[0:24] - Bonsoir, tout le monde. J'ai
[0:27] convoqué cette réunion spéciale
[0:29] ce soir pour voter sur un seul
[0:32] point. Je propose une résolution
[0:35] visant à organiser des
[0:36] consultations publiques sur
[0:38] l'avenir de la forêt
[0:42] - Et sur la hauteur des
[0:43] bâtiments dans les
[0:45] stationnements Fairview. À
[0:47] l'origine, j'espérais que ces
[0:50] consultations se tiendraient
[0:52] naturellement dans le cadre du
[0:54] processus de révision de notre
[0:57] plan d'urbanisme.
[3:48] - Nous devons pouvoir définir,
[3:51] dont je dispose entend premier,
[3:52] et celui de convoquer à tout
[3:54] moment des réunions
[3:55] extraordinaire du conseil et de
[3:58] fixer les points à inscrire à
[4:00] leur ordre du jour. J'ai choisi
[4:03] d'utiliser ce pouvoir pour faire
[4:05] avancer ce dossier. Je
[4:08] structurer ma résolution de
[4:09] manière à maximiser les
[4:11] possibilités de participation
[4:13] des habitants d'ermitage, qui
[4:16] seront les plus touchés, nous
[4:21] veillerons à ce que les réunions
[4:22] de consultation se tiennent dans
[4:25] ou à la limite de leur district.
[4:27] Et à ceux qui reçoivent un avis
[4:29] par courrier. Enfin, la
[4:33] résolution engage le conseil à
[4:35] geler le développement de
[4:37] Fairview et de la forêt Fairview
[4:41] jusqu'à... jusqu'à ce que les
[4:44] consultations aient lieu et que
[4:46] notre plan d'urbanisme est été
[4:49] révisée.
[6:56] Quoiqu'il en soit, le but de la
[6:59] résolution de ce soir est
[7:01] d'exiger une décision, de
[7:03] manière ou d'une autre, qui
[7:05] donnera aux citoyens le minimum
[7:07] de transparence et de démocratie
[7:10] qu'ils méritent. Le conseil peut
[7:13] réagir de différentes manières
[7:15] en votant pour ou contre l'ordre
[7:17] du jour et la résolution en
[7:21] proposant des amendements. Mais
[7:24] quelle que soit l'option
[7:26] choisie, les décisions seront
[7:28] prises au grand jour et non à
[7:30] huis clos. Et vous, en tant que
[7:34] citoyen, sur est en mesure de
[7:36] nous tenir tous responsables.
[7:42] Bon.
[7:46] - 1.1 Adoption de l'ordre du
[7:47] jour.
[7:48] >> For the adoption of the
[7:49] junta, do I have a mover?
[7:52] >> Kelly Thorstad-Cullen with
[7:53] one modification, to move the
[7:55] question period to after the 0.6
[7:59] on the agenda, please.
[8:06] >> Do I have a mover for the
[8:08] agenda?
[8:13] >> Okay, do I have a seconder
[8:15] for the amendment?
[8:22] >>
[8:23] >> Yes.
[8:24] >> So that you can ask us our
[8:25] questions about our opinions on
[8:26] it in more detail.
[8:31] >> For myself personally, it's
[8:33] preferable to hear the
[8:35] explanations before the vote. I
[8:36] have to hear you speak before we
[8:38] vote, so that you might
[8:39] influence us to the people might
[8:40] actually be heard. That would be
[8:42] my preferred course of action,
[8:45] but that hasn't been voted for.
[8:49] >> That's actually not the
[8:50] purpose of question period.
[8:53] Question period is not allowed
[8:55] to encourage debate under our
[8:57] rules and procedures.
[8:58] >> It's not there to encourage
[8:59] debate, it's there to inform
[9:01] Council of the opinions of the
[9:03] citizenry. Which is always a
[9:04] good thing in democracy. Okay,
[9:07] so all in favour?
[9:08] - Je vous suggère de voter
[9:10] d'abord sur la proposition
[9:11] d'amendement de madame Kelly
[9:13] Thorstad-Cullen et ensuite, on
[9:14] votera sur l'ordre du jour
[9:16] avant... avec ou sans
[9:17] amendement. Le premier vote
[9:19] serait sur la proposition
[9:21] d'amendement de madame Kelly
[9:22] Thorstad-Cullen.
[9:23] >> Okay, so do we have a mover
[9:24] and a seconder for the amendment
[9:25] of Councillor Cowan? -
[9:28] All in favour? All against?
[9:34] Okay.
[9:36] >> The question period is moved
[9:38] after 6.1, to become 6.2.
[9:52] >> Okay, so at this point I was
[9:55] prepared for question period.
[9:57] Now we move to --
[9:59] >> 6.1?
[10:00] >> Yes. - 6.1 Prévoir la tenue
[10:03] d'une assemblée publique de
[10:04] consultation spécifiquement
[10:05] dédiée au futur des espaces
[10:06] verts publics et privés,
[10:07] incluant la Forêt Fairview dans
[10:08] la zone MU2 et d'une assemblée
[10:09] subséquente sur le volume et la
[10:10] hauteur des édifices
[10:11] résidentiels qui seront permis
[10:12] dans la zone MU1, soit le
[10:17] stationnement du Fairview.
[10:37] -in zone Mu1.
[10:40] >> So, I move 6.1. Do I have a
[10:44] seconder?
[10:48] >> I will second, Bruno
[10:52] Tremblay, district six. The
[10:53] reason why I'm seconding is that
[10:56] I think it is worth having a
[10:59] debate and an open discussion on
[11:01] this particular theme. I would
[11:04] have preferred a question period
[11:06] ahead of time, but to me it
[11:08] makes no difference one way or
[11:09] another. From that point, I
[11:12] believe since you proposed the
[11:16] 6.1, you get to speak first.
[11:20] >> Okay, I've already pretty
[11:21] much spoken. But I will allow
[11:23] others to speak. I've given
[11:25] pretty much my elaboration.
[11:27] Other than just to reiterate the
[11:29] fact that the buck election that
[11:33] I succeeded in winning is
[11:34] because I voted to stop the
[11:37] downtown of the West Island, not
[11:39] stop, it but prevent the Polish
[11:40] ration of the downtown of the
[11:41] West Island and I committed to
[11:43] trying to protect the Fairview
[11:44] forest. Those are my two major
[11:48] planks in my platform. Neither
[11:50] of which have been spoken to or
[11:53] addressed in the public
[11:54] consultation to date. Which
[11:56] breaks my heart, which is why
[11:57] I'm doing this. The whole reason
[12:00] I ran, I'm not able to have
[12:03] addressed to the citizens. Which
[12:04] is nothing but a source of
[12:05] frustration, not just for me,
[12:07] but for you. And that's the
[12:09] important part. Democracy is the
[12:11] most important part. You should
[12:12] get to speak on these issues.
[12:14] Thank you.
[12:18] >> Councillor Cowan?
[12:25] Okay. Councillor Stork?
[12:27] >> I'm happy. I'm happy.
[12:30] Actually, contrary to what has
[12:31] been said, I would believe
[12:33] everyone here is very interested
[12:34] in saving as much green space as
[12:37] we can. Particularly in
[12:39] discussion of Mu2. However, the
[12:43] resolution as it is written, my
[12:44] personal opinion is that it
[12:46] would put us in some litigation
[12:47] that's not in the best interest
[12:49] of our citizens so we just want
[12:51] to time to be able to review the
[12:53] resolution to allow a public
[12:54] consultation that's within the
[12:55] limits that we are legally
[12:57] allowed to do within a city and
[12:58] I thought everyone had agreed
[12:59] that they wanted this public
[13:01] consultation so we just need to
[13:02] do it in the proper fashion to
[13:03] protect our citizens. So that is
[13:05] why it needs modification, but
[13:07] there are some points of
[13:09] resolution that would stand very
[13:10] true and hold firm and would be
[13:12] very good for us to have. But I
[13:13] need to do my due diligence and
[13:15] respect the legal rights of our
[13:18] citizens and not put us into any
[13:19] hot water. That is why you will
[13:22] see me voting against this
[13:24] resolution. But with a new one
[13:25] to come.
[13:27] >> Councillor Homan?
[13:31] >> Unfortunately, I cannot
[13:33] consciously vote in favour of
[13:34] passing this resolution.
[13:37] Unfortunately, I cannot
[13:40] consciously vote in favour of
[13:42] passing this resolution. There
[13:44] are too many statements that are
[13:46] questionable. I am not
[13:47] comfortable just accepting it as
[13:49] it is written. This resolution
[13:51] for me needs to be vetted by our
[13:53] legal department or
[13:55] administrations for its validity
[13:56] before it could possibly move
[13:58] forward. I also feel that
[13:59] everyone in this room,
[14:02] Councillor included, since we've
[14:04] never discussed at Council, I
[14:06] always find it very hard when
[14:08] the mayor tells me how I feel
[14:10] about this, yet has never asked
[14:12] me. So we will leave this as a
[14:14] separate thing. He said it again
[14:15] in his opening remarks, we never
[14:18] had a conversation, I think we
[14:20] want to hear what everyone wants
[14:22] to say but I'm very concerned
[14:23] about possible litigation, there
[14:24] are other things that need to be
[14:26] looked at. We have Councillor
[14:29] need to be responsible for the
[14:30] whole city as well as the fiscal
[14:33] soundness of the city. Decisions
[14:35] need to be made based on facts.
[14:37] And not just on passion. I
[14:39] appreciate everyone's passion
[14:40] and their commitment to this,
[14:42] but we are also committed to
[14:43] ensuring that the City is making
[14:45] the best decisions based on
[14:47] facts. So that is why I can't
[14:49] possibly look at it. I am not
[14:50] and have never been against
[14:52] organizing by council the
[14:54] administration and the mayor a
[14:56] consultation, even though it's
[14:58] been stated differently this
[14:59] evening, regarding some of the
[15:01] concerns that our citizens have
[15:02] about these issues. I think
[15:03] we've heard everyone's concerns
[15:05] for many years now, and I do
[15:06] think that we have to have a
[15:08] consultation. But it has to be
[15:09] done with the idea that we are
[15:11] not overstepping, know that we
[15:14] are in court with the owners of
[15:16] this building, we have to think
[15:17] about that also. So that's why I
[15:19] could not vote for or move this
[15:22] resolution forward at this
[15:23] moment.
[15:24] >> Councillor Bissonnette?
[15:30] >> I will vote against this
[15:32] resolution. And I will give you
[15:34] the reasons why. Because first
[15:35] of all, the manner in which this
[15:37] meeting was convened, as well as
[15:40] the request in 6.1. Number, one
[15:43] there's a lack of transparency,,
[15:50] and also respect for council by
[15:52] the mayor was. In the manner in
[15:55] which this meeting was convened.
[15:56] I've served under the three --
[15:59] and have never witnessed such
[16:01] behaviour. We held a caucus
[16:03] meeting at 4:00 list Tuesday
[16:06] till 8:15. We hold one every
[16:09] Tuesday from four till about
[16:11] 8:00. So there is no surprise.
[16:14] And the mayor never once
[16:15] mentioned any thing pertaining
[16:17] to this special meeting. I was
[16:21] made aware of this special
[16:23] meeting last Thursday, October
[16:25] the 10th, when a public security
[16:28] employee delivered an antelope
[16:29] to my home. Administration stuff
[16:32] being on summer hours we -- the
[16:39] Adams and 6.1 should have been
[16:41] discussed in Council. That's why
[16:43] they're not in Council, in
[16:46] caucus. The Mayor's -- that's
[16:50] why we have a caucus is to
[16:54] discuss that we have the
[16:55] information, do we need more
[16:56] information, what can we, do and
[16:58] then once we have our act
[16:59] together then you can start
[17:02] consulting and finding out what
[17:03] you can do. But when you start
[17:05] up with a white sheet of paper,
[17:07] the consulting is basically --
[17:10] we had consulting several years
[17:12] ago, and the things that are
[17:13] coming back now are very similar
[17:16] than what we had before. So,
[17:19] that's number one. Number two,
[17:21] there is no urgency that
[17:23] required convening this special
[17:25] meeting for zones MU1 and MU2.
[17:30] Both zones are already in the
[17:34] ICB -- I never get it straight.
[17:36] They're both frozen. The zones
[17:38] also in the CMM RCI. En milieu
[17:45] terrestre, un milieu humide.
[17:46] The redevelopment of zone MU1
[17:48] has not been discussed in
[17:50] caucus, nor in any one of our
[17:53] RCI meetings. Zero discussion.
[17:57] The architectural parameters
[17:59] pertaining to the height and
[18:00] size of the residential
[18:02] buildings, as well as the other
[18:04] potential parameters in the
[18:05] zoning bylaw four zone MU1 will
[18:08] it be discussed during our RCI
[18:11] meetings. Number three, in view
[18:14] of the importance and the public
[18:16] awareness surrounding these two
[18:17] zones, I do not agree that a
[18:19] public consultation must be in
[18:21] the immediate vicinity of
[18:23] district six. But rather in the
[18:25] most practical location, it must
[18:27] be open to all capital A L L.
[18:32] Pointe-Claire citizens and
[18:34] taxpayers. Don't forget the
[18:35] taxpayers who don't live here.
[18:37] Number four, in addition -- to
[18:42] provide notice of any public
[18:45] consultation meetings by -- it
[18:47] must also apply to all
[18:49] Pointe-Claire residents and
[18:51] taxpayers and not only to
[18:52] district six citizens residing
[18:55] near to highway 40. I agree that
[18:57] all Pointe-Claire residents and
[18:59] taxpayers must have the
[19:00] opportunity to express their
[19:02] views and their input collected
[19:03] and considered. I agree on that
[19:06] one. I'm going to read the
[19:11] province of Québec citizens Act
[19:15] 52. We'll start off by saying
[19:17] that
[20:21] - Et soumet au conseil tout
[20:24] projet qu'ils croient nécessaire
[20:25] ou utile.
[20:30] >> Is there any questions on the
[20:32] translation? Because I didn't
[20:33] translate it all and it's not in
[20:35] English. You can see the mayor
[20:38] has considerable power and
[20:41] influence as a chief executive
[20:42] of the city. The president of CN
[20:47] are has the power to do things
[20:50] but, of any other major
[20:52] corporation. And that goes for
[20:53] the city. I have never heard the
[20:57] mayor make a direct request to
[21:00] the administration to have zones
[21:03] that MU1 and MU2 then added to
[21:07] the agenda for discussion at our
[21:10] weekly caucus meetings or to any
[21:12] of the icy be working sessions.
[21:16] And the direct request is
[21:21] - Madame Verdon, voudrait vous
[21:23] mettre lui... l'item
[21:25] (---)
[21:26] sur l'agenda de lundi prochain?
[21:32] He has never made that request,
[21:33] and I think I missed one public
[21:36] meeting, not the less, won the
[21:37] previous one. And I rarely miss
[21:39] a meeting or a caucus. I never
[21:41] missed a caucus. So it's not
[21:45] just I can't and I don't know
[21:46] how to do it. He has the power,
[21:47] he has the authority, and if he
[21:50] feels and believes it's this
[21:51] urgent that it has to be
[21:52] tonight, it can certainly be
[21:54] made the request that it
[21:55] should've been on the agenda so
[21:57] we could've discussed it and
[21:58] said, okay, now what processes,
[22:01] and what are the options?
[22:05] Example, you can buy it if
[22:06] somebody wants to sell it. It's
[22:07] an option. You can expropriate.
[22:10] What has to be done so that at
[22:12] least you have the basic
[22:13] information of where you are
[22:15] going? And then decide the
[22:16] destination before you start off
[22:19] with. We will go to go back or
[22:22] something. He has the authority
[22:25] to supervise, investigate,
[22:28] control all departments as well
[22:29] as the municipal employees. He
[22:31] cannot blame Council because he
[22:33] did not assume his
[22:35] responsibilities, and this is
[22:36] not just a -- contest. Council
[22:40] is not perfect, the mayor's not
[22:42] perfect, nobody is perfect. But
[22:45] he cannot constantly blame
[22:48] Council for things that are not
[22:50] happening. He has got to put out
[22:52] and he's got to show me
[22:54] leadership and running the city.
[22:57] A lot has been said about zone
[23:00] two. But very little has been
[23:02] said about the potential cost to
[23:04] Pointe-Claire residents and
[23:06] taxpayers. It's not free. But
[23:09] nobody talks about the cost. We
[23:12] talk about the environmental
[23:13] benefit we. I understand it, I
[23:16] agree with that. But it is owned
[23:20] by a corporation who is the
[23:23] owner. It's your house, you own
[23:24] and,
[23:31] -- has opened up doors for
[23:34] possibilities but there's also
[23:37] restrictions, and is wrapping up
[23:42] on that, I think she's going to
[23:44] a seminar in two weeks to get
[23:45] more information on how that law
[23:47] can be applied. But we are not
[23:49] in a position to start talking
[23:51] about something when you don't
[23:52] even know what the details are.
[23:54] And these things are not just
[23:56] black and white. You have to
[24:00] understand that there are
[24:01] different ways of going about
[24:02] things. At least you have
[24:04] somebody here on board knowing
[24:08] the information. I'm therefore
[24:12] asking the city manager to
[24:15] initiate the process in order to
[24:18] obtain a complete biological
[24:21] characterization of new MU2.
[24:23] This study will provide the
[24:25] ecological value, which is a
[24:28] very important component in
[24:30] establishing the overall value
[24:31] of the land site. Where is it,
[24:35] what is it? We list all of the
[24:39] different things that are there.
[24:40] But it has to be valued by a
[24:43] professional that looks at it
[24:44] and prepares its biological
[24:47] characterization of MU2. So I'm
[24:49] asking her to start the process
[24:51] and get it going. That's a
[24:53] direct request. Okay? I have
[24:55] somebody that votes against it
[24:57] or doesn't want to do, it, fine.
[24:59] But that's my request, is to do
[25:01] it. That's what the mayor can
[25:05] do. The last thing, and I won't
[25:08] bore you with this, is there
[25:09] could be a significant financial
[25:11] impact. I said there could be an
[25:13] impact. All Pointe-Claire
[25:18] residents and taxpayers
[25:20] requiring a citywide referendum
[25:22] be held in order to really know
[25:24] what all of the people, Al, want
[25:29] prior to making any one final
[25:32] decision regarding zone MU2.
[25:35] It's not a decision of district
[25:37] six people are people living
[25:38] next door. This is a major role
[25:42] that a valuation -- and I will
[25:46] give you a small example of the
[25:49] transaction that took place at
[25:50] the marketplace in the last two
[25:53] years. They have two or three
[25:56] buildings in Pointe-Claire will.
[26:02] They paid $30 million.20 32 by
[26:07] 11 acres and 11 hectares did you
[26:12] buy the Technoparc in
[26:14] Saint-Laurent. The land there is
[26:16] similar, has a lot of the same
[26:18] features as MU2 we. It has a REM
[26:22] station, it's not located as
[26:23] close as this one. But it has
[26:26] and is part of the Technoparc.
[26:29] People opposed it, the president
[26:31] of the tech company got
[26:33] involved, and they came back and
[26:34] they said to the City of
[26:38] Montréal, we will buy it back at
[26:41] the same price that we paid for
[26:43] it. They are not making any
[26:46] money, they paid 30, they would
[26:50] sell it to them for the same
[26:51] price. For that and the
[26:54] establishment, they wanted a
[26:55] head office and they wanted a
[26:56] major plant. So that's what they
[26:59] did. But if you divide 30
[27:02] million by 11, you're pretty
[27:04] close to three billion dollars
[27:06] per hectare. And you to have 23
[27:11] hectares. 23, 4:24? 24 hectares.
[27:16] So 24 times three. That's a very
[27:19] quick and dirty ballpark.
[27:21] Because that is a market
[27:23] transaction that took place, and
[27:27] all I'm saying is I'm giving you
[27:29] the facts, it was in the
[27:30] Gazette, it's published, I'm not
[27:32] inventing anything here. I'm
[27:34] just saying that we are not
[27:36] talking 1000 or $2,000. We are
[27:38] talking significant investment.
[27:40] But we have to know where we're
[27:42] going and we have to know what
[27:43] options that we have. So thank,
[27:46] you merci. Merci.
[28:00] -- Some might call that a point
[28:01] of order. First of all, it's 43
[28:04] acres, I believe. So it's 43
[28:09] acres. Councillor Bissonnette,
[28:13] go ahead.
[28:15] >> For Pointe-Claire, in 2005,
[28:18] it was only studying the trees.
[28:22] It stipulates 23. It gives you
[28:25] the boundaries. The service
[28:27] road, Brunswick, it used to be
[28:29] Harvey, now it's Fairview and
[28:31] the other side. And that's
[28:34] what's in the study for the City
[28:35] of Pointe-Claire. Thank you.
[28:38] >> Okay, when we speak in
[28:42] caucus, it's presumably
[28:44] confidential. A lot of what we
[28:46] say doesn't get out. When
[28:50] there's seven people after the
[28:51] fact that say what was spoken
[28:52] behind closed doors to one, it's
[28:56] pretty hard to fight that. So
[29:01] what goes on in front of you is
[29:04] what you should really believe.
