►
From YouTube: City Council - June 28, 2018 - Morning Session
Description
City Council, meeting 43, June 28, 2018 - Morning Session
Agenda and background materials:
http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/decisionBodyProfile.do?function=doPrepare&meetingId=13093
Afternoon & Evening Session: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7wE5ylOX7g
A
Members
of
council,
we
will
not
review
and
confirm
the
order
paper.
There
are
35
items
left
on
the
agenda
plus
25
member
motions.
Our
first
three
items
of
business
this
morning
are
the
integrity.
Commissioners,
quota
conduct
reports,
item
CC.
Forty
three
point:
five,
forty
three
point:
six
and
forty
three
point:
seven
councils
decided
to
consider
item
ex35
point
fourteen
on
the
Toronto
Hydro
Annual,
General,
Meeting
and
audited
financial
statements
at
2:00
p.m.
today.
That
item
will
be
followed
by
ax.
A
B
B
B
C
B
B
G
A
J
K
You
very
much
madam
Speaker
on
page
7,
CC
43
points,
16
363,
391,
Yonge,
Street
and
3
Gerrard
Street
East
official
plan
amendment
and
zoning
amendment
application
to
request
for
directions.
You'll
note
speaker
that
yesterday
we
reopened
the
item
to
permit
the
city.
Solicitor
circulate
a
new
document
I'd
like
to
move
that
we
adopt
the
recommendations
in
the
supplementary
report.
K
Have
one
more
and
I
just
wanted
I'm
looking
at
councillor
Chris
ante,
because
this
was
his
member
motion.
Forty
three
point:
two
three
emergency
meeting
regarding
the
increase
in
gun
and
gang
violence
in
our
city,
I
have
a
friendly
amendment
which
the
councillor
is
agreeable.
I
just
want
to
clarify
that
we
can
have
this
report
come
back
to
our
next
city
council
meeting
the
meeting
of
20
July,
23rd,
24th
and
25th,
and
if
there's
no
other
debate,
I
think
we
could
probably
let
this
go
forward.
A
L
You
madam
Speaker
I'm
wondering
if
I
could
designate
an
item
as
time
specific
on
page
4
or
licensing
and
Standards
Committee,
LS,
26.2
I,
think
rink
counselor
care
Gianna's
first
stood
up.
He
asked
that
the
item
e
times
specific
to
Friday
morning
I've
had
requests
that
if
from
members
of
the
public
they'd
like
to
attend
and
we've
just
we've,
just
released
creation
of
a
Standing
Committee
on
housing,
so
I'm
moving
that
we
make
this
time
specific
immediately
after
ix35
point.
14
should
be
immediately
after
the
hydro
corporation
AGM
and
financial
audited
statements.
D
A
D
A
J
E
A
D
K
Part-Owner
story
on
a
point
of
order,
madam
Speaker
I
would
ask
that
we
reopen
forty
three
point:
two
three,
which
is
the
emergency
meeting
regarding
the
increase
in
gun
and
gang
violence
in
our
city.
Councillor
Cole
actually
has
an
amendment
as
well.
I
believe
we
can
deal
with
this
matter
rather
rather
quickly
and
before
the
composition
of
the
rough
room,
changes.
Okay,.
A
A
A
I
N
P
You
speaker
speaker
tonight
today
arise
with
mixed
emotions
to
recognize
that
it
was
exactly
95
years
ago,
this
Sunday,
the
Government
of
Canada,
passed
the
Chinese
Exclusion
Act
in
1923
banning
all
Chinese
immigration
to
Canada.
This
had
the
effect
of
permanently
separating
families,
making
Chinese
Canadians
second-class
citizens
under
the
law
and
legalizing
systemic
racism
against
Chinese
Canadians.
However,
this
form
of
legalized
racism,
racism
actually
began
38
years
earlier,
with
the
introduction
of
a
choice
head
tax
in
1885.
P
After
many
of
the
pioneer
generation
of
Chinese
Canadians
sacrificed
their
lives,
helping
to
connect
this
country
from
CSC,
allowing
the
Canadian
dream
of
Confederation
to
become
a
reality.
It
wasn't
until
1947
that
the
Government
of
Canada
repealed
this
racist
legislation
and
not
until
2006
after
numerous
redress.
P
Campaigns
led
by
the
chinese-canadian
community
was
an
apology
issued
by
the
Prime
Minister
of
Canada
in
my
own
city
hall
office
today,
I
keep
two
framed
documents,
one
for
my
grandfather,
Fred
Seto
and
one
for
my
great-grandfather,
Seto
son
wall,
both
who
were
forced
to
be
documented
under
this
shameful
legislation.
I
keep
these
documents
in
my
office
to
always
remind
me
of
how
much
progress
we've
made
as
a
society,
but
still
how
far
we
have
to
go.
P
95
years
after
the
introduction
of
the
Chinese
Exclusion
Act
Chinese
Canadians
have
become
leaders
across
our
city
and
across
our
country.
As
a
proud
member
of
the
Chinese
Canadian
community
of
Toronto,
it's
an
honor
to
stand
at
these
chambers
today
to
recommit
ourselves
to
never
forgetting
this
shameful
period
in
our
history,
Thank
You,
speaker.
A
Q
I
I
I
The
complaint
was
that
counselor
Michael
Thompson
contravened
article
8
of
the
code
of
conduct
from
the
council
by
making
or
directing
his
staff
to
make
inquiries
on
behalf
of
G
group,
the
principle
of
witches
councillor,
Thompson's
friend,
Albert
Gasparo.
That
was
the
first
complaint.
The
second
complaint
was
relating
to
allegations
of
contraventions
of
article
1416
of
the
code
of
conduct
for
allegations
that
councillor
Thompson
was
spreading
rumors
about
him
as
an
act
of
retaliation
for
the
first
comparison.
I
I
I
M
I
N
N
I
Surya,
madam
Speaker,
that
I'm
here
today
to
answer
questions
about
the
findings
in
the
report.
So
I'm
going
to
turn
to
what
I
said
in
the
report
about
the
about
that
issue.
In
relation
to
these
facts
and
what
I
said
in
that
report
was
that
the
finding
in
the
report,
although
I,
do
find
that
councillor
Thompson
contravened
the
code
of
conduct
for
assisting
his
friend.
The
report
does
not
stand
for
the
proposition
that
members
of
council
cannot,
in
answer
to
a
request
from
a
friend.
Provide
information
refer
a
matter
to
another
counselor
counselor.
N
I
A
R
N
R
N
In
this
particular
case,
we
have
a
complaint
by
another
counselor.
After
my
understanding
is
after
count,
the
councillor
Thompson
was
advised
that
there
has
been
some
inappropriateness
from
a
particular
council
by
putting
pressure
on
developers
in
this
particular
case,
his
friend,
and
in
doing
that
and
inquiring
about
council
pressure
your
times,
not
an
enquiring
about
the
pressure.
This.
This
item
has
come
up
because
councillor
Fillion
now
certain.
I
Through
you,
madam
Speaker
just
bear
with
me
one
minute.
Yes,
that
is
so
you
three,
madam
Speaker.
The
councillor
has
correctly
referred
to
a
portion
of
the
report,
the
advocacy
and
actions
of
councillor
Thompson.
That
were
that,
in
my
view,
crossed
the
line
in
in
contravention
of
article
8,
where
the
high
level
of
advocacy
to
prioritize
and
to
bring
the
matter
forward
with
city
staff,
and
so
in
this
case
the
councillor
used
his
influence
of
his
office
to
make
more
than
60
enquiries
of
city
staff.
About
the
progress
of
the
file.
I
S
I
read
the
report
with
great
interest,
but
you
said
so
there,
but
there's
a
contradiction
here
because
I
in
my
view,
because
I
would
think
that
if
he
did
something
improper,
it
would
have
been
in
his
interactions
with
staff
and
over
putting
too
much
pressure
on
staff.
But
you've
said
clearly
he
did
not
did
not
direct
any
substantive
staff
actions
or
or
outcomes
the
the
key
word
being
outcomes,
so
whatever
councillor
Thompson
did
did
not
affect
the
outcome
and
if
that
being
the
case,
how
can
there
be
any
fault
fine
found
with
him?
So.
I
Three
and
madam
Speaker
I
make
no
finding
about
whether
the
interventions
of
councillor
Thompson
have
impacted
the
overall
carriage
of
the
file,
but
the
the
issue
in
this
case
was
that,
as
a
member
of
council
being
one
of
only
forty
five
people
in
the
whole
city
of
Toronto,
that
can
do
this.
He
requested
updates
escalated,
concerns
and
arranged
meetings
to
further
the
progress
of
the
file,
and
that
this
was
in
response
to
a
request
from
a
friend
to
assist
with
that
purpose.
So.
S
I
want
to
come
back
to
something
else
in
the
report.
You
you
make
reference
to
councillor
for
duck
forward
when
he
was
a
counselor
here
and
his
actions
with
it
with
a
business
that
was
near
his
business
and
you
found
fault
with
councillor
Ford.
In
that
case
it
wasn't
about
a
friendship,
but
it
was
about
a
proceed:
pecuniary
interest
there.
There
was
no
pecuniary
interest
here
whatsoever
that
you
didn't
find
any
pecuniary
interest
on
the
part
of
councillor
of
councillor
Thompson,
and
you
drew
parallels
between
the
two
instances
and
I'm
confused
about
that.
Okay,.
I
S
S
Okay,
I
want
to
go
to
page
18.
You
write
the
advocacy
and
intervention
provided
by
counselor
Thompson
and
his
staff
was
beneficial
to
the
outcome
to
the
applicant.
However,
previously
you
had
said,
he'd
had
no
influence
on
the
staff
or
the
outcome.
So
how
possibly
that
those
that
those
are
two
very
contradictory
statements
you
found,
on
the
one
hand,
that
his
actions
had
had
no
effect
and
then
yet
you
said
they
were
beneficial
to
the
applicant
okay.
I
Through
you,
madam
Speaker,
under
the
did
the
discussion
around
article
12,
where
I
make
the
finding
that
there
was
no
no
directing
of
a
substantive
outcome,
was
to
an
ALICE
I
analyze
and
consider
whether
counselor
Thompson
had
improperly
directed
staff
to
do
anything
and
I
found
that
he
did
not.
So
the
analysis
that
you're,
referring
to
our
are
comparing
a
three
a
madam
Speaker
to
different
types
of
influence.
S
M
Thank
you,
madam
Speaker,
and
certainly
counselor
Campbell.
