►
From YouTube: City Council - October 3, 2019 - Part 2 of 2
Description
City Council, meeting 10, October 3, 2019 - Part 2 of 2
Agenda and background materials:
http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/decisionBodyProfile.do?function=doPrepare&meetingId=15356
Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UR2wEvW75TU
Meeting Navigation:
0:14:08 - Meeting resume
A
A
E
A
A
A
F
A
G
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
J
A
A
A
Mm
1016
notice
that
this
motion
has
not
been
given
a
2/3
vote
is
required
to
waive
notice.
This
motion
is
subject
to
refer
to
the
Toronto
and
Easter
arkham.
You
cancel
a
2/3
vote
is
required
to
waive
referral.
This
motion
relates
to
an
alcohol
Gaming
Commission
of
Ontario
hearing
and
has
been
deemed
urgent
by
the
chair
on
favor
of
waiving
notice.
A
A
Mm
1017
notice
that
this
motion
has
not
been
given
a
2/3
vote
is
required
to
waive
notice.
This
motion
is
subject
to
referral
to
the
Toronto
and
Easter
Community
Council.
A
2/3
vote
is
required
to
waiver
Perl.
This
motion
relates
to
an
alcohol
Gaming
Commission
of
Ontario
hearing
and
has
been
deemed
urgent
by
the
chair
on
favor
of
waiving
notice.
A
A
K
A
A
A
Notice
that
this
motion
has
not
been
given
a
2/3
vote
is
required
to
waive
noticed
this
motion
subject
to
referral
to
the
scarborough
community
console
a
2/3
vote
is
required
to
waive
referral.
This
motion
relates
to
Toronto
local
appeal
body.
Hearing
has
been
deemed
urging
by
the
chair
all
in
favor
of
waving
notice.
C
A
D
A
Mm
mm
10
21
notice
that
this
motion
has
not
been
given
that
two-thirds
vote
is
required
to
waive
notice
this
motion
of
subject
to
referral
to
the
executive
committee.
A
two-thirds
vote
is
work
required
to
waive
referral.
This
motion
has
been
deemed
urgent
by
the
chair.
All
favor
of
waiving
waive
notice.
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
L
A
look
at
that
in
a
few
minutes,
this
development
proposal
I
took
over
from
the
previous
councillor
in
the
previous
war
prior
to
the
election
over
the
last
year,
I
have
been
working
incredibly
hard
and
with
the
spirit
of
what
the
community
and
I
think
the
council
wanted.
There
were
numerous
consultations
in
the
area
and
that
was
to
have
low-rise
town
homes,
with
a
similar
density
of
what
is
actually
in
the
area
on
Eglinton
Avenue,
which
worked
out
to
be
about
a
hundred
hundred
and
eighty
stacked
homes.
L
So
when
you
looked
at
this-
and
we
saw
this
application
about
a
year
year
and
a
half
ago
here
at
Council,
it's
vastly
improved
from
what
what
we
saw
last
last
year.
There
is
actually
a
public
park
in
there
11,
almost
a
1200
meter
public
park
in
there,
not
cash
and
new.
That's
can
credibly
important
for
that
community,
because
there's
a
deficit
in
parkland
out
in
that
area,
the
park
is
actually
2
percent
larger
than
they
were
meant
to
put
in,
which
means
again
it
there's
more
parkland
to
for
the
community.
L
I
talked
a
bit
about
the
setbacks
when
I
was
going
through.
My
questions,
understanding
that
at
some
point
in
the
future,
an
exec
Linton,
East
LRT,
will
be
going
through
that
area.
I've
supported
that
all
along.
But
when
you
look
at
what
sort
of
setbacks
are
needed
and
with
the
questions
that
I
was
proposing
and
asking
staff
is
number
one,
the
five
metre
setback
that
is
here,
not
three
meters
that
was
original,
but
the
five
meters
setback
actually
will
not
jeopardize
the
Eglinton
East
LRT.
L
In
fact,
what
what
staff
said
is
they're
not
too
sure
whether
it's
a
five
meter,
three
meter,
eight
meter
or
potentially
twelve
meter,
as
was
discussed,
the
EA
will
determine
that,
but
they
did
stress
to
me
that
the
five
meter
that
is
here
will
not
jeopardize
that
they'll
have
to
figure
it
out
at
some
point
in
the
future.
So
the
five
meter
was
not
a
fair
concern.
With
regard
to
section
37,
we
didn't
bring
that
up
at
the
initial
section.
L
37
amount
was
very,
very
low,
I
have
negotiated
I,
think
it's
almost
three
times
or
four
times
larger
than
what
was
initially
proposed,
so
that
that
is
also
good
for
the
community,
because
that
money
is
going
to
be
going
down
to
be
fixing
another
park
in
the
area.
Now,
when
you
look
at
the
density
and
I
know,
the
density
was
brought
up
by
a
number
of
the
questionnaires
on
this
understanding.
The
density
at
this
part
of
Eglinton
is
different
than
the
density
downtown
at
Yonge.
It's
different
than
the
Desmond
density
at
Larry.
L
This
is
Danforth
in
Kingston
Road.
When
you
look
at
that
area,
there
are
similar
densities
of
townhomes
in
the
area,
so
I
don't
consider
this
different.
This
actually
fits
in
with
what
is
happening
in
the
community.
There
was
a
comment
about
affordable
housing
that
an
understanding
that
this
is
this
is
a
legacy
development
that
was
brought
on.
If
I
had
started
this
from
the
very
beginning,
the
conversations
right
up
from
the
very
beginning
would
have
had
affordable
housing,
but
unfortunately
this
has
been
going
on
for
the
last
two
years.
L
I
also
want
to
talk,
and
this
I
want
you
to
have
a
look
at
the
the
drawing
that
is
up
there.
So
staff
have
said
they
want
more
intensification.
They
want
more
density,
policy-wise
with
avenues,
I
get
that
I
have
avenues
in
my
air
I.
Have
things
to
know
what
I'm
saying
clear
so
I
understand
the
idea
of
having
increased
density
and
I
support
that,
but
when
you
look
at
the
configuration
of
this
law
and
they'll
take
I
put
up
there,
the
five
metre
setback
staff
wanted
an
8
metre
setback.
L
So
you
take
that
into
consideration
and
then,
when
you
look
at
the
weird
lot
size,
when
you
add
the
45
degree
angle
the
plane,
the
reality
is,
you
will
get
a
six
to
eight
story,
mid
rise
development,
but
what
wasn't
said
and
and
again
it's
hard
to
suggest-
you
aren't
gonna-
be
getting
that
much
more
density
than
what
is
actually
there
right
now,
there's
180
units
you
may
get
another
20
units
with
an
8
meter,
setback
on
that
particular
sign.
So
when
you're
looking
at
the
overall
density,
it's
not
going
to
be
that
much
more.
L
The
community
has
spoken
on
this
in
a
number
of
community
consultations
prior
as
I
said,
I
am
here
in
the
spirit
of
what
the
community
wanted
supporting
this
development
and
now
understanding
this
Vista.
There
are
still
a
few
things
in
the
report
that
still
need
to
be
worked
out.
Those
will
be
worked
out.
We've
been
having
some
very
positive
conversations
with
staff.
L
H
So
this
motion
is
basically
taking
this
proposal
back
to
the
to
the
staff
recommendations
and
with
the
greatest
amount
of
respect
to
the
ward
councillor
my
ward
is
is
to
the
immediate
east.
One
of
the
reasons
that
I'm
looking
at
this
I'll
say
is
has
to
do
with
the
Eglinton
East
LRT.
It's
on
the
plans.
We
always
talk
about
higher
orders
of
transit
in
Scarborough
we're
trying
to
get
an
LRT
built
from
the
Kennedy
subway
station
to
UTSC,
and
maybe
a
lot
of
people
aren't
familiar
with
ADA
linked
and
Avenue
along
this
stretch.
