►
Description
City Council, meeting 32, October 4, 2017 - Part 2 of 3 - Afternoon Session
Agenda and background materials:
http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/decisionBodyProfile.do?function=doPrepare&meetingId=11865
Part 1 - Morning Session: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdnwUWlA0V0#t=11m20s
Part 3 - Evening Session: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cewOcZkGSc0#t=9m42s
Meeting Navigation:
0:07:16 - Meeting resume
1:14:55 - Public session
B
C
Thank
You
speaker
just
very
briefly:
we
have
some
guests
in
the
audience.
I'd
asked
them
to
rise.
I'd
like
to
welcome
today
some
doctors
from
sick
kids,
uhhn,
st.
Mike's,
Mount,
Sinai
and
others
they're
with
doctors
for
safe
cycling,
which
is
formed
today,
I
understand
they
have
a
prescription
for
some
of
us
involving
Bloor
and
something
we
might
or
might
not
take.
But
today,
we're
just
here
to
welcome
them
and
say
thank
you
for
being
here.
D
F
A
A
I
I
I
just
say,
because
I
think
they
may
be
people
watching
at
home
that
might
not
have
been
watching
yesterday
and
wouldn't
know.
First
of
all,
we
have
a
legal
requirement
to
do
what
was
just
done
under
the
law
and
secondly,
we
paid
a
tribute
to
our
late
colleague
yesterday
and
so
I
just
would
want
people
who
are
watching
not
to
think
that
was
all
that
happened
in
light
of
her
passing
in
July,
but
we
did
do
that
yesterday
and
there's
actually
a
legal
requirement.
I
A
You,
okay
members
of
council.
This
morning
we
agreed
to
consider
item
Edie
23.7
regarding
the
film
industry
in
the
Portland's
is
our
first
item
of
business
after
lunch.
However,
I
must
advise
you
that
the
chief
planner
has
presented
us
with
an
interim
Control
bylaw
at
this
time.
Under
the
council
procedures,
when
the
chief
planner
presents
an
interim
Control,
bylaw
City
Council
deals
with
the
matter
immediately
before
any
other
business
is
conducted.
F
J
F
K
C
K
D
K
So
through
the
through
the
speaker
in
this
area,
the
city's
been
undertaking
a
four
or
five
year,
planning
studies
widely
understood
to
be
the
Portland's
planning
framework,
which
has
been
considered
several
times
at
City
Council
over
the
last
several
years.
The
geography
of
the
interim
Control
bylaw
covers
a
portion
of
that
study
area
and
aligns
with
the
official
plan.
Vision
that
is
has
been
endorsed
by
City.
Council
is
coming
back
for
further
consideration.
So
there's
a
strong
alignment
between
what
City,
Planning
and
City
Council
have
already
considered
in
the
Portland's.
K
As
I
said,
it's
a
subset
of
the
entire
Portland's
and
it
speaks
to
areas
of
the
Portland's
in
the
future
vision
that
will
be
places
of
employment
for
strategic
industries
such
as
film
production
and
other
other
industries,
that
the
city
is
supporting
in
a
go-forward
plan
for
the
entire
Portland's
area.
In.
K
K
K
K
D
K
I
would,
through
the
speaker,
I
would
come
back
to
my
previous
answer
that
this
relates
entirely
to
the
official
plan
exercise
we
have
underway,
and
it
is
looking
at
it
as
a
comprehensive
review
to
modernize
the
zoning
that
is
in
this
employment
area
to
support
strategic
uses
on
a
go-forward
basis.
There.
D
K
In
the
through
the
speaker
in
the
schedule,
certain
areas
are
exempted
from
the
interim
control
by
law.
One
of
them
is
the
city-owned
park
and
the
McCleary
Park
and
400
commissioners,
which
is
the
city's
waste
transfer
station,
the
existing
waste
transfer
station.
The
other
area
is
442
470,
onlin
Avenue,
which
is
the
turn
building
and
the
jacent
power
generation
station.
J
K
Document
through
the
speaker
relates
to
the
city's
revitalization
efforts
in
the
Portland's,
the
Portland's
planning
framework
that
has
been
endorsed
by
City
Council
in
July
recently
and
considered
at
several
other
meetings.
It's
been
four
to
five
year
planning
process,
that's
been
underway,
generally
speaking,
we're
looking
at
a
revitalization
plan
for
the
for
the
Portland's.
K
If
you
think
of
the
Portland's
as
a
city
within
a
city
with
many
different
districts,
we
are
on
a
go-forward
basis,
looking
at
how
to
stimulate
and
support
strategic
uses
in
the
Portland's
build
new
mixed-use
districts,
for
example,
one
of
them
being
Villiers
Island
advance
the
infrastructure,
that's
needed
to
accelerate
development
in
the
Portland's
through
the
new
dawn
River.
That's
been
funded
recently
bring
new
infrastructure
transportation
and
in
city
services
into
the
air
to
support
the
evolution
of
the
area
into
really
a
part
of
the
fabric
of
the
city.
K
The
regulatory
regime
that's
in
place
for
the
Portland's
has
been
brought
forward
through
Official
Plan
amendments
that
have
been
proposed
and
tabled
and
discussed
in
the
public,
so
they
they
would
support
those
Official
Plan
amendments
support
the
revitalization
efforts.
This
is
about
the
zoning
implementation
of
the
Official
Plan
vision,
and
what
we're
doing
with
this,
and
what
we've
already
identified
as
a
work
program
item,
is
that
that
zoning
needs
to
be
modernized.
It
dates
back
to
the
90s
and
the
former
city
of
Toronto.
K
It
includes
a
wide
range
of
uses
that
we
do
not
want
on
a
go-forward
basis
in
the
Portland's,
such
as
gelatin
factories,
all
kinds
of
uses
that
don't
exist
in
the
city
and
would
not
be
compatible
and
suitable
with
the
vision
on
a
go-forward
basis
for
the
Portland's.
So
this
exercise
is
to
hit
the
pause
button,
evaluate
the
use
list
that
is
down
there
and
allow
us
to
bring
forward
a
package
of
new
zoning.
That's
contemporary
that
aligns
with
division
for
councils
consideration
within
a
year.
Thank.
K
F
K
This
this
has
been
discussed.
It
is,
it
is
something
that's
in
the
public
domain,
the
idea
that
we
need
to
modernize
the
zoning.
We
know
we
know
we
have
to
do
this
work.
This
interim
Control
bylaw
allows
us
to
hit
the
pause
button.
It
hastens
that
work
program,
because
we
are
getting
proposals
for
things
that
we
don't
want
in
the
future
and
don't
align
with
the
vision
and
aren't
suitable
or
compatible
with
that
vision.
So.
F
K
F
M
You
I'm
just
going
to
ask
the
deputy
city
manager,
who
is
also
the
charge
of
the
Portland's
acceleration
initiative
about
the
areas
that
are
excluded
from
page
19
and
as
I
see
it
Villiers
Island,
the
precinct
that
will
be
shortly
developed
by
Waterfront
Toronto
is
not
covered.
That
is
correct.
That
mistake
and
their
precinct
planning
will
simply
continue.
You're
not
worried
about
any
of
these
other
uses
being
introduced
in
this
area.
That's.
C
M
Area
and
then
for
this
other
ICR
park
and
transfer
station,
and
then
there
is
all
of
the
Hearn
and
the
Portland's
energy
center.
That's
correct.
The
other
section
that
does
not
appear
to
be
in
is
the
port
of
Toronto.
That's
excluded,
that's
for
all
of
the
Cherry
beach
and
then
all
of
the
Leslie
Street
spit,
including
the
entrance
and
the
parking
area.
Is
that
right?
Yes,.
M
G
I
think,
isn't
it
it's
owned,
G
all
that
area,
okay,
and
so
this
will
I
think
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
that
and
that
you've
had
this
conversation
with
Waterfront
Toronto
about
Villiers,
Island
and
they're
in
agreement
not
to
include
it.
I
gave
them
a
heads
up
this
morning
that
not
to
include
it
in
the
antrum
Control
bylaw
and
as
are
these.
K
H
M
K
M
O
D
F
Madam
Speaker
I
think
is
a
questions
are
here.
Staff
came
to
me
this
morning,
after
working
with
my
colleague
and
other
staff
in
the
city
and
felt
it
was
very
important
to
be
sure
that
the
hard
work
and
the
long
period
of
time
that
we
spent
looking
at
what
should
happen
in
the
Portland's
is
one
that
doesn't
get
interrupted
in
the
in
terment.
They
were
concerned
that
it
might
be
there,
for
they
suggested
that
the
interim
Control
bylaw
go
in
place.
F
It
does
all
that
it's
doing
actually
at
this
point
of
time
is
reinforcing
the
direction
that
they've
gone
forward
with
in
their
few
in
the
last
few
years,
in
the
planning
framework
for
the
Portland's
and
there
as
I
think
our
acting
chief
planner
has
said
he
doesn't
want
that
to
get
interrupted
by
another
type
of
use
in
the
interim,
which
would
not
be
compatible
with
the
vision
for
the
area.
The
main
landowner
down
there
is
the
city
and
or
publicly
owned
land
and
I.
F
F
Think
it's
appropriate
at
this
time
to
move
in
this
direction,
like
colleague,
councillor
Fletcher's,
there
involved
in
the
land
and
those
all
the
pieces
intimately
down
there
and
a
second
of
this
because
of
her
strong
support
for
this
can
probably
fill
you
in
more
in
it.
But
I
think
we
should
adopt
this
now
and
go
forward
with
this
and
protect
the
public
interest
in
the
work
and
the
redevelopment
we
want
to
see
down
in
the
Portland's
area.
Thank.
M
Very,
very
briefly,
I'm
going
to
thank
everyone
for
working
on
this
and
Sam
very
pleased
that
this
is
happening.
I
actually
think
that
taking
these
steps,
we're
a
bit
slow,
just
give
you
an
example
of
even
on
a
leased
property.
Tpl
C
leased
property
that
there,
instead
of
the
film
use
that
was
originally
there.
M
M
Street
I'll
remind
you
that
for
Pinewood
we
had
a
very
large
section
that
was
originally
Toronto
film
studios
that
eventually
the
owner
sold
back
the
section
north
of
commissioners
to
Toronto
Portland's
company,
but
kept
a
small
corner,
and
that's
the
corner
that
the
were
proceeding
with
with
a
big
box
storage
business
there.
Even
though
that
land
was
set
aside
for
film
and
we
had
no
instrument
there.
This
is
now
becoming
an
area
where
people
are
looking
at
just
putting
things
leaving
things,
and
we
have
our
Portland's
planning
framework.
Villiers
island
is
very
advanced.
M
A
G
To
read
it
out:
okay,
thank
you
that
council
recess
its
public
session
to
meet
as
committee
of
the
whole
in
closed
session
considerate
session
to
consider
et
23.7,
a
study
of
film
and
screen
industry
studios
in
the
Portland's
and
South
of
Eastern
employment,
district,
Ward,
30
reasons
for
confidential
information
proposed
or
pending
land
acquisition
by
the
city
or
one
of
its
agencies
or
corporations.
Thank.
A
A
Memories
account.
So
if
you
can,
please
take
your
seats,
this
meeting
is
now
resumed.
City
Council
has
completed
its
closed
session
consideration
of
IDI
23.7
on
the
study
of
film
and
screen
industry
studios
in
the
Portland's
and
salsa
bistro
and
employment
district.
There
are
no
motions
placed
in
the
closed
session.
City
Council
will
not
have
the
public
debate
on
this
item.
A
G
Thank
you
very
much,
madam
chair.
There
is
a
motion
that
wonder
if
staff
could
put
that
on
the
screen.
Do
you
want
me
to
read
the
motion
or
is?
Can
we
consider
that
to
be
read,
I,
don't
have
to
read
it
okay,
so
the
motion
is
on
the
screen.
Speaker
I
just
want
to
draw
attention
to
obviously
number
one
that
we're
adopting
confidential
in
instructions
to
staff
and
the
confidential
item
in
the
attachment.