Thank
you
for
asking
some
of
my
questions,
but
I'll
go
to
page
20,
where
I
believe
counselor
Thomas
Thompson
had
asked
you
to
define
what
what
constitute
this
barrier
of
friendships,
and
you
wrote
back
that
no
such
definition
exists.
So
how
were
you
able
to
base
this
report
when
no
such
definition
exists
between
what
is
crossing
the
line
between
I
guess,
a
regular
constituent
and
someone
you've
known
on
a
personal
basis,
so.
I
Through
you,
madam
Speaker,
so
there
was
it.
This
was
not
a
regular
constituent.
This
was
about
an
application
in
another
part
of
the
word.
It
wasn't
one
of
counselor
Thompson's
residents,
the
and
the
facts
in
this
case
when,
after
the
investigation
were
clear,
that
the
reason
why
why
the
friend
of
councilor
Thompson
contacted
him
was
to
get
assistance
that
he
was
not
able
to
get
from
his
counselor
that
the
development
he
was
working
for
of
the
ward
on
which
that
development
existed
so.
M
I
Through
you,
madam
Speaker,
no
I
would
disagree
with
that
and
I
find
in
this
report
that
there
is
no
restriction
on
members
of
council
intervening
or
taking
action.
In
other
words,
that's
a
matter
of
democracy
prior
integrity.
Commissioner
David
Mullen
set
the
record
straight
on
that.
The
issue
in
this
case
was
the
evidence
in
this
investigation
showed
the
reasons
why
the
inquiry
was
made,
and
it
was
because
mr.
Guevara
was
friends
with
councilor.
I
M
So,
let's
go
one
step
further
when
it
comes
to
defining
the
friend.
If
someone
I,
I,
guess
I
threw
a
wedding,
I
wasn't
on
counsel.
At
the
time,
would
people
you
invite
to
a
son
or
daughter's
wedding
be
be
considered?
Friends
would
would
Facebook
friends
be
considered
friends
if
we
vote
here
on
a
matter,
that's
of
concern
to
a
friend.
Is
that
considered
inappropriate?
Should
we
declare
an
interest
if,
if
an
item
comes
up
of
someone,
we
know
personally
you're
all
over
the
place
here.
I
Shreya,
madam
Speaker,
the
I.
In
my
view,
the
report
is
clear
that
the
the
in
this
case
there
was
a
friendship.
It
was
in
fact
admitted.
So
it
was
not
a
case
that
helps
counsel
understand
better.
What
a
friend
is
it's
not.
That
is
not
a
finding
in
this
case,
so
we
can't
look
back
to
this
case
in
the
future
to
help
us
understand
what
friendship
means,
because
in
this
case
the
friendship
was
admitted,
these
are
lifelong
friends.
I
M
Now,
councillor
Thomas's
legal
counsel,
wrote
and
I
quoted
on
page
22
that
the
notion
that
a
friend
of
a
city
councillor
ought
to
be
denied
services
that
the
councillor
could
readily
provide
to
someone
who
was
not
a
friend.
So
our
friends
have
counselors
at
a
disadvantage
in
in
having
their
democratic
rights
or
their
voice,
heard.
City,
Hall
and.
I
M
A
A
E
I
I
E
I
E
A
D
I'm,
thank
you
through
you,
madam
Speaker
I
just
want
to
understand
the
role
of
counselors
on
the
planning
process.
So
very
often
with
planning
applications.
I
mean
I
have
a
number
of
them
and
I.
We
contact
staff
numerous
times
I.
We
are
going
through
an
end-to-end
review
and
actually
one
of
the
issues.
D
I
So
three,
madam
Speaker
I,
expressly
find
that
the
level
of
interaction
was
typical
and
fine,
and
what
one
would
expect
to
see
on
a
complex
file
like
this
I
mean,
but
that
in
this
case
that,
because
of
the
evidence
showing
the
reasons
why
the
contact
was
made
and
why
The
Invention
interventions
were
eventually
made.
There
was
a
code
of
conduct
issue,
but
the
the
actions
otherwise
we're
typical.
As
far
as
as
far
as
I'm
aware
two
of
counselors
in
a
company
with
a
counselor
having.
D
I
D
Pinpoint
the
fact
so
there
was
I
want
to
make
sure
that
you
know
somebody's
having
an
issue
in
the
city.
They
come
to
want
any
of
us
that
we
can
assist
them.
Okay,
yes,
it
is
fine
to
have
this
dialogue
happening
between
the
applicant
and
the
planning
department.
That
is
fine
as
well.
The
issue
that
you
are
that
you
identified
in
here
is
because
they
were
friends.
I
I
The
the
it
would
not
be
a
justification
in
this
case
on
these
facts
for
the
interventions
of
counselor
Thompson
undertook
the
reason
why
he
made
the
interventions
was
because
his
friend
asked
him
to
assist
with
something
that
another
counselor
was
not
helping
him
to
helping
him
with,
and
the
the,
in
my
view,
I.
That
is
a
contravention
of
article
8
is
an
improper
use
of
that
counselor's
authority.
O
I
So,
first
three,
madam
Speaker,
do
you,
in
reference
to
the
two
points
you
made?
The
reference
to
general
application
was
in
the
decision
at
stake
here
was
an
approval
of
a
particular
planning
file,
not,
for
example,
the
approval
of
a
zoning
bylaw
amendment
that
that
would
be
of
general
application.
This,
the
interventions
and
ledin,
and
the
council
decision.
This
related
to
was
a
particular
planning
file,
which
would
not
be
a
matter
of
general
application.
The
with
respect
to
the
interventions
that
councillor
thompson
undertook
what
I
found
was
that
it
was.
I
This
is
the
kind
of
thing
you'd
expect
to
see,
but
that
in
this
case
the
level
of
advocacy
was
at
the
highest
end
of
the
activities
in
which
accounts
or
could
possibly
engage.
The
influence
exerted
by
councillor
Thompson
consisted
of
follow-up
calls
provision
of
information
escalation
of
the
file
he
sought
for
the
file
to
be
prioritized
and
proceed
to
the
next
step.
O
The
was
the
fact
that
there
was
a
friendship
ever
used
as
an
asset
in
his
dealings
with
staff
did.
Did
you
find
any
way
that
he
said
you
know
this
is
a
friend
of
mine?
Can
you
make
sure
that
this
is
looked
after?
This
is
a
friend
of
mine.
This
is
really
important
to
me,
being
an
indirect
reference
to
the
friendship.
Did
you
find
anything
like
that?
I
Three
madam
Speaker,
on
page
22
I,
did
find
that
so
councillor
Thompson
did
not
conceal
his
assistance
and
support
of
his
friend.
He
was
transparent
throughout
that
he
was
making
the
increase
of
staff
and
vouching
for
G
group,
because
he
personally
knew
them
to
be
quote
good
guys.
So
he
did.
He
did
use
his
knowledge
of
them
as
friends
in
his
interactions
with
staff.
So.
O
I
3,
madam
Speaker
I
guess
all
he
can
point
to
is
that
it
was
a
part
of
the
findings.
It
was
and
that's
where
you
see
it
on
page
22
there
that
that
was
a
part
of
the
so
through
you,
madam
Speaker.
What,
in
all
of
the
cases
that
are
before
you
today,
a
large
amount
of
information
comes
before
me
in
the
form
of
interviews,
records,
review
of
manner
of
things,
and
the
information
I
think
is
important
for
you
to
understand
is
conveyed
in
the
pages
of
these
reports.
O
In
the
final
question
would
be
the
situation
happens
it
it's
part
of
life.
A
friend
goes
to
someone
they
know
and
says.
Can
you
help
me
with
this
I
trust?
You
I
need
your
help
and
we've
established
so
far
that
there
was
not
an
issue
of
jurisdiction
versus
one
ward
or
the
other.
What
could
councillor
Thompson
have
done
differently
other
than
refused
the
service?
Is
there
anything
that
could
have
mitigated
this
this
issue
so.
I
Three,
madam
Speaker,
the
reality
is
for
all
members
of
council
for
all
government,
all
members
of
any
legislature
around
the
world.
There
are
going
to
be
things
that
you
cannot
become
involved
with,
because
you
have
an
interest
in
them
whether
it
relates
to
yourself
or
to
your
friends
your
brother.
O
I
It's
true,
you
know
madam
Speaker
I
want
a.
You
know
mindful
of
this,
that
this
report
would
be
of
great
interest
to
members
of
council,
because
it
deals
with
the
concept
of
friends.
I
wanted
to
be
clear
that
sort
of
as
I
refer
to
them,
sort
of
casual,
salutary,
good
words
or
references
to
other
people
for
information
are
not
likely
going
to
run
you
afoul
of
the
code
of
conduct,
but
the
level
of
interaction
in
this
case
the
evidence
in
this
case.
I
J
You,
madam
Speaker,
in
reading
parts
of
this
report,
I'm
looking
at
for
me
anyway.
What
the
underlying
issue
seems
to
be-
and
that
is
the
normal
processing
of
an
application-
is
such
that
if
I
look
at
page
13
with
the
middle
of
the
page,
it
basically
says
that
things
started
to
break.
When
city
staff
became
aware
that
there
was
another
pair
of
eyes
on
the
file,
that
is
to
say
so,
there's
a
normal
processing,
sometimes
as
I
understand
the
other
report.
J
One
counselor
may
delay
the
processing
of
the
application
for
whatever
reason
and
an
applicant
might
when
he
feels
that
might
approach
another
counselor.
That
doesn't
mean
the
other
counselor
needs
to
be
a
friend,
but
he
might
approach
someone
else
and
basically
say
look
and
you
ask
someone
to
look
at
this
from
a
due
process.
Point
of
view
and
get
this
thing
moving.
So
that's
kind
of
the
impression
I
get
that
counselor
Thompson
interceded
to
have
to
make
sure
that
things
were
processing
or
were
we're
progressing
as
was
necessary
because
all
counselors
have
an
oversight
function.
I
J
I
I
Through
you,
through
you,
mr.
madam
Speaker,
pardon
me
I
again,
I
I,
don't
I,
don't
want
my
answer
to
be
seen
to
be
saying
that
your
questions
about
understanding
this
better
are
not
I,
don't
want
to
answer
them,
but
we're
talking
about
this
report
and
in
this
report
all
what
I
can
tell
you
is.
There
was
a
very
strong
and
long-lasting
friendship
at
stake
here.
Thank.
J
A
T
R
I
R
I
R
I
R
R
I
R
Okay,
so
part
of
the
there's,
the
second
part
of
the
complaint,
where
I
think
I
filed
that
I'm
gonna
go
quickly
because
we'll
get
a
read
at
a
time
there
was
a
I
filed
a
second
complaint
against
councilor
Thompson.
