►
From YouTube: City Council - December 10 - Part 2/2
Description
On December 10, 2015 - City Council met in closed session from 8:19 pm to 8:30 pm. City Council resumed its public session (this video) at 8:36 pm until adjournment at 9:34 pm.
Agenda and background information: http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/decisionBodyProfile.do?function=doPrepare&meetingId=9696
A
A
C
D
That
being
said,
the
reality
is
is
that
we
have
the
unelected
and
unaccountable
anti-democratic,
Ontario
Municipal
Board
that
still
has
purview
over
the
planning
decisions
in
the
province
of
Ontario
and
here
in
Toronto,
and
if
the
OMB
didn't
exist,
our
choice
would
be
more
simple
today,
but
it
does
exist
and
it's
there
and
that's
the
reality
and
the
choices
are
really
do.
We
support
something.
That's
better
than
the
worst-case
scenario:
do
we
lose
our
shirts
or
do
we
get
something
better
and
I
believe
that
by
supporting
confidential
attachment
1,
it
is
a
lot
better.
D
It's
been
done
through
a
lot
of
negotiation.
The
community
has
been
deeply
involved
in
this.
We
came
from
a
point
of
just
saying
no,
which
actually
would
have
been
easier,
both
in
the
communities
position
and
politically,
and
we
came
to
a
point
of
saying
yes,
because
this
is
a
lot
better
than
what
we
were
first
offered
and
you
will
see
it.
D
I
can't
speak
to
the
specifics
yet,
but
you
will
see
that
there
are
some
tangible
benefits
to
support
the
neighborhood
and
the
dearth
of
some
of
that
infrastructure
that
I
spoke
about
with
regard
to
public
realm.
So
I
hope
you
support
it.
It's
been
a
really
really
difficult
process,
but
I
respect
and
I
appreciate
your
support
today.
Thank
you.
Thank.
B
B
I
I
I
J
Looked
at
a
number
of
options
there
we
felt
that
safe,
seventy-five
percent.
We
wouldn't
be
capturing
enough
of
the
the
industries
that
are
putting
those
regulated
pollutants
into
to
the
sewers
a
25-percent.
We
still
have
a
very
comfortable
fresh
hole
there
in
terms
of
the
need
to
report
out
and
introduce
pollution
prevention
programs.
So.
I
J
So
I
think
it
I
think
another
key
component.
Counselor
too,
is
that
this
is
where
there
are
trace
pollutants
that
we
didn't
feel
we're
instructive
in
terms
of
the
staff
time
to
do
them,
or
for
small
businesses
in
particular,
to
have
to
engage
a
consultant
at
a
high
cost
to
report
out
on
these
items.
So.
J
We
still
feel
that
it
it's
a
reasonable
percentage
that
we
are
still
in
have
the
strictest
by
law
in
Canada
and
that
we
were
able
to
maintain,
because
we're
very
interested
in
front
of
our,
of
course,
at
maintaining
very
good
quality,
biosolids
and
meeting
both
provincial
and
federal
effluent
quality
guidelines.
So.
I
J
I
For
example,
we're
saying
point:
01
micrograms
per
liter
of
mercury
is
our
threshold,
but
if
you
have
under
point
0
0
25
micrograms
per
liter-
that's
okay!
You
don't
have
to
report
back
on
that
one!
That's
that's
Craig,
sir!
So
some
of
these
chemicals
are
more
toxic
than
others.
Correct.
Yes,
that's
correct!
Why
is
it
that
a
twenty-five
percent
threshold
was
used
for
some
of
the
more
benign
chemicals
and
and
and
but
also
some
of
the
more
toxic
ones
like
arsenic
in
chloroform
and
I?.
I
J
I
J
J
K
A
J
This
combination
again
going
back
that
the
sewers
violent
introduced
15
years
ago,
so
we
have
that
experience
with
it.
Now
it's
not
uncommon
to
have
these
levels
where
we
have
trace
elements,
aren't
factored
in
under
regulatory
basis.
The
chem
track
does
that
the
national
pollutant
release
inventory
have
those
we're
bringing
ours
ours
to
that
level.
