►
From YouTube: City Council - April 25, 2018 - Part 3 of 3
Description
City Council, meeting 39, April 25, 2018 - Part 3 of 3
Agenda and background materials:
http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/decisionBodyProfile.do?function=doPrepare&meetingId=13091
Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6lY99D4B1U
Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8Wq-kAm3wU
A
A
H
B
Practice
procedures,
review
of
written
submissions
I
prepare
that
to
release
what
my
colleague
has
a
motion
which
he
wanted
to
add
to
it
and
I
know
that
she
has
run
that
by
both
legal
and
planning,
and
they
are
satisfied
with
itself.
That's
subject
to
the
addition
of
the
motion
there
so
now
is
that.
B
Madam
Speaker
I'm,
not
gonna,
read
it
all
if
we
can
put
it
on
the
screen.
That
would
be
great.
I
have
run
this
by
city,
legal
and
planning,
and
it's
basically
just
to
move
the
the
times
for
all
these
items,
for
the
residents,
associations
and
groups
to
nearer
to
the
actual
date
of
the
hearing.
I
have.
G
G
A
D
G
A
B
D
A
L
B
B
B
N
B
I
B
A
P
B
D
You,
madam
Speaker,
that
councillor
Crawford
be
permitted
that
the
agenda
today's
meeting,
an
urgent
motion
will
notice
concerning
economic
development,
culture,
the
reallocation
of
2018
capital
funds
and
the
reason
for
the
urgency
is
to
request
the
application
of
permanent
underspending
from
the
city
budget
for
EC
and
culture
to
an
urgent
new
project
at
the
Toronto
Centre
for
the
Arts.
It's
for
the
Arts
everybody
yeah.
A
I
A
G
A
G
G
J
A
Q
J
Q
You,
but
it
is
possible
just
to
confirm
that
we
can
put
forward
motions
that
would
change
the
criteria
of
that
would
add
upon
the
cannot
add
upon
the
conditions.
It's
the
wrong
word,
refine
the
conditions
so
that
they
are
more
specific.
It's
just
that
the
app
the
the
the
applicant
might
not
agree
to
them.
Correct.
F
Q
Q
G
Q
N
N
N
Q
R
Q
Q
H
You
very
much
madam
Speaker
I
think
I'd
like
to
ask
staff,
maybe
just
to
elaborate
on
that,
because
I
think
that
perhaps
it
the
the
way,
the
question
has
been
asked
in
the
response:
it's
not
clarity.
I
want
to
make
sure
it's
clear
that
the
group
is
actually
not
under
investigation.
So
can
you
please
maybe
just
elaborate
on
that
with
respect
to
counselor
Layton's
question,
please
through.
J
H
Thank
you
I
understand
the
questioning
that
counsel
Layton
has
been
asked
and
I'm
glad
I'm
after
him,
because
he's
asked
most
of
the
questions
regarding
the
conditions
and
so
on,
but
I'd
like
to
ask
on
the
government's
model
figure
six.
It
talks
about
the
community
steering
committee
Casino,
would
bond
responsible,
Gaming,
Oversight,
Committee
and
employment
and
labor
market
advisory
working
group.
H
P
P
H
Okay
enough,
can
you
tell
me
please
I'm
trying
to
understand
it
appears
that
there's
great
resistance
with
respect
to
the
element
of
adding
a
daycare
component
as
part
of
the
discussion
and
negotiation
that's
been
going?
Is
that
in
fact
correct,
or
is
there
some
other
matter
as
to
why
the
daycare
P
seems
to
be
a
bit
of
a
hindrance
I.
H
So
I
have
a
list
here
that
talks
about
varying
casinos,
Casino,
Montreal,
MGM,
Springfield,
casino,
gran-gran,
Casino,
Star,
City,
Hotel
and
Casino.
That's
in
Australia
a
Venetian
and
Station
Casinos.
These
all
have
actually
provide
daycares
in
some
extent
for
the
workers.
Are
you
aware
of
these
particular
facilities
offering
daycare
services
not.
F
H
H
J
J
H
A
A
O
Future
I
was
looking
at
it
and
I
just
thought.