G
We
have
a
report,
that's
the
Hamson
report
that
speaks
to
the
study
of
the
film
and
screen
industry
and
studios
in
the
Portland's
and
the
south
of
Eastern
eastern
employment
district.
This
is
an
area
that
is
extremely
important
for
the
City
of
Toronto.
It's
an
area,
that's
extremely
important
for
one
of
the
sector's
in
the
city.
That
sector
is
the
film
television
and
studios.
G
We
are
continuing
to
work
in
this
space
in
terms
of
developing
and
advancing
this
industry.
This
industry
is
doing
extremely
well
last
year
in
excess
of
two
plus
billion
dollars
or
generated
in
this
industry
is
between
25
to
30
thousand
professional
men
and
women,
or
working
in
this
particular
sector.
The
city
has
taken
the
position.
G
The
mayor
has
taken
the
position
in
terms
of
leadership
in
this
sector,
and
the
mayor
has
traveled
extensively
to
Los
Angeles
and
has
met
with
studio,
heads
and
film
heads
and
so
on
across
the
board
both
locally
as
well
as
in
the
US.
We
have
heard
from
Tom
from
them
repeatedly
that
one
of
the
real
issues
in
this
city-
that's
creating
a
problem
for
them
in
this
sector,
is
the
lack
of
studio,
space,
studio
facilities
and
so
on.
We
have
an
opportunity
with
respect
to
the
city.
To
respond
to
a
to
that
shortage.
G
We
can
either
decide
to
put
our
money
where
our
mouth
is
or
simply
say
that
we
will
allow
the
private
sector
and
or
just
allow
the
economy
to
to
to
to
go
as
it
sees
fit
and
to
see
us
losing
studio
space.
I.
Don't
have
subscribed
to
that
speaker
there's
a
real
necessity
for
us
to
protect
this
industry.
Working
in
collaboration
with
all
the
unions
and
associations
are
involved
in
this
particular
area.
G
I
believe
that
it's
reasonable
for
us
to
look
at
this
area
in
terms
of
the
acquisition,
through
our
collaboration
with
T
PLC,
for
the
acquisition
of
the
land.
I
note
that
the
T
PLC
CEO
president
CEO
mr.
cross
Suffolk
is
here
in
the
audience
with
us
and
clearly
he
and
I
know
he
has
the
confidence
of
this
council
to
go
and
negotiate
the
acquisition
of
the
lands
that
are
necessary
in
order
to
protect
what
I
think
is
extremely
important
for
this
city
and
strategically,
and
also
to
support
this
industry.
G
I
note
that
and
I
know
others
will
speak
to
it,
but
the
lands
around
are
pretty
well
owned
by
the
City
of
Toronto,
so
that
this
parcel
that
we
would
like
to
acquire
I,
don't
think
that
there
is
a
risk
to
us
in
terms
of
the
funds
that
we
would
like
to
expend
to
acquire
this
particular
parcel
of
land.
That
is,
we
can
either
absorb
incorporate
it
into
the
master
precinct
plan
that
we
have
for
this
area
and/or.
G
If
there
was
a
need
to,
we
could
obviously
utilize
the
studio
space
in
collaboration
with
them
or
the
other
activities
that
we
we
are
doing
in
this
particular
area.
I
particularly
think
that
it's
important
with
respect
to
the
decision
we
made
earlier
with
the
interim
Control
bylaw,
the
acting
chief
planner
missile
in
turn,
and
certainly
legal
and
so
on,
have.
G
You
speaker,
I'll,
wrap
up
in
a
sec,
so
I
think
this
is
an
important
thing
for
us
to
be
doing
as
a
City
Council.
It's
important
important
to
follow
the
mayor's
lead,
it's
important
to
understand
the
industry's
intentions
and
desire
it's
important
as
well.
In
terms
of
when
we
speak
to
the
industry,
we
talk
about
our
support.
We've
recently
just
had
tiff
here
we
know
how
well
that
was
received
by
our
local
residents.
G
That
was
also
well
attended
by
visitors
from
far
and
wide
who've
come
in
huge
benefits
to
our
economy,
and
so
this
is
an
important
economic
development.
It's
an
important
social
development.
It's
also
a
very
important
real
estate
development
for
us
as
well.
So
a
lot
of
the
boxes
are
checked
and
I
think
that
this
particular
investment
in
this
action
that
this
council
have
taken
today
is
extremely
important
for
the
future
off
the
sector,
important
for
the
economy
and
important
for
us
in
in
terms
of
providing
leadership
in
this
particular
space.
G
I
can
tell
you
that,
a
few
days
ago,
the
counsel
of
Fletcher
and
I
were
sitting
down
talking
and
her
passion
basically
zooms
out
in
terms
of
when
she
talks
about
this
and
finally,
I
want
to
thank
councillor
shiner,
who
is
the
chair
of
the
planning
and
growth
committee,
I
think
everybody
and
members
of
council
for
their
support
on
this.
Looking
for
unanimous
support
on
this
particular
motion.
Thank
you.
Thank.
M
I
want
to
address
the
Hanson
report,
but
I
want
to
put
it
in
the
context
of
the
strategic
plan
that
the
film
board
recently
passed.
This
council
recently
passed
that
included
infrastructure,
labor
force
development,
cutting
red
tape
and
the
importance
of
film
tax
credits,
and
on
top
of
that,
I
want
to
just
say
that
our
mayor
is
recognized
by
this
industry.
M
This
two
billion
plus
industry
as
being
a
complete
champion
to
keep
this
industry
strong
and
keep
this
industry
growing
and
has
often
often
I've
heard
him
many
times
at
meetings
and
I
know
when
he
is
on
his
his
meetings
with
producers
and
others.
He
is
heard
about
the
importance
of
infrastructure.
We've
all
heard
that
people
would
like
to
come
and
film
in
this
city,
but
they
don't
find
enough
studio
space.
M
We
do
have
a
significant
cluster
on
the
Portland's
and
south
of
Eastern,
and
we
have
a
growing
cluster
in
on
kipling
avenue.
In
Etobicoke
we
have
two
centers.
The
henson
report
really
looks
at
what
has
to
happen
in
order
to
maintain
that
industry
and
that
infrastructure
in
one
of
the
important
clusters
in
order
to
continue
with
our
2.2
billion
and
growing
income
from
that
industry.
M
Think
that
I
do
have
to
thank
the
mayor,
the
mayor's
staff,
the
deputy
city
manager,
head
of
economic
development,
of
planning
for
grappling
with
this,
because
we
are
in
a
position
where
we
could
be
in
very
big
trouble
in
our
industry
very
shortly.
So
this
will
authorize
city
staff
to
intervene.
We
are
giving
ourselves
and
our
staff
permission
to
purchase
land
to
support
the
film
industry
in
our
city
in
the
Portland's
and
I,
certainly
hope
we
will
have
a
unanimous
vote
for
that.
I
I
He's
here
for
another
meeting
and
I
want
to
recognize
that
you're
here
and
thank
you
for
the
work
and
the
credit
you
bring
to
Toronto
and
then
really
tie
it
in
to
why
we're
here
today
on
this
matter,
you
know:
I
started
reading
a
book
yesterday
and
it's
a
book
written
by
Daniel
doc,
Roth
who's,
the
he
was
the
deputy
mayor
of
New
York
under
Mayor
Bloomberg,
and
he
has
what's
that
again.
He
has
a
there's
some
there's
some
sort
of
noise
over
on
the
other
side
of
the
chamber.
I
And
so
they
went
out
and
talked
to
the
industry
in
the
and
asked
the
industry.
What
is
it
that
is
causing
you
to
be
elsewhere
than
here
when
this
has
got
to
be
the
greatest
place
in
the
world,
especially
shoot
movies
that
are
meant
to
be
set
in
New
York?
And
they
said
the
industry
said
three
things:
costs
facilities
and
service
by
that
customer
service.
And
it's
interesting
because
they
then
said
about
a
whole
plan
that
involved
the
investment
by
the
city
of
tens
of
millions
of
dollars.
I
On
the
facility
side
of
this
they
tried
to
buck
up
their
customer
service
and
I'll,
say,
however,
well
they've
done.
They
don't
do
it
as
well
as
our
staff
here,
do
it
and
with
respect
to
the
costs,
obviously
that's
something
that
is
spoken
to
by
the
fact
they
created
and
increased
the
financing
for
a
tax
credit,
a
system
not
unlike
what
we
have
here
in
the
province
of
Ontario.
I
I
Here
in
the
film
industry,
the
third
thing
they
talk
about
is
customer
service
and
and
we're
we're
taking
a
lot
of
steps
to
deal
with
that
when
we
go
from
excellent
to
better
than
excellent
and
then
finally-
and
it's
not
the
last
thing
they
mentioned-
it
actually
comes
tied
with
the
money
for
most
important
is
facilities
and
they
say
look.
We
are
wanting
to
do
business
in
Toronto
because
you
serve
us
well,
because
the
tax
credits
are
advantageous
because
you
have
really
talented
people
behind
and
in
front
of
the
camera,
but
we're
having
trouble.
I
I
mean
I've
had
phone
calls,
as
probably
have
others
in
this
chamber
from
people
saying
they
wanted
to
bring
productions
here,
but
they
can't,
because
we
are
short
of
studio
space,
and
the
report
says
it
that
we're
speaking
to
here,
but
I
will
also
just
say
that
that
it
emphasized
what
it
says,
which
is
we
need
to
protect
what
we
have
have
new
studio
space
and
we
need
to
protect
what
we
have
in
one
of
the
clusters
where
we
have
it,
which
is
in
the
east
side
of
the
city.
It's
an
important
strategic
cluster.
I
For
us,
in
terms
of
consolidating
talent
and
close
by
a
lot
of
the
favorite
shooting
sites
of
the
movie
producers,
they
a
lot
of
their
favorite.
Shooting
sites
are
close
to
the
east
end
of
the
city
to
downtown
and
they
like
doing
business
there
and
they
find
that
very
convenient
for
them
to
have
the
two
things
juxtaposed
very
close
by
each
other.
I
And
you
know
it's
a
simple
proposition
to
say:
you
can't
keep
filling
a
bucket
up
in
terms
of
adding
studio
space,
and
we
went
and
announced
some
good
news
recently
out
in
the
West
End,
where
center
space
was
expanding,
some
of
their
facilities
in
the
Western
cluster.
But
you
can't
have
the
overall
inventory
of
studio
space
grow
if
there's
a
leak
at
the
bottom
of
the
bucket
and
so
I
think
that
the
land
purchase.
That
is
the
subject
of
this
report.
I
Among
other
things,
is
the
right
thing
to
do
from
the
standpoint
of
the
advancing
the
strategy
that
we
have
to
grow.
This
business
protect
and
enhance
these
jobs,
have
more
jobs
and
I
think
it
is
going
to
be
a
wise
investment,
regardless
of
all
that,
but
I
think
it's
going
to
pay
those
dividends
in
the
short
term
and
other
dividends
in
the
long
term,
and
so
I
commend
the
report.
I
A
D
A
B
So
thanks
very
much
madam
Speaker,
so
I
wanted
to
thank
the
Ombudsman
for
bringing
this
reports
forward.
I
noticed
items
8
&
9
in
your
report,
which
read
that
staff
explaining
that,
in
order
to
generate
the
notices,
they
used
geographic
information
system
software
to
generate
a
list
of
all
addresses
within
sixty
point
to
two
meters
of
a
subject.
Property
this
send
to
list
is
then
deposited
into
their
IBM
s,
software,
which
staff
used
to
generate
the
notices
and
then
number
nine
staff
could
not
explain.
Why?
Excuse
me,
sorry
if
you
could
hold
my
time
just.
A
B
And
said,
a
staff
could
not
explain
why
20
properties
were
not
captured
by
this
process
to
test
the
system
they
recently
recreated
the
send
to
list
all
77
properties
were
properly
captured
this
time.
So
there
is
some
sort
of
glitch
in
the
system
and/or
software
that
we
cannot
recreate
and
therefore
cannot
fix,
is
that
correct.
H
It's
not
entirely
clear
whether
the
glitch
was
in
the
software
or
whether
perhaps
it
was
an
employee
error.