This
is
going
to
reduce
the
staff
time
to
chase
these
small
trace
amounts.
J
In
the
report
we
indicate
that
washing
broccoli
will
draw
off
chromium
that
would
trigger
a
pollution
prevention
program
for
somebody
just
washed
and
broccoli
that's
going
to
be
used
in
meal
production.
This
gives
us
resources
and
also
then,
companies
that
are
still
well
below
the
threat
told
wouldn't
have
to
report
out,
but
again
we're
being
very
cautious
not
to
have
that
cushion
between
the
twenty-five
percent
and
the
threshold
for
the
requirement
to
introduce
a
pollution
prevention
program.
A
A
A
H
H
So
we're
looking
at
a
review
that
would
start
in
the
fourth
quarter
of
2016
to
report
back
to
council
through
the
Public
Works
and
Infrastructure
Committee
in
2017,
and
so,
if
you're
going
to
ask
me
why
this
would
take
so
long,
there's
extensive
public
consultation.
That
is
part
and
parcel
of
this
there's
a
lot
of
stakeholders,
environmental
NGOs,
the
industry,
ten
a
lot
of
times
required
to
meet
and
engage
with
all
the
various
stakeholders.
H
So
this
is
something
that
we
just
want
to
make
sure
we're
on
top
of
that,
we're
doing
a
review
of
the
chemicals
that
we're
looking
at
what
dumb.
What's
we
know
how
this
is
impacting
the
wastewater
treatment
plant
operations
and
so
really
looking
at
if
there's
anything
that
we
need
to
add,
so
it's
as
simple
as
that
and
as
I
said
staff
or
a
son
on
board
with
this
and
in
fact
helped
craft.
The
motion,
thank
you.
I
You
very
much
I
have
a
motion.
This
is
actually
a
referral
motion
to
refer
it
back
to
staff,
to
report
on
the
clerks.
Have
the
motion
to
the
general
manager
Toronto
water
to
report
back
on
a
risk-based
approach
to
minimum
reporting
thresholds,
including
evaluating
the
use
of
existing
stormwater
limits?
I
wasn't
able
to
ask
the
question
of
staff,
but
about
how?
I
These
are
for
those
that
have
to
report
for
going
that
that
don't
meet
those
that
that
threshold
for
paying
more,
but
they
is
a
threshold
for
reporting,
because
there
is
an
important
right
to
know
principle
that
we
need
to
that
that
we
need
to
maintain
here,
because
the
citizens
of
Toronto
deserve
to
know
who
and
what
is
being
put
in
in
their
waterways,
because
it
can
end
up
getting
into
the
Great
Lakes
and
this
notion
of
just
twenty
five
percent
I
agree.
There
is
some
onerous
reporting
on
businesses
here
and
I.
I
Think
we
do
need
to
find
where
there
are
opportunities,
do
not
have
businesses
approached,
but
we
need
to
have
a
risk-based
an
evidence
based
system
for
determining
when
we
have
these.
These
organizations
report
what's
being
proposed
here
is
not
it's
simply
across
the
board
twenty-five
percent.
It
takes
a
couple
hundred
businesses
out
of
the
queue
that
have
to
report
and
let's
leave
it
at
that.
I
We
should
know
about
that
and
we
should
determine
what
the
threshold
is
based
on
evidence
of
the
risk
that
opposes
on
our
waterways,
not
on
what
seems
to
be
an
arbitrary
number
of
twenty
five
percent.
It's
an
arbitrary
number!
Why
isn't
it
twelve
percent?
Why
isn't
it
thirty
five
percent?
It
seems
it
was
just
that
sweet
spot.
It
took
some
businesses
off
and
sounded
like
it
was
a
smaller
number
that
said
that
the
amounts
being
discharged
were
in
fact
we're
in
fact
a
negligible.
I
So
what
I'm
saying
is
that
we
actually
have
a
great
standard
for
this
and
that's
use
of
our
stormwater
limits,
because
that's
a
better
indication
of
how
much
of
this
of
these
substances
are
being
released
into
into
our
waterways.
