>> Well, it's great to have you
all here.
There's quite a few of you here.
It's always good for democracy.
-... Demande écrite de quatre
conseillers municipaux peut
également forcer la tenue d'une
réunion. Cette réunion spéciale
du conseil municipal a été
convoqué malgré des objections.
Par une demande écrite des
conseillers Eric Stork, Brent
Cowan et Cynthia Homan est Tara
Stainforth. Je répète: Tara
Stainforth, Eric Stork, un Brent
Cowan, et Cynthia Homan. Le seul
but de cette réunion est de
voter sur la résolution visant à
mandater notre directrice
générale pour entamer des
négociations avec
(---)
Fairview afin de faire un plan
pour développer les zones Mu1,
Mu2, la forêt Fairview et le
stationnement Fairview. Je me
poserai à cette résolution et je
crois que des consultations
publiques devrait d'abord avoir
lieu.
Though it is the role of the
Mayor of Pointe-Claire to call
meetings of the City Council, a
written request from for City
Councillors can also force
meetings to be held. This
special meeting of City Council
was called over my objections by
a written request from
councillors Stainforth, Stork,
Cowan and Homan. I repeat
Stainforth, Stork, Cowan and
Homan. The sole purpose of the
meeting is to vote on a
resolution to mandate our city
manager to begin negotiations
with Cadillac Fairview to create
a comprehensive plan to develop
zones Mu1 and Mu2. The Fairview
forest and the Fairview parking
lot -- I will be opposing this
resolution and believe that
public consultation should be
held first. I am going to read
you one clause of the
resolution. There are others
that I don't like. But this one
is probably the most indicative.
Be it resolved that this Council
desires the city manager,
Katrina -- meet forthwith with
representatives of Cadillac
Fairview in-camera in an attempt
to work out with them a mutual
agreeable path forward that will
engage public participation in a
structured process haven't as
its objective, the creation of a
comprehensive plan for zones Mu1
and Mu2. Now, to translate --
what that means is that you --
the type of public participation
you are going to have is going
to be determined before you get
it by City Council, or the city,
and Cadillac Fairview. So, there
is a prioritization here in the
process that I don't like very
much. And that is why I am quite
offended by this whole exercise.
And I hope you are too. Thank
you.
>> Comment --
>> I just want to clarify
something in your opening
statement. In French, you said,
too --
In a global plan -- and an
English, put a comprehensive
plan together. If you read the
resolution, it means, for the
purpose of ensuring public
participation in determining the
future of zones Mu1 and Mu2 --
and I repeat, for the purpose of
ensuring public participation in
determining the future of zones
Mu1 and Mu2, that is not a
global plan, nor is it a
comprehensive plan. Thank you.
>> It is a plan affecting zones
Mu1 and Mu2 --
>> Please read the --
>> Councillor Stork, I am the
chair of this meeting --
>> Yes, you are --
>> I was not finished --
>> Is there anyone else --
>> The councillor is not allowed
to speak twice. You had already
finish your comment. You are not
allowed to speak twice on the
same issue. Is there anybody
else or --
>> -- Thomas -- I would like to
point to my objection to using
your public privilege platform
to comment on a resolution
before we even make it to put
your opportunity to speak that
resolution occurs at the same
time as the rest of us. And I
would like it reported that, in
my view, you have used your
position and you have distorted
the purpose of the resolution --
and that was the reason for your
abuse, to distort the resolution
right from the beginning. But at
any rate, everybody will have
the opportunity to hear us all
that out, when the motion is
actually before the floor.
>> Okay. I would like to remind
Councillor Cowan that I am
actually the Mayor of
Pointe-Claire and I am allowed
an opening statement. But that
may have been overlooked. Should
I proceed to the agenda?
>> Yes. You must first approve
the agenda.
Approuver l'ordre du jour.
>>
Do I have a mover?
>> Kelly Thorstad-Cullen,
district three.
>> Seconder? Cynthia Homan,
district five.
>> All in favour?.
>> Okay.
>> We can proceed with a
question period. But first, I
need to remind citizens in the
room that the question must bear
on items on the agenda --
La période de questions peut
s'ouvrir, je rappelle aux
personnes présentes que les
questions doivent porter
uniquement sur les thèmes à
l'agenda ce soir.
>> Does anybody want to ask a
question?
- Et ce qu'il y a des questions
dans la foule? Seulement au
sujet de la résolution demandée.
>> My
Name --
>> Closer to the mic, sir.
>> My name is -- we did already
in the meeting.
>> We can't hear you. They are
correct. Put your mouth closer
to the microphone, sir.
>> We did already the
consultation in the chalet on
the spring. And the majority of
people, they refused about this
project. I don't know why the
City Council did bring it back
again. That is my question. Why?
The two of them was -- Brandt,
Torah, and Eric. And there was
over 100 people there. They
refuse the project. So, why are
they coming back again for it?
>> I will give you another
example. There were 500 people
in the room against the
demolition of the pioneer. And
it still happened.
>> I have no idea why these
people working for the citizens
of Pointe-Claire or working for
-- please, I want to know.
>> I can't answer that.
>> I'm -- may
>> I?
>> Citizen for 30 years -- I
never saw that. Please, I will
ask very simple question. When
we -- my wife and me, we both go
to my kids. They ask us for
credit about, do I have a
criminal record or -- so we have
to pass this test. So, when they
do Election about citizen, City
Council, or mayor, did they do
that test, to get about the --
do they have a criminal record
or not?
>> I can't speak to that either.
>> Because that is what you are
--
>> Sir -- you are right, that is
correct. Sir, correct, we have
to speak to the resolution. Not
-- speaking to the characters of
people.
>> Okay. We did all that in the
spring. And all, the majority,
refused it --
>> The project --
>> So, why you have to come back
again?
>> You have asked that and it's
a very good point. I concur. I
concur with you. I see no need
for. I see no need for. I find
this exercise rushed, hurried
and unnecessary, and
unfortunate.
>> --
>> Mayor Mister Mayor -- point
of order, please.
>> -- Councillor Cowan --
>> Councillor Cowan, I am the
chair. Would you like to speak?
>> Yes, I would.
>> Point of order, when you
speak in question period your
answers are not supposed to be
-- your own personal opinions.
Once again, I must record my
protest against you abusing this
process.
>> Please do, Councillor Cowan,
my job, I feel, is to protect
this beautiful city. And I will
respond accordingly. I feel I
have been elected to protect the
future of Pointe-Claire and I
was on the mandate of allowing
the citizens their right to
equal participation in the
future politics of Pointe-Claire
and that is what I am trying to
do right here, now, with my
sincerest endeavours.
>> Then please follow the rules.
>> Please, Councillor Cowan,
before you speak, you have to
ask the chair to speak. Those
are the rules. Why are you
breaking the rules you are
talking about?
>> Because you are, sir.
>> No, I'm not -- I'm just
asking --
>> Respect --
>> Councillor Cowan I --
>> Know, I'm not. I'm respecting
them. Sir, is there another
question?
>> Am I able to speak now?
>> Yes, you have asked one
question. You have one more. You
have a preamble, and you have
had your preamble. You have one
more question, sir.
>> So, that is -- my question.
Why are they already coming back
again?
>> You asked that when --
>> I asked that one? But I
didn't get an answer. Why?
>> May I answer? There is no
project. The only reason we are
here tonight is to ensure that
the public is aware of all the
steps that are being taken in
the back rooms, so to speak. We
want to make sure that everyone
understands what is happening
and so for the past five months,
my guess, since February, last
year, it's almost been a year we
have been discussing how to move
forward with the new urban plan.
We obviously cannot complete the
entire urban plan all in one
sitting. It has to be piece by
piece. And so, tonight, we are
coming forward. We want to
ensure that the public is aware
and that we are transparent of
everything that is going on. So,
we are coming forward to let you
know where we are in this
process. That is all this is,
there is no project. There is
nothing. All it is is, if you
read -- if you read what is on
here -- it is about mandating
our director general to have a
conversation. There is no
project. And everybody was fully
on board with this until we said
we would go public with it. So,
all we want to do is let the
public know where we stand in
this process. It has been one
year we have been looking at
this. I should hope we are going
to move forward at some point.
>> Okay --
>> But --
>> Excuse me, excuse me, Sir --
>> Already consulted --
>> Excuse, me excuse me, excuse
me --
>> Yes, sir?
>> What is being determined here
behind closed doors -- would you
please stop making fun emotions
and faces, ma'am, it's quite
rude. In the pink, with the
face, with a mask on? Could you
please stop being so rude. I
find that quite rude. -- don't
play innocent. They did not see,
but I did. Please stop that.
Okay? Thank you very much. What
is being determined here tonight
is the back rooms -- are you
mimicking or mocking? Thank you,
Councillor Stork. Okay, excuse
me --
>> What's being determined here
tonight is -- would you stop?
What is being determined here
tonight is how you are going to
be allowed to participate. That
is being negotiated on your
behalf. How you are allowed to
participate. That is the
offensive part of this
initiative.
>> Can I finish what I have to
say?
>> One more question, sir. One
question. Don't -- you have had
your --
>> -- or letter to every citizen
to vote and to get the right
result. And instead, maybe, it's
just -- Cadillac Fairview in
favour people are here to vote
for it? So, really, the right
solution to send to everybody in
the -- or just the district,
what is going to build, big
tower, that, to get the right
decision from them? They accept
it or not? Is that make sense --
>> Pretty much. Well, no. They
are starting the process of
dialogue. The process of
dialogue is being initiated. But
the structure of the process is
being determined in negotiation
with Cadillac Fairview to
determine the structure of the
process. The structure of the
process includes your
participation.
>> --
>> That's where the inequity
occurs. Yes, Councillor Cowan?
>> What you just said is totally
wrong.
>> It's not.
>> Yes, it is.
>> What you said is totally
wrong.
>> It's not. It's not wrong?
>> Okay, I will made it until my
turn.
>> Please -- do
>> In order to explain how wrong
you are, how misleading you are,
and how you try to distort this
--
>> We will see by the end of the
meeting how the public perceives
this. Excuse me, sir. Thank you,
you have had your two. Thank
you.
- Geneviève Lucie,
Pointe-Claire.
>> So my, understanding of the
resolution is to allow the
director general of the city
could have a conversation with
Cadillac Fairview. For
furtherance of a settlement of a
litigation -- so, that is at the
bottom of the resolution, right?
The bottom of the resolution? Is
that it --
>> No, it is not to further the
settlement of the litigation.
>> To help solve the settlement
of the litigation.
>> Well, it's separate.
>> My first question is -- oh
Merci, excuse-moi, O.K.,
parfait.
The supposed intent of this
resolution is to allow for
participatory process with
residents, why is discussion of
these options not actually
happening with the public input?
And is that happening with a
developer who has a vested
financial interest in the
outcome?
>> Excellent question. I can't
answer that question. I have the
exact same question.
>> -- I can answer --
>> Please, Councillor Cowan, go
ahead.
>> There is litigation with
Cadillac Fairview. That is a
lawsuit that was brought against
the City a while ago. There can
be no conversation with Cadillac
Fairview that can involve the
public because of that
litigation. So, it has to be
in-camera. It is like when you
-- are if you are going to have
a settlement discussion, the
litigate ease litigatees -- just
to get the conversation going.
The conversation you --
-- recognized as necessary.
There has to be conversation
with Cadillac Fairview. And so
all this is doing the starting
that conversation.
>> -- party involved in the
discussion about what
participatory process is going
to happen.
>> That is only to start.
Cadillac Fairview has not even
agreed to this discussion. I
>> Understand that.
>> Once this discussion gets
underway, then maybe we are
going to have the starting point
to what you want. That is all we
are trying to do, get to the
starting line.
>> So, since there is
transparency -- you are saying
everything is in-camera, there
is transparency, this was to be
transparency, but we can't hear
anything about what's gonna
happen in the meetings between
the director general and
Cadillac Fairview.
>> That's correct. Because
there's litigation going on. But
what pops out of that, that is
where we start. And there is no
commitment. The City won't be
bound. Cadillac Fairview would
not be bound at that point. But
that is the start of the
conversation. That will be
public.
>> I think our concern as public
is that there is not -- I'm
speaking for myself -- is that
is there really no other option
available that would involve a
more participatory process, in
saying, what is the best
solution for our city? What is
the best solution for the city
center that would not involve
in-camera meetings with Cadillac
Fairview that we are not privy
to?
>> Well I don't see how you can
have a conversation about
somebody else's property without
bringing them in.
>> Kirkland -- did Kirkland do
that?
>> They brought them in.
>> Okay. Exactly.
>> The whole idea is to try to
model what worked in Kirkland.
>> There are enough, but if we
can't be in those meetings, or
we can't even know what is in
those meetings and how do we
know that we are not being told
what is the best for us?
>> Because, as I said, the
meetings are only to get to the
starting point. That is it.
>> Allow me to intervene here.
>> --
>> The Kirkland process started
this way at the outset and
failed. Because what happened
is, too much was behind closed
doors. And by the time it got to
the public, it was not
acceptable. That is exactly what
we are on a path to do right
now. At the current moment, your
questions are excellent. At the
current moment, there is nothing
stopping us from starting public
participation right away,
yesterday, the day before. We
can do consultations or we can
have open meetings and find out
what you people want tomorrow.