H
But
if
you
flash
forward
ten
years
from
now,
hopefully
you
will
take
the
Eglinton
subway
to
kennedy
station
you'll
get
on
the
a
going
in
East
LRT
you'll
go
along
ailing,
Tanev
Inoue
you'll
go
through
part
a
councillor,
Thompson's
Ward,
there's
a
plethora
of
development
applications
in
the
pipeline.
Many
of
them
are
anywhere
from
eight
to
ten
stories.
If
not
taller,
the
properties
are
intensifying
because
of
the
Eglinton
East
LRT.
That's
the
impetus
for
development
along
Eglinton,
Avenue
you're
then
going
to
go
along
to
this
stretch
of
Eglinton
Avenue.
H
If
we
support
this
application
today,
you're
gonna
get
townhouses
on
each
side
of
Eglinton
Avenue.
You
might
get
more
strip
clauses
which
are
there
today.
If
we
pass
this
today,
instead
of
the
strip
plazas,
you
might
get
more
stacked.
Townhouses
you're
gonna
go
further
along
Eglinton
into
my
ward.
You're
gonna
get
a
lot
of
apartment
buildings
between
Markham
Road
and
Kingston.
Road
you're
gonna
go
further
along
Kingston
Road
through
my
ward,
along
Kingston
Road.
Today,
I
have
15
applications
sitting
there.
H
Developers
were
are
waiting
for
the
LRT
they're
telling
me
as
soon
as
the
shovel
is
in
the
ground
for
the
LRT
they're
gonna
start
putting
their
projects
forward.
You're
gonna
finish
at
UTSC
Scarborough,
where
we
had
a
partnership
with
the
University
where
they
built
the
PanAm
Aquatic
Center
they're,
still
waiting
for
the
Eglinton
East
LRT.
The
problem
is
right
in
the
middle.
If
we
start
putting
forward
in
supporting
projects
like
this,
where
we
don't
have
the
ridership
we're
never
gonna
have
the
density
on
Eglinton
Avenue
to
build
an
LRT.
H
This
proposal
have
staff
you've
heard
from
staff.
It
goes
against
the
avenue
study.
It
goes
to
print
against
the
provincial
policy
statement
of
2014
14.
It
goes
against
the
growth
plan
for
the
Greater
Golden
Horseshoe
of
2017.
What
we
really
need
here
is
what
I
councilor
Crawford
alluded
to.
If
there
was
an
8
meter
setback
that
staffers
supportive
of
we
would
have
a
six
to
eight
story
building,
that's
what
staff
have
always
asked
for.
That's
what
they've
looked
for.
It's
the
reason
why,
when
this
first
came
forward
former
councillor
Barnett,
they
were
completely
against
it.
H
What
we
have
today
is
another
application.
Staff
were
also
completely
against
it.
What's
changed
with
this
application,
there's
actually
lower
density,
there's
more
Park
land,
but
it's
from
my
perspective
and
from
the
planning
perspective.
This
is
a
project
we're
not
moving
forward
on
our
city
planning
on
Eglinton
Avenue
we're
almost
going
backwards,
so
we
really
need
to
delete
the
recommendation
in
the
report.
H
H
That
was
20
years
ago,
once
again,
when
20
years
ago,
when
we're
looking
at
what
to
do,
we
were
fighting
over
a
subway
versus
the
SRT
in
Scarborough,
we
weren't
talking
about
a
higher
order
development
along
Eglinton,
Avenue
East.
Here
we
are
in
2019
if
we're
gonna
move
along
with
city
building
and
Scarborough
high
looking
at
building
the
density,
and
we
need
for
a
higher
order
of
transit
I.
My
recommendation.
We
need
to
take
those
back
to
the
drawing
board
and
and
revisit
this
application
and
I
had
asked
for
your
support.
Thank
You.
M
Thank
you.
First
of
all,
I'd
I'd
like
to
say
at
the
outset,
I
don't
intend
any
of
my
comments
to
be
critical
of
councillor.
Crawford
I
know
he
inherited
this
situation
from
the
councillor
who
previously
represented
the
area,
and
there
are
very
few
of
us
who,
if
an
applicant,
to
build
something
that
was
lower
density
and
the
community
wanted
to
build
something
that
was
lower
density,
would
say,
no
I,
insist
on
it
being
bigger
and
higher.
M
Having
said
all
of
that,
the
degree
to
which
this
is
much
smaller
than
the
staffs
would
have
liked
to
see
is
fairly
extreme.
It's
at
least
half
as
small,
if
not
more
and
I
mean
the
other
issue
is
especially
that
I
say
this
too:
the
Scarborough
councillors,
if
you
want
bigger
transit,
you
really
need
to
know
that
bigger
buildings
go
with
that,
and
you
know
that's
pretty
much
inescapable.
M
This
when
this
first
came
up,
it
was
at
our
last
meeting
of
the
last
term
and
there
were
two
very
unusual
planning
issues
before
us.
At
that
meeting.
There
was
one
in
former
councillor
de
bear
makers
Ward,
where
the
councillor
asked
us
to
approve
a
34
storey
building
where
the
staff
were
saying
no
more
than
16,
so
more
than
twice
as
big
as
what
the
staff
thought
represented,
good
planning
there,
and
then
the
one
in
councillor
Holland
toured
this
one
less
than
half
the
size.
M
What
the
planning
staff
thought
it
should
be
and
in
both
cases
council
went
along
with
the
local
councillors
and
those
decisions,
obviously
weren't,
based
on
any
kind
of
planning
merits,
because
one
was
twice
as
big
as
it
should
be,
and
the
other
was
half
the
size
it
should
be.
There
was
no
consistency
whatsoever
and
although
I
sympathized
with
the
local
councillor
and
normally
vote
with
the
local
councillor,
we
really
have
to
be
very
careful
in
here
about
making
political
decisions
in
place
of
good
planning
decisions,
and
it
doesn't
just
affect
this
site.
M
When
we
do
that,
we
have
no
consistency,
we
lose
our
credibility.
We
make
the
job
of
the
planning
staff
who
are
trying
to
ensure
some
consistency,
a
lot
more
difficult,
and
especially
when
we're
trying
to
plan
a
city
that
can
where
we
can
accommodate
more
density
and
especially
some
assisted
housing,
some
at
along
transit
corridors.
We
really
need
to
be
careful
about
not
making
political
decisions
and
making
good
planning
decisions.
So,
for
that
reason,
I'll
be
supporting
councillor
Ainsley's
motion.
N
N
But
in
this
case,
I
think
it's
important
to
speak
in
favour
of
the
local
councillor
and
the
proposal
before
us.
Everyone
is
crying
for
extra
density,
but
I've
taken
a
look
at
the
footprint
of
this
development
and
basically
with
restrictions
on
the
angular
plane
and
the
configuration
of
the
of
the
site.
It
would
be
almost
impossible
to
get
anything
more
than
about
24
more
units.
At
the
same
time
should
this
be
rejected
by
council.
N
There's
almost
no
doubt
that
the
applicant
will
go
to
the
OMB
and
under
the
current
regulatory
climate,
we're
almost
certainly
to
lose
and
lose
badly.
We
will
almost
certainly
lose
the
park
and
we
will
also
almost
certainly
lose
the
section.
37
benefits
that
are
tied
to
this
I
should
remind
counselors
that
back
in
the
last
council,
there
was
a
four
or
five
storey
residential
building
at
the
Lawrence,
the
Lawrence
West
subway
station.
That
came
came
forward
and
we
were
astounded
at
how
how
low
the
density
was
that
an
active
subway
stop.
N
But
this
council
approved
it
because
of
the
reasons
I've
listed
because
they
rely
on
the
on
the
knowledge
and
expertise
of
the
local
councillor.
They
realized
that
the
property
owners
we're
not
going
to
build
anything
more
and
that
they
lose
badly
at
the
OMB
I.
Think
it's
best
in
this
situation
that
we
rely
on
the
local
councillor.
We
supports
what's
what's
in
front
of
us
and
we
do
what's
best
for
the
City
of
Toronto.
O
Thank
you,
madam
Speaker,
dressed
counsel
from
from
here
I've
got
an
angled
3d
of
the
the
site,
we're
looking
at
there's
the
site
right
there
and
there's
Eglinton.
