- Bonjour, tout le monde.
>> Can you hear me well? Good to
see our friends from Cadillac
Fairview are with us tonight.
Welcome. Ce soir, nous sommes à
une réunion convoqué par les
conseillers pour voter sur la
résolution de notre directrice
générale. Nous ouvrons les
négociations pour sorti la forêt
Fairview et les stationnements
Fairview du gel, le
développement de notre règlement
de contrôle intérimaire, et de
les intégrer dans un plan de
déménagement. J'ai donné mon
veto à la résolution initiale
afin de donner mon soutien pour
s'informer et se faire entendre
sur cette question. J'aurais
également préféré qu'elle fasse
l'objet d'un nouveau vote, lors
de notre prochaine réunion
régulière le 7 février.
À l'heure habituelle de 19
heures, afin que davantage de
citoyens puissent y assister.
Bien que j'ai toujours que
Fairview devrait être consulté
dans le cadre de la mise à jour,
je m'oppose à ce que cette
résolution... à cette résolution
pour les raisons suivantes: tout
d'abord, elle permettra à
Fairview de concevoir son propre
processus de consultation
publique en tant que partenaire
égal de la ville, au lieu de
faire partie du même processus
de consultation que les autres
propriétés dans le cadre de
notre plan de
(---)
global. Deux, le plan
d'aménagement venant et de la
structure juridique moins
contraignant que notre règlement
de contrôle et notre plan
d'urbanisme prévu. Et l'accord
avec lac Fairview permettra de
rédiger et de soumettre son
propre règlement de zonage
directement au conseil
municipal. Trois: je me pose à
la décision de traiter de la
même façon la forêt Fairview et
le stationnement Fairview. Même
si le stationnement fait l'objet
d'un certain type de
développement, j'aimerais voir
quelque chose de plus proche
d'un minimum de 69 unités
(---)
au lieu des tours de 25 étages
proposés, qui sont plusieurs
fois plus grande. Je crois que
les citoyens veulent que toute
la forêt Fairview soit préservée
du développement à la fois pour
le bénéfice de notre communauté
et pour atteindre nos objectifs,
et ce, des autres paliers de
gouvernement en matière de
protection des arbres et des
espaces verts et de la lutte
contre les changements
climatiques.
>> Tonight, we are at a meeting
called by Councillor Stainforth,
the stork, Thorstad-Cullen, and
Bissonnette, to vote on the
resolution mandating our city
manager open negotiations with
Cadillac Fairview to take
Fairview forest and Fairview
parking lot out of the
development freeze of our
interim control bylaw and put
them into a comprehensive
development plan. I veto their
original resolution to give
residents more time to learn
about and be heard on this
issue. I would also have
preferred it be voted on again
and our next regular meeting on
February 7th, and at the normal
schedule time, 7 pm, so our
citizens can attend. I have
always said that Cadillac
Fairview needed to be consulted
as we update our urban plan, I
pose this resolution because,
number one, it will allow
Cadillac Fairview to design its
own separate public consultation
process as an equal partner with
the city, instead of being part
of the same consultation process
as other properties within our
overall urban plan. Three, a
comprehensive development plan
is a weaker, less and forceful
interim control bylaw and
revised -- and gives Cadillac
Fairview special treatment,
allows it to right and submit
its own zoning bylaw directly to
City Council. I objected the
decision, three, I object the
decision to treat both Fairview
forest and Fairview parking lot
in the same way. While the
parking lot will be subject to
development of some kind, I want
to see something closer to the
60 units per hectare minimum
actually required by which are
metropolitan community -- 25
floor luxury towers proposed by
Cadillac Fairview, which are
several times that. I believe
citizens want all of Fairview
forest to be preserved from
development, both for the
benefit of our community and
meet our targets and those of
other levels of government for
the protection of trees and
green space and fighting climate
change. I will quickly deal with
a couple little mythologies
floating around now that need to
be corrected. We have heard a
lot of expression about tactics
of delay, delay, delay. It has
been repeated over and over
again. The problem here is that
sometimes when you repeat things
so often, people think they are
true. In fact, they are not.
There has been no or delay
whatsoever. I have here multiple
copies for all of you in the
room of a process and timeline
which we decided on last year.
And that timeline was decided,
decided on by all the
councillors and myself and we
have proceeded to follow this
timeline, which we can have a
copy of, religiously. The only
problem being we have not met as
frequently as I would have
liked. We will are -- we there
has been no delay on my part
whatsoever. You can get a copy
of this timeline, agreed upon by
all of us, all of us agree to
this timeline, which we are
following and have followed
ridges from the outset. There
has been no delays. That is myth
number one. Myth number two, in
today's because it -- because
that, she writes however,
Thomas's opponents have called
another special meeting to
introduce that resolution on
Monday arguing that Mayor's
decision didn't satisfy the
criteria for using a veto.
Québec law, however, and I
quote, doesn't stipulate
criteria for mayors with the
veto. There are no criteria.
Councillor Stainforth, who
endorses of the resolution
discussed on Monday, Mrs.
straight out of the Montréal
Gazette. The Montréal Gazette
referred to a statement she
posted on her Facebook page on
Sunday. Stainforth said the
mayor can use his veto power
only if new information becomes
available or if circumstances
have changed, if absences
allowed a vote to carry, that
would have otherwise failed or a
resolution creates an illegal or
irresponsible outcomes.
Completely false. None of these
apply. And the veto should not
have been used by the mayor,
Stainforth wrote. For this
reason, I have agreed to support
and the proposed date in order
to deal with the issue
immediately and leave our
regular monthly meetings for
regular business. However,
Goulet writes, having called a
couple of municipal lawyers, the
city and towns act grants the
mayor to, I quote, exercise the
right of superintendent,
investigation and control over
all the departments and officers
or employees of the
municipality, except the chief
auditor. Municipal affairs
department, and describing the
mayoral vita, sets out no
criteria for its use. That is
the law.
[Applause]
>> Mister Mayor! Can you
maintain order place!
>> I am still speaking. I have
more to say.
>> Mister Mayor! Please!
>> Councillor Cowan, I am still
speaking. And the mayor can
exercise a right of veto over
any Council decisions by
refusing to approve them and,
consequently, to sign the
documents relating to these
issues. I quote, this is the
municipal affairs. Councillor
Cowan, you would like to speak?
>> Carry on, Mister Mayor. When
you are done, we can carry on
with our business.
>> I am waiting for you to
speak.
>> Thank you, Mister Mayor. I
move that the mayor's --
>> Can we just first approve the
agenda, please?
>> I move that we approve the
agenda.
>> Do I have a seconder?
>> Kelly Thorstad-Cullen,
district three.
>> All in favour?
- Juste un instant!
The resolution?
>> 1.1. Do you want to go? First
>> Yes. I move the Mayor's abuse
of the use of veto be over
carried in district eight.
>> You have a seconder? Can they
move? It's not on the agenda.
Nor can they move to remove it.
>> We need a mover for the exact
same resolution you adopt on
last Thursday. The exact same
resolution. I can read it if you
want. It has to be the exact
same resolution.
>> Or if they can move to have
the veto overturned, can they
not? In which case --
>>
- La résolution, lors du jour,
c'est celle adoptée jeudi passé.
Okay. Okay.
>> I moved to reinstate the
resolution and that was passed
on the 19th of January.
>> Do I have a seconder?
>> I second. It
>> All in favour?
>> Please know that everybody
voted all against. Borough, is
your hand up? There you go. And
we now proceed to question
period? Okay. The mic is open.
>> Good evening. District. One
before I ask a brief question I
would like to make a statement
in response to the question
asked on a public Facebook group
by none other than Councillor
Cowan. He wrote, I am sorry that
there is such little trust in
the political process. You fear
the people elected to serve the
public. Mr. Cohen, here are a
few reasons. I offer them
politely and without sarcasm or
hostility. First, because the
resolution you fast tonight to
direct city managers to
negotiate in private with
Cadillac every on the basis of a
mandate letter which knelt
members of the public have been
allowed to see. And the public
had no way of knowing if the
mandate letter was truly in
their interest. Surely, it would
be weird and wrong if members of
parliament and national assembly
voted on a new law before any
members of the public had a
chance to know what the law
contained. Second, it because
councillors chosen the Cadillac
Fairview absolute veto and
deciding what kind of purchase
-- this suits the corporate
agenda but I don't believe it
suits the public agenda. Third,
because as you yourself stated
at the last council meeting, in
2022, the Pointe-Claire planning
department had proposed
discussions get underway with
Cadillac Fairview. Council sent
a letter to the company on that
basis. As he went on to say,
Cadillac Fairview stipulated,
not requested, not proposed,
Cadillac Fairview stipulated
that in year to the Fairview
forest would also be part of the
discussions and Council agreed
to this demand. Fourth, because
as you have again made clear,
the fear of legal action has
played a major role in
determining how this process is
taking shape. In your remarks to
Madam Lucia, you said, whether
there is litigation hovering in
the background, closed door
litigation has been the only way
to move towards settlement
without going into court. I
would put it more vividly and
say all the -- the puppet can be
left dangling outside the closed
door. Fifth, because the
resolution uses the -- mutually
agreeable path forward and at
the definition of mutually
agreeable in the Pointe-Claire
side appears to be the city
manager and you and your fellow
councillors. You make it
abundantly clear that you don't
trust the mayor, who is duly
expect -- those of us who care
about climate change and green
space will remember that the
Mayor's platform highlighted
protecting the natural
environment. Six, because while
you and some of your fellow
councillors have repeatedly
spoken in glowing terms about
the value of the city's long and
deep partnership with Cadillac
Fairview, I don't believe you or
they have ever praised the value
of the green space that is the
Fairview forest or have spoken
about how the Forest asserts of
the needs of local walkers, dog
owners, bird-watchers. I do
recall you boasting you once lit
a bonfire in the forest.