We
were
not
able
to
recreate,
as
is
noted,
that
neither
the
committee
staff
nor
the
city,
IT
staff,
who
looked
at
this
problem
were
able
to
recreate
the
problem
and
when
they,
when
they
regenerated
the
the
list
that
should
have
been
generated
in
the
first
place
at
both
locations,
both
at
the
committee
and
in
city
IT.
The
proper
list
came
out,
so
we
we
couldn't
pinpoint
they
couldn't
pinpoint
an
IT
problem
per
se.
H
Well,
the
legal
ramifications
are
that
a
member
of
the
public
did
not
get
the
notice
to
which
he
was
legally
entitled
and
therefore
lost
the
opportunity
to
participate
in
the
committee
of
adjustment
hearing
process.
What
the
what
the
complainants
legal
options
as
a
result
of
that
are
is
not
my
office's
role
to
to
comment
on.
Perhaps.
B
Others,
someone
else
on
staff,
could
speak
to
that
or
answer
that
question
like
I
mean
madam
Speaker.
If
people
have
a
right
to
apply
for
variances
constructed
whatever
is
that
they
seem
to
want
on
their
properties,
but
there
are
people
in
the
public
have
a
right
to
object,
so
somebody
was
denied
the
right
to
object.
H
B
A
P
P
He
thinks
he's
number
one
on
every
front,
but
especially
CEO
a
and
come
my
colleague
to
the
West
physically
in
the
ward
house,
sir
Carmichael
Grubb
is
in
the
top
three.
So
these
issues
are
very
important
to
us.
I've
moved
smattering
of
motions
on
the
COA
and
improvements
over
the
last
couple
years.
The
audiovisual
some
of
that
has
happened,
but
I
know
a
number
them
haven't
been
addressed
or
in
play.
Can
you
can
you
address
that
specifically
I've
moved
motions
on
notification?
That's
why
I'm
bringing
this
up
on
this
issue.
O
Through
you,
madam
Speaker,
currently
the
notice
requirements
for
the
CFA
are
60
meters.
However,
if
it's
a
house
form
building,
the
Planning
Act
requires
only
30
meters,
but
the
City
of
Toronto
routinely
or
always
circulates
60
meter
distances,
you're
correct
councilor.
In
the
past,
you
have
raised
the
issue
by
looking
back
on
reports
at
expanding
that
notice
area.
P
O
You,
madam
chair,
in
fact,
we've
taken
several
measures
to
better
inform
the
public
of
upcoming,
see
of
a
matters
including
upgrading
the
website,
creating
an
application
information
center,
a
research
request
portal
and
in
terms
of
our
internal
procedures
with
issuing
notice.
We
pushed
it
forward
a
bit
so
that
we
do
a
pre
circulation
phase
internally
prior
to
issuing
notice,
which
the
Planning
Act
only
requires
10
days
notice,
we're
more
than
double
that
notice
requirement.
O
P
And
lastly,
how
do
we
prevent
this
this
from
happening
again,
I
hear
about
this
in
my
ward?
I
have
to
be
honest,
not
recently
not
in
the
last
18
months,
but
prior
to
that
I
was
hearing
of
this
type
of
scenario
fairly
frequently
from
residents
indicating
they
didn't
get
proper
any
notification,
let
alone
proper
notification.
How
do
we?
How
do
we
curb
this
issue?.
O
Through
you,
madam
chair,
well,
we
do
get
antidotal.
Complaints
about
I
did
not
receive
notice.
When
we
investigate
this
in
terms
of
our
internal
procedures,
we
are
not
finding
there's
a
problem.
I
can
advise
that
as
part
of
the
Ombudsman's
work
here
in
this
report
we
are
asked
to
met.
We,
we
agreed
with
the
Ombudsman
to
manually
check
every
single
C
of
a
applications
notices
for
the
last
six
months.
That's
2300
applications.
We
never
found
another
incident
like
this,
so
we
believe
that
our
notice
procedures
are
robust.
O
D
H
You,
madam
Speaker,
yes,
councillor
Kelly
when
they
after
the
problem
was
identified,
and
it
was
it
confirmed
that
in
fact,
20
addresses
had
not
that
should
have
received.
The
notification
did
not
every
subsequent
time
that
they
ran
the
very
same
search.
All
the
appropriate
addresses
came
up
well.
What's
that
what
was
the
glitch
did.
D
My
second
question
is
based
on
the
statement
on
the
first
page
that
says:
Section
171,
one
of
coda
empowers
the
Ombudsman
to
investigate
any
decision
recommendation,
act
or
omission,
cetera,
etc,
etc,
of
agencies,
corporations
or
adjudicative
bodies.
We've
recently
created
a
local
appeal
body.
Would
your
office
have
any
jurisdiction
over
the
local
appeal
body?
Has.
H
H
H
With
through
you,
madam
Speaker
I
would
say
it
depends
on
what
type
of
issues
with
respect
to
issues
of
judicial
independence.
No,
but
with
respect
to
the
way
that
the
the
organization
is
run.
So,
for
example,
the
way
the
court
system
is
run,
I
would
submit
that
that
there
would
be
the
potential
for
oversight
of
the
kind
that
we're
discussing.
A
A
A
A
D
Thanks
speaker,
just
a
quick
question:
I
guess
for
for
staff.
I
read
in
the
in
the
Ombudsman's
report.
Number
11
was
that
staff
advised
the
period
to
appeal.
The
committee's
decision
had
passed
and
they
did
not
have
the
authority
to
revoke
or
alter
this
decision.
So,
but
my
understanding
is
once
something
has
passed.
The
committee
there's
another
letter
that
goes
out
to
residents
to
let
them
know
that
there's
an
appeal
process
did
the
the
second
notice
failed
to
be
delivered
as
well.
D
O
Through
you,
madam
Speaker,
that
was
not
specifically
subject
of
this
investigation,
but
because
we
found
there
was
only
a
one-time
incident
that
first
time
that
occurred.
All
we
can
say
right
now
is
assume
that
all
were
notified.
The
second
time
off
the
notice
went
out
to
all
77
I
can't
definitively
tell
you
whether
did
or
did
not
looking
back
now,
okay,
okay,.
D
D
H
O
O
A
J
O
O
Through
you,
madam
chair,
there
are
slight
differences
in
our
notice
procedures
related
to.
If
it's
a
condominium
and
there's
ownership
issues
versus
rental,
we
do
send
notice
to
either
the
owner
or
occupant.
So
in
your
hypothetical
situation,
theoretically,
people
should
be
getting
the
notice.
Thank.
J
H
J
H
So
as
a
matter
of
the
actual
legislative
provision,
that's
not
required
you,
you
counselor
Doucet,
seem
to
be
suggesting
that
it
would
be
appropriate
and
preferable
and
perhaps
right
to
ensure
that
every
person
affected
or
every
household
affected,
regardless
of
whether
they
own
the
land
or
not,
should
get
notice
and
I
can't
comment
on
that
beyond,
simply
saying
that
that's
actually
not
technically,
what's
required.
So.
J
H
I'm
just
looking
again
at
the
provision
through
you,
madam
Speaker,
it
says,
however,
if
a
condominium
development
is
it
is
within
the
sixty
meter.
Radius
notice
may
be
given
to
the
condominium
corporation
according
to
its
most
recent
address
for
service,
instead
of
being
given
to
all
owners
assessed
in
respect
of
the
development,
so
so
for
condominiums.
There's
a
special
provision
in
the
regulation
that
one
notice
can
serve
as
notice
to
all
owners
in
the
in
the
bill.
Yes,.
H
P
B
Okay,
so
through
you,
madam
Deputy,
Speaker,
so
point
17
and
the
Ombudsman's
inquiry
in
her
report,
it
says
that
the
city,
however,
we
are
concerned
that
the
city
failed
to
meet
its
obligation
to
provide
notice
to
the
complainant
and
to
several
other
property
owners
before
the
hearing.
Do
we
know
what
the
legal
ramifications
of
that
are.
D
In
this
case,
I
understand
the
appeal
period
had
expired,
so
there
would
be
no
way
for
anyone
to
appeal
this
decision,
because
it's
a
decision
of
a
tribunal
there
are
options
to
go
to
the
courts
to
review.
There
are
very
specific
requirements
for
those
and
I
hesitate
to
comment
any
further
in
public,
but
that
there
is
that
other
option.
H
B
Today
we
got
a
letter:
all
members
of
council
did
Teddington
Park
residents,
Association
has
written
in
and
advised
that
notice,
that
is
defective,
may
result
in
an
error
in
law
and
on
a
go-forward
basis.
Anyone
not
receiving
notice
should
be
able
to
ask
the
committee
of
adjustment
to
adjourn
the
hearing
for
Reno
tiss
and
for
those
applications
that
have
been
decided
and
appealed
on
a
flawed
notice
or
flawed
notice.
Process
should
also
request
to
have
the
matter.
We
noticed
before
that
adjudicating
body.
B
O
Through
you,
madam
Deputy
Chair
I
have
just
read
this
letter.
That's
come
in
and
I
have
talked
to
the
president
of
this
residence
Association
before
these
are
ideas
there
she's,
certainly
generating
ideas
for
a
different
approach
to
dealing
with
notice.
I
think
it's
important
to
note.
Well,
there's
this
mystery
of
these
20
addresses.
We've
assessed
the
notice
procedures
in
terms
of
what's
mailed
out
and
believe
it
is
thorough
and
robust.
O
There
is
also
a
redundancy
in
the
system
that
has
not
really
been
mentioned
or
discussed,
and
that
we
also
require
a
notice
be
put
in
the
window
facing
the
main
address
or
street,
for
any
application
that
comes
in
so
they've
walked
by
our
residents
have
a
second
opportunity
for
lack
of
better
phraseology
to
know
that
there's
an
application
affecting
a
nearby
property.
So
we
feel
the
current
notification
system
is
fairly
thorough.
O
O
Like
I
said
through
you,
madam
I've
only
just
seen
it,
but
one
of
her
comments
is
that
if
someone
does
not
receive
notice
they'd
like
the
matter,
we
heard
that's
a
little
more
complicated
than
it
just
looks
on
paper,
because
anyone
could
say
they
didn't
receive
notice,
but
in
fact
you
have
to
put
a
lot
of
investigation
behind.
Did
they
or
did
they
not
receive
notice?
What
we're
saying
to
counsel
today
is,
we
believe,
notice
is
going
out
appropriately.
Okay,.
B
So
the
that
residents
Association
of
a
residents
group
also
says
that
the
administration
of
the
CMA
process
should
be
returned
to
the
committee
of
adjustment,
including
painting
independent
committee
of
adjustment
files
in
the
IBM
s
system.
That
was
the
CIA's
supporting
system
should
also
be
reactivated.
There's
been
no
authority
to
change
the
technology
or
the
underlying
system,
especially
when
it
worked.
A
dependable
and
reliable
system
also
provides
safeguards
to
committee
of
adjustment
staff
as
they
are
required
to
sign.
Affidavits.
B
P
E
O
Through
you,
madam
chair
I,
do
note
that
this
constituent
or
resident
states
that
there
was
a
previous
technology
in
place
that
we
change
that
we
have
not.
The
system
we
have
been
employing
for
years
is
a
man,
a
suite
of
Amanda
based
on
IBM
s,
integrated
business
management
system,
and
it's
constantly
involving
and
we
enhance
it.
But
the
base
of
the
system
has
been
the
system
that
City
Planning
is
used
for
years.
So
I
would
say
to
this
resident
that
we
have
not
altered
the
technology
we
use
except
to
improve
it
and
build
it
up.
O
P
D
You
so
I
think
I
believe
well,
I
should
say
I
believe
that
add
the
the
notice
system
that
we
have
in
place
is
more
than
just
one.
We
have
noted
notifying
people
and
it
by
and
large
it
works
very
well
and
I.
Think,
as
the
report
of
the
the
Ombudsman
indicates,
we
had
a
one-off
kind
of
situation
where
the
technology
sort
of
didn't
quite
work
and
therefore
ended
up
generating
an
outcome
that
that
was
not
I.
