keep yourself

[1:28:04] healthy, also commitments we

[1:28:05] need to make socially. The

[1:28:08] difficulty is, how do you nudge,

[1:28:10] how do you convince the society

[1:28:11] to move forward on these kinds

[1:28:12] of things, it's very important.

[1:28:15] I don't think we're going fast

[1:28:20] enough. Here in those studies,

[1:28:23] in my mind, made me think that

[1:28:27] my instinctive reaction that

[1:28:28] we're not moving quickly besides

[1:28:30] seeing all the data that we

[1:28:32] presented with every day. Is we

[1:28:35] simply aren't moving along as

[1:28:36] rapidly as we should be. I would

[1:28:39] encourage, you if the

[1:28:41] environment is central to some

[1:28:42] of your preoccupations, is to

[1:28:44] keep pushing

[1:28:52] -- it all for the provincial

[1:28:53] governments, and federal

[1:28:57] governments is important people

[1:28:58] stand up that people stand up,

[1:28:59] and ask for a difference.

[1:29:00] There's a lot of, talk constant

[1:29:04] talks about -- what's talking to

[1:29:06] another councillor about called

[1:29:07] 15 meeting, and only thing that

[1:29:08] would change retain this cost 15

[1:29:10] mini, or whatever they've

[1:29:11] assigned to biodiversity, and

[1:29:13] the next one, is that the

[1:29:14] percentage of

[1:29:19] other birds implant flora, will

[1:29:20] just be falling lower and lower

[1:29:22] and lower. So we're doing a lot

[1:29:23] of talking, and we're not acting

[1:29:26] rapidly on the source of, things

[1:29:27] I want to see that happen more

[1:29:29] effectively. Tons of

[1:29:31] greenwashing going, on pay

[1:29:33] tension in terms of all the

[1:29:34] developments, what we're doing

[1:29:35] here is a city, and

[1:29:37] provincially, we need to get

[1:29:38] cracking on the stuff. So I

[1:29:40] appreciate your question today.

[1:29:41] Thank you.

[1:29:44] >> David Johnson?

[1:29:54] >> David Johnston, district one.

[1:30:40] >>

[1:30:41] Alors du 15 mars.

[1:30:47] I had thought, what can we do to

[1:30:53] offset the -- lack of trust,

[1:30:58] among some people, about

[1:31:00] discussions between the city and

[1:31:01] Cadillac Fairview. And I noticed

[1:31:07] that, with the river vision of

[1:31:09] the urban plan, there is a

[1:31:11] consultation in 2019, online

[1:31:14] survey, 350 people. Citizen

[1:31:23] participation of 70 people in

[1:31:24] workshops,. C'est à peu près ça

[1:31:29] qu'on propose de refaire. I

[1:31:31] don't know how representative

[1:31:34] those 350 people were, in 2019.

[1:31:38] I worry that maybe the people

[1:31:42] who jumped into this upcoming

[1:31:46] consultation may or may not be

[1:31:51] representative the views of a

[1:31:53] wider cross section of the city.

[1:31:56] That's gonna be a difficult

[1:31:59] thing. But I'd also like to see

[1:32:04] some mechanism in the public

[1:32:06] consultation, some kind of an

[1:32:08] inbox, where citizens could ask

[1:32:11] questions, where they could get

[1:32:17] questions answered of a

[1:32:18] relatively factual nature. For

[1:32:20] example, I'm not sure who gets

[1:32:23] the last say on how high

[1:32:25] buildings can be. I've heard no,

[1:32:31] they can build as high as the

[1:32:33] airplanes -- who decides in the

[1:32:34] end? Is it the City or not?

[1:32:37] That's a factual question. There

[1:32:39] are political questions, but

[1:32:40] that's a factual question. One

[1:32:42] can imagine questions that you

[1:32:44] may have. I mean, these are

[1:32:48] difficult issues to understand,

[1:32:50] many of us may have some pretty

[1:32:52] simple questions, to clarify our

[1:32:54] understanding, I'd like to see

[1:32:56] some kind of inbox. I suppose

[1:32:58] the biggest question I'd have,

[1:33:00] is what does it really take to

[1:33:03] get some kind of an answer when

[1:33:05] we say protect the forest -- I

[1:33:10] does that mean that in the end

[1:33:14] I. A levy of --

[1:33:20] Si oui, par? Qu'il y avait cette

[1:33:23] résolution de contrôle

[1:33:25] intermédiaire de la Communauté

[1:33:27] métropolitaine de Montréal en

[1:33:28] avril dernier. It's a temporary

[1:33:33] one but the resolution says it

[1:33:35] is only gonna be in place, until

[1:33:39] the metropolitan government

[1:33:42] finishes zone land use plan.

[1:33:44] After, that it only becomes

[1:33:45] permanent at the request of the

[1:33:46] owner, where the request of the

[1:33:49] city. To buy some property from

[1:33:52] the owner. That raises the

[1:33:53] question, of how much would it

[1:33:56] cost, four point cleared by that

[1:33:59] forest. And who would pay for

[1:34:01] it? Beaconsfield, got

[1:34:09] 14 million. That's equal to 25%

[1:34:12] of the Beaconsfield budget of 54

[1:34:14] million. That's a lot of money.

[1:34:18] How much is the forest worth? We

[1:34:22] know that the vice president

[1:34:24] have Cadillac Fairview, said

[1:34:25] shortly after the protests, that

[1:34:27] a real estate conference that we

[1:34:31] pay a little more than $5 per

[1:34:33] square foot. I see online and

[1:34:35] it's 50 acres. 50 acres is about

[1:34:39] 2.2 million square feet. So

[1:34:41] maybe they paid 11 million.

[1:34:44] Maybe the value has doubled

[1:34:47] today in the past ten years. 22

[1:34:50] million would be about 15% of

[1:34:54] Pointe-Claire's budget of 175

[1:34:55] million. I think I'd be happier

[1:34:59] with the preservation of the

[1:35:00] forest, if metropolitan

[1:35:02] taxpayers play for the it in, in

[1:35:06] Beaconsfield's case, I would be

[1:35:07] good to see. But, one of the

[1:35:11] questions we need answered and

[1:35:13] call stations is, does the city

[1:35:19] know, as the city asked the

[1:35:23] metropolitan government, will be

[1:35:24] prepared to pay the cost of the

[1:35:27] acquisition of the forest. At

[1:35:31] the end of that resolution, the

[1:35:33] press release put out by the

[1:35:35] CNN, they said we don't have the

[1:35:37] money, we need more money from

[1:35:39] the government of Québec. So

[1:35:41] we'll see next most provincial

[1:35:42] budget, whether that money is

[1:35:43] there. -- the taxpayers will

[1:35:49] have to, know if the cost falls

[1:35:51] on us, what will be the per

[1:35:53] capita cost to buy the forest?

[1:35:57] >> Questions like this, I think

[1:35:59] we need to have, a clearer

[1:36:01] understanding, instead of to

[1:36:04] make the debate a little bit

[1:36:06] more three-dimensional than it

[1:36:07] has been already. So, my

[1:36:11] suggestion is for some kind of a

[1:36:14] mechanism, to capture questions

[1:36:16] from the population. Maybe to

[1:36:22] have frequently asked questions,

[1:36:24] and maybe a background or

[1:36:28] explaining what Pointe-Claire is

[1:36:29] doing, and how it's connected to

[1:36:37] -- programme métropolitain

[1:36:40] d'aménagement et de

[1:36:41] développement. And how that is

[1:36:43] connected to the ankle bone --

[1:36:45] no, the main bone, which is what

[1:36:48] the Québec government will be

[1:36:49] deciding in the next few months,

[1:36:51] in terms of its own changes, its

[1:36:54] own policies. So it's not enough

[1:36:56] to have public consultations, as

[1:36:59] much as a company with a greater

[1:37:01] understanding of what the issues

[1:37:02] are. And I, think as some people

[1:37:06] as mentioned, that there's

[1:37:07] confusion over some of the

[1:37:08] statements that have been made,

[1:37:09] to the extent that we can

[1:37:12] clarify the factual case, let's

[1:37:15] try to do that, and recognizes

[1:37:17] some questions our political not

[1:37:20] factual. Let's try to improve

[1:37:22] the general understanding, of

[1:37:24] the population on some of these

[1:37:26] strictly factual issues.

[1:37:31] >> Okay, those are expensive

[1:37:33] sessions, is there a question

[1:37:35] that Mr. Johnson? Is a

[1:37:37] suggestion, are we doing any of

[1:37:38] the above?

[1:37:39] >> Has the city asked the

[1:37:43] metropolitan government, whether

[1:37:44] we'll be willing to pay the cost

[1:37:48] of the forest. And we got no

[1:37:50] reply?

[1:37:54] >> Well, Madam Guilbault, can we

[1:37:57] on a reveal the response.

[1:37:58] >> Déjà écrit

[1:37:59] (inaudible)

[1:38:00] (---)

[1:38:01] . We wrote, but we don't have an

[1:38:02] answer yet exactly, with the

[1:38:03] program. So we have to apply to

[1:38:04] some program, but we are still

[1:38:06] at that stage. But we have

[1:38:09] talked with a salmon.

[1:38:11] >> So you've talked to them --

[1:38:12] >> Yet, but we don't have any

[1:38:13] answer, yes or no right now.

[1:38:16] >> Not a conclusive answer?

[1:38:18] >> That's good, that's

[1:38:20] encouraging for those that want

[1:38:21] to save the forest.

[1:38:23] >> There's a letter to Madam

[1:38:24] Plante, that we are following up

[1:38:27] on following the discussion of

[1:38:29] the seamen, but the two are

[1:38:30] connected. And to answer your

[1:38:32] other question, prior to the RCI

[1:38:35] E as, they can go as high as

[1:38:38] knocking out of the sky, there

[1:38:40] is no height restrictions part

[1:38:42] of the RCMP. But I think your

[1:38:44] ideas are, great actually, and

[1:38:46] would allow for a quorum in the

[1:38:48] process. How much time do we

[1:38:50] have?

[1:38:54] >> Eight minutes.

[1:38:58] >> -- sorry, it's the way he

[1:39:00] wrote it. Owen van.

[1:39:02] >> Ask Brook.

[1:39:04] >> Okay, thank you sir. Sorry

[1:39:06] about that.

[1:39:07] >> Okay, and my question will

[1:39:08] not be about Cadillac Fairview.

[1:39:13] Kansas City investigate clearing

[1:39:15] the bike lanes during the

[1:39:16] winter?

[1:39:18] >> Good question.

[1:39:23] >> I know there's reasons why,

[1:39:24] some of them can't be cleared.