Finally, before because of the
vicious, dehumanizing, an ugly
rhetoric that certain
councillors have directed at the
mayor over the past weeks and
months, I've been personally not
just disappointed but appalled
at one of the councillors used
the word loathsome in a Facebook
post attacking the mayor with
another councillor claiming
people who believe the hollow
statements of other elected
officials have been drinking the
Kool-Aid. This kind of language
may become normalized in the
USA, but I believe it's
inappropriate in a civilized
debate. I except councillors may
have legitimate frustrations
about mayor Thomas. For him to
be constantly mocked, vilified,
and demonized by at least three
councillors does not foster any
trust in the political process.
Nor did that frequent complaints
about media bias, whenever there
is a TV or a video clip or
newspaper article that casts
doubt on what the majority in
Council say. If you want, Mr.
Cowan, you can reply to what I
just said. My very brief
question is directed to the
Mayor. Can you assure the
citizens of Pointe-Claire that
despite the resolution that just
passed, he will look hard and
work hard for possible ways to
prevent the destruction of the
Fairview forest?
>> You know to the answer to
that question. Absolutely, 100%.
I will do my darndest work. I
will throw my body in front of
it. Absolutely.
[Laughter]
[Applause]
Apparently we are not allowed to
clap, folks. Again.
>> Good evening. My name -- I'm
very disappointed, really. All
the six city councillors from
the last previous
administration, you follow
exactly -- what he run for is
citizens first, but we are the
citizens of real estate and
developer. You are still doing
the same thing. I'm asking them,
all of them without hurting the
city and ashamed, really. I
asked them to all resign. She
resigned. Please, I'm asking you
to all resign, the six of you,
so we can have peace of mind and
we elect somebody better to work
for the city. How we think about
it, Mister Mayor? I know you
work and you run for good for
the city. How you feel working
with all of them? Can you tell
us, please?
>> I won't be explicit. Suffice
it to say, I am doing my best to
work with the people in this
council.
>> I know you are doing your
best. But them, they are doing
nothing. All just for the --
>> That's for you to decide.
>> Does this have to do with the
resolution?
>> Excuse me. Excuse me. Excuse
me.
>> Cadillac Fairview to develop
25 high rise buildings and also
develop in the green space.
>> What specifically to the
resolution?
>> What we can do as a citizen
here to help you to get through
all of this?
>> You are doing it.
>> Thank you!
>> I will respond to that,
actually. My vote is based on
the majority of the citizens of
district three who have spoken
to be a return to me about this
issue. Sure, there are people on
the other side. But I am telling
you, I vote with the majority. I
have a majority of district
three support in how I voted
this evening. I'm sorry that's
not what you want to hear. But
that is the fact. I discussed
with him the first time when I
was voting. The, I different
aspects of the Cadillac Fairview
areas, both of them. Tonight, I
stand by it. I am doing with the
majority of my citizens want me
to vote with. Understand you
have a different perception.
What I have been advised that my
citizens, I'm doing what they
want. I think it's important to
be able to state that.
>> I answer you for that.
District one, mostly affected.
It doesn't affect district.
Three district one -- they vote
against. You don't respect. You
respect only what you are going
to get elected again. Trust me,
knowing you get elected again,
I'm going to work hard to get
all of you out of there.
>> Excuse. Me I'm going to speak
to that as well. I too won a
majority there. I want a
majority in most of the
districts in this city. I won
more votes than all the people
sitting at the staple here. I
think that point should be duly
noted as well.
>> That's what we said. We get
elected from all citizens of
Pointe-Claire. And they get --
>> Only district. Not the entire
city. None of them has a
mandate. Excuse me, Councillor
Court Thorstad-Cullen. We are
speaking to a resolution. The
citizens of Pointe-Claire care
deeply about. We are speaking to
a resolution that will alter, or
may alter their city in a major
matter. They are speaking about
the resolution in that matter. I
think that's appropriate.
>> Can we stick to the
resolution.
>> We are. We are talking about
the resolution. It's about --
>> 61? Votes 61 votes?
>> I'm not finished.
>> 61 votes. We won by 98.
>> Excuse. Me I will speak to
Councillor Stork. Councillor
Stork, I have far more votes
than you do from citizens of
Pointe-Claire. You sound like
you are questioning my mandate,
which you clearly have been
doing from the outset of the
administration. I think it's
highly indicative that we have
seen a councillor who questions
my mandate. He's commenting it
at the margin of victory, 61,
denies my mandate. He's implying
that in his rhetoric. I think it
speaks volumes to what we are
watching and listening to today.
Yes, sir.
>> I will allow you to continue
with your soap box speech.
>> When a person dies, you feel
sorry and cry for that person.
But when somebody, their
conscience dies, we support him
and somebody even follow him. I
wish you all to have good
conscience and wake up, got
bless you all to work for the
citizens of Pointe-Claire. Thank
you.
>> Thank you, sir.
>> Good evening. On a personal
note, I found my glasses, Mayor
Thomas.
>> Good. In the parking lot.
>> Before you start, can you
state your name for the record?
>> Yeah, Patricia. I've been a
resident of Pointe-Claire for
over 60 years. I'm presently
residing at stone's throw away
from Fairview in district six. I
want to be heard by all of you.
I want to let all the City
Councillors know how I feel
about of a 25 storey
extravaganza which has been
proposed by Cadillac Fairview. I
invite you to come up north of
the 40. Most of you do not come
up north of the 40 because we
have traffic wounds we are
dealing with now and we
anticipate how it will be after
this extravaganza is built. At
this point, it seems some of you
have taken it upon yourselves to
enter into negotiations with C
F, who have already shown bad
faith by immediately turning to
litigation when the city opted
for public consultation. See if
is not interested in the
residents of Hermitage, or how
they are proposed project will
impact our quality of life. They
have not stepped forward to talk
to us about our opinions, our
suggestions, and of course, are
objections. They have a plan.
Mr. Cohen and his allies are
preparing to bow to their
wishes. From those of us who are
--
>> Mister Mayor, point of
record. She's now -- this is
completely against the rules.
>> I don't feel it is.
>> Mister Mayor, it is!
>> It's not for you to decide,
sir.
>> Mister Mayor! It's entirely
against the rules!
>> Councillor Cowan, it's not
for you to decide. You are in no
position to decide that.
>> Let's ask the department to
make a ruling. Not a ruling --
>> I can move on.
>> Is it out of order for a
citizen to question the
motivation or integrity of the
Councillor?
>> Go ahead. I've had my
motivation questioned
extensively for months on end.
Oh my goodness!
[Applause]
>> Not here you haven't, not
here.
>> Yes, ma'am. You may continue.
>> From those of us sitting on
the sidelines, it is clear that
negotiations may have already
started with whatever perks and
promises these may produce.
Shame on you who have failed to
reach out --
>> Point of order, we are not
taking perks and promises.
>> This is a preamble. Is this a
preamble to your question? Much
like Miss Weaver's preamble. Or
Mr. Fréchette's. This is much
like Mr. Frechette's -- like
Mrs. weaver's preamble. It pales
in comparison. Go straight to
the question.
>> So sensitive about what I'm
saying.
>> It's not true, that's why.
It's not. True some of you have
already entered into
negotiations. No. This was about
seven sentences ago. And now
you've reiterated that and
mentioned perks. Neither of
those things are true. None of
us have accepted -- except for
the mayor -- have ever met with
Cadillac Fairview. It's patently
untrue. That's the first thing
you said untrue. We can go with
the video if he would like,
although you are reading, I'm
sure you can see it in front of
you. Once again, it's a point of
privilege.
>> Councillor Stainforth, nobody
up here has ever met in any way,
shape, or form --
representatives of Cadillac
Fairview. You are willing to go
on record you've never done
that?
>> Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> We've been in the same
location.
>> Not socially, not outside of
your workplace? Anybody? Are you
going to deny all that? Yes,
ma'am. Would you like to
continue?
>> And now I'm probably not
allowed to say whatever I want
to say.
>> If you can imply it, you can
ask a question.
>> My question was going to be
for Mr. Cowan. I was going to
preface it by saying there was
no need to attack, divert, or
extrapolate, and just honestly
answer my question. Simply, have
you, Mr. Cowan, have any contact
with any personnel of Cadillac
Fairview, either by email, text
messages, telephone
conversations, or in person
meetings within the last six
months? It's a yes or no. Thank
you so much for listening to me.
>> You want me to give the
answer?
>> I don't have the stand there.
>> Of course.
>> Of course what?
>> Of course, I talk to
everybody. I talk to all my
citizens. I talk to anybody who
is going to call me. That's what
I do. That's why I am an elected
representative everybody.
>> Did Cadillac Fairview elect
you?
>> I will answer as well. I may
have confirmed reception of an
email at some point in time.
>> Mr. the point?