I'd
have
some
questions.
I
wanted
to
ask
I
just
really
sort
of
want
to
turn
my
mind
to
the,
and
you
may
have
answered
this
question
and
I
apologize.
If
you
have
to
the
transit
connections
for
the
new
Woodbine
site,
who
would
I
be
asking
that
question
out.
O
So
what
let
me
repeat
it
so
so
would
by
is
a
great
big
swath
of
land
off
Rexdale
427
and
between
the
four,
the
four
27:27
Rexdale,
and
I
don't
know
what
the
southerly
boundary
and
basically
it's
a
swath
of
land.
That's
that's
very
poorly
served
by
transit
in
any
kind
of
transit
integration,
transit
connections
and
given
that
this
site
this
or
the
potential
new
uses,
would
be
both
a
bit
of
a
local
tourist
draw
as
well
as
a
regional
and
maybe
even
international
tourist,
draw.
S
The
speaker,
the
the
two
key
lines
that
have
been
discussed
for
those
kinds
of
connections,
are
the
extension
of
the
Finch
LRT
from
Humber
College
down
to
the
airport
passing
by
the
site
and
the
the
second
key
connection
would
be
the
establishment
of
a
go
station
at
Woodbine,
the
south,
the
south
end
of
the
the
property.
So.
S
The
proponents
have
have
been
discussing
that
with
city
staff
in
terms
of
the
kinds
of
improvements
to
transit,
that
they
would
that
they
would
contribute
to
as
part
of
the
development.
They've
also
had
some
conversations
with
Metrolinx
and
indeed
written
to
Metrolinx,
indicating
a
commitment
to
make
a
contribution
in
terms
of
property
and
also
some
to
be
determined
financial
contribution
to
the
the
NGO
station,
at
least
the
design
and
construction
of
the
co
station.
So.
O
They
basically
said:
look
we
would
like
to
contribute.
Some
land
contribute
some
monies,
if
you,
for
example,
extend
the
Finch
West
LRT
through
Woodbine
to
the
airport
that
is
correct,
okay
and
establish
a
ghost
station
on
site,
so
where's
that
at
so
with
his
Metrolink,
said
hip-hip
array.
Yes,
we
were
on
board
with
that.
Let's
sign
on
the
dotted
line
through.
S
O
S
S
So
I
can't
say
that
there's
been
a
confirmed
decision,
but
it's
looking
positive
and
then
I
think
that
the
the
extension
of
the
Finch
LRT
is
seen
by
many
as
a
as
a
positive
transit
investment,
not
just
because
of
the
Woodbine
site,
but
because
of
what
the
airport
is
doing
with
their
regional
transit
hub.
That
they're
wanting
to
to
establish
near
the
airport,
but.
O
S
Through
the
speaker,
they've
been
looking
at
a
number
of
transportation
improvements
and
transit
improvements,
working
with
the
the
TTC
and
some
of
the
905
transit
agencies
that
come
into
they're
having
the
Finch
LRT
extended
or
the
the
Woodbine
Go
station.
There
is
not
necessary
for
day
one
but
I
think
to
make
the
development
and,
in
particular
the
casino
work
really
well.
The
the
proponents
see
it
as
a
really
important
component,
but.
O
My
question
to
you
and
I
guess:
where
I've
been
driving,
where
I've
been
driving
to
us,
why
aren't
choose
it
like
digging
in
your
heels
and
saying:
look,
you
need
to
have
the
Finch
West
LRT
extended
through
this
site
and
it
needs
to
be
a
part
of
any
making
this.
You
know
this
potential
employment.
Thank
you
work.
Thank.
S
K
Thank
you,
madam
Speaker
I'd
like
to
placed
two
motions
and
I'd
like
to
focus
my
speaking
on.
At
the
reason
for
these
motions
and
on
three
main
points,
I
think
that
a
lot
of
people
will
continue
to
speak
of
the
merits
or
not
merits
of
the
casino
we've
had
this
discussion
before
and
what
we're
talking
about
now
is
how
can
we
turn
this
entertainment
facility
into
something
that
will
definitely
be
state-of-the-art?