For
basically
for
his
allegations
against
me,
would
it
be
correct
to
say
that
you
found
that
councilor
Thompson
did
make
some
allegations
and
that
these
were
false.
I
So
three,
madam
Speaker
I
guess
so
what
I
could
say
in
response
to
that
is
I
did
find
that
councillor.
Thompson
was
asking
questions
and
speaking
to
other
people,
about
the
issues
he
raised
in
the
context
of
this
investigation
about
what
role
councilor
Fillion
was
playing
and
things
that
councilor
Fillion
had
done
was
specifically
with
respect
to
the
things
that
mr.
Goss
Farrow
told
him
I
concluded
that
those
things
were
not
the
way.
Mr.
Gasparo
said
they
were
so.
R
Okay,
so
so,
and
you
so,
but
you
didn't
find
on
that
on
my
second
complaint
you
didn't
find
councilor
Thompson
guilty.
Is
that
because
you
think
he
believed
it
to
be
true
or
so
why?
This
is
the
part
I
don't
understand
if
councilor
Thompson
was
making
allegations
against
me
and
if
those
allegations
were
untrue,
how
was
he
not
guilty
on
the
second
complaint.
I
So
three,
madam
Speaker,
as
I,
explained
in
the
report,
I
understood
and
made
my
ruling
about
the
other
allegation,
so
I
did
I
did
conclude
that
councilor
Thompson
did
not
contravene
articles,
12,
14
or
16,
because
I
understood
his
questions
and
discussions
to
be
further
to
his
defense
of
the
complaint
and
I
I
didn't
think
it
was
fair,
appropriate
to
penalize
him
for
that.
That's
the
reason
why
those
findings
are
there
so.
I
F
You,
madam
Speaker,
through
you
to
staff,
so
just
in
terms
of
clarifying
I'm,
going
to
actually
zoom
out
I.
Think
there's
a
lot
of
discussions
in
the
details
and
I
mean
this
is
a
different
approach.
But
on
paper
and
from
my
background
in
arguments
in
philosophy,
what
I'm
seeing
is
a
positive
premise,
a
positive
premise,
a
positive
premise,
a
negative
conclusion:
I'm
seeing
actions
were
ok,
nothing
was
done
outside
there.
All
level
of
interaction
is
ok,
no
monetary
benefit
and
the
conclusion
is
improper
influence.
F
I
3
a
madam
Speaker,
the
friendships
are
in
the
world
of
public
sector
ethics,
something
that
is
commonly
regulated
in
almost
every
code
of
conduct
for
elected
officials
and
public
servants.
There's
an
obligation
not
to
use
influence
to
benefit
friends
we,
regardless
of
whether
there's
a
pecuniary
or
financial
benefit
in
this
case.
On
this
evidence,
my
conclusion
was
that
the
interventions
were
because
of
the
friendship
and
therefore
inappropriate
sure.
F
I
P
P
The
other
report
we're
talking
about
a
friendship
between
a
counselor
developer
and
we're
also
talking-
and
you
refer
to
mr.
bells
in
here-
who
was
a
consultant
and
a
counselor
who
was
on
the
previous
file
and
that's
what
it
says
he
worked
on
this
application.
So
as
it's
about
the
development
application,
did
you
look
into
the
friendship
on
this
one
between
councilor,
Fillion
and
counselor
bells?
Oh
because,
if
they
were
friends,
would
they
not
have
worked
improperly
on
this
file
in
the
past?
So.
I
I
P
P
I
P
P
I
have
a
lot
of
friends:
I've
been
around
for
27
years.
I
have
a
friend
that
called
me
in
regards
to
a
development
application
and
councillor
burn,
sighs,
Lord,
which
I
contacted
the
counts,
thereon
to
see
if
they
could
be
helped.
They
consider
themselves
a
friend
because
they,
knowing
me
for
27
years.
D
P
Don't
associate
together,
we
don't
go
up
the
places
together
and
in
fact,
when
I
bring
in
new
staff,
the
first
thing
I
tell
them
is
you're
gonna
get
phone
calls
from
my
friends.
If
I'm
getting
phone
calls
from
my
friends
should
I
tell
them
that
I
can't
deal
with
those
because
they're
identifying
as
friends
of
mine
through.
P
Do
I
do
because
I
have
over
60,000
friends
that
I
represent
and
the
majority
of
people
that
call
my
office
their
first
identification.
Is
there
a
friend
of
mine,
they've
known
me
for
27
years,
I've
helped
them
on
things
in
the
past.
I
may
go
out
to
a
public
event
where
they're
at
I
may
be
at
other,
and
they
are
literally
consider
themselves
and
I
do
consider
those
friends.
I
Through
you,
madam
Speaker,
the
again
as
I've
already
said,
I
appreciate
that
this
report
will
be
of
great
interest
to
members
of
council,
because
it
deals
with
the
notion
of
friendship.
But
this
finding
in
this
conclusion,
was
based
on
some
very
detailed
and
comprehensive
events
that
occurred,
and
it
stands
for
the
proposition
that
this
evidence
supports
in
Toronto.
Members
of
council
can
consult
with
my
office
if
they
have
a
question
about.
I
K
Guess
I'm
just
curious
to
know
like
between
a
six-month
period
60
individual
contacts
were
made
between
councillor
Thompson
and
city
staff,
so
I'm
just
curious
to
know.
Was
it
60
contacts
in
six
month
with
one
staff
person
or
is
it
60
contacts
in
six
months
with
several
staff
people
I'm
just
curious
to
know
how
many
people
were
contacted
so.
K
I
K
That's
correct,
and,
and
in
your
findings
and
I'm
reading
your
report,
it
you
draw
a
conclusion
that
city
staff
relay
to
you
that
they
that
they
perceive
the
applicant
to
be
confused
by
the
process.
They
they
it's
somehow
it
be
fogs
this
particular
applicant
on
how
to
get
his
application
through
the
planning
process.
Do
you
stand
by
that
conclusion?
It's
in
your
report.
Three.
K
K
And
if
it's
not
done,
then
of
course
their
application
gets
stuck
and
there's
no
way
to
unstuck
it
until
until
the
obligation
and
the
request
for
additional
reporting
is
fulfilled.
Is
that
part
of
the
problem
is
this?
What
I'm
reading
in
this
report
why
this
application
somehow
got
stuck
or
the
perception
of
being
stuck
through.
I
You,
madam
Speaker
again
I,
mean
I,
know
I,
don't
make
any
conclusions,
I'm
not
planning
to
make
any
conclusions
about
the
status
of
video
like
that.
That
type
of
thing
on
this
file.
But
the
paragraph
in
the
report
is
clear:
I
think
that
there
was
a
view
among
city
staff
that
the
applicant
experienced
challenges
because
they
were
unfamiliar
with
the
procedural
requirements.
They
had
never
made
an
application
before
in
Toronto
and
that
some
of
the
delays
that
they
experienced
were
attributed
to
their
own
actions
and
unfamiliarity
with
the
relevant
procedures.
I
K
Would
the
would
the
city
staff
not
have
provided
some
very
clear
instructions,
you
generally
in
writing,
or
even
in
a
pre
formal
pre-application,
a
conversation
that
says
you
need
to
satisfy
these
particular
matters
and
there's
a
whole
checklist
when
an
application
is
deemed
complete
and
there's
a
whole
checklist
and
a
process
that
goes
through
a
whole
series
of
checks
and
balances
before
a
planning.
Application
can
be
properly
processed
from
beginning
to
end
until
the
staff
are
able
to
write
a
concluding
report
in
either
the
positive
or
the
negative
or
the
applicant.
K
Mike
my
question,
madam
Speaker
and
I
really
am
so
curious,
is
how
is
it
that
we
are
able
to
if,
if
an
applicant
is
inexperienced
by
the
planning
process,
decides
to
circumvent
the
planning
process
and
appeals
to
a
friend
who
happens
to
be
a
city
councilor
and
the
city
councilor?
Then
a
contact
city
staff
60
times
to
see
if
they
can
get
this
thing
moving?
How
is
it
that
the
applicant
is
not
part
of
the
problem
because
they
didn't
understand
the
problem?
That
was
your
last
question.
C
The
allegations
about
councillor
Fillion,
even
though
I
know
it's
in
the
subsequent
report.
As
I
conclude
in
the
other
report,
the
evidence
does
not
support
that
assertion
and
that
assertion
was
a
rumor
that
there
was
some
kind
of
improper
arrangement
or
referral
scheme,
and
you
conclude
that
that
was
not
the
case.
3A.
C
There
was
delay,
but
that
delay
came
from
the
review
of
this
file
that
was
being
conducted
by
the
planning
staff,
not
by
any
steps
that
councilor
Fillion
took
to
delay
it.
In
fact,
it
seems
to
me
you've
concluded
several
times
that
councilor
Fillion
kept
saying
deal
with
the
staff.
That's
where,
if
you
have
issues
you
should
deal
with
the
staff
right.
I
So
three
amount
of
speaker:
I
did
you
know
I
did
understand
mr.
Gus
Barrow
to
be
saying
there
was
delay
and
he
characterized
the
project
as
simple
and
I
do
make
a
finding
that
it
was
not
simple
the
way
he
understood
it
again.
I
don't
find
any
make
any
conclusions
about
whether
it
took
as
long
as
it
should
have
or
didn't
take
that
long
as
it
should
have,
but
the
evidence
I
found
that
the
evidence
showed
and
through
all
the
entries
I
did
with
staff
on
this
file
that
the
it
was
complex.
I
I
A
C
The
other
part
that
interests
me
so
then
mr.
Gasparo
got
frustrated
and
he
went
to
councillor
Thompson
his
friend.
There's
no
question
about
that.
The
facts
are
clear
about
that
and
then
councillor
Thompson
appeared
to
escalate
it
and
one
of
the
places
he
appeared
to
escalate
it
to
was
the
mayor's
office.
Is
that
correct?
A
3.
I
C
I
So
the
the
evidence
of
mr.
Gus
Sparrow,
which
is
described
in
the
report,
is
important,
so
he
testified
that
from
his
perspective,
it
was
not
until
councilor
Thompson
became
involved
that
the
matter
became
to
progress
began
to
progress.
He
explained
to
me
that
he
believed
that
things
started
to
break.
When
the
city
staff
became
aware
there
was
another
pair
of
eyes,
but
importantly,
he
also
said
to
me
that
the
reason
he
called
her
spoke
to
councilor
Thompson
was
because
he
was
the
only
guy.
He
really
knew
at
the
city.
C
A
N
Gonna
move
receipt
of
this
report
and
I'm
gonna
speak
to
this,
because
this
is
a
long
history
with
respect
to
complaints
that
have
come
to
councillors.