>>
- Je voudrais lire le Règlement
numéro 53. Résolution adoptée
par le conseil et les
obligations des contrats qui
sont présentées au maire par le
greffier dans les... 26
heures...
- 96. En
- 96 un, excusez. Suivant les
adoption et là approbation. Si
dans ce délai, le maire avise le
greffier qu'il ne l'approuvent
pas, celui-ci seuls les soumet
de nouveau au Conseil, la séance
suivante, pour les considérer
d'urgence ou en priorité. Alors,
ce soir, c'est pour la prochaine
séance du conseil. Alors, je
demande que la résolution soit
reporté à la prochaine réunion.
C'est selon la loi.
- Oui, absolument.
- Alors, la prochaine séance...
quand la loi utilise le mot
séance seule, c'est soit une
séance ordinaire où
extraordinaire. Quand c'est
extraordinaire, on le précise
dans la loi. Alors, le mot
séances dans la Loi sur les
cités et villes est utilisée
seul, il signifie séance
extraordinaire ou ordinaire.
Alors, la prochaine séance, dans
le cas qui nous occupe, c'est ce
soir.
- Mais c'est le maire qu'il a
reporté cette journée-là.
- Non.
- La loi... vous aviez lu
l'article 53 de l'ordre sur les
cités et villes, et ce que la
loi prévoit, c'est que si le
maire m'avise... avise le
greffier de la ville qu'il
n'approuve pas une résolution où
les résolutions, le greffier
doit, à ce moment-là, les
soumettre au conseil à nouveau à
laisser en ce qui suit et cette
résolution-là est traiter
d'urgence, en priorité à l'ordre
du jour. C'est ce qu'on a dit.
- O.K.. Merci.
- Merci, Monsieur Lapointe.
Alors, c'est intéressant.
- Ma deuxième question...
- O.K..
- On a une période de questions
qui dure 1 heure 30. Au dernier
meeting, on a passé à peu près
30, 40 minutes avec les
conseillers à argumenter. Alors,
je crois que la période des
questions devrait être prolongée
pour compenser pour le temps que
les conseillers se dispute entre
eux.
- C'est le maire qui décide du
début et de la fin.
- C'est moi qui décide. On a 90
minutes comme toujours.
- Mais si vous parlez une
demi-heure de temps, les
citoyens n'ont plus de temps.
- Oui, c'est vrai. Vous avez
raison, monsieur Lapointe. C'est
un bon argument. J'entends bien.
C'est mieux les citoyens que...
on
- Va mettre une minuterie, et on
va ajouter après.
- C'est intéressant. C'est un
argument intéressant. Monsieur
le point, c'est une autre
observation. C'est intéressant
qu'on ait cette réunion à cause,
supposément, de la faiblesse de
la façon le... veto que j'ai
utilisé. Mais on a la preuve que
ce n'est pas le cas, alors la
raison que l'on a, la réunion,
elle est fausse. Complètement
fausse. J'ai utilisé le veto
dans une façon complètement
légale, parfaitement. Merci.
>> Good evening, my name is
Sandra Maggie, Pointe-Claire,
district two. Like Mr. ably, I
am concerned about climate
change. Mr. Councillor
Thorstad-Cullen you said you are
a part of the sustainable
committee and the protection of
forests and biodiversity is a
priority. Like they say, actions
speak louder than words.
>> Can I respond to that? I'm
responding to the person.
>> She's not finished yet.
>> Can I respond to the first
part? There are some sustainable
principles that feel -- and we
will discuss them so praying
these when we have our public
precipitation, in certain areas
if you go higher, it is
suggesting or mandating that we
have to have a certain amount of
development in the city. We need
to optimize that, make it as
sustainable as possible to save
as much green space as possible.
I understand the perception may
look like, oh, we don't care.
The perception from where I
stand, I want to be sustainable
as possible. Some people say the
higher you go, that's more
sustainable. We want all the
facts. We want all the
information, we want it all to
make an influence decision, what
sustainable means will be
different between any person
sitting in this room. We want
all that information at the
table. I want to correct. I
don't want to imply that I'm not
about sustainable development.
Thank you.
>> You can can continue with
your preamble.
>> My understanding is there is
a freeze on the property by the
CMA. I am wondering if this
resolution passes, as you have
requested, does that
automatically remove Cadillac
Fairview from that freeze?
>> No.
>> Anybody? Else no.
>> It's automatically removal.
>> I can speak.
>> Can you elaborate on yet,
please?
>> The process that has been
designed will allow a
comprehensive development plan
to work towards a comprehensive
development plan at which time
it will happen. Prior to,
sufficient, in my opinion,
public participation. What is
disturbing about the resolution
tonight is that it allows the
public precipitation process to
be controlled by the City in
conjunction with the developer
as opposed to vice versa. I
would prefer to have the
participation first.
>> That is false. That is false.
That is false.
>> Mayor Thomas, you
specifically just said that your
belief is that -- before any
public participate participation
which is absolutely false. It is
a bum matter of record. You just
said. That
>> Public participation has to
be defined. Some of us the final
public participation in a
completely different manner.
>> May I speak?
>> Would you please share your
definition that you shared with
all of Council f of late
participation versus public
consultation as well as and the
information pertaining how and
when this CP would become
enacted by law and --
>> From my understanding, from
my understanding, we are in
question period here. It's not
the Councillors who have to ask
questions. It's the citizens who
are to ask questions. From what
I understand, from what Mr. low
point was suggesting in
replying, last, time last
question period was dominated by
councillors as it is starting to
happen tonight as well so I
would like to hear, I would like
to hear -- absolutely. I would
like to hear from the citizens,
I would like to hear from the
citizens.
>> Actually outlined the actual
answers.
>> You don't want them to know?
>> You don't want them to know
the truth. I want them to know
all the truth. All the truth. I
would love you all to know all
the truth. Please inquire. We
are in a meeting right now based
on a veto I supposedly used
illegally and --
>> Improperly.
>> Improperly. I bring to you a
gazette article and the
Municipal code suggesting
otherwise. Who are you going to
believe? Tonight will we have a
debate over credibility? Will we
go to questions from the
citizens? Please, ma'am, go
ahead.
>> Thank you very much. I was
also wondering, does the
resolution remove Cadillac
Fairview from public
participation, including the
urban plan?
>> There is a conversation
going. On I can't really hear
you.
>> Sorry. I will repeat the
question. Will this resolution
also remove Cadillac Fairview
from public participation
included in the reopening of the
urban plan?
>> No. They will be a functional
part of it.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Mister Mayor, I would like a
moment to be able to speak to
some of the points that have
been raised either in question
period or here at the table. It
is a statement to read
reflective of my perspective on
this process, if you allow me.
Will you allow me, Mister Mayor?
>> Absolutely.
>> The reason I'm doing this is
I think it's important that I
clearly state my position in
terms of why I voted against the
resolution. There were a number
of questions asked.
>> Point of order. That's when
we vote for it.
>> Councillor Cowan! Councillor
Cowan! Councillor Cowan!
>> You just said you were, I am
stating my position on some of
the questions that have been
asked. I have the right to speak
as anybody else.
- Cette résolution, d'après moi,
a produit des dommages
collatéraux de toutes sortes.
Elle a créé des nouvelles
divisions dans notre ville, elle
a écourté le travail stratégique
du Conseil de l'administration
et a introduit un possible
risque rue juridiques et a mis à
mal la démocratie municipale et,
par intérêt politique, elle a
peut-être menotté la ville pour
de nombreuses années dans le
domaine de la participation
citoyenne. La résolution est
également prématuré. La
réflexion du conseil sur la
participation citoyenne n'en a
qu'à ses débuts. Il y a encore
beaucoup de travail à faire
avant que nous puissions
commencer à communiquer
correctement avec les citoyens.
Les promoteurs et autres sur la
façon dont nous proposons
d'aller de l'avant. Je crois que
nous aurions eu une telle
histoire à raconter, mais dans
la hâte d'être transparent et de
matraquer le maire
politiquement, nous avons
peut-être maintenant assurer que
nous serons dans un débat
permanent sur les décisions de
planification et de la façon
dont les développements seront
organisées à l'avenir. Il y a
une grande différence entre la
participation citoyenne et la
consultation citoyenne. La
participation offre aux citoyens
une implication directe dans le
processus décisionnel.
Il s'agit d'événements à long
terme qui prennent la forme de
comité ou de groupe de travail,
les consultations, quand, elle
vise simplement à obtenir notre
avis, votre avis, ateliers d'un
jour, questions et réponses,
tables rondes, merci d'être
venu, vous avez confirmé notre
décision. C'est ce que vous avez
c'est... ce que vous obtenez
dans le cadre des obligations
légales d'un plan de Gainey
majeur ont ensemble, par
exemple. La participation
citoyenne est un choix du
conseil sans obligation forme
dans la loi. Elle devient de
plus en plus un outil privilégié
des villes, car elle met tout le
monde sur la même longueur
d'onde. Elle est équitable et
permet d'éliminer les
complexités dès le départ.
Alors, cette résolution propose
implicitement une approche
partagée dans la création d'un
temps de participation
citoyenne, une démarche
mutuellement accepte Haas. Je ne
peux pas accepter cette
proposition. Elle injecte un
parti pris évident qui pénalise
les citoyens.