K
K
I
deal
with
a
lot
of
programs
through
hammerheads
through
the
Lawrence
Heights
revitalizations
Regent
Park
that
we've
had
in
order
to
make
sure
that
we're
creating
these
positions
for
people
that
needed
that
we
can
actually
help
them
break
the
cycle
of
poverty
that
will
can
actually
give
them
a
hand-up
and
create
opportunities,
and
one
of
the
things
that
I
keep
hearing
for
a
lot
of
single
parents.
A
lot
of
women,
for
example,
is
that
one
of
the
major
issues
that
they
had
in
some
of
these
programs,
it's
I,
should
actually
child
care.
K
I
had
the
opportunity
of
speaking
with
people
that
were
actually
trying
to
get
into
the
painters,
treats
a
woman.
That
said
you
know,
I
would
love
to
do
it.
I
love
the
job
but
finding
childcare
at
seven
o'clock
in
the
morning
when
we
actually
start
to
work,
it's
really
hard.
So
it's
hard
for
me
to
get
that
job.
K
It's
hard
for
me
to
be
able
to
participate,
to
take
advantage
of
this
program
that
you're,
creating
if
I
don't
have
the
supports
that
I
need
in
order
to
embark
in
it,
and
so
I
I
think
that
it's
really
important,
that
we
have
the
childcare
available
with
the
extended
hours
in
the
vicinity
orient
on-site
and
that
we
make
it
available
for
employees
and
if,
if
space
is
available
to
the
community
at
large,
so
that
is
part
of
the
motion.
The
other
part
of
the
motion
is
actually
at
the
reporting.
K
We
have
an
opportunity
to
leave
a
legacy
in
this
city
on
Toronto
community
benefits
in
big
large-scale
projects.
This
will
set
the
tone
so
for
everybody
that
has
been
involved
from
local
councillors
to
staff.
Thank
you
because
this
is
actually
the
foundation
for
something
that
could
be
really
important
for
our
city,
so
making
sure
that
we
have
reporting
available
that
we
have
good
transparency
and
participation
in
how
this
is
developing.
K
Is
really
important,
and
so
that
is
the
next
part
of
the
motion,
the
other
one
is
to
have
some
of
our
labor
partners
at
the
table
and
councillor
Thompson
will
be
moving
motions
on
on
that
to
ensure
that
you
know
the
ones
that
are
creating
the
jobs
and
training
the
facilities
are
at
the
table
and
actually
participating
in
this.
So
I
really
hope
that
I
can
get
your
support.
I
think
that
we
do
have
the
opportunity
to
build
on
something
that
is
good.
K
That
is
moving
forward,
but
I
think
without
these
components,
without
this
Lex
extra
mile
that
we
really
need
we,
we
will
be
doing
a
disservice
to
the
community
and
to
the
city
and
to
this
new
process
that
we're
creating
here
in
our
city.
If
we
don't
have
this,
this
done
so
I.
Ask
that
dad
that
you
support.
So
we
can
all
be
very
proud
of
a
great
facility
that
is
gonna,
serve
tourists
and
serve
everybody.
K
That
wants
to
be
entertained,
but,
most
importantly,
will
serve
their
employees
will
serve
the
communities
that
will
surround
them
and
we
will
serve
the
city
as
a
whole.
So
I
hope
that
we
move
forward,
but
we
move
forward
cautiously
with
the
checks
and
balances
in
place
and
with
the
services
that
we
need
for
the
community.
Thank.
A
R
A
R
On
yes,
that's
right,
I
meant
you
to
hear
that
go
ahead.
Thank
you
very
much,
madam
Speaker,
and
for
you
to
the
councillor
who
removed
a
motion
to
counselor
by
Lao,
given
the
the
fact
that
staff
have
repeatedly
suggested
and
stated
clearly
that
any
changes,
substantial
material
changes
to
this
to
what's
before
us
meeting
the
21
conditions,
do
you
believe
that
you
are
perhaps
contravening
what
staff
have
said
in
terms
of
mid
day
the
changes
to
the
21
commute?