With
this
issue
and
I
think
that
this
is
what's
happened
with
the
complaint
that
went
to
councillor
Thompson,
whether
it
was
a
friend
or
not,
it's
pretty
consistent
with
all
the
other
complaints
that
have
come
to
us
and
how
they've
been
dealt
with
in
the
past
about
councillor,
Fillion
and
counts,
and
mr.
Belzer.
N
The
complaints
that
have
come
to
my
office
in
the
past
I
also
have
tried
to
find
out
information
for,
and
the
reaction
from
councillor,
Fillion
and
I'll
tell
you
what
it
was
a
few
years
ago
in
the
then
mayor,
Miller's
seat
was
that
my
friendship
with
you
is
over.
If
you
continue
asking
about
this
particular
person,
my
friendship
is
over
and
I'm
coming
after.
You
is
what
what
his
words
were
back
then
so
I'm
gonna
say.
R
C
Unfortunately,
you
were
involved
in
a
conversation
with
the
mayor
staff
and
you
did
not
hear
counselor
ma'am,
a
lady
who
made
unfounded
allegations
and
aspersions
about
a
member
in
this
chamber
that
does
not
have
any
bearing
on
what
is
before
us.
It
is
completely
inappropriate
what
councillor
mammal
lady
said
and
I
asked
him
to
withdraw
those
remarks.
C
C
R
R
Mention
name
I
think
he
was
referring
to
me,
but
I
know
we
had
an
incident
yesterday
where
a
councillor
didn't
hear
right,
so
I
wasn't
sure
whether
he
was
referring
to
me
or
to
mayor
Miller
and
I.
Think
it
was
to
me,
but
I
just
want
to
clarify
that
and
if
that's
the
case,
that
I
would
ask
for
a
retraction
of
that.
If
he
was
referring
to
me.
N
S
R
A
A
S
A
N
N
A
N
A
N
Doesn't
mean
I'm
not
gonna,
bring
it
up
later,
if
I'm
asked
to
at
the
end
of
the
day,
I'm
talking
about
the
complaint
from
a
particular
developer
that
went
to
councillor
Thompson
friend
or
not,
it's
pretty
consistent
with
the
complaints
that
have
come
to
many
of
us
as
counselors,
with
respect
to
the
relationship
of
one
of
a1
counselor
and
mr.
Belzer.
That
has
been
consistent
in
this
place
for
years
and
those
particular
complaints
have
even
gone
to
the
courts.
C
A
D
C
R
I
I
would
echo
that
except
I'm
not
really
cuz
I
can
fight
back
I'm
I
have
I,
get
to
stand
up
and
speak
as
well,
but
there's
another
individual
who
has
been
after
an
exhaustive
investigation,
found
to
have
done
nothing
whatsoever
wrong
and
we
have
a
counselor
standing
up
impugning
that
person's
reputation.
I,
don't
know
what
the
rules
are
for
libel
and
slander,
and
all
that
kind
of
thing
in
this
chamber,
but
I
suggest
that
you
protect
us
all
by
not
allowing
that
kind
of
defamation
and
this
chamber
against
a
citizen
of
the
city.
Thank.
A
A
N
N
A
N
A
N
N
D
D
N
Speaker,
the
emotions
got
quite
high
with
myself,
because
she
wanted
to
cut
me
off
of
speaking.
There
was
information,
I
was
hoping
to
get
out,
and
I
will
do
that
with
the
next
item
on
the
agenda.
I
apologize
for
for
my
conduct,
but
I
do
wish
to
speak
to
this
item
in
the
next
agenda
and
bring
out
some
information
that
might
be.
People
might
not
know.
N
The
question
becomes.
Do
we
accept
this
report
in
front
of
us
based
on
the
interpretation
of
this
integrity,
Commissioner
on
the
policy
that's
set,
or
do
we
revisit
the
policy?
I'd
asked
us
to
revisit
the
policy,
because
this
isn't
finished.
Each
of
us
have
people
that
have
come
to
us
all.
It
takes
is
one
complaintant
to
say
that
it's
a
friend
that
it's
somebody
that
that
we've
known
in
the
past
people,
like
myself
over
twenty
eight
year
period,
people
call
me
my
friend
all
the
time.
N
So
if
someone
calls
you
their
friend,
it
seems
like
this
integrity.
Commissioner
will
determine
that.
That's
the
case
and
if
that's
the
case
and
you
take
on
a
file,
then
we're
gonna
expect
a
lot
of
these.
These
these
recommendations
in
the
future,
so
I've
asked
the
clerk
whether
or
not
we
can
actually
look
at
changing
this.
The
answer,
the
question
is
yes,
but
we
can't
do
it
today.
N
N
R
N
That
I
believe
that
there
are
counselors
in
this
chamber
that
are
treated
differently
than
others,
that
the
policy
that
is
interpreted
by
one
person
will
be
interpreted
many
different
ways,
depending
on
someone's
someone's
personality
and
who
they
are
in
the
chamber
and
whether
or
not
they
think
this
report
will
go
through
based
on
friendships
within
this
council
chamber.
So
there's
one
thing
about
friendships
on
the
outside:
there
were
other
things
about
friendships
here,
I,
don't
hide
behind
the
fact
that
I'm,
tough
on
bureaucrats
does
that
make
you
their
friend.
Probably
not.
N
Some
of
you
are
some
of
you
consider
yourselves
Friends
of
bureaucrats,
I,
wonder
whether
or
not
the
same
kind
of
report
would
be
written
about
you
than
me.
If
it's
about
friendships
I
wonder
whether
or
not
we're
doing
the
right
thing
and
placing
the
policies
in
front
of
us
to
let
one
individual
like
a
God
interpret
what
that
actually
means
based
on
every
single
one
of
us
and
our
personalities,
don't
you
see
that
that's
what
we're
doing
here
today?
It's
councillor,
Thompson
and
I,
hope
I.
N
M
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Madam
Speaker
I
quote
page
14
of
the
report.
I
have
concluded
the
diligent
interventions
by
counselor
Thompson
and
the
staff
did
not
direct
any
substantive
stack
act,
staff
actions
or
outcomes.
I
am
satisfied.
Although
persistent
the
inquiries
were
respectful
of
the
city,
staffs
professional
responsibilities,
that
is
the
integrity.
Commissioner,
writing
I
now
go
to
legal
counsel
of
counselor
Thompson
and
I
quote.
It
makes
little
sense
that
mr.
Gustavo
status
is
a
friend
of
counselor.
M
Thompson
should
preclude
him
from
receiving
the
assistance
from
the
counselor
that
was
provided
when
he
encountered
serious
obstacles
to
his
company's
planned
project
in
counselor,
fill-ins,
Ward
and
I.
Add
the
actions
of
counselor
Thompson
here
at
issue
constitute
only
the
reasonable
conduct
of
a
diligent
counselor
who
has
made
aware
of
the
significant
problems
encountered
by
an
individual
who
happens
to
be
his
friend
and
for
whom
there
seem
to
be
no
alternative
means
a
recourse.
Those
are
the
words
of
the
integrity,
commissioner.
M
Those
are
the
words
of
a
distinguished
legal
scholar
and
I
also
go
to
page
20
of
the
report.
Where
the
integrity
commissioner
says,
there's
no
definition
that
exists
of
what
constitutes
a
friend
and
then
you
go
down
three
paragraphs
later
and
the
and
the
integrity
Commissioner
then
defines
the
relationship
between
counselor
tonsure
Thompson
and
mr.
Gasparo
as
good
friends.
Even
though
there's
no
such
definition,
I
think
that
helping
helping
friends
is
wrong
when
the
rules
are
broken
or
there's
there
skipping
steps
or
there's
some
kind
of
benefit.
This
is
not
the
case
here.
M
There's
no
definition
of
what
friends
are
our
friends,
people
who
click
your
Facebook
site
and
and
call
you
a
friend,
our
friends,
the
people
you
invite
to
a
senator
daughter's
wedding,
our
friends,
the
people
who
live
down
the
street,
who
call
you
because
they're
garbage
wasn't
picked
up
so
I'm
very
concerned
about
about
what's
before
us
and
I,
certainly
believe
that
the
the
code
of
conduct
should
be
should
be
amended.
So
that
is
clear,
and
these
provisions
are
either
more
clearly
defined
or
taken
taken
out
completely.
M
I
would
say
that
trying
to
define
what's
before
us
here
is
like
no
better
than
hammering
jelly
to
the
wall,
and
I
would
say
also
that
if
this
was
in
councilor
Thompson's
ward,
we
wouldn't
be
here.
We
wouldn't
even
be
discussing
this
issue
because
we
all
know.
We
all
know
that
when,
when
applicants,
when
constituents
have
problems
with
various
various
processes,
whether
it's
understanding
the
process,
whether
they
feel
there's
non-response
from
staff,
we
do
get
on
the
phone.
We
make
a
phone
call
to
see
where
their
file
is.
M
We
do
send
an
email
to
help
them
out.
Sometimes
we
arrange
a
meeting
to
get
everybody
together.
So
there's
clarity
on
what
the
process
is,
and
that's
really
what
goes
on
here.
So
all
of
us,
the
bottom
line
is
all
of
our
constituents
are
to
be
treated
equally.
They
are
taxpayers.
There
are
people
who
live
in
the
City
of
Toronto
as
elected
representatives,
where
it's
very
important
that
we
advocate
for
them,
and
we
cannot
have
a
differentiation
between
people.
M
M
Although
it
was
a
complaint
that
the
integrity
Commissioner
obviously
felt
warranted
report,
I,
don't
think
concert,
Thompson
did
anything
wrong
or
something
we
would
all
certainly
do
to
help
help
get
business
done
across
across
the
city,
so
with
that
I
would
support
receipt
and
and
not
move
any
further
on
on
any
kind
of
sanction.
Thank
you.
Thank.
C
This
is
a
difficult
one.
It's
a
very
difficult
one.
I
think
councillor
Thompson
operates
at
the
highest
ethical
standard,
I
respect,
councillor,
Thompson
I,
believe
councillor
Thompson
thought
that
what
he
was
doing
was
appropriate
I
think
councillor
Thompson
believed
that
he
was
asserting,
advocating
and
assisting
to
speed
up
a
development
application.
C
He
had
a
close
relationship
with
a
friend
who
went
to
tiff
with
them
a
friend
who
went
to
a
variety
of
events
with
him
and
there's
nothing
wrong
with
those
things,
except
he
had
a
multi-million
dollar
application
coming
before
this
council,
and
so
when
we
have
a
friend,
a
neighbor,
a
family
member
who
is
coming
to
us
for
a
fence
exemption,
a
tree
removal,
a
development
application.