D
Guess
fair.
Notwithstanding
that
I
want
to
focus
on
the
outcome
for
a
moment
if
two
things
suppose,
rather
than
an
adequate
notice
system,
suppose
we
there
was
an
actual
mission.
Somehow,
for
example,
give
me
and
I'll
give
you
an
example
person
in
my
ward
or
in
somebody
else's
word,
is
notified
of
an
application
and
they're
told
that
the
application
will
be
heard
at
three
o'clock
in
the
afternoon.
The
reality
is
that
the
committee,
for
whatever
reason,
deals
with
the
application
of
one
o'clock,
makes
a
decision
and
no
no.
D
Rather
than
notice
I'm
trying
to
build
this
okay,
when
there
is
an
actual
omission
somehow,
in
other
words,
there's
an
error,
not
a
glitch
in
the
system
that
you
couldn't
predict,
but
there
is
an
actual
error
where
somebody
sends
out
a
notice
that
the
the
item
will
be
heard
at
three
o'clock
and
instead
the
item
is
heard
at
one
o'clock.
So
there
is
a
mistake
made
now.
D
Somebody
shows
up
at
three
o'clock
the
decisions
already
made
and
has
no
recourse
as
a
matter
of
fact,
I'm
not
even
sure
that
well
I
guess
they
could
appeal
the
situation,
but
they
wouldn't
get
any
support
yeah.
So
my
question
is:
is
if
an
error
is
made
and
there
is
or
is
not
a
remedy
in
place
like
an
appeal?
D
H
H
Through
you,
madam
Deputy
Speaker,
in
the
scenario
that
counselor
DiGiorgio
has
posited,
that
would
be
a
classic
case
for
an
appeal.
The
trouble
in
this
case
was
that
the
appeal
period
had
long
ago
passed
and
in
fact
the
complainant
only
learned
that
he
had
not
received
notice
when
construction
started
on
his
neighbor's
property.
H
So
it
you
know
if,
if
an
error
were
made
about
the
time
of
the
of
the
hearing
or
the
location
or
something
similar,
and
it
came
to
light
quickly,
as
in
your
hypothetical
scenario,
certainly
that
that
complainant
would
have
grounds
for
appeal
and
would
likely
be
successful
in
an
appeal
on
a
new
hearing
could
be
held.
The
problem
here
was
six
months
had
passed
and
the
appeal
period
was
gone
and
the
construction
was
already
underway.
My
last
question
and.
D
Supplementary
to
that,
let's
assume
for
the
moment
that
somebody
made
a
mistake
and
did
not
tell
the
person
that
they
had
a
right
to
appeal.
In
other
words,
there
was
a
second
omission
and
the
person
did
not
appeal,
because
somebody
made
a
mistake.
What
then
becomes
the
remedy
for
that
person?
This.
P
P
R
H
Through
you,
madam
Deputy
Speaker
I
thank
counselor
Hart
for
the
question,
because
I
think
that's
a
crucial
distinction.
We
definitely
found
unfairness
to
this
complainant
and
we
were
very
pleased
that
the
committee
acknowledged
that
and
apologized
to
him
and
to
all
the
other
property
owners
who
clearly
should
have
received
notice,
but
did
not.
But
what
we
then
wanted
to
look
for
was
unfairness
in
system
and
the
process,
and
that
is
what
we
had.
That
is
why
we
had
the
committee
monitor
its
send
to
lists
for
six
months,
and
the
answer
was
clearly:
no.
A
B
I'd,
like
I,
said
I
want
to
thank
the
ombudsman
for
bringing
this
matter
to
our
attention.
I'm
sad
for
this
person,
who
has
to
live
next
door
to
an
addition
to
a
house
that
they
had
no
ability
to
comment
on
or
complain
about,
because
I
feel
that
that
person's
rights
have
been
abridged
and
unfortunately,
nothing
seems
to
be
able
to
for
us
to
do
up
to
help
that
individual
and
I
know
that
this
this.
B
The
report
is
here
and
we're
supposed
to
just
receive
it,
but
I'm
hopeful
that
now
I
can
continue
to
work
with
the
committee
of
adjustment
staff
to
continue
to
improve
processes
in
the
committee
of
adjustment,
specifically
in
Toronto
and
East
jerk,
but
I'm
sure.
My
colleagues
would
continue
to
work
with
you
in
their
districts
on
continuous
improvements
to
the
process,
to
make
sure
that
this
and
other
things
like
that
are
troubling,
can
stop.
So
thanks
very
much.
Okay,.
A
A
D
N
So
for
further
clarity,
I
understand
I.
Think
the
committee's
intention
is
to
increase
the
the
idea
of
customer
service,
but
do
we
weaken
ourselves
as
a
city
by
doing
or
encouraging
this
change?
Do
we
weaken
our
position
to
in
fact
collect
the
money
and
perhaps
weaken
the
amount
of
compliance
with
paying
fines.
D
N
N
C
D
C
D
I
N
A
A
D
A
T
Yes,
I
do
and
I'm
speaking
to
the
executive
director
means
balancing
standards.
There
are
some
technical
amendments
to
recommendation
number
5
in
regards
to
that
recommendation
and
also
the
changes
and
just
to
make
it
much
simpler.
I'd
like
to
hear
an
explanation,
so
city
council
is
requesting
the
province
of
Ontario
to
enhance
the
city's
enforcement
authorities
and
tools
to
address
illegal
storefronts,
sells
marijuana
and
as
well
as
enhance
any
other
provincial
legislation
that
burns
they
kind
of
a
distribution
and
consumption.
Overall,
that's
is
there
anything
else
that
I'm
missing
on
that
one?
E
You,
madam
Speaker.
Yes,
we
just
clarified
the
original
staff
recommendation,
rec
five
to
make
sure
we're
clear
that
what
we
are
seeking
are
is
the
necessary
enforcement
tools
to
confront
the
issue
of
the
illegal
storefronts.
There
was
some
concern
raised
that
the
original
wording
of
the
recommendation
may
have
been
late,
leading
us
towards
recommending
certain
aspects
of
criminalization.
E
That
was
not
the
intent,
so
we
want
we
provided
this
revised
wording
that
I
believe
you'll
be
presenting
to
make
sure
that
we're
clear
that
we're
looking
for
the
enforcement
tools
to
ensure
we
can
combat
illegal
marijuana,
store
fronts
or
legal
cannabis,
store
fronts
and
drive
the
patrons
to
the
legalized
regulated
regime.
Great.
T
Now,
in
terms
of
further
discussions,
how
essential
is
for
thyratron
all
to
be
part
of
the
decision-making
and
when
we
are
dealing
with
home
cultivation
of
cannabis
and
I'm,
referring
to
our
friends
in
Ottawa,
as
well
as
in
his
Park?
How
essential
is
for
children
a
few
part
of
the
discussions
and
before
any
legislation
is
passed
through
you.
E
Madam
Speaker
I
can
share
that.
We
have
been
engaged
somewhat
through
the
federal
task
force
and
through
the
ongoing
discussions
that
have
ensued.
I
can
share
that
the
issue
around
home
cultivation
does
still
hold
a
number
of
concerns
for
for
many
of
us
and
trying
to
put
our
arms
around
federally
and
provincially.
E
T
You
couple
more
questions
to
the
to
the
fire
chief.
Do
we
have
the
fire
chief
here
fantastic.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
chief
couple
questions
in
the
absence
of
any
guidelines
or
controls,
do
you
foresee
any
serious
fire
related
concerns
as
it
relates
to
home
cultivation
and
the
creation
of
marijuana
through.
D
T
Looking
in
for
the
health
and
safety
of
I'm
just
thinking
about
the
many
basement
apartments
within
our
own
community
housing,
buildings
and
so
on,
in
the
absence
of
those
guidelines
in
terms
of
proactive
enforcement,
do
you
have
the
manpower?
Do
we
have
the
manpower,
including
our
friends,
from
MLS,
to
to
address
that.
E
Through
you,
madam
Speaker,
so
counselor
still
through
the
federal
regulation,
there's
there's
going
to
be
more
discussion
around
home
cultivation,
I
think
it's.
We
have
to
look
and
see
what
that
regulation
looks
like
certainly
we're
starting
to
talk
about
proactive
inspection
and
residential
properties.
That
is,
that
is
not
the
nature
of
of
the
enforcement
tools.
What
we
need
are
the
enforcement
tools
for
those
people
who
may
be
contravening
what
is
permitted
and
we
do
have
the
legislation,
including
with
fire,
to
address
some
of
those
concerns.
E
T
D
E
It
was
also
echoed
in
the
medical
officer
of
Health
who
I'm
glad
to
have
here
and
the
Board
of
Health
that
approach.
The
the
dialogue
around
the
legalization
of
cannabis
for
non
medicinal
use
has
very
much
been
focused
around
harm
reduction,
the
protection
safety
of
our
youth
and
the
public
are
at
large,
and
we
feel
that
a
provincial
II
operated
model
at
this
point,
as
we
are
learning
how
to
address
this
new
world
of
non
prohibited.
Cannabis
is
the
most
responsible
approach
to
take.
E
There's
been
a
lot
of
discussion
about
what
these
models
should
look
like.
We
know
other
jurisdictions
have
done
it
in
other
ways,
and
some
of
the
the
feedback
that
I
know
the
provincial
government
federal
governments
have
heard
through
those
sessions
is
be
careful.
Take
your
time
be
deliberate.
We
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
moving
people
into
a
legalized,
regulated
regime
and
doing
what
we
can
to
combat
the
seht
market
and.
G
E
You,
madam
Speaker,
there
is
the
the
announcement
from
the
province
did
speak
about
prohibiting
the
consumption
of
recreational
use
cannabis
in
public
spaces,
which
would
relegate
that
use
to
private
places.
However,
they
did
also
note
that
there's
an
ongoing
dialogue
in
respect
to
places
of
consumption,
as
well
as
a
debate.
E
G
Wonder
if
the
medical
officer,
health
through
human
charity
would
speak
to
this
I
have
some
residents
who
have
indicated
that
they
are
allergic
to
smoke
in
general,
they
live
in
apartment
buildings
and
or
condos,
and
there
seems
to
be
a
seeping
off
the
smoke
into
their
own
facilities
that
are
not
shared.
Although
they're
in
the
same
space
I'm
just
wondering
what
is
the
the
view
there?
How
do
we
either
address
there?
Some
of
them
have
medical
conditions.
They've
indicated
others
indicated
that
they're
just
offended
by
the
smell.
G
What,
then,
is
your
perspective,
because
I
would
imagine
that
allowing
people
to
be
able
to
smoke
in
the
open
outdoors
and
I
don't
know
if
the
province
wants
to
control
that
as
well
fencing
around
Aires
in
the
city,
we're
like
dog
parks,
where
you
can
smoke
I
mean
I,
hope,
that's
not
the
case,
but
quite
frankly,
I'm
just
wondering
what
your
position
is
on
this.
Madam
medical
officer
help
so.
H
When
it
comes
to
regulars
tobacco
or
cigarette
smoke,
so
we
do
have
some
challenges
and
we
have
some
experience
in
dealing
with
that.
But,
as
my
colleague
from
MLS
tried
to
describe,
this
is
very
much
a
phased
in
approach
that
is
being
adopted
by
the
province
in
order
to
address
the
situation
in
a
reasoned
and
rational
fashion.
Right.
G
So
some
of
the
complaints
that
I've
had
from
my
residents
are
about
smoke
cigarettes,
but
you
are
allowed
to
smoke
cigarettes
in
the
open
outdoors.
But
in
this
case
you
will
not
be
allowed
to
smoke
marijuana
joint
on
the
sidewalk
streets
of
Toronto
or
in
a
your
back
yard.
Can
you
smoke
it
in
your
back
yard?
Because
it's
not
your
home,
you
immediately
your
domicile
per
se,
so.
E
Through
you,
madam
speaker,
certainly
I
think
the
reference
to
private
residence
that
is
inclusive
of
the
lands
and
as
our
chief
medical
officer
of
Health
has
indicated,
we
do
receive
these
complaints
about
regular
tobacco
smoke
as
well.