Well,
this.
K
K
R
R
K
R
R
B
M
You
speaker
through
you
to
the
deputy
mayor,
I
wondered
if
the
deputy
mayor
caught
the
questions
that
I
had
asked
the
the
acting
deputy
city
manager
about
the
definition
of
a
childcare
center.
Okay
from
what
you
know
of
the
staffs
approach
to
childcare
and
my
questions
today
and
at
the
committee
meetings
about
trying
to
identify
what
childcare
meant,
because
it
was
brought
up
at
so
many
times.
M
M
Right,
and
would
it
be
consistent
with
the
idea
that
the
the
community
there
is
deficient
of
childcare
and
childcare
centers,
and
in
order
to
have
a
community
benefit,
you
have
to
have
something:
that's
providing
a
benefit
to
the
community
and
so
the
creation
of
a
childcare
center
it's
available
for
the
childcare
center
is
available
for
more
than
just
the
workers
in
the
casino.
It's.
M
K
T
A
G
G
T
T
T
K
G
K
G
So
if
there
are
parents
who
are
eligible
for
subsidies,
they
could
get
a
subsidy
like
every
other
parent
in
the
city
and
if
they're
not
eligible
for
subsidy,
they'd
have
to
pay
the
full
fees
or
a
portion
of
the
fees.
Isn't
that
the
case
yep
absolutely
just
like
every
other
child
care
absolutely.
But
you
are
asking
if
they
would
consider
extending
asking
them
to
have
extended
hours
that
would
reflect
the
workplace.
K
Very
much
so
counselor
and
actually
there's
many
cases
around
the
world
where
these
kinds
of
entertainment
facilities
that
have
casinos
and
hotels
and
so
on
that
have
hotels
that
serve
their
employees.
This
is
actually
not
innovative
to
have
that.
This
is
actually
common.
There's
many
casinos,
entertainment
facilities,
operators
that
do
it
I
would
say,
can
be
almost
considered
best
practice,
I
think
it's
a
great
practice
and
and
I
think
we
should
be
working
towards
that.
Okay,.
A
G
G
A
C
Well,
thank
you,
speaker
and
I
have
a
motion
which
I'd
like
to
place,
which
is
to
amend
the
CBA
to
restrict
the
operations
from
24
hours,
as
it's
currently
articulated
to
18
and
I'll.
Speak
to
that.
But
I'll
say
a
few
words
in
in
first
I
would
start
by
saying
I.
Don't
believe
that
and
I've
never
believed
that
casinos
are
an
appropriate
model
for
economic
developments.
C
Casinos,
they're,
not
healthy
gambling
is
not
healthy.
Now,
like
many
unhealthy
activities,
some
people
can
manage
it.
Some
people
can
drink
alcohol,
others
are
predisposed
to
addictions,
so
we
seek
to
manage
and
mitigate,
but
they
are
not
healthy
and
the
reason
casinos
and
gambling
in
particular
not
healthy,
is
because
far
too
much
of
the
financial
model
of
casinos
is
predicated
on
a
disproportionate
amount
of
revenue
from
those
who
are
vulnerable.
That's
those
what
we
call
problematic
gamblers
people
who,
as
our
Toronto
as
Toronto
Public
Health,
have
articulated
people
who
are
low-income
people
who
are
seniors.
C
Why
would
a
disproportionate
number
of
indigenous
people
that
is
who
makes
up
a
disproportionate
amount
of
the
revenue
of
this
economic
development
model?
There
are
severe
health
and
economic
impacts,
for
there
are
far
too
many
stories.
We've
all
heard
them
of
families
and
communities
and
individuals
who
are
severely
negatively
impacted
because
of
this
so-called
economic
development
model,
and
the
numbers
tell
the
tale,
while
problematic
gamblers
account
for
somewhere
between
two
and
six
percent
of
all
gamblers.
C
They
make
up
24%
of
the
revenue
of
casinos,
so
only
2
to
6
percent
of
the
gamblers
are
problematic
gamblers,
but
they
account
for
26%
of
the
revenue.
That's
how
we're
building
economic
development
on
the
backs
of
vulnerable
people.