Une personne qui possède une
maison de 400000 dollars, elle a
les mêmes droits qu'une personne
qui possède un immeuble de 10
millions de dollars. Notre DG
va-t-elle rencontrer les
résidents pour le demander ce
qu'elle pense de notre plan de
participation naissante? Non.
Des gens, certains conseillers,
s'opposent à un comité citoyen
était pour une participation
plus imposant des conseillers.
Et si un promoteur est d'accord
avec cette approche parce qu'ils
pensent que ça va le favoriser,
devinez comment ce vote
mutuellement acceptables va se
dérouler. On passera à l'heure
de la participation à la
consultation. La raison pour
laquelle j'ai voté contre.
>> I will try to be quicker in
English to catch up on question
period. This resolution is
irresponsible and has produced,
in my opinion, collateral damage
of all kinds. This created
further division in our city,
short circuited of the strategic
work of Council and the
administration, it introduces
possible legal risks, it has run
roughshod over municipal
democracy, political gain has
possibly handcuffed in the city
for many years to come in the
area of public participation.
The resolution is also
premature. Councils public
participation thinking remains
in the early stages. There's
still a lot of work to be done
before we can begin to properly
communicate with citizens,
developers, and others on how we
propose to move forward. I
believe we would've had a very
good story to tell. But in a
rush to be transparent and
bludgeoned the Mayor
politically, we may have now
ensured we will be in a
permanent debate over planning
decisions and how the
developments are staged in the
future. There is a difference
between political -- sorry,
there is a difference between
public participation and public
consultation. Participation
offers a direct involvement in
decision-making process for
citizens. Very are long term
events that take the form of
committees or task forces.
Consultations, on the other
hand, simply seek your opinion,
your advice. They workshops,
Q&As. Thanks for coming. You
have confirmed our decision.
This is what you get in the
legal obligations, of the
comprehensive development plan
process, for example. Public
participation is Council's
choice. There are no legal
obligations under the law to
offer such a program. It is
increasingly becoming a
favourite tool of cities because
it puts everyone on the same
page. It's equitable. It gets
the complexities out of the way
at the beginning. And this
resolution implicitly proposes
or subtly suggests joint
ownership in the creation of a
par bleak participation plan, a
mutually agreeable path forward.
I can't accept that. It injects
a bias and shortchanges
citizens. Someone who owns a
400,000 dollar home is someone
with the same rights as someone
who owns a 10 million dollar --
was they think of our embryonic
participation plan? No. Already,
certain councils are objecting
to's fewer citizens committee
and arguing for more opposing
Councillor involvement. What if
a developer agrees with that
approach because he thinks it
will favour him? Guess how that
mutually agreeable vote will go.
The next thing you know, we've
gone from participation to
consultation. These are some of
the reasons why I voted no
against that process.
[Applause]
>> Thank you.
>> Mister Thomas, that was
really useful and excellent
speech. Unfortunately, it
would've been much better said
somewhere within the last five
months when we were actually
discussing all this and we
agreed to proceed with this
path. Why did you not say event?
Why did you not -- why did you
not do it?
>> Point of privilege, Mister
Mayor?
>> Hang on. Councillor Cowan,
you are not sharing this
meeting, okay? Can Councillor
Tremblay respond now and we can
move on to Mr. logo?
>> I would more than happily
respond to that. First of all,
your proposal, which came over
the holidays, to get into a
resolution on this, came
quickly. I think it was the
first or second week of January
when you wanted to move ahead
with the proposal. We spoke on
the phone. I believe it was a
necessary at the time. I thought
we were making some progress in
the meetings we have. We have
meetings generally together. I
find those meetings go well. I
find -- allow me to answer
before you shake your head.
>> Cans Councillor Tremblay
please talk? You have talked
extensively for the last two
meetings. Could you let
Councillor Tremblay talk? I
would like Councillor Tremblay
to talk. He's answering
Councillor Cowan. Then we are
getting back to question period.
>> I will answer his question
and let it go to question
period. I don't want to take too
much time.
>> He asked me a question. I
asked if I could answer.
>> Please continue, Councillor
Tremblay. I know it's not easy.
>> The problem is the resolution
was dropped. We had a discussion
as to whether or not the mandate
should have been in place. The
resolution was being discussed
before we had seen the mandate.
Once I was able to see the
mandate letter and other
documents I don't want to raise
here do for reasons of caucus --
I thought we were entering into
a dangerous strategic path by
adopting this resolution. I
thought hard about this. I
believe it's important that we
have communication with all
parties involved. Through a
public parse participation path
that would include developers,
experts, and others. I've been
more than willing to discuss it.
In the last caucus meeting we
had, I was heckled. I was told,
delay, delay, delay. I didn't
have an opportunity. You wave
your hands at me and said you
didn't want to hear from me
anymore. What am I to say? I
would more than happily have
this taken off the table and
discuss it in a caucus meeting
appropriately. We could at
length go through the ups and
downs of doing this kind of
process. That's where I met. In
honesty, that's the direction I
took.
>> Mr. logo?
- Monsieur Legault, vous étiez
là longtemps. Je -- m'excuse.
Merci pour votre patience.
- Monsieur Thomas demande aux
citoyens d'agir avec décorum,
mais je regarde les conseiller,
là, et je trouve que vous parlez
quand c'est pas votre. Tour vous
parlez par-dessus le maire.
Votre compotes E ment, c'est
honteux!
(applaudissements)
>> Keith Kelly. I'm not a
speaker, I'm not highly
educated. I would like to talk
about -- however, I am a
lifetime resident of
Pointe-Claire. Mister Mayor and
Councillor, I am very, very
disappointed in the council
taken action today. I have never
seen anything like it. The back
room, when it was there, and
where it was before, that's
where the discussions took
place. Unfortunately, that's not
the case. It's very evident here
today. Now, Mayor, you were
elected. You got 21 votes, or 61
vote, whatever it was, while the
population of about 20,000
people -- that goes to show the
people here aren't out their
voting like they should be. We
need to change, that was your
proposition. I agree. We need a
change. Now, I personally think
lately and with some of the
changes that were made, and
perhaps more close to me, some
of the changes made with of the
condo in Pointe-Claire village.
I was born in the village. I
think it's a disaster.
Unfortunately, it happened. The
parking lot as well and was
lost. The local merchants last
that.
>> Point of order. I'm sorry
This has nothing to do with
what's on the agenda.
>> Is your preamble --
>> The preamble --
>> What is the subject matter of
the question, sorry Mr. Kelly to
interrupt?
>> -- which would appear to be
-- we want to slow down, I agree
we have to slow down and have
some control. The Mayor and
Council -- the Mayor and two
councillors came into this
committee and were involved.
That's not the first time people
have come to the Council and
haven't been able to get along.
Unfortunately, it hasn't worked.
Some changes are bit desperately
needed. The general consensus of
the public's we would like and
poet in what we're doing and I
think this resolution does that.
As I understand it.
Unfortunately, our new city
managers got stuck with the job
to do it and that's a part of
life, I guess. And I see these
resolutions in every way. Last
of all, my question is, I'd like
the answer -- Councillor
Stanford's question that she
asked Council earlier tonight.
>> She asked Council or --
madame Verdun? Madame Verdun,
you want to answer the question
that Councillor force with asked
to her? No, that's okay.
>> It's okay, I can -- the
difference between public
participation and public
consultation, the public I like
to call the citizen
participation in the public
participation just to make sure
that -- process is non monetary,
it's unlike other public
station. It's part of the way
that we added by law in the
urban planner. And the citizen
participation is the result of a
political wheel. So it's really,
you know, something that we can
do with county or some workshop
and stuff like that. The City
Council will provide to the
citizen. The public consultation
is mostly, you, know in the
bylaw for example each by law in
urban planning in public
consultation, some of them also
in the public consultation can
lead to a referendum.
>> Yes, Mister casino?
Vous
- Voulez voir en français aussi?
- Oui.
- Je peux te dire, pas de
problème. Ça va être un peu
différent, parce que j'ai pas
lu. Donc, c'est une traduction
libre. La participation
citoyenne, c'est un processus
qui n'est pas obligatoire par la
loi. C'est un processus qui,
dans le fond, vraiment, résulte
d'une volonté politique d'aller
consulter... consulter les
citoyens. Aller chercher
l'opinion citoyenne. Ça peut
être par des comités, des
ateliers de travail, différentes
choses. Tandis que des
consultations publiques, c'est
vraiment un processus légal, la,
qui est enchâssé dans la loi au
niveau de l'urbanisme, et
certains types de consultations
publiques qui vont mener, aussi,
à un référendum.
>> Can I just ask for a
clarification?
>> No, that's okay Councillor
Stainforth. We are going to get
-- we've delayed it until now.
You've got to give it to you.
Now we are going to Mr.
Cousineau, your question please?
- Merci. J'aurais pas besoin de
me nommer. J'adresse la question
à vous, Monsieur le Maire. Je
l'adresse en français parce
qu'il est assez direct. Si vous
voulez me répondre en anglais,
soyez bien à l'aise. Je
comprends la langue de
Shakespeare moyennement bien. Ma
question est: quelle est votre
compréhension d'un CD B?
- C'est un processus
intermédiaire, et c'est une
négociation qui inclut les
conseillers pour elle la
création du plan avec le
développement, qui inclut le
Conseil plus que le RCI. O.K.,
merci.
>> No, you can't. No. I would
like -- is there another
question, Mr. casino?