[29:07] What you're being told about
[29:08] what goes on behind closed
[29:09] doors, you don't know if that's
[29:10] true or not and don't ever
[29:11] believe it. But suffice it to
[29:13] say that in the time that we've
[29:17] been in operation, we have
[29:20] spoken about the Fairview forest
[29:22] many, many times. If you think
[29:25] we haven't addressed it, that is
[29:28] complete dishonesty. Councillor
[29:31] Tremblay has on numerous
[29:33] occasions, and I'm divulging
[29:35] caucus confidentiality, asked
[29:37] each one of the councillors
[29:38] pigment to saving the forest.
[29:40] Not one of them has. That is
[29:43] true. Councillor we, I
[29:47] apologize. I don't recall that.
[29:49] On every occasion that he's done
[29:52] that, the book of Council has
[29:54] been not supportive at all. Let
[29:58] me tell you what the powers of
[29:59] the mayor. If you fire someone,
[30:02] or you use a Pete O, one month
[30:04] later that can be overturned. My
[30:07] veto can be overturned at the
[30:09] next meeting by Council, as can
[30:14] -- so your power if the councils
[30:16] against you is your ineffective
[30:18] and you become like crying wolf.
[30:19] You are using it over no version
[30:21] which is why don't you know
[30:22] everything even though I get
[30:23] overruled all the time. So, it
[30:27] sounds like I have all kinds of
[30:30] power but that power gets
[30:31] overturned one month after I
[30:32] used it. And that's what happens
[30:34] to a man. Councillor, would you
[30:41] like to proceed with the
[30:42] statement?
[30:44] - Malheureusement, en raison du
[30:46] cours de cette résolution, je ne
[30:47] peux pas voter en faveur de son
[30:49] adoption. Cette résolution n'a
[30:51] manifestement pas été rédigé ni
[30:53] examiné par notre administration
[30:57] ou
[30:58] (inaudible)
[30:59] . Il s'agit d'un méli-mélo de
[31:00] penser mal structurée et de
[31:01] phrases toutes faites et, en
[31:02] toute honnêteté, d'un acte de
[31:04] pouvoir inutile et abusif qui a
[31:06] fait perdre du temps au conseil
[31:08] et à l'administration,
[31:10] repoussant d'autres dossiers.
[31:13] Cependant, je serai plus
[31:15] qu'heureux d'avoir une
[31:16] discussion avec le Conseil, le
[31:20] maire et l'administration sur la
[31:27] planification d'une consultation
[31:29] concernant l'acquisition de
[31:30] propres idées privées et la
[31:31] manière dont les citoyennes et
[31:32] citoyens souhaiteraient les voir
[31:33] développer. Et quand je dis
[31:35] développer, je ne parle pas des
[31:37] bâtiments, mais je parle de la
[31:38] façon qu'on va aménager, que ce
[31:40] soit une forêt, un parc, etc..
[31:43] Cependant, oups, désolé, depuis
[31:46] l'adoption du Règlement et le
[31:49] début du processus de
[31:51] consultation, nous avons eu de
[31:53] nombreuses discussions. Et les
[31:55] thèmes des consultation était
[31:59] vaguement esquissé et développer
[32:00] au fur et à mesure des
[32:02] consultations en fonction de
[32:03] l'orientation donnée par les
[32:05] citoyens. Le conseil, y compris
[32:07] le maire, a été mis au courant
[32:08] des sujets à venir et a disposé
[32:12] du temps et de l'espace pour
[32:14] discuter de ces préoccupations.
[32:16] Tous les sujets ont fait l'objet
[32:17] d'un accord unanime une fois
[32:20] présentée. Comme nous n'avons
[32:22] pas assisté aux consultations,
[32:26] les observations ne peuvent se
[32:27] fonder que sur ce que j'ai lu ou
[32:29] ce qu'on m'a dit. De toute
[32:31] évidence, certaines personnes
[32:32] n'étaient pas satisfaites que le
[32:33] débat sur l'environnement tourne
[32:34] autour des espaces verts publics
[32:36] et des espaces citoyens privés
[32:38] et souhaitait élargir la
[32:41] discussion à ce que l'on appelle
[32:44] la
[32:46] -
[32:47] -. Bien qu'il faut prévoir un
[32:49] temps où un espace pour discuter
[32:50] de ce terrain, nous devons
[32:56] prévoir
[32:57] (---)
[32:58] l'organisation d'une
[32:59] consultation sur l'aménagement
[33:00] de ce terrain n'aurait aucun
[33:02] sens si nous n'avions pas
[33:03] l'intention de l'acquérir. En
[33:06] outre, si le maire a mentionné
[33:07] en consultation supplémentaire
[33:09] lors de réunions publiques, il
[33:11] n'a jamais ajouté ce sujet à
[33:14] l'ordre du jour d'un caucus. En
[33:17] ce qui concerne le MU1, je
[33:23] rappellerai au public que le
[33:24] conseiller sur le suggestion du
[33:26] maire d'utiliser le modèle de
[33:28] Kirkland, d'essayer d'organiser
[33:30] une consultation à laquelle le
[33:31] maire s'est ensuite imposé.
[33:32] Compte tenu des problèmes
[33:33] juridiques qui nous opposent
[33:34] actuellement, aux propriétés du,
[33:37] terrain je ne pense pas que ce
[33:38] soit judicieux de voter sur un
[33:42] document rédigé par un nom
[33:44] professionnel plutôt que par
[33:45] notre personnel juridique qui
[33:47] pourrait compromettre l'issue du
[33:50] litige.
[33:54] >> Unfortunately due to the
[33:55] content of this resolution, I
[33:57] cannot vote in favour of passing
[33:58] it. This resolution was not that
[34:01] it by our legal department.
[34:02] There's a hodgepodge of probably
[34:04] structured thoughts and
[34:06] catchphrases and in all
[34:07] unnecessary -- that is wasted
[34:09] the Council and the I
[34:11] ministration's time pushing
[34:12] other falls back. I would,
[34:14] however, be more than happy to
[34:15] have a discussion with Council,
[34:17] the, Mayor and the
[34:18] administration about planning or
[34:19] consultation regarding the
[34:20] acquisition of privately owned
[34:22] properties and how that citizens
[34:23] would like to see them
[34:24] developed. And as I said in
[34:26] French, when I say developed,
[34:27] I'm not talking about buildings,
[34:29] I'm just talking about what we
[34:30] would do with the property.
[34:32] Whether it be putting in a
[34:33] forest, a park, et cetera. And
[34:35] when I talk about private
[34:36] property, it can be waterfront
[34:39] property, it can be a force
[34:40] that's already in place, it can
[34:42] be land that is having a
[34:47] building falling down on it that
[34:49] we want to redevelop. Since
[34:51] placing the bylaw and beginning
[34:52] the consultation process, we've
[34:54] had many discussions. The topics
[34:55] of the consultations were
[34:56] loosely sketched out and
[34:58] developed as they did the
[35:00] consultations depending on the
[35:01] direction citizens brought us.
[35:02] The council, including the
[35:04] mayor, were made privy to
[35:05] upcoming topics and there was
[35:06] time and place given to discuss
[35:07] any concerns. All topics were
[35:10] unanimously agreed upon once
[35:12] presented. As we did not attend
[35:13] the consultations, my
[35:15] observations can only be made
[35:16] via what I read or was told.
[35:18] Evidently, some people were not
[35:20] happy about the environmental
[35:21] discussion revolving around
[35:25] public green spaces or privately
[35:27] owned citizen spaces, and wanted
[35:29] to brought in the discussion to
[35:31] include what is known as the
[35:32] Fairview forest. Well there
[35:33] should be a time and space
[35:34] opened up to discuss that land,
[35:36] it must begin with whether or
[35:37] not we plan to acquire right and
[35:39] how we plan to do so. Hosting a
[35:42] consultation regarding the
[35:43] planning of said land would make
[35:44] no sense unless we are to
[35:46] acquire it. Furthermore, well
[35:47] the mayor has made mention of an
[35:49] extra consultation during public
[35:51] meetings, he has never added
[35:52] this topic to be seen on a
[35:55] caucus agenda for discussion. As
[35:59] for what MU1, I will remind the
[36:01] public that Council based on the
[36:02] mayor's suggestions of using the
[36:04] Kirkland model did try to
[36:05] organize a consultation, which
[36:06] the Mayor than opposed. Given
[36:08] our current legal issues with
[36:09] the owner of the property, I do
[36:10] not think it's wise to vote on
[36:12] anything drafted by a non
[36:14] professional, rather than our
[36:15] legal stuff that could endanger
[36:17] the outcome of the litigation.
[36:20] >> Councillor crews know?
[36:27] - Je vais lire quelques lignes
[36:29] en français et puis essayer de
[36:31] traduire le mieux que je peux.
[36:34] C'est quelques lignes que je
[36:35] vais lire et je m'oppose à la
[36:38] résolution devant nous ce soir.
[36:40] Je n'ai rien à voir avec le
[36:42] texte, les intentions de
[36:44] celui-ci.
[37:02] Écrit quand monsieur Lemaire
[37:04] avec...
[37:06] (bruit)
[37:07] Avec... écrit par Monsieur le
[37:12] maires sans, au préalable,
[37:14] consulter l'administration et le
[37:15] conseil.
[37:33] >> And for most of the contents.
[37:39] Le processus est où la méthode
[37:41] utilisée par monsieur le maire
[37:42] est un affront envers les
[37:44] citoyens de Pointe-Claire et
[37:45] j'espère que le conseil va
[37:46] unanimement dénoncer le geste
[37:47] sans scrupules de Monsieur le
[37:49] Maire.
[37:51] >> The process used by Mr. Mayor
[37:56] it is an offensive towards
[38:01] Pointe-Claire citizens. And I
[38:03] hope that my colleagues well
[38:10] denounce this unanimously. La
[38:17] chose honorable à faire,
[38:18] Monsieur le Maire, ce serait de
[38:19] retirer le dépôt de cette
[38:20] résolution immédiatement.
[38:24] >> The Honourable thing to do,
[38:25] Mister Mayor, would be to pull
[38:27] out this resolution. Right now.
[38:34] Tant que le processus de
[38:35] consultation ne sera pas mieux
[38:37] encadré, je m'opposerai à toute
[38:39] proposition de consultation,
[38:40] quels qu'ils soient.
[38:48] Nous avons besoin de beaucoup
[38:49] d'ouvrage pour encadrer les
[38:50] consultations, période de
[38:51] renseignements et d'information.
[38:57] >> The consultation process
[38:59] right now needs to be frame and
[39:04] organized, because it's a dart
[39:11] on the wall. It doesn't make
[39:15] sense the way we are proceeding.
[39:16] We need to have the frame of
[39:21] reference to do proper
[39:22] consultations.
[39:28] Je serai disponible pour
[39:30] répondre à vos questions après
[39:31] l'Assemblée. Merci, Monsieur le
[39:32] Maître, de m'avoir donné
[39:33] l'opportunité de m'exprimer à ce
[39:34] sujet.
[39:35] >> Councillor Cowan? Councillor
[39:37] Stork, you would like to -- it's
[39:40] unfortunate that you find a lot
[39:41] of these items funny, Mister
[39:43] Mayor. This is not a funny
[39:45] situation. I didn't want to go
[39:47] into the muck.
[39:48] >> Excuse me, Councillor Stork?
[39:51] >> You heard exactly what I
[39:52] said. I do want to go into the
[39:55] -- muck
[39:56] >> Councillor Stork?
[39:57] >> Could you repeat what you
[39:58] just said? I find it a little
[40:00] surprising.
[40:03] >> It's a bit all that you're
[40:04] laughing during this.
[40:05] >> Am I laughing? I'm not
[40:07] laughing, Councillor. Stuart
[40:08] you're not here to reprimand
[40:09] other peoples behaviour, that is
[40:10] not your role. Councillor Stork
[40:16] -- the chair of this meeting
[40:18] will decide on the quorum. It is
[40:20] the chair's job to decide on
[40:22] decorum, not yours. So please
[40:25] don't overstepped your bounds.
[40:26] Now proceed with your statement
[40:28] please, sir.
[40:29] >> Very simple. Overstepping of
[40:31] bounds. I wasn't going to go
[40:32] into the muck, but at least six
[40:34] lies in the opening statement.
[40:36] At least six. You will go and
[40:38] say check the facts, look at the
[40:40] screens. Okay, I called him out
[40:42] before and there was at least
[40:43] six. And I'm truly getting tired
[40:47] of this do nothing, clean
[40:50] council, play the victim. And I
[40:51] think that starting to go
[40:52] around. Anyhow, this is what I
[40:54] want to say. Bonjour à tous. Je
[41:01] prends l'intérêt de cette
[41:02] occasion pour parler non
[41:03] seulement de la résolution
[41:04] présentée aujourd'hui, mais
[41:05] également des événements
[41:06] récents. Je voudrais d'abord
[41:07] dire que je pense, je peux
[41:10] ressentir l'angoisse dans cette
[41:11] salle en ce moment. C'est la
[41:13] même angoisse que je ressens
[41:15] personnellement depuis un
[41:16] certain temps maintenant. Cela
[41:20] étant dit, nous devons tous
[41:21] traverser ensemble ce temps
[41:23] troublé et déroutant. Lorsque
[41:27] les courriels ont commencé à
[41:29] arriver, j'ai eu un provenant du
[41:32] citoyen du district sept. Je
[41:34] suis sûr qu'elle regarde cette
[41:36] réunion maintenant, mais elle
[41:37] est aussi dans la Chambre et je
[41:38] vous remercie d'avoir envoyé ce
[41:39] courriel. Nous nous sommes
[41:42] rencontrés peu de temps après et
[41:43] avons eu une conversation
[41:45] constructive pendant que je
[41:46] répondais à toutes les questions
[41:47] le mieux que je pouvais. Et
[41:51] d'avoir clarifié une grande
[41:52] partie des informations qu'elle
[41:55] recevait. Avant de partir, je
[41:57] lui ai fait une promesse. La
[42:00] promesse que je ferai de mon
[42:01] mieux pour jeter les bases d'une
[42:02] solution définitive à la
[42:08] question de la forêt Fairview.
[42:11] Je suis également vraiment
[42:13] bouleversée par l'inaction
[42:14] répétées de notre mère. Après de
[42:17] nombreuses demandes au cours des
[42:18] deux dernières années, nos
[42:20] demandes à son administration,
[42:22] celle qui relève de lui,
[42:26] d'élaborer un plan d', avoir
[42:28] toutes les informations
[42:30] pertinentes pour que le conseil
[42:31] puisse les examiner et, plus
[42:33] important, partager avec tous
[42:35] les résidents de Pointe-Claire.
[42:38] Un seul membre du conseil n'a
[42:39] pas la capacité de faire une
[42:41] telle demande. Seul le maire le
[42:44] peu. Le pouvoir du Conseil
[42:46] réside dans son ombre. Le
[42:47] pouvoir du conseil, si la
[42:49] majorité d'entre eux d'accord,
[42:51] peut créer une résolution qui,
[42:52] si elle est adoptée,
[42:55] l'administration est obligé de
[42:56] la suivre. Ainsi, la
[43:03] (---)
[43:04] de l'inaction du maire et ma
[43:05] rencontre avec une citoyenne
[43:06] locale m'a incité à prendre les
[43:08] choses en main et d'informer mes
[43:10] collègues conseillers que je
[43:12] prépare une résolution qui
[43:13] serait votée lors de la séance
[43:14] de l'assemblée publique de
[43:16] novembre.
[43:18] >> Exactly what I said last
[43:20] council meeting. La réalisation
[43:22] que je présenterai cela
[43:25] (inaudible)
[43:26] . Ils abordent des éléments clés
[43:27] tels que la valeur de la forêt
[43:28] Fairview. Notre situation je
[43:30] vais dire qu'en matière
[43:32] d'appropriation. Les chances que
[43:34] l'appropriation soit accepté par
[43:35] le CMM. Pour nous, avoir cette
[43:41] dette supplémentaire en tant que
[43:43] municipalité, une évaluation
[43:44] indépendante de la forêt
[43:45] elle-même ainsi qu'une étude sur
[43:47] l'effet de l'habitat naturel sur
[43:48] la santé générale entre autres.
[43:50] Une fois que cette information a
[43:52] été compilée, nous partageons
[43:53] ensuite cette information avec
[43:54] tous les citoyens de
[43:55] Pointe-Claire. Dans un forum
[43:58] public avec des séances de
[44:00] questions et réponses au cours
[44:02] desquelles les informations
[44:04] factuelles ont été fournis tel
[44:07] que l'actuel éléphant dans la
[44:08] pièce qui est combien ça nous
[44:09] coûterait si on pouvait
[44:10] l'exproprier?
[44:11] >> Elephant in the room.
[44:15] Quelle sera l'augmentation
[44:16] annuelle des taxes aux
[44:17] fonctionnaires au cours des 25
[44:19] prochaines années? Est-ce que ça
[44:21] représente 400 dollars, 500
[44:22] dollars, 600 dollars? Par année
[44:24] de plus que les augmentations
[44:27] normales pour les 25 prochaines
[44:29] années? C'est une des questions
[44:30] clés auxquelles il faut
[44:33] répondre. Je souhaite également
[44:37] qu'une telle discussion
[44:39] nécessiterait, comme l'a dit
[44:40] monsieur Bissonnette, référant à
[44:41] l'échelle de la ville, car il ne
[44:42] s'agit pas d'un achat de 25000
[44:43] dollars pour une table de
[44:46] ping-pong en béton. Il s'agit
[44:48] d'un achat compris entre 50 et
[44:50] 175 millions de dollars. Il
[44:53] faudrait donc que tous les
[44:54] citoyens aient la possibilité de
[44:56] faire entendre leur voix. C'est
[44:58] ça, la démocratie. En référence
[45:00] à la résolution proposée devant
[45:02] moi en ce moment, cette
[45:04] résolution n'est rien d'autre
[45:07] qu'une
[45:08] (---)
[45:09] politique. Elle est ciblée,
[45:10] criblé de déclaration dont
[45:11] l'exactitude doit être vérifié
[45:13] et n'a pas de voie à suivre
[45:15] clair. Cela a, tandis je
[45:20] n'attendrai pas cette,
[45:21] résolution je travaillerai avec
[45:22] diligence avec mes collègues
[45:23] conseillers et le maire, s'il
[45:24] choisit de faire partie de la
[45:26] résolution.
[45:28] >> Hello to all. I'd like to
[45:30] take this opportunity to not
[45:32] only speak about the resolution
[45:33] being presented today, but also
[45:35] that recent events. I would
[45:36] first like to say that I can
[45:38] truly feel the angled in this
[45:40] room right now. It is the same
[45:41] things that I'm personally
[45:42] feeling for sometime now on this
[45:45] issue, and everything in
[45:46] general. That being said, we all
[45:48] need to navigate through these
[45:50] troubled and confusing times
[45:51] together. When emails began
[45:53] coming and recently about the
[45:55] forest, I read one from a
[45:57] citizen in district seven, my
[45:58] district. I'm sure she is
[46:00] watching this meeting right now.
[46:02] And I think she is actually in
[46:04] this room. We met shortly
[46:06] thereafter and had a
[46:07] constructive conversation, as I
[46:09] answered all of your questions
[46:10] to the best of my ability. We
[46:12] thanked each other there for
[46:14] clarifying a lot of the
[46:15] information we were receiving.
[46:17] It was really and truly
[46:19] beneficial. Before I left, I
[46:20] made her a promise. A promise
[46:22] that I would do the best of my
[46:24] ability lay the groundwork to
[46:25] finally address an issue of the
[46:28] Fairview forest. I am also truly
[46:31] upset by the repeated inactions
[46:33] of our mayor after numerous
[46:34] requests over the last two years
[46:36] to instruct his administration,
[46:38] the one that reports to him as a
[46:41] mayor's responsibility, to put
[46:43] together a plan that addresses
[46:44] all relevant information for
[46:46] Council to review, and more
[46:48] importantly, to be shared with
[46:50] all of the residents of
[46:51] Pointe-Claire. A single member
[46:53] of Council does not have the
[46:55] ability to make such a request
[46:57] as Councillor Bissonnette
[46:58] mentioned. Only the mayor does.
[47:00] The power of Council lies in its
[47:03] numbers. The power of Council,
[47:05] if a majority of them agree, can
[47:06] create a resolution. That is our
[47:09] only way of pushing items
[47:11] through our administration. If
[47:12] we pass a resolution, the
[47:15] administration is obliged to
[47:16] follow. We do not have single
[47:19] power. This, the combination of
[47:21] both the mayors inactions and my
[47:23] meeting with a local citizen
[47:25] prompted me to take charge and
[47:26] advise my fellow councillors
[47:28] awhile back that I will be
[47:29] putting out resolution to be
[47:30] voted upon at the November
[47:32] public meeting. Transparent, I
[47:35] said it last time. And all of a
[47:37] sudden this pops out of the blue
[47:38] on a special meeting. The
[47:41] resolution that I will be
[47:42] presenting will be all
[47:44] encompassing. It will address
[47:45] key items such as the value of
[47:47] the Fairview forest. Our legal
[47:49] position in terms of
[47:50] expropriation. The chances at
[47:53] expropriation would be accepted
[47:54] by the CMM. Can we absorb this
[47:56] additional debt as a
[47:58] municipality? At the average
[48:00] value we couldn't, we have to
[48:01] look for some other methodology
[48:03] or going to the provincial
[48:04] government and asking them what
[48:05] we can do. An independent
[48:07] assessment of the forest itself,
[48:10] as well as other sources of
[48:12] revenue if we can't pay it all
[48:13] by ourselves. Who can we go
[48:14] reach out to? None of that has
[48:16] been done. As well as a study on
[48:18] the effect of natural habitats
[48:19] on ones general health amongst
[48:22] other items that we need to
[48:24] research and bring together and
[48:26] compile. Once this information
[48:28] is compiled, then we share this
[48:31] information with all of the
[48:32] citizens of Pointe-Claire, in a
[48:33] public forum with Q&A sessions
[48:35] in which factual information has
[48:37] been provided, such as the
[48:40] current elephant in the room,
[48:42] which we never touch upon and
[48:44] which our mayor never touched
[48:45] upon but is a critical element.