A
committee
of
adjustment
application
anything
of
that
nature.
C
C
That
is
exactly
what
this
code
of
conduct
is
about.
It's
about
reducing
the
influence
on
decisions
around
the
circle.
What
is
so
clear
in
the
report,
too,
is
that
this
applicant
was
used
to
working
in
Mississauga.
No
I
don't
want
to
make
disparaging
remarks
bulk
all
the
political
process
in
Mississauga,
but
clearly
he
felt
the
way
to
get
things
done
here,
and
he
said
that
is
to
go
to
a
friend,
because
that's
how
you
get
things
done
in
other
jurisdictions.
C
That
cannot
be
how
you
get
things
done
in
Toronto
and
what
did
councillor
Fillion?
Do
he
kept
saying,
go
to
the
staff?
Go
talk
to
the
staff,
go
talk
to
the
staff.
Mr.
guest
Farrell
thought
he
could
come
into
Toronto
and
say:
oh
that
I'll
just
buy
that
up
that
developers
abandon
that
project.
I'll
just
buy
that
land
and
I'd
walk
in
and
get
that
approval
tomorrow.
Sorry,
it
was
far
more
complicated
than
that.
C
There
were
land
transactions
needed
to
be
done,
there
needed
to
be
new
applications,
and
we
know
in
this
place
an
application
can
take
18
months,
so
there
was
no
delay
that
could
be
attributed
to
councillor
Fillion
or
even
to
the
Planning
Division
for
an
undo
or
inexplicable
reason.
It
was
a
complicated
project.
C
And
I
feel
badly
that
I'm
going
to
vote
for
the
the
integrity
commissioners
report
that
says
to
councillor
Thompson.
You
can't
do
that
and
I'm
sorry,
my
counselor
Thompson,
but
this
is
a
report
that
is
a
reminder
to
everyone
in
this
chamber
about
what
our
code
of
conduct
means
and
it
applies
to
everyone
in
this
chamber.
If
we
have
a
friend
seeking
cue
some
kind
of
approval,
councillor
David
chan.
G
Thank
you
very
much,
madam
Speaker
I'm
not
going
to
comment
on
this
particular
father
chorus,
but
I
do
want
to
say
the
following:
when
we
had
the
Bellamy
inquiry,
which
is
where
we
actually
started
the
process
of
having
an
integrity,
commissioner,
guess
what
the
purpose
of
that?
Well,
what
the
conclusion
of
the
Belgae
inquiry
was
this
that
we
municipalities
need
to
establish
an
integrity
commission,
commissioner,
so
that
they
can
and
establish
a
code
so
that
we
can
assess
the
appropriateness
or
inappropriateness
of
our
behavior.
G
As
elected
officials,
it
was
meant
to
depoliticize
what
had
previously
been
a
political
process
and
guess
what
this
is
not
only
politicized.
Now
it
has.
It
is
over
politicized,
because
now
we
have
a
third
party
reporting
to
Council
on
an
adjudication
that
they
have
made
so
holy
smokes
do
I
ever
feel
torn
and
twisted
and
confused
by
it
all
I,
don't
think
I'm
in
a
position
as
the
part
of
the
government
process.
That
is
the
executive
and
perhaps
the
legislative
part
of
local
government
to
be
in
the
role
of
judiciary
as
well.
G
I,
don't
think
we
we
should
be
relitigated
the
case
or
the
issues
at
the
council
level.
We
either
receive
it
and
at
the
court
of
public
opinion,
decide
or
we
let
the
act.
The
motions
of
the
recommended
by
the
integrity
commissioner
stand
and
let
them
pass
and
then
be
done
with
it.
It
is
not
about
us
we
need
to.
We
need
to
fix
this
in
the
new
term.
We
need
to
fix
this.
Mr.
mayor,
we
need
to
find
a
different
way
of
managing
this.
G
It
should
not
be
coming
here,
it
should
become,
it
should
be
going
elsewhere,
sent
to
the
court
of
public
opinion
and
let
it
lie
there.
But
if
this
is
this
should
not
be
the
body
that
basically
has
these
kinds
of
debates.
I
this
is
grossly
uncomfortable
to
me
where
personal
relations
are
confused,
with
executive
functions
and
legislative
functions,
and
now
we
have
to
throw
in
a
judicial
function
as
well.
We
are
not
we're
totally
compromised
in
our
ability
to
do
the
right
thing
here.
I
just
need
to
throw
that
as
part
of
the
conversation.
K
You
very
much
madam
Speaker
I
will
not
be
supporting
the
receipt
of
this
of
this
report.
I
think
that
before
us
is
a
report
that
is
a
reminder
about
the
public
trusts
that
we
have
with
members
of
the
public,
and
this
Trust
has
got
to
have
consequences
when
found
in
breach
of
contravention
of
the
code
of
conduct,
even
if
it
was
unintentional,
even
if
it
was
with
best
intentions,
because
it's
actually
that
important.
K
You
know,
madam
Speaker,
we
we
are
all
at
times
going
to
make
mistakes,
and
and
and
when
those
mistakes
are
made.
I
think
that
it's
important
for
us
to
take
a
moment
to
reflect
upon
our
actions
about
whether
or
not
we
could
have
done
things
differently
and
certainly
I
know.
I
have
made
my
share
of
mistakes
and
and
I've
certainly
gone
back
and
revised
some
of
those
actions
and
actually
step
forward
and
say
I'm,
sorry
to
anyone
that
I
may
have
harmed
in
this
case.
K
I
think
that
there
has
to
be
a
position
taken
by
that
by
this
council
when
a
mistake
is
made
and
clearly
the
integrity.
Commissioner
has
said
a
mistake
was
made.
The
improper
use
of
influence
contravention
of
the
code
of
conduct,
which
is
to
me
absolutely
critical
if
we
want
to
support
and
serve
the
public
with
with
wholehearted
honesty
and
integrity.
K
These
applications
are
generally
circulated
to
about
20
different
division,
ten
of
them
in
hard
copies,
10
of
them
electronically.
If
there
is
anything,
that's
not
aligned,
yes,
those
divisions
will
flag.
It
and
say
we
need
more
information,
or
perhaps
this
is
not
supportable
or
we
are
going
to
a
peer
review.
We
disagree
and
if
they
disagree,
madam
speaker,
they're
gonna
get
stuck
and
it
happens
all
the
time
the
staff
are
trying
to
get
a
pause
to
get
to
a
positive
conclusion.
K
I
know
that
to
be
true,
because
they
tell
me
all
the
time
they
would
rather
come
to
a
conclusion
here
on
the
floor
of
Council,
madam
Speaker,
as
opposed
to
take
their
chances
at
the
Ontario
Municipal
Board.
So
they
really
work
hard
to
make
it
work
and
there
are
times
where
they
cannot.
When
you
have
someone
coming
to
the
city
to
Toronto
who
doesn't
know
the
rules
who
don't
know
that
you
need
to
hire
this
person
or
that
person
or
perhaps
may
not
have
all
their
ducks
lined
up,
the
staff
will
do
this.
K
They
will
provide
three
references.
These
are
perhaps
some
municipal
consultants
that
you
may
want
to
interview
and
hire
at
your
own
cost
at
your
own
discretion
and
and
then
they
do
that
and
then
the
process
will
start
again.
How
often
is
it
madam
Speaker?
We
do
have
sometimes
external
counselors
that
have
a
friend
who
wants
to
know.
Can
you
help
make
something
happen
for
me,
because
I
have
an
issue
in
a
particular
counselors,
ward
and
I'm,
not
getting
the
answer
I
want.
We
all
have
them.
K
I
know,
because
certainly
I
have
had
a
number
of
enquiries
from
many
of
the
members
here
about.
How
can
their
friends
make
things
happen
in
war,
27
and
generally?
What
ends
up
happening?
Madam
Speaker
is
that
friend
or
anybody
is
lobbying,
a
counselor
that
counselor
will
say
Kristen.
Can
you
pay
particular
attention
to
this
matter
and
I
say
yes,
thank
you
very
much
so
they'll
bring
me
the
courtesy.
K
They'll
have
the
courtesy
to
actually
say:
can
you
actually
just
spend
a
little
bit
more
time
on
it,
and
it's
actually
that
simple,
it
happens
all
the
time
it
actually
happens
once
every
two
weeks,
I
get
a
referral.
Saying?
Can
you
look
into
this
and
that
is
generally
the
end
of
it?
What
we
don't
have
I
have
never
experienced
this
I've,
never
experienced
anybody
contacting
my
office
60
times
in
six
months.
Saying
hey,
can
you
look
into
this?
K
Can
you
look
into
this
and
I
can
only
imagine
that
that
the
staff
who
are
working
with
massive
work
plans
to
get
all
sorts
of
things
off
their
desk
if
their
contact
is
60
times
in
six
months
to
try
to
get
something
through
the
door
for
one
particular
individual?
It's
actually
going
to
elongate
their
process,
they're,
making
it
worse
and
Thank.
E
Thank
you,
madam
Speaker.
This
is
absolutely
a
cautionary
tale.
I'm,
not
sure
if
it
rises
to
the
defining
of
fault.
I
do
have
concerns
on
both
sides.
Counselor
Pasternak,
when
he
talks
about
friendship
and
fate,
is
a
facebook
friend,
a
friend
I,
really
do
think
it
trivializes.
What
we're
talking
about
I
think
it's
being
clearly
established.
E
Celso
Thompson
had
a
bonafide
friendship
but
I
think
we're
in
this
weird
situation
where
our
our
wards
are
really
treated
as
fiefdom
and
you
know
don't
go
into
my
ward.
I
don't
go
into
your
ward,
but
certainly
when
there
are
situations
where
we're
approached
and
usually
you
know,
and
that
can
be
friendships.
I,
don't
see
a
problem
of
asking
questions.
I
know
on
developments.
I've
dealt
with,
3040
calls,
isn't
out
of
the
ordinary
60
might
be
on
the
high
end.
I
may
not
do
that.
Much
for
a
friend.
E
Section
article
7-
this
is
the
most
important
part
to
me:
diligent
interventions
by
councilor
Thompson
and
his
staff
did
not
direct
any
substantive
staff
actions
or
outcomes
and
further
went
on
to
say,
I'm
satisfied
that,
although
persistent
inquiries
we
respectful
of
the
city
staff
and
professional
responsibilities,
so
absolutely
I
would
not
make
60
calls
I
think
moving
forward,
we
all
will
will
think
twice,
I'm,
just
not
sure
that
a
finding
a
fault
is
justified
in
this
situation.
