►
From YouTube: Ottawa City Council – May 22, 2013
Description
Ottawa City Council meeting – May 22, 2013
Agenda and background materials can be found at http://www.ottawa.ca/agendas
A
But
I
would
refer
you
to
another
legal
opinion.
That's
been
sent
to
us
this
morning,
which
contradicts
the
one
that
we've
received
from
our
own
staff
and
I
noticed
that
if
we're
gonna
be
voting
on
this
or
calling
yeas
and
nays,
there
are
some
members
missing,
and
some
of
those
members
happen
to
vote
for
that
meeting
at
the
time.
So
I
don't
believe
it
would
be
the
will
of
this
council
to
approve
those
a
correction
and
minutes
that
that
contradict
what
the
majority
of
council
has
already
decided.
B
C
B
A
Mr.
mayor
I
do
have
I,
have
a
couple
of
questions
on
this
and
I
want
to
start
with.
When
the
there
was
a
there,
was
a
motion
made
or
move
made
to
reconsider
the
motion
which,
which
was
quite
an
order
legit
councillor
Clark
made
that
move
and
at
the
time
it
met
the
basic
requirement
of
8
votes
in
order
to
come
back
at
the
following
meeting.
That
motion
was
subsequently
withdrawn.
Would
you
be
able
to
tell
us
why
that
motion
was
withdrawn
and
you
might
have
to
impute
some
motives
in
the
mover
at
this
point?.
A
I
believe
that
the,
if
you
listen
to
the
tape
from
that
meeting,
there's
a
reference
to
either
legal
legal
and
planning
staff.
Having
worked
this
so
and
I'm
not
sure
what
that
means,
because,
as
the
move
of
the
motion,
I
would
have
thought
that
if
there
was
anything
to
be
worked
out,
I
would
have
been
included
in
the
in
any
deliberations
or
discussions.
C
C
A
Let
me
ask
you
this:
the
motion
that
the
move,
the
motion
before
us
here
to
correct
the
minutes
or
allegedly
correct
the
minutes,
is
this
an?
Is
this
a
way
of
getting
around
a
backdoor
way
of
trying
to
move
get
reconsideration
through
and
when
it
was
quite
obvious
that
reconsideration
didn't
have
the
support
around
the
table
at
the
appropriate
time?
No.
A
A
Thank
you
so
today,
if
I
look
around
the
table,
there
are
members
missing.
Some
of
the
members
that
would
have
voted
for
some
might
have
voted
against
I'm,
not
doing
a
quick
count
right
now,
but
certainly
it
changes
the
changes
account
or
the
formula
from
you
know
from
what
would
have
happened
if
reconsideration
had
been
followed
through.
Is
that
would
that
be
a
correct
observation
at
this
point.
C
A
Speculating
I
don't
expect
you
to
speculate
so
so.
Mr.
mayor,
we
I
think
we
do
have
a
dilemma,
whereas
the
mover
of
the
motion,
as
I
said
earlier,
I
do
believe
that
the
original
minutes
accurately
reflect
what
that
motion
was
intended
to
do
and
what
it
did.
In
fact,
the
vote
everybody's
vote
around
this
table
was
of
the
same
opinion
in
terms
of
what
that
motion
would
do
to
try
and
rewrite
that
rewrite.
The
minutes
now,
in
effect,
is
changing.
A
What
I
think
the
will
of
counsel
was,
and
the
intent
of
counsel
I
hate
to
say
it.
It
becomes
a
rewrite
of
the
history
around
this
table.
I,
don't
think
it's
appropriate
I
would
ask
for
yeas
and
nays
on
this
and
I
would
ask
I
would
ask
mr.
Connor
to
comment
on
the
legal
opinion
that
we
received
this
morning
from
solloway
right.
C
A
Thank
you
for
that
and
I
guess.
I
guess
we're
gonna
disagree
because
I
do
happen
to
agree
with
the
opinion,
the
opinion
offered
and
I
guess.
Ultimately,
it
may
come
to
a
to
a
different
test.
So
mr.
mayor
witness
I'm
not
sure
if,
if
there's
an
opportunity
for
wrap
up,
there
are
number
of
speakers
now,
however,
I
will
be
calling
for
yeas
and
nays
on
the
correction.