[48:47] How much will it cost? If we can
[48:52] expropriate, what will be the
[48:53] yearly increase in property
[48:55] taxes for the next 25 years?
[48:56] Will it be 400? 500? 600? I
[48:59] don't know. I've made my own
[49:01] assessments and I've shared
[49:02] them. But we need this from an
[49:04] independent person. That is a
[49:06] key evil -- for the season
[49:08] spyware of. So what is it? Four,
[49:12] five, six, two, eight? Beyond
[49:14] our normal tax increases, this
[49:16] is one of the key questions that
[49:18] needs and must be addressed. I
[49:20] also support such a decision
[49:21] that would require City-wide
[49:23] referendums, as this is not a
[49:25] 25,000 dollar purchase for a
[49:27] concrete ping-pong table. This
[49:29] is a purchase between 50 and 100
[49:31] $75 million. That will be
[49:35] required that all citizens have
[49:36] the ability for their voice to
[49:37] be heard. That is democracy. In
[49:40] reference to this proposed
[49:41] resolution in front of me right
[49:42] now, this resolution is nothing
[49:44] but political posturing. It is
[49:47] riddled with statements that
[49:48] need to be vetted for accuracy,
[49:50] the glee has to be vetted and
[49:51] has no clear path forward. What
[49:53] I just told you is what I
[49:55] believe is the clear path
[49:56] forward. We need to discuss, and
[49:58] we need to discuss with
[50:00] information in hand, we need to
[50:01] discuss with all of the facts
[50:02] and then together we can have
[50:04] open ends reminded discussions.
[50:07] We need to hear from the
[50:08] citizens. There is no question
[50:10] about, it no question about it.
[50:12] That being said, I will not
[50:15] support this resolution, but
[50:17] will be working diligently with
[50:19] fellow councillors and the mayor
[50:20] if you chooses to be part of the
[50:21] solution. Thank you.
[50:23] >> Councillor Cowan?
[50:27] >> Thank you. I don't quite
[50:29] understand why the mayor is
[50:30] interested in public
[50:31] consultations. He made it very
[50:32] clear at the beginning in his
[50:34] open comments he's already made
[50:35] up his mind. So if he's already
[50:37] made up his mind, what does he
[50:38] need to hear from you? It's
[50:42] pretty clear that the public
[50:46] consultations, the way they're
[50:47] going to be structured if staff
[50:48] is involved, they have to
[50:50] provide you with factual
[50:52] information. It can be a
[50:53] political meeting, it's got to
[50:55] be you are given factual
[50:56] information, you think about it,
[50:58] you provide your comments based
[51:00] on facts. That doesn't seem to
[51:01] be what the mayor has in mind.
[51:04] It is apparent to me that Mayor
[51:06] Thomas much prefers to freestyle
[51:08] in opposition, and to accept the
[51:10] heavy responsibility of
[51:11] governing. Even this resolution,
[51:13] he seems to be proposing, he is
[51:15] in reality just a gesture
[51:17] designed to lend him back in the
[51:19] comparable and familiar
[51:20] territory of opposition,
[51:21] responsible for nothing but
[51:23] complaining. In the Facebook
[51:25] post, and his opening remarks
[51:27] where he explains his decision
[51:29] to call the special meeting, he
[51:31] lists the many options Council
[51:32] has in response to his political
[51:34] temper tantrum. Not one of them
[51:36] was to accept the resolution he
[51:39] drafted. So, Mayor Thomas has
[51:42] abused his power to call a
[51:43] special meeting of Council so
[51:44] that he can force a vote on a
[51:46] resolution he is counting on
[51:48] will fail. In what world does
[51:50] that make any sense at all? Dans
[51:56] le même poste sur Facebook, le
[51:58] maire se plaint une fois de plus
[51:59] de n'avoir que très peu de
[52:01] pouvoir lors de sa sale voix au
[52:02] sein du conseil et le pouvoir de
[52:04] convoquer des réunions
[52:05] extraordinaires selon ses
[52:07] caprices. C'est illogique que la
[52:10] loi soigneusement élaborés qui
[52:12] sutures le gouvernement
[52:13] municipal dans notre province
[52:15] crée un maire essentiellement
[52:17] dépourvu de pouvoirs. Comment
[52:19] ça? C'est absurde! Le maire
[52:24] Thomas n'a tout simplement
[52:25] aucune idée de la nature de la
[52:26] fonction qu'il occupe et de la
[52:27] manière d'exercer ses
[52:29] responsabilités. Pour compenser,
[52:31] il s'en plaint de ne pouvoir
[52:33] rien faire d'autre que les
[52:34] gestes essentiellement
[52:36] symbolique, tels que la
[52:38] convocation d'une réunion
[52:39] extraordinaire pour le vote
[52:41] qu'il sait qu'il perdra.
[52:47] >> Because as been pointed out
[52:49] by several of my colleagues in
[52:51] his grave weaknesses in fact
[52:53] extending even to libel. No
[52:55] councillor can vote to approve
[52:56] this resolution without at the
[52:57] same time requiring our city to
[53:00] officially make unsubstantiated
[53:01] and dubious assertions, which
[53:03] have all the or a knot of truth
[53:06] but of spin. I Councillor must
[53:08] ensure that they are properly
[53:10] informed before casting their
[53:11] vote. This statements in the
[53:13] preamble are presented as being
[53:14] factual, but they are without
[53:16] any substantiation. Nothing has
[53:20] provided us to substantiate
[53:21] those absorptions. If the mayor
[53:24] has bothered to pass -- as any
[53:27] responsible person would have
[53:28] done, they would have
[53:30] substantiated the assertions
[53:32] with evidence, if they could.
[53:34] Suggested false statements be
[53:35] withdrawn, and would definitely
[53:37] have taken a position against
[53:39] statements that are libellous in
[53:41] nature or could very well be
[53:42] used against the city in court.
[53:44] But this mayor, he doesn't give
[53:46] up -- he wants to be a hero in
[53:49] opposition. He has what it takes
[53:51] and he has no desire to actually
[53:53] govern. That would require a
[53:55] willingness to listen and to
[53:56] adjust based on what he's heard.
[53:58] He can do another. But that
[54:01] leaves the batter of this
[54:02] resolution before us, which has
[54:04] serious shortcomings. Elle se
[54:12] caractérise de graves lacunes et
[54:13] détourne attention de la réalité
[54:14] à savoir que ce conseil, et je
[54:16] pense que je puisse agir comme
[54:17] porte-parole au nom de tous mes
[54:18] collègues, souhaite tous, sans
[54:20] exception, un avenir durable
[54:21] pour notre ville. Qui perpétuera
[54:24] le caractère spécial qui fait de
[54:26] notre communauté un endroit où
[54:28] il est si agréable de vivre.
[54:31] Nous reconnaissons la nécessité
[54:32] de faire des sacrifices pour
[54:34] réaliser cet avenir, ainsi que
[54:35] la nécessité de consulter nos
[54:38] citoyens pour mieux comprendre
[54:39] les sacrifices qui sont
[54:42] eux-mêmes prêts à faire pour
[54:44] actualiser un avenir durable.
[54:47] >> For these reasons, and
[54:49] because there's really no
[54:50] urgency in this decision, I move
[54:53] now that the vote on this
[54:54] resolution currently being
[54:55] debated be delayed three weeks
[54:57] to the next regular meeting of
[54:58] Council on November 5th, in
[55:00] order to give the staff the time
[55:02] they need to properly vet its
[55:04] language for accuracy,
[55:05] pertinent, and legal risk, and
[55:08] to give Council the opportunity
[55:09] to ensure the resolution
[55:10] addresses the need for evidence
[55:12] based public consultations on
[55:14] the future of the Fairview
[55:16] forest. Together with the
[55:17] sacrifices citizens are willing
[55:19] to make in order to bring about
[55:20] the future they desire. So I
[55:26] move that we delay this vote
[55:27] three weeks, to the next regular
[55:29] meeting.
[55:30] >> Do I have a seconder?
[55:33] >> Eric Stork, district seven.
[55:35] >> All in favour?
[55:39] - Juste un instant.
[55:41] (inaudible)
[55:52] >> We should vote.
[55:55] >> This is flying by the seat of
[55:56] our pants, or are we going to
[55:58] vote on? This we called for a
[56:00] vote, do I have a seconder?
[56:03] >> There's a mover, there's a
[56:04] seconder.
[56:05] >> So all in favour?
[56:08] >> Of differing?
[56:10] >> Of differing. All in favour
[56:11] of Councillor Cowan motion.
[56:16] Those against?
[56:20] Juste un instant.
[56:30] >> Going back to 6.1, we are
[56:32] back at 6.1.
[56:36] >> Councillor Tremblay, I'm so
[56:38] sorry.
[56:39] >> Not a problem. So, in my
[56:41] commentary, I would just like to
[56:43] address my fellow councillors
[56:45] and the comments that have been
[56:46] made today. Some of the points
[56:47] are well taken and I understand
[56:49] your position vis-à-vis this.
[56:52] What happens in my case is when
[56:54] I have someone knocking on my
[56:56] door from the City, delivering
[56:58] me an envelope with a resolution
[57:01] in that I have to vote on, or a
[57:04] convening notice, Special
[57:09] meeting, my assumption, which
[57:10] may be naive, Mister assume that
[57:11] it's been vetted and gone
[57:12] through a procedure that's
[57:13] acceptable to the
[57:14] administration. Avis de
[57:15] convocation, séance
[57:16] extraordinaire.
[57:19] Correct me if I'm incorrect,
[57:21] there are no additional legal
[57:23] notes that point to anything
[57:24] that was incongruous or not
[57:29] taking into consideration the
[57:31] comments that you've been
[57:32] making. So when I looked at this
[57:35] resolution, I read it, and what
[57:39] I read when I look at the
[57:42] whereas sections and what is
[57:45] what we are resolving on is an
[57:47] argument made by the mayor, in
[57:50] this case, on holding public
[57:53] consultation process for natural
[57:55] spaces and green spaces. And
[57:58] that's what I focus on. And what
[58:01] I look at when I am having this
[58:04] document in front of me.
[58:06] Unfortunately, as the Mayor
[58:08] knows, I wasn't thrilled to see
[58:10] the other section that was a
[58:11] part of this resolution, which
[58:14] was the height of buildings. But
[58:16] we will beat up each other later
[58:18] on that one. And so I have to
[58:22] assume that what I am looking at
[58:24] has been vetted and accepted
[58:26] through the normal channels.
[58:30] Now, if that isn't the case, it
[58:33] would be important Ce sera
[58:37] important pour quelqu'un de
[58:38] l'administration de me dire
[58:39] maintenant que ce document-là,
[58:41] ces procédures n'ont pas été
[58:42] suivies et que ils y auraient un
[58:44] problème à ce niveau-là.
[58:56] >> We will not give legal
[58:58] opinion tonight but, you know,
[59:00] the mayor can request a
[59:02] resolution and he requested a
[59:04] special meeting for tonight.
[59:08] Merci. >> So, again, speaking to
[59:12] my fellow councillors, I have
[59:15] listened to your comments and
[59:17] many of the comments that you
[59:18] have made have been on many
[59:25] other things except what's being
[59:26] asked of this particular
[59:28] resolution, which is whether or
[59:29] not to accept a public
[59:32] consultation event, based on
[59:34] natural spaces, green spaces,
[59:36] and building types. And that is
[59:39] all I'm focused on right now. I
[59:43] have, as you know, in my
[59:44] speaking with you and as the
[59:45] Mayor knows in speaking with
[59:46] him, I have disagreements with
[59:48] the mayor on a number of things.
[59:52] And in looking at the resolution
[59:54] that he presented here, I do
[59:55] have some difficulties. I
[59:58] prepared a written statement
[59:59] here that I thought I would be
[1:00:01] able to speak to separately and
[1:00:05] in context of what my views are
[1:00:08] on this resolution, but it's
[1:00:09] difficult when though there's
[1:00:10] all this different information
[1:00:12] coming in. You feel the need to
[1:00:14] answer everything else that's
[1:00:15] being brought up here in the
[1:00:19] discussions. So, if you will
[1:00:22] allow me, I will just read a
[1:00:24] quick statement that I made
[1:00:25] earlier and in this case, I'm
[1:00:26] addressing the mayor on this
[1:00:27] particular resolution. And doing
[1:00:29] my best to stay within the
[1:00:32] parameters of what is being
[1:00:34] discussed. La nécessité d'une
[1:00:40] consultation publique sur les
[1:00:41] sujets tels que les espaces
[1:00:43] naturels et vers l'est plus
[1:00:44] vraiment nécessaire selon moi.
[1:00:47] Nous en sommes aujourd'hui au
[1:00:48] point où nous n'avons pas le
[1:00:50] choix que de sauvegarder et
[1:00:53] élargir les espaces naturels
[1:00:55] dans nos villes, si nous voulons
[1:00:57] agir sérieusement sur la
[1:00:58] question de biodiversité
[1:01:01] d'aujourd'hui et faire face aux
[1:01:02] changements climatiques. C'est
[1:01:04] aussi simple que ça pour moi.
[1:01:08] D'après mes échanges avec les
[1:01:10] citoyens, et selon nos sondages
[1:01:12] internes, je pense que la
[1:01:13] plupart des résidents sont
[1:01:14] d'accord avec moi. Quant à la
[1:01:16] hauteur de Bettman,
[1:01:20] permettez-moi de faire peut-être
[1:01:24] une explication basée sur les
[1:01:27] (---)
[1:01:28] . Les oiseaux. Le faucon
[1:01:30] Pellerin, autrefois, et là je
[1:01:31] vous adresse directement,
[1:01:33] Monsieur le Maire, autrefois
[1:01:35] menacées d'extinction, est un
[1:01:36] exemple très réussie de la faune
[1:01:38] urbaine dans une grande partie
[1:01:39] de son nerf de répartition,
[1:01:42] profitant des au bâtiment comme
[1:01:44] site de nidification et d'une
[1:01:47] abondance de proies telles que
[1:01:48] les fusions et les canards.
[1:01:50] D'autre part, des recherches
[1:01:53] menées par des scientifiques de
[1:01:56] (---)
[1:01:57] ont mis au jour de nouvelles
[1:01:58] preuves alarmantes selon
[1:01:59] lesquelles les collisions avec
[1:02:00] les bâtiments tuent beaucoup
[1:02:03] d'oiseaux, tue beaucoup plus
[1:02:04] d'oiseaux qu'on ne l'estimait
[1:02:06] auparavant. Bien plus que ce 1
[1:02:11] milliard par année rien qu'aux
[1:02:13] États-Unis. Quelle que soit la
[1:02:14] hauteur du bâtiment. Comme on
[1:02:16] peut le voir, la hauteur est
[1:02:18] parfois une bonne chose, parfois
[1:02:19] une mauvaise. Comme la plupart
[1:02:21] des gens, je préfère moins
[1:02:23] d'étages, mais tout dépend du
[1:02:24] contexte. Cependant, Monsieur le
[1:02:27] Maire, si vous avez encore
[1:02:29] besoin de recueillir l'avis du
[1:02:32] public sur ces deux questions
[1:02:34] pour en arriver à une décision
[1:02:35] vous-même, je suis tout à fait
[1:02:37] disposés à vous aider en votant
[1:02:40] pour. The need for public
[1:02:44] consultation on subjects like
[1:02:45] natural green spaces is no
[1:02:46] longer really necessary, as far
[1:02:47] as I'm concerned. We are at the
[1:02:49] point today where we have no
[1:02:51] choice but to Save and expand
[1:02:53] nature and our lid and urban
[1:02:54] living spaces if we're going to
[1:02:56] seriously act on the
[1:02:57] biodiversity issues of today and
[1:02:59] deal with climate change. It's
[1:03:03] as simple as that, in my
[1:03:04] opinion. In my exchanges with
[1:03:06] citizens and according to our
[1:03:07] internal city surveys, I think
[1:03:09] most residents would agree. As
[1:03:11] for the height of buildings,
[1:03:12] Mister Mayor, the peregrine
[1:03:15] falcon once threatened
[1:03:16] extinction is a highly
[1:03:17] successful example of urban life
[1:03:18] in much of its range, taking
[1:03:20] advantage of tall buildings as
[1:03:22] nesting sites and an abundance
[1:03:24] of pre such as pigeons and
[1:03:26] ducks. On the underhand,
[1:03:28] research conducted by scientists
[1:03:30] at the American bird conservancy
[1:03:32] uncovered overwhelming evidence
[1:03:33] that building collisions are
[1:03:34] killing significantly more birds
[1:03:36] than previously estimated. Over
[1:03:38] one billion annually in the
[1:03:39] United States alone, regardless
[1:03:40] of height. As we can see
[1:03:43] sometimes height is good,
[1:03:44] sometimes height is bad. Like
[1:03:45] most people, I prefer fewer
[1:03:47] floors but it depends on the
[1:03:49] context. But Mister Mayor, if
[1:03:51] you still need further input
[1:03:54] from the public on both of these
[1:03:55] issues to arrive at a decision
[1:03:57] yourself, sure, I will
[1:03:59] accommodate you and vote in
[1:04:01] favour. So, part of what I'm
[1:04:03] seeing here is in some sense,
[1:04:05] we're both wasting our time.
[1:04:09] Because many of the issues are
[1:04:10] well known. And by the same
[1:04:12] token, it's important to honour
[1:04:14] democracy and to allow the
[1:04:16] population to have an
[1:04:17] opportunity to speak. So, for me
[1:04:19] to sign in front of something
[1:04:20] like this, again, a document
[1:04:22] that I think has been, in my
[1:04:24] opinion, made its way to my desk
[1:04:27] from the regular procedures,
[1:04:29] would indicate that it's a
[1:04:31] document that I need to respond
[1:04:32] to, and I am responding to on
[1:04:34] the basis of what I believe and
[1:04:37] what I think is necessary and
[1:04:39] right for us to do as a city.
[1:04:42] Much of the discussion has been
[1:04:43] on the value of the forest and
[1:04:45] everything that has to do with
[1:04:47] Fairview forest. But in effect,
[1:04:50] the question asked here is just
[1:04:51] a little more precise. And I can
[1:04:54] see and understand, from your
[1:04:55] comments, that it's inflammatory
[1:04:56] as well to some degree, and I
[1:04:59] understand the difficulties that
[1:05:00] you might have, fellow
[1:05:02] councillors, in being able to
[1:05:03] digest all of this because it
[1:05:05] hasn't been an easy three years.
[1:05:08] But by the same token, we need
[1:05:11] to be able to understand the
[1:05:13] views and opinions of others,
[1:05:15] and if the mayor feels that it's
[1:05:17] important in his fifth case to
[1:05:19] get for the clarification, I
[1:05:20] don't particularly see harm in
[1:05:22] doing that. That's all I have
[1:05:25] for now.
[1:05:27] >> Thank you, Councillor
[1:05:29] Tremblay. So as you can tell,
[1:05:31] Councillor Tremblay and I
[1:05:32] sometimes disagree on the height
[1:05:33] of buildings. So, we've moved to
[1:05:35] question period. Well said. Oh,
[1:05:38] did we not vote? I thought we
[1:05:40] already voted. Oh, because I
[1:05:41] thought we had the amendment.
[1:05:42] Okay.
[1:05:43] >> This is the debate, now we
[1:05:44] can vote.
[1:05:45] >> All right, for 6.1, do I have
[1:05:46] a mover? I will be a mover.
[1:05:48] Already done, we're just going
[1:05:49] to have the vote? Okay, all
[1:05:50] those in favour of 6.1?
[1:05:59] All against?
[1:06:08] Now question period? Okay. David
[1:06:12] Johnson.
[1:06:30] No, no, no.
[1:06:32] [Inaudible]
[1:06:38] (inaudible)
[1:06:44] To reiterate that question,
[1:06:46] which is a valid one, we are
[1:06:47] only speaking to the Special
[1:06:50] General meetings subject, which
[1:06:52] is having a special consultation
[1:06:55] or a public participation
[1:06:57] process including the Fairview
[1:06:59] forest, the public and private
[1:07:00] green spaces, and building
[1:07:03] height. So, that's what we are
[1:07:04] speaking to and nothing but that
[1:07:06] in your question. So, it can't
[1:07:08] go anything beyond that. Just
[1:07:10] for everybody else's reference,
[1:07:13] >> Can everybody hear me? David
[1:07:18] Johnston, district one. First of
[1:07:20] all, I would like to thank the
[1:07:21] Mayor and Councillor Tremblay
[1:07:23] for very explicitly at the
[1:07:25] beginning of the meeting
[1:07:28] encouraging citizens today to
[1:07:30] make full voice of their
[1:07:32] opinions, in the hope of having
[1:07:34] some influence on the debate.