But
I
will
share
that.
The
announcement
that
the
province
put
out
they
are
still
working
on
the
legislation,
they're
still
working
on
or
starting
to
work
in
the
legislation,
regulations
and
this
notion
around
places
of
consumption
and
the
impacts.
E
G
It
appears
to
me
that
there's
been
a
lot
of
innovation
with
respect
to
all
the
biet.
The
illegal
operations
that
are
taking
place
now
the
storefronts
and
so
on.
I'm
wondering
are,
would
it
be
that
the
province
will
come
up
with
innovations
in
these
particular
space?
I
hear
about
vaping
I'm,
not
sure
what
it
is,
but
things
like
that,
it's
not
possible
the
province
should
be
able
to
come
up
with
these
innovations.
If
you
will.
E
So
through
you,
madam
Speaker
I
struggle
with
innovation
in
on
a
legal,
storefront
context,
I'm
sure
you
can
appreciate
that,
but
talking
about
the
modes
of
consumption
that
the
use
of
vapor,
lap
or
vaping
it
mint
is
not
new.
It's
used
in
the
hookah,
its
hookah
pipes
and
shisha,
and
that's
been
going
on
for
quite
a
number
of
years.
It
has
been
yeah,
it
yeah,
there's
something
out
in
Wexford
area,
right,
yeah
so
and
we
actually
did
just
pass
a
Council
passed.
E
We
upheld
and
appealed
and
upheld
by
law
restrictions
on
hookah
consumption
and
licensed
premises.
So
there's
a
lot
going
on
in
this
space
of
consumption
consumption
for
recreational
consumption
for
medicinal.
You
know
trying
to
address
the
externalities:
the
person
next
door
to
the
person
consuming
the
consumption
of
secondhand
smoke,
the
the
contradiction
with
the
smoke-free
Ontario
act
of
consuming
indoors.
So
there's
a
lot
of
things
in
play.
I
think
that
everybody's
still
working
through-
and
we
have
our
good
friends
and
fire
to
make
sure
that
doesn't
happen.
Thank.
C
E
Through
you,
madam
Speaker,
the
approach
thus
far
has
been
in
the
hands
of
the
federal
government,
and
then
the
provincial
government
and
the
provincial
government
did
hold
our
open
up
for
consultation
through
the
summer,
so
people
could
participate
as
the
City
of
Toronto.
We
were
not
placed
to
hold
a
consultation,
because
we
are
the
creatures
of
what
that
regulation
legislation
was
going
to
look
like,
so
the
City
of
Toronto
has
not
held
a
consultation,
but
the
province
in
the
developing
of
their
approach
held
the
consultation.
It
seemed
like
a
certain
group
of.
E
Through
you,
madam
Speaker,
certainly
the
predominant
deput
ents
at
our
committee
meeting
on
this
issue
were
people
that
were
operating
the
currently
illegal
storefronts
and,
and
they
believe
that
was
councillor
Thompson's
point
as
well,
that
there
are
people
that
have
stepped
into
the
fray.
This
very
black-and-white
clearly
defined
line
of
illegal
storefront
operations
and
have
indicated
their
displeasure
with
the
fact
that
the
province
is
taking
over
the
distribution
model.
That
was
the
predominance
of
the
deputies
that
our
committee
so.
E
J
J
D
E
Through
madam
Speaker,
I
can
just
add
that
that's
in
respect
to
produce
edibles,
it's
not
preventing
someone
who
is
a
consumer
to
produce
their
own
edible
if
they
purchase
cannabis
oil
and
decide
to
make
their
own
products.
But
it's
absolutely,
as
the
chief
medical
officer
of
Health
explained.
Thank.
J
P
P
E
You,
madam
Speaker.
Yes,
our
intention
was
to
get
on
the
record
and
through
council
our
request
that
the
City
of
Toronto
be
engaged
in
a
number
of
these
issues
and
that
the
the
impacts
of
the
municipality
in
packs
for
the
municipality
in
a
legalized
regime
are
contemplated
in
the
creation
of
their
legislation
and.
E
Through
you,
madam
Speaker,
if
we
choose
not
to
impart
our
position
to
the
province,
we
will
be,
we
will
be
the
subjects
of
whatever
the
province
determines.
Is
the
approach
on
the
distribution?
The
part
of
the
province
must
do
something
on
distribution
else
did
will
fall
to
the
federal
regime
for
distribution.
Our
position
here
is
that,
especially
with
the
city
of
Toronto
and
the
impacts
we've
had
to
do
to
the
illegal
storefronts
that
it
was
important
that
we
were
at
it.
A
Most
of
the
deputies
that
we
did
here
at
licensing,
not
all
of
them,
but
most
of
them
were
of
the
businesses,
some
of
them
operating
these
illegal
storefronts
and
admitted
that
there
they
were
operating
illegally
and
what
they
were.
Asking
of
us
is
not
to
enforce,
to
bylaw
correct,
to
allow
them
to
continue
operating
illegally.
Sure.
E
A
E
A
F
E
E
E
Through
you,
madam
Speaker,
if
you
could
indulge
me
for
a
moment,
I
am
looking
at
how
many
have
been
done.
A
120
have
been
completed.
We
still
have
four
hundred
60
some-odd
ongoing.
We've
got
44,
prohibition,
orders
and
I.
Don't
know
if
I
have
the
tally
on
the
fines
or
not
that
had
been
that
had
been
applied,
no
I,
don't.
E
Through
you,
madam
Speaker
I
think
it's
important
to
distinguish
that
the
the
regime
that's
coming
before
us
of
soon
from
the
federal
and
provincial
governments
is
in
respect
to
the
consumption
of
recreational
cannabis.
The
issue
of
medicinal
cannabis
is
still
governed
under
the
access
to
cannabis
for
medical
purposes.
Regulation
federally
and
there
are
no
changes
happening
in
that
regard.
Under
the
ACM
PR,
which
is
medicinal
medicinal
use.
There
are
no
storefront
operations,
it
is
wholly
licensed
producer
or
self
produced
product.
On
the
recreational
side
we
are.
E
F
So
the
province
came
up
with
a
position
and
we
agreed
to
it
before
we
agreed
their
position
and
we
being
the
largest
city
in
the
province.
Thirty,
five,
thirty
five
percent
of
our
people
I
mean
thirty.
Five
percent
of
people
that
live
in
the
province
are
in
our
city.
Did
we
consult
with
any
of
the
recreational
usage
folks
how
they
would
like
to
see
the
storefronts
or
LCBO?
Did
we
do
in
the
consultation
with
them?
That
question
is
simple,
yes
or
no.
Please
sure.
E
You,
madam
Speaker,
the
chief
medical
officer
of
Health
Board
of
Health
Report,
did
also
indicate
in
May
of
2016
or
early
2017.
The
city's
perspective
on
a
government-run
provincial
ii
operated
retail
model
and,
quite
frankly,
the
purpose
of
this
report
is
to
do
exactly
what
you
are
asking
it
is.
We
are
putting
this
in
front
of
City
Council
with
a
staff
recommendation
that
the
provincial
model
that
has
been
written
to
report
it
be
supported,
but
that
is
certainly
up
to
your
your
direction
and
your
discussion
and
that's
why
we
brought
the
report
here
today
and.
F
F
E
You,
madam
Speaker
I'm,
not
a
big
Twitter
person,
but
we
have
not
received
very
much.
There
were
submissions
through
the
committee.
There
have
been
submissions
made
here
and
there
from
opera
they
are
seemingly
all
coming
from,
or
many
are
coming
from,
operators
of
illegal
storefronts
and
part
of
the
reason
we
cannot
hold
a
municipal
consultation
process
because
the
province
is
tasked
with
determining
the
distribution
model,
not
the
city.
F
N
You,
madam
Speaker,
one
of
the
things
we
heard
earlier
in
the
conversation
was
some
of
the
issues
around
smoke
produced
from
marijuana,
especially
between
properties
and
I,
have
been
hearing
and
learning
a
little
bit
about
some
of
those
tensions.
Just
with
experiences
in
my
own
ward,
between
dwelling
units,
I
also
think
about
the
experiences
I
have
around
the
beer
and
liquor
stores
in
in
my
area
and
I.
N
Think
about
one
situation
where
there's
a
park
adjacent
to
a
beer
store
and
we've
got
some
issues
with
anti-social
behavior,
where
people
go
and
buy
the
product
and
then
go
to
the
park
and
enjoy
it
and
all
of
the
problems
that
come
with
that
enjoyment
remain
in
the
park
and,
most
importantly,
effects
the
neighbors
that
live
immediately
adjacent
to
that
location.
So,
where
I'm
going
with
my
question,
is
assuming
that
the
same
will
hold
true
with
any
outlet
that
will
be
dispensing
marijuana
product.
N
Do
we
have
the
opportunity-
or
maybe
the
duty,
to
start
to
consider
the
consumption
of
marijuana
on
public
property
and
the
effects
that
smoke
produced
from
that
consumption
will
have
on
the
abutting
properties?
Given
it's
not
a
residential
to
residential
discussion,
it's
now
a
public
space
to
a
private
space
discussion
so.
E
Through
you,
madam
Speaker,
the
as
I
mentioned
previously,
the
externalities
of
consumption,
particularly
smoked
consumption,
has
been
an
issue
that
we
have
all
been
discussing.
The
currently
proposed
approach
by
the
province
is
to
prohibit
consumption
in
of
recreational
cannabis
in
any
public
spaces.
There
is
discussion
about
adherence
with
the
smoke-free
Ontario
Act
as
well
and
I
believe
there
are
regulations
pending
to
address
some
of
that,
as
well
as
vaping
and
e-cigarettes
and
the
like,
and
that
is
a
piece
of
ongoing
dialogue
again,
that
the
not
in
public
spaces
was
tied
to
recreational
use.
E
There
has
been
reference
to
the
need
to
discuss
medicinal
consumption
and
what
that
looks
like
so
our
reck
number
six
is
where
we
are
saying
we
need
as
a
city
because
of
the
proximity
our
neighbors
have
to
each
other,
that
we
need
to
be
engaged
in
those
discussions
and
decisions
on
how
how
consumption
is
going
to
be
permitted
and
then
what?
If
any
municipal
impacts
there
are
as
a
result
of
that,
what
tools
we
may
need
in
order
to
enforce
or
or
set
bylaws
or
take
whatever
necessary
action.
So
I've
been.
N
Thinking
about
you
know
the
parallel
to
the
smoke-free
Ontario
Act
and
how
maybe
those
policies
can
can
complement
each
other,
but
I'm
struggling
a
bit
with
it.
You
can
smoke
a
cigarette
in
a
public
park,
but
you
can't
necessarily
smoke
a
cigarette
in
front
of
say
a
hockey
arena
like
it.
You
know,
there's,
maybe
there's
a
setback,
distance
and
there's
there's
a
different
definition
of
public
space
and
maybe,
as
I
go
further
into
that.
You
think
about.
You
know
what
about
the
backyard
of
a
senior's
home
or
city
facility?
E
You,
madam
Speaker,
certainly
the
the
correlation
of
that
with
the
smoke-free
Ontario.
Act
is
a
part
of
this
discussion.
Currently,
the
smoke-free
Ontario
Act
does
not
apply
to
marijuana.
It
applies
to
tobacco
product
only,
but
there
is
a
regulation
pending
to
amend
that
and
we
fully
expect
that
cannabis
and
consumption
of
cannabis
will
be
included
in
that.
What
we
do
have
is
well
beyond
where
the
smoke-free
Ontario
Act
goes.
We
have
the
ability
to
set
in
place
municipal
bylaws,
to
govern
smoking,
consumption
to
smoke,
our
parks,
bylaws
and
examples
per
our
Municipal
Code
Chapter
608.
E
It
speaks
to
non
consumption
of
cigarettes
at
near
sports
fields.
So
that's
part
of
the
dialogue
we're.
Having
is
if
we
need
to
do
something
municipal
e
to
manage
where
cannabis
is
consumed,
then
we
would
need
the
tools
in
the
City
of
Toronto,
Act
or
other
applicable
legislation
to
allow
us
to
do
that,
and
that's
part
of
the
dialogue
and
part
of
what's
here
and.