Okay,.
D
D
C
Mayor
I
take
full
responsibility
for
the
way
the
minutes
came
out.
I
did
not
undertake
the
due
diligence
to
read
the
minutes
with
the
greatest
amount
of
clarity.
So
when
the
draft
came
out
it
escaped
both
myself
and
mr.
murk
and
the
deputy
clerk
it.
We
should
have
reflected
that
recommendation.
3A
was
unaffected
by
the
motion.
C
D
C
To
carry
the
the
humo
ssin
that
mr.
mayor
with
regards
this
I
think
the
the
basic
way
I
would
look
at
this
and
I'll
share
with
members
of
council
is
on
April
24th
and
May
8th.
You
had
essentially
three
components
in
front
of
you.
You
had
the
recommendations
from
the
reporting
question.
You
had
the
body
of
the
report
itself
and
you
would
have
had
the
documents
which
were
appendices
to
that
report.
C
The
motion
that
that
councillor
blow
has
brought
forward
deleted
a
particular
aspect
of
only
the
documents,
so
it
did
not
affect
any
of
the
recommendations
which
I
would
remind
members
were
carried
unanimously
by
counsel,
nor
did
amend
anything
in
the
report.
So
therefore,
I
think
the
motion
should
clarify
that.
Okay.
D
Thank
you,
then.
I
would
hope
that
members
will
agree
to
the
legal
process
that
guard
that
governs
this
council
and
the
minutes
are
clear
as
to
how
they
should
have
been
written
at
the
time
of
the
minute
taking,
and
that
there
has
been
a
mistake
by
staff
in
the
writing
of
those
minutes.
What
happens
mr.
O'connor,
if
we
do
not
agree
to
the
legal
writing
of
the
rewriting
of
the
minutes,
to
correct
the
mistake?
Mr.
E
E
F
F
This
is,
in
fact
similar
to
what
happened
with
the
center
town
community
design
plan
at
the
last
meeting
of
council
councils
with
councillors
may
remember
that
there
was
a
proposal
for
a
small
moments
policy
and,
in
the
end,
that
didn't
make
its
way
into
the
document,
but
staff
were
directed
to
go
forward
and
study
it,
and
so
I
would
see
what
happened
with
the
small
moments
policy
and
what's
happening
happening
with
the
Meuse
as
being
identical
in
approach.
No.
E
F
E
G
C
Mr.
mayor
I
think
my
primary
concern
is
the
fact
that
Ms
Cohen,
as
she
writes
in
the
second
middle
of
the
second
paragraph,
the
clear
implication
of
the
amendment
adopted
by
counsel,
is
to
eliminate
recommendation
3a
mr.
Marion
in
the
legal
municipal
world.
We
would
look
for
expressed
language
with
regards
to
a
replacement
motion,
elimination
motion
that
sort
of
thing
we
do
not
deal
with
implications
or
intent,
because
that's
an
intangible
that
I
cannot
define.
G
If
this
motion
goes
ahead
this
morning
and
I'm
gonna
have
something
to
say
about
that
in
a
minute.
But
if
this
motion
goes
ahead
this
morning
and
is
successful,
is
that
then
going
to
allow
staff
to
do
something
that
they
couldn't
previously
do?
Based
on
the
motion
that
went
ahead
of
planning
which
is
put
forward
for
reconsideration,
or
we
is
this,
just
a
grammatical
clerical
fix,
or
does
it
actually
have
an
implication?
That's
going
to
allow
staff
to
do
something
that
they
currently
can't
do.
C
G
So
so
it
does
have
an
impact
I'm
going
to
suggest
I'm
going
to
suggest
we're
not
going
to
suggest
I'm
going
to
ask
I'm
gonna
bring
a
motion
for
deferral.
We've
just
found
out
about
that
this
morning,
I
think
to
properly
consider
this
we
need
an
opportunity
to
to
look
at
the
legal
opinion.
We
need
to
see
the
see
the
minutes
or
review
the
tape.
We
need
an
opportunity
to
to
look
the
original
motion.
The
answer
you've
given
me
right
now
disturbs
me
a
little
bit
in
that
this
clarification.