[1:39:29] As improper drainage, showing

[1:39:31] you can't. And what can be done

[1:39:34] to retrofit those to be able to

[1:39:35] be used, because --

[1:39:40] It is,, it can be part of the

[1:39:46] future environmental policies of

[1:39:47] the city.

[1:39:48] >> It's a great question. We

[1:39:50] tackle did last year, sort of

[1:39:52] the budgeting priority last year

[1:39:54] was to do the walk paths in the

[1:39:57] ski trails but, mostly the walk

[1:39:59] paths in all the parks. A lot of

[1:40:01] the budget went to those. They

[1:40:03] were prioritized over the

[1:40:05] bicycle paths. The other thing

[1:40:07] was that by salting the bike

[1:40:09] paths it would be detrimental to

[1:40:12] the asphalt which is a public

[1:40:13] works. However going forward by

[1:40:16] transit is a thing of the

[1:40:17] future. For six months of the

[1:40:20] year five months of the year

[1:40:21] where under snow. So we are a

[1:40:25] lot eliminating those bike paths

[1:40:26] which are there for a good hunk

[1:40:27] of the year. It's definitely

[1:40:29] food for thought.

[1:40:30] >> I'm using the lane on Del

[1:40:33] Mar. Half of the days I have to

[1:40:36] go into the car lane because

[1:40:39] there is simply too much snow.

[1:40:42] >> Well you're making a fine

[1:40:45] point and we will have to tackle

[1:40:46] that going forward, because

[1:40:48] increase bike of bicycle uses in

[1:40:49] the winter is a reality. I agree

[1:40:51] with you. It's food for thought,

[1:40:53] and we will definitely be on

[1:40:55] that one.

[1:40:57] >> Madame Verdon do you have any

[1:40:59] comments? I know you are pro

[1:41:00] bike paths as well. Do you have

[1:41:03] any factual information

[1:41:09] >> I know that we are working on

[1:41:11] some solutions for next year,

[1:41:15] but we look at all the equipment

[1:41:17] we have the equipment and

[1:41:18] everything, and we will open

[1:41:21] some of the bike paths next

[1:41:23] year. We will try.

[1:41:26] >> It's on our minds. Thank you.

[1:41:28] It's a very good point.

[1:41:34] >> Maria Benner vetoes?

[1:42:13] [Inaudible]

[1:42:21] >> Okay.

[1:42:27] >> Good evening, Mister Mayor,

[1:42:30] City Council members. I have

[1:42:32] thought long and hard on this

[1:42:33] question, and would like to know

[1:42:36] your insights on this as

[1:42:38] follows. A request to new

[1:42:44] Pointe-Claire development

[1:42:45] planning, especially with

[1:42:48] regulars to the zones of anyone

[1:42:50] and when you do in -- I have

[1:42:54] seen and felt that most of the

[1:42:57] fine Pointe-Claire citizens

[1:43:00] included those that the post

[1:43:02] development are perhaps not

[1:43:03] properly educated. As we would

[1:43:05] like to be when we should be

[1:43:08] with reference to what our City

[1:43:11] Council, because I believe most

[1:43:13] of the councillors that we

[1:43:16] citizens have been listening

[1:43:17] seems to me it is because

[1:43:21] processes and inclinations are

[1:43:23] planned in sort of a -- rather

[1:43:27] than naming terms. So it gives

[1:43:30] way to different kinds of

[1:43:33] interpretation from people who

[1:43:34] do not know the conventions of

[1:43:37] the CP and -- it's I do not ask

[1:43:41] how you process this and

[1:43:44] protocols are or how they work

[1:43:46] in order to understand what our

[1:43:49] city does and what they do. A

[1:43:51] lot of people work at their jobs

[1:43:54] and raise their kids and pay

[1:43:56] their taxes. And I think that

[1:44:00] the City could at least try, if

[1:44:02] they want, if they want their

[1:44:05] citizens to collaborate and

[1:44:08] participate and to work together

[1:44:10] with the City is to make this

[1:44:14] processes at least easier. To

[1:44:17] understand and to make way for

[1:44:21] perspective potato of democracy.

[1:44:23] I'm sorry. Participate of

[1:44:26] democracy.

[1:44:27] >> I have a bit of problems with

[1:44:30] pronunciation. I hope you

[1:44:32] understood. And anyway, so my

[1:44:35] question is, is there anything

[1:44:39] specific, perhaps maybe that

[1:44:42] could make more clearly aware of

[1:44:44] and understand the processes of

[1:44:47] why they need to be done and

[1:44:48] where we are at with reverence

[1:44:51] two important things such as the

[1:44:54] development procedures and

[1:44:56] stages. We are going through in

[1:44:58] our city. Perhaps we need a

[1:45:05] commendation -- on planning

[1:45:07] terms for City bylaws. Maybe

[1:45:13] also doing informational work

[1:45:16] shop such as the workshop where

[1:45:18] I attended last December. With

[1:45:23] affirmed contracted by the City

[1:45:25] in which only 20 interested

[1:45:27] people attended. But it was very

[1:45:32] educational, even though there

[1:45:33] were only 20 people there. And I

[1:45:40] learned so much. -- even though

[1:45:44] they're only 20 people there it

[1:45:46] would also put up maybe some

[1:45:49] kind of -- of the workshops for

[1:45:54] everyone to see. And that was my

[1:45:57] question. I have another second

[1:46:01] question. Maybe you would like

[1:46:02] to answer my first question

[1:46:04] first.

[1:46:08] [Inaudible]

[1:46:10] >> Absolutely. Absolutely. No,

[1:46:12] no, that's okay. I think that

[1:46:19] citizen participation is

[1:46:20] crucial. You are making a good

[1:46:21] point. A lot of what you saw,

[1:46:24] the process you are part of,

[1:46:25] there were only 20 people, which

[1:46:28] is a disappointment. We talk

[1:46:31] about citizen participation but

[1:46:34] actually giving people to come

[1:46:35] out and do it is a whole other

[1:46:37] thing. People who are making

[1:46:40] reference earlier in the evening

[1:46:42] about post it's. One woman was

[1:46:44] talking about putting posts up

[1:46:46] on the wall. And do you feel

[1:46:47] like it's actually happening? I

[1:46:49] think your point about video

[1:46:52] conferencing, getting it

[1:46:55] documented and public sizing is

[1:46:57] hugely important to the process.

[1:47:00] And I think that you can never

[1:47:02] do enough of it, that part of

[1:47:04] it. And hopefully we get a good

[1:47:08] representation of citizens if we

[1:47:10] do so. Your concern is

[1:47:13] absolutely key to the process.

[1:47:15] You're absolutely right. If we

[1:47:16] don't get that participation, we

[1:47:20] don't make something that

[1:47:21] reflects the public well. And as

[1:47:24] was also referred to, a question

[1:47:27] or two ago, we worry about

[1:47:29] getting only those who are in

[1:47:32] that's, only the zealots, people

[1:47:34] who are very focused on it. How

[1:47:36] do we get people who are working

[1:47:38] every day, who don't have time

[1:47:40] or who are busy raising

[1:47:41] children? How do we get their

[1:47:43] input? And that has always been

[1:47:45] the problem with participatory

[1:47:47] democracy, is that it tends to

[1:47:49] favour those who have time.

[1:47:52] Those who have time to be people

[1:47:54] who are of affluence or who

[1:47:57] aren't necessarily as time

[1:47:58] constraint is someone who is

[1:47:59] working all the time. So it's

[1:48:01] really hard because

[1:48:03] participation is biased, in a

[1:48:04] way, to those who have luxury

[1:48:06] and the luxury of time. I have

[1:48:09] often said we are not equal in

[1:48:11] our ability to be political. We

[1:48:13] are not equal. Some people have

[1:48:15] greater ability to be political.

[1:48:17] So it's an issue. It's always an

[1:48:20] issue with citizen

[1:48:22] participation. I was involved

[1:48:25] with political conventions, and

[1:48:28] it's not the 70s, I think it was

[1:48:30] 80s, it was a long time ago.

[1:48:32] They would actually subsidized

[1:48:34] to try to counteract buy it by

[1:48:37] is they would subsidized to get

[1:48:38] people to come to political

[1:48:42] conventions. But even giving

[1:48:43] money they still couldn't go

[1:48:45] because they couldn't afford to

[1:48:46] lose the time away from work. So

[1:48:49] the solution is a real

[1:48:51] challenge. I think that our

[1:48:54] improved technology is part of

[1:48:55] the solution. I really do. I

[1:48:57] think we can use technology as

[1:49:00] part of the solution to the

[1:49:01] issue of getting people were

[1:49:03] involved.

[1:49:04] >> May add to your comment? Just

[1:49:08] because you also asked about

[1:49:11] access to the information for

[1:49:14] citizens and their comprehension

[1:49:15] of it, I just wanted to add that

[1:49:18] we are looking at creating one

[1:49:23] pagers, since the sizing

[1:49:26] information indigestible amounts

[1:49:28] so citizens can read a bit and

[1:49:31] then understand everything that

[1:49:33] we are all talking about all the

[1:49:35] time because it can be very

[1:49:37] confusing and so as we move

[1:49:40] forward that is one of the

[1:49:41] things that our urban planning

[1:49:45] department is talking about

[1:49:47] doing with the consultations is

[1:49:52] creating digestible, easily

[1:49:53] accessible, paragraphs, so to

[1:49:55] speak, or pages that talk about

[1:49:59] different challenges, different

[1:50:00] types of development, et cetera,

[1:50:03] it's a draft, that are related

[1:50:06] to the urban plan.

[1:50:09] >> Okay.

[1:50:14] >> Okay, thank you very much.

[1:50:17] You really really understood the

[1:50:21] answers. And okay. So this is

[1:50:26] what I mean like for example

[1:50:29] it's not only just the people

[1:50:31] who have jobs and don't have

[1:50:32] time to listen or whatever it's

[1:50:36] just terms, like technical terms

[1:50:39] for example most people may have

[1:50:42] trouble understanding what CDP

[1:50:46] means, what development means.

[1:50:49] They have difficulty and the way

[1:50:54] how I understand it, I know that

[1:50:57] it's a document that you guys

[1:50:58] have to do. It's a document you

[1:51:01] guys have to do. I am sorry.

[1:51:06] [Laughter]

[1:51:08] But so this is what I'm trying

[1:51:11] to say. Maybe if Council can

[1:51:15] make the process easier for

[1:51:17] people to understand, maybe

[1:51:21] better with a document, -- so

[1:51:28] that people can understand. And

[1:51:30] my second question, can you

[1:51:33] answer my second question

[1:51:34] please? My second question is,

[1:51:38] can Pointe-Claire be able to get

[1:51:39] ourselves into the list of

[1:51:42] cities that have Shakespeare in

[1:51:44] the park? Shakespeare in the

[1:51:45] park, I believe we are the only

[1:51:47] city in the West Island that

[1:51:49] does not have Shakespeare in the

[1:51:51] park. So that citizens can enjoy

[1:51:54] the plays of Shakespeare. The

[1:51:58] summer we had to travel long

[1:52:00] distance to another city to have

[1:52:04] this.