That's
the
home
of
the
the
future
Eglinton
LRT
expansion
out
to
the
Scarborough
U
of
T
campus,
there's
the
there's,
the
density
that
that
is
nearby,
and
so,
when
I
look
at
it
and
you
do
when,
when
you
see
a
refusal
report
from
planning
in
my
neck
of
the
woods,
residents
are
often
disappointed.
Why
is
planning
going
along
with
this
we're
taking
so
much
density?
O
O
It
would
run
through
my
ward
and
on
through
councillor
Cara
Janice,
so
we're
getting
this
second
opportunity,
but
there's
a
sort
of
a
social
contract
that
goes
along
with
that.
It
may
now
be
a
subway.
The
thing
that
people
had
wished
for
all
along
won't
be
won't,
be
done
till
2041,
but
that
doesn't
stop
the
applicants
along
that
Avenue
from
saying
so,
we'll
put
in
we'll
put
in
residential,
we'll
put
in
employment.
We
want
density
because
it
is
coming
on
this
corridor
on
Eglinton.
O
We
have
people
saying
well
if
they
want
to
occur
like
that
one
we
have
people
meeting
in
rallies
and
libraries
I
attended
one
myself.
The
new
counselor
counselor
McKelvey
and
merit
Orion
attendants
were
roaring
and
making
sure
the
province
knew.
We
must
prioritize
that
expansion
out
to
the
Scarborough
U
of
T,
and
here
we
are
and
what
would
be,
whether
it's
Midland
or
Brimley,
it's
perhaps
the
second
or
third
station
that
would
be
on
that
expansion.
O
Our
chief
planner
is
trying
to
make
the
statement
that,
if
you
want
that
expansion
you
have
to
contemplate
the
density
that
puts
the
ridership
on
it
and
planning
community
development
community.
Can
we
have
that
conversation?
But
as
council
we're
saying,
we
don't
want
to
have
that
conversation
and
I
appreciate
that
that
this
is
a
legacy
issue.
It's
not
the
current
local
councillor
that
that
started.
The
community
dialogue
that
put
us
in
this
position,
but
unfortunately,
I
can't
cast
my
vote
on
that
basis.
I
can't
because
I
feel
bad
for
the
current
councillor.
O
I
can't
cast
my
vote
in
that
basis.
I
need
to
know
that
the
chief
planner
has
taken
a
position
and
can
use
that
position
munition
to
say
anytime.
He
goes
to
the
El
Pat.
We
get
our
official
plan.
We
are
trying
to
put
density
around
the
avenues
where
we
have
said
to
the
other
order
of
government
the
province.
We
want
higher
order
transit
here,
we're
prepared
to
put
higher
orders
of
density
here,
because
we
want
you
to
fund
that
transit,
I
can't
say
to
the
residents
of
Don
Valley
north.
O
O
Absolutely
accepted
madam
Speaker
I'll
bet
you're
about
to
ask
me
to
apologize
and
I
do
and
I
do.
That
being
said,
that
being
said,
I
can't
say
I
will
not
say
to
constituents
who
eat
43
stories,
time
and
time
again
because
they
so
passionately
want
their
subway.
I
won't
say
to
them,
but
they
can
have
higher
order
transit
a
decade
before
you
get
your
subway
but
they're,
not
taking
density.
I
can't
say
that
so
I'll
be
supporting
councilor
Ainsley
with
all
due
respect
to
the
local
councillor
sincerely.
K
You
speaker,
others
have
already
talked
about
how
we
got
here
and
and
how
they,
the
current
councilors
in
a
bind
and
I
I,
agree
with
those
remarks
and
endorse
them
wholeheartedly.
But
I
want
you
to
return
to
return
your
minds
back
to
before
lunch.
When
we
were
asking
questions
of
staff,
I
asked
the
chief
planner.
What
would
the
impact
of
approving
less
density
along
a
transit
corridor
that
is
in
our
transit
plans?
B,
and
he
said
it
would
undermine
the
performance
of
that
transit
line.
There
will
be
fewer
riders.
What
could
will
make
less
revenue?
K
The
line
will
lose
money
when
the
TTC
operates
a
line
that
is
losing
money
underperforming.
That
means
there's
less
money
in
the
transit
system
to
deliver
service
across
the
city,
or
that
means
we
have
to
increase
property
taxes
to
provide
further
subsidy.
In
other
words,
this
decision
will
cost
money
that
we
don't
have
for
our
ability
to
deliver
transit
in
the
City
of
Toronto.
It
is
fiscally
irresponsible
and
it
also
undermines
our
ability
to
say
that
we
have
a
credible
transit
plan,
something
which,
frankly,
the
provincial
government
is
already
using
against
us.
K
We
undermine
our
ability
to
say
that
we
are
serious
in
our
transit
planning
and
that
what
the
Torontonians
want
to
have
have
elected
us
to
get
built
shouldn't
be
taken
seriously.
Somebody
else's
idea
is
better.
It
reinforces
that
notion
that
you
can't
trust
government
to
build
transit,
which
is
a
horrifying
thing
to
be
doing
so.
K
We're
undermining
our
own
transit
plan,
we're
undermining
the
fiscal
future
of
the
TTC,
but
more
important
still
when
we
make
decisions
that
run
contrary
to
the
Official
Plan,
it
gives
everyone
else
who
is
making
a
development
application
in
the
area
or
anywhere
in
the
city.
For
that
matter,
the
ability
to
go
to
the
Ontario,
Municipal
Board
and
say:
well,
you
don't
have
to
take
this
kind
of
issue.
That's
in
the
Official
Plan
seriously,
because
Toronto
City
Council
doesn't
take
it
seriously.
K
We
have
very
few
grounds
that
we
can
use
for
negotiating
with
a
developer.
We
can
talk
about
the
places
to
grow,
act,
the
Official
Plan
and
the
provincial
policy
statements
and
our
official
plan.
Those
are
the
only
things
we
can
use
when
we're
negotiating
to
try
to
make
better
development.
In
the
wards
we
represent
and
frankly,
the
Official
Plan
is
of
all
of
the
cards
in
our
deck,
the
strongest
one.
K
K
The
chief
planner
when
asked
about
this
said.
Yes,
this
does
create
a
risk
that
other
applications
in
this
corridor
can
come
in
and
not
conform
to
the
secondary
plan
or
the
Official
Plan
or
any
other
planning
policy
that
we
put
in
place
in
this
part
of
Scarborough,
and
it
strengthens
their
case
that
we
have
done
this.
So,
let's
review
the
transit.
If
we
build
it
will
not
perform
well,
we
will
spend
scarce
dollars
for
bad
outcomes.
We
will
then
have
an
operating
deficit
that
we
somehow
have
to
pay,
for.
K
We
will
weaken
our
negotiating
position
with
the
province
and
other
people
in
the
in
the
public
dialogue
around
what
kind
of
transit
we
want
built
by
making
ourselves
look
foolish.
We
will
undermine
our
ability
to
deal
with
similar
developments
right
across
the
city,
but
even
more
particularly
in
Scarborough,
where
we
keep
telling
everyone,
we
want
more
development
and
more
transit.
K
O
J
J
You
very
much
I
hope
you
can
hear
me,
madam
Deputy
Speaker,
madam
Deputy
Speaker
most
days,
I
would
agree
with
council
perks
and
others
who
have
spoken
and
about
this
particular
matter.
I
would
also
agree
which
staff
most
days.
However,
it
appears
that
what
we're
actually
talking
about
in
terms
of
we
talk
about
density,
we're
talking
about
18
units
in
an
area
that
has
approximately
17
a
high-rise,
condominium
and
rental
units.
You
can
see
most
of
them
there,
but
there
are
some
to
the
east,
which
is
a
top
right
and
going
over
to
McCowan.
J
There
is
a
seniors
residence
as
well
as
further
at
trudell
and
an
Bellamy.
There
are
a
number
of
mid
rise
units,
the
location
that
we're
talking
about,
which
is
Danforth
and
Eglinton.
Mr.