>> I think that is the confusing
--
>> And that is what I would like
to have happen before the
conversations even start. That
would be a preferable option
from my perspective, to get with
the public says first before we
start the process, so that it
structures how we think and how
we engage the process as a
Council or as a City Council.
So, that would be my option,
just let me get that on the
record. And there is nothing
that in is in this process that
stops -- engaging in public
participation tomorrow.
>> Mister Mayor?
>> Yes?
>> I would like to say, that's
what I hear --
>> You are awfully
conversational, Mr. Cowan. I
wasn't
>> I was impatient and called
for public participation process
-- in July, in 2022. Nothing
happened since. At Tuesday's
meeting, you called for public
consultations five months ago.
Well, where were you, five
months ago? We could have had
public consultations in some
kind of structured form five
months ago. But you did not do
anything.
>> I tried to encourage and beg
for that on the numerous RCI
meanings we had along the way,
and Councillor Tremblay did the
same. We tried in those
meetings. But we are, of course,
outnumbered, to have that
happen. But it was structured in
a different direction. And I'm
very glad that it is being
transparent now. And let me say
that -- this process that we are
engaging in now is not what I
would call public participation.
This process is not public
participation. This is anything
but. It's a last-minute meeting
called when you guys have had no
preparation, no time to
research. This is not public
participation.
>> It's definitely throwing out
a lot of red flags for me, and
that's why -- I think a lot of
us have questions about the
process. I know I as a lot of
questions. Will you permit me to
ask a second question?
>> Yes. Yes, one more.
>> Okay. Thank you. My
understanding about the purpose
of the freeze originally, that
everybody voted on, was that it
would give us time to take a
look at the entire city, look at
everything, how everything works
together, look at things
holistically. So, what I see
coming down the line is that Mu1
and Mu2 are going to end up
coming out of the freeze and
they're going to be seeing
separate separately from the
entire city. However, they are
the biggest project that is
going to be happening in
Pointe-Claire God knows how
long. And it's going to affect
so much of our city. And yet we
are left -- to get out of the
freeze, and let that just happen
on its own, while we are
considering everything else in
the city. So, okay. Tara, you
are saying that's not -- Mu1 and
it Mu2 are not coming out of the
freeze them. That's the --
purpose
>> May I comment, Mr. Mayor?
>> --
>> The final outcome of this is,
every property should come out
of the freeze. That is how the
since. The RCI --
>> I understand -- that
>> But no one is coming out of
the freeze here. As you said, it
is probably the most important
and focal, central point of our
city. And so, we need to start
somewhere. And so we are
starting here. We are looking at
this. And actually, I mean --
this is where we need the input.
And what we are doing is, we are
asking our D G DG to move
forward -- and at that point, we
do want to establish a committee
of citizens. And citizens will
elect in all likelihood. And
they are the ones that are going
to be working on this project,
much like Kirkland did. This is
just us trying to show you where
we are going with this moving
forward. And we need a starting
point. It has been a year, as we
said. And public consultation --
we talked about five months ago,
and it did not happen. And we
are talking about who we have
now got a contract with. And it
is being objected. And so, once
again, we are talking about not
doing public consultations due
to objections to who picked up
the contract. So, when will
these public consultations
happen? We want people to come
in and share our opinions. We
want people talking about this.
And that is what this is about.
This is about us being
transparent. Us saying, look,
this is where we are -- we want
you guys in on this. We are not
trying to do this behind closed
doors. We are trying to move
forward. Nothing is being
planned. There is no project
here. There is nothing other
than our DG going and saying,
are you willing to talk? Are you
willing to participate with the
citizens?
>> Well --
>> It just looks like a. Setup I
set up, for a set up, for a set
of. It's just concerning because
there's a lot that we don't know
at this point. And there is --
to me, there is a lot of red
flags. And so --
>> Well, things need to be
structured. We can't just grow
the doors open --
>> Councillor Stainforth --
>> You are allowed to respond --
>> And I respond
>> He certainly can, Councillor
Stork.
>> Thank you, Mayor Thomas. Just
to go back to the point in terms
of public participation between
the conversation between the DG
and Cadillac Fairview, whatever
comes out of that can still be
questioned. It is not whatever
comes out of that is final. It
just to establish a public
participation process, to lay
down the framework of general
guidelines of where we want to
head. We can disagree with what
comes out of it. We are here
because we want to be
transparent, because we do not
want to hide anything.
Resolution like this, it would
have had but -- some other
people would have liked, it
would've been passed at the
Public council meeting and slid
through the backdoor. --
>> Who would that have been?
>> Excuse me, sir, I'm talking.
>> Who would that have been?
That's incredible. That's
incredible.
>> You need help.
>> Nope, I don't.
>> You need help. Thank you. Let
me finish, please --
>> Councillor Stork --
>> Excuse me, sir. Excuse me --
>> -- process --
>> This is democratic. So, to
your point --
>> Excuse me --
>> Stainforth --
>> --
>> That's why we are here, to
actually be transparent. The
reason we are at this stage is
because, for seven months,
nothing has happened. And we
need to move this dossier
forward. It is spinning its
wheels. And, through resolution
is the only way we can force the
conversation to be had. It is
the only way we can force the
conversation to be had. And it
is not -- they are not going to
come back with, this is what is
this, this is what is that. No,
there isn't a come back with a
structure for public
participation policy. And once
we get, that we can review it
and see if we like it or not.
Like we said, we need a starting
point.
>> If I could speak Ms. Lucia
Lucier -- public participation
at the outset, despite
councillor Tremblay's and mine
my objections, -- happened
sooner -- that process was --
along with, us which and hasn't
been attended properly, and I
have been at every single
meeting and so have not missed
one but others, can say the
same. I have been ready and
eager to get this process going.
And I would have liked, had I
had more control of the process,
to have had public participation
much earlier in the process. The
key to remembering all of this
is, what is going on here is
that, another party, a
developer, is being asked to
help determine -- or help
structure -- how this process
should occur. They should not
have special powers over above
the average citizen. And that is
my objection here. Thank you.
>> The mayor --
>> Speak --
>> Of course, Councillor Cowan.
>> There's another bit of
misinformation. The developers
not having any role at all in
the -- structural -- they are
only going to have a role in how
they will participate in. And
then if we accept the way --
they will be agreeable going
forward, they will -- sum -- the
public. As I said, this is all
to get to the start line. That
is it. The start line will be
completely open to the public.
But we have to get there first.
And we have got a catch 22. You
have to talk to the property
owner. You have to -- them into
it. And this is the way to --
them into it. They have got to
build up trust in the process.
They are not going to be wasting
their time. They have a court
case going because, well -- we
can guess why they have a court
case going. We have got to get
around that. We have got to get
through that. We have got to
build mutual trust and we can
start talking, with the public.
So, yeah, we are asking -- we
are putting our trust in the
director general to be able to
engage in that conversation and
gather some. Where we are not
talking with Cadillac Fairview,
she is. And the mandate letter
that will be distributed -- I
don't know, perhaps tonight --
but the mandate letter we will
see from that, exactly, with the
limits of her powers or ability
-- engage, Cadillac Fairview,
for the sole purpose of building
trust. The mayor wants to
destroy trust. That is what he
is doing tonight.
>> I am trying to -- I'm trying
to encourage trust in the
citizen -- Ms. nearby Lussier --
the way, because there's lots of
people online. The process --
allowing citizens to the -- in
the process at the same time,
maybe even before the developer.
That is the point that
Councillor Cowan just detoured,
which is crucial to it. You, the
citizen, should be speaking
before we are speaking to the
developer. Thank you.
>> -- I agree with that. But
just to radio rate, Councillor
Cowan, you are saying the -- is
gonna be coming with to -- ideas
the Cadillac Fairview. And not
the other way around?
>> It's reciprocal.
>> --
>> And we don't have a mandate,
though? That's going to be
public?
>> Yeah, I will be. Absolutely.
And that -- know exactly what
the limits of her conversation
is to get us, again, as I said,
to the start line. Ms. --
>> Ms. Verdone, you had
something to say? Thank you. Ms.
Lussier -- there's a lot of
people online.
>> Good evening, Mark Ably,
district one. -- two of the
statements that are made, or two
of the phrases that are used to
figure out exactly what they
mean and so, Mister Mayor, I
hope you can give a good answer.
But I would be happy if other
councillors wanted to weigh in
on this. How much of the forest
has the Québec Ministry of the
Environment mandated the
protection of? The preamble says
the protection of the wetland.
Do we know how many hectares
that covers and how much it
excludes? And is it the same
area, or is a different area
that is already covered by the
interim freeze on development
passed by the sea M M CMM?
>> We are not exactly sure what
those numbers are from the
Québec Environment minister. We
are not clear on that. As of
yet, it is not clear to us.
>> And none of the councillors
--
>> Of course --
>> On this
>> Yes, we are waiting for the
response from them. We haven't
requested, that absolutely.
>> So, when the Québec Ministry
of the Environment issued its
mandate, what exactly did it
say? Are we allowed to know?
>> We don't have it.
>> Mr. Mayor --
>> Yes?
>> We have a communication from
Cadillac Fairview that they
received a specifications about
what lands had to be protected
because they are in a wetland.
But we, as the city, has not
received, itself, an official
word from the government. That
is my understanding.
>> That seems quite
extraordinary.
>> Doesn't it?
>> -- the right --
>> Excuse me, you are supposed
to speak to the comm before you
get to speak -- Councillor
Stainforth --
>> I would say, Councillor
Stainforth, that they may be the
owners, but the citizens of
Pointe-Claire have a right to
that kind of information coming
from the provincial government.
Do we know how much land is
covered by the interim freeze on
development passed by the CMM --
>> We do, we do. -- all of it at
the moment.
>> And so, I know there are a
lot of people -- so, I will just
ask one more related question,
and then I will sit down. What
role or what is the interim
freeze passed by the CMM that is
not mentioned in either
resolution or the preamble --
so, what role does that play?
Are we simply ignoring that or
pretending it does not exist or
are we saying this will become a
relevant when it's passed? What
does that leave us?
>> That's an excellent question.
And it has not been considered
in the process.
>> --
>> Address that --
>> No, Councillor -- I'm tired.
I want to hear Councillor Stork.
>> Cede the floor to Councillor
--
>> Okay, thank you. You did
express the need to speak.
>> -- interim control bylaw. And
for my understanding, what it
does is, it's putting a freeze
on certain areas of green spaces
on the island of Montréal that
appeared in the final version.
They were not there in the
draft. In the first draft, it
only applied to the crown around
Montréal with a --
We only green space on the
island of Montréal that was
identified. Again, from my
reading of it, it appears that
what they are saying is that
they are going to ask the
provincial government to make it
a straightforward process to
define the market value of land
that is identified frozen in the
interim controlled bylaw, so
that, if a City wanted to buy or
expropriate that land it would
be a fast track to determining
the value. So, you would not
have to go into years in court.
And then, in the end, once that
law is in place, if it gets to
be ever put in place, then the
city would have the ability to
buy the land at market value.
That is the way -- and then once
it bought the land, then the
Montréal metropolitan community
with allow to be rezoned green.
>> -- -- more, Mr. Ably, that's
Councillor Cowan's
Interpretation. -- next
prochaine question? Question?
- Bonsoir! Hello
. Regardless --
>> Excuse me --
>> Sorry, before you start, can
you state your name, please?
>> Yes, sure. I don't come
Nathalie Leconte. Very often --
Natalie -- regardless of how
this meeting has come into play,
I'm still grateful it's
happening. I'm grateful for
everyone who has made it happen.
I know there's a lot of polar
positions on it. I'm just here
as a resident. Who was involved
in Valois district three
revitalization from 2016 to
2019, which I found super
helpful, and then radio silence
and -- I'm actually here because
I assisted Cadillac Fairview's
public information session that
they organized on March 30th.
And I had heard of it through my
personal network, not through
online publications or, to my
knowledge, to the City's
website. So, that was very much
a presentation with regards to,
here is what we are planning to
do. And it was more of a public
approval, in my opinion, as I
experienced it. So, I'm really
excited when I hear Ms. a
Stainforth -- my pronouncing
that correctly -- yeah? Thank
you? -- presentation. --
legalese, but I can understand
the process of what you are
trying to achieve. What I'm
concerned about is what you is
going to happen after that
process has begun to be
achieved. I was a community
mobilize or for a few years in a
neighbourhood in NDG. And I am
still a community worker today.
So, my question that I am coming
to is something that has been
brought up. But I would like to
know, given Cadillac Fairview's
economic goals, impact, vision
and lack of communication, I
want to say bilateral
communication between
yourselves, the public and so
forth -- even if you have not
fully decided yet -- because it
seems we are not at that point,
who do you plan to be ahead of
this public consultation
process? You mentioned --
committee. I just want to make
sure that it's not just going to
be the CF. Because when I read
Cadillac Fairview -- and I read
mutually agreeable, I was a
little bit nervous with the
people that have all the money.