N
E
E
The
purpose
of
this
report
is
exactly
that
is
to
ensure
that
the
City
of
Toronto
is
represented
and
that
the
City
of
Toronto,
as
well
as
other
municipalities
but
I
care
about
us,
have
the
appropriate
tools
that
are
necessary
for
us
to
ensure
that
we
can
enforce
in
a
legalized,
regulated
permissive
regime,
so
that
the
regime,
the
purposes
of
the
regime
and
the
public
policy
objectives
sought
by
the
regime
are
met
and
maintained.
Thank.
C
I'll
just
speak
very
briefly,
unaccountable
lateness
in
the
day,
which
is
to
say
that
I
fully
support
the
legalization
of
cannabis
and
I
think
that
this
is
an
important
step
forward
from
the
perspective
of
public
health
and
it's
an
important
step
forward,
simply
because
this
will
remove
many
of
the
harms
associated
with
criminalization,
and
there
are
many
while,
at
the
same
time,
mitigating
the
harms
associated
with
recreational
use
from
a
public
health
standpoint.
There
are
also
many
and
it's
for
that
reason
that
this
approach,
in
my
mind,
makes
sense.
C
The
motion
I
have
here
speaks
to
some
of
the
questions
you've
just
heard
from
councillor
Thompson
and
others,
and
that
has
to
do
with
the
conversation
currently
taking
place
within
the
province
in
between
the
province,
municipalities
related
to
consumption
in
places
of
consumption.
There
is
a
real
question
related
to
the
public
health
implications
of
a
model
that
solely
restricts
consumption
to
places
of
private
residence
and
what
that
might
mean
from
a
public
health
standpoint
and
as
councillor
Thompson
said
in
multi-unit
dwellings
and
buildings,
perhaps
where
smoking
is
not
permitted.
C
D
You,
madam
chair,
as
a
member
of
the
licensing
committee,
I
I,
would
think
that
that
motion
is
redundant
because
we
have
had
those
reports
from
the
Health
Department
I
thought
we
did
consider
at
the
licensing
committee.
We
were
told
it's
illegal
and
that's
that's
the
end,
so
I
I
think
the
motion
I
would
ask
you
to
rule
or
a
check
with
the
appropriate
staff.
It
I
think
it's
neither
redundant
or
out
of
order.
That
means.
R
R
We
had
prohibition
around
alcohol.
There
was
a
big
temperance
movement
and,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
this
country
this
province
had
to
decide.
Okay,
how
are
we
gonna?
Do
it
deal
with
this
wicked
alcohol?
That's
all
over
the
place
and
they
finally
found
a
way
to
legalize
it
and
they
had
to
struggle
with
basically
the
same
kinds
of
issues
that
we're
struggling
with
today.
R
R
It
is
very-
and
you
know
maybe
eventually
like
alcohol,
you
know.
First,
it
started
LCBO
the
LCBO
only
and
then
now
you
have
wine
stores,
and
now
you
have
some
limited
availability
in
in
grossa
t
Ria's
as
well
for
alcohol,
but
that's
an
evolution
that
took
place
over
time
and
I
suspect
that
we'll
see
a
similar
evolution
with
cannabis
in
the
years
to
come,
but
I
think
starting
starting,
stricter
and
loosening
is
way
better
than
starting
loose
and
then
later
on,
having
to
go
stricter.
R
So
what
we're
saying
here
with
with
this
a
committee
report
is
that
you
know
what
we
think
that
the
province
has
the
frankly,
the
right
approach
and
I
do
think
they
have
the
right
approach.
I
do
think
the
feds
also
have
the
right
approach
or
we
are
requesting
the
federal
government
to
make
sure
that
they
have
strong
controls
over
the
production
sites
because
of
some
of
the
things
that
get
laced
into
that
cannabis.
These
days,
it's
not
like
the
days
of
old.
R
This
is
a
different
era
and
we
want
to
make
sure
that
what
is
in
the
what
is
told
to
consumers
that
is
in
the
product
is
indeed
in
the
product.
So
we
need
a
strong
control
over
that
from
a
public
health
perspective,
so
I
think
we
kind
of
got
it
right
like
who
knows
what'll
happen
after
I
guess
at
the
end
of
the
day
after
July
1st,
but
do
we
have?
Has
the
federal
government
thought
this
through
pretty
carefully
I?
R
Think
they've
done
a
pretty
good
job,
I
think
the
products
has
done
a
pretty
good
job,
and
now
it's
our
turn
to
say.
Yes,
we're
going
in
this
direction
and
we're
gonna
have
some
good
public
health
messaging
around
it.
We're
gonna,
where
we're
happy
with
the
direction,
we're
happy
with
the
legalization,
and
let's
just
do
this
in
measured
steps
rather
than
then
jump
too
quickly,
and
so
you
know
I'm
merging
frankly,
support
of
this
from
public
health
perspective.
This
is
what
we
asked
for,
and
this
is
what
we
got
so
I'm
content.
Thank
you.
Thank.
L
Yes,
thank
you.
Thank
you
very
much.
Madam
Speaker
I
just
wanted
to
rise
in
support
of
the
motion
made
by
my
colleague,
councillor
cressie,
I
I,
haven't
seen
anything
at
this
point
that
has
taken
a
public
health
approach
to
examining
the
implications
of
just
allowing
for
consumption
at
your
your
residence
I
think
that
that
this
evidence
is,
and
information
has
not
come
up.
L
It
was
actually
a
deputation
made
by
one
of
councillor
crises,
constituents
at
licensing
and
standards
where
it
became
more
evident
to
me
that
there
is
an
equitable
argue,
an
equity
argument
to
be
made
here,
because
not
everyone
has
the
ability
to
consume
cannabis
at
their
at
their
address.
It
also
on
the
flip
side
of
that
may
be
a
health
concern
for
other
people
living
in
the
space
and
so
I.
L
I
think
that
this
is
where
we
may
be
able
to
be
a
little
bit
more
proactive
and
and
take
a
bit
of
a
deeper
dive
into
the
discussion
to
ensure
that,
in
fact,
everyone
is
being
given
equal
access
at
this
stage
and
everyone
is
being
protected
from
the
the
potential
harms
of
can
of
consumption.
On
on
neighbors.
We've
been,
it's
been
reinforced
in
our
brains,
the
notion
of
secondhand
smoke,
and
it
certainly
would
be
a
shame
of
what
we
did
is
said.
L
We'll
only
some
people
can
use
recreational
or
medicinal
marijuana
and
and
if
they
do,
there's
not
protections
to
their
neighbors
or
else
they
may
be.
They
may,
in
the
face
of
a
change
in
condo
board
policy,
end
up
not
being
able
to
use
legally
the
the
either
prescribed
or
not
prescribed
cannabis.
So
I
think
this
is
actually
a
really
important
investigation
to
take
place.
F
D
F
Knows
who
she
is
I'm,
not
gonna
mention
it
and
I
will
go
on
I
urge,
my
colleagues
to
do
the
same.
We
need
to
have
more
consultations
on
the
issue.
The
community
felt
that
we
did
not
consult
with
them.
We
did
not
hear
them,
stakeholders
be
it.
The
people
that
we're
in
dispensaries,
medical
users
or
occasional
users
tried
twice
to
speak
at
in
our
committee
and
twice
they
were
stifled,
the
third
time
that
they
were
able
to
speak.
They
loudly
spoke.
F
They
said
that
the
position
the
province
has
taken
is
wrong
and
certainly
BC
stake
in
a
different
position.
Today,
BC
is
moving
into
the
position
that
they
will
be
looking
to
engage
the
dispensaries
that,
at
this
time,
we're
operating
in
the
in
the
gray
zone
and
work
through
them.
The
province
of
Ontario
has
a
different
view,
and
that
is
their
decision.
However,
we
needed
to
listen
to
the
dispensaries
that
are
were
out
there
operating
in
the
gray.
We
were
not
inviting
them
to
come
in
I
think
there
was
a
mistake.
F
We
moved
to
close
them,
we
moved
heavily
and
we
moved
heaven
and
earth
and
I
think
that
was
again.
Another
mistake
that
we
engaged
our
officers
in
order
to
do
and
I
will
be
asking
folks
to
take
a
look
at
it
and
support
Joe's
motion
for
the
simple
reason
that
we
need
to
take.
Another
look,
listen
to
the
stakeholders,
we
cannot
stifle
democracy
and
certainly
we
didn't
listen,
and
we
just
did
that.
We
just
stifle
democracy.
Thank
you,
madam
Speaker.
S
S
S
Thank
you
very
much.
Madam
Speaker
I'd
like
to
express
my
my
frustration
around
this
particular
subject
matter
and
how
how
it
is
being
approached
not
just
from
from
the
City
of
Toronto
and
staff,
who
are
trying
to
respond
to
an
evolving
conversation.
That's
coming
out
of
Ottawa,
but
also
in
terms
of
how
the
province
is
approaching.
S
S
There
are
a
number
of
people
across
this
country
that
have
worked
really
hard
who
have
actually
put
on
the
table.
The
issue
around
marijuana
use
for
medicinal
purposes
for
pain
relief
and
a
lot
of
those
individuals
actually
belong
to
my
community
people,
who
have
been
living
with
HIV
and
AIDS
and
other
types
of
chronic
illnesses.
They
have
struggled
in
that
gray
area
under
the
cloud
of
legal
oppression,
and
it's
been
very
difficult
for
them
to
try
to
get
through
to
the
government
that
this
was
necessary
medicine
for
them.
S
Now
it's
been
largely
because
of
a
system
that
was
not
responsive.
It's
been
largely
because
of
the
criminalization
of
this
of
this
subject
matter
that
that
we're
now
here
responding
to
a
set
of
now
a
new
framework.
That's
before
us,
while
we
have
incarcerated
a
great
number
of
people
who
have
been
trying
to
bring
this
product
to
a
market
who
said
that
it
was
necessary
in
order
for
them
to
relieve
the
pain,
we've
actually
been
doing
a
very
good
job
of
prosecuting
people
and
putting
them
in
this
sort
of
legal
and
criminal
limbo
land.
S
The
courts
are
flooded
with
minor
people
with
minor
possession.
They
the
community
has
been
driven
underground
and
they
have
been
stigmatized
as
being
simply
drug
dealers
when
some
of
them
that
trying
to
advocate
for
medicine
that
they
needed
so
I.
Look
at
this
with
a
level
of
frustration.
Frustration
of
madam
speakers,
because
it's
it's
a
bit
of
a
it's.
It's
it's
a
double
standard,
if
I
may
say
so
so
now
we
have
folks
who
are
trying
to
capitalize
on
the
cannabis
market,
they're
saying
that
it's
a
multi-billion
dollar
industry.
S
We
have
former
police
police
chief
who
are
trying
to
get
into
the
business
we
have
and
deputy
chiefs,
who
are
trying
to
get
into
the
business
former
ministers
of
health
that
are
applying
for
these
producer
licenses.
And
yet
we
have
people
who
have
actually
been
working
at
this
issue,
trying
to
bring
a
legitimacy
to
this
particular
product
for
some
time
who
are
now
being
shut
out.
S
Now,
whether
or
not
to
be
quite
honest
like
whether
or
not
you
agree
or
you
disagree
with
marijuana
use,
what
we
can
or
what
I
think
we
can
all
agree
on.
Is
that
there's
a
double
standard
and
the
double
standard
is
now
that
the
province
and
the
federal
government
is
creating
this
body
of
legislation.
That's
supposed
to
move
us
forward,
we're
actually
enabling
and
creating
benefits
for
certain
individuals
and
we're
disadvantaging
others.
S
Who've
actually
been
at
this
for
such
a
long
time,
who've
taken
who've
taken
to
governments
and
succesful
successive
governments
to
court
to
try
to
make
a
point,
and
so
yes,
it's
a
multi-billion
dollar
industry.