That
is
not
a
vision
for
a
city
that
I
want
to
be
a
part
of,
and
so
given
that
we
have,
as
a
council
already
approved,
expanding
casino
operations
at
Woodbine.
I
think
the
obligation
is
on
us
to
do
two
things.
C
First
of
all
and
importantly,
to
make
sure
that
we
do
given
that
it's
coming
the
best
deal
possible
to
ensure
that
we
have
good
decent
local
jobs.
If
casinos
are
coming,
which
I
don't
support,
then
let's
make
sure
that
they're
actually
in
some
measure,
benefiting
the
local
community
and
creating
good
jobs,
even
though
those
jobs
are
being
done
on
the
backs
of
vulnerable
people
and
to
that
account,
I
will
be
supporting
many
of
the
motions
placed
here
today.
C
But
the
second
critical
thing
that
we
must
do
is
to
try
and
do
as
little
harm
as
possible,
given
that
you
can
be
assured
that
some
of
the
revenue
and
some
of
the
economic
development
will
create
harm
for
others.
Let's
mitigate
that
harm,
wherever
possible,
in
2015,
Toronto,
Public
Health
and
the
medical
officer
of
Health
recommended
that
we
have
18
hours
a
day,
not
24
hours
a
day
of
gambling
I
mean
in
all
common
sense.
Who
is
gambling
at
4:45
in
the
morning?
C
Are
you
going
out
to
a
casino
at
3:30
or
4:30
or
5:00
in
the
morning?
You're?
Not
you
know
who's
at
the
at
that
time.
Problematic
gamblers.
There
is
no
good
conscionable
reason.
I
can
think
of
to
have
a
casino
operating
24
hours
a
day
and
don't
tell
me
because
it's
near
an
airport
somebody's
going
to
pop
over
for
an
hour
at
5:30.
C
That's
just
not
true,
and
so
I've
moved
this
motion,
because
I
think,
if
we're
gonna
have
a
casino
and
we're
gonna
make
it
work
as
best
as
we
can,
even
though
it's
creating
harm,
then
let's
mitigate
that
harm
and
not
have
this
run
for
24
hours.
That
is
just
silly
and
it
preys
on
those
who,
frankly
need
our
help.
Not
this.
Thank
you.
L
Thinking
what
I'm
speaker
through
you
to
the
counselor
accounts?
Are
you
aware
that
this
was
voted
on
in
July
of
2015
and
council
voted
this
motion
down
yeah
I'm,
aware
that
you
are
so?
Have
you
read
page
13
of
the
staff
report
pretty
much
this
motion
contradicting
everything
our
city
legal
department
has
advised
Council
of
well.
C
L
C
I
think
it's
back
to
me.
I
was
I
counselor
I
apologize
if
he
felt
that
way,
I
was
just
referring
to
a
conversation.
You
and
I
had
not
on
the
microphone
a
few
minutes
ago
and
discussing
how
you
may
be
voting
all
right,
but
secondly,
I've
also
got
read.
I've
also
read
the
medical
officer
of
Health
reports,
which
speak
to
problematic
gambling
and
the
severe
risk
that
comes
with
a
24-hour,
uninterrupted
time
line,
which
is
why
I've
moved
to
this
motion.
R
C
What
that
what
the
health
research
has
shown
is
that
in
the
late
night
hours,
when
we're
looking
at
that
six
hour
window,
where
a
disproportionate
number
of
the
gamblers
are
problematic
gamblers
by
one,
not
allowing
that
part
of
the
continue,
but
to
to
create
a
pause
so
that
you
might
be
able
to
intervene
are
two
important
factors
in
reducing
the
harm.
It's
not
unlike
our
alcohol
consumption
hours
that
we
don't
support
alcohol
consumption
24
hours
a
day.
We
seek
to
put
mitigation
measures
on
it
and.
C
R
You
represent
the
Chinatown
area
and
I
know
that
there
is
a
a
casino
bus
that
that's
parked
outside
of
China
Town
Center.
They
make
several
trips
a
day
to
casino
Niagra.