Having an equal position and
something they should not have
an equal position in -- even
though they are the owners of
the property, I do believe the
City of Pointe-Claire has more
power than that. And number two,
can you promise me, as an
individual, as someone who would
like to have my family here,
that passing this resolution and
removing the ICB does not mean
that Cadillac Fairview will be
the primary rent on this
project, with their own
objectives? And that the City of
Pointe-Claire will not be swayed
by their financial and
litigation threats?
>> I won't be.
>> May I respond?
>> Sure, absolutely, Councillor.
>> These a few things I just
want to highlight. When there
was the public meeting at
Cadillac Fairview, that was
Cadillac Fairview a's public
meeting. It was not the cities.
That is why it was on their
website, they advertised. It it
was not something that we
advertise. People were welcome
to go. That was something that
they were sharing with you. It
was not approval, disapproval.
We have not begun that public
participation. They wanted to
share with you. This is not a
resolution to remove them from
the RCI. Because you said, I
just want to be clear that it's
not -- it's a resolution, as has
been mentioned tonight, for
starting point, because, in my
opinion, if we don't do this
resolution, we are going to go
nowhere. We need to start having
the public participation. We
want that process to start. We
want to move forward. We must
move forward. And so, that was
the whole point of coming here
today, or passing the resolution
today, and to try to structure.
It's not, they are going to
dictate to us or we are going to
dictate them. It's about talking
about what can work best to
truly have your public
participation valuable, count,
interactive, registered,
structured, not just haphazard,
here and there and everywhere.
Because this is very important.
We all recognize this. We all of
our beautiful city. We want the
best possible outcome. That is
truly the point. And so, there
are some of us who really
believe that this is step one,
and if we don't do this, we are
going to go nowhere. So, that is
really what it is about. We will
have ongoing dialogue. I am
always there to answer any
further clarifications. But I
just want to want to clarify
some of those points for you.
>> We have been participating.
We have been meeting on a
regular basis on exactly these
matters. And it was no need for
this. We have been moving along.
We have had progressive
meetings, productive meetings,
extensively, since we started
the process. It was a process
given to, us decided upon by
Council and the administration.
We have not missed -- we have
met our goals. We have gone
along, as we were going. And
there is no need to do this. We
were proceeding accordingly. And
we should, absolutely, before
doing this, have public
participation. We should -- if
-- before doing this process,
which has nothing to do with
what we were doing -- nothing to
do with it -- this is an
accelerated, I, think artificial
exercise. And we were doing just
fine. And nothing about this --
I would love to accelerate
public participation. I would
love that. If that is the result
of this, and we agreed to do it
tomorrow, I'm a happy camper.
And I think we should have that
public consultation and
participation prior to any
mandate letter or any discussion
with Cadillac Fairview. And
what's being done right now is
that Cadillac Fairview is being
allowed into a process where it
controls and determines, as has
a say, in what type of public
participation is going to occur.
Read that resolution.
>> May I comment?
>> Of course, Councillor Stork.
That's
>> Your interpretation, once
again.
>> No.
>> Yes, that's your
interpretation. So, if
everything is online and on par,
wasn't that stated just two days
ago that we were five months
behind?
>> Who stated that?
>> You did.
>> No.
>> -- five months behind the we
are five months behind, in my
opinion, in public
participation. In fact, we
should have been doing public
participation right at the
outset.
>> And Councillor Tremblay, and
I, if we had had our way, would
have liked it much sooner, and
Councillor Tedford, who is no
longer on Council, we are all
arguing to have that far sooner
in the process then what is
still in the system.
>> -- like it much sooner. And
we are behind on public
participation.
>> May I finish? Because I was
not finished.
>> Let's --
>> You said on Tuesday that you
would like this process to start
five months earlier. So, in our
--
>> Participation start --
>> -- in our plan, when should
the consultations, in Council,
to discuss this process, when
should they have started?
>> Are you asking me? It's
question period. It's not for
you to question, Councillor
Stork. It's a question period
for the citizens, Councillor
Stork. They are to come up to
the mic. Councillors are not to
take the time away from the
citizens to ask questions and
circumvent the process away from
the citizens. Thank you. It --
>> I will let the next person
go. But I do see that, given all
the different voices on the
council, I appreciate everyone
making an effort in trying to
come to an agreement. I, even
though I am a full-on supporter
of Fairview, because I care
about the forest, I care about
green spaces, I am also going to
trust that everyone is trying to
do the best they can. But I will
be knocking on peoples doors if
I don't hear about public
consultations. And I want to
trust the process. But, just
saying that, if this is what
happens in public, I am
concerned about what happens
behind closed doors. And I that
at every level. So, thank you.
>> Mr. Mayor --
>> Next question --
>> Councillor Tremblay --
>> An opportunity to speak --
>> Yes, a -- voice.
>> -- pitched as an exercise in
transparency. Being privy to a
lot of the documentation that
all of my fellow councillors are
exposed to, I tend to feel that
the word transparency and that
this is just merely an attempt
to begin the process, we only
want to communicate, is a little
light. I think that the
resolution that we have before
us is not as innocuous as you
might believe it to be. I think
it is a serious document that
will pushes, potentially, in a
direction that exposes us to a
situation that will not allow us
to control the way we should
control the process of
participatory urban planning
exercises that we need to go
through with the public. In
addition to, that I just want to
speak to the matter of the
urgency or not behind the whole
process. Both Councillor Cowan
and myself, at the urging of Mr.
Weemaes at the time, were very,
very bullish, in terms of
meeting aggressively in the
summer. The first meeting that
was scheduled for July 9th. It
got cancelled because no one
could attend. The second meeting
was July 16th. The same result
-- the first meeting was July
30th. It was a wonderful
meeting. The meetings we have
had since that point have been
excellent. The administration
has provided
-- the administration has
provided a great deal of
information, well presented,
well exposed. It still needs
some work in terms of what we
can do in terms of public
participation and what that
process might involve. But the
meetings have been far too
infrequent and irregularly
attended, so that we can create
a momentum to the point where we
want to be able to get to. So,
the idea that we are trying to
throw this in as a moment of
transparency or that we are
dragging our heels, I think, it
is generous. I will leave it
there. I have other comments to
make regarding the resolution
later. But I just want to make
it -- I want to be able to
stress my point of view in that
regard, and allow you to ask
your questions.
>> Good evening, my name is
Andrea Allen Guy -- Cadillac
Fairview being a massive project
that has potential massive
effects going forward, so we
really can't afford to get this
wrong. So, my question -- and I
will explain why I'm asking this
question is, what kind of
safeguards will be put in place
if there are issues with the
Fairview project? And the reason
why I am asking this this is
that I am living the aftermath
of the Sotramont project. As
residents of Austin, we have
asked for contingency plans in
case there were issues with this
project. But we were told it
would not be necessary and if
there was a profit problem that
came up, it would be dealt with.
So, as you know, this project
was also built on wetlands. And
so now we are dealing with
numerous issues, including
residents houses flooding. And a
hedge -- a privacy hedge that
has not been able to hold up, we
are stuck with a ditch that
breeds a bunch of mosquitoes.
And so this is the situation
that we are faced with. And so,
when we asked what facility will
do about this, we are told it's
a case study on how something
should not be done. So, the
Fairview project looks, feels
very similar to what I have
experienced, but in a
potentially much bigger
experience scale. Again, what I
would like to know is, what is
the safeguards and contingency
plans that will be put in place
to ensure that this is not a
repeat of the Sotramont
disaster.
>> A very good question.
>> Mr. Mayor -- a friendly
reminder that the question must
bear on the --
>> It does, absolutely. She is
hoping that what we are engaging
in that won't result in the same
result. And she is worried that
this process that we are
discussing will have a negative
result, much like the one she
has lived through. I think that
is totally apropos of the
subject and not off-base at all.
And I think I would like to say
that it is absolutely on my
mind. A bad example is paramount
to me. I got elected to prevent
that kind of thing. And I hope
that I can in this instance. And
we are talking about this
instance. And I will do my
absolute best. And that is
engineering, that is the city
administration. That is every
single department working at
their utmost to make sure that
we don't duplicate what happened
there. I think we -- do that. I
think we have an excellent
administration. And I think that
that can be done. I think that
is -- keep reminding us.
>> --
>> Are there any other comments?
All right. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
Bonsoir, je vais faire une
introduction...
- Juste s'il vous plaît
mentionner votre nom.
(rires)
(inaudible)
Pour tout le monde... va
seulement pour madame. Je ne
suis pas offensé du tout. On
sait très bien que ce projet-là,
le projet, la loi doit être
observé de tous. Ça inclut
Fairview, ça inclut la ville, ça
inclut, dans ce cas-ci, le
gouvernement à propos des terres
humides et toutes. Est-ce qu'il
y a un potentiel que la Ville ou
Fairview... je ne peux pas
parler pour les autres, qu'ils
brisent la loi. Est-ce qu'il y a
un potentiel?
- Je pense que non. Je pense que
non.
- Ça me rassure déjà.
- Il peut faire un projet les
mais briser la loi, non.
- Absolument.
- Il peut faire un projet qui ne
s'agencent pas avec la ville
mais illégale, non.
- Je le sais par expérience
qu'il y a beaucoup de projets
qui ont été déposés, étudié par
notre personnel, par
l'ingénierie légale, finance ou
quoi que ce soit. Et puis, le
projet est modifié en chemin.
Vous comprenez ce que je dis?
Des fois, même moi je parle et
je me confonds. Comment
pouvez-vous vous objecter à
quelque chose qui n'a pas été
présenté? C'est l'essentiel d'un
dialogue. Ça ne compromet pas la
Ville, ça ne compromet pas
Fairview. Je suis sûr qu'ils ont
du personnel compétent,
ultra-compétents qui ne
présenteront pas quelque chose
de tout croche mais advenant que
l'ingénierie arrive ou
l'urbanisme, quoi que ce soit,
advenant qu'il y ait un
accroc... ça, je peux parler
pour Fairview, quand tu as un
investissement de cette
grandeur-là, si c'est déplacer
une porte, un trottoir, une
entrée, ils vont le faire. Alors
tout ce que je trouve de ne pas
correct... tout ce qui n'est pas
correct avec ça, c'est qu'il n'y
a pas de date. On sera amorcé au
même point. Donnez-vous, je ne
sais pas moi, si Fairview est
prêt à présenter quelque chose à
notre directeur général et
commencer avec ça? Parce que
moi, je peux lancer une rumeur,
il paraît que Fairview veut
faire une mine d'Asbestos avec
le terrain. Il y a des citoyens
qui disent ça. Il n'y a jamais
été question que la forêt soit
coupé net. La loi existait avant
et elle existe toujours alors
c'est mes commentaires. La seule
réponse qu'il y a...
- Pour moi, Claude, les choses
importantes ici, qu'on a déjà
proposé, pas des projets
officiels mais des images, des
idées, des édifices de 27 étages
déjà. Alors la Ville de
Pointe-Claire ne voudraient pas
ça. Ils avaient déjà présenté
ça. Mais ce n'est pas le débat
ici, le débat, c'est le
processus pour décider ce qu'ils
vont créer. Et ça, on est en
besoin, la perspective des
citoyens pour faire ça. Avant
qu'on parle ou qu'on accepte une
proposition de Fairview, on
voudrait les idées, le goût des
citoyens, c'est ça qui est
absolument nécessaire. Je vous
comprends très bien mais le
citoyen en consultation ne peut
pas discuter d'à peu près
n'importe quoi. Il faut qu'il y
ait quelque chose de présenter
sérieusement. Oui, ensemble,
dans un processus sérieux. Un
processus légal et juste. On ne
va pas arriver et discuter si le
projet a Fairview... sans avoir
la moindre détail... le moindre
détail vous chercher à choisir
la couleur des rideaux. Voyons,
ça n'a pas de bon sens. Il faut
commencer avec une base. Merci
de m'avoir écouté.
- Merci, Claude. Merci beaucoup.
-
>> Excuse me, Mister Mayor,
Madison asked --
Madame Verdun, est-ce que c'est
possible de monter la
température un petit peu? On
gèle.
(brouhaha)
>> -- make a call --
>> Okay.
>> I agree. It's freezing in
here my hands are ice.
>> -- Watson, Pointe-Claire. Can
you hear me?
>> --
>> I agree with what was said
before, regarding the red flags.
And for me, what raise the red
flags, if you recall, when there
was RCI and there was discussion
of exempting Cadillac Fairview
from the freeze, a lot of you
held town halls and you gave a
lot of information about how,
instead of doing the RCI -- I
forget what it was you kept
proposing -- and then you all
realized, oh, no, it wasn't
really the right way to go. And
then we put Cadillac Fairview in
the freeze. So, I am troubled
that this has come up, this
resolution. Because it feels
like you are doing the same
thing. And I wish -- I mean, is
there a legal requirement for
this resolution? Is it legally
required to do this? Is it?
>> No. We don't have to do it
legally, no. There is no --
>> -- process --
>> This resolution -- this is an
unnecessary process that is not
legally required. We could have
continued our process along, as
we were doing. This is an
unnecessary -- just after
Christmas.
