[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] | | |

2024-10-15 Assemblée extraordinaire de la Ville de Pointe-Claire

Transcript