So
again,
to
recap:
I'm
not
saying,
let's
make
it
I,
let's
continue
making
it
onerous
on
businesses,
but
what
I'm
saying
is,
if
you
are
gonna
relax
your
rules,
you
better
make
sure
that
you
know
what
the
impacts
are
due
to
water
quality.
I
will
be
supporting.
I
Also,
if
it's,
if
it's
not
referred
councillor,
Robinson's
recommendation,
we
need
to
look
at
some
of
the
new
and
emerging
chemicals
that
are
being
put
in
our
waterways
pharmaceuticals,
going
through
our
bodies
and
otherwise
are
being
released
in
enormous
quantities
into
into
the
Great
Lakes
I
I
mentioned
it
yesterday,
but
I
should
again
today,
tomorrow,
the
Great,
Lakes
and
st.
lawrence
cities
initiative
will
be
meeting
the
mayor
and
I.
Thank
him
for
this,
as
has
honored
me
with
the
privilege
of
sitting
on
that
committee
in
this
capacity
as
a
counselor
for
the
for
this
meeting.
I
I
hope
that
continues
because
I'm
really
excited
to
join
that
group,
because
that
group
that
group
works
to
try
to
protect
the
Great
Lakes
basin
from
things
like
like
pollution
from
industry
from
from
from
runoff
and
I
sure
sure
hope
that
the
point
that
I've
made
the
last
two
days
has
shown
that
that
that
I
believe
that
we
as
a
city
should
be
contributing
more
and
that's.
Why
I
think?
Maybe
we
need
to
send
this
back
to
get
a
bit
of
a
retuning.
K
B
K
You
very
much
members
I
ask
you
to
just
simply
consider
one
thing:
how
would
you
explain
if
we
don't
refer
this
back?
How
would
you
explain
to
members
of
the
public
what
we've
done
today?
If
you
support
the
staff
recommendation,
how
would
you
explain-
and
you
heard
it
in
answers
to
questions
that
in
order
to
reduce
staff
time
and
to
have
fewer
businesses
have
to
report,
we
picked
an
arbitrary
percentage.
We
didn't
look
at
the
different
health
impacts
of
different
kinds
of
chemicals.
We
didn't
look
at
the
existing
exposures
of
different
kinds
of
chemicals.
K
Each
is
different.
Each
requires
a
little
bit
more
thought.
It's
just
simply.
I
can't
imagine
how
I
would
tell
someone
in
Ward,
14
or
anywhere
in
the
city.
Well,
City
Council
simply
decided
that,
because
it's
a
lot
of
staff
time,
we
would
just
increase
the
amount
that
the
polluters
were
allowed
to
put
out
without
reporting
by
a
number
that
we
picked
not
by
anything
where
there
was
specific
health
evidence
to
the
particular
chemical,
where
there
was
a
specific
examination
of
different
pathways
of
exposure.
K
Current
body
burden
current
exposure
from
foods,
and
yes,
it's
true
that
when
you
wash
certain
fruits
and
vegetables,
you
wash
off
toxins
because
of
all
the
chemicals
that
are
added
in
the
manufacturing
and
I,
know
it's
and
are
sprayed
on
them
as
they're
grown.
That's
a
burden,
that's
in
addition
to
what
we
allow
when
we
put
these
chemicals
into
the
water.
So
the
frankly,
the
work
hasn't
been
done
here
to
be
persuasive,
that
this
amounts
recommended
by
staff
are
adequate.
K
B
M
You
speaker,
I,
will
be
very
brief.
I
just
wanted
to
make
the
point
that
this
report
stood
out
of
a
systematic
issue
that
we've
got.
This
is
the
Elaine
closure
in
a
major,
east-west
artery
in
and
out
of
the
city
relied
on
commuters
every
day,
and
what
we
have
is
a
lane
closure
to
facilitate
construction
and
a
rather
brief
report
on
this
and
I
see
several
of
them
on
council
agenda
that
have
gone
through
community
councils
and
have
more
or
less
being
rubber
stamp
through
us
without
taking
a
good
look
at
it.