[1:07:37] >> Closer a little to the mic,
[1:07:38] Mr. Johnston. I can't hear you
[1:07:40] that well. I want to hear him.
[1:07:44] Excuse me, Councillor Cousineau.
[1:07:46] That was a respectful comment
[1:07:48] because I could not, I'm sorry,
[1:07:49] I respectfully comment because I
[1:07:51] couldn't hear Mr. Johnston
[1:07:53] speaking. I don't see what the
[1:07:55] need for reprimand is.
[1:07:59] >> Is that better?
[1:08:00] >> Yes.
[1:08:01] >> Okay, thank you.
[1:08:02] >> I was just saying that I
[1:08:03] wanted to make a point of
[1:08:04] thanking you and Councillor
[1:08:06] Tremblay for making this
[1:08:10] explicitly well-known at the
[1:08:11] beginning of the meeting that
[1:08:12] you encourage the citizens here
[1:08:14] today to give full expression to
[1:08:16] their opinions. With a view to
[1:08:19] influencing Council and
[1:08:21] influencing people in a debate.
[1:08:23] Like many people here, I am very
[1:08:26] happy to finally have seen a
[1:08:29] proposal for public
[1:08:31] consultations. But my hope was
[1:08:33] that Council would vote against
[1:08:35] this proposal and work more
[1:08:39] cooperatively to come back with
[1:08:40] a better plan, a more inclusive
[1:08:43] plan, one that would have a
[1:08:45] better chance of securing the
[1:08:48] participation of a broader cross
[1:08:50] section of the Pointe-Claire
[1:08:53] population. There are different
[1:08:56] ways that this could be
[1:08:57] accomplished. One of the options
[1:08:59] could see Council hire a
[1:09:01] consultant to help it randomly
[1:09:04] solicit, say, 50 households in
[1:09:08] each of the eight electoral
[1:09:09] districts for consultation.
[1:09:12] These households would receive
[1:09:13] an information package that
[1:09:15] would explain the policy
[1:09:18] challenges around the proposed
[1:09:20] new downtown West Island
[1:09:23] development from a variety of
[1:09:25] angles. Environmental, to be
[1:09:28] sure. But also fiscal,
[1:09:30] financial, economic, and social.
[1:09:32] Public meeting could be held so
[1:09:34] that people who had questions
[1:09:37] about the information document
[1:09:38] could get answers. But people
[1:09:41] would then be invited to respond
[1:09:43] to a series of questions and
[1:09:45] proposed scenarios privately,
[1:09:47] after the meeting. Whether by
[1:09:51] telephone, snail mail, or email.
[1:09:54] Not overly there on the spot. I
[1:09:56] will explain why in a minute.
[1:10:00] The results of the consultation
[1:10:04] of this representative sample of
[1:10:06] the -- population would be
[1:10:08] revealed and could be revealed
[1:10:09] at a follow-up meeting, for any
[1:10:13] residents of Pointe-Claire,
[1:10:14] including the political actors
[1:10:16] elected or an elected could
[1:10:19] react. But there is a problem.
[1:10:23] We don't have all the
[1:10:25] information we need to put
[1:10:26] together a solid information
[1:10:28] package. We still have not hired
[1:10:30] a property evaluator to give us
[1:10:33] an estimated purchase price or
[1:10:35] expropriation price for the
[1:10:37] so-called Fairview forest. Or
[1:10:42] zone MU2. As a result of Bill
[1:10:45] 39, which takes into
[1:10:48] consideration values of function
[1:10:50] of whether land is of a high
[1:10:52] ecological value or not. Plus,
[1:10:55] we still have not seen a revised
[1:10:57] development program, proposal,
[1:10:59] from Cadillac Fairview. Getting
[1:11:01] one might require Pointe-Claire
[1:11:03] and the Montréal metropolitan
[1:11:05] community to lift at least
[1:11:07] temporarily their interim
[1:11:09] control bylaws in order to
[1:11:11] permit Cadillac Fairview to
[1:11:13] legally reengage in the debate.
[1:11:16] So, this may take time. One
[1:11:23] problem with this --
[1:11:24] >> Mr. Johnston, I don't mean to
[1:11:25] be rude but we have 23 people on
[1:11:30] this list and I would like to
[1:11:33] answer your question sooner as
[1:11:34] opposed to later.
[1:11:36] >> This proposal today only made
[1:11:37] reference to the original
[1:11:39] development proposal from
[1:11:43] Cadillac Fairview six years ago.
[1:11:49] >> Came to an agreement in the
[1:11:51] fall of 2022 that would oblige
[1:11:53] the company
[1:11:59] -- so called Fairview forest.
[1:12:02] Plus, the original proposal
[1:12:03] called for a lot of office space
[1:12:06] construction in this post COVID
[1:12:08] era of hybrid work, I often
[1:12:11] space vacancies, Fairview,
[1:12:12] collective you must surely have
[1:12:14] a different plan. We need to see
[1:12:16] it. The reality is that the new
[1:12:22] thinking -- town hall approach
[1:12:24] to municipal public
[1:12:26] consultations is that there are
[1:12:27] not a good gauge of public
[1:12:29] opinion. What's the evidence for
[1:12:31] that? Here, I'm concluding. In
[1:12:34] 2017, the impetus pulling firm
[1:12:38] found that 91% of Canadians said
[1:12:40] that they would not leave their
[1:12:41] house to participate in a
[1:12:43] municipal town hall meeting. 55%
[1:12:45] of respondents said, quote, a
[1:12:49] few strong voices always
[1:12:51] dominate the discussions,
[1:12:53] unquote. And 38% said, quote, I
[1:12:56] feel shy about expressing my
[1:12:58] opinion in a public forum,
[1:13:00] unquote. The research is clear.
[1:13:02] People want to give their views
[1:13:05] privately, a different
[1:13:06] consultation model is needed
[1:13:09] than the one being presented
[1:13:10] here tonight. My question is,
[1:13:15] can you all work more
[1:13:17] cooperatively to agree on a
[1:13:20] better consultation plan than
[1:13:21] the one that was put forward
[1:13:23] tonight?
[1:13:24] >> I'm sure we can. I'm sure we
[1:13:28] can, Mr. Johnston. Thank you.
[1:13:29] >> Thank you.
[1:13:30] >> I'm happy to hear that the
[1:13:32] original proposal with Cadillac
[1:13:34] Fairview, the original proposal
[1:13:35] is no longer viable, in your
[1:13:37] opinion. I find that
[1:13:39] encouraging. And just to make
[1:13:44] reference to the democratic part
[1:13:46] of the process and listening to
[1:13:49] citizens, a large part of the
[1:13:52] motivation for calling this
[1:13:54] meeting was from, in fact, the
[1:13:55] editor of the 15 ten, who
[1:13:57] suggested in some of her
[1:13:58] writings that it's very hard to
[1:14:03] go through the entire process
[1:14:05] without even talking about
[1:14:08] public and private green spaces
[1:14:09] in Fairview forest. Let alone
[1:14:11] building height. If you haven't
[1:14:12] even talked about it, however
[1:14:15] you -- unnecessary or whatever
[1:14:17] skewered the result is, by not
[1:14:19] even putting it on your agenda,
[1:14:21] you are not taking seriously
[1:14:22] from other levels of government.
[1:14:24] We at least have to have the
[1:14:27] discussion. We at least have to
[1:14:28] have it in writing that we've
[1:14:29] had the discussion, in order for
[1:14:31] that whole subject matter to be
[1:14:33] viable at other levels of
[1:14:34] government. So, this is not
[1:14:37] irresponsible, it's responsible,
[1:14:38] what's going on here. And if we
[1:14:39] want to kick it around and alter
[1:14:41] it, that's fine. But if we have
[1:14:42] the discussion, that's the
[1:14:44] important part, in my opinion.
[1:14:45] To answer your question.
[1:14:48] >> Mister Mayor, just to correct
[1:14:52] the mistakes. The Cadillac
[1:14:54] Fairview, they did send a
[1:14:55] graphic image in error of
[1:14:57] development on you to, but
[1:14:59] they've never submitted any
[1:15:00] plans for the development on
[1:15:02] MU2.
[1:15:03] >> So, they've never submitted
[1:15:04] any plans for development on
[1:15:06] MU2? Okay, so how viable then is
[1:15:09] the lawsuit? If they've never
[1:15:12] submitted any plans.
[1:15:14] >> Correction, Council has never
[1:15:16] seen a plan.
[1:15:17] >> No, I said on MU2. I've seen
[1:15:20] stuff on --
[1:15:21] >> It's very interesting, what's
[1:15:23] going on here, folks. Okay,
[1:15:25] Philippe R A. C'est le pari.
[1:15:30] Philippe Paré. Pare.
[1:15:33] >> Good evening. Regarding the
[1:15:36] whole public meeting and, sorry,
[1:15:38] regarding the whole public
[1:15:39] meeting and everything in
[1:15:40] general, if we look at just in
[1:15:42] general this meeting or every
[1:15:44] other meeting we have in
[1:15:45] general, it's always been more
[1:15:48] elderly people than young
[1:15:50] adults. The big issue we have is
[1:15:52] most of us young adults, we
[1:15:55] basically rent and it's
[1:15:56] basically unlivable here. It's
[1:15:59] unsustainable and we are
[1:16:00] struggling to get by. My big
[1:16:02] question is, for public
[1:16:03] meetings, there's very little
[1:16:07] incentive for us young adults to
[1:16:08] be able to actually do stuff
[1:16:11] because we are, we don't have
[1:16:13] time for this. I have to take
[1:16:14] time off of my job to be able to
[1:16:16] come here. For the future of,
[1:16:19] like, the whole M MU1, MU2 it
[1:16:24] needs to happen so that we are
[1:16:25] actually able to participate and
[1:16:27] have the feeling to want to
[1:16:29] participate.
[1:16:30] >> Okay, so there is some
[1:16:32] discussion going on here. It's
[1:16:33] an extraordinary meeting, so you
[1:16:35] have to speak specifically to
[1:16:36] the resolution, which is, we are
[1:16:39] trying to have a consultation on
[1:16:40] the Fairview forest and on the
[1:16:43] height of buildings. However, I
[1:16:45] will answer sort of what I think
[1:16:46] you are alluding to. Fair
[1:16:49] enough. I mean, to get the youth
[1:16:50] out, to express themselves, it
[1:16:52] is their future. Part of that is
[1:16:53] up to the youth. Unfortunately,
[1:16:58] I mean, the voter turnout, even
[1:17:00] in most democratic processes,
[1:17:02] it's only when people start to
[1:17:03] get older that they start to
[1:17:04] vote more and they take the
[1:17:07] privilege of voting more
[1:17:08] seriously, I guess. I don't know
[1:17:09] what it is. Or they have the
[1:17:10] luxury, which could also be the
[1:17:12] answer. So, I have sort of
[1:17:14] answer your question.
[1:17:15] >> For the second question, more
[1:17:16] specific.
[1:17:18] >> Okay, specific to future
[1:17:20] meetings.
[1:17:21] >> No, to this meeting which is
[1:17:24] -- this meeting is about having
[1:17:27] consultation process specific to
[1:17:29] the Fairview forest and the
[1:17:31] height of buildings on MU1 and
[1:17:34] MU2. And actually, the entire
[1:17:36] city.
[1:17:37] >> Okay, for that specifically,
[1:17:39] for the whole meeting about the
[1:17:41] future of the forest, could it
[1:17:43] be possible to include
[1:17:46] representatives of the
[1:17:47] agglomeration, due to the fact
[1:17:48] that they might be able to foot
[1:17:49] part of the bill? And lay the
[1:17:54] whole --
[1:17:55] >> They can certainly attend.
[1:17:57] Other members of the
[1:17:58] agglomeration can certainly
[1:17:59] attend, I would think.
[1:18:02] >> Thank you.
[1:18:03] >> Thank you. Gregory Fréchette?
[1:18:07] He left? Okay, Owen van he's
[1:18:11] broke? Okay, Norm Normand
[1:18:17] Lapointe? You defer. Susan
[1:18:25] Weaver?
[1:18:30] >> Okay, I wrote this before I
[1:18:32] heard anything else and we Susan
[1:18:37] Weaver, Pointe-Claire. After
[1:18:38] reading the resolution, I
[1:18:39] suggest the following. I'm just
[1:18:41] going to give two articles that
[1:18:43] you wrote. When you talk about
[1:18:45] the future of public and
[1:18:47] privately owned green spaces, I
[1:18:50] don't think you should include
[1:18:52] public spaces with this private
[1:18:54] property in your resolution. If
[1:18:55] you want to have a consultation
[1:18:59] about the C F properties, then
[1:19:01] it should be only about sea of
[1:19:03] properties. Public green spaces
[1:19:05] should be up for discussion, but
[1:19:07] not be an afterthought as it is
[1:19:10] in this first paragraph. And
[1:19:12] another paragraph I read was the
[1:19:16] 2021 election is irrelevant
[1:19:18] because if you calculate the
[1:19:21] eligible voters to how many
[1:19:23] voted, then how many voted to
[1:19:25] save the forest, I would say
[1:19:27] that there were few. Your
[1:19:29] statement is incorrect. It does
[1:19:31] not, anyways, it does not focus
[1:19:32] on the forest but on your small
[1:19:35] victory. And furthermore, to
[1:19:38] write such a resolution, as you
[1:19:39] have done, Mister Thomas, is
[1:19:41] very autocratic. There must be a
[1:19:43] consensus among all duly elected
[1:19:46] members of Council, then the
[1:19:48] resolution could be presented.
[1:19:49] That would be democracy. And you
[1:19:53] wrote in your recent Facebook
[1:19:55] post that as a mayor, you have
[1:19:57] the power to call a special
[1:19:58] meeting of Council at anytime.
[1:20:01] Therefore, you could've done
[1:20:03] this two years ago or more,
[1:20:05] instead of creating a wedge
[1:20:07] between citizens,
[1:20:09] administrators, employees, and
[1:20:10] Council members. And my question
[1:20:12] for you is, did you ever
[1:20:14] approach the eighth council
[1:20:16] members about such a resolution
[1:20:18] during a caucus meeting or any
[1:20:20] meeting, for that matter? When
[1:20:22] and where?
[1:20:23] >> Okay, there's no wedge.
[1:20:26] There's no wedge created. That
[1:20:27] is an illusion. Just getting
[1:20:29] back to the preamble because I
[1:20:31] have to address a few of them,
[1:20:33] are you an election denier, Miss
[1:20:35] Weaver? Is that what you're
[1:20:36] telling? As
[1:20:37] >> Part of?
[1:20:38] >> Are you the election denier?
[1:20:39] Do not accept the results?
[1:20:41] >> No, I did not.
[1:20:42] >> Okay, you seem to think that
[1:20:44] the slim victory is not
[1:20:46] justified the special council
[1:20:47] meeting or it's an abuse of
[1:20:50] power, or the Fairview forest
[1:20:51] doesn't have sufficient weight
[1:20:53] as a subject.
[1:20:56] >> No, that's not what I meant.
[1:20:57] >> That's what you seemed to
[1:20:59] imply.
[1:20:59] >> You are talking about the
[1:21:00] election and you mentioned how
[1:21:01] many people maybe had voted and
[1:21:03] had concern for the forest. You
[1:21:05] have to give numbers there, I
[1:21:06] think. Or else just leave it out
[1:21:08] and talk about the forest.
[1:21:10] >> Okay, what we can find that
[1:21:11] out. That's why we have
[1:21:13] participation processes. The
[1:21:14] participation process is
[1:21:16] designed to find out the weight,
[1:21:18] the force, the strength of the
[1:21:20] voice of the people on certain
[1:21:21] subject areas. It's exactly why
[1:21:23] we're doing, we're engaging in
[1:21:24] this process exactly why I'm
[1:21:26] doing it. So that the citizens
[1:21:27] can come out and express
[1:21:29] themselves, and we can gauge the
[1:21:31] support of that, and that's
[1:21:33] exactly what I'm trying to do.
[1:21:35] >> We are talking about now, so
[1:21:36] you should've mentioned then.
[1:21:40] Because there are how many
[1:21:41] citizens in Pointe-Claire? How
[1:21:42] many are eligible to vote? And
[1:21:44] you're talking, but I want to
[1:21:45] talk about 2021, we're talking
[1:21:47] about now and I think it took
[1:21:48] away from the force.
[1:21:49] >> Well, let's find out now.
[1:21:52] Let's have a process and let's
[1:21:53] find out right now how people
[1:21:55] feel. Why not? That's exactly
[1:21:57] what I'm trying to have happen.
[1:21:59] >> Okay, well you have to get up
[1:22:00] to 35,000 people or however many
[1:22:03] voters, 25,000?
[1:22:05] >> Much less than that. Madam
[1:22:08] Thibault, how many voters do we
[1:22:09] have in total in an election?
[1:22:12] >> In 2021, ballpark 24,000.
[1:22:19] 24,000.
[1:22:20] >> Not bad, a? --
[1:22:23] >> We had a what percentage
[1:22:24] turnout?
[1:22:25] >> 44% general for the mayor.
[1:22:29] >> 30-ish.
[1:22:31] >> Yeah, so that's what I meant.
[1:22:33] That's why you're going to have
[1:22:34] to redo the resolution.
[1:22:36] >> Well, okay, just in response
[1:22:38] to the resolution, first of all,
[1:22:39] the resolution, that's okay,
[1:22:42] Miss Weaver, your question is
[1:22:43] done.
[1:22:44] >> No, I would like to -- I can
[1:22:46] sit and listen to your answer.
[1:22:48] >> Okay, but there is no retort.
[1:22:50] Just so you know. You are not
[1:22:52] here to debate me, just so you
[1:22:54] know.
[1:22:55] >> No, I want to. I'm not into
[1:22:56] it.
[1:22:57] >> The resolution has been set
[1:22:58] tonight to have been riddled
[1:22:59] with mistruths. I encourage all
[1:23:01] of you in this room, everybody
[1:23:04] listening, please read the
[1:23:06] resolution and decide for
[1:23:08] yourselves, okay? That's number
[1:23:10] one. Don't believe what's said
[1:23:11] behind closed doors and read the
[1:23:13] words yourselves to see if it's
[1:23:15] riddled with mistruths. It was
[1:23:17] also, I did go through staff. I
[1:23:19] consulted with staff and
[1:23:22] proceeded according to the
[1:23:25] proper rules and regulations
[1:23:27] that I engaged in the meeting
[1:23:29] according to the professional
[1:23:30] advice given to me. I did not
[1:23:31] alter the procedure at all in
[1:23:33] the process. I completely
[1:23:35] followed all the rules of the
[1:23:36] engagement of this resolution.
[1:23:37] Thank you, Miss Weaver. Line
[1:23:42] Conway?
[1:23:50] >> Hello, good evening. I didn't
[1:23:52] have anything prepared to say
[1:23:54] tonight because I didn't know
[1:23:55] how it was going to turn out.
[1:23:58] But I did write some notes as
[1:23:59] you were talking. Mayor Thomas,
[1:24:05] I appreciate what you do. I
[1:24:09] don't appreciate the tone of all
[1:24:13] the other councillors, except
[1:24:15] Mr. Tremblay. I really, I've
[1:24:17] been living in this city for 30
[1:24:19] years. I've been coming to city
[1:24:21] hall meetings, this one gets the
[1:24:25] cake. I really don't appreciate
[1:24:26] the tone of a few, especially
[1:24:30] three very condescending towards
[1:24:32] you. Not nice at all. That tone
[1:24:37] was very combative towards you.
[1:24:40] You don't deserve that. I think
[1:24:43] part of the problem, when you
[1:24:44] first came along, we had a
[1:24:46] different mayor. But a
[1:24:48] different, sorry, manager and
[1:24:50] then it took us a while to find
[1:24:53] Madame Verdun. And then with the
[1:24:55] firm B.C. to, I think the
[1:24:57] consultation was very long. Many
[1:25:01] months, there was a meeting once
[1:25:02] a month and some months were
[1:25:04] skipped, and I think it was very
[1:25:05] long to get a report from them.
[1:25:07] And then they didn't address
[1:25:09] the, from what I understand,
[1:25:11] didn't address Cadillac Fairview
[1:25:13] in their reports. So, I think
[1:25:15] this is part of the problem. At
[1:25:18] the public consultations I
[1:25:21] attended of PC to, I at the
[1:25:25] tables where I sat, I didn't
[1:25:28] hear anybody saying we need high
[1:25:31] rises, high-rise buildings. The
[1:25:35] consensus was the city was
[1:25:36] lacking the missing middle
[1:25:38] construction, so triplex,
[1:25:40] fourplex, and so on. I see most
[1:25:47] councillors are very, I'm going
[1:25:53] to jump to something else. I use
[1:25:56] operate the business. I don't,
[1:26:00] who's laughing? Do we allow
[1:26:05] this? Do we allow laughing at
[1:26:08] me?
[1:26:09] >> No.
[1:26:11] >> No, no, that's a joke. Okay,
[1:26:13] I used to operate a business. I
[1:26:15] don't see these councillors
[1:26:16] operating a business matter at
[1:26:18] all. The fact that they are
[1:26:21] suggesting how much Cadillac
[1:26:24] Fairview land is worth is not
[1:26:28] appropriate. It is not a good
[1:26:31] business practice. They are
[1:26:34] inflating the price on Cadillac
[1:26:37] Fairview's side, it's crazy.