Linton
indicated
that
they're
looking
at
about
a
six
to
eight
storey
mid-rise
and
the
number
of
units
that
we
be
talking
about
is
about
two
hundred
units.
The
number
of
units
that's
being
proposed
for
this
particular
site
is,
as
I
understood
it
from
the
local
councillor
and
the
Steep
lands
about
a
hundred
one
hundred
and
eighty-two
U
units.
So
the
difference
is
about.
J
Eighteen
right
now
we're
under
capacity
in
terms
of
transit,
to
accommodate
the
residents
who
live
in
that
area
now
and
realize
it's
going
out
there
at
the
shorter
building
at
the
north
west
corner
there.
That's
a
that's,
a
no
frills,
hopefully
in
the
future.
That
will
in
fact
be
a
high-rise
development
and
perhaps
going
to
the
west
at
Bell,
Brimley
and
Eglinton.
J
Ladies
and
gentlemen,
I
know
that
counts
of
perks
has
indicated
that
we're
undermining
our
transit
plan
we're
and
undermining
our
our
official
plan.
And
yes,
the
staff
does
not
agree
that
perhaps
that
the
townhouses
that
are
being
proposed
would
be
a
good
thing.
But
I
remind
you,
we're
talking
about
18
units
and
in
fact,
the
residents
to
the
south.
There
have
worked
really
diligently
with
the
local
councillor,
the
previous
council
before
and
the
current
councillor,
and
have
agreed
that
they
would
they
would
support
a
townhouses
there.
J
That
would
be
about
a
hundred
and
eighty
two
units,
whereas
mr.
Lin
turn
and
others
as
sort
of
indicated
that
8
storeys
will
probably
give
you
200
units,
and
so
we've
heard
that.
Well,
this
is
a
mockery.
We've
heard
that
this
is
solely
contrary
to
what
our
plan
for
transit
is
and
so
on.
I
disagree
in
another
scenario:
perhaps
if
you
didn't
have
all
of
those
condos
and
and
rental
property
there
that
are
now
deficient
of
transit
and
are
in
need
of
transit
on
the
north
side
as
well.
J
You
see
you
have
all
of
those
townhouse
a
lot
of
people
living
there
who
are
in
need
of
transit
right
now,
so
at
this
particular
location,
the
normal
criterias
that
we
use
should
not
be
utilized
because,
in
fact,
it's
underutilized
now,
and
we
really
need
to
ensure
that
we
have
certainly
a
transit
there,
but
also
keeping
in
in
in
in
with
the
character
of
the
local
community.
I
think
this
is
actually
a
good
thing
for
us
to
do.
We
ought
to
support
the
local
councillor
and
I
would
not
support
the
motion.
J
I
You,
madam
chair,
madam
Speaker,
I'm,
standing
to
encourage
my
colleagues
to
listen
to
the
local
councillor.
We
all
seem
to
know
our
areas
very
well
and
we
all
seem
to
be
experts
about
Toronto,
but
there's
no
better
expert
than
the
councillor.
That
has
not
that
every
door
has
talked
to
every
constituent
is
there
they
and
that
counselor
has
the
best
interest
of
his
constituents
at
heart
if
he
or
she
doesn't
well
the
next
direction,
they're
not
going
to
reelect
him.
So,
therefore,
fellow
councillors,
I
urge
you
to
support
the
local
councillor.
I
G
A
A
M
Thank
you
very
much,
madam
Speaker
I'll
be
very
brief,
held
the
item
down
as
I
knew.
Counselor
purse
wanted
to
raise
some
concerns
and
I'll.
Let
them
speak
to
those,
but
basically
this
is
a
request
for
a
poll
on
whether
we
should
keep
or
remove
permit
parking
on
thirty
two
streets
in
Ward
nineteen.
This
has
been
prepared
with
consultation
with
our
city
solicitor
with
parking
and
clerks,
and
the
streets
that
are
in
question
have
been
introduced
into
permit
parking
in
a
unilateral
way
without
the
polling.
M
So
this
process
is
just
coming
in
place
to
give
people
an
opportunity
to
vote
on
whether
they
want
to
have
permanent
parking
or
not
permit
parking,
and
hopefully
we'll
avoid
you
know
removing
streets
out
of
the
system
or
introducing
streets
in
the
system.
This
is
the
cleanest
way
to
do
it
and
appreciate
staffs
help
in
working
on
this
with
me.
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank.
K
You
speaker
I'm,
going
to
encourage
you
to
vote
no
on
this
item.
I
have
never
been
a
fan
of
the
polling
process.
You'll
know
that
I
fought
long
and
hard
to
try
to
get
it
eliminated
from
all
of
the
decision-making
here
at
the
Toronto
City
Council
I
worked
with
councillor
Holliday
on
getting
it
removed
from
the
parking
pad
system
and
I
would
love
to
see
it
gone
from
everything
else.
Our
polling
system
is
anything
but
fair
test.
A
proper
test
and/or
an
accountable
test
of
what
the
public
thinks
about
a
given
item.
K
I
every
poll
we
do.
We
struggle
just
to
get
the
minimum
response
rate
required.
We
often
will
get
response
rates,
20,
30
40
percent,
and
not
make
the
threshold
of
50
percent
of
the
people
responding
as
well.
Every
time
that
there's
been
a
poll
done
on
a
controversial
item,
somebody
in
the
community
comes
forward
and
says:
I
didn't
get
my
card
or
the
card
that
I
got
was
addressed
to
someone
who
lived
here
eight
years
ago.
K
I
have
a
street
in
my
ward,
I
think
I'm
on
the
fourth
attempt
by
members
of
the
public
to
launch
a
poll
about
where
parking
should
be
on
the
street,
because
some
members
of
the
community
are
just
not
satisfied
with
the
outcome,
so
we
have
a
terrible
mechanism
and
we're
using
it
instead
of
we,
as
the
elected
officials,
making
a
decision.
Here's
the
other
thing
about
polling
that
is
on
this
item.
K
That
I
think
we
really
have
to
have
our
minds
clear
on
the
bylaw,
does
not
give
any
existing
permission
for
a
poll
to
be
done
to
remove
permit
parking.
What
councillor
Bradford
is
bringing
to
you
here
is
a
one-off,
saying:
I
have
a
complicated
problem.
There
is
no
polling
procedure
for
dealing
with
it,
so
I'm
going
to
ask
City
Council
to
invent
one.
It
is
literally
inventing
one.
We
went
over
this
with
staff
advice
at
Toronto,
East,
York,
Community,
Council
and
I
asked
them.
K
Is
there
anything
in
the
bylaw
that
says
you
can
do
a
poll
to
remove
permit
parking,
and
the
answer
was
no,
so
at
the
risk
of
giving
you
bad
ideas.
The
precedent
we're
establishing
here
is
any
time
a
local
councillor
gets
into
a
jam
on
any
issue.
They
can
just
bring
a
motion
to
Council
and
say
why
don't
we
do
a
poll
and
I'm
gonna
draw
the
boundaries
for
that
poll,
got
a
tough
development
like
councillor
Crawford
did
why
not
just
poll
people?
K
Why
not
just
spend
a
little
bit
of
public
money
on
a
flimsy
mechanism
which
is
not
properly
democratic,
not
properly
monitored?
To
get
me
out
of
a
jam
and
I
know,
councillor
Crawford
would
never
do
that.
It's
just
you
were
the
last
item.
This
is
not
how
we
govern.
This
is
not
the
kind
of
precedent
we
want
to
establish
for
us
doing
the
job
that
we
took
an
oath
to
do.
K
The
polling
procedure
does
not
mean
that
the
outcome
is
whatever
people
voted
on
the
authority
to
make.
The
decision
still
rests
with
City
Council
we're
not
only
running
a
very,
very
poorly
organized
and
very
arbitrary
system
for
canvassing
public
opinion.
We're
not
only
creating
a
precedent
here
that
can
Allah
would
allow
a
city.
Councillor
to
you
know,
run
a
run,
a
poll
on
any
issue
that
they
feel
like
at
any
time.
We're
also
misleading
people
into
thinking
that
it's
their
decision.