M
M
My
colleagues
consider
that
over
time,
if
we
see
a
change
coming
through
that
it
makes
a
lot
of
sense
with
that
said,
I
have
spoken
to
the
local
councillor
on
this
counselor
cressey
and
I
am
very
confident
that
he's
done
his
best
to
work
with
the
applicant
to
minimize
the
disruption
and
he's
worked
with
very
competent
staff
who
take
this
into
consideration
and
I
will,
of
course
be
supporting
this
report,
but
I
felt
it
was
very
important
to
point
it
out
as
one
of
the
elements
of
a
larger
systemic
issue.
Okay,
thank.
B
N
Thank
you,
madam
Speaker
and
I
want
to
thank
councillor
holiday
for
having
the
time
and
due
diligence
and
chatting
with
me
on
this
I
do
appreciate
it
councillor
holiday,
put
the
question
for
it.
Is
there
a
better
way
to
do
this
and
I
would
say
nine
times
out
of
ten?
There
is
a
better
way
to
do
it.
I
say
that
at
somebody
who
has
92
development,
it's
underway
or
proposed
an
award
44
of
them
in
the
small
Kings,
but
on
area
of
which
this
is
19
times
out
of
10.
N
There
is
a
better
way
in
the
better
way
is
as
follows:
building
your
own
footprint,
it's
how
they
do
it
in
other
world
class
cities.
It's
how
we
should
do
it
here.
I
understand
it
can
be
difficult.
It
can
be
costly
depending
on
the
floor
plate
that
can
be
very
challenging.
It
should
be
done.
That's
the
better
way
of
doing
it,
one
in
ten
times
we're
not
fighting
the
applicant
to
do
it
a
different
way.
N
N
But
this
is
one
of
those
ten
times
where
the
closure
is
for
our
own
objectives
as
a
city
and
that's
on
the
heritage
side
and
that's
a
worthy
objective
and
in
those
nine
of
other
ten
times,
I
completely
agree
with
counsel
their
holiday.
There
is
a
better
way
and
developers
should
pay
more
to
help
us.
Do
it.
Hey.
O
Madam
Speaker
I'm
tempted
to
just
get
up
and
say
that
if
I
can
hear
councillor
cressey,
say
he's
gonna
prove
councillor
holiday,
nine
out
of
ten
times.
I
should
just
sit
down
and
leave
it
at
that.
It's
wonderful,
but
I
just
want
to
read
the
echo
the
words
both
of
them
spoke
I
think
we
are
finding
that's
one
of
the
great
things
about
these
meetings
and
about
the
entire
process.
We're
finding
better
ways
to
do
these.
O
Even
in
this
meeting
and
I
held
down
one
in
the
last
meeting,
because
I
really
just
couldn't
accept
the
fact
we
could
just
say
to
people
sure
go
ahead.
You
know
close
down
a
lane
of
traffic
for
two
and
a
half
years,
and
it's
gonna
take
you
that
long
and-
and
you
really
have
to
do
it
and
so
on-
and
we
found
this
time
and-
and
this
is
you
know,
I-
think
with
the
help
and
then
leadership
of
mr.
O
buxley
as
well-
that
we
can't
actually
go
to
these
people
and
talk
to
them
and
find
we
can
take
shorter
periods
of
time.
Fine.
We
can
repaint
some
lines
and
move
some
stuff
around
and
and
just
have
less
disruption,
and
it's
not
it
isn't
one
of
those
things.
That's
about
cars,
it's
just
about
people
in
the
city,
moving
about
its
business
and
and
so
on,
and
all
the
people
we
serve
in
all
the
different
respect.
O
So
I
just
want
to
say,
I
really
support
what
counselor
Holliday
said
as
well
about
maybe
looking
for
other
ways
to
sort
of
both
process.
These
and
negotiate
these
and
maybe
give
a
bit
of
a
mandate.
That's
mr.
Buckley
to
you
know
be
even
firmer
with
these
people,
we've
raised
the
rates
and
that
had
some
impact,
but
maybe
there's
more
to
be
done
just
to
allow
the
city
to
return
to
normal.