Thank
you.
Thank.
D
To
McMahon,
thank
you,
madam
Speaker.
I
just
wanted
to
commend
our
seyh
staff
for
for
their
integrity,
obviously
integrity,
commissioner,
and
their
hard
work
and
I
would
I
just
want
to
comment
that
you
know
we.
We
have
to
continue
to
be
respectful
to
city
staff
if
we,
even
if
we
don't
like
the
message
that
they're
giving
us.
If
we
don't
like
the
advice,
we
still
wear,
we
we
need
to
be
mindful
we're
in
a
position
of
power.
L
Thank
you,
madam
Speaker
I'm,
going
to
rise
to
say
that
I
cannot
support
the
final
recommendations
of
the
integrity,
Commissioner's
Office
I,
actually
for
all
three
reports
that
have
been
before
us
today
and
the
reports
that
have
been
before
this
chamber
in
the
past
have
found
them
very,
very,
very
valuable,
I.
Don't
think
I
hope,
there's
no
one
in
this
chamber
that
still
thinks
that
maybe
we
shouldn't
have
an
in
the
accountability
offices
in
general
or
the
the
integrity
Commissioner's
Office
or
the
Ombudsman's
office,
or
the
Auditor
General's
Office.
L
These
are
important
documents
and
I
as
an
officeholder.
Really,
when
the
agenda
came
out,
first
I
read
it
online,
then
I
actually
got
hardcopy
I
printed
out
hard
copies,
cuz
reading
it
online.
For
me,
just
wasn't
enough
because
I
need
the
the
hard
copy
in
front
of
me.
I
need
to
circle
things
star
things
put
question
marks,
buy
things
and
allow
me
to
reflect
upon
it
and
allow
it
to
to
absorb
it
and
to
let
it
soak
in
and
I've
done
that
with
all
three
reports.
L
Yeah
I
understand
the
clause
saying
that
you
shouldn't
help
a
friend
and
I
certainly
agree
with
that.
You
shouldn't
help
a
friend.
Certainly,
do
anything
untoward
get
a
permit
waived
or
if
there's
a
land
transaction,
get
a
lower
appraised
value
or
get
a
negative
staff
recommendation
turned
into
a
positive
staff
recommendation.
L
Those
to
me
would
be
obvious
violations
of
our
code
of
conduct
violations
of
our
oath
of
office
violations
of
our
own
moral
code
as
individuals,
but
none
of
that
in
this
circumstance
happened
in
fact,
if
the
company
who
I've
never
met
before
don't
know
them
never
met
them,
don't
know
anything
about
them.
If
that
company
hadn't
known
councilor
Thompson,
and
he
had
done
the
exact
same
thing,
there
would
be
no
recommendation
against
councilor
Thompson.
L
L
The
fact
that
there's
a
relationship
and
a
friendship
suddenly
becomes
a
violation,
and
when
you
look
at
the
report,
the
calls
that
were
made
from
councillor
Thompson's
office,
none
of
them
were
inappropriate.
None
of
them
were
crossing
a
line.
None
of
them
were
asking
for
special
favors,
and
none
of
them
are
asking
for
changes
in
any
staff
positions.
All
they
were
asking
for
was
a
fair
hearing.
That's
it.
One
councillor
intervened
in
another
councillors,
Ward
to
make
sure
that
an
applicant
got
a
fair
hearing.
L
If
it
happened
in
my
ward
and
I
know,
many
of
us
over
the
years
have
become
alcoholic
territorial
in
a
in
a
normal
course
of
events.
I
happen
to
be
in
Scarborough
centre,
most
development
applications,
most
liquor
license
permits
most
noise
exemptions
come
to
the
local
city
councillor
and
we
take
care
of
our
own
geographic
territory.
I
as
a
practice
would
never
go
up
to
Ward
23
or
over
to
Scarborough,
Rouge,
River
or
anywhere
else,
because
I've
got
enough
on
my
plate.
L
Looking
after
my
own
Ward
but
I
have
to
say,
if
a
stranger
came
up
to
me
and
said
up
in
Scarborough,
River
I'm
having
problems
with
the
local
councillor,
I
think
there's
something
wrong
going
on.
I
I
might
intervene.
I
might
feel
compelled
as
the
deputy
mayor
representing
the
East
End
of
the
city,
to
make
sure
that
that
application
applicant,
whoever
they
may
be,
got
a
fair
hearing.
Nothing
against
any
other
local
councillor,
but
I
might
feel
I
might
feel
obliged
to
do
that.
Whether
they
are
a
friend
or
not,
wouldn't
make
any
difference.
L
So
I
look
at
the
conclusions.
I
don't
agree
with
them.
In
this
case,
I
am
actually
glad
that
this
report
is
before
us.
I
am
glad
that
it
allows
us
all
to
reflect
on
what
we
shouldn't
shouldn't
do
as
councillors
I
can
find
no
fault
with
councillor
Thompson
or
his
office
and
in
in
their
interactions.
There's
been
no
faults
found
in
terms
of
the
transactions
that
happened
so
I.
Look
at
and
I
go.
Yes,
I
have
to
remember
that
I
I
know
many
people
I
have
many
friends.
Somebody
calls
me
and
says
Glenn.
L
Can
you
help
me
with
this?
My
answer
is
yes,
but
not
because
they
are
my
friend
it's
because
they
are
constituent.
So
if
somebody
from
the
Rabi
tournament
calls
me
I
happen
not
to
know
many
developers,
but
if
somebody
from
the
robbery
Robbi
tournament
calls
me
or
the
autistic
center
calls
me
I
intervene
as
a
counselor,
because
I
try
to
make
sure
everybody.
B
So
I
have
I,
find
it
deeply
difficult.
For
that
reason,
and
I
will
admit
and
having
read
in
depth
all
three
of
the
reports
and
I'm
only
going
to
speak
once
and
I
will
speak
very
briefly
in
general
terms,
to
all
three
and
I
will
admit
that
while
I
have
some
questions
and
even
I
would
say
some
concerns
concerning
some
aspects
of
in
all
three
cases.
The
reports
I
am
unwilling
and
and
moreover,
uncomfortable
to
act
as
a
judiciary
and
in
doing
so
to
overrule
a
third
party
into
pendant
integrity.
B
Commissioner
and
so
I
find
this
and
while
I
find
this
deeply
difficult
because
it
is
concerning
three
people,
all
of
whom
I
consider
to
be
both.
Colleagues
and
friends,
I
think
the
fairest
approach
that
I
can
take
as
a
counselor
is
to
accept
the
findings
in
all
three
cases.
Despite
questions
or
concerns,
I
may
have.
That
is
what
I
believe
to
be
the
fairest
and
most
appropriate
approach
that
I
can
take
Thank
You.
G
Wasn't
going
to
speak
on
this
matter,
but
after
having
heard
everyone
speak,
I
felt
compelled
to
do
so.
I'm
gonna
take
the
personalities
out
of
out
of
this
matter,
and
I'm
gonna
speak
to
all
three
reports.
At
the
same
time,
you
know
when
I
saw
these
three
reports
before
us.
I
read
all
of
them
very
carefully
and
I
thought
we
would
discuss
them
very
briefly,
adopt
them
move
on,
and
that
would
be
the
end
of
it.
But
we've
gone
into
this
report
in
particular
in
great
depth.
G
You
know
I
was
involved
many
years
back
in
writing.
The
original
code
of
conduct
for
members
of
council
and
I
think
I
understand
it
pretty
well.
I've
heard
a
lot
of
comments
around
the
chamber
today,
both
on
the
code
of
conduct
and
on
the
conflict
of
interest,
and
my
advice
to
the
next
council
would
be
to
do
more
training
on
both
of
those
because
I
think
a
lot
of
folks
around
the
horseshoe
here
aren't
quite
getting
it
and
aren't
really
understanding
what
the
code
of
conduct
means.
What
conflict
of
interest
is
I?
G
Don't
find
these
reports
particularly
exciting
I,
don't
find
them
particularly
traumatic
I've,
been
involved
in
privy
to
much
deeper
and
more
concerning
ones
than
these.
These.
These
are
not
hugely
worrisome
reports.
Well,
it's
more
worrisome
to
me,
though,
are
the
comments
that
I've
heard
around
the
horseshoe
and
the
apparent
lack
of
understanding
of
the
Code
of
Conduct
and
conflict
of
interest.
Those
are
my
only
comments.
Reports
themselves.
Don't
excite
me
that
much
at
all,
Thank
You
speaker
thank.
A
T
You
speaker,
we
have
a
code
of
conduct
for
two
principal
reasons:
one
is
to
prevent
corrupt
practices
from
moving
into
the
City
of
Toronto
government.
That's
very
important,
but
the
other
one
is
just
as
important
in
all
of
the
advice
we
get
about
how
we
conduct
ourselves,
we're
told
that
we
must
not
only
act
in
a
way
that
is
not
corrupt.
T
We
must
act
in
a
way
that
cannot
be
perceived
as
corrupt
and
to
me
this
is
actually
the
critical
issue
right
now,
all
over
North
America
and
many
other
parts
of
the
democratic
countries
in
the
world.
The
faith
in
government
is
declining
increasingly
large
parts
of
our
population
believe
that
government
is
all
rigged.
That
government
isn't
responsive
to
the
needs
of
ordinary
individuals
that
relationships
that
individual
elected
officials
have
are
more
important
than
good
public
policymaking
and,
as
a
result,
increasingly
people
are
electing
leaders.
T
The
faith
in
this
government
was
undermined
deeply
and
we
responded
to
that
by
adopting
what
I
think
is
the
most
vigorous
set
of
accountability
mechanisms
anywhere
of
any
government
in
Canada
or
any
government
in
North,
America
I'm,
aware
of
and
it's
creating.
This
new
framework
is
cray
a
lot
of
frictions,
it's
difficult
to
transition
from
one
set
of
operating
norms
as
a
government
to
a
new
one,
it's
difficult
to
be
in
an
environment
where
every
decision
you
make
is
put
under
a
microscope
and
you're
judged
on
things
that
are
difficult
to
delineate
friendships
influence.
T
These
are
not
mathematical
terms
that
are
clear,
they're
terms
where
there's
ambiguity.
There
are
terms
where
there
are
judgments.
To
my
mind,
the
test
has
always
been
to
meet
the
highest
possible
standard
so
that
a
reasonable
person
watching
from
afar
who
doesn't
know
the
facts
would
believe
that
your
conduct
is
above
approach
and
looking
in
the
in
the
the
findings
of
the
integrity
Commissioner
on
this
particular
one
I
note
that
councillor
Thompson
in
his
initial
efforts
on
this
file
conducted
himself
in
a
way
that
was
above
reproach.