It's
never
their
decision.
It's
always
counsels
decision,
no
matter
what
the
poll
says.
E
O
O
We
keep
just
hurling
things
at
transportation,
escalate,
vision,
zero,
do
this,
do
that
in
all
four
service
districts,
I'm
afraid
that
that
this
just
doesn't
seem
like
something
that
you
just
come
here
and
and
not
actually
follow
a
manageable
course
few
polls
at
a
time
each
poll
requires
staff,
then
to
act
on
its
results,
and
that
is
it's
highly
unusual
to
ask
them
to
do
this
44
different
times.
All
in
one
motion,
I
suggested
it
that
we
take
this
whole
motion.
It's
not
that
long.
It's
not
that
far
away.
O
If
we're
going
to
do
local
business
in
this
way,
let's
just
refer
it
only
take
a
couple
of
additional
months.
Refer
this
to
budget
budget
process.
2020
is
on
its
way
before
us
and
their
staff
can
tell
us
if
this
new
way
of
doing
this
sort
of
Universal
approach
is
Expedition
expeditious
and
is
sensible.
Maybe
they'd
like
to
tell
us
how
much
it
would
cost
to
change
to
this
type
of
bulk
practice.
O
A
M
F
Now
only
have
one
crossing
guard
and
I
and
I've
heard
that
in
particular,
and
please
correct
me
if
I'm,
wrong
and
I
hope
I
am
at
the
corner
of
Mount
Pleasant
and
Eglinton,
which,
where
we
have
a
public
school
Eggman's
in
public
school
right
at
the
corner
and
condos
being
built
all
around
it
and
then
and
then
the
Metrolinx
LRT
project
right
outside
his
front
door.
So
I
wonder
you
know.
Is
it
true
that
that
that
is
happening
and
I
want
to
determine,
and
at
least
ask
you
look
into
it?
P
The
speaker
there
are
a
few
locations
citywide,
where
there's
more
than
one
crossing
guard.
That
was
a
sign
through
the
Toronto
Police
Services
crossing
guard
program.
Historically,
there
are
no
set
and
fast
rules
as
to
the
threshold
for
why
you
would
have
multiple
guards
the
location
that
is,
that
you're
speaking
about
it,
Mount
Pleasant.
My
understanding
currently
has
one
guard
and
we
are
in
the
process
of
looking
into
if
there's
an
assessment
method
that
we
would
apply
where
multiple
guards
might
be
necessary,
but
to
the
to.
Q
Three
manager
that
location
does
have
two
guards,
however,
with
the
existing
construction
that
is
currently
in
place
due
to
Metrolinx.
There
are
no
conflict
points
currently
every
turn.
There
are
no
turn
movements
allowed
at
that
intersection.
Yeah,
therefore,
to
put
two
guards
would
be
over
utilized,
so
there
is
still
one
guard
that
is
still
there
and
the
second
one
as
the
changes
occur
back
so.
F
So
that
is
comforting
here,
so
it
was
more
of
a
service
base,
rather
than
solely
a
budgetary
has
not
moved
okay.
That
is,
that
is,
that
is
good
to
clarify
and
I
appreciate
that
number
two.
Could
you
clarify
the
criteria
that
is
considered
for
assessing
whether
or
not
a
crossing
guard
should
be
allocated
in
the
first
place?
There
still
seems
to
be
a
lot
of
confusion
amongst
councillors
and
the
community
about
exactly
how
you
know
some
people
would
say:
I
want
a
crossing
guard
at
every
corner
on
every
street.
F
Q
Through
the
chair
we
are
now
there
was
a
method
that
was
being
used
by
the
Toronto,
Police,
Service
and
I
believe
it
was
basically
a
gap
analysis
review
of
if
there
were
enough
clearance
zones
allowed
for
the
pedestrians
to
cross.
We
are
now
implementing
what
is
a
new
criteria
that
was
developed
through
the
Ontario
traffic
council
for
school
crossing
guard
locations.
It
is
a
method,
that's
been
derived
by
all
municipalities
in
the
province
of
Ontario,
so
we're
implementing
that
and
it's
based
on
an
exposure
rate.
Q
So
it
looks
at
a
combination
of
how
many
children
are
crossing
the
street,
whether
they
are
attended
with
their
parent
or
their
attendant
or
unattended,
with
an
individual
plus.
We
look
at
the
conflict
points
which
are
the
vehicles
and
the
turn
movements
that
are
being
made
and
based
on
that
criteria.
We
are
also
look
that's
how
we're
going
to
develop
as
well
as
how
close
they
are
to
the
school
in
question.
You.
F
Just
said
something
that
that,
if
I
heard
you
correctly
is,
is
wonderful,
so
the
the
police,
the
police,
had
a
beta
criterion
where
they
would
have
said
they
would
go
out
and
they
would
assess
how
many
unsupervised
children
would
be
walking
to
school
and
then
they'd
do
a
snapshot.
They'd
go
out
there
and
they'd
do
a
snapshot
of
how
many
and
then
they'd
assess
whether
or
not
they
met
the
criterion.
F
The
problem
with
that
always
was
that
it
was
sort
of
a
vicious
cycle
or
chicken
and
egg
scenario,
where
many
parents
wouldn't
send
their
kids
unsupervised,
because
they
didn't
believe
that
they'd
be
safe
enough
to
cross
the
street.
So
then
they
never
meet
the
warrant
to
be
able
to
get
it.
So
are
you
saying
that's?
No
more
so.
Q
F
P
Some
of
the
pieces
that
we've
added
as
transportation
has
taken
over
this
program
are
to
ensure
that
any
application
for
a
crossing
guard
is
both
canvassed
to
both
the
local
counselor's
office
and
the
principal,
because
in
most
cases
is
you
know,
principals
have
a
have
somewhat
of
a
plan
and
they
understand
their
community
in
terms
of
modifications
to
the
warrants
we
haven't
messed
with
them
about
changes
to
the
system.
We
will
always
go
out
to
community
meetings
when
people
are
interested.
P
This
speaker,
that's
correct.
We
did
with
the
contractors
the
two
contractors
who
have
won
the
contracts
to
deliver
the
crossing
guard
services
for
the
city.
They
contacted
every
TPS
guard
that
was
on
their
roster
multiple
times
in
some
cases
and
of
the
number
that
existed.
132
of
them
opted
not
to
continue
at.
P
Through
the
speaker,
there
was
a
significant
number
of
existing
guards
who
either
take
the
summer
out
of
town.
In
those
cases,
we
worked
with
the
contractor
to
ensure
that
they
would
fill
spaces
temporarily
until
they
could
connect
with
every
TPS
former
TPS
guard
directly,
but
it
was
not.
It
was
not
as
straightforward
as
just
making
initial
contact
to
people.
They
spent
a
good
chunk
of
the
summer
diligently
contacting
everybody
who
was
on
the
TPS.
Roster
is.
N
P
Use
best
possible
data
that
we
received
directly
from
the
police.
We
use
the
police's
list.
These
were
people
who
were
getting
paid
by
the
police
as
crossing
guards
last
year,
and
so
we
had
that
it
was
the
best
possible
information
that
we
had
are.
The
contractors
also
did
a
fair
amount
of
research
to
ensure
they
had
the
right
phone
numbers
and,
in
some
cases,
mailed
registered
letters
to
the
existing
guards
to
ensure
that
they
were
at
least
con
tactic.
N
J
P
Q
Q
That
allows
for
the
guards
to
actually
check
in
that
they
were
there,
and
if
we
don't
see
it,
we
actually
reach
out
to
the
vendor
to
ensure
and
determine
what
the
issue
was
and
also
to
ensure
that
the
very
next
shift,
which
usually
is
the
lunch
shift
or
the
afternoon
shift
depending
on
when
whatever
shift
was
missed.
They
will
guarantee
to
or
ensure
to
the
rest
of
their
ability
that
a
guard
will
be
present.
Q
N
Q
This
point
in
time
the
intent
of
what
they
had
provided
or
agreed
to
through
the
bid
process
was
a
ten
percent
over
capacity
which,
when
you're
looking
at
approximately
seven
hundred
and
eight
guards,
it
would
have
been.