[1:26:43] Yeah I was in touch with save
[1:26:47] Fairview forest, a part of their
[1:26:48] group, and some emails were
[1:26:51] sent. And actually, I sent
[1:26:53] emails to some ministries, and I
[1:26:56] received some replies which I
[1:26:57] would like to read to you. Are
[1:26:59] you interested in learning what
[1:27:03] Mr. Francisco carpal edgy row
[1:27:04] back to me, Mister Thomas? Yes,
[1:27:07] it relates to this. The Cadillac
[1:27:09] Fairview for us.
[1:27:10] >> Miss Conway, it'll be the
[1:27:12] last and then we will go to the
[1:27:13] question. Because we do have a
[1:27:15] lot of people.
[1:27:18] >> Okay, in his reply, he makes
[1:27:20] a comparison to some species
[1:27:22] that are going extinct, some
[1:27:25] butterflies that are going
[1:27:26] extinct. Cadillac Fairview has
[1:27:28] the brown snake, so he wrote to
[1:27:31] me, thank you for your email
[1:27:33] about efforts to save Fairview
[1:27:35] forest. I admire your commitment
[1:27:37] to preserving important green
[1:27:39] space in our community. The
[1:27:41] federal government enjoys
[1:27:43] decision-making power over lands
[1:27:45] under its jurisdiction, such as
[1:27:47] the land at Trudeau airport,
[1:27:49] which includes the habitat of
[1:27:50] the monarch butterfly. So, this
[1:27:52] is the comparison. The
[1:27:56] government supports this
[1:27:57] decision, making power of the
[1:27:59] federal species at risk act,
[1:28:01] when a species is classified as
[1:28:02] threatened or endangered, for
[1:28:04] example, the federal government
[1:28:06] lists the monarch as endangered
[1:28:09] under the -- as of December,
[1:28:11] 2023. This provides legal
[1:28:14] protection. By virtue of -- the
[1:28:16] federal government can also
[1:28:17] issue protection orders in
[1:28:19] certain circumstances, even on
[1:28:21] lands that are not federal.
[1:28:24] Example, there are links, okay.
[1:28:26] The fact that a species is
[1:28:28] listed federally has threatened
[1:28:30] or endangered does not
[1:28:31] automatically qualify for
[1:28:33] federal prohibition order. A
[1:28:36] particular factor in this regard
[1:28:37] is whether the habitat in
[1:28:39] question is considered critical
[1:28:41] to a species is survival. He has
[1:28:47] received a list of species
[1:28:49] living in the Fairview forest
[1:28:50] and has written to the federal
[1:28:52] environment minister, Steven
[1:28:54] Guilbeault, to seek his opinion
[1:28:55] on options that may exist for
[1:28:57] protecting the federally listed
[1:28:59] species in some way.
[1:29:02] >> So, your question?
[1:29:03] >> Before we give a permit for
[1:29:05] anything, before any decisions
[1:29:06] are made, we should wait for the
[1:29:08] answers from the ministries.
[1:29:10] >> Agreed.
[1:29:11] >> Thank you.
[1:29:12] >> Thank you. Nasr El Dabee?
[1:29:22] >> Good evening. Good evening.
[1:29:30] First, I appreciate Mr. Tim
[1:29:34] Thomas for what you stand for,
[1:29:37] what you ran for, because most
[1:29:41] politicians, when they run, they
[1:29:43] say too many things and they
[1:29:47] never fall do what they say. As
[1:29:54] the previous Mayor, he said
[1:29:58] citizens first but when he
[1:30:01] started, all the building and
[1:30:05] all the developers --
[1:30:07] >> Mr. El Dabee, we have to
[1:30:10] pertain to the topic of one to
[1:30:11] public consultation.
[1:30:13] >> I'm sorry because they put a
[1:30:14] cost on the environment.
[1:30:16] >> Okay, who put a cost on the
[1:30:19] environment?
[1:30:21] >> The city council. They didn't
[1:30:24] put cost on what's happening on
[1:30:27] August 9th. Pointe-Claire, they
[1:30:32] have a flood and survey cap
[1:30:34] because with all the high-rise
[1:30:37] buildings and the condo, more
[1:30:39] than 5000 units, they didn't
[1:30:45] know how much it costs us --
[1:30:47] cleanup and renovation. So,
[1:30:51] that's the environment. One of
[1:30:53] their going to stop putting cost
[1:30:54] in the environment and to be
[1:30:59] serious? We thank you, really,
[1:31:00] for standing up for what you ran
[1:31:02] for. I am glad, really, some
[1:31:05] politicians, this is really
[1:31:06] serious about the environment.
[1:31:08] So, what the City Council, if
[1:31:12] they're not able to do what the
[1:31:15] citizen elected you for, they
[1:31:16] can resign. It is very simple.
[1:31:19] Or you ask for your election. So
[1:31:22] --
[1:31:23] >> Mister El Dabee, we're
[1:31:25] speaking to the subject of the
[1:31:26] special council meeting, now you
[1:31:27] are on track when you are
[1:31:28] talking about flooding because I
[1:31:30] believe part of the problem with
[1:31:33] not addressing the environment
[1:31:35] is that it costs us a fortune.
[1:31:37] And that doesn't come up in real
[1:31:39] estate transactions, and I think
[1:31:40] that's a valid point. Do you
[1:31:42] have a question for --
[1:31:45] >> That costs all of us as
[1:31:49] citizens. But they didn't
[1:31:51] calculate that. They calculated
[1:31:52] only if they're buying.
[1:31:54] >> Okay, so your question? I
[1:31:56] hear what you're saying. We did
[1:31:58] address that last meeting and
[1:32:00] the cost of ignoring or not
[1:32:02] looking after the environment is
[1:32:04] huge. It's huge. We have climate
[1:32:08] crises, we have episodes, we
[1:32:10] have ice storms, we have floods,
[1:32:13] we have things that cost our
[1:32:15] cities millions of dollars as a
[1:32:17] result of not addressing climate
[1:32:19] issues. And that is why,
[1:32:22] especially why, you shouldn't
[1:32:23] ever cut down any part of the
[1:32:25] forest. And not any part of the
[1:32:28] forest. Not just the ones, hang
[1:32:32] on, what was the wording that I
[1:32:34] had? Not all of it. As much as
[1:32:38] we can. I'm not here to protect
[1:32:40] as much as we can. I'm here to
[1:32:42] protect all of it because we
[1:32:43] can't afford to lose any of it.
[1:32:46] So, you have a question, Mr. El
[1:32:49] Dabee?
[1:32:50] >> Yes, for competent -- please,
[1:32:52] any City Council is in contact
[1:32:55] with Cadillac Fairview or
[1:32:57] working for Cadillac Fairview,
[1:32:59] or the family working for
[1:33:00] Cadillac, this is supposed to be
[1:33:02] --
[1:33:04] >> Mr. El Dabee, this is not the
[1:33:06] subject of the special council
[1:33:08] meeting.
[1:33:09] >> As a citizen!
[1:33:10] >> Okay, Mr. El Dabee, we're
[1:33:12] speaking to whether we're going
[1:33:13] to public council station on the
[1:33:14] Fairview forest or Hyatt
[1:33:15] buildings. Whether we should.
[1:33:17] And it's been voted down. But
[1:33:19] you can speak to that or ask a
[1:33:21] question pertaining to that.
[1:33:22] >> Okay, I hope really.
[1:33:24] >> Please sir, pertaining to
[1:33:26] that.
[1:33:27] >> Next meeting approve and to
[1:33:30] hold agree about preserving
[1:33:33] Cadillac Fairview. That's all I
[1:33:35] wish for. All this -- was here,
[1:33:38] they won't save Cadillac
[1:33:40] Fairview and they stopped the 25
[1:33:42] floor building. Thank you.
[1:33:44] >> Okay, thank you. Sheila
[1:33:49] Larsen?
[1:33:57] >> Thank you. I want to address
[1:34:02] the fact that tonight, we've
[1:34:04] heard that this was something
[1:34:06] that most councillors, a
[1:34:08] majority of councillors, felt
[1:34:11] was rushed, was something
[1:34:13] unexpected, something sort of
[1:34:15] pushed by you, Mister Mayor,
[1:34:18] upon them. And that there is not
[1:34:20] really any urgency. That was the
[1:34:23] other sort of tone I heard. I
[1:34:27] happen to be present back, what,
[1:34:30] three, four years ago when
[1:34:33] Fairview, Cadillac Fairview held
[1:34:34] its presentation. It wasn't a
[1:34:38] consultation. It was a
[1:34:40] presentation of their promotion
[1:34:43] of making that area city centre
[1:34:46] and increasing the population.
[1:34:49] At that point, I remember
[1:34:51] calculating it was by a quarter.
[1:34:54] 10,000 more people. At that
[1:34:58] presentation, many of us,
[1:34:59] including myself, were horrified
[1:35:03] by the impact that that would
[1:35:06] have. They're large presentation
[1:35:08] included. Mention of mixed use
[1:35:11] of what we know now as Fairview
[1:35:14] forest, and it was going to put
[1:35:16] up a 25 storey, 2:25 storey
[1:35:19] buildings. And when I know I
[1:35:21] asked the question, you know,
[1:35:23] why 25 storeys? It's not
[1:35:26] anything conducive to
[1:35:28] Pointe-Claire. They said,
[1:35:29] because we can. And if the
[1:35:31] airport says we can do 27, it'll
[1:35:33] be 27. So, my question is, what
[1:35:38] is has counsel been doing ever
[1:35:40] since then? And I must say, I
[1:35:44] have attended some meetings.
[1:35:46] I've sat downstairs during the
[1:35:48] COVID time and cried through
[1:35:50] some of your meetings because I
[1:35:52] didn't see any effective
[1:35:56] debating, discussing,
[1:35:59] researching, trying to come up
[1:36:00] with best answers. I just saw
[1:36:05] tax being taking place. If you
[1:36:06] said this, I'm saying that,
[1:36:08] we're not going to get anywhere.
[1:36:10] So, one of the things that I
[1:36:11] wonder is, has everybody been
[1:36:14] sticking their heads in the
[1:36:16] sand, thinking this will just go
[1:36:18] away? Because we know it is not
[1:36:19] going to go away. Cadillac
[1:36:21] Fairview is not going to just
[1:36:23] pack up and go home. It's going
[1:36:26] to push and we have known
[1:36:28] there's already, sorry, a legal
[1:36:33] case out there. I'm not sure why
[1:36:35] we are now afraid of maybe doing
[1:36:37] something that might have a
[1:36:39] legal consequence, because we
[1:36:41] did it already. I also
[1:36:44] participated in the consultation
[1:36:47] series at least all but one that
[1:36:49] I missed when I was away. And I
[1:36:52] was at the one about the green
[1:36:55] space on public and private
[1:36:58] lands. And I just want to, you
[1:37:01] know, I have seen that we've
[1:37:03] gotten lots of whereases in this
[1:37:06] resolution. And many of the
[1:37:08] whereas's are probably
[1:37:09] debatable. But when I go back to
[1:37:12] the resolution, to hold one
[1:37:15] public consultation meeting
[1:37:17] specifically devoted to the
[1:37:19] future of publicly and privately
[1:37:21] owned green spaces, including
[1:37:24] Fairview forest in zone MU2,
[1:37:30] that's the part and then I agree
[1:37:31] with the building thing as well,
[1:37:33] the height. But this is the part
[1:37:35] that really touches me and makes
[1:37:38] me impassioned for us to get our
[1:37:41] act together and have
[1:37:44] consultation, because I was at
[1:37:45] the meeting where they said, you
[1:37:47] can't talk about that. And
[1:37:51] others that were in that room
[1:37:52] know that we said, what are you
[1:37:54] talking about? This is
[1:37:55] important. We have to talk about
[1:37:57] this. And they said no, no, no.
[1:37:59] We will take no notes of
[1:38:01] anything you say, but we all
[1:38:04] said something and wrote
[1:38:06] something, and gave our opinion,
[1:38:08] because this is very important
[1:38:11] to us. The citizens that you are
[1:38:14] working for. And I want to
[1:38:16] remind you of that. So, I don't
[1:38:20] have, well, I do have a
[1:38:22] question. I would like to know
[1:38:25] if, what are we voting no to?
[1:38:28] Are we voting to the idea of
[1:38:31] public consultation meeting? Is
[1:38:35] that no way, we are not having
[1:38:37] that. Is it to talk about the
[1:38:41] future of publicly and privately
[1:38:43] owned green spaces in
[1:38:45] Pointe-Claire? You don't want to
[1:38:47] talk about that? No? What are we
[1:38:52] saying no to hear, when we all
[1:38:55] say this resolution is no good?
[1:38:58] This is garbage. And I'm just
[1:39:00] going to, I don't really expect
[1:39:02] an answer. I think we got the
[1:39:05] answer already. We heard you, we
[1:39:09] know where you are at. What I
[1:39:12] was going to just and with a
[1:39:14] plea to put principles before
[1:39:20] politics. To put people, people
[1:39:24] of Pointe-Claire before
[1:39:27] political power. And to put the
[1:39:32] planet before it is too late for
[1:39:36] all. All of us.
[1:39:39] [Applause]
[1:39:45] >> Thank you!
[1:39:46] >> Linda Dumas?
[1:39:48] >> I just think that we should
[1:39:49] respond because I don't think
[1:39:50] it's fair. I think exactly one
[1:39:52] of the things that you said is,
[1:39:54] we like the first sentence. We
[1:39:55] like the first sentence as you
[1:39:57] stopped it after MU2. We cannot
[1:40:00] be talking about MU1, we are in
[1:40:03] litigation so it's our
[1:40:04] responsibility to make sure that
[1:40:05] in this resolution, it does not
[1:40:06] get us into legal hot water. But
[1:40:08] none of us said we did not want
[1:40:09] the public consultation. In
[1:40:11] fact, Eric listed out all the
[1:40:12] things we would like to include
[1:40:13] in the resolutions have exactly
[1:40:15] that, to have the discussion, to
[1:40:17] have the go back and forth, but
[1:40:19] with factual information so we
[1:40:20] can really hear from you, truly,
[1:40:23] based on factual information, a
[1:40:24] real public consultation. Not
[1:40:27] something, as Mr., Madam weaver
[1:40:29] said, and includes political
[1:40:31] innuendos as part of a
[1:40:32] resolution. That's not what a
[1:40:33] resolution is. We all believe in
[1:40:36] protecting as much as the force
[1:40:37] as possible, and we need to hear
[1:40:39] from all of you. Not just those
[1:40:40] in this room. All citizens in
[1:40:43] Pointe-Claire. If it has a cost,
[1:40:45] if it doesn't have a cost, what
[1:40:46] people are willing to do, what
[1:40:48] they are not willing to do, and
[1:40:50] it's beyond everybody in this
[1:40:51] room. We have a whole city, so
[1:40:53] there cannot be statements,
[1:40:55] widespread statement saying that
[1:40:56] we aren't interested. We just
[1:40:58] said we're interested and Eric
[1:41:00] detailed out what he would like
[1:41:01] to propose in a resolution
[1:41:02] that's more appropriate. This
[1:41:03] resolution is not appropriate.
[1:41:05] We never saw it. The fact it was
[1:41:06] posted on Facebook before we
[1:41:08] received it at our door is
[1:41:10] wrong. That is not process. That
[1:41:11] is not what should be happening
[1:41:13] at this council by anybody. And
[1:41:15] so, that's why we cannot support
[1:41:17] this update that's not discussed
[1:41:19] amongst elected individuals.
[1:41:20] That are representing the city.
[1:41:23] Because we all were elected to
[1:41:24] represent the city, so, don't
[1:41:26] think that we should be able to
[1:41:27] read something before it gets
[1:41:28] posted on Facebook, the
[1:41:30] resolution?
[1:41:31] >> I don't read Facebook, so I
[1:41:33] couldn't --
[1:41:34] [Laughter]
[1:41:35] >> That's exactly what happened,
[1:41:36] exactly what happened. So, we
[1:41:37] cannot support this.
[1:41:38] >> And excuse me, that's simply
[1:41:39] not true. It was not posted on
[1:41:41] Facebook before they received
[1:41:42] it.
[1:41:43] >> I have a screenshot before it
[1:41:45] came to my house.
[1:41:46] >> I think it's important to
[1:41:48] note that Councillor
[1:41:50] Thorstad-Cullen said we are
[1:41:51] going to save as much as
[1:41:54] possible. It all should be
[1:41:56] saved. Not as much as possible.
[1:41:58] It all should be saved.
[1:42:00] [Applause]
[1:42:02] Now, I would also like to speak
[1:42:04] to the fact that there were
[1:42:08] special extraordinary general
[1:42:10] meetings called without me ever
[1:42:12] seeing the questions or having
[1:42:15] any say on the debate of the
[1:42:17] resolutions, okay? So, let's
[1:42:19] just get this a little back
[1:42:22] onside earth here so you guys
[1:42:23] know the truth. Albert
[1:42:28] Ashkenazi? Sorry, Madam.
[1:42:36] >> Wow, what an evening. Good
[1:42:38] evening. I was wondering about
[1:42:44] those three special council
[1:42:47] meetings, the very first one
[1:42:49] that I ever attended in my
[1:42:51] entire life was, what? January,
[1:42:54] February of 2023. Because I
[1:42:56] always felt that the Council and
[1:43:03] elected officials were the best
[1:43:09] to figure out where a community
[1:43:12] is going. I was prodded by
[1:43:15] another citizen, Linda, you
[1:43:19] know, it's your civic duty to be
[1:43:20] involved. So, that first special
[1:43:23] council meeting, Brent Cowan and
[1:43:25] a few others wanted to give
[1:43:30] Madam directress the ability to
[1:43:33] speak to Cadillac Fairview. We
[1:43:38] never heard back, so that
[1:43:40] probably possibly never went
[1:43:42] anywhere. The second one was,
[1:43:48] yes, the administration, the
[1:43:53] administration administrative
[1:43:55] oversight and I understand that
[1:43:57] was another special meeting. All
[1:43:59] of you, yes, we are going to
[1:44:02] heck in a basket and, you know,
[1:44:06] we are all falling apart here
[1:44:08] because of our mayor. I
[1:44:11] understand, I believe correctly,
[1:44:14] that that was denied to the
[1:44:16] Councillors. And I think there
[1:44:18] was another one. So, yes,
[1:44:22] whatever preparation anybody
[1:44:25] got, whether the mayor got
[1:44:27] preparation for those special
[1:44:28] meetings or you got special
[1:44:32] preparation for this meeting,
[1:44:35] this meeting or this
[1:44:36] conversation certainly is,
[1:44:38] again, long overdue. Because I
[1:44:43] applaud you, Madam who just
[1:44:46] spoke. Yes, I only went to one
[1:44:48] of those meetings with 100
[1:44:53] people. Ten tables, ten people
[1:44:56] each, and the only resounding
[1:44:59] effect, there was one person who
[1:45:00] stood up at each table and every
[1:45:04] one of them was say the
[1:45:09] ecosystem, Fairview forest. And
[1:45:12] I also believe that most people
[1:45:16] said, we really don't want to
[1:45:18] see more than six storeys almost
[1:45:22] anywhere. We know that that's an
[1:45:25] impossibility. So, speaking to
[1:45:27] the councillors, my last
[1:45:31] question, I will lead up to one
[1:45:34] question. And my final question
[1:45:38] is, where were you? On different
[1:45:45] occasions where I presented
[1:45:47] myself in this forum, I have
[1:45:50] asked you specifically and not
[1:45:54] gotten an answer, whereas Miss
[1:45:57] Thorstad-Cullen wished to answer
[1:46:00] tonight. Would you please inform
[1:46:02] your constituents about the
[1:46:06] ecosystem that is Fairview
[1:46:09] forest? Randomly, speaking to my
[1:46:12] neighbours, et cetera, is that
[1:46:20] near Cadillac Fairview? So many
[1:46:25] people either working too hard,
[1:46:28] disengage, it's Segura, that
[1:46:30] Sarah. There are maybe not that
[1:46:32] many of us who really know, but
[1:46:35] should be made aware. And I
[1:46:37] believe it is the Councillors
[1:46:39] responsibilities to reach their
[1:46:42] constituents, so that we can
[1:46:44] have a proper and informed vote,
[1:46:48] if it comes to a public vote.
[1:46:52] About the forest. So, here at
[1:46:55] this podium, I have asked you to
[1:46:57] do it. I have copied every
[1:47:00] councillor on three occasions
[1:47:03] when I sent letters beginning
[1:47:07] earth day, 2023, to the
[1:47:10] executives at Cadillac Fairview
[1:47:12] Toronto, Cadillac Fairview
[1:47:14] Montréal, the owners of an
[1:47:17] ecosystem, the Ontario teachers
[1:47:19] pension plan. In which I stated
[1:47:26] right at the very beginning,
[1:47:28] what is all this talk about?
[1:47:30] You've got to find out if they
[1:47:32] will sell it to us and start
[1:47:35] talking about paying for it. The
[1:47:39] various levels of government.