>> Is it possible to hear from
the director general? --
Madame Verdun, est-ce que c'est
légalement requis d'avoir cette
réservation-là pour avoir les
démarches pour les consultations
et etc.? D'avoir des
discussions, aujourd'hui, c'est
une résolution qui me donne une
orientation du conseil municipal
sur mon travail que j'ai à
faire. Donc la majorité du
public veut s'assurer que j'ai
un mandat clair.
- Mais ce n'est pas légalement
requis?
- Je ne vais pas répondre à
cette question, je vous
répondrai demain.
- D'accord, merci.
>> Okay. So, thank you for that.
Je ne sais I don't pas... know
why -- it's to me tomorrow.
Pourquoi ce sera demain. -- en
tout cas. What I would like to
know, also, is that there has
been some talk about public
participation and public
consultation. So, can someone
please explain the difference?
Because I'm concerned that there
is some sort of legal
ramifications to one and the
other. And I don't want us to
get screwed over by having a
public consultation and not a
participation --
>> Participation is the better
term, Ms. Watson. Because --
something went -- where's
participation, you are getting
people in greater in the
process.
>> Mr. Mayor, may I please
clarify?
>> Absolutely.
>> There are several points in
the process of passing a bylaw,
where the law requires public
consultation. So, that is when,
here, in Council, before voting
on a bylaw at that point, the
public must be allowed to weigh
in. So, in order to prevent
confusion, we are talking about
public participation is, the
stuff that happens out there.
And public consultation is the
formal consultation required by
law.
>> Thank you for clearing that.
That's very helpful. Because --
okay. Now I am also confused by
what we said earlier. So, you
all have been meeting regularly
for this RCI process, but
apparently, not all of you have
been able to make it and
attendance is sketchy or
whatever. So, this is the
answer? Doing this resolution?
Okay.
>> May I speak to that?
>> You can. We
>> Were mostly at the meetings.
But the last meeting that was in
December was this vehicle for
some people because they were --
during the day and there are
some of us who work full-time.
Initially, we were meeting every
other Friday. But closer to the
holidays, it became impossible.
-- as of January, every other
Friday afternoon would be a
meeting. And then the other one
would be in the evenings to
allow for those of us who have
full-time jobs to be able to
attend as well. Because this is
not our only job that we do. And
it is not sketchy. I would say
our attendance -- I would say
those standing have maybe missed
one or two based on certain
personal issues.
>> Oh. Okay.
>> It's not sketchy. It's just
that we had to get the
scheduling down. That was easier
for everyone to be able to
attend and we wanted something
to be more regular. But that is
a different process than the
resolution. The RCI is the total
process that we need to do for
our entire city. But we
recognize that we want to also
move forward in other
directions. Because we just way
to do the whole entire thing,
it's going to take us six years.
That is not realistic.
>> Well, when you are looking at
the future of the city, the next
50 -- because, as you know, the
next 50 to 100 years is what we
have to look ahead, I think six
years is nothing --
>> We are --
>> Six years --
>> Excuse me, Councillor --
>> -- impact of --
>> It's not going to be even
remotely close to six years. On
the route we were going, it was
not even going to be close to
two. So, I agree with what you
are saying. It has already been
close to -- yes, it has been
already -- and we are almost
through. And we have to get the
public participation. And by the
way, the term going forward --
the term better uses public
participation.
>> Okay.
>> Because it involves the
citizens prior, not after.
>> Okay. Well, thank you very
much.
>> May I speak just for a
moment?
>> Of course, Councillor.
>> I just want to address --
because you brought up the
attendance thing. And Kelly
mentioned it. I have missed one
or two meetings. Unfortunately,
I require substitute. I can't
just leave my students alone,
they are five. We have planned
on almost all the meetings on
days where I could either take
the day off or it be a PED day
and I -- unfortunately, I
believe there was one day,
maybe, where I was unable to
attend, because my substitute
cancels. It's
>> Really, okay I'm just trying
to understand.
>> It's because it's been
brought up numerous times -- so
I would like to clarify.
>> You have all brought it up,
actually. And I was just trying
to clarify the origin of this
resolution. That's. All
>> Mister Mayor -- I can help
there.
>> The process that the mayor is
talking about, that process has
led to the overture to Cadillac
Fairview. The overture to
Cadillac Fairview -- which is
underway. We are just talking
about -- that overture was just
in writing. What we are talking
about now, like exchange of
letters, what we are talking
about now is trying to get to
the next phase where people
actually sit in a room and talk
to each other. So, that process
is the part of the process that
the mayor was talking about. The
only thing that is different
about today is that we are doing
this publicly. We are now making
that what we have been doing. We
are now putting it out there in
public, number one. And two, by
doing it in a public resolution,
we are giving the director
general specific instructions
from Council to guide that
conversation. So, the special
meeting itself was not part of
this ongoing process. But the
conversation was and is.
>> I really wish I could support
this resolution. I really do.
But because of the words
mutually agreeable are in their,
scared the Jesus out of me. And
unfortunately, with that kind of
resolution, I cannot support
this resolution. But -- because
of the language of the
resolution, I cannot support,
it. Sir
>> Ms. Watson, when I think.
This will end up in a process
where people will sit in a room
and talk to each other without
public input.
>> Mr.
- Monsieur Lapointe?
LaPointe --
>> And that it's actually a
political intervention at this
point.
>> Okay.
Si je peux, Madame la greffière,
est-ce que je peux mentionner le
nombre de réunions qu'on a eu?
-- where we can actually get to
the point where we can deliver
on a variety of things that we
want to do, where we want to get
to. So, I'm very happy -- I'm
happy that Councillor
Thorstad-Cullen that we are
going to increase the cadence of
these going through the years,
and that's an important thing as
well. And then, I think, based
on the fact -- I will wait.
Because I've got comments later.
I want to wait and summarize
everything -- I will let other
people speak.
>> Thank you.
>> --
- Monsieur Lapointe ou Linda?
>> Or, Linda?
>> Linda do with
DeWitt -- at length about how
back from conversations with
Cadillac Fairview had obligated
the city to a certain course of
action, and that we were
reneging on our backroom deals.
And now --
>> Near Mr., point of privilege
--
>> No idea what she's talking
about, backroom -- we
>> Did not use that expression.
It's my expression but --
>> Yes --
>> You are saying --
>> Right now --
>> No. You stated that --
>> Councillor Cowan, you don't
operate a citizen. If he has to
alter her question, she will
alter her question. But please
refrain from operating a
citizen.
>> You said --
>> Mr. I Mayor, I'm just asking
her to be respectful. That's.
All
>> -- obligations to Cadillac
Fairview and all these
obligations were not done in
public. They were done in
private. And now, in response to
that, you would like to hold
in-camera meetings with Cadillac
Fairview. And the -- that was
imposed, including the Cadillac
Fairview property, is absolutely
necessary if we are to redo our
planning program properly. And I
submit that gross incompetence
on the part of previous
administrations allowed the
zoning Mu1 to be created, which
has no maximum density, no
minimum setbacks, no maximum
height, nothing about the kind
of buildings that can be put
their. So, when Cadillac
Fairview submitted a project
with over 1200 dwellings per
hectare, when the TOD recommend
60 dwellings per hectare, there
is nothing in the zoning
regulations that would have
prevented. The only thing the
City can really do is to rezone
it properly. And I submit, also,
that Pointe-Claire does not need
this huge development. It would
be like importing a city to our
city. Why? What good would it do
for us? And besides which,
Pointe-Claire has no idea when,
if our infrastructure could
support this --
>> Ms. DeWitt, we are not
debating the project -- we are
debating --
>> I know --
>> We are debating -- I am
saying, --
>> We don't need to do a side
view of Cadillac Fairview right
now. -- it's not to the
advantage of the city. It's not
to the advantage of the
citizens. And I would like to
see us go through the -- of our
new planning program with the
zoning that we want and then let
Cadillac Fairview negotiate with
the zoning that is created.
[Applause]
>> Apparently, we are not
allowed to applaud.
>> So, I think that this
resolution is completely
unnecessary. And why would you
do something that is so
unnecessary. There is no need to
move forward, to hurry the long,
to get it done. No need at all.
It's not to Pointe-Claire's
advantage. It is not to the
taxpayers advantage. It is not
to the citizens advantage. I can
see that it is to the developers
advantage. But that is a
different story. So, I would
like to know, why would you even
think of doing this when there
is no advantage to the citizens
of Pointe-Claire whatsoever,
when we are already in the
process of -- our planning
program?
>> Thank you.
>> Mr. Mayor --
>> Go ahead, Councillor Cowan.
>> First of all, what I was
referring to, months and months
ago, with the fact that Cadillac
Fairview had been engaged with
conversations with the planning
department and exchange of
documents in, I think, July of
2021, and February of 2022. And
Council was completely in the
dark. Both mayors kept us in the
dark. -- Mayor Belvedere and
mayor Thomas. We had no idea
these conversations were
ongoing. So, I was actually
criticizing that at that time.
We should have, though. If we
had known, maybe we would have
been able to intervene and the
--
>> Excuse me -- it was in the
papers. It was in the newspapers
-- and you as a city councillor
missed it?
>> -- let
>> Let Councillor Cowan --
>> Ms. but DeWitt let Councillor
Cowan --
>> -- it's all there in, writing
you will see it. As far as this
process is concerned, it has to
move. We have to be talking to
Cadillac Fairview at some point,
of how you are going to do it.
It's a question of how. But it
has to happen. They can't be
held indefinitely in an interim,
temporary measure. It is
temporary. We have to work
through this.
>> No one is suggesting --
>> Ms. DeWitt, allow Councillor
Cowan to finish --
>> -- its only discussion of
methodology. This methodology,
this plan that Council is moving
on now is something that has
been in process for months. We
only very recently that the
mayor voiced his objection. But
other than that, if he had any
disagreement, he did not say
anything. He kept it to himself
until just before the Christmas
break. So, as I said before,
what we are doing now is the
continuity of a plan, an
approach that was begun in July.
And I have detailed all this. I
will address it when the actual
motion is before the floor. And
I will point out the timeline of
how we arrived at the point we
are at now. And hopefully that
will start to unpack all the
pieces and bits of information
we are getting tonight, and put
them in some kind of sequence
that is more understandable. At
least, that is what I hope.
>> I still cannot see why there
is any reason to step outside of
the process that is ongoing for
the planning program, to give a
special deal to Cadillac
Fairview, and possibly makes
ideals with them in-camera that
would legally obliged to someone
--
>> Point of -- order
>> No, no -- please allow her to
-- finish
>> That would be in
contradiction to the planning
program we eventually put in
place. And if Cadillac Fairview
is now in litigation, well, look
at what happened in
Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue when
they litigated -- the developers
litigated against St. and
develop Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue
-- they got back, essentially,
what they paid for the land.
They did not get an composition
for that. However,
Pointe-Claire, in so ideals,
previously with quorum, already
lost the city $2 million. And
with Sotramont, we have the mess
that we have now. So, I think we
should stick to the process and
get a proper planning program in
place, and then follow our own
bylaws. Thank you.
[Applause]
>> No applauding --
>> -- I don't believe that our
wonderful square in the
Pointe-Claire village is a lot
of money. I just don't think
that that should be stated
publicly -- it's a beautiful
skating rink.
>> --
>> Throwing away money is not
appropriate -- we
>> Did a beautiful job in that
property. But we paid way too
much for it. Anybody doing their
homework, research that one, and
see what we paid for that. It is
a wonderful result. But we paid
an awful a lot for it. Now, if I
could get back to the
conversations with Cadillac
Fairview, both mayors -- we had
the RCI almost immediately when
I got into power. All these
conversations or these
negotiations with Cadillac
Fairview, if they were
happening, they're happening
without my knowledge. I spoke to
Mr. Weemaes and I had no
recollection of any meetings
happening with Cadillac Fairview
when I was first Mayor. I have
no recollection of that. It may
have been happening, but not
from what he told me.
>> I would like to comment on
that, please. It was actually
December 9th, when you actually
met with Cadillac Fairview, with
Mr. Weemaes at their site.
>> At the site --
>> --
>> And that was withheld from --
us
>> No, it wasn't withheld. It
was the first week, I think, or
to, as mayor. And Mr. Weemaes
urge me to go and meet. We walk
through the mall and they showed
us the renovation they had done.
That was it. And he regrets
having asked me to do that. That
is the only time it happened. We
met. The conversations were
civil. We went and walk through
the mall, showed us the
renovations. They were nice. We
all had a nice conversation and
went home. Nothing about a huge
27 storey or 25 storey
development -- nothing of that
came up whatsoever, this Mr.
LaPointe. He
Je voulais juste donner
peut-être un aperçu de ce qui
s'est passé depuis une quinzaine
d'années concernant la forêt. Le
6 septembre 2005 qu'il y a eu un
rapport...
- Par les plus proches du micro.
>> Right parlez plus proche du
micro. Into it, Norm. Almost
right into it.