They
needed
a
total
of
seventy
guards
to
have
extra
that
would
cover.
What's
happened
since
the
beginning
of
the
school
year
between
a
combination
of
either
existing
TPS
guards
have
decided.
They
no
longer
want
to
partake
in
the
program
and
they're
resigning
or
retiring,
or
the
new
guards.
Q
P
P
J
E
F
F
Just
want
to
stand
and
and
express
some
gratitude,
first
of
all,
to
barbara
gray
and
her
team
who,
under
you
know
any
transition,
is
incredibly
difficult
and
complex
and
confusing
at
times,
but
I
believe
that
they've
taken
this
very
seriously
and
certainly
the
feedback
that
I'm
hearing
from
the
community
is
that
things
are
improving
rather
than
declining
from
how
it
was
before.
I
want
to
also
express
my
there's
another
occasion
where
I'm
sort
of
gonna
put
on
my
parent
cap,
along
with
my
counselor
cap,
to
the
mayor
and
to
council.
F
Thank
you
like
thank
you
so
much.
This
is
there's
nothing
that
replaces
adult
supervision
when
it
comes
to
the
care
and
the
safety
of
our
kids
and
I.
Just
I
see
it
firsthand.
Like
many
of
you
I
know,
many
of
the
crossing
guards
in
our
community
and
I
know
what
they
do
for
us,
and
it
wouldn't
happen
if
it
wasn't
for
you
and
I,
really
really
am
appreciative.
F
Appreciative
of
the
you
know
not
just
talking
about
how
important
is,
but
that
you
have
demonstrated
that
support,
and
it
means
everything
to
us
and
to
the
crossing
guards.
You
know
I.
Actually
named
playground
after
Mona
Piper
was
Toronto's
longest
standing
crossing
guard
for
over
40
years
at
the
corner
of
Foreman
and
Manor
Road,
which
is
now
it
was
in
my
warden.
F
It's
now
in
counselor,
Robinson's
Ward
and
we
named
a
playground
for
Mona
and
I
think
it
was
appropriate
to
name
a
playground
after
her
because
the
kids
loved
her
and
not
only
the
kids
loved
her,
but
then
they
became
parents
and
then
their
kids
loved
her.
She
she
supported
two
or
even
three
generations
of
kids
in
in
our
data
school
community
and
I've,
gotten
to
know
Dave
in
the
new
part
of
my
ward,
over
at
Hillcrest
and
Nina
in
Bathurst,
which
many
of
you
know.
F
I
know
the
mayor
is
aware
of
and
others
that
is
a
dangerous
intersection,
and
we
are
now
you
know,
with
the
support
of
Barbara
Greiner
team
gonna
be
able
to
get
a
red-light
camera
there
and
we're
you
know,
making
significant
improvements
there.
But
any
of
you
who
you
know
know
where
love
kids,
who
go
to
Hillcrest
and
cross
that
Street
every
day
will
get
to
know.
Dave
and
Dave
goes
out
there
and
he
puts
his
body
and
his
voice
in
front
of
every
everyone
to
fight
for
those
kids,
it's
not
a
job
for
him.
F
G
I
just
wanted
to
just
quickly
because
it
is
four
o'clock
and
we
do
have
a
hard
stop
just
again
thank
miss
gray
and
her
staff
for
really
quickly
shifting
gears
once
we
realized
that
all
the
crossing
guards
who
are
currently
employed
by
Toronto
Police,
Service
hadn't,
really
been
carefully
contacted
yet
by
any
of
the
providers,
and
it
was
very
quick.
The
police
did
step
in
to
let
them
know
what
was
going
on
into
my
crossing
guard.
G
Al
who
said
I
don't
know,
I
want
to
stay
with
these
kids
I
want
to
stay
at
this
corner,
and
we
don't
have
anything
to
do
that.
So
council
stepped
in
I
think
in
June
and
all
the
staff
got
together.
There
are
some
real
upgrades
with
this
current
system,
including
there
are
phones
and
if
they
don't
have
a
data
plan,
the
providers
I
believe
are
giving
everybody
a
phone
so
that
they
know
they're
there
in
the
morning
or
that
they
have
to
call
in
that's
a
pretty
big
step
up
from
somebody
not
turning
up.
G
Somebody
then
has
to
phone
the
local
Police
Division.
Somebody
has
to
go
from
the
Police,
Division
and
head
out
to
whatever
corner
it
is
so
that
that
basically,
there
would
be
no
crossing
guard
there
for
the
morning,
maybe
even
into
the
afternoon
for
school.
So
it's
a
thought
I
mean
that
this
is
what
these
people
do.
They
provide
crossing
guards,
it's
not
off
the
side
of
a
desk,
it's
their
main
job.
G
So
thank
you
very
much
for
taking
into
account
the
idiosyncrasies
of
these
positions,
the
people
that
have
been
in
these
positions
and
faithfully
serving
their
communities
for
years,
an
understanding
that
they're
very
varied.
These
are
not
wealthy
citizens
that
are
working.
They
are
humble
working
people
who
are
doing
their
best
looking
after
the
most
vulnerable
citizens
of
our
city,
which
are
children
so
I
just
do
have
two
big
shout
out
to
all
that
you
did
to
get
this
back
on
track
and
up
and
running
to
start
for
school.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
E
Thank
you
for
that
advice.
I
have
a
motion.
It's
a
very
first
motion.
I
moved
to
this
term
was
related
to
crossing
carts
and
getting
an
update
on
that
because
it
wasn't,
as
the
chair
indicated,
a
smooth
rollout,
and
so
it
was
actually
councilor
Matt,
Lowe's
daughter
school
that
were
one
of
the
you
know
serious
school
communities
that
were
very
concerned
about
the
lack
of
traction
on
this
program.
So
I
am
also
standing
up
to
thank
staff
for
their
hard
work
in
rolling
this
out.
I
know
it's
been
very
challenging.
It
was
a
big
undertaking.
E
We
we
knew
that
last
term.
This
was
not
going
to
be
easy
and
it
was
a
bumpy
start,
but
we're
getting
closer
I'm
moving
a
motion
just
to
make
sure
there's
some
touch
points
on
training,
because
I
have
had
some
feedback
that
not
all
the
crossing
guards
out
there
are
out
of
star
status,
there's
a
number
of
them
that
are,
but
we
have
had
reports
that
some
of
them
could
use
a
little
more
training.
E
So
I
understand
you
are
doing
that
at
the
onset,
but
I
think
there's
with
some
particular
staff
positions
and
some
of
the
players.
They
could
use
more
extensive
trainings.
So
that's
feedback
based
on
my
school
parent
communities
and
so
I'm
simply
moving
this
motion
to
make
sure
there's
some
more
touch
points
in
the
process
to
ensure
that
they're
up
and
running
I
think
one
school
crossing
guard
is
one
really
effective.
School
crossing
guard
is
actually
can
be
even
better
than
two.
A
L
K
Thank
you,
I
have
questions
for
the
city
solicitor,
so
a
number
of
people
have
contacted
me
asking
about.
You
know
how
the
case
goes
forward
here
and
if
we
have
the
right
expertise
and
does
the
city
of
the
ability
to
bring
in
outside
expertise
if
necessary
and
I
was
wondering
if
you
had
any
comments
on
that
set
of
questions.
Madam.
C
Handled
this
matter
thus
far,
and
in
my
view
they
are
the
best
people
available
to
carry
it
forward
to
the
Supreme
Court
of
Canada.
That
being
said,
there
is,
there
is
nothing
that
would
prevent
me
nothing
in
a
prior
council
decision
that
would
prevent
me
from
consulting
with
outside
legal
if,
if
I
thought
that
was
necessary,
so.
F
Just
before,
just
before
a
summer
ago,
we
were
most
of
us
were
in
this
room
say
many
more
of
us
were
in
this
room
and
we
were.
We
were
shocked.
We
had
just
heard
without
any
consultation
or
any
discussion
by
the
premier
or
the
minister,
that
a
decision
had
been
made
to
virtually
cut
council
in
half
cut.