There
will
be
plenty
of
tax
revenues
that
will
be
garnered
from
from
the
sale
of
marijuana
but
I'm
just
so
discouraged
by
the
way,
government,
federal,
provincial
and
now
us
approaching
this
this
matter.
We
have
a
lot
of
folks
who
are
caught
in
the
criminal
justice
system
who
are
being
persecuted,
who
have
were
being
prosecuted
who
have
criminal
records.
S
Who
are
going
to
have
this
this
record
with
them,
because
they're
not
being
exoneree
as
far
as
I
can
tell
it's
going
to
be
with
them
for
a
very
long
time
and
yet,
at
the
same
time,
we're
now
opening
up
this
market.
This
is
a
lucrative
market
for
everybody
else
who
can
wear
a
suit
and
tie
and
say
now
you
can
apply
for
a
license.
Now
you
can
produce
a
marijuana
now
we're
going
to
actually
give
you
a
monopoly
on
Ontario,
sell
it,
and
it's
ultimate
government
control.
S
G
G
11,
except
I,
put
a
timeline
on
it,
and
the
motion
reads
that
council
requests
the
executive
director
of
municipal
licensing
and
standard
to
report
to
the
licensing
and
standard
committee
no
later
than
2020,
with
an
update
on
the
implementation
of
the
provincial
he
operated
retail
model
for
cannabis,
sale,
ganja,
Cali,
marihuana,
all
the
names
that
this
substance
and
herb
has
been
known.
I
was
born
in
Jamaica
and
spent
my
first
eleven
years
there
and
was
aware
of
this
product
for
medicinal
purposes:
young
children
with
asthma.
G
They
mix
it
with
the
Jamaican
rum,
they
put
it
in
there
for
a
while
and
they
use
it.
And
apparently
it's
supposed
to
be
good
for
you.
It's
my
grandmother,
told
me
so
now
we
are
now
2017
and
we
are
now
it's
all
the
rage
as
medicinal
marijuana
and
so
on,
and
we
here
for
some
people,
it's
great
and
that's
fantastic
and
I
appreciate
that
fact.
Quite
frankly,
but
what
I
do
have
a
problem
with
similar
to
accounts
are
long
time.
It's
the
way
government
are
involved
in
this
and,
of
course
we
need
legislation.
G
We
need
to
protect
people.
We
need
to
ensure
that
a
balance,
the
appropriate
mix
of
chemicals,
etc
etc.
Are
there
to
ensure
the
people
okay.
First
of
all,
let
me
just
stop
for
a
moment.
I
want
to
thank
miss
cook,
Scarborough
girl
for
her
outstanding
work,
always
unless
placing
thank
you
so
much
miss
cook
and
the
medical
officer
of
Health
I
want
to
thank
her
as
well.
She
has
recently
come
to
the
city
and
I
think
she's
a
rockstar
already,
quite
frankly,
so
I
want
to
thank
you
very
much
and,
and
so
well.
G
I
am
speak
to
the
issue.
Madam
Speaker,
it
seems
to
me
that
there
is
a
big
part,
that's
being
left
out,
which
is
the
folks
who
have
been
involved
in
terms
of
bringing
innovations
to
this
and
I.
Don't
expect
government
to
do
that
quite
frankly,
because
that's
not
what
we
do.
Typically,
there's
a
lot
of
young
people
who
are
working
in
this
space
and
I
realize
that
some
of
its
now,
it's
obviously
not
legal
and
I
think
that
at
some
point
we
ought
to
legalize
those
component
part
of
it.
G
Apparently,
the
province
is
not
seeing
that
that
this
is
something
that
they
want
to
do
at
this
particular
time,
I'm
hoping
that
that
will
change
I'm,
hoping
that
the
motion
that
I
move
forward
will
allow
this
city.
You
know
the
largest
city
in
Canada
to
come
to
its
senses
and
not
necessarily
having
to
follow
a
provincial
model.
I
think
we're
taking
the
easy
route
of
the
easy
route
through
this
whole
particular
process
and
I,
don't
agree
with
it.
G
I
think
from
an
economic
development
particular
perspective,
there's
a
lot
of
entrepreneurial
opportunities
for
young
people
to
create
businesses,
to
create
wealth
and
I.
Think
that
we're
actually,
if
you
will
depriving
them
at
this,
we
can
still
have
regulations.
We
can
still
have
controls,
we
can
still
have
mechanism,
and
that
allows
us
to
be
able
to
ensure
that
this
is
an
industry
where
it's
not
right
with
criminal
activities
and
so
on
so
forth,
but
we
seek
to
basically
take
the
easy
route
out
setting
up
another
provincial
agency
I.
G
Think
at
the
end
of
the
day,
it's
gonna
be
a
boondoggle,
quite
frankly,
in
terms
of
what
will
happen
with
this
I
also,
don't
think
that
this
will
eliminate
the
underground
nature
of
this
particular
environment.
I
think
that
this
will
continue
and
if
that's,
what
we
want
to
happen,
obviously
go
with
this
provincial
model,
so
I'm
hoping
that
in
a
number
of
years
that
the
that
the
city
will
review
its
it's
it's
its
process
and
and
hopefully
come
to
a
sense
of
understanding,
very
much
like
Vancouver
and
or
other
places
where
they
have
introduced.
G
A
retail
component
part
I
think
that
we're
failing
a
lot
of
people
in
this
space
and
I
think
that
you'll
still
see
the
illegal
activities
take
place.
This
is
not
something
I
want
to
encourage,
but
I
fail
to
to
see.
Obviously
why
the
provincial
government
did
not
take
enough
time
to
work
with
the
industry,
and
so
on.
We've
seen
the
illegal
cigarettes
we've
seen
illegal
booze,
all
those
types
of
activities
that
takes
place
now
in
a
regulated
environment
and
so
on
and
I
think
that
that
will
be
no
different
for
cannabis.
G
I
think
that
will
be
the
same
as
we
move
forward
and
so
on,
as
it
relates
to
where
you
can
smoke
it
quite
frankly,
I
think
that
you
know
in
many
places
around
the
world.
People
can
have
a
glass
of
wine
on
a
street
corner
or
a
bottle
of
whatever
and
they're
not
going
crazy,
but
we
seem
to
want
to
legislate
and
have
our
hands
and
everything
as
government,
because
we
believe
that
we
know
best.
G
We
can
control
all
of
our
citizens,
so
I
think
our
citizens
are
very
smart
people
if
you
allow
them
to
do
things
and
so
on
they'll.
Do
it
in
a
very
control
very
measured
way.
We
tend
to
deprive
people
of
things
in
our
society,
particularly
alcohol,
so
when
people
have
an
opportunity,
they
go
overboard.
G
A
P
Thank
you,
madam
Speaker
man.
Speaker
I
do
hope
that
that
people
will
support
counselor
crises
motion
if
you
live
anywhere
in
the
city
of
Toronto,
if
you
represent
anywhere
in
the
city
of
Toronto,
pretty
well
anywhere,
you
probably
have
a
recently
built
condominium
under
the
new
Building
Code,
and
if
you
do,
you
know
that
that
you
already
are,
at
the
very
least
mildly
having
people
complain
about
cigarette
smoke
and
calling
past
questions.
How
does
what
is
the
condo
act?
P
Give
us
in
the
way
of
arrows
in
our
quiver,
for
dealing
with
this
as
a
condo
board
under
the
condo
act
and
the
calling
municipalities
to
find
out.
That's
only
going
to
increase
when
people
are
smoking
cannabis
in
in
those
condominium
buildings.
So
we
know
that
the
province
will
find
itself
addressing
it.
We
know
that
the
federal
government
will
find
itself
having
to
address
the
issue
of
consumption
outside
of
multi
residential
buildings,
in
short
order
for
the
Board
of
Health
in
the
City
of
Toronto.
P
To
begin
that,
work
and
to
begin
that
discussion
so
that
we're
we're
ensuring
that
a
very
informed
medical
officer
of
Health
will
be
speaking
on.
Our
behalf
only
makes
sense,
because
we
know
that
that
will
come
up
with
regards
to
what's
the
rush
and
can
we
wait?
Madam
Speaker
I
can't
wait.
Iii
think
we
I
think
we
can't
wait
another
minute
at
our
most
recent
police
board
meeting.
We
we
took
a
good
long,
hard
look
at
data
and
I
wish.
This
wasn't
true.
P
Yes,
the
federal
government
is
moving
in
stages,
yes,
they're
hoping
that
with
edibles
and
others.
Prescription
is
another
matter,
we're
just
talking
about
the
retail
consumption
and
we're
starting
with
smoke,
but
we
got
to
start
somewhere
and
we
need
to
start
right
away,
because
what
our
police
force
should
be
be
working
on
are
those
drugs
that
are
much
much
more
dangerous,
much
much
more,
addictive
and
and
do
need
to
to
spare
our
youth.
This
is
only
criminalizing
them
and
in
a
very
inequitable
fashion.
P
T
Thank
you,
madam
Speaker.
First
I'd
like
to
move
the
recommendations
within
the
main
report
also
I'd
like
to
move
the
technical
amendments
on
recommendation
number
five
that
are
before
you
there
in
essence
that
these
recommendations
is
silica.
Sauce
is
requesting
the
province
of
Ontario
to
enhance
the
city's
enforcement
authorities
and
tools
and
also
enhancing
any
other
provincial
legislation
that
governs
the
kind
of
its
distribution
consumption.
In
essence,
that's
what
that
recommendation
does
also
you
like
to
move
there.
T
The
next
recommendation
over
to
that
City
Council
request
the
federal
government
and
the
province
of
Ontario
consulting
actively
actively
engage
with
the
city
when
developing
regulations
for
home
cultivation
of
cannabis,
with
a
focus
on
preventing
illegal
cannabis,
grow
operations.
A
mitigating
community
impacts
of
con
cultivation
and
the
province
provide
the
city
with
the
tale
guidance,
in
other
quote,
resources
and
authority
to
enforce
regulations,
and
these
were
the
recommendations
that
there
was
a
lot
of
all
behind
scenes
and
I
want
to
thank
city
staff
on
that.
T
I
want
to
thank
all
the
members
of
council,
including
Castle,
crazy
or
in
part
of
discussion
in
as
well
as
I'll,
be
supporting
his
recommendation.
A
maher
tori
for
his
unconditional,
unconditional
commitment
in
terms
of
getting
things
right,
I
I
recall
over
a
year
ago
when
he
did
write
a
missive
to
the
committee,
asking
it
to
be
for
the
city
to
be
proactive
in
terms
of
being
part
of
the
discussion
from
day,
one
and
I
think
that
was
extremely
important.
T
That
was
taking
the
leadership
and
working
in
to
being
the
front
line
working
for
the
city,
so
Thank
You
mr.
mayor,
and
for
your
tremendous
involvement
on
that
now,
madam
Speaker
and
members
of
council.
This
report
builds
on
and
complements
the
recommendations
adopted
by
the
world
health
and
a
phenomenal
amount
of
work
by
the
interdivisional
work
done
by
the
working
group
that
have
been
working
on
it
for
months
and
months.
In
my
thing,
what
we
are
seeing
now
and
what
members
of
council
are
saying,
this
is
a
good
thing.
T
That's
happening
overall
is
thanks
to
the
great
work
that
city's
doing.
This
report
also
supports
the
province
plan
to
sell
cannabis
to
a
provincially
operated
retail
model,
in
other
words,
to
have
a
subsidiary,
that's
going
to
be
part
or
the
LCBO
that
will
sell
the
cannabis.
I
think
this
is
a
great
step
also
and
taken
by
the
province
being
proactive
in
terms
of
what's
coming.
T
Now,
if
Public
Health,
the
Public,
Health
and
Safety
becomes
paramount
on
what
we
do
in
terms
of
decision
making,
when
the
loss
of
the
land
become
the
law,
then
the
local
impacts
to
our
local
communities
to
our
local
neighborhoods
will
be
reduced
because
we'll
be
doing
the
right
thing
from
the
beginning
and
the
level
required
for
extensive
municipal
oversight
and
enforcement
will
also
be
minimized,
and
that's
another
concern
that
we've
been
talking
all
along
for
agency.