- Il y a eu un rapport le 6
septembre 2005, un rapport
forestier fait par monsieur
Duval concernant la propriété...
la forêt Fairview. Sur 23
hectares, on retrouve le
Règlement dans le Règlement 27 -
87 de la Ville de Pointe-Claire.
La recommandation de la page 3,
on devrait conserver une
superficie de 37% du lot. Ce qui
représente 8,51 hectares. Le 1er
mars 2011, on est entré en
vigueur le Règlement 26,75
concernant la mosaïque des lieux
naturels.
(inaudible)
La biodiversité, tout projet
d'implantation d'une nouvelle
construction
(inaudible)
d'engagement de terrain dans la
mosaïque naturelle de la zone
aime d'eux et la zone 30 cette
eau être conçus et réalisés de
manière à maximiser la
conservation d'un boirai d'un
milieu humide
(inaudible)
une mise en à l'heure... en
valeur de son
(---)
Sa biodiversité. Ceci est en
2011. À l'alimentation en eau,
l'implantation de
l'agrandissement d'un bâtiment
et la...
(---)
en milieu naturel de la zone
aime deux, un terrain contiguës
à cette zone ne doit pas
contraindre à l'amélioration en
haut du secteur naturel. Déjà,
on
(inaudible)
a déjà fait des changements en
complément dans l'alimentation
en eau par le drainage à son
empreinte de la station
terminus, stationnement et
(inaudible)
. En 2013, un rapport
d'Environnement du site a été
fait sur le lot au nord-ouest de
l'autoroute 40, rue Harvey, sur
l'ancien heureux qui est
aujourd'hui une avenue,
l'inspection pour le compte de
Corporation
(---)
et par la suite, l'achat en août
de la choppe. Donc déjà là,
Cadillac Fairview savait que
cette zone-là était protégée,
des arbres centenaires, c'était
dans les règlements de la ville.
Lors de la séance de
consultation de 2017 au Conseil
du 4 juillet 2017, les agents de
consultations publiques,
monsieur Brian affalé, président
de faire rouler association et
madame
(inaudible)
représentants de Cadillac
Fairview.
(---)
Cadillac Sergio était en accord
avec la vision de la ville et
monsieur Fairview a remis une
lettre à l'assistante comprenant
des propos annoncées dans cette
séance de consultation. Par la
suite, monsieur Serge Laporte on
demande une question: la limite
à hauteur des bâtiments qui
devraient être construits sur le
Mu1 et Mu2 j'. Je répète la
question à monsieur le maire, et
madame Giguère répond à cette
question-là. France Giguère,
oui, quand il y a des zonage,
selon des zones, surtout en
fonction de l'environnement
immédiat, adjacent aux zones du
centre-ville dont les auteurs
vont varier et graduelle et en
partie de l'existence vers le
centre...
(inaudible)
supposé déranger le voisinage
existant, c'est toujours fait en
fonction, oui, des limites et en
fonction du voisinage immédiat.
C'est sont là la mission du
conseil de ville, il a adopté le
règlement pour Mu1 et Mu2 sans
aucune spécification du nombre
de planchers, ce que toutes les
autres zones de la Ville de
Pointe-Claire procède.
(inaudible)
Était d'accord avec la vision de
la ville.
(intervention en anglais)
Wow. The skies the limit.
- Normand, est-ce qu'il reste
beaucoup? Parce que...
- Juste... trois
- Il y a quatre autres
>> Okay.
Questions.
- Deux minutes.
- O.K..
- Avant Mu1, c'était C6, il
était permis 60 mètres, 15
étages, avant Mu2, c'était une
zone CP3, et heures 46,
boulevard Brunswick, le nombre
d'étages était 15, et la
longueur maximum de 60 mètres.
C'est à nous d'élus... à nos
élus de corriger ça, nous sommes
tous d'une crise climatique. Vu
les changements climatiques, il
est acquis que plusieurs
désastres et anomalie causeront
des pertes de vie à travers le
monde, nous devons prendre des
décisions importantes et
faites... faire notre part de
changement pour la survie de la
planète et la protection de la
biodiversité, et protéger les
marécages qui sont les poumons
de notre planète. New York à
Central Park, nous pouvons avoir
à Pointe-Claire notre parc
naturel de la forêt Fairview.
De, plus lors de la réunion...
réunion du comité stratégique le
13 novembre dernier à
Pointe-Claire, sur le territoire
de Pointe-Claire, la superficie
totale est de 73 kilomètres
carrés. Seulement 66% de cette
superficie est un parc ou des
ex-... des espaces verts, sur
2,8 kilomètres carrés, soit 1,38
kilomètres carrés sur 138
hectares, c'est ce qu'il manque
pour atteindre l'objectif de 10%
de protection pour la Ville de
Pointe-Claire et l'île de
Montréal. Pour atteindre cet
objectif, il faudrait augmenter
ou acheter huit fois la
superficie de la forêt Fairview
de 9,6 hectare et 142 acres que
le Cadillac Fairview possède, il
faudra acheter huit fois cela
pour avoir le 10% à la Ville de
Pointe-Claire. Comme élue, votre
devoir est de préserver
l'héritage centenaire de cette
forêt, la biodiversité, la
couleuvre brune...
- Est-ce qu'il reste...
>> Come on, Norm.
Allé, normalement... il reste
sans que personne...
- Le but de la résolution de ce
soir, est-ce qu'il peut y avoir
une consultation publique comme
la loi le... l'exige?
- La question?
- Ça, ma question.
- Enquête. Pour moi, la réponse,
c'est qu'on a toujours besoin
d'espaces verts à Pointe-Claire,
on en a pas assez. Notre
pourcentage d'espaces verts
n'est pas assez élevé. On a
l'opportunité, maintenant, de
garder le minimum pour protéger
la
>> Forêt -- to protect the
forest --
. En plus, si on permet un gros
projet du calibre de ce que
propose le Cadillac Fairview, et
ils ont besoin d'un espace vert
correspondant, mais l'espace est
déjà là, c'est déjà là. Pour
moi, c'est évident que si vous
voulez fabriquer quelque chose
d'aussi gros que ça, il faut
avoir un espace vert,
abracadabra, l'espace vert
>> Abracadabra --
Est là, il n'est pas nécessaire
d'en créer un. On a une bonne
solution minimale pour notre
ville est déjà.
- Parce que Cadillac Fairview
quand ils sont arrivés ici en
60, cinq ils ont coupé des
arbres, avez-vous vu la grosseur
de la canopée de ces arbres-là?
15 pieds, 20 pieds?
- Oui. Non... Norman, il faut
qu'on parle... on parle ici
de...
- C'est justement...
- Le processus, ici.
- O.K.. Merci.
- Merci, Monsieur.
>> Susan Weaver, Pointe-Claire.
I don't know what you are
discussing in the past. It was
-- but I would like to know what
public participation is, what
you expect of it.
>> To hear from citizens.
>> What citizens?
>> All the citizens, as many as
can come out.
>> Citizens? Where
>> The people of Pointe-Claire.
>> Just Pointe-Claire? Good
luck.
>> Thank you.
>> When the cruelly,
Pointe-Claire. I'm a little
concerned. I just feel this is
rushed.
>> Closer to the microphone,
Miss -- everybody, behind,
please speak right into the
microphone.
>> Is this good?
>> Right after. Put your lips
almost on it. Serious -- oh, I
didn't -- owe, everybody stop.
>> I'm just concerned. I feel
it's rushed. I have a question.
I will try to be specific about
point A of the resolution. The
special planning program for the
City shows the entirety of Mu2
as being a natural habitat
mosaic. Point A of the
resolution says the
comprehensive plan for Mu2 and
Mu1 will establish the
protection of wetlands and
existing natural habitat mosaic.
I just want to make certain that
-- this is mean that the city's
planning on protecting the
entirety of the force? I just
want to --
>> I would -- speaking for
myself, yes. Absolutely.
>> It seems to say that --
>> The entirety of the forest
would be the minimum objective.
>> The minimum objective?
>> Yes.
>> Mr. Mayor --
>> Yes, sir?
>> What happens up there will be
the result of public input,
public participation, including
Cadillac Fairview. So, what it
is saying is that, currently,
there are regulatory protections
already required for those
zones. And definitely, that
would be part of the plan going
forward. I can't see that
changing. What they are going to
be, that will be the result of a
process that involves the
public. It is not up to me, it's
not up to the mayor to dictate
whatever our views are. That is
the whole point of this whole
thing, so that you will have an
opportunity to present your
point of view and see where that
takes us. With the point that
Ms. Weaver was making about
public participation, we need to
have some kind of structure for
that to happen. What are you
going to do? Go to the Montréal
Olympic stadium and try to get
32,000 people to go in there and
say, okay, what are your ideas?
Obviously, you have the
structure that conversation
somehow. We are trying to get
there. We are trying to figure
out a structure to have that
conversation. That is why I
referred to the start line. The
start line is, once it is
settled -- mutual agreements
only, where that start line is
going to be -- the reason why it
has to be a mutual agreement is
because Cadillac Fairview is
part of it. Well, we want them
to be part of it of that
discussion. And where does it
lead? Who knows. That is why we
have the public involved. We
don't know what the outcome is.
We might have our own
preferences. But the idea is to
allow the public to weigh in.
And then we see --
>> It would be nice if the
public could weigh in before --
>> That's what we are trying to
do --
>> Sorry, go ahead -- sorry
Councillor Cowan -- what were
you saying --
>> -- before hand.
>> I agree.
>> But I don't want to keep
going over that same point. My
second question is just about
the mandate later, that is to
provide guidelines for the
desire dialogue. When does that
come into it? And where do we
get to see that? I don't know
where that leads to. I don't
know.
>> We cannot publish it until
tomorrow because we don't know
the result of the resolution
tonight. So, when we have --
public tomorrow, probably
tomorrow. Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> Ms. -- the key to your
question, the first point, is
that key to the public
participation process will be
can determine in conjunction
with Cadillac Fairview.
>> Right.
>> That's the key point in all
of this.
>> Thank you.
>> Good evening. Good evening,
Mr. Mayor, good evening
councillors, manager, everyone.
Thank you so much --
>> I'm sorry, can you please
state your name.
>> Kim Matthews?
>> Kim Matthews -- two T's -- I
thought that would at least get
a bit of a giggle. Because I
think we need a bit of a giggle
with what's going on -- with the
intentions of this -- are likely
very positive. I am finding it a
little bit difficult to follow,
however. We've got a resolution
for the purpose of ensuring
public participation in
determining the future of zones
Mu1 and Mu2. That's the title of
a resolution. But then, I have
been listening, and I took a few
notes. And at one point -- maybe
I misunderstood, Councillor
Cowan. But I heard that you
mentioned, really, Cadillac
Fairview would not have a say in
how this participation took
place. But then when I read the
actual resolution, it says that
a mutually agreeable path for
that will engage public
participation in a structured
process would be one of the
goals of this particular
resolution. I am really at a
loss as to why we need a
resolution to allow for public
participation in this particular
process. I have heard already
from Ms. Watson -- thanks to Ms.
Watson's question -- that
legally, that that is not
required, that the inclusion of
Cadillac Fairview in this
process is not required. So, you
already have a committee. And I
would just like to understand,
why don't you, as a committee,
just strike up a situation where
we end up with public
participation? I took place in
something just at the end of
2022. It was lovely. We were
down by the water. And we had an
evening where we gave input on
what we would like to see from
the city. So, that was fabulous.
And I met a number of you there.
And I'm just wondering -- as I
said, I think the goal is
excellent. But I just don't
understand. And could someone
tell me why we can't just have
the same thing without,
especially if we are in
litigation -- without consulting
with Cadillac Fairview? Let's
get everybody together, discuss
things and then, from their,
come up with a resolution that
would then bring Cadillac
Fairview into the occasion. So,
if someone could just explain
why we need, that would help me.
>> I don't think we do. So, I
agree with your question. But I
will allow someone else that
thinks we do to answer it.
>> Mr. Mayor?
>> With --
>> The idea is, we want to
eventually have a comprehensive
development plan. We can't
impose that I'm Cadillac
Fairview. They have to
voluntarily sign it. They have
to voluntarily come into it. So,
the idea is, they will want to
participate in this process that
is going to give them an
opportunity to influence --
influence, not dictate --
influence an outcome -- they
will only be part of this
process. It will also include
the public. And the advantage of
a comprehensive development plan
is, it goes much further than
zoning. It goes much further
then -- so, it is not required
by law. There is -- we don't
have to do this. We could go
directly to public participation
and have meetings, consult -- we
could do all that. But we want
Cadillac Fairview to be there. I
think it makes sense that they
are going to be there. Right
now, we are in litigation with
them. So, the sole purpose of
this is to build that trust with
Cadillac Fairview, each will
trust, so that we can get to the
point where we can talk to the
public. It's not going to
structure -- we can't work out
an agreement with Cadillac
Fairview -- can't get that
mutual agreement going forward,
then we will go on our own. It
is preferable to have our
partner there. Because they are
a partner. They own a lot of
land. That is the preference.
But if it doesn't work out, it
does not work out. But we have
got to give it a shot.