[1:52:05] >> Okay.

[1:52:11] >> I love your question. I would

[1:52:15] love to have Shakespeare in the

[1:52:16] park in Pointe-Claire. I would

[1:52:18] also like to have porch vest. Do

[1:52:20] you know what porch vest is?

[1:52:23] It's in Hudson and NDG, it's Ian

[1:52:26] Hudson, and NDG, where they

[1:52:30] publicized an address in the

[1:52:32] city and people on their front

[1:52:34] porch play music and everybody

[1:52:35] goes to it. In NDG they have

[1:52:38] Shakespeare in park and ports

[1:52:40] vest, and I missed them both. I

[1:52:42] think that the park at the

[1:52:44] corner of Cartier and Lakeshore,

[1:52:46] I would love to have a stage

[1:52:49] there during the summer. These

[1:52:52] are just brainstorming thoughts.

[1:52:54] These are just ideas, but I

[1:52:55] would love to maybe have theatre

[1:52:57] one week and music the next for

[1:53:01] the kids or for people on summer

[1:53:06] weekends. It would be great. And

[1:53:09] I love the idea and we will

[1:53:12] brainstorming, but I think it's

[1:53:13] a great idea. I've seen

[1:53:15] Shakespeare in the park. I love

[1:53:16] it. I would love to have in

[1:53:18] Pointe-Claire. Porch vest, as

[1:53:19] well. Porch first is really

[1:53:21] cool. Thank you. How are we for

[1:53:28] time? That's it?

[1:53:29] >> Thank you very much.

[1:53:30] >> My pleasure.

[1:53:31] >> We exceeded the time.

[1:53:33] >> I'm sorry for those who

[1:53:34] haven't got to ask questions. We

[1:53:36] apologize. Oh, thanks, that was

[1:53:38] great. I'm sorry for those of

[1:53:40] you who waited and hopefully the

[1:53:43] questions can be brought to the

[1:53:44] next meeting. Our apologies.

[1:53:50] Because there are four more, not

[1:53:52] just one, otherwise I would try

[1:53:54] and do it.

[1:54:02] >> 5.1?

[1:54:03] >> Mr.? Mayor I'm sorry, perhaps

[1:54:04] you could tell them they could

[1:54:05] email their question in to the

[1:54:08] Councillors or to yourself.

[1:54:10] >> Okay.

[1:54:11] >> Those they didn't ask your

[1:54:12] questions, you can always email

[1:54:13] them to the Councillors or to

[1:54:14] myself. Okay.

[1:54:20] - 5. 1 Avis de motion et dépôt

[1:54:22] d'un projet de règlement

[1:54:23] décrétant un emprunt à long

[1:54:24] terme et une dépense en

[1:54:25] immobilisations de 3650 000 $

[1:54:27] pour le remplacement et

[1:54:28] l'acquisition de véhicules et

[1:54:34] d'équipements. un règlement

[1:54:35] comprenant divers achats de même

[1:54:37] nature et de même durée

[1:54:39] d'ampleur: le remplacement et la

[1:54:40] mise en jour de parc et de

[1:54:42] véhicules, l'acquisition de

[1:54:43] nouveaux véhicules et d'outils

[1:54:44] pour le nouvel atelier

[1:54:45] mécanique. Le montant sera

[1:54:50] financé par une taxe imposée à

[1:54:52] l'ensemble de la municipalité

[1:54:53] sur la base de la valeur

[1:54:56] foncière sur une période de 10

[1:54:57] ans.

[1:55:05] >>

[1:55:06] ..

[1:55:15] ,, To meet the needs of the

[1:55:20] community in terms of diversity

[1:55:22] and social inclusion. To submit

[1:55:25] recommendations to Council to

[1:55:26] develop new policies and improve

[1:55:29] existing policies in order to

[1:55:31] promote the notions of diversity

[1:55:33] and social inclusion. To promote

[1:55:35] diversity and social inclusion

[1:55:37] through, among others, the

[1:55:39] action plan on diversity and

[1:55:41] social inclusion. To formulate

[1:55:43] any other opinion and

[1:55:46] recommendation concerning

[1:55:47] diversity and social inclusion

[1:55:48] that may be requested by the

[1:55:51] Council.

[1:55:53] >> Who gives these notice of

[1:55:54] motions?

[1:55:56] >> Terrace and, fourth district

[1:55:59] 5. 3 Consultation publique for.

[1:56:00] Concernant un projet de

[1:56:01] règlement sur les projets

[1:56:02] particuliers de construction, de

[1:56:03] modification ou d'occupation

[1:56:04] d'un immeuble

[1:56:05] (PPCMOI)

[1:56:06] .

[1:56:11] Je vais expliquer la notion de

[1:56:14] règlements en français et en

[1:56:16] anglais avant de procéder à la

[1:56:19] consultation publique. Un

[1:56:21] caractère discrétionnaire qui

[1:56:22] permet qu'un projet puisse se

[1:56:24] réaliser malgré le fait que

[1:56:25] celui des roches dans l'une des

[1:56:27] dispositions de la

[1:56:28] réglementation dont

[1:56:29] bannissement. Pour être

[1:56:30] receveur, le projet doit être

[1:56:32] conforme aux objectifs du plan

[1:56:34] d'urbanisme, d'un programme en

[1:56:37] particulier d'urbanisme une fois

[1:56:38] applicable. Une fois en, vigueur

[1:56:39] ce règlement est applicable sur

[1:56:41] l'ensemble du territoire. Le

[1:56:42] règlement sur les projets

[1:56:44] particuliers permettre de

[1:56:45] déroger au règlement de

[1:56:46] urbanisme et de convenir d'un

[1:56:47] projet de construction, de

[1:56:48] modification, d'occupation d'un

[1:56:49] immeuble. Le projet peut ainsi

[1:56:52] satisfaire le requérant et son

[1:56:54] désir de mettre un immeuble en

[1:56:55] valeur. Il peut aussi permettre

[1:56:57] (---)

[1:56:58] , ce qui en faciliterait

[1:57:00] l'acceptation par la population

[1:57:02] du secteur.

[1:57:04] (inaudible)

[1:57:05] (---)

[1:57:06] , mais une plus grande

[1:57:07] adaptation sur la spécificité

[1:57:08] des quartiers. Cette technique

[1:57:09] permet d'encadrer le

[1:57:10] développement au même cas par

[1:57:11] cas. Elles relèvent du zonage

[1:57:13] par projet. À la suite de

[1:57:15] l'approbation de la demande d'un

[1:57:17] nouveau zonage qui est rattaché

[1:57:19] au prochain lui-même et non à la

[1:57:22] zone, comme veut la pratique

[1:57:23] actuelle.

[1:57:26] Le conseil peut assujettir leur

[1:57:29] acquérant en autant que cela

[1:57:31] cela soit une compétence de

[1:57:32] l'avenir

[1:57:33] (---)

[1:57:34] .

[1:57:35] (inaudible)

[1:57:36] (---)

[1:57:37] .

[1:57:38] Un règlement d'urbanisme donc

[1:57:39] assujetti à la consultation

[1:57:40] publique est susceptible

[1:57:43] d'approbation référendaire est

[1:57:44] soumis à la propagation de la

[1:57:45] coopération.

[1:57:49] >> The bylaw is discretionary in

[1:57:51] nature and allows, under certain

[1:57:52] conditions, that the project may

[1:57:53] be carried out despite the fact

[1:57:55] that it era Gates from one or

[1:57:58] the other of the Planning

[1:58:00] bylaws. To be admissible, a

[1:58:02] project must be in conformity

[1:58:04] with the objectives of the

[1:58:06] planning program or the

[1:58:07] objective us of a specific

[1:58:09] planning program, when

[1:58:10] applicable. Once in force, this

[1:58:13] bylaw is applicable throughout

[1:58:15] the territory. The bylaw on

[1:58:18] special projects makes it

[1:58:20] possible to derogate from the

[1:58:22] rigors of the Planning bylaws

[1:58:24] and agree on the project from

[1:58:27] the construction, modification,

[1:58:30] of a property. The project can

[1:58:32] satisfy both the applicant and

[1:58:34] in his desire to enhance an

[1:58:36] immovable. It also allows for

[1:58:38] the respect of the environment,

[1:58:40] where it could be located, which

[1:58:43] would facilitate its acceptance

[1:58:45] by the population of the sector.

[1:58:48] It also offers flexibility and a

[1:58:51] greater adaptation to the

[1:58:54] specificity of the

[1:58:55] neighbourhood. This technique

[1:58:56] allows urban development to be

[1:58:58] managed on a case by case basis.

[1:59:01] It is called Project based

[1:59:04] zoning because following

[1:59:05] approval of the application, the

[1:59:07] new zoning is attached to the

[1:59:09] project itself, and not to the

[1:59:11] entire zone, as is the current

[1:59:13] practice. Council in no to

[1:59:16] rising a project by resolution

[1:59:18] may subject the applicant to

[1:59:20] conditions, provided that this

[1:59:25] is under the city's

[1:59:26] jurisdiction. Finally the

[1:59:30] resolution authorizing the

[1:59:31] particular project is treated as

[1:59:32] a bylaw amending a planning

[1:59:35] bylaw and is therefore subject

[1:59:37] to public consultation,

[1:59:40] referendum approval if enough

[1:59:42] requests are made, and approval.

[1:59:45] Thank you.

[1:59:46] >> So we may have to help me

[1:59:47] here, Madam Thibault. Edgy. I

[1:59:51] think we have a mover and

[1:59:53] seconder, don't vote, or go to

[1:59:54] questions?

[1:59:55] >> No, we can ask the citizens

[1:59:57] of they have questions or

[1:59:58] comments about the bylaw.

[2:00:01] Otherwise we could go directly

[2:00:04] to 5.4.

[2:00:07] >> Okay. Avez-vous une question,

[2:00:10] au micro?

[2:00:22] -

[2:00:23] >> Est-ce que c'est déjà un

[2:00:24] règlement? Ce qui est en gris,

[2:00:29] ce sont les changements? Entre

[2:00:35] les thèmes 12 et 13, c'est écrit

[2:00:36] en gris.

[2:00:40] - Il y a un changement entre le

[2:00:41] projet de règlement déposé, il y

[2:00:44] a une ou deux séances, et là

[2:00:46] adoption finale de ce soir.