- Oui, il y a une autre
question, parce qu'on a pas la
même interprétation, quoi que
vous ayez donné les grandes
lignes, mais ce qui circule sur
le Web, Facebook et compagnie...
- Beaucoup circulent.
- Oui, beaucoup. Ma question
est, d'abord, pourquoi est-ce
qu'on est ici?
- On est ici parce que un groupe
de conseillers pensent qu'on a
été trop lent avec la création
du plan d'urbanisme. Ils disent
que c'était le cas, mais c'était
pas le cas. On a eu plusieurs
réunions. On a décidé de cette
formule. Depuis 1 an. J'ai une
copie pour vous, Monsieur
Cousineau. Nous avons une copie
en main.
>> We are up to date. We're
following the program that we
all decided on. We all decided
cumulatively on this process.
And we've all been following it
and our -- On a créé des
réunions, on a présenté
d'information pour créer notre
plan d'urbanisme. Des plantes
est.
>> They've helped us, the urban
-- their Planning Department has
worked with, us they've given us
educational systems, we've
talked about all the districts.
As was all agreed upon. But I
Council. So there, here
apparently, because of that. And
also because I misused a veto
which I didn't. That's another
reason why we are here tonight.
I find the reason for being here
completely false. I don't think
we need to be here, I would
think we could be at our age
medium -- public meeting next
February. There was no need for
this. I think it's artificial.
I'm sad that it's happened. Just
getting back to the slowness of
the perceived delay, we're at
this meeting tonight against my
wishes. This meeting I did not
want to have this meeting.
Could've had the regular
meeting. It's been called
against my wishes which goes to
show that I absolutely don't
control the agenda. We're here
tonight as evidence that I don't
control the agenda. So if
anybody wants to expedite or
speed the agenda, we are seeing
it happen right now against my
wishes. So the blame for
stalling is not mine. It's
shared collectively. Everybody,
especially the councillors, have
complete control over the speed
of the process. Thank you.
- Merci, Monsieur.
- Oui, Madame. May I speak,
Councillor? Does the -- do we
need to remove them from the RCI
in order to do the process of
the City p? I'm asking you,
carrying.
- Désolé, Madame. Sorry. Do you
need -- pour faire le processus
décisionnel...
>> This is kind of unfair,
Councillor state fourth. I
thought you wanted to speak --
to
>> I do.
>> But I would like legal
collaboration.
>> Councillor state, for
Councillor state for, would you
allow me to speak.
>> Which is untrue.
>> Councillor state for, that's
not what I said. Councillor,
what we are here to do tonight
is to answer questions from the
citizens and I see no need for
councillors to ask our staff in
front of the citizens when it's
our question period. I don't
think that that's your right and
I don't think that should
happen. We are going to -- we
are going to proceed with
question period.
>> Since your intro --
- Ça, c'est votre troisième,
hein. O.K., c'est votre
troisième. I owe you one for
next meeting. Your introduction
that you read at the beginning
of the meeting, the ordinary
meeting, it is now part of the
record. And I have a copy?
>> Yes. I will give you a copy.
>> What Councillor Tremblay red
is also part of the --
>> Councillor Tremblay, could he
have a copy?
>> You decide. There is nothing
to force you.
>> Sorry. Sorry.
- Vous avez la chance, Monsieur
Cousineau, de visionner le...
enregistrement.
- C'est bon, merci.
- Monsieur Cousineau, c'est sur
mon Facebook. C'est
>> Là. C'était là.
- I don't go there je ne vais
pas là..
>> Come on! Okay, leave him
alone.
- Monsieur Cousineau.
>> I believe it. My name is
Ralph. I live in district too. I
live in district too. Early on
in the council's mandate, I was
so pleasantly surprised to see
how the politicians overcame the
visions and worked together to
create the interim control
bylaw. I generally thought it
was quite impressive how people
of diverse opinions and after a
pretty raucous, rough-and-tumble
election came together an
accomplished that. When the
councillors attempted to change
that process for Cadillac
Fairview's property only, and I
would argue Cadillac Fairview's
benefit, and instead have a
comprehensive development plan
like a lot of other PC
residents, I was pretty
outraged. I did not know what AC
BP was. I did some homework. I
went to the municipalities, read
it up, read a number of
different analyses and reports
on CB peas. It became quite
clear and obvious that they are
designed to allow a developer to
rewrite bylaws in order to
favour their project and submit
to the City for approval. The
bias in favour of Cadillac
Fairview was obvious. Pretty
upset. I then saw the town halls
that were being -- my different
councillors. I went to the one
for my district. It was a town
hall for three districts. I was
stunned to realize that none of
the three councillors really had
read the law or understood what
it was. Gloriously promoted it
as some way, a new fantastic way
of democracy and bringing it --
that clearly was not what it
was, according to what I read.
Then things were topsy-turvy. I
was stunned yet again when the
City Councillors retracted the
resolution for a Cadillac
Fairview comprehensive
development plan. I was all over
again really impressed. I
thought, wow. To be honest, I
didn't expect the councillors to
realize that the original course
was best. Much more importantly,
to have the courage. I will say
this specifically to Eric,
because, Eric, I heard speak
about and read his thoughts. I
was really impressed that they
had the courage to in fact
change course again and do what
was best for the city. To me, I
applauded that and thought that
was the way for councillors to
responsibly protect the whole
idea of -- forced participatory
democracy that was being
created. And then, bang! Stunned
again to see that here we are
once again, the City wants to
give Cadillac Fairview yet
another way of influencing or
dramatically altering the role
of this isn't in our democracy
of Pointe-Claire. It is up and
down and back and forth. Wow.
Come on, folks. It reflects the
big struggle that goes on in
your caucus meetings. I know
it's rough but the path should
have been clear. With the CD
Pete debate, this afternoon I
saw by accident this name which
I think reflected my feelings on
it. With the CDP, I would have
to say the old quote, only once,
shame on you. And then with the
current resolution I would have
to say, fool me twice, shame on
me. Since I believe, Eric, you
are quite important in
processing that whole debate and
courageously seeing the
inappropriate nature of the CDP,
doing what was best for the city
and altering course and putting
us back on the path of an
unaltered ICB, I want to direct
the question to. Anyone else who
wants to answer can. The
resolution calls for the, quote
unquote, creation of a
comprehensive plan for zones A
Mu1 and Mu2, Cadillac Fairview
properties. And, so two
questions. One, do you believe
it's possible for a mere
sampling of residents, of
citizens, to match the power,
the wealth, the dominating
nature of Cadillac Fairview and
come up with a truly
independent, quote unquote,
comprehensive plan? It sounds
mysteriously like a sea DP with
a little consultation. As an
example, do you believe that
citizens should point out to
Cadillac Fairview that any
bulldozing of any park of the
tiny, vulnerable micro forests,
the Fairview forest, which would
destroy wetlands and or the
separatist distinct area
inhabited by the brown snake,
because they are different?
Where the wetlands are not
present, it's a habitat of the
brown snake. You can't have a
compromise and destroy, raise
part of the forest and have it
as an intact viable, little tiny
micro forest. Right now, it's
remarkable in that it sustains
itself independently as a whole
little ecosystem. You destroy
any part of it, you ruin it. You
can't say, we will do 60 to 70,
40 to 60, some percentage. It's
a tiny delirium. You screw it
up, it will never be the same.
It will be a tiny clump of
trees. The question is, in what
you are proposing, do you really
expect there to be citizens
representative of that concern,
and that they are going to come
to an opinion with Cadillac
Fairview that everything is
hunky dory? We will all agree
that the forest should be
preserved and intact for future
generations of Pointe-Claire. I
don't buy that. I don't think
that's possible. I think the
citizens need to be given the
priority here to do what is not
appropriate, just purely for
profit, do what's appropriate
for what we all know is the
right thing to do. So that's the
first question. And you believe
it's a fair process where people
can come to the right solution
like that, considering the
wealth and power of Cadillac
Fairview with ordinary citizens.
Eric or anyone else?
>> Weigh in, yes. The ordinary
citizens --
>> Excuse me, Councillor Cowan.
Councillor Stork was addressed
the question. I will give him
first right of refusal on the
question.
>> I -- I will answer after.
>> Oh, Eric.
>> The answer is absolutely yes.
I don't know why you are afraid
citizens are weak, look at you,
citizens are -- citizens will
voice their views. The future of
the Fairview forest, it could
very well be, according to the
outcome, could very well be
preserved forever. That's one of
the -- that's on the table.
That's definitely on the table.
Whoever said it was not? And no
one ever said it was not accept
some forces of dissembling
information. It's not off the
table. -- once said in this
council of Chamber that
recognizing that if you are
going to get concessions from
the owner of the property maybe
should be talking about the two
zone so if you want to get
concessions on Mu2, maybe you
have it through a negotiation,
you have concessions on Mu1.
That is the other thing that's
getting all dissembled. This
whole process we are talking
about to empower the resolution
is not to have that negotiation
at all. It's only to get to that
negotiation! That's the only
thing. We are trying to get the
director general not to talk
about comprehensive development
plans, not to talk about
anything 27 storey buildings or
anything else! It's only to get
Cadillac Fairview to agree to
get to the table with citizens.
If that mutually agreeable
accord can't have, an Cadillac
Fairview have to sit and watch
on the sidelines. And that's
what it's all about.