[1:47:42] Tax concessions for probably our
[1:47:46] biggest taxpayer, Cadillac
[1:47:48] Fairview. 50 years is not a long
[1:47:52] time to pay for something has
[1:47:56] drastically as important as this
[1:48:00] ecosystem. I know another time,
[1:48:04] September 2023, my husband and I
[1:48:07] initiated a 200 person mailing,
[1:48:10] forming to elected federal,
[1:48:12] provincial, this council, and
[1:48:14] all the mayors on the island of
[1:48:18] Montréal, asking. It was talking
[1:48:22] about the ecosystem and that we
[1:48:25] need to get on to it. And then
[1:48:29] earlier this year, this is my
[1:48:31] last point, I wrote on to this
[1:48:37] council and got one response
[1:48:39] from Tara Stainforth, which we
[1:48:44] did not go anywhere with it. But
[1:48:46] again, all of these times
[1:48:49] saying, it was saying educate
[1:48:52] your constituents. Inform your
[1:48:55] constituents about this
[1:48:58] ecosystem. Let them make up
[1:49:00] their minds and try to inform
[1:49:04] them that there is a slew of
[1:49:08] information, educational
[1:49:09] information, information going
[1:49:10] back, absolutely decades upon
[1:49:13] decades. The tipping point is
[1:49:14] not now, it was back then. Those
[1:49:19] were leading indicators and
[1:49:20] right now, you are the lagging
[1:49:24] indicator. My last point, so I
[1:49:26] wrote each councillor asking
[1:49:27] them again to engage their
[1:49:30] constituents with information
[1:49:32] about this urban ecosystem. My
[1:49:36] question is, where were you?
[1:49:39] Thank you.
[1:49:46] >> Alberta Eskenazi?
[1:49:54] No? Sandra Maki?
[1:50:08] - Bonsoir à tous. J'aimerais
[1:50:10] remercier Monsieur le Maire et
[1:50:11] monsieur Tremblay de votre appui
[1:50:13] de la proposition qui est, je
[1:50:15] pense, une proposition qui me
[1:50:17] semblait, moi, comme personne
[1:50:19] ordinaire entre guillemets,
[1:50:21] démocratique, légale. Il y a
[1:50:24] peut-être quelque chose que je
[1:50:25] ne comprends pas, mais j'ai vu
[1:50:26] beaucoup de passion que les
[1:50:27] autres conseillers qui
[1:50:28] semblaient dire que ce n'était
[1:50:29] pas légal. J'aimerais comprendre
[1:50:34] pourquoi? Il y a peut-être
[1:50:36] quelque chose que je n'ai pas
[1:50:37] compris? Et puis l'autre
[1:50:39] commentaire que je voulais
[1:50:40] faire, je comprends que la
[1:50:45] forêt, c'est une propriété
[1:50:46] privée. Moi, je travaille en
[1:50:48] affaires, donc je comprends bien
[1:50:51] que la propriété appartient à
[1:50:54] Cadillac Fairview et puis eux,
[1:50:59] ils ont donné des sous, et moi,
[1:51:01] si j'avais investi dans la
[1:51:02] compagnie, je voudrais avoir mon
[1:51:03] retour, mais je pense que si on
[1:51:06] regarde aujourd'hui avec la
[1:51:08] crise climatique dans laquelle
[1:51:09] on vit, il y a des coûts, il y a
[1:51:12] des coûts rattachés aux
[1:51:14] inondations, aux feux de forêt.
[1:51:16] O.K., On dit: oui, ça va coûter
[1:51:18] combien acheter le terrain? Mais
[1:51:20] après, ça va coûter combien aux
[1:51:22] gens, aux citoyens, pour les
[1:51:24] sous-sols? Vous avez vu tous les
[1:51:25] gens qui avaient tous leurs
[1:51:27] meubles dehors, ça coûte combien
[1:51:28] refaire les sous-sols? Ça va
[1:51:30] revenir encore à plusieurs
[1:51:32] reprises. Donc en tout cas, moi,
[1:51:35] je pense qu'il faut avoir une
[1:51:37] discussion par rapport à comment
[1:51:39] on va gérer ça. Moi, j'ai parlé
[1:51:41] à beaucoup d'autres citoyens.
[1:51:44] C'est rare que je rencontre,
[1:51:45] c'est sûr qu'il y a des gens qui
[1:51:47] sont, qui veulent développer la
[1:51:48] forêt, mais la majorité des gens
[1:51:50] disent: oui, il faut faire
[1:51:51] quelque chose. Et puis vous êtes
[1:51:55] dans le siège du pouvoir et puis
[1:51:56] j'aimerais vous voir travailler
[1:51:58] ensemble et c'est ça. Trouver un
[1:52:01] moyen pour que les citoyens,
[1:52:02] leurs voix peuvent être
[1:52:04] entendues. Donc ma question,
[1:52:05] c'était: je ne comprends pas les
[1:52:07] aspects légaux par rapport à
[1:52:08] tout ça? >> You can answer me in
[1:52:11] English, thank you.
[1:52:12] >> Well, Miss Maki, I will
[1:52:17] address that question. When I
[1:52:20] heard when Mr. -- got up and
[1:52:23] spoke, and others informed me of
[1:52:24] what happened in the meetings
[1:52:25] and how immediately, people were
[1:52:29] silenced and hushed on speaking
[1:52:34] to the environmental crisis, to
[1:52:36] their survival as a species, to
[1:52:38] the future of the planet,
[1:52:40] somehow that wasn't allowed
[1:52:42] because of an impending lawsuit
[1:52:44] that we don't know the validity
[1:52:46] of. So, what struck me as a
[1:52:49] Democrat is because there's a
[1:52:52] lawsuit, does that mean
[1:52:53] everybody has to be quiet, we
[1:52:55] can't even talk about our
[1:52:57] future? Our survival as a
[1:52:58] species? A lawsuit done ISIS the
[1:53:00] ability to do that? I don't
[1:53:01] think so. And as a Democrat, I
[1:53:05] heard what had happened and my
[1:53:07] staff will tell you, I was not
[1:53:09] very happy when I heard that
[1:53:11] people were silenced and not
[1:53:12] able to speak to that issue.
[1:53:14] That is why I'm doing this
[1:53:16] tonight. As much as anything, to
[1:53:19] rectify or wrong, and it was a
[1:53:20] wrong. Because there is a
[1:53:22] lawsuit, we've heard of all this
[1:53:23] impending legal doom. Well,
[1:53:26] okay, a lawsuit is worth pretty
[1:53:28] good value for dollar. You can
[1:53:29] shut up everybody, every
[1:53:31] Democrat in the world if you
[1:53:32] just put down a lawsuit. You can
[1:53:33] silence and get whatever you
[1:53:34] want. Should politics operator
[1:53:37] operate that way? Should we, as
[1:53:38] a Council, operate that way? I
[1:53:40] think we're better Democrats in
[1:53:41] that, that's all. And it's not
[1:53:43] reckless, it's respecting the
[1:53:45] people. Does anybody else want
[1:53:46] to speak to that?
[1:53:52] >> So, you know what that is.
[1:53:53] - Bonjour Madame Lackey, merci
[1:53:55] pour votre question. C'est une
[1:53:56] bonne question: qu'est-ce qu'il
[1:53:57] y a là-dedans qui est illégal?
[1:53:59] Ce que moi, je n'ai pas eu
[1:54:00] l'assurance de notre équipe
[1:54:02] juridique pour dire que tout
[1:54:04] était légal et qu'il n'y aura
[1:54:05] pas de problème futur avec
[1:54:07] Cadillac Fairview. Parce qu'ils
[1:54:09] sont nommés là-dedans, leur
[1:54:11] terrain est nommée là-dedans.
[1:54:12] Donc Marc, je ne peux pas voter
[1:54:13] sur quelque chose sans me faire
[1:54:16] rassurer que le tout est
[1:54:17] correct. Parce que ça n'a pas
[1:54:19] été rédigé par nos employés,
[1:54:21] cette résolution-là. Alors c'est
[1:54:23] ça mon problème avec. Je suis
[1:54:26] complètement ouverte à des
[1:54:28] consultations concernant
[1:54:29] l'environnement, concernant
[1:54:31] l'achat des terrains, que ce
[1:54:33] soit la forêt Fairview, que ce
[1:54:35] soit des terrains au bord de
[1:54:37] l'eau, etc., Etc.. Mais il faut
[1:54:40] aussi, ce n'est pas clair non
[1:54:41] plus. On dit des espaces verts,
[1:54:43] mais c'est quoi le but de la
[1:54:45] consultation? C'est tout
[1:54:46] simplement écrit: espaces verts.
[1:54:48] Mais quoi? D'acheter des espaces
[1:54:50] verts, de développer des espaces
[1:54:52] verts? Il n'y a rien, il n'y a
[1:54:54] rien de plus que le mot: espace
[1:54:56] vert. Donc pour moi, ce n'est
[1:54:57] pas assez précis avec des
[1:55:00] détails. Mais oui, on peut,
[1:55:02] c'est sûr qu'on peut avoir des
[1:55:04] consultations. Je n'ai aucun
[1:55:06] problème avec ça. Et comme j'ai
[1:55:08] dit, il faut en parler, de cette
[1:55:10] forêt-là à un moment donné. Mais
[1:55:12] moi, je ne voterai jamais pour
[1:55:15] une résolution qui nomme la
[1:55:17] forêt spécifiquement si je n'ai
[1:55:19] pas l'assurance de notre équipe
[1:55:22] administratives que le tout est
[1:55:24] correct, un. Et je ne pense pas
[1:55:26] qu'on devrait faire une
[1:55:27] consultation que sur ce
[1:55:29] terrain-là. On a plein d'espace
[1:55:31] qu'on peut transformer, qu'on
[1:55:33] peut accueillir, tu sais, qu'on
[1:55:34] puisse avoir, acheter ou peu
[1:55:37] importe. Tu sais, Bordeleau,
[1:55:40] etc.. Il y a des opportunités
[1:55:42] qui nous arrivent. Mais je veux
[1:55:45] savoir, il faut consulter les
[1:55:46] gens aussi. Comment on va faire
[1:55:49] ça, qu'est-ce qu'on veut
[1:55:50] acheter, qu'est-ce qu'on veut
[1:55:51] avoir, etc.? Ces précisions-là
[1:55:53] ne sont pas là-dedans. C'est
[1:55:55] juste écrit les espaces verts.
[1:55:59] Ça veut dire quoi ça?
[1:56:00] - Je pense que MU1, excusez-moi,
[1:56:03] MU2, vous savez bien qu'est-ce
[1:56:04] que ça veut dire? Je suis un peu
[1:56:05] surpris d'entendre. Vous n'êtes
[1:56:08] pas déjà en litige avec Sergio?
[1:56:12] Fairview plutôt.
[1:56:13] - Je ne comprends pas.
[1:56:14] - Dans le texte, ce n'est pas
[1:56:16] indiqué MU2 dans le texte de la
[1:56:17] résolution?
[1:56:18] - Oui.
[1:56:19] - Oui! Justement! Justement,
[1:56:24] c'est ça que je suis en train de
[1:56:25] dire. Ça ne devrait pas être une
[1:56:27] consultation juste sur cette
[1:56:28] propriété-là. >> And I believe
[1:56:30] it's the largest natural space
[1:56:31] left in Pointe-Claire.
[1:56:33] >> Yes, I'm not debating that. I
[1:56:35] 100% and behind saving the
[1:56:37] forest. That's not what I'm
[1:56:38] saying. I'm saying it's a poorly
[1:56:39] written resolution that needs
[1:56:41] more detail, needs
[1:56:42] clarification, and needs to be
[1:56:44] vetted by our administration
[1:56:45] before I will vote on it. That's
[1:56:48] it.
[1:56:49] >> I would love it if you would
[1:56:50] work with the Mayor and come up
[1:56:51] with a resolution.
[1:56:52] >> Had he brought it to Council,
[1:56:53] we would have. It never came to
[1:56:55] Council.
[1:56:56] >> I would like to comment,
[1:56:57] please.
[1:56:58] >> Yeah? Yes, Councillor Stork?
[1:57:02] >> Okay, sorry. How we got here.
[1:57:07] Okay, what have we done? So, if
[1:57:10] you go back to the history, once
[1:57:11] the lawsuit was put upon us, and
[1:57:14] we put an RCI -- voted
[1:57:16] unanimously to do it. -- So,
[1:57:20] there was time to go through the
[1:57:22] process. So, we have to resolve
[1:57:23] the litigation, we did send a
[1:57:25] letter, we got a reply which was
[1:57:28] a bit shocking. A bit shocking.
[1:57:34] And we are going to have a
[1:57:36] public consultations with every
[1:57:37] administration decided. Through
[1:57:39] the process, we were waiting for
[1:57:40] the process to come to -- we
[1:57:41] were going to talk about shortly
[1:57:43] about that. As we said in
[1:57:45] Council, it's never been a
[1:57:46] discussion. So, as I mentioned
[1:57:49] clearly, when I received all
[1:57:50] those emails and
[1:57:54] congratulations, all of you, for
[1:57:55] doing that, okay? You know, I
[1:57:57] responded to anybody who is in
[1:57:58] my district. I'm not responding
[1:57:59] to some lady in Shibuya mu,
[1:58:02] okay? I apologize, okay? Sorry,
[1:58:06] I did not respond to the point.
[1:58:08] I did not.
[1:58:12] >> Are you in Councillor Stork's
[1:58:15] district, monsieur Lapointe?
[1:58:17] >> Thank you, Mayor Thomas, for
[1:58:19] clarifying that. So from there,
[1:58:21] you know, what those letters
[1:58:23] that were signed along with the
[1:58:25] fact that the conversation I had
[1:58:26] with a citizen. Because of the
[1:58:28] interactions over the last three
[1:58:31] years to not want to discuss
[1:58:33] this in caucus, that's what
[1:58:35] pushed me. I said okay, we, I
[1:58:38] think generally, waiting for the
[1:58:39] process to go through, the
[1:58:41] litigation to the RCI, have a
[1:58:42] public consultations to come
[1:58:44] together with a plan. But
[1:58:45] because of what transpired, I
[1:58:47] felt compelled to push the
[1:58:48] agenda forward because of the
[1:58:50] letters received, because of my
[1:58:52] conversations. So, that's why
[1:58:53] we've come to this because I
[1:58:54] think it's required to be done,
[1:58:56] because all of this animosity,
[1:58:59] this anxiety has to come to an
[1:59:01] end and we had a clear plan for.
[1:59:03] What was presented wasn't a
[1:59:04] plan. It was not a plan. It
[1:59:06] would've been a session where
[1:59:07] people come in and say oh, you
[1:59:09] know, I want six storeys. Did
[1:59:11] anybody hear what I said last
[1:59:12] time about the viability of six
[1:59:14] storeys? We have to be told that
[1:59:16] six storeys is not viable
[1:59:18] financially. It'll never happen.
[1:59:20] So, what do we do? We don't
[1:59:22] want, you know, higher
[1:59:24] buildings. Well, you have
[1:59:26] height, affordability, and green
[1:59:28] space. They are all interacting.
[1:59:30] If you don't want height, yes,
[1:59:31] we can put six storeys
[1:59:33] everywhere. We are going to have
[1:59:34] no green space. These are the
[1:59:37] variables we have to be educated
[1:59:38] on as the other lady just said.
[1:59:40] We need to be educated on these
[1:59:42] variables. If we talk about new
[1:59:44] buildings, Mister El Dabee,
[1:59:46] well, I try to clarify when
[1:59:48] whether it be a parking lot, a
[1:59:50] park, or an office building, it
[1:59:52] does not change the amount of
[1:59:53] rain that falls from the sky.
[1:59:55] And every time a new building is
[1:59:57] built, whether an industrial
[1:59:59] building, which is look at 275
[2:00:02] Hymus. Whether you like
[2:00:03] apartments are not. They are
[2:00:05] apartments. There are 60 I think
[2:00:07] 63% green space, if I'm not
[2:00:09] mistaken. And it was industrial
[2:00:11] about 20%. We have added green
[2:00:13] space. Not only that, with every
[2:00:15] one of these new buildings are
[2:00:17] done they have, to follow the
[2:00:18] new codes for water running off
[2:00:21] their parking lots. So,
[2:00:24] historically, there has been
[2:00:25] none. Basically, the water just
[2:00:27] ran off on older buildings. Now
[2:00:28] you have to limit, you have to
[2:00:29] create catch basins under
[2:00:31] parking lots, so the water
[2:00:33] runoff does not over Phil and
[2:00:35] over surge into our systems. So,
[2:00:37] a lot of things that are
[2:00:38] happening, all of the changes
[2:00:39] that are going on in these new
[2:00:41] developments are actually
[2:00:42] helping us. Those are the
[2:00:43] conversations we have to have.
[2:00:45] The educational process that we
[2:00:47] have to go through. But as
[2:00:49] Councillor Stainforth mentioned,
[2:00:50] I'm there to help as much as I
[2:00:52] can. But we need facts. We as I
[2:00:54] said in my statement, we have to
[2:00:55] put together a concrete, solid
[2:00:57] plan that just doesn't scream,
[2:00:59] let's save the Fairview forest.
[2:01:01] We have to work together. We
[2:01:02] have to reach out to other
[2:01:03] people who can finance this. We
[2:01:05] have to put a plan together and
[2:01:07] I don't like to talk about
[2:01:08] financial viability, but it's a
[2:01:11] variable. At the end of the day,
[2:01:13] it's going to come down to that.
[2:01:15] Personally, if I had to pay an
[2:01:16] extra $600, I probably would
[2:01:18] because I can afford it. But
[2:01:19] this is a decision that must be
[2:01:21] made by the whole community, not
[2:01:23] by a group of people or anything
[2:01:25] of that nature. One last, little
[2:01:27] comment, we did receive a letter
[2:01:28] from Cadillac Fairview stating
[2:01:30] that 98% of the wetlands must be
[2:01:33] protected. Okay? No, because I
[2:01:38] will leave it at that. That's
[2:01:40] the answer.
[2:01:41] >> Okay, thank you, Miss Maki.
[2:01:44] Just quickly, Pierrefonds has
[2:01:45] just built, is in the process of
[2:01:48] building a six storey building
[2:01:50] right beside their REM station.
[2:01:52] So, what's good for Pierrefonds
[2:01:53] apparently is not good for
[2:01:55] Pointe-Claire. Councillor
[2:01:56] Tremblay, you wanted to --
[2:02:00] >> Thank you, Councillor
[2:02:01] Tremblay.
[2:02:02] - C'est seulement pour adresser
[2:02:03] la question qui a été posée par
[2:02:04] madame Mackie concernant les
[2:02:05] aspects légaux, etc.. Moi, tout
[2:02:07] ce que j'ai reçu, pour répondre
[2:02:08] à votre question, c'est le
[2:02:09] document. Donc je n'ai rien reçu
[2:02:11] de l'administration par rapport
[2:02:12] à ça. Je ne sais pas, Madame
[2:02:16] Stainforth, d'où vient ces
[2:02:17] informations-là, certaines
[2:02:18] assurances, etc.. Mais tout ce
[2:02:20] que j'ai moi en main, c'est
[2:02:22] décidé sur le point
[2:02:28] 6.1.
[2:02:29] - Merci, Conseiller Tremblay.
[2:02:31] Geneviève Lussier?
[2:02:32] Oh, Stewart bran, yes. -
[2:02:33] (inaudible)
[2:02:35] Sorry, Stewart.
[2:02:45] >> That's okay. My name is
[2:02:47] Stewart Brennan, I'm from -- I
[2:02:50] just heard about the meeting
[2:02:52] this morning, so I was actually
[2:02:53] very happy to hear about it. I
[2:02:57] can't understand what everybody
[2:02:58] here or have to people here on
[2:02:59] the Council are up in arms about
[2:03:02] it. This is a very important
[2:03:04] topic. This is a very important
[2:03:05] topic that everybody. So, get
[2:03:10] your nose back in straight, work
[2:03:13] together, okay? Who are you
[2:03:14] working for? Are you working for
[2:03:16] us, the citizens? Or are you
[2:03:18] working for special interests?
[2:03:22] That's just what it's going to
[2:03:23] come down to. As far as the
[2:03:26] environment goes, look at the
[2:03:29] disasters that have already
[2:03:30] happened with these buildings
[2:03:31] that have gone up on Hymus and
[2:03:32] Del Mar. They used to be green
[2:03:35] spaces. I don't care if a caller
[2:03:36] industrial, it was all green,
[2:03:38] okay? And all the animals that
[2:03:39] were there, hit by cars,
[2:03:41] whatever they, had no place to
[2:03:42] go. All that area, okay? What
[2:03:46] happens there? So, you obviously
[2:03:51] want to take on the big place,
[2:03:52] the biggest place left, then you
[2:03:54] want to destroy it. That's
[2:03:56] ridiculous. This is not talking
[2:04:00] about finances, finances? This
[2:04:03] is not about finances. This is
[2:04:04] about community. Community and
[2:04:08] people here, okay? The
[2:04:11] environment. That is what the
[2:04:13] environment, the environment is
[2:04:14] community, so I'm telling you,
[2:04:16] get together. I am glad this
[2:04:18] meeting was held tonight because
[2:04:20] we can start to see what's going
[2:04:21] on here. Okay? We want to know.