>> I'm just -- thank you for
your response. I'm just --
further to this response, then,
is there a possibility of maybe
a friendly amendment on this
resolution if this were to ever
go forward? Because, as I am
reading it, it's that the mutual
agreeable Pat would also involve
Cadillac Fairview being in
favour of the type of public
participation that takes place.
And I am -- I don't say that
that was necessarily the intent.
But the way I am reading it, it
is how I am understanding it.
Thank you.
>> And if I could just add to
that, our partner in this city
-- there are 34,000 residents.
Each and every one of you has
equal say to Cadillac Fairview.
And Cadillac Fairview is not our
partner. Cadillac Fairview is a
participant in our city. And you
all really matter in how we
engage in this process. And I am
here to protect you and your
voice. And it is not a 50/50
thing here. There are 34,000
people and a large company. And
it does not work in a
partnership. The company has to
respect and deal with something
that represents 34,000 people.
And I want some of them to have
their voices heard.
>> --
>> May I comment?
>> Of course, Councillor --
>> Would have come to this
process, whatever comes out of
this discussion, will be brought
back to the administration,
Council, and directly through to
you. You will know with this is.
And if we don't like it as a
group, like Mr. Cowan said, we
can change. We can say, no, we
don't like it. But there has to
be a start point. So, whatever
they discuss as brought back,
it's a setup that communication
link. Because, whether we like
it or not, we are falling
behind, we are not moving
forward. And the purpose of this
resolution is to ensure that the
public is aware that -- that
Cadillac Fairview is aware, we
are all aware, that the citizens
are aware that we are going to
begin something with them. And
it basically gives full
authority to our G G to speak
with them. And whatever they
come back will be under the
review, and our review. So we
are making sure we get to the
start line. Again, it will come
back to us. And we will see. And
it will be discussed.
>> Thank you. Thank you,
Councillor Stork.
>> May I ask one more question?
Not
>> Yes -- if it's quick. --
>> I've got a couple of
concerns. -- when you enter into
a dialogue with, for instance,
Cadillac Fairview in this case,
when you have the public undoes
of commercial interests
involved, when there are
quasi-agreements made in those
situations, trying to
renegotiate them out can be
very, very difficult. And I am
still here wondering why -- I
understand, eventually, Cadillac
Fairview needs to be at the
table. I hope if this ever does
pass that madame Verdone will be
with a lawyer. Because if we are
already in court with him, I
don't know how this negotiation
is supposed to take place. But I
don't see why we just can't have
public participation fire to
this step. And so far -- maybe
when it's brought forward and
you have a chance to debate it
as a group I will understand
better.
>> --
>> Thank you.
>> Councillor -- that's enough.
>> --
>> With that to him? Or was that
to me?
>> Who is -- to be fair, I was
actually responding to Stork. He
acknowledged.
>> Go ahead, Councillor Stork.
>> --
>> Whatever comes out of this,
is nonbinding. Whatever comes
back, it's not a written
document we must adhere to. That
is -- to the start. Line if they
come -- back if we disagree with
it, as a group, as a community,
as a city, nothing is binding of
this. It is just to open
dialogue. It's like a first
date. Just to understand each
other. Get an understanding of
-- how do we want the public to
participate in this? And we have
heard an outside firm who would
be the ones who initiate and who
would set it up and have the
public consultations. And an
outside from that's already been
hired -- it's due -- to the
starting line in terms of
communicating and seeing how we
can build one together.
>> I suppose, in my limited
experience of community work, I
really like to get my ducks in a
row with the community first and
then go forward. But that's my
own personal preference.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you very much for your
time.
>> Hello -- Conway.
- Le micro, Madame Conway, près
du micro, s'il vous plaît, pas
loin.
>> This resolution was drafted
by four councillors.
>> Yes?
>> Councillor Stainforth, Cowan,
Eric Stork, and who is the
fourth one?
>> Ms. Homan.
>> Okay. I guess we can ask you
a question. Because we did not
hear from you tonight so far. --
this is your resolution.
>> -- -- joint -- yes --
>> I don't see anything about
dates or timewise. Can you
address that quickly.
>> Sorry?
>> Could you address that? There
is no dates or limits of time.
>> I can't --
>> I can address that -- the
only reference to time is that
we would like the resolution, if
passed, would ask the DG to
initiate the conversation with
-- Cadillac Fairview forthwith,
with which means quickly.
>> I see there's a mishmash of
things in here. Why is there
reference to, whereas a project
to construct bicycle and
pedestrian path crossing Highway
40 in the city centre -- that
state of planning -- is this
going to have an access to, on
the Cadillac Fairview property,
the bike path?
>> That is the goal, ideally,
yes. If it happens, yes.
>> -- bike path that is going to
happen, then it's not going to
happen. I heard on and off so
many times. Is this something --
which government is paying for
this?
>> It's in progress. And we
can't reveal any of the details,
except that we are hoping -- we
are hoping -- that we can have
one.
>> Is it imminent? Or is it like
ten years --
>> Can say. Can't say.
>> Okay. But Cadillac Fairview
have to be involved in the
discussions with this?
>> No. No.
>> So, my question is, why is
this in the document?
>> That's a good question.
>> --
>> He Ms. Homan, we did not hear
from you much tonight. --
>> -- would you like Councillor
Cowan -- would you like
Councillor Cowan to answer, Ms.
Conway?
>> The answer is, that it's to
indicate that things are moving
up there, whether we are
involved or not, whether we get
through this process or not.
Things are happening up there.
>> Okay. So, my interpretation
of that is that this is just a
scare tactic. Because that
sentence does not belong in
there at all. And I keep hearing
about the public, the public.
Members of the public -- and
mutually agreeable. So, Cadillac
Fairview will pick which public
can assist in this?
>> Well, we don't know.
>> -- mutually agreeable.
>> Yep.
>> So, they will decide which
public --
>> They will have an equal voice
in how the public is to
participate. They are,
apparently, our partners,
according to Councillor Cowan.
>> They will be partners?
>> Yeah.
>> We don't know --
>> We don't know what the
partnership is going to result
in and how you guys are going to
be allowed to participate. We
don't know the end result.
>> Okay. So, that's very
concerning, like everybody else
that has mentioned it before me.
And the last sentence being a
settlement -- between the city
and Cadillac Fairview. So, is
this, like, relating to the
RCMP? RCI? --
>> -- City being sued because of
the RCI? This is the only thing
-- litigation --
>> I can't speak to that. I
can't speak to that.
>> I think we have a right to
know.
>> It is being litigated. I
can't speak to that. Ma'am --
madame Conway, I can't speak to
--
>> -- legal. The RCI -- Legal --
>> The RCI's legal -- yes.
>> So, no judge --
>> -- I'm not in position to
speak to that.
>> Okay. I think it was Eric
that said it would be
nonbinding. But if any
discussions --
>> Ms. Conway, you have had
quite a few questions now. I
will allow you one more. Do you
have one final question? Is this
it?
>> Will any discussion as the
City has be documented and have
a legal consequence?
>> That's a good question.
Probably not. We are not there.
I don't even know what the
structure of the conversation is
going to be.
>> Can any member of the city
that have a conversation, will
have a legal consequence of what
is said?
>> Apparently, these
conversations can be had in
spite of the court case. That is
my understanding. Am I wrong on
that one, Madame table?
>> That's correct --
Mr. Thomas, you did mention at
the beginning of the meeting,
but if duration is -- that
>> We are at the 90 minutes?
>> We went two minutes farther
last night. -- fast question,
and then the man behind you can
have a very fast question?
- Daniel Montpetit. Depuis
tantôt, j'entends parler du
Cadillac Fairview, qu'est-ce que
ça va nous prendre pour...
>> Excuse, me excuse -- me hang
on, Mr. --
(interpreter)
could we refrain
- C'est from discussing in beau.
Et là, on the room? Thank you.
Parle de Cadillac Fairview qui
veulent agrandir...
>> Thank you -- avant de
commencer à yes, -- parler de
ça... yes excuse me -- attendez,
monsieur Montpetit... someone is
being assured out.
Oui, Monsieur, je m'excuse.
- Bon, on recommence! On parle
de Cadillac Fairview qui veulent
bâtir, pour savoir ce qu'ils
vont faire, on a une place, ici,
à Pointe-Claire qui ont été,
fait, ça a été bâti, il y a du
monde qui a des problèmes avec
l'eau, ça se remplit, il me
semble que Cadillac Fairview
devrait passer après les
troubles qu'on a avant de
commencer à se faire d'autres
troubles, ça ne serait pas une
bonne idée, ça, régler un
problème qui est encore là avant
d'en causer un, autre peut-être?
- Quelqu'un a déjà posé cette
question. On en a déjà parlé, de
ça.
- L'autre affaire, on est assis,
ça ne marche pas bien, le
(inaudible)
.
- Les haut-parleurs ne marchent
pas bien en bas. Oui, Monsieur?
>> Just a point of
Clarification, before I --
>> The microphone? The
microphone? Can't hear you --
>> Can you please state your
name?
>> Yes, my name is David
Fletcher. I'm not a resident of
Pointe-Claire. I'm a resident of
the West Island and I'm the vice
president of the green
coalition. It represents many of
the people here in
Pointe-Claire. Just before I
make a comment --
>> The microphone? The
microphone, Mr. Fletcher,
because nobody -- can hear you.
Take it right out or maybe --
>> Okay. Maybe a clarification
is whether or not your council
considers itself to be a
sustainable development
administration.
>> We would hope to be. We are
one year in --
>> The you have a policy --
>> We have a pretty good
environmental policy. Hopefully,
we can live up to -- it
>> There are certain things
about your policy, Mr. Mayor,
that are questionable.
>> Okay.
>> Number one --
>> Yeah, this is not on topic,
Mr. Fletcher -- you have to
speak to the resolution.
>> The resolution --
>> And the mandate --
>> Well, can you make it up
really quickly?
>> Yes, yes. I just noticed --
the whereas, and to the things,
that are there, are having to do
with the economics of the city
center. There is no concurrent
noting of the ecological and
social vitality of the city
center. That is something agree
justly missing for a Council
that considers itself to be
committed to sustainable
development. What is missing in
your policy is, in fact, citizen
participation. Even though it is
included in Québec's
sustainability law -- it is
article six hyphen E --
>> We are not, we are not --
>> --
>> Excuse me, Mr. Fletcher --
minor standing is, there's no --
emphasis on the environment in
this resolution and the proposal
that is going to be discussed.
>> I would just like to point,
what's in your policy, with
respect to Cadillac Fairview.
>> Okay.
>> On page 37, what you don't
have -- but
>> We are not speaking to our
policy right now, on the
environment. We are not speaking
to that -- Mr. Fletcher --
>> That's the way your council
decides on these issues.
>> Okay.
>> It should be, if you have a
policy, your councillors should
be deciding abiding.
>> So, you are saying -- if we
understand our by mental policy
correctly, we should abide by in
construction of resolution such
as this?
>> Absolutely.
>> Okay.
>> And you don't feel it is
sufficient?
>> Yes. Absolutely. And I will
point out one thing, by the way.
On page 37 of your policy,
although there is no mention at
the very beginning of the right
-- the citizen participation
that is included in Québec
sustainability law, you do make
reference to working with local
players. Not citizens -- local
players. May I point out that
your policy -- according to your
policy, Cadillac Fairview would
get the honour of that rather
than your own citizens, 34,000
of them.
>> Okay. Councillor
Thorstad-Cullen?
>> I would just invite you --
please, all the comments, the
sustainable development
committee is --
>> --
>> -- talking about the
resolution.
>> -- much more pertinent --
>> Is it about the resolution?
>> --
>> -- about the RCI --
>> You should bring it back. We
want to hear these things --
>> May I, by the way, address
myself to your mayor, and not to
a councillor who, should, in
fact be speaking only at the
sufferings of your mayor?
>> She actually asked me to
speak, Mr. Fletcher --
>> She did ask me to speak.
>> Mr. Fletcher --
>> RCI --
>> Do you have a question? A
question? A question? We are
running low on time. If you have
a pregnant question --
>> -- very patiently, Mister
Mayor.
>> I know you have.
There is a process that is going
to take place in the next months
in which there will be public
input. In fact it's ongoing and
municipalities in the CNN are
going making our own been put
I was there in 2011,
participated in and contributed
to the process that resulted in
it being adopted.
>> How is this relevant to what
we are talking about tonight,
Mr. Fletcher?
>> This is important.
>> But Mr. -- yeah, Mr. Fletcher
--
>> Allow me to make this point.
>> Okay, but, can you summarize?
>> Yes, I'll get to the point
very quickly. When it was
adopted, by the end of 2023,
your council will have to bring
its urban plan into conformity
with it. So, any consultation
that takes place, whether it's
Cadillac vary, or any of your
34,000 citizens, it'll be
irrelevant until you have a
document presented to you by the
PMAD that will establish the
criteria against which you are
going to have to act.
>> Okay. Is that it? Is that
your --
>> That's pretty much it.
>> Okay, right now, you know, I
mean, with obstruction, in, oh I
think this is really -- I've
been watching your council, the
way it operates, Mister Mayor,
you should be exercising far
more control over these
dissidents councillors --
>> They were --
>> You have, by the -- way
>> No clapping, please, no
clapping.