>> Pretty much what Councillor
Cowan said. I just want to go to
the flip-flop that's always
referred to and reference to the
-- with Cadillac. There the
primary reason for my change, I
was given certain information
saying that we had legal
protection against Cadillac
Fairview if we could keep amount
of the espy. Premised midnight,
I was informed that legal
protection no longer existed.
There was a change of
information, change of I don't
know. I wasn't very happy with
it. So compelled to protect the
citizens rights, I reversed my
decision to put them back in the
ICB. So I am not going to expose
our citizens or city with any
harm. And despite doing that in
itself, yes, of course the
powerful, they have money, but
we're gonna fight for what we
have -- for what's best for.
Citizens but as Councillor Cowan
said, we have to get to that
stage. We have to listen to our
citizens, we have to go through
all the trade-offs, we have to
understand the social impact,
the environmental impacts. And
even the financial impacts of
what we do. But if we come to a
consensus together, we will do
what the citizens want. There is
no question about it but we have
to understand, you have to get
to that point and that's what
we're trying to get out and this
is a non binding resolution. We
disagree with it, they'll come
back and say -- we don't agree
with that, we just tell them to
go home. So there's no, it's
just a start to discussion,
plain and simple.
>> Dying to debate that I know
that's not appropriate here.
>> Let's get it over coffee.
>> May I answer your answer?
>> Yes you may, Councillor
Stainforth.
>> The reason I would favour
this E DP over simply having the
RCI with the rezoning and urban
plan is that when we look at
just a public consultation as
Councillor Tremblay pointed out,
it's very lacking, I would say.
We're talking behind limits,
we're talking about setbacks, et
cetera. It doesn't get very much
control to the citizen. With the
CDP, yes, bylaw, we are mandate
to have two public
consultations. But as a Council,
we have hired a firm for the
participatory activities. We
have supported the Mayor's
proposal of following suit with
the Kirkland -- the way they
conducted theirs with citizens
from all around the city as well
as -- I had suggested that we
waited more heavily for district
six because that's where they
live as well, so everyone can
weigh in. What it does is, it
allows us to have more detail in
more complete plan. Why do we
need the collaboration of
Cadillac Fairview? Because they
need to -- they need to agree to
that plan. And if there agreed
to that plan, then we write it
into law. Once it's written,
it's called chapter, once that
chapter is written, then we can
remove them from the RCI. But in
the RCI, they're there in the
entire process. At any point in
time, we are free to walk away
and just say, too bad, we will
just proceed the way we are with
all the other properties. But I
don't think that's what anybody
here wants because all you're
gonna get to vote on is setbacks
in heights and percentage of
green space. I would like to
know the types of promises that
are gonna go, when the different
types of housing, that's my
personal opinion and that's that
of my citizens. All my citizens
that have reached out to me have
supported this resolution in
having Ms. ridden simply go and
speak to them and see if they
will at least done at the table
and speak to us and potentially
informing this committee or
moving Ford in that sense. It's
nothing more than that. And --
>> Councillor Stainforth --
>> We just put it back to the
same plan as every other
property and we will get to take
your vote on your high
preference and your setback
preference, et cetera.
>> Councillor, and Mr. -- the
question here is what the
citizens want and my question
is, which citizens? The centre
delusional but the Kirkland
process which I met with the D G
and the mayor of Kirkland a few
days back is that, in their
process, the citizens chose the
representation. They entirely
chose the representation.
Whereas in the process and these
resolution, there's going to be
joint decision-making over the
decision making -- the
participation process. Yes, it
does so and in that process
they're giving a 50/50
relationship between the city
and Cadillac developer to
influence the citizen
participation process. That's
where we -- that's where it
deviates from the Kirkland
process.
>> Even on the last five months.
>> Mr. Mayer, if I may. I think
therein lies Mr. still second
rift with what the previous
three councillors expressed. The
resolution which I worry about
what this resolution might lead
to. In my opinion, if you are
going to approach, as your first
step, one particular player in
the process, you constantly told
everybody that this is a
development, developer-centric
model. We are heading in that
decision the direction first. We
are certainly not heading in a
community driven process,
community driven meaning all
members of community. Which is
the residents that live in the
area, the developers, the
administration, experts, people
who may have an opinion in terms
of the process that we move in
on. These discussions, I worry,
may lead to another step that
will just bring us to a level
where we are increasingly
becoming distant from actually
speaking to the citizens
directly. As I mentioned in a
statement that I read, we are in
an embryonic stage in terms of
setting up our public
participation committee. There's
a lot of work still to be done
on that level and I would have
preferred to wait. I would
prefer to wait before I
approached citizens or a
developer on this sort of thing
to actually have something to
sell to them. Right now, I'm
worried that we're at a stage of
pure with -- improvisation. That
improvisation may not be
favourable to the developer, it
may or may not be in favour of
what the councillors want to
see. But what I stated earlier,
I think this is a premature
move. And but will come of it I
don't know. I don't like to
negotiate, do business, to
prepare whatever entity I work
for sort of thinking, let's go
cc and talk and see what they
think and if it works it will
work. We need to be completely
ready on our and to be able to
engage in something like that in
order to get to where we need to
be. That, whether you agree with
me or not, is a clear
philosophical difference in
terms of where we're going.
>> Councillor still sick, I
think you are up. You're done.
You have one more?
>> Second question. If the city,
and Cadillac Fairview, hold a
separate process inter along
with some citizens participating
and a, quote, unquote,
comprehensive plan is produced.
Well this plan, will in any way
at all restrict, modify, alter
the ability of citizens to
decide in favour of something
completely different option in
the ICB public consultation?
>> It's the same.
>> Pardon me?
>> It's the same.
>> Yes, it's not a separate
thing. Everything in the icy be
-- the ICB is a --
overdevelopment over parts of
the city. Many different areas.
The whole thing has to be dealt
with. You can't deal with -- you
know, it's just a question of
procedural is aware -- how do
you deal with the whole city,
every territory, every square
inch of it with one treatment?
>> It's not just a consultation
process first and the icy be
after. The ICB then will no
longer apply in the same way to
Cadillac Fairview properties?
>> Wendy -- Cadillac Fairview
simply -- one of the areas, one
of the areas has been treated
with, several areas in the city
have to be dealt with. It will
be dealt with in the -- to use
the expression goose egg, you
have a problem on the map, you
goose egg your objectives. The
goose egg is one digestible
piece you can actually get your
hands around and plan and start.
My concern about Councillor
Tremblay's approach is we will
never get started. He will never
be -- there will never be enough
information. We've been doing
this for five months now, the
planning department has been
preparing this way forward for
us for five months.
>> I'm not certain I understand
the answer specifically to the
question. If they come to -- in
the first process that you are
building tonight -- a
comprehensive plan, what then
happens to Mu1 and Mu2 within
the ICB? Is it no longer discuss
in the same way the -- what it
would have normally? Is it then
cut out? Modified in some way?
>> Let me try to say it again.
It's one proposal, it's one
process to deal with the whole
city. We have one area up there
that we will deal with. When the
comprehensive development -- if
a comprehensive development plan
is arrived, it would only be
arrived at with a high degree of
consensus. That's the whole
objective here. You were talking
about the comprehensive
development plan favouring a
developer. Not necessarily and
not in this case. A
comprehensive development plan
specifies what the City will
permit to go up there in much
more detail than zoning or any
state bylaw will allow as
Councillor Stainforth was
saying. The process -- I get
that people are suspicious about
the process but the objective is
to obtain a consensus, and if
you have a consensus, then that
problem is now solved. Now we
can deal with other problems.
>> When you have that process
done, then there is no more roll
vis-à-vis those properties in
the interim control bylaw?
>> The interim control bylaw is
only a temporary freeze. That's
it. As you deal with the areas
within the city, you pull them
out.
>> Okay. So it is cut out.
>> But if you are referring to,
as Councillor Stainforth was
mentioning, the urban plant, we
have not even sorted that out
yet. Are we going to have the
full Urban Plan done first? Yes,
quite possible. And then even if
the comprehensive development
plan is done, it sits on the
sideline. It is finished, it's
done, but we don't lift them out
of the, exit we wait for the
whole urban plan to be done and
we move on to the rest of the
city, one by one by one.
Otherwise, how do we get started
on this? It's been over a year
now. And this approach with
Cadillac Fairview, as I've been
saying over and over again, has
been worked on by the
administration for five months.
>> Originally, we had a process
independent of Cadillac,
somewhat independent of Cadillac
Fairview's influence, potential
domination. And now we don't.
>> Mr. Tremblay.
>> Go ahead.
>> I want to get back to the
idea of waiting and delaying and
talking and delaying the whole
project. Also the fact that it's
been over a year that we have
been wrangling with this. You
have to remember the project
we're looking at in that
particular area is a centerpiece
of what Pointe-Claire is all
about. It doesn't just -- it's
not just an area that's relevant
to the citizens of
Pointe-Claire, there are people
from all over the West Island.