[2:04:25] So, my question is, will you
[2:04:27] pull a referendum for this? We
[2:04:29] want to have a say in what's
[2:04:32] going to happen in this Fairview
[2:04:37] --
[2:04:38] >> A referendum on what
[2:04:39] specifically, Mr. Brennan?
[2:04:41] >> On protecting the environment
[2:04:43] that you're talking about today.
[2:04:45] >> So, a referendum on whether
[2:04:47] Council should work in earnest,
[2:04:49] solely protect the environment?
[2:04:50] >> To protect the environment,
[2:04:52] yes. I ask the people in this
[2:04:55] city if they want to protect
[2:04:56] this environment or they want to
[2:04:57] have it all built up with 25, 27
[2:05:01] storey buildings? That's
[2:05:03] ridiculous. It's ridiculous.
[2:05:04] >> So we, should have a
[2:05:06] referendum on height and the
[2:05:08] environment?
[2:05:09] >> We should have a referendum
[2:05:11] on protecting this whole area.
[2:05:14] >> Okay, so we will go beyond
[2:05:16] just having consultation. We
[2:05:17] will go to referendum. Can we go
[2:05:19] to referendum on that? Caroline
[2:05:25] picked a fine time to leave the
[2:05:27] room.
[2:05:30] - Mais vous pouvez tenir un
[2:05:31] référendum consultatif. >> You
[2:05:32] can have a referendum -- we have
[2:05:35] a process for that. Un
[2:05:36] référendum consultatif. We need
[2:05:37] to have a question, specific.
[2:05:42] >> Food for thought, food for
[2:05:44] thought.
[2:05:45] >> Simple question.
[2:05:46] >> Thank you very much, Mister
[2:05:48] Brennan. Geneviève Lucia?
[2:05:50] >> If I may, Mr. Bryan, who were
[2:05:57] you referring to when you
[2:05:59] mentioned special interests?
[2:06:03] >> Mr. Brennan --
[2:06:05] >> No, no.
[2:06:06] >> Hang on, Mr. Cousineau. We
[2:06:08] are not here to debate. With
[2:06:10] someone in the -- Mr. Bryan --
[2:06:12] >> I'm asking a question!
[2:06:13] >> He answered the question,
[2:06:14] he's going to respond and then,
[2:06:16] but it will not be a debate
[2:06:18] here.
[2:06:20] >> No no, here we go.
[2:06:23] >> Go ahead.
[2:06:24] >> You mention, you mentioned
[2:06:27] special interests at 903. Who
[2:06:32] are you referring to a special
[2:06:36] interest?
[2:06:37] >> Real estate developers.
[2:06:39] >> Very good.
[2:06:41] >> Thank you. Okay, asked and
[2:06:43] answered. Okay, Geneviève Lucy.
[2:06:45] Geneviève Lussier. Thank you,
[2:06:46] Mr. Bennett.
[2:06:47] >> Thank you --
[2:06:52] >> Hi everybody. - Bonjour, tout
[2:06:53] le monde. Excuse my voice, I'm
[2:06:54] fighting a sinus infection. Donc
[2:06:59] quand la réouverture Dieu
[2:07:03] (---)
[2:07:04] d'urbanisme avait débuté, ce que
[2:07:05] j'avais compris, c'est qu'on
[2:07:06] aurait la chance de vraiment
[2:07:07] voir la Ville dans son
[2:07:08] entièreté. On aurait eu la
[2:07:10] chance de discuter de quoi la
[2:07:12] Ville aurait l'air, la Ville de
[2:07:15] Pointe-Claire dans l'année 2024,
[2:07:17] dans l'année 2030, dans l'année
[2:07:20] 2050. Et puis un de ces
[2:07:23] items-là, c'est que la Ville de
[2:07:24] Pointe-Claire présentement
[2:07:26] protège seulement 9% de son
[2:07:27] territoire comme espace naturel.
[2:07:29] Bon, c'est vraiment pas assez,
[2:07:31] c'est loin des promesses
[2:07:33] provinciales, c'est loin des
[2:07:34] promesses fédérales, c'est loin
[2:07:35] des promesses de la CMM. Il y
[2:07:37] aura aussi des promesses au
[2:07:38] niveau municipal aussi. Donc on
[2:07:40] n'a pas eu la chance de discuter
[2:07:42] de ces choses. La consultation
[2:07:45] sur l'environnement a vraiment
[2:07:46] discuté des arbres, de
[2:07:48] plantation d'arbres dans les
[2:07:49] cours avant arrière, est-ce
[2:07:50] qu'on devrait avoir des poules.
[2:07:52] Là, ce n'était vraiment pas
[2:07:54] comme ce qu'on pensait qu'on
[2:07:55] avait discuté dans cette
[2:07:56] consultation-là. Donc quand on a
[2:07:59] vu la résolution, on se dit que
[2:08:01] finalement, on va pouvoir
[2:08:02] discuter de l'item, donc je
[2:08:04] n'étais pas conscient du côté
[2:08:06] légal du tout, du tout, de ce
[2:08:07] qui se passait, je ne sais pas
[2:08:08] si c'est légal de parler de MU2
[2:08:13] parce que la ville est en mitige
[2:08:14] avec Cadillac Fairview, mais que
[2:08:15] je comprends de monsieur Cowan,
[2:08:19] MU2 on n'a jamais reçu les
[2:08:20] plans, donc il n'y aurait pas de
[2:08:21] problème. There have never been
[2:08:22] plans for MU2, so essentially
[2:08:23] they shouldn't be any litigation
[2:08:24] related to MU2, that's my
[2:08:25] understanding, okay? O.K.. Donc
[2:08:28] on pourrait aussi retourner la
[2:08:30] forêt sans problème est-ce que
[2:08:31] je comprends. Retourner. Ma
[2:08:34] question originale, quand je
[2:08:35] vais venir à la rencontre ce
[2:08:36] soir, c'était par rapport aux
[2:08:39] que serait le scope de la
[2:08:43] consultation. Qu'est-ce qu'on
[2:08:44] discuterait dans cette
[2:08:45] consultation-là. Parce que la
[2:08:46] consultation qu'on a déjà eu sur
[2:08:47] l'environnement était vraiment
[2:08:48] flou, il n'y avait pas de... It
[2:08:49] had no meat to it. On parle
[2:08:54] d'arbres, c'était vraiment,
[2:08:55] vraiment immense et ça manquait
[2:08:56] de substance. Donc il y avait
[2:09:00] consultation sur la forêt
[2:09:02] Fairview, sur les espaces
[2:09:03] naturels comme l'a dit
[2:09:08] conseillère Tara Stainforth, sur
[2:09:10] les espaces naturels sur les
[2:09:11] terrains privés, qu'est-ce qui
[2:09:13] serait dans cette
[2:09:14] consultation-là? Moi, je suis
[2:09:15] vraiment intéressé, c'est ça ma
[2:09:17] question, c'était ça ma question
[2:09:18] quand je suis arrivé ce soir.
[2:09:19] Mais, là ça a été voté, en tout
[2:09:22] cas, non, que la consultation,
[2:09:24] celle-ci ne se passera pas, mais
[2:09:26] je voudrais vraiment savoir
[2:09:27] qu'est-ce que vous avez en tête
[2:09:29] par rapport à une consultation
[2:09:32] si elle arrivait dans le futur.
[2:09:35] Qu'est-ce qui serait dans cette
[2:09:36] consultation-là? Excuse my voice
[2:09:38] again.
[2:09:39] >> Well, that's part of why the
[2:09:40] resolution was unrelated
[2:09:42] specifically so it couldn't be
[2:09:43] dodge, so we could get to some
[2:09:44] of the heart of the issues and
[2:09:45] we can get some people who are
[2:09:46] directly involved. So, that was
[2:09:48] part of the strategy in the way
[2:09:49] the resolution was constructed.
[2:09:52] Because I agree with you, it has
[2:09:53] to be sharper and on point, and
[2:09:57] the environmental costs. Not
[2:10:00] costs, the environmental cost
[2:10:02] has to be addressed 100% in the
[2:10:05] consultation and who's to say it
[2:10:06] won't be I'm? In a, good
[2:10:08] consultant, I've heard that
[2:10:09] there are very very good
[2:10:10] municipal consultants available
[2:10:11] who can do that and there are
[2:10:14] effective, there have been some
[2:10:15] effective participation
[2:10:16] processes that we have heard of.
[2:10:18] So, I'm sorry, I've heard some
[2:10:19] of ours were good. I've heard
[2:10:21] mixed reviews, some were not so
[2:10:23] good. But I really didn't, like,
[2:10:27] the consultation process
[2:10:28] shutting down on the most
[2:10:29] important issue in the city. I
[2:10:31] thought that was quite
[2:10:32] astonishing, so that's my only
[2:10:34] answer to your question. Unless
[2:10:36] someone else wants to address
[2:10:39] it.
[2:10:40] >> To be honest, I wasn't sure
[2:10:41] if the questions would come from
[2:10:42] the administration and help
[2:10:43] formerly the questions that B.C.
[2:10:45] to give us, but that's why,
[2:10:48] like, I was wondering if the
[2:10:49] questions could, if we do have a
[2:10:50] consultation on natural spaces
[2:10:51] privately on natural spaces,
[2:10:52] what questions come from. Ou
[2:10:53] est-ce que c'était vraiment venu
[2:10:54] de BC2 eux-mêmes, je ne sais
[2:10:55] pas.
[2:10:59] When they come from Council?
[2:11:00] Would they include, okay, if we
[2:11:02] have this much funding from
[2:11:03] federal, provincial, municipal,
[2:11:05] what can we do with that money?
[2:11:07] If half of it is not buildable,
[2:11:10] that decreases the property
[2:11:11] value, and what do we do? You
[2:11:12] know, there are all these things
[2:11:14] that nobody is talking about,
[2:11:16] but need to be talked about. And
[2:11:18] talking about it is going to
[2:11:19] cost 50 million, that's not the
[2:11:21] case when you have a lot more
[2:11:22] discussion around that. So, I'm
[2:11:23] very frustrated with these big
[2:11:25] amounts being thrown out
[2:11:26] constantly. It's a scare tactic
[2:11:27] and I don't like it because we
[2:11:29] need to be talking about
[2:11:31] solutions.
[2:11:32] [Applause]
[2:11:33] Thank you. So, I want to know
[2:11:35] how these other solutions are
[2:11:37] going to be part of that
[2:11:39] discussion. You know, let's not
[2:11:40] throw those big numbers, yes,
[2:11:42] there's going to be a cost and I
[2:11:43] think it's fair to compensate
[2:11:44] Cadillac Fairview, absolutely.
[2:11:45] But what's that number going to
[2:11:46] be? What number is fair? And so,
[2:11:49] there is a lot of little things
[2:11:51] that I feel like have to be
[2:11:52] included in the consultations if
[2:11:53] they do happen. And whether it
[2:11:55] comes in a consultation likely
[2:11:56] format that you're going to be
[2:11:58] proposing or that Brent Cowan
[2:12:00] was, I don't know if you're
[2:12:01] trying to propose or Mayor
[2:12:03] Thomas is trying to propose, I
[2:12:04] don't know what that's going to
[2:12:05] look like but there's so much to
[2:12:07] all of this, you know? Funding
[2:12:10] that comes from subdividing MU1.
[2:12:14] Money is going to come for that.
[2:12:15] You can thank Normand Lapointe
[2:12:18] for those numbers that we can
[2:12:19] discuss at a later date but
[2:12:20] there is another money that can
[2:12:21] come from different places.
[2:12:23] Changing your tax -- for
[2:12:25] example. All these things can
[2:12:26] contribute to a fund and so, I
[2:12:29] guess I'm going off-topic a
[2:12:30] little bit. Sorry. But I just
[2:12:32] really wanted to know what the
[2:12:33] scope of the consultations are
[2:12:35] going to be because it was very
[2:12:37] frustrating to get that last
[2:12:38] consultation about the
[2:12:39] environment and to feel like
[2:12:40] nothing was really being
[2:12:42] discussed of substance. This
[2:12:46] just so much to this, so it
[2:12:48] really needs to be
[2:12:49] comprehensive, it needs to be
[2:12:51] well laid out and all the
[2:12:55] options on the table. I mean,
[2:12:56] I'm not going to say all again,
[2:12:58] all the options, not just, like,
[2:13:01] we've got to pay them 120
[2:13:03] million, like that's not
[2:13:05] realistic. Do not want
[2:13:07] Pointe-Claire taxpayers to pay
[2:13:08] $120 million for that for us,
[2:13:10] that's not realistic. Anyway, so
[2:13:12] I really, sorry, go back to my
[2:13:14] question, -- what are the, what
[2:13:18] would the consultations look
[2:13:19] like?
[2:13:21] >> Well, that's an excellent
[2:13:23] question and I wonder that
[2:13:25] myself. Part of the huge part of
[2:13:27] this process that I somewhat
[2:13:30] regret is that the politicians
[2:13:32] were taken out of the process.
[2:13:34] Because they wanted to
[2:13:36] politicize it, so we were all
[2:13:37] removed for the process, so none
[2:13:39] of us could have much say on the
[2:13:41] process or the consultation
[2:13:42] subject matter and how it was
[2:13:44] engaged in. So, you know, I was
[2:13:46] a methodology's at the time, I
[2:13:48] had a research and it was very
[2:13:50] frustrating to stand back and
[2:13:52] that's part of iso want to take
[2:13:55] a role because I've done this
[2:13:56] and studied it, and researched,
[2:13:58] and it's just really frustrating
[2:13:59] to watch. I don't have an answer
[2:14:01] for the. I think that we
[2:14:04] desperately need a structure
[2:14:07] really good methodological
[2:14:09] survey of what people think, and
[2:14:10] it can be done. We've got to get
[2:14:12] the right questions answered and
[2:14:14] asked. And how the people were
[2:14:17] guided is the key question. I
[2:14:21] would like to ask the
[2:14:22] administration who had control
[2:14:25] over the substance of those
[2:14:27] questions in the public
[2:14:29] consultations.
[2:14:33] >>
[2:14:34] - En français ou en anglais?
[2:14:35] - Ce n'est pas grave.
[2:14:36] - L'ensemble des consultations
[2:14:37] publiques ont travaillé avec le
[2:14:38] conseil municipal, l'ensemble du
[2:14:39] conseil municipal en atelier
[2:14:40] d'urbanisme. Et après, ça a été
[2:14:42] travaillé conjointement avec le
[2:14:44] consultant. Tous les sujets
[2:14:47] qu'on bâtissait un peu à force
[2:14:49] que les consultations allaient
[2:14:50] de l'avant, donc on voyait aussi
[2:14:52] les questions qu'on avait, on
[2:14:53] avait des sondages avec les gens
[2:14:54] qui voulaient aborder des sujets
[2:14:56] et ils ont été discutés en
[2:14:58] atelier d'urbanisme avec les
[2:15:00] conseils, on choisissait les
[2:15:01] grandes lignes dans la
[2:15:02] consultation publique,
[2:15:03] travailler avec notre
[2:15:04] consultant, revenir aussi avec
[2:15:05] des fiches à ce moment, là
[2:15:07] valider certaines informations
[2:15:08] et par la suite lancé aux
[2:15:11] citoyens.
[2:15:12] - O.K.. Donc il y a eu beaucoup
[2:15:13] de pensées qui ont été mis dans
[2:15:14] les questions et dans les sujets
[2:15:15] qui seraient discutés dans les
[2:15:16] consultations.
[2:15:17] - Exactement.
[2:15:18] - O.K.. >> I would like to
[2:15:19] answer, please.
[2:15:20] >> Go ahead. --
[2:15:21] >> As I stated, it's not just a
[2:15:24] financial aspect, okay? I stated
[2:15:26] in your clearly that we have to
[2:15:27] look at the effect upon humans.
[2:15:30] You know, that's part of the
[2:15:31] process of -- looking for
[2:15:33] outside sourcing, like
[2:15:34] Councillor Cowan mentioned in a
[2:15:37] recent article. If it's 50
[2:15:39] million, where do we get? If we
[2:15:40] can afford 50, I don't know. We
[2:15:42] have to get to the bottom of
[2:15:43] this and it's all about
[2:15:46] discussing and having
[2:15:47] conversations but we had an
[2:15:48] opportunity to have these
[2:15:50] conversations with Cadillac
[2:15:51] Fairview but they were rejected,
[2:15:53] okay? And a perfect example of a
[2:15:55] question I would ask that
[2:15:57] ponders in my head, we all know
[2:15:59] its private property, okay? We
[2:16:01] all know that it's an uphill
[2:16:03] climb. So, here's just one food
[2:16:05] for thought and this is a
[2:16:07] legitimate question. If we could
[2:16:10] save, let's just say -- we don't
[2:16:13] have whatever amount, no but
[2:16:16] Geneviève, there are a lot of
[2:16:18] stepping stones here so what I'm
[2:16:20] trying to say is for example
[2:16:22] we're against height, okay? For
[2:16:24] some reason which is far from my
[2:16:26] house, pretty much far from his
[2:16:28] house. An intelligent question I
[2:16:29] would ask is that if we can save
[2:16:33] 98% of the forest instead of 88,
[2:16:36] what we allow for them to go to,
[2:16:39] three storeys higher in a cement
[2:16:41] parking lot in MU1?
[2:16:43] [Applause]
[2:16:44] Those are the conversations we
[2:16:45] have to have.
[2:16:46] >> 100 percent and that's
[2:16:47] absolutely been part of the
[2:16:48] discussions.
[2:16:49] >> That's the thought process,
[2:16:52] that's the -- that's what I
[2:16:57] asked for the resolution to
[2:16:58] create in the first place. We go
[2:17:01] in saying that six storeys is
[2:17:03] fine if it's in a farmers field
[2:17:05] in Châteauguay. But the property
[2:17:07] has X value, so it's not
[2:17:09] feasible to do that, so we have
[2:17:12] to come into our head is that
[2:17:14] bank won't even finance at, so
[2:17:15] we have to understand that as
[2:17:16] much as we would like to see it,
[2:17:18] we have to come to the
[2:17:20] conclusion that, you know,
[2:17:22] putting triplexes there is not
[2:17:24] financially viable. They will
[2:17:25] get three and a half million
[2:17:26] dollar triplexes. Okay?
[2:17:28] >> Doing it in Kirkland though,
[2:17:29] but anyway. That's another
[2:17:32] thing. -- All over the West
[2:17:34] Island, absolutely.
[2:17:35] >> The -- project, 47 single
[2:17:37] family homes, 12 stories right
[2:17:39] next to the Fairview forest
[2:17:40] across the other side. So like
[2:17:42] my point, is, they looked at the
[2:17:44] whole project, they look at the
[2:17:46] whole thing and it was all
[2:17:48] industrial, so it's a different
[2:17:50] dynamic I. Think when Kirkland
[2:17:53] came at leasing Green because
[2:17:55] they didn't have a Fairview
[2:17:56] forest, it was a great
[2:17:58] compromise. Had proper urban
[2:17:59] planning scope, they had two,
[2:18:03] three storeys across a single
[2:18:05] dwelling homes. As we get
[2:18:06] further away, the urban, like,
[2:18:08] it made sense. So just to your
[2:18:10] point, that's one of the
[2:18:11] questions I think that we have
[2:18:13] to think about. Do we add a
[2:18:15] complex of stories to save some
[2:18:16] green space? What are the
[2:18:18] trade-offs? What can we do? How
[2:18:19] do we negotiate this? We didn't
[2:18:21] have a reentered Gauthier. As I
[2:18:23] said, the letters started -- my
[2:18:26] conversation started this and
[2:18:27] enough is enough we. Have to
[2:18:28] have a solid plan moving
[2:18:30] forward.
[2:18:31] >> To be fair though, we've been
[2:18:33] here for four years, and months
[2:18:35] ago, months ago, months ago, I
[2:18:36] came here and asked all of you
[2:18:38] if you be willing to just look
[2:18:39] at the solutions local funding,
[2:18:41] and you can hear a pin drop in
[2:18:43] here. So that's very
[2:18:46] frustrating. That said, we're
[2:18:47] here tonight, we're all here
[2:18:49] tonight. All I'm hearing right
[2:18:51] now honestly is people who want
[2:18:53] to try to find solutions and we
[2:18:55] are going with that, and looking
[2:18:57] forward to finding solutions,
[2:19:00] and S F F has always been
[2:19:02] willing to work with all of you,
[2:19:03] we made it clear that we might
[2:19:05] have information you might not
[2:19:06] have to access the information,
[2:19:08] whatever. We're willing to work
[2:19:10] with you, we've always wanted to
[2:19:11] try to find a solution to this,
[2:19:14] and so, I'm going off-topic
[2:19:16] again, I apologize --
[2:19:17] >> Is there another question,
[2:19:19] Miss Lucian? Because we've got
[2:19:21] an awful lot of people to go
[2:19:23] still.
[2:19:24] >> Anyways, I apologize for
[2:19:26] everybody waiting, but thank
[2:19:27] you. I'm looking for to
[2:19:29] conversations.
[2:19:31] [Applause]
[2:19:33] >> I just want to pick up on a
[2:19:34] couple of points and all of this
[2:19:36] exchange. In Madame Verdun's
[2:19:38] response, you heard an urban
[2:19:40] planning and response of the
[2:19:41] question was influenced by the
[2:19:44] discussions in councils urban
[2:19:45] planning meetings, just so you
[2:19:47] know that, so that's a key point
[2:19:48] to take out of this. The next
[2:19:51] point to take out of this is
[2:19:53] that although the height is four
[2:19:55] from Councillor Stork's house,
[2:19:57] height is not far from Heritage.