>> People who elected to these
councillors, and put them in by
a majority as councillors, are
the same people who --
>> Point of order, please. Can
we end this conversation?
>> Excuse me --
>> Mister Mayor? Please --
>> Excuse me.
>> Civility --
>> Excuse me. Excuse me. Now,
thank you, Mr. Fletcher.
>> I've been given a short --
>> While, we are out of time,
Mr. Fletcher, with all due
respect, or out of time. Thank
you, very much.
>> Okay, so, let's proceed to
voting on the resolution. I
suggest we start with the people
who created it. Councillor
Cowan, would you like to explain
your vote?
>> First, we need to move --
>> It has to be moved and
seconded.
>> What?
>> Order to move the resolutions
before us, I have a speech I
prepared. I'm kind of
apprehensive about it,
delivering it, because it's been
such a long evening, and it's
going to go over points that
have been raised. However, I
think I really need to because I
have to put, I think, I think we
need to put things in order, in
sequence. There is a timeline of
this process that I think needs
to be addressed. I will go
through it. Please be patient.
>> There is a 15 minute
timeline.
>> It'll be far less than 15
minutes, that's for sure.
>> Okay.
>> I'd like to speak to the road
that's brought us to this point.
Pointe-Claire has been buffeted
by threats to the environment,
pressures caused by
identification, and an
overheated real estate market
that are opposing themselves in
almost every aspect of what
makes our city our community so
special. There is a completely
understandable and legitimate
fear that our city will change
forever, and those changes will
ruin what we all love most about
it. It's the manifest duty of
Council to understand that very
real and legitimate fear, and to
act on it, to respect the
concerns of our citizens, and to
address those concerns, and in
doing so, find a path forward,
our citizens, our city could
accept and follow. With that in
mind, a year ago, Council passed
the interim control resolution.
Provincial law allows us this
measure which creates a
three-month temporary halt to
development in a specific area
of our city, in order to allow
us the time we need to plan the
next steps. We took those three
months to complete a detailed
path forward that would allow
for full, public participation,
and determination of their
express collective vision of our
future, and incorporate that
vision into our planning
program, and zoning bylaws. That
plan mapped out a detailed
two-year process that would end
with a revised planning program
and zoning bylaws coming into
force in the summer of 2024. In
May of 2022, council passed the
interim control bylaw to extend
the temporary hold of
development so we could
implement that plan. Last June,
I sent a letter to mayor Thomas
expressing my alarm that we were
not progressing along the
critical path timeline, the
planning department had
presented to us. I told him I
felt my duty compelled me to
bring this to his attention, to
bring to his attention the lack
of progress being made, to
follow through on the interim
control measure is authorized by
Council five months earlier. The
groundwork should already have
been done then four would still
waited to be done, and in fact,
for what we are still waiting to
be done. Like public
participation. Steady progress
ought to have been made that
would lead to the participation
of the public last fall. That
was when it was on the original
schedule. I received no response
from Mayor Thomas, and so, with
the five July public meeting of
Council, I expressed my concerns
and filed my letter so that all
would be out in the open. The
summer yield into the fall,
which itself has given way to
the winter of 2023. The act of
participation of the public and
open for still remains somewhere
on the horizon. It keeps
receding, like a shimmering rock
in the desert. However, that's
not to say that everything stood
still. A workshop with Council
and caucus, organized by the
planning department was held two
weeks after the five July public
meeting. They, are we began to
discuss the factors affecting
our city, included in that
discussion was the birth of the
idea to work out with Cadillac
Fairview and eventual
comprehensive development plan
for zone Mu1. That led to
subsequent discussion of the
means to get their, given to
fundamental requirements, a, a
comprehensive development plan
would have to be entered into
voluntarily by Cadillac
Fairview, and to, be, the public
would have to be intimately
involved in the process. Off one
of the planning staff, back came
the planning staff with another
idea. They had examined how our
neighbouring city of Kirkland
had angled a similar pattern
with respect to the
redevelopment of the mark frost
property right beside the purity
forest. After a false start that
it provoked an immediate public
outcry, they came up with a
better plan B. The basis of
their plan B was to establish a
citizen based task force with
support from the city's planning
professionals to work with the
developer and to bring in the
larger public and regular
intervals with the objective of
establishing a project that
could develop, and build and
enjoy broad public support. It
worked. That is why the planning
department proposed we base our
path forward for Mu1 on the
Kirkland example. In order to
get their, in order to bring in
the public via this task force,
and associate it at open forms,
we had to reach out to Cadillac
Fairview. Remember, we need them
to agree to the terms of a
comprehensive development plan
that would specify what would go
into Mu1 in far more detail than
penetrating way that is possible
through zoning or straight
bylaws. Council and caucus
approved this approach, and a
letter was sent to Cadillac
Fairview with an outlying
proposal. Cadillac Fairview sent
a response that was cautiously
favourable. Details would have
to be worked out, and they
stipulated that Mu2 would have
be brought in the scope of the
task force approach. Now,
bringing in Mu2 to this approach
simply means that, through this,
the public can now weigh in on
the future of the Fairview
forest, which you all want. That
does not mean a single square
inch of it will be developed. It
means the public can weigh in in
this process. A comprehensive
development plan for Mu1 and Mu2
could forever protect the
Fairview forest as is. That
would be on the table. Remember,
agreeing to a process commits no
one to an outcome, only a good
faith effort to try. All
together, public included, to
find one. Furthermore, if this
process would lead to a
successful outcome, the lawsuit
filed by Cadillac Fairview would
itself be settled. This has been
confirmed by our legal counsel.
Caucus then deliberated on the
next step. It was decided we
would authorize the director
general to offer to speak face
to face with representatives of
Cadillac Fairview in order to
make it abundantly clear to all
parties, including the general
public, just what the objective
and limits to the face to face
would be, a mandate letter was
drafted by the director general
and presented to caucus for
approval. That letter, and its
formal approval Mu2, is being
filed with this resolution.
Suddenly, just before the
Christmas break, after we have
all, staff and caucus,
participated in good faith, in a
five month profits to move it
along, this far, we abruptly
confronted with an alternative
strategy to delay, delay, and
delay indefinitely. On January
3rd, I wrote an email to the
mayor that began a thread, which
I will now file, with the city
clerk. In that email to the
mayor, I ask him to call a
special meeting so Council
could, with complete openness
and transparency, commit to a
process, not an outcome, that
would finally and delay, and
lead us towards beginning the
meaningful participation of the
public, in determining the
future of their city by first
dealing with the most
consequential sectors, Mu1 and
Mu2. Once that is determined
with broad public support, or at
least is on a firm path in that
direction, we can then serenely
deal with all the other areas
covered by the interim control
bylaw. Four days later, I
received the mayor's response,
which shut the door on both the
resolution and, shockingly, the
whole Kirkland task force model
we've been working on since this
summer, and the outreach by the
planning department to get
elected to that began several
weeks earlier. Flabbergasted, I
assumed he did not understand. I
send a follow-up email, included
in the thread, where he detailed
the exact argument for
proceeding with the mandate
letter dialogue with Cadillac
Fairview suggesting we hold a
special meeting before the
regular meeting on the 17th of
this month. I received no
response. The only conclusion
that could be drawn is the mayor
had no intention to follow
through on what this City staff
had proposed, his staff, but
Council and caucus had
supported, and what the City
staff had been actively pursuing
since the summer before. Five
months of effort was to be
checked. Following the mayor's
refusal in caucus to call for a
special meeting, a letter was
sent to the city clerk or the
requisite number of signatures
to override the Mayor's refusal,
call for a special meeting to be
convened on 19th of January,
tonight. The purpose of the
meeting is to put a resolution
before Council that would
formally and publicly ask the
director general to offer to
speak with representatives of
Cadillac Fairview to explore
within the limitations of
authorities in the mandate
letter, and nonbinding path
forward that would ultimately
lead to the full participation
of the public, which includes
Cadillac Fairview, and in
determining the expression of
the public's collective vision
of the future for zones Mu1 and
and Mu2, and integration of that
vision that the public at large
and Cadillac Fairview would both
endorse. That is the aim. So,
with that all said, I am done
with my preamble. Without all,
said the background fully
explained as best I can, I will
not proceed with the resolution.
- Attendu que le règlement de
contrôle intérimaire a été mis
en place comme mesures
tentait... temporaires afin
de... donner aux conseillers le
temps nécessaire pour réviser le
plan d'urbanisme, que les
conseillers répondent mieux aux
préoccupations de nos citoyens
en matière d'environnement,
d'identification et de
préservation des éléments
particuliers de Pointe-Claire.
Attendu qu'un secteur important
de notre ville
(---)
ce qui exige que la
planification de son avenir
soient traités en priorité.
Attendu l'arrivée imminente du
service de trains légers REM a
un impact énorme sur le
potentiel économique du
centre-ville, attendu la
passerelle cyclistes et piétons
qui traversent l'autoroute 40
au-dessus du centre-ville a...
est à un stade avancé, attendu
que In la English, whereas an
interim zone Mu2 est control
bylaw has been un milieu put
into effect as humide... a
temporary
Measure to give Council the time
necessary to revise our planning
program bylaws, such that,
within the context of the
planning objectives of the
Montréal metropolitan community,
it better addresses the concerns
of our citizens regarding the
Environment, Mr. Fletcher,
densification, and preservation
of those elements that
contribute to the special
character of Pointe-Claire.
Whereas the most significant
area of our city with respect to
its continued economic vitality
is the city center, which
further requires its planned
future be addressed as a
priority, whereas the imminent
arrival of the REM light rail
service has enormously impacted
the economic potential of the
city center, or as the project
to construct a pedestrian and
bicycle overpass crossing
Highway 40 in the city centre is
in an advanced state of
planning, whereas the Québec
Ministry of the Environment has
mandated the protection of the
wetland within Mu2. Je, Brent
Cowan, district numéro 8,
propose que madame
(---)
rencontrent les participants du
Cadillac Fairview à huis clos
afin d'engager les démarches
acceptables afin d'impliquer les
membres du public dans un plan
acceptable pour les zones Mu1 et
Mu2, qui établira de un, la
protection des zones humides et
des mosaïques existantes, de
deux, les limites d'aménagement
qui répondront à la vision
collective exprimée par les
citoyens de Pointe-Claire, tout
en tenant compte des intérêts
commerciaux du Cadillac
Fairview. Que la lettre de
mandat du conseiller à la
Chine... directrice générale qui
doit fournir les lignes
directrices pour le dialogue
souhaité avec les représentants
du Cadillac Fairview soient
déposés lors de l'adoption de la
présente résolution et qu'elle
en fasse partie intégrante, que
la directrice générale tiennent
le conseil au courant de
l'évolution des discussions et
que la présente résolution et
les démarches et les discussions
qui en découleront s'inscrivent
dans une volonté de régler le
litige impliquant la ville et le
Cadillac Fairview. That this
council, be it
Resolved, this council requires
-- desires the city manager to
meet forth with representatives
of Cadillac Fairview in-camera,
in an effort to work out with
them a mutually agreeable path
forward that would engage public
participation in a structured
process, having as a subject of
the creation of a comprehensive
development plan for zones Mu1
and Mu2 that would establish, A,
protections of the wetlands and
existing natural habitat mosaic,
be, development limitations and
possibilities that will satisfy
the express collective issue of
the citizens of Pointe-Claire
well concurrently addressing the
commercial interests of Cadillac
Fairview, and the mandate letter
to the city manager from Council
that is to provide guidelines
with a desired ballot with
officials from Cadillac Fairview
be filed with passage of this
resolution, and be integral to
this resolution, and the city
manager will update Council as a
dialogue advances, and that this
resolution and the steps and
discussions that will result
from it may aid in a furtherance
of a possible settlement of
litigation between the city and
Cadillac Fairview. I so move.
>> Okay. Councillor Tara
Stainforth?
- -- we need ça prend... oui. A
seconder.
>> Now, actually, I wrap
something as well, but it seems
Brent has covered all the
topics, which is why I don't
want to repeat. It's clear he
hit all the buttons, and
especially the need for a
resolution, because a resolution
is binding, and basically
mandates our administration to
follow forward with the request
of Council, majority of Council.
With that, I second the motion.
>> Okay.
>> Councillor Cynthia Homan?
Now, we're not voting. Did you
want to speak to it? Not yet,
we're going to speak to it.
Would you like to speak?
>> I think Councillor Cowan and
Councillor Stork has said
everything, I'm aware of
everything in the letter, and
everything is there, so, I'm
happy with that, nothing else to
say.
>> Thank you. Councillor
Stainforth?
>> I won't speak for long
because I believe Councillor
Cowan has really crossed all the
t's and dot it all the ice,
except just to reiterate the
fact that, yes, this resolution
is binding, so it means our
director general must now take
this step. It also means the
letter that was not going to be
public will now be public, so
I'm happy about that. The public
now knows exactly what we've
been discussing as a Council for
the last five months, and how
things are going to move
forward.
>> Councillor Kelly
Thorstad-Cullen.
>> No further comments, much has
been said this evening, thank
you.