Are
you
aware
that
the
Chinese
Canadian
can
sorry
the
Chinese
Canadian
community
has
seen
themselves
as
a
targeted
marketed
group
for
for
for-profit
gaming
gambling
organizations?
Yes,.
C
Q
Thank
you
very
much,
madam
Speaker.
Notwithstanding
the
comments
from
councillor
Ford
and
the
questions
that
the
that
this
specifically
hasn't
been
included,
are
you
aware
that
recommendation
19
from
2015
reads
and
I'll
quote
and
work
with
city
staff
and
the
Toronto
medical
officer
of
health
to
implement
harm
medication
measures
to
address
the
negative
impacts
of
problem
gambling.
I
C
Q
Board
of
Health
made
a
recommendation
to
limit
the
hours
for
the
purpose
of
reducing
the
negative
impacts
of
problem
gambling
and
we
actually
made
a
condition
of
the
approval
of
the
casino
that
city
staff
work
with
the
medical
officer
of
Health
and
implement
harm
reduction
measures.
This
is
consistent.
Would
you
agree?
This
is
perfectly
consistent
with
recommendation
19,
as
laid
out
in
the
report.
I.
I
I
People
did
say
that
both
the
panelists
and
the
member
and
members
of
the
public
assembled
there
that
the
first
and
best
offense,
the
first
and
best
defense
against
poverty,
is
a
job
and
I
think
we
kind
of
all
know
that,
but
a
good
job,
a
job
where
they
can
pay
the
rent
and
feed
the
kids.
So
to
speak.
I
What
this
motion
does
here
is
try
to
say:
okay,
you
know
what
we
may
or
may
not
like
the
activity,
but
at
least
make
this
a
piece
of
it.
So
as
I
understand,
as
you
know,
from
the
report,
folks,
there
is
a
requirement
that
40%
or
so
far
what's
on
the
table
is
a
40%
requirement
to
for
local
hiring.
So
that
is
that
the
Rexdale
folks
at
councillor
croissant
ii,
get
40%
of
the
jobs.
I
This
moves
it
to
50%
of
the
jobs
right
there
in
the
local
community
and
what
the
the
current
negotiated
amount
for
full-time
employment
rather
than
it
be
50%
that
it
go
to
60%.
That
is
what
frankly,
we
as
a
city
brought
to
the
table.
They
got
pushed
back
and
we're
saying
I
think
it's
a
council
know.
This
is
what
we
think
is
the
best
practices.
This
will
being
the
kind
of
the
kind
of
good-paying
jobs
that
the
good
residents
of
Rexdale
deserve.
I
Part-Timing
there's
been
lot
of
articles
frankly
in
one
of
the
local
newspapers,
on
the
part-time
ization
of
everything,
and
that
isn't
a
way
to
build
a
healthy
economy
in
a
healthy
City.
So
that's
why
that
second
piece
is
really
really
important.
I
hope,
I,
don't
think
these
are
very
controversial
at
all.
It
says,
let's
go
to
the
higher
standard
and
make
sure
that
the
jobs
that
we
are
supporting
in
the
community
and
that
the
proponent
is
is
saying
that
they
will
put
forward.
I
Let's
make
sure
that
the
preponderance,
the
majority
of
them
at
least
50%,
come
from
the
Rexdale
community
and
that
60%
of
those
jobs
as
well
are
full-time
jobs
and
the
people
can
actually
live
in
Rexdale
and
live
in
the
city
and
do
the
work
that
they
have
well
will
be
hired
to
do.
Thank
you,
madam
Speaker.
Cute.
A
M
Are
you
aware
of
that
I'm
not
aware
that
now
you
are
so,
do
you
think
increasing
the
local
hiring
percentage,
helps
or
hurts
residents
of
the
Ward
that
I
represent
I
have
no
idea.
Why
would
you
would
you
believe
that
it
hurts
them?
Because
now
the
bar
has
been
raised,
even
though
the
residents
of
my
Ward
lived
a
couple
of
minutes
drive
it's.
You
know
one
highway,
interchange
away
by
raising
the
bar
and
tampering
with
the
thresholds.