We
don't
have
the
resource,
we
don't
have
the
funding,
how
we
are
going
to
do
it.
T
So
this
is
very
important
to
very
mind
and
that's
extremely
important.
Also
that
depends.
The
federal
government
do
consult
and
that's
exactly
what
my
recommendation
does
is
to
consult
not
only
with
the
city
but
also
with
the
province
when
they
are
developing
the
regulations
for
the
home
cultivation
of
cannabis,
and
that's
that's
one
of
the
key
ingredients.
T
If
the
city
is
not
part
of
it
and
then
how
we
are
going
to
have
all
the
guidelines,
how
we
are
going
to
have
some
sort
of
framework
where
our
own
enforcement
people
can
do
the
work,
so
the
city
has
to
be
part
of
it
on
a
moment
of
reflection,
I
was
just
thinking
for
a
second
imagine.
If
all
these
home
cultivation
are
there,
there
is
lhara
and
scrupulous
people
out
there
that
they
will
grow
anything
in
basement
apartments.
We
have
as
landlords
of
the
city
the
Toronto
Community
Housing.
T
P
Clarification,
madam
Speaker
I'm,
trying
to
understand
what
more
you
need
in
terms
of
preventing
illegal
grow-ops
and
homes
for
plants
in
your
own.
If
your
your
neighbors
got
more
than
four
plants,
you're
gonna
call
the
police,
and-
and
that's
the
end
of
that,
what
more
do
you
want
to
happen?
Besides
the
four
plant
maximum.
T
I
think
that's
it.
Thank
you.
I
think
that's
extremely
important
to
send
a
strong
message
for
City
Council
to
send
a
strong
message
to
our
friends
and
in
Ottawa
to
let
them
know
that
there
are
some
serious
concerns
in
terms
of
how
do
we
know
that
anyone
else
is
going
to
plant
a
house
more
than
4
or
6
or
10
or
20
or
whatever
it
is
going
to
be
so
I
think
that
there
is
a
need
for
some
sort
of
framework
to
be
in
it,
and
we
don't
have
that.
P
P
T
P
Clarification,
madam
Speaker,
if
I'm,
if
I
want
to
request
the
federal
government
I
like
for
I,
don't
like
five
I,
don't
like
six
but
I,
also
don't
like
none
for
the
sake
of
people
using
it
for
arthritis,
whatever
I,
don't
like
none
I,
don't
like
more
than
four!
So
so
what
am
I
asking
of
the
government?
We.
T
Are
not
asking
about
the
medical
aspect
because
that's
allowed.
We
are
not
talking
about
that
at
all
I'm,
not
referring
to
that
I'm.
Not
talking
about
the
medical,
because
that's
allowed,
that's
allowed
I'm,
just
I'm
talking
the
vicarage,
there's
recreational
parks,
recreational
part,
not
America,
the
medical
is
totally
fine.
I
don't
have
a
problem
with
that
at
all
and.
T
A
T
F
A
F
D
J
Q
On
a
point
of
order,
I
would
like
to
call
upon
you
to
use
section
Rule
27:47
of
the
procedural
bylaw
and
to
give
the
member
of
verbal
warning
for
his
conduct.
It
is
absolutely
undermines
the
ability
of
this
government
to
conduct
his
business
when
he
launches
into
verbal
assaults
on
the
speaker
of
this
chamber.
So
I
ask
you
to
give
him
formal
verbal
warning
under
27:47
Thank.
Q
Okay,
okay,
so
I'm
reading
this
here,
and
it
says
that
you
want
the
federal
government
and
the
province
to
consult
with
us
to
help
us
develop
regulations
focusing
on
preventing
illegal
grow-ops,
but
also
and
mitigating
community
impacts
of
home
cultivation.
What
kinds
of
regulations
do
you
imagine?
The
city
should
be
advocating
for
to
mitigate
community
impacts
of
home
cultivations.
Q
T
You
castle,
barracks
I
think
that's
imperative.
That's
important
to
have
some
sort
of
detail
guidance,
some
sort
of
framework
in
place
by
having
that
kind
of
discussion
between
the
three
levels
while
they
are
developing
their
guidelines
overall,
so
I
think
the
city
has
a
place
in
terms
of
having
those
meaningful
discussions
with
them.
So
that's
all
I.
Q
Understand
no
no
I
already
clearly
understand
you
want
to
have
the
conversation.
I
don't
need
to
be
told
that
I'm
curious
about
what
kind
of
tools
you
think
we
should
have
for
people
who
are
growing
within
the
within
the
legislative
framework
report
proposed
by
the
federal
government.
What
additional
tools
do
you
want?
Well.
Q
Counselor
Palacio
I
will
read
your
own
words
to
you.
Council
requests
the
federal
government
and
the
provincial
government
to
consult
and
actively
engage
with
the
city
when
developing
regulations
for
the
home
cultivation
of
a
cannabis,
with
a
focus
of
preventing
illegal
cannabis,
grow
operations
and
mitigating
community
impacts
of
home
cultivation.
I
want
to
know
what
you
think
this
city
should
be
doing
or
asking
the
federal
and
provincial
government
to
do
to
mitigate
community
impacts
of
home
cultivation.
What
are
you
after
here.
T
R
A
A
A
M
Thank
You
speaker
I,
don't
want
to
take
too
long.
I
just
want
to
pick
up
on
something
that
councillor
Carroll
was
speaking
about
and
I
think
was
very
important
and
I
will
support
the
referral,
but
I
do
believe
we
have
to
be
expeditious
and
we
have
to
be
very
clear
in
the
consequences
of
not
getting
this
sorted
out
as
quickly
as
possible
and
councillor
havoc
just
told
me
that
since
the
federal
government
announced
that
they
would
be
legalizing
marijuana
that
16,000
youth
have
been
arrested,
16,000
have
been
charged
with
possession
and
it's
so
odd.
M
M
They're
going
to
need
a
see
pick
and
it's
going
to
look
like
they
were
involved
with
an
illegal
activity
at
the
same
time
as
we're
making
it
legal
and
that's
been
the
gray
area
and
that's
been
a
difficult,
unfair,
great
area
to
many
many
citizens
who
really
I
don't
know
what
to
do
about.
It
I
believe
strongly
that
it
should
also
be
decriminalized
and
should
have
been
decriminalized
while
we're
setting
up
the
legal
framework.
M
What
concerns
me
even
more
is
that
law
enforcement
officers,
those
who've
held
very
high
positions
in
the
city,
perhaps
even
chief
of
police,
are
now
getting
involved
in
a
distribution,
sale,
development
and
growth
and
deputy
chief
involved
in
what
is
now
becoming
a
legal
industry.
At
the
same
time
and
I
know
that
under
their
watch,
many
young
people
were
charged
and
many
young
people
were
charged.
I
know
we're
not
going
to
do
that
today.
M
While
somebody's
now
been
a
profit
from
what
is
now
a
legal
industry,
we
have
to
get
that
through
our
heads.
We've
got
to
get
that
in
our
hearts
and
we
have
to
figure
out
what
we're
going
to
do
about
that
in
the
City
of
Toronto,
because
it's
not
right.
It's
unfair.
It
just
shows
that
those
with
extreme
privilege
can
can
do
extreme
things
and
those
without
remain
in
a
very
difficult
position.
Q
The
same
way
they
purchase
alcohol
today,
not
in
exactly
the
same
framework
or,
of
course,
will
be
differences,
but
stop
thinking
of
this
the
use
of
marijuana
as
something
that
is
going
to
be
an
underground
activity.
The
whole
point
here
is
to
get
it
out
from
underground
above-ground
and
to
break
the
cycle
of
criminality
associated
with
it.
That's
the
future.
We
have
to
imagine
now
in
that
future.
If
we
changed
our
mindsets,
we
will
no
longer
be
focusing
our
attention,
principally
on
attempting
to
punish
and
investigate
and
kick
down
doors
and
criminalize
people.
Q
That
is
not
the
future
of
this
industry
of
this
issue
of
this
commodity,
and
that
is
why
I'm
so
profoundly
concerned
with
the
motion
that
councillor
Palacio
has
moved
his
three
B
motion.
Three
B
is
all
about
thinking
as
if
we
were
still
in
the
past
and
still
had
a
black
market
underground
economy
operating
by
saying
that
we
have.
Q
We
want
additional
regulations
around
criminalizing
or
doing
something
similar
for
legitimate
legal
growing
at
home
of
your
four
plants
is
attempting
to
continue
to
criminalize
this
industry
when
we
are
moving
to
a
place
where
we're
hopefully
going
to
eliminate
the
black
market
operation,
that's
where
our
minds
should
be.
If
we
continue
to
operate
as
counselors
councillor
Palacios
motion
3b
talks
about.
We
continue
to
do
the
things
that
councillor
Carroll
and
councillor
Fletcher
spoke
about
so
passionately.
In
fact,
we
make
them
worse.
Q
That,
and
we
know
very
well
that
the
people
who
will
be
making
the
money
will
be
celebrated,
as
entrepreneurs
will
be
doing
very
very
well
and
will
be
completely
legitimized
in
the
eyes
of
our
society
and
those
people
who
are
growing
four
or
five
plants,
and
they
have
their
doors
kicked
down,
and
we
know
we
know
from
the
history
of
this
that
those
will
be
people
who
are
currently
marginalized.
Socially,
we
will
not
be
kicking
down
Julian
Fantino,
's
door.
We
will
be
kicking
down
the
doors
of
young
racialized
people
and
people
living
in
poverty.
Q
It
is.
It
is
appalling
to
me
that,
on
the
one
hand,
we
could
treat
somebody
as
a
successful
entrepreneur
as
as
someone
that
we
admire
as
someone
with
great
social
status
and,
on
the
other
hand,
continue
to
criminalize
people
who
don't
have
that
same
status
in
our
society.
The
whole
point
here
is
to
end
those
kinds
of
divisions.
That's
the
only
reason
you
would
even
consider
as
if
our
federal
government
has
done
the
move
to
decriminalize
marijuana.
Q
It
is
to
break
that
division,
so
we
are
no
longer
penalizing
people
for
the
simple
crime
of
being
poor
or
not
being
white,
so
I
urge
you
I
urge
you
put
your
mind
into
that
future.
Put
your
mind
into
the
future
where
we
are
breaking
the
cycle
of
criminality
around
this
and
do
not
support
councilor,
Palacios
motions
rebe.
Thank
you.
A
S
A
A
S
H
A
A
D
A
A
P
P
N
You
Speaker
I
will
to
be
brief
and
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
speak
and
I
will
be
supporting
the
recommendations
of
the
report,
which
is
to
continue
to
consult
and
thank
the
planning
staff
for
speaking
to
me
for
their
work
on
this.
But
I
will
point
out
one
issue
in
this
report
that
I
take
exception
to
and
I
think
suburban
counselors
should
pay
attention
to
this.
Well,
because
I
think
it
speaks
about
access
on
page
12.
N
It
talks
about
connectivity
and
it
envisions
the
road
network
of
the
future
and
there's
one
word
there
that
captures
my
attention
and
it
says
that
the
streets
and
the
finite
road
space
will
be
prioritized
for
pedestrians,
cyclists
and
transit
users.
Well,
I'm
quite
happy
to
encourage
conversion
to
these
modes
of
travel.
N
C
Just
want
to
thank
staff
for
all
the
hard
work
on
this.
This
has
been
years
in
the
works
and
from
the
planning
department
and
across
other
divisions
as
well
as
fellow
councillors.
This
has
being
a
lot
of
work
along
with
councillor
Wang
Tam
and
former
deputy
mayor
McConnell
and
I
would
just
note
that
the
City
of
Toronto
and
Council
we
did
endorse
the
pedestrian
charter
more
than
10
years
ago.
C
That
formally
stated
that
as
a
city,
we
would
prioritize
active
modes
of
transportation
and
an
explicitly
noted,
walking
cycling
and
public
transit
as
the
priority,
and
so
what
you
see
in
front
of
you
here,
councillor
holiday,
is
actually
already
being
endorsed
by
council
and
it
is
following
that
policy.
Thank
you.
Thank.