>> Councillor Tremblay?
- Oui, merci, Monsieur le Maire,
j'ai des commentaires à faire.
Premièrement, partout au pays,
les villes donne aux citoyens
les moyens de s'exprimer dans la
façon dont les projets sont
faites, c'est ce qui se passe
dans notre propre cour, Dorval,
Lachine... l'objectif de la
démocratie participative est de
faire en sorte que tout le monde
a son mot à dire, les résidents,
les experts, et les
administrateurs de la ville et,
oui, les promoteurs. La
résolution actuelle ne respecte
pas cette idée, d'après moi,
elle est faite à l'ancienne.
Elle donne à un tiers parti,
dans ce cas, si Cadillac
Fairview, la possibilité de
s'intégrer d'une manière ou
d'une autre pour se donner une
place à la table sur la façon
dont nous aller organiser notre
partie... processus de
participation publique et de ce
que devraient être les
règlements au préalable. La
résolution proposée ce soir par
les autres membres du conseil
n'est tout simplement pas
acceptable.... Je ne reviendrai
pas sur mon engagement et mon
respect pour les citoyens de
cette ville en acceptant cette
résolution, ils devront veiller
à ce que les résidents
directement concernés par le
projet de développement aient
une chance d'égale à égale de
s'inclure sans condition ou dans
des discussions préalables.
Néanmoins... nationwide, cities
are giving
Citizens a real voice on how
developments are being planned.
It's being done in our backyard,
Dorval, Kirkland, St. ends,
machine, et cetera. Very aim of
participatory urban planning,
public participation, to ensure
everyone has an equal chance to
express a viewpoint on a
transformation of a space, the
residents who live in the area,
experts, city administrators,
and yes, developers. The current
resolution does not respect this
idea, in my opinion. It does it
the old-fashioned way. That
gives a third-party, Cadillac
Fairview, in this case,
potentially, possibly, maybe,
we've heard a few, slightly
contradicting angles as to how
this might happen tonight, a
seat at the table on how we are
going to organize our public
criticism -- and what the rule
should be beforehand. The
concerns, I will pause here to
address the concerns that Mrs.
Matthews had at the beginning,
or during the question period.
You pretty much expressed the
concerns that I have, that once
you have begun these
conversations, and you are
involved in a process, you are
going to take the entire thing
into a direction that is
somewhat unpredictable. I would
prefer we give ourselves the
time necessary, as difficult as
it may have been, Councillor
Cowan, and I agree, in terms of
the speed, I think we need to
give ourselves more time in that
regard, and to work hard at
this. Many of the citizens in
the room have question with
regards to the resolution. I
don't think it necessarily takes
us to where you want to take, us
and it's understandable what you
want to do. I don't think the
resolution, as it's written
today, is going to help us at
all in the process. For that
reason, I'm going to be voting
against it.
>> Thank you.
>> Councillor Bissonnette?
>> Yeah, thank you. I will be a
lot shorter. I want to address
the question of the resolution
not be necessary. It is
necessary, and that's why we did
it. The summer, the Québec
government presented, for the
first time, there puts ignition
out the less that's two --
Politique nationale de
l'development today architecture
et du is very territoire.
Different than it was 30 years
ago. Today, basically, what is
being sought is a neighbourhood,
to develop a neighbourhood
environment, minimize your
movement, and mice having to go
use a car, and in this national
policy, they have four main
themes. Les milieux de vie de
qualité qui répondent aux
besoins de la population, un
aménagement qui préservent et
met en valeur les milieux
naturels et les territoires
agricoles, une communauté
authentique et dynamique partout
au Québec et un plus grand souci
du territoire et de
l'architecture.
I won't go into everything, but
I will read out the topics
included. These are things that,
when you are preparing your
plan, and our planning
department, who is very
knowledgeable, is looking into
incorporating some of these
things into the new development,
it's not just building a
building, and, like it was, like
I said, so many years ago.
Number one, Concevoir des
milieux de vie complet à
l'échelle humaine qui réponde
aux besoins des communautés.
Réduire les durée de
déplacements et les distances
entre les lieux de résidences,
de travail, de consommation et
d'autres types d'activités.
Accroître l'offre de logements
de qualité accessibles et
abordables répondant à une
diversité de besoins. Adopter
des formes d'aménagement qui
permettent de combler la perte
de milieux naturels et de
territoire agricole. Orienter la
croissance urbaine vers des
milieux déjà dotées
d'infrastructures, de services
publics situé au coeur de nos
villages et de nos villes,
limitant ainsi l'étalement
urbain. Planifiez des
territoires capables de mieux
s'adapter aux conséquences des
changements climatiques, visant
la préservation des milieux
naturels et de la biodiversité
ainsi que l'affirmation des
communautés résilientes,
notamment par des pratiques
architecturale durables, et
concerter toutes les parties
afin d'assurer une cohabitation
harmonieuse, des activités et la
mise These are some en valeur
des actifs. Of the concepts that
we have to incorporate in any
future development. As we know,
Cadillac Fairview already had
some ideas on what they wanted
to do with, certainly, Mu1. At
our last internal control
meeting on December 16th, it was
attended by all of Council, as
well as members of the
administration, city managers,
the city clerk, and the
assistant director of urban
planning. The consensus from
Council was to have the
Pointe-Claire city manager meet
forth with representatives of
Cadillac Fairview for the
purpose of working out this
agreement. The objective is, we
have certain requirements, and
we had to make sure, when you
start off, right now, we have
nothing to consult. We're going
to consult a black sheet of
paper. We have certain
requirements, Cadillac Fairview
has their plans, their
requirements. The idea of the
meeting, and that's, why because
the mayor did not agree with
having that meeting, therefore
this is why we asked for a
resolution, to have the meeting.
The thing is, to meet with
Fairview, and say, listen, this
is where we're going, if they
are in right field, and we're in
left field, it's not going to
work. If there's no cooperation,
will move on. We have other
activities. The thing is, you
have to sit down with people who
are there now and do you have
plans to see at what level you
come together. That's why the
resolution was necessary tonight
in getting back to the very
basic gist of this meeting
tonight. A lot of stuff was
debated that should have been
done in public consultation. It
shouldn't have been done
tonight. The consultation
tonight was to have, to mandate
the city manager to meet, set up
a meeting with Cadillac
Fairview, and discuss to see,
this is what we want, what are
you doing, what are you going to
do? Are we on the same
wavelength? Where are we? That's
my point. Thank you.
>> Okay. Early voting at the
same time, Madam Thibault?
>> If that debate is over, I
will proceed with the vote.
>> Could be vote before, and
I'll speak after?
>> You should speak now before
the vote.
>> All right, fair enough.
- Depuis que j'ai été élu maire,
j'ai toujours défendu le
principe que les citoyens
devraient être consultés sur
notre plan d'urbanisme avant que
nous négocions avec les
promoteurs. Il ne faut pas leur
présenter des affaires conclus
et leur dire qu'il est trop tard
pour faire des changements. Cela
est particulièrement important
pour les zones Mu1 et Mu2, la
forêt devrait Viau et le
stationnement sur lequel
Cadillac Fairview propose de
construire le plus grand projet
résidentiel de notre histoire.
Et qui couperait peut-être une
partie de la forêt et
construirait des tours
d'appartements de luxe de 25
étages dans une zone où les
cibles de densité de la
communauté métropolitaine de
Montréal serait satisfait avec
des bâtiments pas beaucoup plus
grand que les complexités
appartements de trois étages en
face de notre hôtel de ville.
L'année dernière, la majorité du
conseil a tenté de faire adopter
une motion visant à soustraire
Cadillac Fairview au règlement
de contrôle intérimaire et au
processus de consultation
publique afin de permettre à son
projet d'aller de l'avant.
Malgré mon objection, les
conseillers
Tara Stainforth, eux Eric Stork,
Brent Cowan et Cynthia Homan,
ont signé un document annulant
ma décision et forçant la tenue
d'une réunion spéciale pour
approuver leur nouvelle
résolution mandatant notre
directrice municipale a entamé
des négociations avec Cadillac
Fairview sur le plan
d'aménagement d'ensemble. Je me
pose à leur résolution ce soir
pour les mêmes raisons pour
lesquelles je me suis opposé à
leurs tentatives l'année
dernière. On Cadillac Fairview
ne devrait pas bénéficier d'un
traitement spécial et les
citoyens devraient être
consultés en premier. Je
m'oppose également à leur
décision de faire voter cette
résolution lors d'une réunion
spéciale provoquer à la dernière
minute au début du mois de
janvier, un moment où le nombre
de citoyens rentrant tout juste
de vacances ont moins de temps
pour comprendre l'initiative
elle-même et les implications de
ces applications. Je ne peux
m'empêcher de penser que cette
initiative reçoive moins
d'attention de la part du public
et des médias en raison de la
démission de la conseillère Erin
Tedford la semaine dernière.
Enfin, ce processus est
précipité et donne la prétention
qu'il s'agit d'une tentative de
faire participer le public. Les
conseillers Tara Stainforth et
Eric Stork ont affirmé aux
citoyens qu'ils aient suivre sur
leurs médias sociaux, mais ont
donné à leurs citoyens un
préavis de moins de 48 heures.
Pour ces raisons, j'utiliserai
mon veto suspensif pour empêcher
l'adoption de cette résolution
ce soir et la forcer à être
considéré à nouveau lors de
notre prochaine réunion du
conseil. Le résultat sera
peut-être le même, mais au
moins, le citoyen aura plus de
temps pour s'organiser et faire
entendre sa voix. Since I was
elected Mayor, I have always
stood up for the principle that
citizens should be consulted on
our urban plan before we
negotiate with developers. They
should not be presented with
data deals and told that it is
too late to make any changes.
This is particularly important
for zones Mu1 and Mu2. The
Fairview forest and the parking
lot on which Cadillac Fairview
is proposing to build the
biggest residential project in
our history -- they would cut --
given submitted proposals,
possibly cut into the forest and
builds 25 storey luxury
apartment towers in a area where
the metropolitan communities
density targets would be
satisfied with buildings that
much bigger than the three
storey apartment building
complexes across the street from
their city hall. Last year, the
majority on Council attempted to
pass a motion to take Cadillac
Fairview out of the interim
controlled bylaw. And the public
consultation process in order to
allow the project to go forward.
Despite my objection,
councillors Stainforth, Stork,
Cowan and Homan -- created
document -- special meeting
tonight to approve their new
resolution mandating our city
manager to begin negotiations
with Cadillac Fairview on a
comprehensive development plan.
I oppose the resolution tonight
for the same reason typos their
attempt last year. Cadillac
Fairview should not get special
treatment and citizens should be
consulted first. I'm equally
opposed to their decision to
have this resolution voted on at
a special meeting, called on
short notice in early January at
the time when many citizens are
just getting back from their
vacations will have less time to
adjust and the initiative itself
and its implications. I also
can't help but think that this
initiative will be getting less
attention from the public and
immediate due to the resignation
of Councillor Erin Tedford last
week. Finally, this process is
rushed and gives the pretends
that it is an attempt to involve
the public. It is a sham.
Councillors Stainforth and Stork
have claimed this to the
citizens following them on
social media but have given
their citizens less than 48
hours notice. I am doing what
you voted need to do, folks. I
am doing what you voted need to
do. But I am outgunned and I
need your help. For these
reasons, I will be using my
suspensive EDO veto to prevents
prevent this resolution from
being adopted tonight and force
it to be considered again at our
next next council meeting. The
result might be the same. But at
least citizens will have more
time to get organized and make
their voices heard.
Pointe-Claire, help me save this
beautiful city. Thank you.
>> Mr. Mayor, I would like to
exercise my right of reply.
>> Of course, Councillor Cowan.
We all get a chance -- to do we
get a chance -- no, we don't get
a chance --
>> --
>> We each get to explain our
vote and that's the end of? It
>> The councillor who moves has
the right to reply. And it's the
end of debate after that.
>> Okay. Don't worry, I won't
keep you. The mayor accused
Council of orchestrating a sham.
I'm just going to point that
out. And I am not going to
address any of his other
comments. In the end, it is a
question of trust. Who do you
trust? Do you trust the man who
labels his counsel sham
meister's? I couldn't go there.
Anyway, the mayor can't
interfere with the passage of
this resolution. He can
certainly suspend it afterwards.
>> I trust your instincts. Do I
have a motion for a closer? Does
someone move to close? We have
an -- oh, I thought we had when
we were speaking. Okay. All in
favour of passing the
resolution?
- Wait -- okay. Juste un
instant!. Hold the hands up,
please.
Everybody take note. Everybody
please take note. All those --
Councillor Homan says she will
stand up -- all those against?
-- une seconde! I'm voting this
time. It is my right. Thank you.
Thank you. Excuse me, Councillor
Stainforth, I think -- a motion
to close? Do I have a mover to
close? Paul Bissonnette? Paul?
You move?
>> --
>> Could you say? It
>> I moved to close.
>> Do I have a seconder?
>> Seconded by Tara Stainforth.
>> All in favour?
>> Thank you, Pointe-Claire.
Merci beaucoup!