[2:19:59] And people who have to live
[2:20:00] right beside height her close to
[2:20:03] height don't enjoy height, and
[2:20:05] we can't disrespect them either,
[2:20:08] so that is a huge variable in
[2:20:10] all this and it's not so simple
[2:20:11] either way., Now I would like to
[2:20:13] go to --.
[2:20:17] >> Kim Matthews.
[2:20:18] >> Sorry, Kim Matthews, I've
[2:20:20] done it again. Sorry, Kim,
[2:20:22] that's my third time tonight, so
[2:20:23] it's not --
[2:20:26] >> So we are done. Hi everybody,
[2:20:28] thank you so much for this
[2:20:30] opportunity to come here and say
[2:20:31] something. First of all, I just
[2:20:33] want to thank you for your
[2:20:35] earlier comments, I really
[2:20:38] appreciated. I know I'm not
[2:20:39] supposed to do that, but now
[2:20:40] I've done it. I heard something
[2:20:41] at the beginning of this from a
[2:20:43] number of the councillors,
[2:20:45] mentioning that there was a
[2:20:47] concern about whether we could
[2:20:48] go forward legally with this. I
[2:20:50] certainly have no idea if that
[2:20:51] was possible or not, and that
[2:20:55] our legal department did not
[2:20:56] have anything to say or couldn't
[2:20:58] have or didn't say anything at
[2:21:00] the present time. I just wanted
[2:21:02] to, say the questions we asked
[2:21:04] legal have a very big impact on
[2:21:06] what we hear back. So versus can
[2:21:09] we or can we do something versus
[2:21:12] how do we do this so we can do
[2:21:14] this would be the way I would
[2:21:15] like questions asked when it
[2:21:16] comes to anything like this. So
[2:21:19] that was the first part. Mr.
[2:21:22] Tremblay mentioned something
[2:21:23] about not sure if the
[2:21:25] consultation was in favour of
[2:21:26] consultation, but not sure of
[2:21:27] the consultation was really
[2:21:29] necessary on this issue. And I'm
[2:21:31] not sure I caught this right.
[2:21:33] But the thing that came to me
[2:21:34] when I thought I heard you say
[2:21:35] that is that often in politics
[2:21:37] when we want to put something,
[2:21:39] off we consult. And that makes
[2:21:41] me nervous. Because we can spend
[2:21:45] a awful lot of time and money
[2:21:48] keeps coming up and it's
[2:21:50] bothering me to the way numbers
[2:21:51] are thrown out, and I think it's
[2:21:53] already mentioned how money can
[2:21:54] be used as a fuel tactic, and
[2:21:56] that's concerning. But to be
[2:21:59] fair, consultation can put
[2:22:03] people behind, and I'm wondering
[2:22:06] how much more info we need in
[2:22:08] terms of whether or not we need
[2:22:09] to protect the environment. And
[2:22:12] when I'm concerned also that we
[2:22:14] want to make sure that the
[2:22:16] people -- the citizens being
[2:22:20] consulted have the right
[2:22:21] information, the facts. But
[2:22:25] there are a lot of different
[2:22:26] facts, and facts can be spun in
[2:22:27] many different ways, depending
[2:22:29] on the political will and the
[2:22:30] political desire, the social
[2:22:32] desire, the cultural desire of
[2:22:34] those that are asking the
[2:22:36] questions, and I need that to be
[2:22:37] kept in mind. And when we talk
[2:22:41] about an independent consultant,
[2:22:43] independent consultants are
[2:22:45] still being hired by people and
[2:22:47] how are choosing the people we
[2:22:48] choose to talk to us, I know I'm
[2:22:50] getting into a bit of a circle,
[2:22:52] here but bear with me, please.
[2:22:55] So if we do go that route, I
[2:22:57] just hope that a lot of info is
[2:23:01] already available that we can do
[2:23:02] this in a way that is as
[2:23:04] balanced as possible. We
[2:23:07] mentioned the last consultation,
[2:23:08] and if I heard the director
[2:23:10] general mentioned that
[2:23:11] determinism worked hard with
[2:23:13] Council. My question, because I
[2:23:14] have to have one and I've got
[2:23:16] one here, is that any decisions
[2:23:20] that are being brought forward I
[2:23:21] would hope at this stage of our
[2:23:26] existence as Pointe-Claire as a
[2:23:27] city that is beautiful and has
[2:23:30] been since I was a little girl
[2:23:31] growing up here, that we
[2:23:34] prioritize the environment every
[2:23:37] step of the way, that I want to
[2:23:43] know, will Council work with
[2:23:46] each other in such a manner that
[2:23:48] the environment is not something
[2:23:50] on a checklist down in the
[2:23:52] bottom, but rather, is in the
[2:23:54] title of whatever it is we are
[2:23:56] looking at, and was in that,
[2:23:58] title it is how do we protect it
[2:24:00] as best as possible for future
[2:24:02] generations, not just whether or
[2:24:04] not people are bailing out their
[2:24:06] basements next year, but let's
[2:24:08] face it it's a good possibility,
[2:24:10] but what's happening generations
[2:24:11] down the road, because we have
[2:24:14] to think that far ahead. So when
[2:24:16] we are thinking, if we still
[2:24:17] have to go back to issues of how
[2:24:19] much money does this cost, how
[2:24:22] much does it cost, I believe as
[2:24:23] mentioned socially and
[2:24:24] culturally, everything has to be
[2:24:25] taken into -- consideration, so
[2:24:28] I'm saying for the sake of those
[2:24:30] ahead of us, over children and
[2:24:32] great grandchildren, what are
[2:24:33] the cost to be, socially,
[2:24:38] culturally, economically, if we
[2:24:39] are not putting the environment
[2:24:40] first? And so, could you please,
[2:24:45] my question, would you please
[2:24:46] say that you will be
[2:24:47] prioritizing the environment
[2:24:48] going forward? Thank you. Thank
[2:24:54] you.
[2:24:55] [Applause]
[2:24:58] >> Thank you, Ms. Matthews. And
[2:25:00] I like the fact that you are
[2:25:01] thinking of generations down the
[2:25:03] road, and here's hoping there
[2:25:04] are many generations down the
[2:25:05] road. We'll stop sick, --
[2:25:11] >> Are you sure?
[2:25:12] >> Yes, I'm sure. Ask my staff,
[2:25:15] I got it wrong all the time.
[2:25:25] >> First of all, I want to thank
[2:25:27] Geneviève and all the others who
[2:25:28] have spoken so eloquently,
[2:25:30] better than I can. And I want to
[2:25:35] thank them because of their
[2:25:36] positive approach and citing the
[2:25:39] need to talk and how we should
[2:25:41] talk about saving the
[2:25:42] environment in saving green
[2:25:44] spaces in Pointe-Claire, because
[2:25:46] I'm not going to. I'm pretty
[2:25:50] angry and I think that the
[2:25:55] political machinations in the
[2:25:57] city go beyond anything I've
[2:26:00] ever been involved in before,
[2:26:01] and I wasn't activates with the
[2:26:03] FCM in Montréal for many years,
[2:26:05] and I've seen a lot and
[2:26:07] different political
[2:26:08] organizations in different
[2:26:09] community groups, but what goes
[2:26:11] on and in this city is
[2:26:15] outrageous. And I'm going to
[2:26:16] blame you all. But -- I get I
[2:26:22] get so mad. It's unacceptable
[2:26:24] that with the things that are at
[2:26:25] stake in the city, that you have
[2:26:27] screwed it up so bad. And it's
[2:26:33] the entire Council and the
[2:26:34] victim here, the innocent
[2:26:35] victim, is the forest, which can
[2:26:39] speak for itself but. And I'm
[2:26:44] feeling pretty cynical, and I
[2:26:46] think you folks are pretty
[2:26:51] cynical. I want to go back in a
[2:26:52] little bit of history to say why
[2:26:54] to be honest I don't trust you
[2:26:56] in the process going forward. I
[2:27:00] have no trust in you, and I want
[2:27:01] to say why. Right after the
[2:27:07] election, I thought, wow, these
[2:27:09] guys are going to get it
[2:27:10] together because I think with
[2:27:12] the help of monuments, you had a
[2:27:16] good plan. You knew how to go
[2:27:19] forward and you were all
[2:27:21] together, and I thought that's
[2:27:22] pretty darn impressive, and boy
[2:27:24] was I naive, because you tore it
[2:27:27] apart pretty fast., First of
[2:27:33] all, pulling Cadillac Fairview
[2:27:35] out of the freeze, and your
[2:27:37] attempt to, how outrageous. Yes,
[2:27:42] they are a powerful company,
[2:27:44] yes, they've got a lot of money,
[2:27:46] and yes, they sue, but to deny
[2:27:50] us the right to speak and
[2:27:54] pulling them out of the freeze,
[2:27:57] supposedly because we're going
[2:27:58] to get a better deal or
[2:27:59] whatever, that socked, and that
[2:28:02] kind of cynical politics was too
[2:28:04] much for me to bear. Granted,
[2:28:08] you reversed your position
[2:28:10] [Laughter]
[2:28:11] And put them back in, that man,
[2:28:12] it was scary, and you put the
[2:28:14] forest at risk, you put the
[2:28:17] environment of Pointe-Claire at
[2:28:18] risk, you put 30 vulnerable
[2:28:20] species that are already
[2:28:23] documented by Isabelle B saw, a
[2:28:25] scientific biologist, who you've
[2:28:29] had all the information. You put
[2:28:31] it all at risk for politics, and
[2:28:34] that is unacceptable. And then
[2:28:38] you did it again! You pulled
[2:28:41] them out another time, and this
[2:28:44] time supposedly to create, oh, I
[2:28:46] just want to say also, when you
[2:28:48] pulled it out the first time for
[2:28:49] the CDP, I did some reading and
[2:28:51] some research on that, and I
[2:28:53] know comprehensive development
[2:28:54] plans and how they've been done
[2:28:55] in other cities, their
[2:28:57] sweetheart deals for the
[2:28:58] developer. They get to write
[2:28:59] their own deal and make it how
[2:29:01] they like, and the city then
[2:29:05] follows their league almost
[2:29:07] always. Yes, there might be the
[2:29:09] exception, but almost always. So
[2:29:11] there was -- let's be honest, a
[2:29:14] clear prejudice in favour of
[2:29:17] Cadillac Fairview, and that is
[2:29:21] unacceptable to put them ahead
[2:29:22] of the citizens of Pointe-Claire
[2:29:23] and ahead of our environment.
[2:29:26] The second time you pulled it
[2:29:28] out, supposedly again, this nice
[2:29:32] hockey or a group that's going
[2:29:33] to get together and chat,
[2:29:34] citizen city and all the lawyers
[2:29:36] and lobbyists, of course, of
[2:29:37] Cadillac Fairview, who are going
[2:29:40] to get together and put together
[2:29:42] a nice little plan about how we
[2:29:44] can go forward in a consensus.
[2:29:46] Baloney. And of course, Cadillac
[2:29:47] Fairview knew it to, and what do
[2:29:49] they do, Cadillac Fairview,
[2:29:51] being the bully, kicked sand
[2:29:54] interfaces, no, we're gonna go
[2:29:55] to court, and sue you. And
[2:29:58] still, you go forward with that
[2:30:00] kind of irresponsible plan?
[2:30:05] Again, for me, outrageous. But
[2:30:11] so when the public consultations
[2:30:15] come forward, and here we have a
[2:30:18] situation where finally the
[2:30:19] citizens are going to get there
[2:30:21] say, and has been said, we get
[2:30:25] denied. And actually, the whole
[2:30:27] situation at Fairview Forests
[2:30:29] came up in almost every meeting,
[2:30:30] and it was overwhelming every
[2:30:32] time. The citizens said it
[2:30:33] should be preserved. I was there
[2:30:35] at every meeting. I heard it.
[2:30:38] That was outrageous to deny the
[2:30:41] citizens their voice. You are
[2:30:44] representing the citizens of
[2:30:45] Pointe-Claire, and you agreed,
[2:30:47] and you allowed, and you were
[2:30:49] silent when it was well
[2:30:50] understood here in the meeting
[2:30:53] that the citizens had lost their
[2:30:55] voice, and you said nothing.
[2:30:57] What an outrage. But. That kind
[2:31:03] of defeat of democracy and that
[2:31:06] kind of political machinations
[2:31:09] between all of you as
[2:31:10] councillors and the mayor, it's
[2:31:14] unacceptable. You know what,
[2:31:15] what are you doing? And even the
[2:31:22] city said, oh, yeah, you know,
[2:31:25] let's be honest, they pretty
[2:31:27] much said we blew, it will have
[2:31:28] a consultation, let's be honest,
[2:31:30] and we will put it together. And
[2:31:33] then, again, silence, no
[2:31:37] consultations, month after month
[2:31:38] after month, and repeated
[2:31:40] questioning's, here, at City
[2:31:42] Council, and nothing. And you
[2:31:44] blame the Mayor for coming back
[2:31:45] when you did nothing, you all
[2:31:49] silent. And you say you have no
[2:31:50] power. Baloney. You are the
[2:31:52] majority. It's irresponsible.
[2:31:57] Finally, I want to comment and
[2:31:59] again why I don't trust you with
[2:32:01] this process going forward is
[2:32:03] that you are frightening the
[2:32:06] public, and you did it here
[2:32:07] again tonight, over and over
[2:32:09] again, about cost. Baloney.
[2:32:13] [Applause]
[2:32:15] Because you, you -- I don't know
[2:32:18] if you just really ignorant of
[2:32:20] what 39, or you've haven't been
[2:32:22] told yet, the city is still
[2:32:24] researching or whatever, so I
[2:32:26] did some research on myself, and
[2:32:30] that -- and I consulted with an
[2:32:33] environmental lawyer from the
[2:32:34] Québec Environmental centre, and
[2:32:36] I found out the facts, and I
[2:32:37] read about the City of St. Bruno
[2:32:40] and what's been happening there,
[2:32:42] and what's wrong with you
[2:32:43] people? Why don't you either get
[2:32:44] it, or why are you being silent
[2:32:46] about what's happening with the
[2:32:48] rest of Québec? The government
[2:32:50] of Québec has given you a gift.
[2:32:53] They've given you a gift with --
[2:32:55] what is it, maybe the lawyer
[2:32:58] here will correct me, it made
[2:32:59] its article two for five. You've
[2:33:03] been given a gift to be able to
[2:33:07] at much less cost, dramatically
[2:33:09] less cost, if any cost, to
[2:33:13] preserve Fairview Forest, and so
[2:33:15] has, Saint-Bruno-de-Montarville
[2:33:16] as other cities, and the judge
[2:33:17] agreed, the judge in that case
[2:33:19] in the lawsuit agreed, and you
[2:33:22] are doing nothing. Why? Yeah, I
[2:33:28] know what you are going to say,
[2:33:29] you are going to say that the
[2:33:31] judge has got back to the
[2:33:32] government and said to find what
[2:33:33] a vulnerable forest is. We know
[2:33:35] how vulnerable Fairview Forest
[2:33:37] is. It's very clear how
[2:33:39] vulnerable it is, right? So
[2:33:43] you've been given these tools,
[2:33:45] and your silent about it, and
[2:33:46] instead you're saying it is
[2:33:47] going to be 15 million, it's
[2:33:49] gonna be 125 million, Eric, what
[2:33:51] was the last figure you gave the
[2:33:53] upper limit? It's ridiculous,
[2:33:55] when in fact, what you need to
[2:33:56] do is cite that law and change
[2:34:03] the bylaws, change what governs
[2:34:05] that property, and say it's a
[2:34:07] vulnerable natural space, and it
[2:34:09] must be preserved. That doesn't
[2:34:11] cost a red sent.
[2:34:12] [Applause]
[2:34:16] >> So are you really that
[2:34:18] ignorant of the law, or are you
[2:34:20] covering up? I don't trust you
[2:34:22] anymore, because you are not
[2:34:24] telling the truth, either
[2:34:25] because you don't know it, or
[2:34:27] it's not in favour of your
[2:34:29] prejudicial arguments in favour
[2:34:31] of Cadillac Fairview.
[2:34:32] >> Mr. stylistic, is there a
[2:34:34] final question?
[2:34:36] >> How do you expect, and I'll
[2:34:40] put you in touch with that
[2:34:41] lawyer, I'll put you in touch
[2:34:42] with that environmental group,
[2:34:43] and you can learn all the facts.
[2:34:46] I'd be happy to present them
[2:34:47] here to, you let me make the
[2:34:49] presentation to, you he would be
[2:34:50] happy to do it. Find out what
[2:34:53] happened at St. Bruno, final
[2:34:54] what Hudson is, doing find out
[2:34:55] what the others are doing,
[2:34:57] because you don't seem to know.
[2:34:59] And how can you, with your
[2:35:02] political machinations, and
[2:35:04] let's call a spade a spade, your
[2:35:06] hatred for each other, how can
[2:35:07] you function and restore trust
[2:35:12] that you will go forth and not
[2:35:14] do something money to live with
[2:35:17] consultations, I don't know,
[2:35:18] David, what suggestions you may
[2:35:20] consulting people in their own
[2:35:21] homes or whatever, I don't trust
[2:35:24] you in that process. How are you
[2:35:25] going to restore the fate of the
[2:35:27] citizens of Pointe-Claire, that
[2:35:30] you are not fiddling around with
[2:35:31] us yet again.
[2:35:35] >> Thank you.
[2:35:44] >> I will certainly try and
[2:35:45] answer that, Mister Stocek. I am
[2:35:47] well aware going forward to do
[2:35:50] everything I can 100% to save
[2:35:52] the Fairview forest and to enact
[2:35:54] whatever advice you can give me
[2:35:56] until 39, and I will put it in
[2:35:58] the media and I will probably
[2:35:59] put it to another extraordinary
[2:36:01] meeting if need be, because I
[2:36:02] think it's absolutely crucial,
[2:36:04] so thank you for that
[2:36:05] information, that's my answer.
[2:36:07] >> Mister Mayor, --
[2:36:09] >> Mr. Stocek, can you send a
[2:36:12] brief with what you just read,
[2:36:13] and could you just --
[2:36:14] >> I have an email from him
[2:36:15] explaining all the details of it
[2:36:17] --
[2:36:18] >> No, you've done it analysis,
[2:36:20] you've done some homework,
[2:36:22] people are making -- -- because
[2:36:27] I authored and used a number, 50
[2:36:29] million, because that was the
[2:36:30] low end.
[2:36:31] >> That was the low, and to the
[2:36:32] best my understanding, that I'm
[2:36:34] bringing to the tables. I was
[2:36:35] just trying to be realistic. But
[2:36:40] if you have information that
[2:36:41] shows me I'm wrong, I'm
[2:36:42] perfectly willing to read it and
[2:36:44] learn from it. Let's just send
[2:36:46] it in.
[2:36:47] >> I'd be very happy to do that.
[2:36:49] >> When we're in the topic of
[2:36:52] public consultation, there is
[2:36:54] nothing stopping anybody from
[2:36:56] sending stuff like that in and
[2:36:58] whenever they have, it that will
[2:36:59] help, that would be very
[2:37:00] helpful. As I said, what I wrote
[2:37:03] -- what I wrote and people
[2:37:05] commented on is that is not --
[2:37:07] I'm not trying to scare anybody,
[2:37:08] that's what I think.
[2:37:09] >> Why are there surveys going
[2:37:11] out to citizens of the city with
[2:37:13] sweeping questions that their
[2:37:16] taxes are going to be higher?
[2:37:17] >> Let me finish. I find it
[2:37:19] disconcerting for there to be
[2:37:22] this talk about political
[2:37:26] machinations, which all of us,
[2:37:27] there is no politics in that
[2:37:29] sense. We're all --
[2:37:33] [Inaudible]
[2:37:35] >> Listen! We're trying to serve
[2:37:39] you. We're doing the best we
[2:37:41] can. What other possible
[2:37:42] motivation could there be? I
[2:37:44] know you are all cynical and all
[2:37:45] that want to trust, because you
[2:37:47] don't perhaps like the outcomes
[2:37:48] you are getting. And I get that.
[2:37:52] But we are all doing the best we
[2:37:54] can to serve you. What other
[2:37:57] motivation will there be?
[2:37:59] >> I think you have -- wow,
[2:38:04] okay, --
[2:38:07] >> It is not debate period, it's
[2:38:08] a question period, it's -- a
[2:38:10] question period is over.
[2:38:12] >> Time is up on question
[2:38:13] period.
[2:38:16] >> Sorry Nikki Fournier, --
[2:38:19] Nicole corona, if you want to --
[2:38:21] sue stack, I'm sorry that you
[2:38:23] didn't -- we did okay though, we
[2:38:24] got through quite a few. Okay,
[2:38:27] so --
[2:38:28] >> Closure. Do I have a mover
[2:38:32] foreclosure?
[2:38:35] >> Tara Stainforth, district
[2:38:36] four.
[2:38:37] >> And seconder?
[2:38:38] >> Cynthia Homan. District five.
[2:38:40] >> All in favour? Merci tout le
[2:38:45] monde. -- Thank you all. We all
[2:38:46] go home.
[2:38:49] | | |