T
The
advice
we
receive
is
it's
perfectly
fine
for
you
to
talk
to
a
friend
about
an
issue.
They
come
to
you
with
an
issue
you
give
them
advice
saying!
Well,
you
know
this
is
how
the
committee
of
adjustment
works,
or
you
know
you
probably
would
need
to
get
a
planning
consultant
on
that.
Yeah
I
know
the
reputation
of
that
counselor
and
they
can
be
difficult
to
work
with
the
way
around.
It
is
to
do
this.
Councillor
Thompson
did
all
of
those
things
and
he
was
correct.
T
It
didn't
get
the
result
that
his
his
friend
was
looking
for
the
next
step
that
the
integrity
commissioner
recommends
that
we
take.
Is
you
try
to
find
some
other
counselor?
Who
can
intervene
so
you're?
Not
the
one
doing
it
and
the
integrity
commissioner
found
that
councilor
Thompson
tried
to
do
that
with
a
couple
of
counselors
and
no
one
stepped
forward
and,
frankly,
I
think
that's
where
the
system
failed.
I.
T
Think
if
one
of
the
members
of
this
council
wants
to
you
know,
approaches
you
and
says,
I've
got
this
thing:
I
can't
do
it
because
I'm
too
close
to
this
person,
and
it
would
give
an
appearance
that
I
have
some
kind
of
bias
in
the
way
I'm
handling
it.
Will
you
take
it
on?
Maybe
the
learning
for
all
of
us
is
if
one
of
us
comes
to
you
with
that
problem,
take
take
it
on
so
in
thinking
about
how
to
deal
with
this
here's.
T
What
I
would
like
to
recommend
I
think
it's
important
that
we
not
receive
this
item
because
by
receiving
it
we're
essentially
saying
we
don't
take
the
integrity
commissioner's
advice.
The
integrity
commissioner,
has
recommended
three
things.
First,
that
we
found
find
that
the
councillor
Thompson
contravened
the
the
code
and
I
think
the
case
that's
been
made
is
sufficient
there,
so
I'll
support
that.
The
second
is
that
we
direct
councillor
Thompson
to
stop
working
on
this
file.
I
think
that's
fine.
Thank.
E
Speaker
I
had
two
motions
but
I
think
I'm
only
in
order
to
put
one
forward
if
we
can
put
it
on
the
screen
and
that's
that
City
Council
requests
the
Commissioner
with
the
advice
of
outside
counsel,
if
required,
to
issue
an
interpretive
bulletin
or
other
appropriate
document.
Providing
more
detailed
advice
and
guidance
motion.
E
J
You,
madam
Speaker,
madam
Speaker,
I
I'm,
inclined
to
just
receive
the
report
put
forward
by
the
integrity
Commissioner
for
a
number
of
reasons.
First
of
all,
I
think
that,
and
perhaps
rightly
so,
the
integrity
Commissioner
has
interpreted
the
events
as
really
an
issue
as
to
whether
councillor
Thompson
acted
for
a
friend
to
get
involved
with
a
process
where
the
process
may
have
not
been
properly
followed
and
I.
J
Based
on
the
evidence
that
I've
looked
at
I
believe
that
councillor
Thompson
got
involved
and
limited
his
involvement
to
just
process
and
any
action
that
he
took
in
my
view
was
to
ensure
that
the
proper
process
was
being
followed.
Now,
let
me
be
very
clear:
any
developer
whether
he
develops
in
mississauga
or
anywhere
else
they,
and
especially,
if
they're,
big
developers,
they
have
staff
they
have
planners,
they
hire
the
best
of
planners.
They
don't
need
to
be
told
who
to
hire,
to
be
able
to
proceed
through
the
planning
process
in
the
City
of
Toronto.
J
They
have
all
the
resources
that
they
need,
however,
not
withstanding
that
and
not
withstanding
that
this
particular
developer
acquired
a
piece
of
property
that
had
an
approval
already
from
counsel.
He
started
to
run
into
problems
and
in
his
estimation,
from
what
I
read
he
couldn't
understand
why
all
these
obstacles
were
being
placed
in
his
way,
and
so
he
reached
out
to
a
friend
and
the
friend
reacted
by
saying
you
know
what
maybe
I
can
do
something
to
make
sure
that
the
process
is
followed.
J
Maybe
I
can
do
something
to
make
sure
that
your
case
comes
forward
to
a
public
meeting
where
you
will
have
the
opportunity
to
have
counsel,
look
at
your
application
and
make
a
decision,
and
instead
what
happened
was
all
of
a
sudden
complaints
back
and
forth.
Delays
were
being
delays
that
prevented
the
application
from
coming
forward
to
counsel
or
even
the
community
counts
for
all.
J
I
know
that
to
me
is
just
not
right,
especially
looking
at
it
through
my
lens,
where
experts
are
hired
by
planners
to
circumvent
due
process
and,
in
my
case,
as
you
know,
to
take
an
application
through
the
process
without
going
through
community
council.
First
for
a
public
hearing.
So
I
know
what
applicants
are
capable
of
okay
and
so
to
say
that
this
particular
applicant,
because
he
did
not
hire.
Let's
say
someone
that
was
being
put
forward
as
someone
that
might
be
able
to
assure
the
application
through
the
proper
process
in
the
City
of
Toronto.
H
A
J
J
Oh,
please
fight
against
this
committee
of
adjustment,
application
to
the
extent
that
you
do
that
and
get
involved
and
fight
against
a
committee
application
decision.
Your
proceed
to
be
acting
on
behalf
of
a
friend.
You
guys
should
all
declare
conflict,
but
in
any
event,
notwithstanding
that
I'm
saying
that
I
think
the
report
was
a
bit
on
the
narrow
side.
I
also
think
that
this
particular
applicant
was
being
victimized
and
not
helped
to
go
through
the
planning
process.
So
there
is
a
frustration
there
and
I.
J
Don't
know
how
we
address
that
frustration
other
than
we
are
the
adjudicators
that
rule
on
due
process.
As
it
relates
to
the
public
interest
and
for
thus
to
say
well,
you
know
what
I
know
this
guy
I
know
this
guy
are
all
friends
I,
don't
want
to
make
a
decision
step
up
to
the
plate
and
make
a
decision
based
on
the
facts
and
the
evidence.
Thank
you.
Thank.
R
Fillion
to
speak,
thank
you
to,
first
of
all,
just
as
an
aside
its
kind
of
troubling
when
people
have
strong
opinions
who
either
didn't
read
the
reporter,
if
they
read
it,
didn't
understand
it.
The
first
of
all
I
want
to
say
that
I
did
not.
You
know
in
filing
the
complaint.
I
did
not
take
it
lightly.
R
I
actually
agonized
over
it
for
I,
don't
know
more
than
a
month,
and
what
I
had
to
consider
was
that
it
would
result
in
a
tax
on
me
that
it
would
result
in
in
tax
on
the
integrity
Commissioner
that
it
would
result
in
people
creating
their
own
narratives
if
they
have
today.
That
bears
no
resemblance
to
what
actually
happened
here,
but
I
just
decided.
It
was
important
to
do
it
and
it
was
not
based
on
counselor
Thompson's
friendship
with
mr.
Gus
Barrow
I
was
I
mean
I
knew
there
was
a
I
knew.
R
There
was
some
kind
of
relationship,
but
I
wasn't
aware
that
they
had
any
long-standing
or
or
deep
friendship
that
wasn't
the
issue.
There
was
two
issues
for
me.
One
was
what
I
well,
what
has
been
verified
to
be
false
allegations
against
me
used
by
councilor
Thompson
to
justify
getting
involved
in
this,
so
that
you
know
bothered
me
a
lot
and
the
other
was
the
extent
of
the
involvement
and
that's
really
the
main
thing.
So
I
filed
two
complaints,
one
about
that
I
felt
I
was
being
maligned.
R
The
integrity
commissioner
did
not
find
did
not
agree
with
me
on
that.
I
disagree
with
her
findings
on
that
point,
I
think
very
clearly
that
the
facts
show
that
that
is
not
the
case,
but
you
know
that's
her
ruling
I'm
not
going
to
take
it
any
that
part
any
further.
It
was
the
extent
of
the
involvement
and
I'll
just
pick
out
one.
You
know
clear
fact
that
there
were
more
than
60
interactions
over
roughly
up
over
a
period
of
several
months
between
councilor
Thompson's
office,
either
himself
or
staff
and
members
of
city
staff.
R
So
we
all
have
development
applications
at
our
ward,
I've
had
probably
as
much
or
more
than
anybody
great
big
ones.
I
have
never
and
I'm
pretty
hands-on.
I
have
never
had
anything
resembling
half
that
number
of
interactions
with
staff
on
a
file,
and
in
this
case
the
interactions
were
from
everybody
to
a
technician,
looking
at
sewer
pipes
to
very
senior
members
of
staff,
and
it
was
that
and
the
things
that
were
happening
as
a
result
of
that
that
made
me
decide.
R
You
know
what
this
isn't
right
could
look
the
other
way,
but
I
decided
not
to
you
know,
and-
and
there
has
to
be
some-
there
has
to
be
some
line
and
we
could
all
draw
the
line
in
a
different
place,
but
there
has
to
be
some
line
that
we
all
have
where
we
say
you
know:
I,
don't
like
to
get
into
a
battle
with
my
colleagues
and
councillor
Thompson
at
I'd.
Prior
to
this
had
a
good
relationship.
You
know,
I,
don't
I
don't
enjoy
this.
This
is
not
fun
but
I.
R
You
know
at
some
point
you
have
to
say
you
know,
I
shouldn't.
Look
the
other
way
on
this.
One
I
need
to
do
something,
so
you
know
and
I
think
you
know
it
looks
to
me
like
I
how
this
vote
might
go.
I
mean
there's
clearly
some
members
of
council
who
wish
we
don't
have
didn't,
have
a
code
of
conduct,
there's
others
who
wish
we
didn't
enforce
it
and
there's
certainly
some
who
wish
we
didn't
have
an
integrity
commissioner.
R
So
the
facts
of
this
situation
have
been
laid
out
after
an
extremely
exhaustive
and
lengthy
investigation.
I
didn't
know
until
I
read
the
report
that
she
literally
the
integrity,
mr.
literally
went
through
thousands
of
emails,
including
my
emails
before
reaching
her
her
conclusion,
so
I
think
her
conclusions
speak
for
themselves.
That's
they're,
just
a
matter
of
public
record.
What
we're
doing
now
is
we're
really
voting
on
ourselves.