O
B
L
Thank
you,
madam
Speaker.
Given
the
time
and
everyone's
tired
state
of
mind,
I
will
be
quick,
but
this
is
an
important
issue.
Is
first
brought
to
my
attention
by
a
constituent
about
six
months
ago
and
then
I
don't
know
how
many
of
you
saw
the
in-depth
report
by
CBC
marketplace,
and
essentially
what
it
is.
Is
retail
establishments
purporting
to
recycle
when
they
don't,
they
have
the
blue
bins.
They
have
the
separated
areas
for
garbage
and
and
recycling
materials
than
what
they
do
is
they
just
poured
it
into
the
dumpster
altogether
and
off
to
the
landfill?
L
It
goes
whether
it's
coffee
shops
fast
food,
restaurants
or
your
local
health
club,
basically,
the
public's
being
duped,
and
it's
in
my
opinion,
it's
an
unfair
business
practice.
People
are
people
are
patronizing,
an
establishment
with
the
belief
that
establishment
is
being
environmentally
responsible
and
they're,
not
speaking
to
staff.
I
understand
that
the
problem
the
city
faces
is
that
with
these
commercial
enterprises,
they're,
basically
governed
by
the
province,
they're
regulated
and
enforcement
must
come
from
from
the
Ministry
of
the
Environment.
Why
this
doesn't
happen?
I
will
never
know
with
it
well
and
councilor
perks.
Feel.
L
This
is
requesting
that
the
mayor
write
a
letter
to
the
minister
of
government
and
consumer
services
and
I'll.
Let
you
read
the
rest.
I
would
like
basically
an
answer
as
to
what
enforcement
can
take
place
and
how
it
will
take
place
so
that
we
actually
get
compliance
from
all
these
commercial
enterprises.
Thank
you.
I
Will
be
done
very
quickly,
my
friends
in
my
zeal
to
address
the
issue
of
quantities
in
the
last
piece.
I
I
should
have
referred
item
recommendation
one
of
the
four,
because
recommendation
two
three
and
four
staff
should
get
working
on,
so
I
need
to
reopen
the
clerks.
The
clerks
are
fine
with
this.
I
need
to
reopen
the
item.
We
refer
item
one
and
and
adopt
item
two
three
and
four
okay.
B
B
B
B
P
I'd
like
to
take
this
opportunity
to
address
members
motion
11.6
teen,
because
I
continue
to
be
amazed
at
the
strategy.
Councillor
ford
continues
to
utilize
here
at
council
and
in
the
spirit
of
accountability,
I
believe
councillor
ford
needs
to
be
held
accountable.
We
have
a
government
of
50,000
plus
employees.
P
We
spend
billions
of
dollars
every
year
over
sixty
billion
dollars
in
the
last
five
years
alone,
and
the
reality
is.
We
have
virtually
no
ability
as
counselors,
to
measure
time
how
long
it
takes
us
to
do
things,
processes,
whether
it's
efficient
or
not,
or
the
ability
to
identify
any
redundancies,
and
the
facts
speak
for
themselves.
Under
mayor
Ford,
every
major
capital
project
was
hundreds
and
hundreds
of
millions
over
budget
Nathan,
Phillips
Square,
30
million
dollars
over
budget
under
mayor
Ford,
Union
Station,
a
hundred
and
sixty
million
dollars.
Okay,.
A
Point
of
order
is
this:
isn't
the
council?
This
is
not
a
history
lesson
on
the
last
by
royalty
and
it
is
not
the
time
to
be
running
down.
My
constituent,
I
should
say
and-
and
I
would
really
prefer-
I
would
really
prefer
that
the
counselor
d
channels
speak
to
the
motion.
I
just
stick
to
the
facts.
Well,.
P
P
Councillor
Ford's
record
is
consistent
spending
Fiasco
after
spending
Fiasco
after
spending
fiasco
and
what's
his
solution
in
this
motion
before
us
to
fix
our
problems,
lunch
receipts,
that's
the
answer
to
our
financial
ruin,
lunch
receipts!