It's important that we get it
right. I don't see why taking
your time and being reflective
and thinking about how you want
to approach this very carefully
-- even in a way that may
benefit the developer. I would
want nothing more than to see a
project by the citizens, the
developer, anyone in
Pointe-Claire is really proud of
going forward. Rather than use
the word delay, I would say it's
just we are doing our homework,
we are doing due diligence of
going through the process. I,
for one, would be prepared to
meet every single way -- day of
the week to get our ducks in a
row, our studies, our planning
process, our public
participation methods and
methodology, not just a few
lines in a pie paragraph, but a
real platform. Why didn't this
resolution speak directly to the
citizens and say, hey, we are
inviting you to come over and
you have a public participation
plan that we are putting
together. It will but it is --
we will have to see where these
discussions take us. I, like you
are, Councillor Thorstad-Cullen,
saw documentation that makes me
worry about that. Hence, my
decision to think, well, we need
to slow down and really think
carefully about what we are
doing rather than doing what we
are doing now which, to me, has
not an aura but a hint of
improvisation as we go along. If
they don't like, it we will see
what we do. We are not done yet.
There is much work to be done
that will benefit the developer,
that will benefit the citizens.
Hence my argument that we are
rushing through this
unnecessarily. It has created a
lot of animosity and destruction
within the town when there are
issues such as taxation we could
be assessing. And that's where I
stand on it. I appreciate the
points of view of my colleagues
on Council. I would have
preferred much more time to go
over this. Unfortunately, we are
where we are. We will see what
comes out of this.
>> Mr. -- if I could.
[Applause]
Apparently we are not allowed to
clap. Councillor Cowan, how do
we get started, from your
perspective? Ideally, he would
speak to the all the citizens of
Pointe-Claire in an even equal
manner and come up with the
framework of how we see our city
going forward and then present
that. To any potential developer
down the road. That's what I
envisaged when we did the
measure. That's what I would
still like to see happen, have
to have happen. Doesn't seem
like it answers your question.
We will see, will it come, up
will it be fair, what will the
result be? And the process is
being driven and not by the
citizen but by other forces at
first. I'm concerned like you.
It is natural instinct. We are
way better off if we speak to
the public and get their
sentiments first before going
forward.
>> Thank you very much for
trying your best to give
comprehensive answers.
- Monsieur Lapointe, une
autre...
- Le CD paie, il n'y a pas de
référendum, dans ça? Le CBP?
- Pardon?
- Le CBP, il n'y a pas de
référendum? Il
- Peut y en avoir un, oui.
- Le assaillis, on a une
consultation publique et on peut
avoir un référendum?
- Je pense que oui. Je pense que
oui, mais je suis pas certain.
- En 2017, on a fait 27 - 75 -
39, c'était de deux à 15 et
cachent. Sur le pouvoir
Brunswick, dans la forêt Mu2,
deux étages à 15 étages. Et sur
le bord de la 40, deux et 40 à
15 étages. Cette journée-là, un
lobbyiste de Cadillac Fairview
est un membre de la direction de
Cadillac Fairview étaient
d'accord pour le changement de
la Ville de Pointe-Claire pour
Mu1 et Mu2. Et ils avaient
aucune restriction sur les
auteurs, aucune restriction sur
le nombre des tâches, et c'est
ce que l'on veut changer
aujourd'hui. Mu1, on n'a pas
besoin d'avoir 15 étages et 25
étages. On veut retourner. Ça
cette méthode-là, on va pouvoir
faire un référendum sur ça, et
remettre ça comme c'était avant.
Est-ce que vous allez faire ça?
>> Councillor Stork would like
to comment.
>> You are 100 percent correct.
That's when they passed --
that's part of a special
planning program. I remember
watching the videotape on July
4th when they were asked a
question about the height
restrictions and such. Because
it was a special planning
program, it was subject to
public consultation but was not
subject to a public referendum.
Having analyzed that file, we
discuss it many times with a lot
of work together to find that
file. It's a valid point that
needs to be looked at in
reference to the CP and what's
happening with the ICB. A bit
more research has to be done to
that.
>> Councillor Stainforth?
- Je peux vous répondre au
niveau du référendum. Ce que
vous voulez que je vous explique
le processus? Légalement? Je
- Comprends le processus, oui.
- Alors, après la première
consultation qui est pour la
ville en entier et que l'on
adopte les critères, la deuxième
consultation, là, ils vont
soumettre leur plan et, après
ça, une fois que c'est soumis,
on peut avoir un référendum dans
les coller autour.
- Et les autres citoyens, eux
autres, ils ont pas d'affaire?
- There is citywide and then
contiguous for the referendum.
That is in the legal process. We
hired a firm in order to do the
participants -- participatory
activities that our city why.
- Et ça, c'est le même qui a
fait le code qu'il a joué.
-
>> Mister oui, absolument.
Mayor, if I may?
>> Yes, absolutely.
>> If we could have that
validated, whether that process
-- Councillor Stainforth --
could you ask if she agrees with
the statement we just made?
>> Do you want me to repeat it?
>> Sure.
>> Can you validate that and the
process there are two mandatory
public consultations. The first
of which is citywide, the CCP
criteria are adopted. At the
second one, the -- only after
the adoption of the criteria. In
addition to public consultation,
finally submitted. At the
request of the citizens and
contiguous areas to the reform
process.
>> If I may, Mrs. Stainforth. In
order to have a precise answer,
I will provide you with all the
process and then you can publish
it maybe on your Facebook or at
the next meeting. Yeah. I want
to make sure I will give you it,
the right and precise
information for the specific
Cadillac Fairview project.
>>
- Merci, Monsieur Lapointe.
- On va attendre la réponse?
- Oui, la réponse de...
- Je peux vous donner la
réponse, si vous voulez. Venez
me voir à mon bureau. Vous savez
où il est. Sinon, à la prochaine
séance publique, je pourrai vous
en faire part.
- O.K., merci.
>> Lynn Conway. I wasn't
planning on coming tonight and
asking questions. I would much
prefer to stay at home in the
comfort of my warm house then to
go out on a cold evening. I was
a bit surprised of finding when
I came home and I saw
information about the protest
about this meeting for the
resolution and the meeting
tonight. I don't think it was
proper to have this meeting
tonight. I found the article 53.
Article 53 said, if such a time,
the mayor advises the clerk that
he does not approve, the latter
shed submit it again to the
Council of the next meeting.
It's like what he was talking
about the first time he came up.
The next, what is not written
there in brackets is the next
regular sitting. There is
nothing that says it's an
emergency to do an extraordinary
meeting. It says the next
sitting, because last week Mayor
Thomas said it could be
discussed again or voted again
in February. I'm really opposed
to how this -- I think this
council is stepping over the
boundaries. I don't even know
how it came about to be passed.
I think they are taking the
councillor is taking away from
the Mayor's powers. I don't know
why the clerk allowed this
meeting to happen. I think it
should all be re-visited. I
don't know how this citizens of
Pointe-Claire feel about. This
was very upsetting for me.
>> Miss Conway, the process was
acceptable. That's the way it's
done. I can deny the meeting and
then four councillors can get
together, sign and have a
meeting called. They are allowed
to do that.
>> You had said at the past
meeting it would be discussed
again on February 7th or 17th
and nobody said anything then.
>> I was anticipating going to
February. I wish we had. I, like
you, don't see the need for this
meeting. I feel it's
unfortunate.
>> Yes. Okay. That was the point
I was making also. So Friday, I
saw online all the discussion.
Over the weekend, I participated
in the discussion. In no time at
all people wear replying that I
was doing misinformation. I
don't do misinformation. If
anything, this document, of the
resolution for the public
participation in determining the
future of zones Mu1 and Mu2 --
at last meeting, it was repeated
a few times that the meetings
will be in-camera. Those
meetings are going to be behind
closed doors. Those meetings
behind closed doors, does the
public have access to what is
being filmed in-camera? It's
written in the resolution. I
find this document is anything
that is misleading. I want to
know moving forward the
documents that you are writing
our -- you know, it's your eyes
and cross your t's.
>> If I may, camera -- in French
and the equivalent is behind
closed doors in private. Not
accessible to others.
>>
- C'est une expression. When
it's written --
>> This, it means closed doors?
Okay. I learned something. I
hope the documents that follows
this is going to be more
straightforward and
-- okay. I think that is it.
>> That's it, Miss?
>> I want to say I find the
whole thing it is, you know, not
very pleasant. I spent the whole
weekend reading stuff that was
posted online. Some of the stuff
was not pleasant to read at all.
I just wish you good luck moving
forward.
>> Thank you.
>> I have no question. I would
like for Mr. Johnson to go.
>> My name is David Johnston,
district one. I will stay my own
personal -- first. I'm generally
favourable to the scale of
development Cadillac Fairview is
proposing for Mu1. Generally
favourable for preservation of
the forest in Mu2. There are
precedents for its in
metropolitan regions. There is
downtown Montréal and Mount
Royal. I hope that happens.
- Le diable est parfois dans les
détails. Je connais ça. I have
questions about consultation.
Let me first say that I do
support moving forward with
talks with Cadillac Fairview, in
view of the fact that there are
other things happening in the
environment. There is the legal
proceedings in Québec superior
court. There is also new rules
coming down from the Québec
government on densification.
- Le conseiller Bisson a fait
référence à cette politique
québécoise à la fin de la
dernière réunion. These new
rules will not be favourable to
intercity suburbs like
Pointe-Claire. Their chief goes
to protect farmland, fight urban
sprawl, it's going to be heavy
pressure on Pointe-Claire. I
fear that the new rules maybe so
stretchy that they will take
away some maneuvering and
negotiation for Pointe-Claire.
As I said, the question has to
do with consultation. I wonder
whether we have not had it
already, and if we had, what was
wrong with it? Correct me if I'm
wrong, we had the special
planning program for downtown.