[2:00:50] - Est-ce que c'est un règlement

[2:00:52] entièrement nouveau?

[2:00:53] - Le PPCMOI, oui, c'est nouveau,

[2:00:55] il n'y en avait pas d'autre

[2:00:56] avant. Ce n'est pas une

[2:00:57] modification de règlement. C'est

[2:00:58] un nouveau règlement.

[2:01:00] - Est-ce que ça s'applique aux

[2:01:03] résidences et l'industriel, tout

[2:01:07] ça?

[2:01:11] - Ce règlement s'applique comme

[2:01:13] je le mentionnais, à l'ensemble

[2:01:15] du territoire de la ville, mais

[2:01:16] pas l'ensemble des

[2:01:17] constructions. Il y a des

[2:01:19] nuances à apporter, c'est

[2:01:20] mentionné dans le règlement.

[2:01:25] - C'est assez détaillé à partir

[2:01:29] de 13, de l'item 13 incluant

[2:01:32] l'item 27.

[2:01:40] C'est pas mal détaillé. On n'est

[2:01:43] pas pour tout lire. Est-ce que

[2:01:46] vous pouvez donner des

[2:01:48] spécifications? Ça ne termine

[2:01:50] plus. Je trouve ça très...

[2:01:52] extrêmement restrictif.

[2:01:58] Est-ce que c'est mis en place

[2:02:01] pour encadrer les variations

[2:02:09] mineures... dérogation mineure,

[2:02:13] est-ce que ça encadre les

[2:02:15] dérogations mineures?

[2:02:21] - Non, ce type de règlement est

[2:02:22] un règlement qui permet par

[2:02:29] exemple, dans une zone donnée,

[2:02:31] si le projet spécifique pour une

[2:02:35] partie de cette zone, pour un

[2:02:38] lot, pour une partie de l'autre

[2:02:39] qui appartient aux

[2:02:40] propriétaires, sur lequel un

[2:02:42] projet voudrait être développer.

[2:02:44] Un propriétaire aurait un projet

[2:02:45] en tête qui ne correspond pas au

[2:02:49] zonage actuel. Les programmes

[2:02:53] particuliers de construction des

[2:02:56] PPCMOI permettent de travailler

[2:02:58] avec le promoteur, le

[2:03:00] propriétaire, de manière à ce

[2:03:02] qu'il réalise son projet en lui

[2:03:05] donnant des règles applicables

[2:03:06] en matière de zonage propre à ce

[2:03:09] projet Loire, sans avoir un

[2:03:14] modifications de zonage pour

[2:03:15] l'ensemble de la zone. Ça peut

[2:03:17] être bénéfique pour favoriser

[2:03:19] une meilleure

[2:03:20] (---)

[2:03:21] urbaine, pour que le projet

[2:03:22] s'intègre bien dans un secteur

[2:03:24] décousu sur le plan de

[2:03:25] l'urbanisme.

[2:03:28] Ça ne touche pas les dérogations

[2:03:30] mineures. Pour permettre la

[2:03:32] réalisation de projets dans le

[2:03:33] secteur, ou par ailleurs, ça

[2:03:35] n'aurait pas été possible en

[2:03:36] raison du zonage actuel.

[2:03:43] - Disons que ce règlement n'est

[2:03:45] pas d'imposer, ce n'est pas là

[2:03:50] mon argument. À ce moment-ci, au

[2:03:56] coin de Lake Shore et Brunet, il

[2:03:58] y a une propriété assez grande,

[2:04:00] il y a des gens qui arrivent et

[2:04:02] qui achètent la place. Il décide

[2:04:05] de subdivisé de bâtir deux

[2:04:07] maisons. Ça serait un parfait

[2:04:08] exemple?

[2:04:09] - Non.

[2:04:15] Ce sont des cas de figure très

[2:04:17] précis. Je ne suis qu'une

[2:04:22] avocate, je n'ai pas de

[2:04:23] (---)

[2:04:24] en urbanisme. J'aimerais vous

[2:04:25] répondre avec précision. Par

[2:04:28] crainte de me tromper, je vais

[2:04:30] préférer me restreindre à cela.

[2:04:32] Vous pouvez m'envoyer les

[2:04:34] questions au service

[2:04:35] d'urbanisme, par écrit. Ils vont

[2:04:38] faire... vont se faire un

[2:04:39] plaisir de répondre.

[2:04:42] - Mes questions sont dans la

[2:04:44] bonne direction. Est-ce que

[2:04:46] j'aurai des réponses?

[2:04:48] - Vous aurez des réponses. Si

[2:04:50] vos questions ne sont pas dans

[2:04:51] la bonne direction, on va vous

[2:04:52] amener dans la bonne.

[2:05:04] The idea is to add a tool to our

[2:05:06] tool

[2:05:07] Box so that if there is a

[2:05:09] project that doesn't fit well

[2:05:10] that has because it has too many

[2:05:13] minor derogations, it will go

[2:05:14] through another process that

[2:05:15] will allow you to look at it

[2:05:16] it's in its or entirety and

[2:05:20] allowing the minor derogations,

[2:05:21] but they are for bigger

[2:05:22] projects, typically. Two may

[2:05:25] come there in the industrial

[2:05:26] area, but as the mayor

[2:05:30] Councillor Cowan had pointed out

[2:05:32] the other benefit is that it

[2:05:35] allows us to ask for things in

[2:05:37] relation to more green space so

[2:05:39] that we are

[2:05:40] Able to make that

[2:05:41] Project as nice

[2:05:42] As possible, because when you

[2:05:44] are asking for minor derogation

[2:05:45] there should be a trade-off of

[2:05:48] overall greater benefit. Does

[2:05:50] that help?

[2:05:51] >> Yes, except that we end up

[2:05:53] with a new acronym.

[2:05:57] [Laughter]

[2:05:58] >> There are many cities that

[2:05:59] have this. We are one of the

[2:06:01] last cities to not use. It was a

[2:06:03] set suggestion that we add it

[2:06:04] because it can be might quite

[2:06:05] useful.

[2:06:06] >> Okay, one last comment or

[2:06:08] question. Should you apply this

[2:06:18] thing to issue a permit for a

[2:06:20] special project that needs many

[2:06:26] derogations and the building is

[2:06:28] started, I don't see a serious

[2:06:33] effort of applying, I'm going to

[2:06:37] say it in je ne French -- vois

[2:06:39] pas d'un effort sérieux pour

[2:06:40] appliquer le règlement. Si le

[2:06:44] bâtisseur, le développeur on va

[2:06:49] de côté. Tout arrête. Je le sais

[2:06:53] par expérience. Il y a quelques

[2:06:59] projets dans mon ancien

[2:07:00] district.

[2:07:03] You have time to think about

[2:07:04] what I ask you?

[2:07:06] >> I already answered you. It

[2:07:08] depends on who enters the fray.

[2:07:11] It is a comparative process,

[2:07:13] who's the souvent best

[2:07:17] candidate,. Ce n'est pas une

[2:07:20] amende. C'est une autre

[2:07:21] dérogation.

[2:07:33] J'aimerais voir la démolition

[2:07:35] qui serait appliqué après

[2:07:36] jugement, avec raison.

[2:07:38] Il est arrivé des affaires par

[2:07:41] le passé. J'ai été témoin. Il y

[2:07:46] a des gens que la ligne est là,

[2:07:48] vous savez.

[2:07:49] (inaudible)

[2:07:50] (---)

[2:07:51] .

[2:07:53] >> I'm new to this, but my

[2:07:56] understanding of SCAOPI it is

[2:07:58] that it's there to ex-parte a

[2:08:01] zoning change, or a proposal

[2:08:04] that encompasses too many rules

[2:08:05] and involves to many other

[2:08:07] properties and it's just an

[2:08:09] expeditious process. I don't

[2:08:11] think, I mean, it's just a

[2:08:14] facility.

[2:08:15] >> I know for a fact, let me

[2:08:19] worded properly, that somebody

[2:08:22] would get a bad tape measure and

[2:08:25] he would be two feet off, you

[2:08:28] understand? And now the basement

[2:08:31] has been poured and even the

[2:08:32] walls have been started, so what

[2:08:34] do we do with that?

[2:08:36] >> The same as we have always

[2:08:38] done. We'll do the regular --

[2:08:40] >> I don't think you would --

[2:08:43] >> The SCAOPI is just too, I

[2:08:45] think and I'm not an expert on

[2:08:47] this, so correct me if I go

[2:08:48] wrong on this, it's not for

[2:08:51] those kinds of matters. It's to

[2:08:53] change something. Somebody who

[2:08:55] has a proposal and I think it's

[2:08:56] more industrial and commercial

[2:08:58] and residential. And someone who

[2:09:00] wants to just change the

[2:09:01] functioning of an existing

[2:09:03] property. So it's not so much I

[2:09:05] don't think building a definite

[2:09:06] demolition, it's trying to

[2:09:08] revamp or re-utilize a piece of

[2:09:10] property in an expeditious

[2:09:12] manner. I don't think it gets

[2:09:14] into what you're talking about.

[2:09:15] I'm not sure. Though correct me

[2:09:19] if I'm wrong. Monsieur le maire

[2:09:21] a raison..

[2:09:23] - Monsieur Cousineau, ce que

[2:09:25] vous amenez comme Soucy, ce

[2:09:26] n'est pas en lien avec

[2:09:27] l'adoption du Règlement.

[2:09:28] (inaudible)

[2:09:29] (---)

[2:09:30] .

[2:09:31] - La consultation publique

[2:09:32] porteur

[2:09:33] (inaudible)

[2:09:34] (---)

[2:09:35] . Je voulais simplement le

[2:09:36] rappeler.

[2:09:37] (inaudible)

[2:09:38] (---)

[2:09:39] .

[2:09:40] - Vos inquiétudes ne sont pas en

[2:09:41] lien avec le règlement de ce,

[2:09:42] soir c'est un autre règlement

[2:09:43] qu'on

[2:09:44] (inaudible)

[2:09:45] (---)

[2:09:46] .

[2:09:47] - Je regrette d'avoir pris votre

[2:09:48] temps. Je poserais la question

[2:09:49] une autre fois.

[2:09:50] (intervention en anglais)

[2:09:51] .

[2:09:52] -

[2:09:53] >> Mayor

[2:09:54] (inaudible)

[2:09:55] (---)

[2:09:56] . Thomas?

[2:09:57] >>

[2:09:58] Go ahead.