Now,
I'm
all
for
talking
tough
for
even
smart
during
a
campaign.
But
if
you're
going
to
talk
the
talk,
you
need
to
walk
the
walk
and
counselor
for
with
this
motion
before
us
today
is
simply
still
just
talking.
P
He's
had
a
million
chances
in
the
past
to
fix
things
in
the
city
and
he
has
chosen
not
to
why
either
because
he
doesn't
know
how
or
because
it's
more
about
his
brand
than
saving
money
for
the
taxpayer
councillor
Ford
would
rather
still
campaign
than
work
to
fix
the
problems
in
this
city.
So,
if
he's
not
interested
can't
let
those
of
us
when
we
should
actually
fix
things
you
can
get
on
with
our
day
Thank
You
councillor.
B
A
A
B
M
And
I
know
I'm
a
tough
act
to
follow
what
we
just
heard,
but
I
I
just
want
to
say
it's
a
good
motion.
There
was
a
couple
litmus
test
for
me.
The
first
was
when
I
was
approached
to
second,
it
I
had
to
go
to
the
policy,
because
I
didn't
believe
that
I
didn't
actually
have
to
submit
receipts
and
that
I
could
bill
alcohol
if
I
was
on
a
trip,
and
so
I
think
this
is
correcting
a
flaw
in
our
policy
or
something
that
you
would
expect
to
do.
Well.
M
It
says
here
that
this
is
making
alcohol
and
the
eligible
expense
and,
and
that's
what
the
motion
is,
and
the
second
test
is
is
if
I
ask
somebody
on
the
street
whether
it
was
appropriate
to
not
submit
in
receipts
for
the
expenses
that
I
occurred
and
to
charge
alcohol
I
think
they
would
tell
me
that
it
is
inappropriate,
so
I'm
I
just
think
it's
a
good.
It's
a
technical
motion.
It's
a
good
motion.
It
is
just
making
our
policy
consistent
and
it's
what
we
would
expect
of
leaders
in
other
levels
of
government
orders.
F
A
G
G
L
Well,
no,
actually
counselor
Carol,
my
physicians,
the
opposite,
most
conferences
that
I'm
sure
council
members
go
to
food
is
provided
at
the
end
of
the
day
at
the
end
of
the
day.
Even
if
it's
not,
there
is
a
basic
principle
of
accountability.
We're
supposed
to
show
leadership
here
and
showing
or
coming
back
with
receipts
like
we
do
for
our
office.
Expenses
is
totally
totally
appropriate
and
they
don't
anyone
that
wants
to
argue
against
it.
Well,
I
guess:
you'll
be
reading
yourself
about
yourselves
in
the
paper
tomorrow.
A
O
I
I'm
I
am
new
here
and
therefore
I
may
be
misunderstanding,
but
I
think
the
point
of
mentioning
the
alcohol
is
in
fact,
madam
Speaker,
that
if
you
can
have
this
per
diem
and
if
you
can
spend
it
as
you
wish
and
don't
have
to
account
for
it,
in
fact,
you
could
use
it
to
buy
alcohol,
and
if
the
principle
that's
at
play
is
that
you
can't
buy
out
all
the
public
money,
then
in
fact
the
point
of
the
motion
is
correct.
I
wanted
to
make
a
different
point.
O
However,
I'm
assuming
I
wasn't
here
when
this
policy
of
a
hundred
dollars
per
day
was
put
in
place,
I'm
assuming
that
the
reason
it
was
put
in
place
was
because
actually
somebody
thought
about
the
administration
of
the
government
and
the
fact
that
it
costs
more
and
takes
more
time,
and
this
is
the
kind
of
thing
where,
where
I
believe
it.
I
will
support
my
friend
at
council
d
piano
in
what
people
accused
him
of
grandstanding
in
this
and
that
counts
their
fourth
and
he's
not
here.