You
know
so,
do
we
want
to
go
back
to
pre,
Bellamy
Commission
kind
of
behavior
here?
Do
we
want
to
say
you
know
what
it's
it's?
Okay,
it's!
R
H
Thank
You
speaker,
this
is
a
difficult
and
one
of
the
things
as
we're
talking
about
people's
friends.
Everyone
we're
all
friends
here,
counselor
affiliates
my
friend
counselor
Thompson's,
my
friend
I've
worked
with
him
on
many
different
files,
worked
with
counselor
Thompson
on
film
work,
with
counselor
Philly
on
the
Board
of
Health.
When
he
was
the
chair
and
I
just
want
to
establish.
We
established
long
ago,
you
can
get
involved
in
somebody's
ward,
former
mayor
Ford
used
to
go
to
everybody's
Ward,
it's
often
as
he'd
like
and
take
staff.
That's
what
he
used
to
do.
I.
H
Think,
though,
what
the
integrity
commissioner
might
be
saying
is
that
involved
to
that
extent
that
that
is
outside
of
the
realm
of
involvement.
60
interactions
is
what
we
might
say
over-the-top
for
an
interaction
and
making
an
inquiry.
That's
not
for
a
friend,
that's
for
a
best
friend,
so
I
believe
that
that
that
was
over-the-top.
I
also
just
want
to
say
for
development
reasons.
It's
a
long
way
from
Scarborough
Center
to
Willowdale
and
I.
Do
note
the
a
number
of
applications
that
are
in
Willowdale
the
number
of
people
in
that
Ward.
H
It's
one
of
the
reasons
why
we
split
them
in
two,
because
there
was
so
much
too
many
people
too
many
applications,
big
heavy
lifting
and,
with
all
due
respect
to
the
Scarborough
councillors.
There's
not
a
lot
of
development.
There
just
isn't
counselor
counselor
Thompson
has
a
lot
of
employment
he's
the
engine.
They
have
jobs,
engine
of
the
city,
but
not
the
residential
development
engine
engine
of
the
city
or
the
commercial
development.
So
I
understand
that
a
counselor
who's
got
the
workload
of
councillor.
H
H
There
are
so
many
yet
that
corridor
is
a
heavy
duty
corridor
for
development,
so
that
application
isn't
their
priority
either
and
I
do
think
that
ended
up
as
a
pestering
I,
don't
like
to
use
that
word.
But
I
will
of
staff.
I
think
that
the
one
thing
that
I
will
think
got
missed
in
here.
Why
wasn't
this
being
advanced?
There
was
a
reason.
It
wasn't
being
advanced,
wasn't
ready,
not
priority.
Many
other
things
going
on
for
the
counselling
for
staff,
because
everybody
worked
was
busy.
H
But
the
issue
for
me
is
the
notion
that
it
wasn't
being
advanced
because
there
was
no
financial
advantage
to
councillor
Fillion
and
I
think
that
the
integrity
Commissioner
missed
that
and
I'm
quite
concerned,
because
that's
the
aspersion
on
this
counselor,
whether
you
handle
your
development
files
well
or
not.
Your
public
will
decide
that
if
you've
handled
that
well
or
not,
it's
not
for
another
councillor
to
say,
you're
handling
it
well
at
election
time,
they'll
say
flexure,
you
didn't
do
that
well
or
we
like
what
you
did.
H
It's
there's
there's
no
second
guessers
on
the
council,
but
to
impugn
my
reputation
that
somehow
there's
money
involved
that
should
have
been
the
finding
that
that
was
wrong.
So
I
also
think
we
simply
have
to
say
here's
these
reports.
She
spent
a
long
time
accept
the
findings
and
move
on.
We
did
that.
Actually
we
had
the
parking
authority
and
it's
still
still
being
investigated
for
all
that
went
on
there.
Part
of
this
is
to
clean
up
our
act.
H
Would
somebody
go
60
times
again
on
a
planning
application,
or
would
someone
be
able
to
go
to
the
mayor
and
say
it's
60
times?
Can
you
speak
to
one
of
the
members
of
council
mean
there's
ways
to
deal
with
this
I
think
the
mayor
would
say
it
but
you're
a
bit
over
the
top
here
and
perhaps
could
convene
those
people
in
a
room
if
it's
a
planning
matter,
but
for
some
reason
the
applicant
thought
it
was
more
than
a
planning
matter.
Thank
You.
Mr.
Thompson
of
that
and
that's
what's
of
concern
to
me.
Thank.
Q
Yes,
thank
you
very
much.
Madam
Speaker
I
know
councillor
Thompson
to
be
conduct
himself
in
a
both
a
respectful
way
and
with
integrity
on
a
ongoing
basis
and
and
and
I
think
that
that
I'd
like
to
think
that
that
I
would
conduct
myself
in
a
and
I
conduct
myself
in
a
similar
fashion,
both
in
my
dealings
with
you
and
in
council
here
and
also
with
within
my
constituency.
Q
But
that
doesn't
mean
that
on
occasion,
we
make
missteps
or
mistakes
with
our
with
our
own
I'm
gonna
refer
to
one
that
involved
an
integrity
commissioner
complaint
on
me,
of
which
I
took
full
responsibility,
made
an
immediate
apology
had
a
finding
in
front
of
this
committee
that
I
was
at
fault,
but
that
no
additional
actions
were
necessary
to
step
forward.
Whether
or
not
it's
that
we,
we
don't
recognize
our
actions
as
being
in
keeping
with
the
code
of
conduct
or
if,
in
the
heat
of
a
spirited
debate,
we
we
we
miss
speak.
Q
We
say
something
that
is
is
perhaps
not
as
respectful
to
staff,
not
as
respectful
to
fellow
councillors,
which
was
in
the
case
of
my
own
wrongdoing
and
and
and
I
and
I
admit
that
at
the
same
time,
I
think
it's
really
important
that
we
recognize
the
importance
of
the
work
of
our
integrity,
commissioner,
and
all
our
accountability
officers
they.
They
are
here
for
a
very
good
purpose,
and
it
doesn't
mean
that
at
the
end
of
every
report,
there
needs
to
be
a
large
punishment
or
that
we
need
to
that.
Q
We
need
to
feel
ashamed
of
our
actions.
This
is
an
ongoing
process.
Let
us
use
this
and
the
next
two
reports
in
much
the
same
way
as
a
learning
experience
for
where
are
the
boundaries
within
our
our
work
and
and
that
code
of
conduct
I
think
that
council
I
will
not
be
supporting
receipt
because
I
don't
think
that
it
gives
that
level
of
respect
to
our
our
role
in
office
and
and
those
of
the
integrant
ability.
Q
Officers
I
do,
however,
think
that
councillor
perks
has
presented
an
interesting
opportunity
for
us
to
both
acknowledge
that
that
our
code
of
conduct
is
something
that
needs
to
be
respected,
but
at
the
same
time,
the
the
the
importance
within
this
particular
case
of
the
actions
of
a
colleague
that
we
all
know
and
respect
as
being
one
that
carries
himself
with
the
necessary
a
level
of
integrity.
Thank
you
thank.
A
F
You
again
I
just
want
to
iterate
that
I
have
issues
with
ignite
I,
don't
want
to
comment
on
the
conclusion
being
acceptable,
nor
or
not
acceptable,
but
I
don't
see
how
we
we
can
drive
that
conclusion
from
the
premises
again.
I'm
seeing
you
know
a
lot
of
pot.
You
know
it's
all
positive
premises
and
then
we
come
to
a
negative
conclusion
and
I'm
looking
for
a
negative
premise.
F
So
we're
saying
actions
are
okay,
nothing
is
done
outside
the
role
the
inks
and
the
extent
of
interactions
are
okay,
and
yet
we
come
to
say
that
it's
prob
improper
influence.
So,
for
example,
how
can
we
say
you
know
certain
number
of
phone
calls
and
without
having
an
information
about
the,
perhaps
the
content
of
the
phone
call
it
could
be.
You
know
how
are
things
going
without
that
to
say
again,
I
can't
see
how
we
can.
F
A
O
You,
madam
Speaker
I.
It
would
be
brief
and
I
had
not
even
planned
to
speak,
but
I
think
is
worth
making
a
couple
of
points
in
perhaps
letting
my
thoughts
on
how
I've
gone
through
my
decision-making
process
on
what
I'm
going
to
do
with
this
report
in
a
moment,
I
think
the
integrity
issue
has
brought
forward
a
very
interesting
and
important
debate
that
we
have
to
have,
but
essentially
what
this
is
doing
is
creating
something
like
case
law.
O
It's
us
actually
establishing
some
parameters
in
whether
or
not
we
accept
the
findings
or
not
accept
the
findings.
It
sets
a
stopgap
or
a
stop
point
at
which
the
counsel
says
you
know
the
activities
have
gone
too
far.
It's
too
far
outside
of
the
code
of
conduct
and
and
uncomfortable
with
what
the
Commissioner
has
told
us
here
in
the
evidence
that
she
cited
in
here
about
the
interactions
as
being
too
far.
The
second
question
that
was
really
difficult
for
me
to
wrestle
with
was
well
what
to
do
is
a
reprimand
and
order.
O
Is
it
not
and
I
very
much
appreciate
that
councillor
Thompson
has
proceeded
through
here
according
to
the
integrity,
commissioner,
with
great
conviction,
and
he
believed
what
he
was
doing
was
right.
Councillor
perks
raised
the
idea
about
you
know:
should
we
accept
all
these
findings
or
separate
them
out
and
perhaps
not
support
all
of
them?
I
guess.
The
final
test
that
I
did
was
I
transpose
the
issue
into
my
board,
and
you
know
what?
O
If
I
was
the
counsellor
and
another
counselor
came
along
and
really
started,
advocating
for
a
developer,
pushing
pushing
pushing
to
try
to
get
some
action
to
happen,
and
you
know
I,
maybe
I'm
not
doing
a
great
job
as
a
counsellor
and
in
helping
that
thing
to
go
along,
but
seem
to
me
that
that
dimension
is
only
singular
in
the
development
file.
The
councillors
role
is
quite
complicated.
We
have
to
help
the
developer,
but
we
also
have
to
help
the
community
at
which
the
development
is
happening
in
we
host
community
meetings
we
take
questions.
O
We
interact
with
different
people
and
I'm,
not
sure
that
all
that
happened.
In
this
case,
it
was
kind
of
like
a
one-legged
or
ones
singular
approach
to
a
particular
issue,
and
it's
I
think
it's
a
lot
different
than
a
friend
calling
and
saying
hey,
my
garbage
didn't
get
picked
up.
Can
you
bridge
me
over
to
three
one?