[2:09:59] >> For a simple clarification in

[2:10:00] support of what Mayor Thomas

[2:10:01] said. It is in fact when there

[2:10:02] are minor multiple derogations,

[2:10:03] what you can relate to his

[2:10:04] conditional use. Faux

[2:10:05] conditional use was used in

[2:10:06] relation to that but if a

[2:10:08] project required a lot of

[2:10:09] different thought, what the

[2:10:11] SCAOPI is puts under a lot of

[2:10:12] scrutiny, conditional use, there

[2:10:14] is nothing of that nature. So

[2:10:15] what this does, it puts a higher

[2:10:17] level of analysis and more

[2:10:19] public into put into making a

[2:10:21] decision. So you have minor

[2:10:22] delegation, conditional use,

[2:10:25] SCAOPI and zoning bylaw change.

[2:10:27] When it's a project spot zoning

[2:10:30] taking specific area to a

[2:10:31] specific concerns and issues by

[2:10:33] putting it to a higher stringent

[2:10:37] process.

[2:10:41] [Inaudible]

[2:10:55] >> Madam Conway?

[2:10:57] >> To establish that this is

[2:10:58] more for industrial and

[2:11:00] commercial businesses, as

[2:11:01] opposed to residential?

[2:11:03] >> Yes.

[2:11:04] >> Okay, so if my neighbour

[2:11:05] wants to tear down his house and

[2:11:07] makes neighbour and a developer

[2:11:09] comes anyone's to build town

[2:11:11] houses --

[2:11:12] >> It's not more applicable in

[2:11:15] residential neighbourhoods with

[2:11:17] just one single family home.

[2:11:20] It's not the tools we will use

[2:11:23] if we have to build a new

[2:11:25] project there.

[2:11:26] >> Take for example the --

[2:11:27] project, one of the bylaws was

[2:11:30] height. They could not go higher

[2:11:32] than the neighbours.

[2:11:36] >> Ce n'est pas la fonction de

[2:11:39] vérifier la hauteur des

[2:11:40] bâtiments. Nous sommes dans des

[2:11:43] changements d'usage d'une

[2:11:45] propriété. Nous sommes dans les

[2:11:49] changements mangeurs

[2:11:50] (---)

[2:11:51] majeurs dont les zonage.

[2:11:54] Pas dans l'usage d'une

[2:11:55] propriété.

[2:12:01] - Les règlements qu'on a dans

[2:12:02] les livres, pourquoi non... ne

[2:12:06] suivons-nous pas ces règles-là?

[2:12:10] - Comme la

[2:12:11] (---)

[2:12:12] c'est un outil de plus que la

[2:12:15] Ville pourra utiliser. Ce sont

[2:12:22] des situations précises. Il

[2:12:23] serait préférable qu'un projet

[2:12:25] se réalise. La zone au complet

[2:12:26] n'est pas affectée en termes de

[2:12:28] changements de zonage,

[2:12:31] simplement que la propriété est

[2:12:33] la partie de la zone visée par

[2:12:34] le projet soit sujet à un

[2:12:37] changement de zonage, avec des

[2:12:41] grues d'usage. La hauteur des

[2:12:42] bâtiments pourrait changer, oui.

[2:12:44] Ce sont pour des projets précis

[2:12:47] qui s'inscrivent dans une

[2:12:48] volonté d'avoir une

[2:12:49] (---)

[2:12:50] urbaine plus harmonieuse.

[2:12:52] - Les voisins vont être

[2:12:53] (inaudible)

[2:12:54] (---)

[2:12:55] .

[2:12:56] - Le conseil municipal doit

[2:12:57] adopter par résolution le

[2:12:58] projet. Une fois que le conseil

[2:12:59] municipal a approuvé le projet,

[2:13:02] la population peut s'exprimer en

[2:13:04] consultation publique. Elles

[2:13:05] vont voir des esquisses, des

[2:13:07] images du projet le cas échéant,

[2:13:09] lors de consultations publiques.

[2:13:11] Ultimement, les citoyens peuvent

[2:13:13] s'opposer au projet de manière

[2:13:15] référendaire. À toutes les

[2:13:17] instances, contrairement à

[2:13:18] d'autres outils, le PPCMOI

[2:13:21] permet aux citoyens d'avoir un

[2:13:24] mot à dire dans la procédure.

[2:13:26] - Vicky, merci.

[2:13:34] - Vous dites que ce n'est pas

[2:13:36] applicable aux résidentielles où

[2:13:37] ça peut l'être?

[2:13:42] - Vous devez deviner votre nom,

[2:13:43] s'il vous. Plaise

[2:13:46] - Andre Clermont. Wood que ce

[2:13:50] n'est pas applicable au

[2:13:51] résidentiel ou que ça peut

[2:13:52] l'être? Le projet a dit que

[2:13:56] quelqu'un a un projet peut faire

[2:13:59] changer une place de zonage et

[2:14:01] non tout le coin. Ça a peut

[2:14:03] (---)

[2:14:04] si c'est applicable au

[2:14:06] résidentiel. Il y a des places

[2:14:07] que c'est proche de résidence.

[2:14:08] Ils sont à côté ou très proche

[2:14:10] du commercial. Quelqu'un qui

[2:14:12] arrivera avec un projet pourrait

[2:14:14] faire changer le zonage. D'une

[2:14:20] maison résidentielle.

[2:14:21] - Le PPCMOI peut être appliqué

[2:14:24] au résidentiel. Habituellement,

[2:14:25] ce n'est pas un outil qu'on

[2:14:27] utilise dans ce cas-là. C'est un

[2:14:29] outil dans notre boîte à outils.

[2:14:34] Je l'ai rarement utilisé,

[2:14:36] d'expérience, personnellement,

[2:14:37] dans ma carrière. Dans d'autres

[2:14:41] villes, dans ce type de

[2:14:42] projets-là. Comme on le disait,

[2:14:43] il y a un processus qui se fait

[2:14:46] au niveau de l'adoption du

[2:14:48] PPCMOI. Il y aura résolution. Il

[2:14:50] y aura consultation publique, un

[2:14:53] référendum, un processus

[2:14:55] référendaire qui peut être fait.

[2:14:58] Un outil intéressant, ça nous

[2:14:59] permet de montrer des images aux

[2:15:01] citoyens, de voir vraiment dans

[2:15:03] le cadre du projet. Les gens

[2:15:05] vont pouvoir voir le projet. Ils

[2:15:06] ne peuvent

[2:15:07] Pas le voir nécessairement dans

[2:15:08] un changement de zonage.

[2:15:10] - Est-ce que ça ouvre la porte à

[2:15:11] des gens qui aimeraient ouvrir

[2:15:14] plus de commerce? L'école est

[2:15:17] contre les résidentielles,

[2:15:20] ciblés place, on pourrait ouvrir

[2:15:22] un restaurant, un magasin, être

[2:15:24] entourée de résidence à côté.

[2:15:28] Larry Cartier, la ligne est

[2:15:32] mince entre le commerce et les

[2:15:33] résidents. Ça pourrait permettre

[2:15:35] à ça.

[2:15:49] >> Fundamentally would never be

[2:15:50] used as residential let's take

[2:15:53] zone already 49. This probably

[2:15:56] 28 houses in that area. What

[2:15:59] SCAOPI is used for, let's say

[2:16:01] this one house that can't be a

[2:16:03] house for any reason. Aliens

[2:16:04] landed on. It it is something

[2:16:07] that can be done with that

[2:16:08] house, it's cold spot zoning. We

[2:16:10] do a zoning change. We affect

[2:16:11] the whole area. So what we do is

[2:16:14] we take one specific industrial

[2:16:16] commercial or residential house

[2:16:17] within that area, and they just

[2:16:19] can't ask you, say, turn

[2:16:22] residential to a restaurant. It

[2:16:23] has to be justified supported.

[2:16:25] You have to give plausible

[2:16:26] reasons why you can't have a

[2:16:27] house there anymore. So you have

[2:16:29] to go through a whole process of

[2:16:32] discussions, but just to make

[2:16:33] sure that if you change

[2:16:34] something you can always change

[2:16:36] one particular item in his own

[2:16:38] and not affect the whole zone.

[2:16:40] So it's a really unique thing

[2:16:42] that that is done. So it has to

[2:16:47] pass stringent policies. You

[2:16:48] just can't say I'm turning the

[2:16:50] house into a restaurant. It

[2:16:51] won't work that way. Its spot

[2:16:53] zoning of one particular

[2:16:55] location or address within his

[2:16:57] own. And there are situations

[2:16:59] where that could be required.

[2:17:01] J'ai l'impression que ça peut

[2:17:03] ouvrir une porte.

[2:17:04] - Il y a une nuance que je vais

[2:17:06] apporter. Tout projet doit être

[2:17:09] conforme au plan d'urbanisme et

[2:17:11] aux documents

[2:17:12] (---)

[2:17:13] . On a des codes villageois. Il

[2:17:15] doit quand même être conforme à

[2:17:17] notre plan d'urbanisme. Si ça ne

[2:17:20] rentre pas dans le la trame

[2:17:22] urbaine du plan d'urbanisme,

[2:17:23] mais ça ne fonctionne.

[2:17:24] - O.K., merci.

[2:17:33] >> I would understand with

[2:17:34] zoning, so if you're changing

[2:17:36] for the height, 14, two fours,

[2:17:39] Three floors --

[2:17:40] >> It's not a new build. It's

[2:17:41] transforming the function of an

[2:17:43] existing building, I think. So

[2:17:45] the height really doesn't come

[2:17:47] into play in this.

[2:17:49] >> But you can do it for the

[2:17:51] future building?

[2:17:52] >> Now, it's just changing the

[2:17:53] existing the usage of the

[2:17:55] existing building. That's all.

[2:17:56] That's what it's therefore.

[2:17:58] >> But for the new one, you

[2:18:00] don't have --

[2:18:02] >> Its Latino. And it's for an

[2:18:04] existing building. What we are

[2:18:06] debating right now, is a tool

[2:18:08] used for existing properties,

[2:18:10] changing their zoning. It's not

[2:18:12] for a new build. It's not for

[2:18:14] anything like that. From what I

[2:18:19] understand.

[2:18:20] >> Are you able to do that for a

[2:18:21] new building?

[2:18:22] >> No, I don't think so. Ce

[2:18:25] n'est pas bon pour les nouveaux

[2:18:26] développements.

[2:18:27] >> New development

[2:18:29] ?

[2:18:32] >> SCAOPI, yeah we can use it

[2:18:34] for new development also but we

[2:18:37] have some specifics to apply to.

[2:18:39] Each project is different, so

[2:18:42] it's kind of universal that

[2:18:44] question. I can't answer which

[2:18:48] project, a new project, or not.

[2:18:50] Is depending on the project.

[2:18:51] >> So you have a standard you

[2:18:52] don't have to argue out about

[2:18:55] ten floors, 15 floors, 25

[2:18:57] floors. You have a standard for

[2:18:58] that. Everybody respects it. It

[2:19:03] makes sense?