G
As
you
call
it
is
going
to
allow
staff
to
do
something
that
they
currently
can't
do
so
I,
don't
see
this
as
simply
a
tidying
up
of
the
minutes,
but
there's
a
real
implication
to
this
motion
and
and
I
believe
councillor
Dean's
is
prepared
to
second
the
motion
for
for
deferral,
so
we
can
have
a
real
opportunity
to
consider
the
impact
of
what
this
motion
may
do
and
also
go
back
and
look
at
the
base
supporting
materials
review.
The
the
minutes.
Look
at
the
original
motions,
so
we
can
make
an
informed
decision
here.
B
A
B
H
When
it,
when
it
comes
to
speaking
of
it,
deferral
I
was
actually
wanting
to
speak
to
some
of
the
points
that
of
my
council.
Colleagues
have
brought
forward
I'll
go
to
the
bottom
of
the
list.
If
this
doesn't
pass,
because
I
have
some
big
issues
with
how
this
is
all
rolled
out
in
the
last
12
hours
on.
I
Thank
You
mr.
mayor
deferral,
makes
this
very
clear
issue.
Quite
cloudy,
I,
don't
think
quite
frankly,
mr.
mayor,
that
we
need
to
defer,
because
council
speaks
by
motion,
it
doesn't
speak
by
intent,
staff,
don't
go
off
and
do
things
because
I
thought
my
that
I
was
clear
in
what
I
was
saying.
Council
speaks
by
what
is
written
on
the
paper.
It's
very
clear
staff
get
direction
by
what
the
motion
says
and
it's
clear
that
what
the
the
motion
was
because
it's
on
paper.
It
is
no
more
difficult
to
understand
than
that
issue
mr.
I
mayor,
so
there
is
really
no
reason
to
defer
for
another
legal
opinion,
unless
you
wish
to
challenge
the
the
principle
that
council
speaks
otherwise
other
than
by
motion.
Counsel
speaks
by
motion.
If
the
motion
here
had
said,
eliminate,
3a
and
ripple
and
eliminate
all
the
others
we
wouldn't
be
here
today.
That's
not
what
the
motion
said.
That's
not
what
the
words
on
the
paper
said
so
mr.
I
mayor
to
defer
it
to
rewrite
the
rules
of
procedure
or
the
intent
or
to
discern
an
intent
from
a
tape
that
really
doesn't
matter,
because
what
matters
is
the
words
on
the
paper
and
the
words
on
the
paper
are
absolutely
crystal
clear:
on
what
to
do
and
and
they're
absolutely
crystal
clear
on
what
they
don't
do
now
had
the
motion
been
crafted
to
say:
delete
3b
AC,
whatever
the
numbers
were.
That
would
be
absolutely
clear
and
we
would
not
be
here
today,
but
that's
not
what
the
moe
did
and
that's
not
what
the
minutes
reflect.
I
So
I.
Don't
think
if
you
understand
that
basic
principle
that
we
speak
by
motion
and
by
what
is
written
on
the
paper
that
we
would
we
wouldn't
there
is
a
need
to
defer,
in
fact,
I.
Don't
think,
there's
a
need
to
defer
and
quite
frankly,
I
think
that
there's
a
need
for
this
council
to
understand
that
principle,
move
forward
with
it
and
amend
the
minutes
to
reflect
what
was
written
on
on
the
paper
and
if
there's
a
lesson
in
any
of
this
for
all
of
us,
mr.
I
mayor
and
myself
included,
is
read
those
minutes
before
they
are
approved
so
that
these
things
don't
occur
again.
So
mr.
mayor
I,
don't
think
there's
a
need
to
defer.
There's
no
needs
for
other
legal
opinions.
We
operate
by
motion
words
on
paper,
so
understanding
that
mr.
Merritt
means
we
don't
need
to
defer.
We
can
move
forward
and
we
can
put
this
issue
behind
us.
A
Mr.
mayor
I
would
actually
agree
with
the
the
chair
of
Planning
Committee
that
that
we
do
have
to
live
with
what
the
motion
says
and
I
think
the
minutes
adequately
reflect
that.
First
of
all,
the
motion
is
sufficiently
clear
and
the
minutes
sufficiently
reflect
that
motion.
So
the
real
thing
to
do
here
is
instead
of
deferral,
would
be
just
vote.
This
alleged
correction
down.