O
But
councillor
ford
makes
a
meal
if
you'll
pardon
the
expression
out
of
this
kind
of
stuff,
where
what
he's
implying
is
that
people
around
here
either
by
having
this
policy,
have
done
something
wrong
or
by
using
this
policy,
are
doing
something
wrong
and
he
uses
it
to
get
headlines
and
to
grandstand.
The
word
was
absolutely
correct,
except
it
was
houston
away
that
didn't
suggest
that's
what
he
does
and
I
take
some
offense
at
that.
O
Sometimes
it's
directed
at
me
I
take
offense
even
when
it's
not
done,
because
it
doesn't
contribute
to
intelligent
discourse
and
I
do
think
again.
We
should
perhaps
have
somebody
have
a
look
at
what
the
cost
is
just
at
the
time
of
the
staff
and
the
the
time
of
the
staff,
not
just
in
the
public
service,
to
process
these
accounts,
but
in
members
offices,
because
I
think,
if
you
added
it
up,
I
I
suspect.
O
Like
me,
there
are
other
members
in
this
room
that
don't
take
the
per
diem
and
that's
a
personal
choice
that
I
make
in
the
sense
that
I
figure
I
have
to
eat
and
and
whatever.
But
there
are
others
who
do
and
I
don't
criticize
them.
For
that,
not
everybody
can.
Can
you
know
ken
can
afford
to
adopt
these
kinds
of
approaches?
I
do,
but
I
think
we've
got
to
get
over
in
here.
Is
this
notion
that
somebody's
a
villain
and
somebody's
a
devil
there's
always
a
devil
and
a
villain
and
mr.
O
Ford
with
greatest
respect,
is
the
lead
artist
at
doing
that
and
we've
got
we
should
maybe
just
have
somebody
and
I'm
not
sure
how
you
go
about
doing
this
procedurally,
have
a
look
at
this
and
say:
does
it?
Is
it
gonna
cost
us
more
and
cause
more
of
your
cratic
hassle
to
back
to
what
I
presume
was
the
old
way
of
doing
it?
Is
the
per
diem
still
appropriate
and
if
there's
a
loophole
with
respect
to
alcohol?
O
C
His
overarching
goal
was
that
we
never
be
scandalized
by
a
bev
oda,
$16
glass
of
orange
juice,
that
we
not
waste
council
services
time
that
we
stay
within
their
that
the
private
sector
guidelines
and
less
some.
He
wanted
to
get
us
pinned
under
that
somewhat,
and
he
made
an
exhaustive
study
of
this
deputy
mayor,
doug
holiday.
C
It
was
guided
by,
though
not
oh,
come
on.
That's
who
did
this?
That's?
Who
did
this
review
and
it
took
up
hours
and
days
and
weeks
of
council
services
time
to
execute
that
review?
Do
we
really
need
to
do
it
in
every
single
term
of
office?
We're
not
even
no
one's
asked
for
any
inflationary
increase,
we're
simply
asking
to
continue
to
abide
by
a
policy
it
has
worked
and
was
reviewed
by
someone
who
I
think
we
can
all
say
whose
goals
of
savings
and
efficiency
for
lo
those
many
decades
he
was
in
office
were
laudable.
C
I
Just
wanted
to
very
quickly
say
that
I
I
think
that
that
our
mayor
is
on
the
right
track
here,
that
we
may
be
spending
more
time
and
money
discussing
these
items
and
and
filling
out
paperwork
rather
than
actually
getting
on
with
business
and
I'll.
Just
point
to
one
example:
I
last
week,
side,
no
less
than
four
pieces
of
paper
authorizing
a
dollar
and
twelve
cents
be
spent
on
a
postage
and
I'm
sure
all
of
you
get
them.
I'll,
look
at
it
and
go
you're
kidding
me
right
and
that's
like
because
we've
gone
down
this
road.
I
We
end
up
with
these
one
dollar
and
twenty
cents
authorizations
for
postage,
and
so,
let's
get
on
with
the
business
of
of
council
and
I,
really
like
that,
our
merit
or
e
used
the
he
started.
It
argument
in
his
in
his
speech.
I
we're
gonna
have
to
try
to
figure
out
good
time
to
bring
that
one
up
again.