[2:19:07] >> Now, I'm sorry.

[2:19:08] [Laughter]

[2:19:10] >> So we're going to have to

[2:19:11] fight and are you about the

[2:19:12] height. If you're able to do it,

[2:19:15] change the zoning.

[2:19:18] >> This bylaw --

[2:19:20] >> I'm not talking about this.

[2:19:21] I'm talking about the future.

[2:19:23] >> Sir, we are talking about

[2:19:25] this bylaw. We're talking about

[2:19:28] a specific bylaw for a specific

[2:19:30] purpose.

[2:19:31] >> Okay. So this whole

[2:19:32] discussion is about that bylaw.

[2:19:36] >> This bylaw is not for a

[2:19:38] specific project, but yes, of

[2:19:40] course, this bylaw is new, so we

[2:19:44] will use this bylaw. It will be

[2:19:46] for a new project, for sure.

[2:19:50] Maybe for an existing property,

[2:19:52] as we will transform, modify,

[2:19:55] and we will use this tool, but

[2:19:58] this bylaw allows cities to

[2:20:03] analyze the new project with a

[2:20:09] different views beside the

[2:20:13] current bylaws. They could try

[2:20:15] to analyze the project and

[2:20:19] derogate to some of our current

[2:20:21] bylaws. But for the greater good

[2:20:23] of the city, of course, and

[2:20:26] Council is there to decide on

[2:20:27] that kind of project. And the

[2:20:30] committee as well.

[2:20:31] >> Thank you. And I hope you do

[2:20:35] for the new and limit the height

[2:20:36] so we don't have to argue.

[2:20:38] Everybody respect it. Thank you.

[2:20:39] >> Thank you. Okay, do we need a

[2:20:42] mover and seconder? Not yet,

[2:20:48] okay.

[2:20:49] [Laughter]

[2:20:50] >> If there is no more question,

[2:20:51] we can go directly to 5.4 and

[2:20:54] then this is the adoption of

[2:20:58] bylaw on staff is sick specific

[2:21:02] construction or occupancy for

[2:21:04] immovable's, and now we have a

[2:21:06] mover and a seconder.

[2:21:07] >> Do I have a mover?

[2:21:09] >> I moved to adopt the bylaw.

[2:21:13] Kelly Thorstad-Cullen, district

[2:21:14] three.

[2:21:15] >> And seconder?

[2:21:16] >> Eric Stork, district seven.

[2:21:17] >> All in favour?

[2:21:18] >> Mister Mayor, I like to

[2:21:19] comment.

[2:21:21] >> Absolutely.

[2:21:22] >> Proposing amendment to the

[2:21:27] motion as the result of the

[2:21:29] citizen comments I think it's

[2:21:33] important to put an explanatory

[2:21:36] or interpretive clause into our

[2:21:38] bylaws. I made the point for

[2:21:40] five years ago now to put a

[2:21:42] preamble into the village code

[2:21:44] to create an interpretive clause

[2:21:46] the people so that people can

[2:21:48] understand why the rest, why the

[2:21:50] bylaw is. Their bylaws form a

[2:21:53] regulatory framework for the

[2:21:54] city but they're also kind of a

[2:21:55] how to or user manual. And so to

[2:21:58] make it, to help make it more

[2:22:00] clear to citizens, and future

[2:22:05] Council decades from now

[2:22:06] perhaps, when we forget why

[2:22:09] people who are part of Council

[2:22:11] may have been forgotten why

[2:22:13] there is this bylaw, explain to

[2:22:15] them. Explain to the applicants.

[2:22:17] Make it clear, it's clear

[2:22:19] responsible, the purpose in the

[2:22:21] objectives of the bylaw. So I

[2:22:24] have drafted -- I'll get in the

[2:22:33] second.

[2:22:44] I'm having difficulty calling it

[2:22:46] up now. Just a minute. Another

[2:22:48] alternative. I supposed an

[2:22:55] amendment to paragraph one point

[2:22:57] 1.3, which was the scope of the

[2:22:59] bylaw, to add the purpose of the

[2:23:02] bylaw to that paragraph, so that

[2:23:05] to the sentence that begins with

[2:23:08] the provisions of this bylaw

[2:23:10] pride to natural persons as well

[2:23:11] as two legal persons under

[2:23:13] public or private law, that was

[2:23:15] the scope. To that I propose

[2:23:17] adding the following, its

[2:23:18] purpose is to enable City

[2:23:19] Council to authorize a project,

[2:23:22] and demonstrably advances the

[2:23:24] project of the city planning

[2:23:26] program even though the project

[2:23:27] may be a variance with specific

[2:23:29] sections of the beauties urban

[2:23:31] planning bylaws. It facilitates

[2:23:33] land development there better

[2:23:35] integrates into the urban form

[2:23:36] without it being necessary to

[2:23:39] either modify applicable

[2:23:40] standards for the particular

[2:23:42] zone or the city as a whole or

[2:23:44] to process a minor exemption. It

[2:23:46] allows for conventions to be

[2:23:48] incorporated into a project that

[2:23:49] are not specifically prescribed

[2:23:52] by existing regulations such as

[2:23:54] those which might arise from

[2:23:56] sustainable development

[2:23:57] principles in order to increase

[2:23:58] the projects social except

[2:24:00] ability. That last part is an

[2:24:03] important addition, in that it

[2:24:05] highlights the ability of the

[2:24:08] city to negotiate with anybody

[2:24:12] presenting a project. We can be

[2:24:15] flexible over here, but you must

[2:24:17] deliver over here, which could

[2:24:20] be to increase green space or

[2:24:23] anything that is within the

[2:24:25] jurisdiction of the city. So it

[2:24:26] allows that capability as well.

[2:24:29] So I move that amendment to the

[2:24:32] primary motion as I just read.

[2:24:35] Cowan, district eight.

[2:24:37] >> And I have a mover?

[2:24:40] (inaudible)

[2:24:41] (---)

[2:24:42] .

[2:24:43] >> It needs to be seconded

[2:24:44] first.

[2:24:45] >> Do I have a seconder?

[2:24:47] >> Seconded

[2:24:48] By Tara

[2:24:51] - J'ai Stainforth. Une question

[2:24:53] pour clarifier. Le texte vient

[2:24:55] de lire monsieur

[2:24:58] (---)

[2:24:59] , ça sert à informer les gens.

[2:25:01] Ça décrit le règlement. Est-ce

[2:25:03] qu'on peut l'afficher sur le

[2:25:06] site Web? Est-ce qu'on peut

[2:25:07] avoir le règlement qui serait un

[2:25:11] document qu'on pourrait cliquer?

[2:25:14] On pourrait lire le Règlement

[2:25:16] directement. C'est absolument

[2:25:18] nécessaire. Est-ce que ça change

[2:25:19] la loi d'une façon ou d'une

[2:25:20] autre?

[2:25:23] - Ça appartient au conseil. La

[2:25:27] disposition lui par monsieur

[2:25:29] Cowan n'a pas d'interprétation,

[2:25:31] elle est inexpliqué hâtives.

[2:25:36] Ça pourrait se retrouver dans un

[2:25:37] plan qui

[2:25:38] (---)

[2:25:39] . Légalement, il ne vient pas

[2:25:45] Lange... changer la portion

[2:25:47] normative du règlement. C'est

[2:25:52] carrément une interprétation

[2:25:54] explicative de la portée du

[2:25:55] règlement. Ça appartient au

[2:25:56] conseil de soit de le laisser

[2:25:58] dans le règlement, dans

[2:25:59] l'inclure dans le règlement.

[2:26:02] - Aucun effet légal par rapport

[2:26:03] à la description, l'explication

[2:26:05] comme ça? Est-ce que Sussex

[2:26:09] piqué? Est-ce que c'est un texte

[2:26:10] légal?

[2:26:13] - Comme je viens de le dire,

[2:26:16] c'est un texte explicatif. Ça ne

[2:26:17] change pas la portée des

[2:26:18] éléments normatif.

[2:26:21] - D'accord, le règlement que

[2:26:22] j'ai lue reste le même document.

[2:26:26] On insère une explication

[2:26:29] décrivant ce qui se passe avec

[2:26:31] ce règlement, c'est ça?

[2:26:32] - Exact.

[2:26:33] - D'accord, merci.

[2:26:35] >> All in favour? Of the

[2:26:40] amendment? The okay, so, okay.

[2:26:45] >> And back to the main

[2:26:47] proposition which is the

[2:26:49] adoption of a bylaw with the

[2:26:53] amendment of a specific

[2:26:55] construction, occupancy

[2:26:57] proposals for a movable SCAOPI,

[2:27:04] amended.

[2:27:05] [Inaudible]

[2:27:06] >> Now we need vote. So all in

[2:27:07] favour? Okay.

[2:27:15] - 6. 1 Accorder un soutien

[2:27:16] financier à divers organismes

[2:27:17] sans but lucratif pour un

[2:27:18] montant de 27500 $.

[2:27:26] la résidence de soins palliatifs

[2:27:29] terrestres Adélard: 25000

[2:27:31] dollars, la Société

[2:27:32] d'horticulture

[2:27:33] (---)

[2:27:34] .

[2:27:35] (inaudible)

[2:27:36] (---)

[2:27:37] .

[2:27:38] >> Granted financial support to

[2:27:42] nonprofit organizations for

[2:27:44] $25,000 and financial support to

[2:27:45] the 6. 3 Autoriser des membres

[2:27:46] du conseil et la directrice

[2:27:47] générale à Lakeshore Hospital

[2:27:48] représenter la Ville de

[2:27:49] Pointe-Claire au congrès annuel

[2:27:50] de l'Union des Municipalités du

[2:27:51] Québec

[2:27:52] (UMQ)

[2:27:53] Foundation. Devant se tenir du 3

[2:27:54] au 5 mai 2023 à Gatineau.

[2:27:59] d'autoriser les dépenses et le

[2:28:01] remboursement des frais d'assise

[2:28:02] de l'UMQ 2023 conformément à la

[2:28:04] politique en vigueur. Le maire

[2:28:06] Tim Thomas, Mesdames les

[2:28:08] conseillères Cynthia Homan, quel

[2:28:11] est Thorstad-Cullen, Eric Stork

[2:28:13] et Bruno Tremblay, madame la

[2:28:16] directrice générale madame

[2:28:17] Karina Verdon.