There was some consultation with
that. Then there was the draft
of the revised urban plan. There
was considerable consultation
for it. Then there was the
election, the controlled
resolution and bylaw. There is a
timeline on the website that
shows what was to have happened
over the past year. Certain
boxes are clicked off. But the
box for consultations, winter
2023 is empty. This is a five
month problem. The City has not
been able to, in five months,
come together and find a way
forward with that. Particularly
with the election, all of a
sudden it became a political
issue. I take it that the
elephant in the room really is
Cadillac Fairview. It's not, we
need some kind of plan, we need
more time to think. It seems to
me we've done a lot of that. It
seems to me that the focus is
really about the future of
Cadillac Fairview, which seems
to me to argue in favour of a
separate approach, treating
Cadillac Fairview and its plans
in the future of the forest
separately and giving it the
primary attention. Have the
consultations that have been
done to date been inadequate? Or
have they been useful?
>> Which consultations? What
consultations? There haven't
been any public consultations at
all. We have had meetings. We
haven't had consultations. The
public have not been invited to
consult on the urban plan at
all. If I can speak to your -- a
couple of the biases in the
preamble, for densification,
there are many ways to densify a
city without going 25 storeys
high. There is this thing called
-- happens all over North
America, where you can densify,
you can do duplexes, triplexes,
you can do semi detached homes.
You can do all kinds of
developments that identify in a
way that is much more human
scale, much more satisfying to
the citizens of that city other
than 25 stories. I take
exception with your preference
for that one. I think most of
Pointe-Claire would. There has
been debate along the way. There
is this big thing called the
election which elected a mayor
who does not see 25 stories as
the way to go. It was a pretty
powerful statement of that.
>> In fairness, Mister Mayor,
they also elected six council.
>> Correct, some of whom seem to
be on that track. But to get to
where I really take exception
with your comment, and it shows
perhaps a not complete
understanding of the city of
Pointe-Claire, this urban plan
is not about Cadillac Fairview.
I worried desperately about the
plaza. Excuse me, sir. I'm
answering. I worry desperately
about the plaza. The
Pointe-Claire plaza is a crucial
development for the outcome of
this urban plan. All of the
other shopping centres are
crucial to our urban
development. There are others.
There are four others. We are
not just Cadillac Fairview here.
It is just one part of it. The
others are going to have to be
treated -- it may night may not
be treated the same way. The
other thing is there are two
villages. The development
already in one of our cultural
villages that wasn't acceptable
to the citizens of
Pointe-Claire, no matter which
densification occurred. There is
much more than Cadillac Fairview
in this proposal. My final
comment is that the most inside
area in Montréal right now is
the Plateau-Mont-Royal. It is
three storeys high.
>> And 200 years old. Three
storeys high. It is the most
densify. We can do it as well.
>> Any other comments?
>> Yes, I have a comment.
>> From my understanding, when
we hired -- there were two
public consultations. One was
urban, plan which happened a
couple weeks ago. I think there
were seven people who signed up
and 20 people who attended. The
second one was the actual public
consultation with the citizens
in reference to specifically
Cadillac Fairview. We all agreed
upon that. And that is my
understanding of the public
consultations.
>> Very in mind, there is a
difference between a strategic
plan and the RCI. They are
different creatures. The
consultation for the strategic
plan should not be confused with
public participation.
>> You are welcome for that
clarification.
>> Mister Mayor, one comment
regarding and the terminology of
public consultation versus
public participation. Two big
different things. As I explained
earlier, public consultation
tends to be a short term process
where you ask for advice and
opinions on a particular
direction, more or less. Public
participation would include the
participation of citizens who
live in the area, citizens
outside of the area of
Pointe-Claire would have the
opportunity to be part of the
decision-making process in terms
of what they see being and
integrated development in the
area going forward. You have to
be careful with those. We've not
had a public participation
opportunity with regard to that,
or any discussion that pertains
to that area. The other thing
you have to remember, because
everyone is always harping on
the delays and talks and
thinking and this and that,
again, it is going to be a
project that's going to have an
impact and shape our city for
the next 60 years. Getting that
right, both for us and for the
folks who currently owns that
property, given all the
different changes in their
space, it is important. From a
practical standpoint, I know I
started my first mandate here,
we were still looking for a
director of urban planning. We
do not have a director of urban
planning. We also went through a
process of waiting until we were
able to get our new director
general into place. We had to
wait for some of these
administrative things to happen
in order to move forward on
these procedures. There has also
been hesitation with
availability, tight schedules,
et cetera, et cetera, that slow
things down. I, more than
anyone, would like to see this
process over. It would be a nice
thing for us to work on plans
everybody agrees with going
forward. I think we need more
patients with regards to the
process.
>> If I could add, densification
has happened in Pointe-Claire in
the last ten, 15 years. We see
evidence of densification. We
see it. We see Hymus West. The
difference, the men who are
project is a different -- I'm
not talking about the same
thing. I'm talking about the
Greenwich project behind the --
these are two separate
densification projects. These
are what we've done so far as a
city. I ask you, are they good
enough? Are they what we want to
do going forward? Have we done
well? Have we identified in a
way that is pleasing
aesthetically or otherwise to
the citizens of Pointe-Claire? I
would argue for the most part,
that may not be the case. I find
the project is not for me. What
I thought Pointe-Claire should
look like. I find Hymus west is
a series of hodgepodge
high-rises that have no relation
to each other and are devoid of
any plan. There is nothing wrong
with identifying. Going forward,
as a city, let's densify in a
way that we can prevent the
mistakes of the past and do a
better job going forward. There
is no objection to
densification. It's just, let's
do it properly and I would argue
-- let's go not 25 stories.
[Applause]
We are not allowed to clap. We
are not allowed to clad.
>> Time is up.
>> Time is? Up sorry, ma'am.
>> We are at the limit? Sorry
about that. My apologies to both
of you.
>> No! No!! No excuse me sir. No
thank you. Nobody wants to
comment. Thank you very much
sir, nobody would like to
comment. This citizens and the
chair have spoken. Thank you.
These two will speak before you
will, sir. They were waiting at
the mic. Excuse me, sir. Go
ahead, Paul.
>> Thank you. I would like to
repeat again, I think you are
way ahead of yourself. The
resolution tech concerns one
thing. Because there's been a
delay and we were complaining
that we weren't moving fast
enough, the two parties are the
city and Cadillac Fairview. The
city and Cadillac Fairview. It
has been well over years since
there's been any discussion,
early 2020 when they had
discussions. Nothing is
happening. If nobody talk to
each other, nothing is going to
happen. The reason why we had a
council as well as a city
administration in early
December, we had one RCI meeting
and it was unanimous at that
time. We wanted to have a
meeting to see what's going on.
What do they want to, do
whatever their plans? Don't
forget, they have gotten -- I
believe it wasn't over in
November, -- we have not seen
it. We have asked for
information to get that. That's
another -- this type of thing
you have to talk to somebody,
you have to find out where they
are coming from so we know where
we are going to go on this.
Based on that, we will consider.
That's what the City
participation is all about,
which is a voluntary
participation by citizens and
that's we want to organize. The
public consultation with a V CDP
is a legal requirement. You have
to talk about the criteria then
look at the final plan. That's
what we are looking at right
now. If you talk about the --
and what they did is go through
different steps. They invited
770 households to a session
where they explained what they
were going to do and they told
the people they were going to
open with a task force with 20
of 12 people, they had eight
residents, they have NDG, the
city manager, the director of
planning, the owner of the
property, and the construction.
The president of the
construction company. They
formed a task force. They had
roughly seven or eight meetings
over the course of six months to
three quarters -- I don't know.
Six and 12 month. They worked
out the difference. They came up
with a plan and then they
presented it to people. You are
way ahead of yourself by talking
about what's going to happen
down the road in maybe a year,
two years from now. We have not
started to work, okay? Let's not
run. The first things to talk to
Cadillac Fairview and see where
they are going. Like Mr. Cowan
said, and other people have said
tonight, if things are not
compatible, that's another
story. Then we will have to make
a decision on that. First of,
all we have to talk to them.
>> If I could just add to that
Councillor is starting a
process. Michigan to talk to
somebody. I think the people we
should talk to first of the
citizens on the timer framework
among the citizens of what they
have vision for the city going
forward and then speak to all
the rest of the development of
the city based on the collective
Aegean. That is the ideal
scenario. I want to add more
Serena but more. Then we will
have closure. Go ahead.
>> I don't make a point. The
construction that took place in
Pointe-Claire during the past
few years wasn't something high
in the sky in 2011 the City had
a mass citizen participation.
Which units John. Ronnie there
were all kinds of informations,
emails, other sections that were
organized. So -- those all the
residents that participated, not
enough residences in
Pointe-Claire. Not just the
seniors and wanted to sell
their, house they want to stay
in Pointe-Claire.. There are
more apartments put into the
plan. It wasn't a full consult
consultation for people. They
knew without a surprise.
>> Yet, now we have a fair
amount of senior residences,
don't we? We have the lowest
number of zero to 12-year-olds.
So, we all pictures our visions.
>> District, for a move to
close.
>> Seconder? Colin, district
three.
>> All in favour?
>> Right, folks thank you so
much for being here.
- Je vous apprécie.
Merci pour vos efforts.