F
Think
many
of
us
ended
up
in
situations.
I
ended
up
in
a
you
know.
What
I
would
describe
is
like
a
gladiator
ring
with
councilor
mackovic,
which
was
unfortunate
and
really
traumatic,
I.
Think
for
all
of
us,
and
each
of
you
have
your
own
story
of
how
difficult
that
experience
was
up
against
friends,
finding
yourselves
in
situations
now,
where
you
represent
double
the
population.
F
F
That
I
do
that
I'm
privileged
to
do
to
not
just
show
up
for
a
moment,
because
I've
got
10
of
the
things
I've
got
to
do
that
same
evening,
but
to
be
there
through
the
evening
to
be
there
to
be
involved
to
be
supportive
to
arrive
at
solutions,
because
that's
what
we're
that's?
What
we're
all
here
to
do,
and
this
unnaturally
large
sized
wards
that
we
represent
now
are
not
good
for
democracy
they're,
just
not
good!
For
local
democracy.
F
F
We
found
ourselves
in
that
position,
but
then
it
you
know
it
made
me
think
about.
You
know
what
is
the
role
of
counsel
if,
if
the
province
can
just
unilaterally
decide
to
just
cut
an
election
in
the
middle
of
an
election
again,
whether
you
know,
as
the
mayor
said,
you
know
whether
you
like
25
or
47,
or
whatever
the
principle
of
sort
of
doing
it
in
that
way.
F
I
think
I
think
you
know
offended
a
lot
of
people
in
Toronto
and
then
what
about
our
land-use
planning
rules
with
respect
to
our
our
OPA
sand
bill
108?
And
what
about
you
know,
funding
ongoing
funding
for
things
like
child
care
and
health
and
other
priorities
and
we're
just
gonna
keep
finding
ourselves
in
the
same
situation.
I
mean
I
could
go.
F
We
have
a
broken
governance
structure
here
and
we
need
some
answers
to
what
the
role
of
a
city
is.
In
the
Canadian
context,
cities
in
the
United
States
have
home
rule.
They
have
charters,
they
they
have
authority,
most
of
many
of
them
have
authority
over
land
use,
planning,
finances
and
governance
such
as
elections
in
Canada.
To
do
to
to
have
a
charter.
It
wouldn't
mean
opening
up
like
a
Meech,
Lake
kind
of
debate
or
ten
provinces
or
a
certain
percentage
of
the
problem
of
the
population.
I
Thank
you,
madam
Speaker.
Madam
Speaker.
During
the
last
campaign,
we've
started
with
47
and
then
right
in
the
middle
of
it
we
were
cut
down
to
25,
for
whatever
reason
that's
water.
Under
the
bridge,
however,
we
went
to
court,
we
lost
how
much
more
are
we
gonna
be
going
back
at
it
and
back
at
it
and
back
at
it?
What
is
it?
Gonna
cost
us
the
amount
of
money
that
this
is
gonna
cost
us.
Can
we
not
use
that
kind
of
money
for
somewhere
else?
It's
not
that
we
have
the
legal
staff
and
it's
infinite.
I
That
is
going
to
cost
us
thousands
of
dollars.
So
why
are
we
pursuing
a
matter
which
is
foregone
and
it's
over
there's
no
way
that
we
can
go
back
to
being
47
in
this
term
and
next
term,
if
we're
going
to
go
back
to
being,
47
will
be
another
government
that
might
want
to
set
us
there,
but
all
of
us
are
doing
the
work
and
to
hear
that
this
is
an
extended
and
the
big
water
you
can
handle
it.
I
Well,
you
know
I'm,
sorry,
but
that's
that's
that's
nonsense
and
if
you
can't
handle
it
guess
what
step
aside
there's
a
thousand
other
people
that
are
ready
to
look
like
to
take
over
your
job
and
do
it
and
some
of
them
might
do
a
better
job
than
we're
doing
right
now.
So
for
us
to
sit
here
and,
and
even
just
even
think
about
this
and
having
people
who
are
sending
emails
to
us,
that's
a
waste
of
our
time.
G
G
I
I
A
I
Rude
you're
Adams
speaker
when
I
have,
when
I
have
a
baby,
an
individual
beside
me,
that's
trying
to
say
tracking
from
what
my
thoughts
are:
I'm.
Sorry,
but
I
disagree
with
that
and
I'm
not
screaming
that
you
that's
my
tone
of
voice.
I,
think
we're
wasting
our
money
in
our
time
and
when
you
stand
up-
and
you
say
we
want
more
money
for
daycare,
we
want
more
money
to
fix
our
roads.
I
G
Fletcher
I'm
not
going
to
scream
madam
Speaker
I'm
just
going
to
speak
quietly,
but
there
are
so
many
people
around
the
world
that
envy
our
democracy.
We
are
so
lucky
we
can
vote.
We
are
so
lucky
the
structure
that
we
have
millions
and
millions
and
millions
of
people
don't
have
access
to
democracy,
and
we
feel
that
our
access
was
denied
by
overturning
a
democratic
decision
of
this
council
that
we'd
plan
for
that
we
had
funding
for
in
order
to
have
a
representative
democracy
and
not
federal
and
provincial
size,
Ward's
doing
business.
G
That
we
know
is
very
particular.
We
have
to
visit
constituents.
We
have
to
look
after
trees,
we
have
to
look
after
roads.
We
have
to
look
after
crossing
guards
all
around
the
schools
and
see
that
they're
there
and
take
email.
This
is
a
very
different
job
than
an
elected
MP
or
an
elected
MPP
and
I
think
we're
finding
that
these
are.
This
is
an
onerous
amount
of
work
for
many
of
us
in
these
new
wards,
so
I.
A
G
I
would
know
thank
you
very
much.
Mr.
councillors,
I
just
want
to
thank
the
staff
for
doing
a
great
job,
our
legal
staff,
both
when
we
first
had
our
first
case
when
it
went
to
the
appeal
court,
because
a
3-2
decision
I
think
means
that
not
all
five
judges
were
convinced
that
bill
five
was
the
best
and
going
to
the
Supreme
Court.
We
have
other
people
who
are
partnering
with
us,
FCM
of
which
we're
a
strong
member
believes
in
local
democracy
and
I.
G
Think
they're
going
to
be
there
with
us
advocating
for
local
democracy,
so
I
say:
let's
get
on
to
it.
Let's
make
sure
we
try
to
get
a
decision
as
quickly
as
possible,
so
we
know
what
our
future
will
look
like
and
our
constituents
will
know
what
our
future
will
look
like.
I've
received
thousands
of
emails
up
to
today
asking
me
to
support
this
motion
support
a
strong
legal
case
at
the
Supreme
Court,
so
I'll
be
voting
for
that.
R
Well,
madam
Speaker,
the
main
reason
I
want
to
get
up
and
speak
is
just
to
say
thank
you
and
to
commend
our
legal
staff
because
whatever
people's
views
are
on
the
issue
and
I
know,
there
was
a
difference
of
opinion
in
this
chamber
over
time.
When
we
dealt
with
this
at
the
time,
it
happened,
I
think
that
our
legal
team
at
the
city-
and
this
is
an
important
point
through
you,
madam
Speaker-
for
a
councillor
care,
Janice
recognized,
which
is
that
this
has
been
entirely
carried
by
our
own
legal
staff.
R
There
has
been
some
allocation
of
time,
but
I
think
it's
an
allocation
of
time
on
a
very,
very
important
point
of
law
and
that
important
enough
that
two
judges
in
the
Court
of
Appeal
wrote
very
strong
dissenting
judgments
to
indicate
that
they
thought
it
was
important,
and
that
is
why
I
think
it's
also
important
enough
to
take
the
same
case
to
the
Supreme
Court
of
Canada.
But
the
out-of-pocket
costs
have
been
very
little
but
the
expertise.