[2:28:20] 6.4, other as members of Council

[2:28:23] to represent Pointe-Claire

[2:28:25] Canadian municipalities

[2:28:26] convention to be ultra made 25

[2:28:29] to May 28th 2023 in Toronto,

[2:28:30] Ontario. To authorize the

[2:28:32] expenses and reimbursement of

[2:28:35] costs related to the Federation

[2:28:37] of Canadian Municipalities

[2:28:39] annual conference in accordance

[2:28:42] with the current policy. The

[2:28:44] authorized persons are the mayor

[2:28:46] Tim Thomas, Councillors carried

[2:28:49] Thorstad-Cullen, Bruno Tremblay

[2:28:51] and Eric Stork.

[2:28:53] >> Do I have a mover?

[2:28:54] >> Force for six point 1 to 6

[2:28:55] point? For

[2:28:57] >> Eric Stork, district second.

[2:28:58] >> And seconder?

[2:29:03] >> Bruno Tremblay district six

[2:29:04] and seven.

[2:29:05] >> All in favour? 7. 1 Nommer un

[2:29:06] membre au sein du Comité d'art

[2:29:07] public de Pointe-Claire. cette

[2:29:11] résolution recommande la

[2:29:12] nomination de monsieur Benoît

[2:29:13] Jodoin à titre de membre expert

[2:29:15] bon père de 3 ans

[2:29:17] (---)

[2:29:18] au 31 décembre 2025. Le conseil

[2:29:20] municipal procède à la

[2:29:21] nomination des membres des

[2:29:22] comités dans la sélection et la

[2:29:25] composition finale demeure à son

[2:29:26] entière discrétion.

[2:29:32] >> Seven point to prove the

[2:29:34] reappointment and nomination of

[2:29:35] members to the Stewart hall

[2:29:37] advisory board. The Stewart Hall

[2:29:38] Advisory Committee

[2:29:39] Recommends the appointment of

[2:29:42] Mr. Leary on his, Mrs. L and

[2:29:44] Chris Knott, Mrs. Linda do it,

[2:29:45] and Mrs. losing a point for

[2:29:47] three years, three-year terms

[2:29:49] for

[2:29:55] January 1st 2023 to December

[2:29:56] 31st 2025. The advisory

[2:29:57] committee also recommends the

[2:29:58] appointment of two new members,

[2:30:01] Alexandra Nova and Marilyn Smith

[2:30:03] for three years terms for

[2:30:05] January 1st, 2023 to December

[2:30:09] 31st 2025. So Council should

[2:30:10] proceed with the appointment of

[2:30:12] community members, the final

[2:30:14] selection and composition of

[2:30:15] which shall be absolved it the

[2:30:18] question of Council. 9. 1

[2:30:21] Approuver une modification au

[2:30:22] contrat intervenu avec « Pénéga

[2:30:23] Communications Inc. », pour la

[2:30:24] fourniture des services de

[2:30:25] photographies et de vidéos pour

[2:30:26] un montant de 3840, 23 $, taxes

[2:30:27] incluses.

[2:30:32] (inaudible)

[2:30:33] (---)

[2:30:41] >> Do I have a mover.

[2:30:42] >> So the home district five or

[2:30:45] 7.1, I moved to a point a member

[2:30:46] to the Pointe-Claire Public Park

[2:30:49] committee. For 7.2 I move to

[2:30:51] withdraw this item from the

[2:30:53] agenda, due to new information

[2:30:56] that needs to be evaluated by

[2:30:58] the City administration. This is

[2:31:00] brought to our attention for the

[2:31:03] public meeting and I move to

[2:31:08] approve 9.1 a change order to

[2:31:09] the contract entered into with

[2:31:12] -- communications and the supply

[2:31:14] of photos and video services for

[2:31:16] amount of $3,483.43, tax

[2:31:20] included.

[2:31:21] >> So do I now have a mover for,

[2:31:25] for the removal?

[2:31:27] >> I am withdrawing seven point.

[2:31:29] Two

[2:31:30] >> Okay. So we have to have a

[2:31:31] motion to withdraw.

[2:31:32] >> And we need a seconder.

[2:31:34] >> A seconder please, for the

[2:31:36] withdrawal?

[2:31:37] >> Yeah, given the fact that we

[2:31:40] were in block for 7.1, 7.2 and

[2:31:43] 9.1, do you want to vote

[2:31:45] separately on 7.2?

[2:31:47] >> Yes.

[2:31:48] >> For the withdrawal.

[2:31:50] >> Sure.

[2:31:51] >> Then we will go back to 7.1

[2:31:54] in 5.1. So 7.2 it's a

[2:31:56] withdrawal.

[2:31:57] >> That's correct. Since you

[2:31:58] want me to say that I move 7.1

[2:32:02] and 9.1 for a vote.

[2:32:05] >> Yes.

[2:32:06] >> Do I have a seconder?

[2:32:07] >> I agree.

[2:32:09] >> All in favour?

[2:32:11] >> Are we doing seven to?

[2:32:14] >> 71 or nine. One

[2:32:18] >> 71 a 91 right now.

[2:32:19] >> And we are back to 71. Every

[2:32:23] once in. Favour

[2:32:24] >> For 7.1 a 9.1, all in favour?

[2:32:27] >> Correct.

[2:32:28] >> Back to 7.2. So you're moving

[2:32:32] that so we need a seconder. Go

[2:32:36] ahead.

[2:32:38] >> 7.1, second Bob is the net.

[2:32:42] >> 7.2, Paul.

[2:32:44] >> 7.2, I agree that --

[2:32:46] >> You second the withdrawal?

[2:32:52] All right.

[2:32:53] >> All in favour? All against?

[2:33:01] Okay. 10. 1 Déposer la liste des

[2:33:05] amendements budgétaires et le

[2:33:06] registre des chèques pour la

[2:33:07] période du 5 au 25 janvier 2023.

[2:33:25] >> Municipalities are required

[2:33:26] to table report of the

[2:33:28] administration of their contract

[2:33:29] agents by at least once 10. a

[2:33:33] year and a council meeting 3

[2:33:34] Autoriser un amendement

[2:33:35] budgétaire afin de. Régulariser

[2:33:36] les postes budgétaires ayant des

[2:33:37] soldes déficitaires au 31

[2:33:38] décembre 2022. les dépenses sont

[2:33:44] liés aux contrats de services,

[2:33:45] (inaudible)

[2:33:46] (---)

[2:33:47] . Aux Services professionnels

[2:33:50] pour les fouilles

[2:33:52] archéologiques, à différents

[2:33:53] travaux de menuiserie,

[2:33:54] (inaudible)

[2:33:55] (---)

[2:33:56] . De services professionnels.

[2:34:03] 10.4. Appropriate funds to

[2:34:04] create new budgetary items for

[2:34:07] reserves for the compression of

[2:34:09] information technology projects

[2:34:12] in 2023 following the adoption

[2:34:13] of the 2023 C IP the City wishes

[2:34:17] to appropriate $1,295,000 from

[2:34:21] the general fund surplus, not

[2:34:24] otherwise 10. 5 Octroyer un

[2:34:25] contrat pour la fourniture de

[2:34:26] vêtements de travail pour les

[2:34:27] appropriated. Cols bleus pour

[2:34:28] l'année 2023 à « Le Groupe

[2:34:29] d'importation et de distribution

[2:34:30] Hugo inc.

[2:34:31] (Promotion Plus)

[2:34:32] », pour un montant total de

[2:34:33] 173526, 59 $, taxes incluses,

[2:34:34] avec les années 2024 et 2025 en

[2:34:35] option.

[2:34:45] >> For 10.3 to 10.5, do I have a

[2:34:48] mover?

[2:34:50] >> Ted Cowan district eight.

[2:34:56] >> And secondary?

[2:34:57] >> Eric Stork, district second

[2:34:59] district seven.

[2:35:02] >> All in favour?

[2:35:35] >>

[2:35:36] >> In this regard, the Council

[2:35:37] of the municipality may be, made

[2:35:40] by resolution establish a rate

[2:35:43] of remuneration or allowance

[2:35:44] that is higher than that

[2:35:46] established by a minister. The

[2:35:49] recommended rates shell take

[2:35:50] into account rage paid to date

[2:35:52] by the City of Pointe-Claire.

[2:35:56] 12. 1 Déposer la liste des

[2:35:57] changements au personnel par

[2:35:58] décisions déléguées pour le mois

[2:35:59] de février 2023. 12 point to

[2:36:06] approve the chaff staff changes

[2:36:09] to 2020. Three

[2:36:10] >> For 11 point 1 to 11 point

[2:36:12] would weigh them?

[2:36:14] >> Moved by Tara Stainforth,

[2:36:19] district four.

[2:36:20] >> Kelly Thorstad-Cullen,

[2:36:23] district four.

[2:36:24] >> Any other? 14. 1 Autoriser un

[2:36:25] amendement budgétaire afin de

[2:36:26] régulariser les soldes

[2:36:27] déficitaires au budget 2022. une

[2:36:32] valeur totale de 498000 dollars.

[2:36:36] 14 point, to approve a change

[2:36:39] order to the contract entered

[2:36:42] into with -- for the supply and

[2:36:44] delivery of 24 by four pickup

[2:36:47] trucks with crew cabins, 2021,

[2:36:50] for an amount of $49,094.30,

[2:36:56] taxes included. Due to current

[2:36:58] delays in the automotive

[2:37:00] industry polite supply chain an

[2:37:02] additional amount is payable to

[2:37:04] -- to ensure the original order

[2:37:06] placed for two vehicles remains

[2:37:09] confirmed. 14. 3 Approuver une

[2:37:12] modification au contrat

[2:37:13] intervenu avec « Jacques Olivier

[2:37:14] Ford », pour la fourniture et la

[2:37:15] livraison d'une camionnette

[2:37:16] (4x4)

[2:37:17] avec chassis cabine, année 2021,

[2:37:18] pour un montant de 24820, 12 $,

[2:37:19] taxes incluses.

[2:37:27] 14.4, the water contract supply

[2:37:30] of services for the collection,

[2:37:31] transport, and value-ization of

[2:37:35] -- four total amount of 26,000

[2:37:40] $621,000.21, taxes included. For

[2:37:42] the year 2020 for an option.

[2:37:44] This contract will allow for the

[2:37:47] continuation of the voluntary

[2:37:49] drop of service for the citizens

[2:37:51] of the city. In accordance with

[2:37:53] the city's -- development path

[2:37:56] policy developed in 2017, the

[2:37:57] public works department is

[2:37:59] making its efforts to divert as

[2:38:02] much material as possible from

[2:38:03] landfill. To this hand, the City

[2:38:05] offers a voluntary drop off site

[2:38:07] and must hire an outside company

[2:38:09] to collect, transport, and

[2:38:10] recycle their material.

[2:38:13] >> For 14.1 to 14.4, do I have a

[2:38:17] mover?

[2:38:19] >> District to.