R
It's
pointed
out
in
the
judgement
that
we
were
I
forget
the
number
of
day
69
days
from
Election
Day,
when
the
rules
were
suddenly
changed
and
and
the
candidates
were
different
and
people
who'd
spent
all
kinds
of
time
and
money
on
issues
were
suddenly
sort
of
told
they
were
no
longer
really
able
to
participate
in
the
race
in
the
same
way
and
I.
Think
if
that
precedent
is
never
followed
again,
that
would
be
a
good
thing,
a
worthy
of
establishing
on
the
record.
R
But
the
second
thing
that
I
think
is
equally
important
about
this
and
I've
said
this
publicly
many
times
is
that
I
think
for
purposes
of
cities
across
the
country,
including
the
city
of
Toronto,
but
not
limited
to
the
City
of
Toronto,
the
more
we
can
get
intelligent
reasoning
on
the
record,
even
if
it's
in
a
dissenting
judgement
about
how
far
this
power
that
the
federal
the
provincial
government
has
under
the
Constitution
can
go,
what
limits
there
might
be
in
terms
of
reasonable
behavior.
We
will
find
there
will
be
a
day
common.
R
We
may
not
be
here,
but
somebody
else
will
be
or
it'll
be
in
some
other
City,
whether
it's
Edmonton
or
Vancouver
or
Montreal,
and
we'll
be
very
thankful
that
the
Supreme
Court
of
Canada,
if
they
choose
to
hear
this
case,
had
the
opportunity
to
bring
their
intelligent.
Their
intelligent
judgment
to
bear
on
this
matter,
because
I
believe
that
we
are
dealing
today
with
a
document
that
was
written
in
1867
and
if
somebody
was
drawing
it
up
today
in
2019,
there's
no
chance.
R
They
would
draw
it
up
this
way,
not
even
the
slightest
chance,
but
as
a
councillor,
Matt
Lohr
I
think
it
was
said,
nobody's
suggesting
we
have
Meech
Lake
and
open
up
the
Constitution.
No
there's
no
appetite
for
that.
So
this
may
be
the
best
chance
that
we
have
to
get
some
reasoning
from
some
very
distinguished
jurists
about
that
power
and
how
far
it
should
go
in
2019
as
opposed
to
1867.
R
To
do
anything
that
affects
a
big,
complex
city
like
this
I
think
this
is
well
worth
our
while
and
the
cost,
as
we've
seen
before.
I
think
you
pay
a
filing
fee
or
something
is
a
few
thousand
dollars
which
I
think
is
well
worth
doing
on
our
behalf,
but
also
on
behalf
of
other
cities
across
this
country,
who
I
think
will
very
much
value
if
it's
heard
the
judgment
of
the
Supreme
Court
in
this
matter.
Thank
you,
madam
Speaker.
Thank.
E
O
N
Thank
you,
madam
Speaker
I'd
like
to
bring
this
onto
the
floor
because
the
affordable
housing
program,
the
latest
internet'
iteration,
which
began
in
2014,
expires
at
the
end
of
the
year.
It's
important
to
resolve
the
matter
over
these
hundred
I
guess:
a
combination
of
affordable
rental
and
affordable
ownership
units.
Okay,.
A
E
Speaker
that
is
correct.
Madam
Speaker
and
I
would
like
to
move
the
the
the
content
that's
contained
in
the
green
paper.
That's
been
circulated
should
be
sitting
on
all
the
councillors
desk
and
also
to
adopt
the
confidential
instructions
in
the
staff
report,
with
those
amendments
and
and
then
everything
else
on
purple
paper.
Hey.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
G
A
G
A
E
E
But
we
actually
have
a
standard
policy
that
is
gonna,
allow
affordable
housing
to
be
built
in
the
city
and
that
we're
not
dealing
with
this
on
ad
hoc
situation
and
sure
we
will
work
with
you
to
make
sure
that
that
this
comes
through.
But
we
it's
really
important
that
we
have
a
policy
created
and
we're
working,
hard
and
meeting
is
already
in
the
works
to
to
get
this
done
with
our
CFO
city
solicitor
and
chief
planner
in
the
mayor's
office
and
we'll
work
with
you
to
get
this
done.
E
A
K
K
So
now
we
have
the
right
to
refer
it.
We
never
ever
as
a
council
voted
on
whether
or
not
to
refer
this
item
and
to
be
clear
to
be
clear
when
we
voted
to
introduce
it,
we
were
not
given
the
full
motion.
We
were
not
given
a
full
explanation
of
what
issues
are
at
hand.
We
were
only
told
that
it
had
something
to
do
with
an
affordable
housing
project
and
I.
K
Would
also
remind
you,
Speaker
that
there
is
a
provision
in
the
procedural
bylaw
that,
when
one
or
more
of
the
issues
in
the
procedural
bylaw
are
in
conflict,
it
is
the
speaker's
right.
If
I
could
just
have
your
attention,
it
is
the
speaker's
right
to
decide
how
to
manage
that
conflict
in
the
rules.
A
D
K
I'm
afraid
that
that
I'm
going
to
have
to
like
continue
my
point
of
order
for
a
moment.
Yes,
it
is
true.
We
voted
to
introduce
business.
That
is
absolutely
correct.
Just
as
at
the
beginning
of
every
meeting
we
vote
to
introduce
the
business
from
various
committees.
When
we
vote
to
introduce
business
from
committees,
we
retain
the
right
to
refer
the
items
from
those
committees.
A
vote
to
introduce
is
not
is
not
a
consideration
of
the
question
of
whether
or
not
we
are
referring.
The
item.
Bouncer.
A
K
R
Perhaps
the
clerk
who
yourself
could
advise
us,
though,
as
to
what
options
we
have
because
I
just
want
to
stand
and
make
strenuously
agree
with
the
point
made
by
deputy
mayor
Councillor
bi-lo,
because
what
this
is
doing
is
that
it
is
establishing
a
precedent
and
it's
all
about
the
November
first
date
and
it's
a
precedent.
We
will
be
sorry.
We
established
without
a
proper
consideration
of
a
policy
that
could
apply
to
other
developments
that
have
the
same
concern
about
development
charges
and
so
I.
R
Think
if
you
could
advise
us
as
to
what
our
options
are,
and
maybe
there
are
none
but
but
I
can't
believe
there
wouldn't
be
an
option
for
us
to
somehow
have
this
end
up
somewhere,
where
it
could
be
deliberated
upon
perhaps
before
October
November.
First
I.
Think
in
fact,
if
it
got
to
the
executive
committee,
we
could
then
take
our
time
and
do
this
properly
and
establish
a
precedent
or
our
policy
that
is
proper
and
applying
across
the
board.
So
I
would
ask
for
your
advice
or
the
so.
A
What
we
can
do,
which
the
clerk
recommended
is
we
couldn't
take
a
vote
now
a
recorded
vote
on
the
referral.
Okay,
that's
that's
the
only
that's
the
only
alternative
that
we
have
here:
okay,
okay,
let's
just
take
a
vote:
counselor
yeah!
Well
we're
gonna
vote
out
to
revert
or
not
just
think
we
do
with
the
memories
motions.
So
if
you
don't
want,
if
you
don't
want
to
introduce
it,
we
know
for
the
referral.
Then
it
will
go
to
committee.
Yes,
it
will
go
to
committee.
O
A
O
Is
it
your
understanding
from
staff
that
there
will
be
some?
There
will
be
some
consideration
for
the
fact
that
count
that
the
councilor
brought
it
to
your
attention
here
now,
even
though
this
can't
be
ratified
by
a
council
until
after
November
first,
because
the
fact
that
it
will
then
be
after
November
first
can't
be
the
reason.
The
answer
is:
no.
The
reason
has
to
have
everything
to
do
with
the
deliberation
and
executive
and
not
the
fact
that
it
will
then
be
after
November.
First.
O
A
A
Members
before
I
asked
promotion
to
enact
a
general
bills.
Okay,
please
can
I
have
some
quiet.
Please
memories
before
I
ask
for
motion
to
an
oxygen
to
enact.
The
general
bills
may
have
a
motion
regarding
the
consideration
of
submission.
So
it's
only
by
law
and
official
plan
amendments
counts
to
Crawford.
You.