[2:38:20] >> Eric Stork, district seven.

[2:38:21] >> All in favour?

[2:38:28] - 15. 1 Approuver une

[2:38:29] modification au contrat

[2:38:30] intervenu avec « Construction

[2:38:31] Doverco Inc. », pour la

[2:38:32] réparation de maçonnerie et des

[2:38:33] travaux de remplacement des

[2:38:34] fenêtres au Stewart Hall pour un

[2:38:35] montant de 28109, 94 $, taxes

[2:38:38] incluses. la découverte de

[2:38:39] parties de charpente de bois

[2:38:41] pour y a nécessité des travaux

[2:38:42] supplémentaires.

[2:38:46] >> Approve a change order

[2:38:48] entered into with -- for the

[2:38:49] construction of a new

[2:38:51] neighbourhood police station for

[2:38:53] a credit of $4,943.15, taxes

[2:38:58] included. Various modifications

[2:39:00] made during the course of the

[2:39:02] work at the request of the City

[2:39:04] of Montréal and 15. 3 Octroyer

[2:39:06] un contrat pour des travaux

[2:39:07] d'entretien et de réparation de

[2:39:08] nature électrique pour la

[2:39:09] période de février 2023 à

[2:39:10] décembre 2024, à by the

[2:39:11] contractors. « Mofax Électrique

[2:39:12] Ltée », pour un montant total de

[2:39:13] 949233, 60 $, taxes incluses,

[2:39:14] avec les années 2025, 2026 et

[2:39:15] 2027 en option.

[2:39:25] un contrat qui prévoit des

[2:39:26] travaux d'entretien et de

[2:39:28] réparation en effet électricité

[2:39:30] (---)

[2:39:31] de réaménagement électrique.

[2:39:38] >> 15.4 to 15.3, do I have a

[2:39:39] mover?

[2:39:40] >> Yes, I propose approval of 15

[2:39:44] 1 to 3. District six.

[2:39:45] >> And seconder?

[2:39:47] >> Cindy home district five.

[2:39:48] >> All in favour?

[2:40:01] >> 16.1, designated authorize

[2:40:03] represented to sign the court

[2:40:07] documents accompanying the final

[2:40:09] report pursuant to the agreement

[2:40:11] entered into with the Federation

[2:40:14] of Canadian Municipalities under

[2:40:17] the Municipal asset management

[2:40:19] program. Authorize a director of

[2:40:21] a engineering to sign the court

[2:40:24] documents 16.. 2 Approuver une

[2:40:25] modification au contrat

[2:40:26] intervenu avec « Réalisation

[2:40:27] Dynamique Inc. », pour la

[2:40:28] construction d'une aire de jeu

[2:40:29] d'eau au parc Augusta pour un

[2:40:30] montant de 20613, 87 $, taxes

[2:40:31] incluses.

[2:40:40] l'ajout d'un conduit rigide en

[2:40:42] PVC, de trois fils électriques,

[2:40:44] l'installation de

[2:40:45] (inaudible)

[2:40:46] (---)

[2:40:47] .

[2:40:48] >> The 0.3, approve a change

[2:40:49] order to the contract entered

[2:40:52] into for the supply installation

[2:40:55] of L.E.D. street lights through

[2:40:57] the to an amount of $23,541.13,

[2:41:02] taxes included. Supply and

[2:41:05] installation of photo cells on

[2:41:06] the guarded lights that are

[2:41:08] connected to the same electrical

[2:41:10] network as the lead road lights.

[2:41:15] 16. 4 Approuver une entente à

[2:41:16] intervenir avec « Sa Majesté du

[2:41:17] Chef du Canada », représenté par

[2:41:18] le ministre de l'Infrastructure

[2:41:19] et des Collectivités, concernant

[2:41:20] une contribution dans le cadre

[2:41:21] du Fonds pour le transport actif

[2:41:22] dans le cadre du projet de

[2:41:23] construction d'une passerelle

[2:41:24] pour piétons et cyclistes

[2:41:25] permettant de franchir

[2:41:26] l'autoroute 40, dans l'axe du

[2:41:27] boulevard Saint-Jean à

[2:41:28] Pointe-Claire.

[2:41:32] la Ville confirme qu'il répond

[2:41:34] aux exigences de l'entente de

[2:41:36] contribution dans le cadre du

[2:41:37] fonds pour le transport actif

[2:41:38] pour le projet de construction

[2:41:44] d'une passerelle pour piétons et

[2:41:45] cyclistes permettant de franchir

[2:41:46] l'autoroute 40, dans l'axe du

[2:41:47] boulevard Saint-Jean à

[2:41:48] Pointe-Claire..

[2:41:53] >> Do I have a mover?

[2:41:55] >> District. To

[2:41:56] >> Eric Stork, district seven.

[2:42:00] >> All in favour? 17. Urbanisme

[2:42:01] Les personnes présentes peuvent

[2:42:02] s'adresser au conseil concernant

[2:42:03] les sujets ci-dessous pour les

[2:42:04] items 17. 1 à 17. 4:

[2:42:08] >> The reason presented as

[2:42:09] Council on the subjects under

[2:42:11] The 17. 1 Considérer une demande

[2:42:13] de dérogation mineure concernant

[2:42:14] la propriété sise au 83, avenue

[2:42:15] Fifth. 17.1 to 17.4. Permettre

[2:42:22] l'agrandissement d'une résidence

[2:42:24] unifamiliale détachées avec une

[2:42:25] marge de recul latérale adjacent

[2:42:26] à l'autoroute 23,25 mètres

[2:42:30] puisque le minimum requis est de

[2:42:31] (inaudible)

[2:42:32] (---)

[2:42:33] .

[2:42:34] >> 17.2,

[2:42:35] A minor exemption Jen request

[2:42:37] from the 63 Avenue Pointe-Claire

[2:42:40] Avenue with a portico setback of

[2:42:43] 16.15 minutes metres weather

[2:42:46] then rather than the minimum

[2:42:48] required of 7.2 metres. Oh,

[2:42:53] there is a question.

[2:43:04] C'est pour la marge avant, cette

[2:43:05] dérogation?

[2:43:08] (inaudible)

[2:43:09] (---)

[2:43:10] .

[2:43:11] - L'adresse sur l'a vu la nuit

[2:43:12] Pointe-Claire?

[2:43:25] - Le conseil a une

[2:43:28] recommandation du comité

[2:43:29] consultatif d'urbanisme.

[2:43:32] - Revenez moi avec les détails.

[2:43:39] Il y a deux adresses.

[2:43:40] (inaudible)

[2:43:41] (---)

[2:43:42] .

[2:43:47] >> It's two includes the front

[2:43:49] porch. The front porch already

[2:43:51] exists with the minor exemption.

[2:43:54] It's to enclose it. So the porch

[2:43:56] is staying in the same place.

[2:44:01] >> Okay.

[2:44:20] >> Anybody else to ask a

[2:44:22] question? No? Okay.

[2:44:32] - C'est correct, je m'excuse.

[2:44:40] - 17. 3 Considérer une demande

[2:44:41] de dérogation mineure concernant

[2:44:42] la propriété sise au 4025,

[2:44:43] Autoroute Transcanadienne.

[2:44:44] (inaudible)

[2:44:45] (---)

[2:44:46] .

[2:44:54] L'installation d'appareils de

[2:44:56] mécanique sur le toit

[2:44:57] (inaudible)

[2:44:58] (---)

[2:44:59] , plutôt que le maximum permis

[2:45:01] de 3 mètres. L'installation de

[2:45:02] cinq frigos d'entreposage dans

[2:45:04] la marge latérale gauche, plutôt

[2:45:06] que dans la marge latérale tel

[2:45:08] que permis. L'installation de

[2:45:10] cinq silos d'entreposage situés

[2:45:11] à ça de mettre de la propriété

[2:45:14] latérale plutôt que le minimum

[2:45:16] de 10 mètres.

[2:45:18] (inaudible)

[2:45:19] (---)

[2:45:20] , c'est de 126 à 101.

[2:45:24] >> 17.4, minor exemptions

[2:45:26] considering the property at 60

[2:45:33] 301 and 60 701, the highway,

[2:45:34] installation of science in the

[2:45:36] straight line on all three

[2:45:39] facades a block wide rather than

[2:45:42] installed one above the other as

[2:45:45] permitted. Two signs attached

[2:45:48] letters in a frame whereas on

[2:45:52] that letters are permitted 17..

[2:45:55] 5 Considérer les plans

[2:45:56] d'implantation et d'intégration

[2:45:57] architecturale relatifs à la

[2:45:58] propriété sise au 17, avenue

[2:46:02] Condover.

[2:46:03] (inaudible)

[2:46:04] (---)

[2:46:12] >> 17.6 consider the integration

[2:46:14] program place with respect to

[2:46:17] the properties so minute and a

[2:46:18] jurist be avenue for a motion to

[2:46:20] end the new construction.

[2:46:34] .

[2:46:38] >> 17. 7 Considérer les plans

[2:46:39] d'implantation et d'intégration

[2:46:40] architecturale relatifs à la

[2:46:41] propriété, sise au 10, situated

[2:46:42] at avenue Jervis Bay. 63

[2:46:44] Pointe-Claire for an extension

[2:46:47] and outdoor renovation.

[2:46:49] >> Do I have a mover for 17.1 to

[2:46:53] 17.8?

[2:46:54] >> I move to consider and

[2:46:56] approve the minor exemptions

[2:47:02] from 17.1 to 17.4 and consider

[2:47:03] and approve the site planning

[2:47:05] architectural plans for 17 point

[2:47:08] 5 to 17 point. Eight Kelly

[2:47:10] Thorstad-Cullen, district three.

[2:47:12] >> I seconded. All

[2:47:14] >> In favour? 18. 1 Approuver un

[2:47:18] don de documents usagés

[2:47:19] provenant des collections de la

[2:47:20] bibliothèque publique de

[2:47:21] Pointe-Claire à Les Amis de la

[2:47:22] Bibliothèque de Pointe-Claire.

[2:47:24] (inaudible)

[2:47:25] (---)

[2:47:38] >> 18.2, approve a donation of

[2:47:48] $175 to -- a donation of hundred

[2:47:52] 75 highly pony produced by hives

[2:47:56] from the Pointe-Claire Public

[2:47:58] Library. Do

[2:47:59] >> We have a mover?

[2:48:01] >> District. One

[2:48:02] >> And seconder?

[2:48:05] >> District eight.

[2:48:09] >>..?

[2:48:17] >>, Kelly Thorstad-Cullen.

[2:48:21] >>?. Merci tout le monde..

[2:48:25] (applaudissements)

2023-02-07 Conseil de la Ville de Pointe-Claire

Transcript