City Council – March 27, 2019 – Part 2 of 2

City Council – March 27, 2019 – Part 2 of 2


Can I have members of council to please come
into the council chambers. We need quorum. Okay, members we do have quorum. This meeting is now resumed.
Members, before the recess, council is debating the mayor’s key item, which is EX3.1 on engagement
with a province on Toronto’s transit system. We will return to that item after release
of member holds. I’ve also reviewed a number of items to be
added to the agenda. No, we don’t.
Are there any release of holds? Any releases?
No? Okay.
So if we could put the screen back up. Questions ?
Thank you, speaker. Through the chief planner, has council made
a decision with respect to if and how the Eglinton west extension would be tunnelled? Through the speaker, council has not made a final decision on the segment of Eglinton west. That’s what we were coming with.
Okay, great. I want to switch to a different subject with
respect to the letter received on the 26th. I think my question is for the city manager.
There is a bullet point at the end of page 2.
And I will read it, with respect to the relief line we recognize the city/TTC is contemplating
a different technology for the project than that currently deployed for line 2.
Could someone explain what that means and what they — it is quite pointed about a different
technology. I’ll ask through the speaker, I’ll ask tdc
reps to answer that. And technology on relief line as the train
sets for it will be what we are actually putting in state of the art new settling system and
platform doors on it. Which is different to the current line.
So the technology here has to do with the platform edge?
No, platform edge doors are only part of it. There’s a new settling system putting in just
now. On the line when it is built.
Okay so signaling system is different than that which is deployed for line 2.
Okay. Correct.
Can someone tell me as I was intrigued by Councillor Fletcher, there is a line of questioning,
is there contemplation of switching, I guess line 2, to the downtown relief line and vice
versa off of the young university line to the relief line?
Or are these crossover stations like I would know at saint George, that type of thing.
At this time, the design would be set up so that the vehicles could operate on line 2
as a means of getting to the yard. There would be new trains on a different signaling
system but has the ability to change across. Right.
So for technical reasons for redundancy, you would have crossover ramps and things around
the stations. But you’re not — there’s no plan for a functional
switchover of trains as a passenger I got on somewhere in Scarborough and I’m either
going downtown via relief line or downtown via blue line.
There is no plan for that right now? Correct.
So other than the technical reasons for the convenience of moving the trains to the yards
and trimmers and things, there is no reason that the two technologies have to be the same,
is there? Can you repeat the question, please?
My time in is short. But so other than convenience of switching
to the yard and switching for emergencies and such, there’s no functional reason that
the technologies have to be the same between the two different lines?
Passengers will cross over by changing platforms and changing vehicles.
Have I got that right? That is correct.
All right. What is the technology being deployed for
the downtown relief line? I think the website says that it is a twin
tunnel construction. We’re actually looking at tunnel options right
now but it looks as if it would be a twin tunnel, yes.
Okay so the same holds true for what is on our website.
I wonder if you can tell me if there is a change in tunnel configuration or manifest
change in technology. Perhaps something that is smaller or works
in a smaller footprint, do we have to throw out the EA or can we continue with the EA,
recognizing there’s a technology change but the configuration of the line is held.
Through the speaker, until we know the details, we cannot give you a complete answer on that.
It depends on how it may effect the alignment or other details that were spelled out.
It is possible a different technology could still fit within the alignment and station
locations. Okay, because you just told me you haven’t
selected the tunnel technology, but you’ve got, twin tunnel you are contemplating?
So the way the tpap works is that we have shown a conceptual design and what would be
seen as the greatest potential impact of the line.
And so that’s why we did twin tunnels. But we always knew we would need to do an
assessment of tunnel technology and other things that might help modify or reduce the
impact of the line. Thank you.
Thank you. Councillor Layton?
Yes. First off, I heard the number before but I
want to find a way to compare it. The TTC has 500 million trips on an annual
basis? That is correct.
What about go? What do the go chains run?
Calling in some support. Through the chair of roughly 90 million trips
a year on go trans. 90?
So 520 million trips a year, they do 90. Really?
Where does that put them in the spectrum of North American people-moving, public transit
systems? Like 90th?
And we’re in the top three? Through the chair, go transit ridership is
the second highest in Toronto Hamilton — sure, in this area.
But in North America. Do you have any way of comparing it?
I don’t have those numbers available right now.
Fair enough. This is for one of the producers, I think
640 news asked me an I couldn’t answer it, is the $2 million as outside consultants,
we have a whole whack of super city staff sitting down here.
Can you give us an idea, I just didn’t have a good answer.
Can you give us an idea of what kind of expertise we would be going to or for out of house?
Through the speaker, we are looking for outside support in terms of the accounting treatment
that the province is considering as to whether or not that would be a valid way to treat
the asset that they want to upload. So we want someone that would be skilled enough
to defend the work in front of a tribunal or court.
We are also looking at real estate expertise to augment the work that we’re doing.
It also includes into it I think just over 300,000 for consultation work.
As well as wrapped in there we talked about an fte legal that would help us get into the
specific matters that were at the table. So third party validation so it is not a province
said, city said, here is what an expert, outside expert said?
That could defend it at the highest level. Fair enough.
Okay. The list of projects, the Scarborough subway
extension, we have been working on it for a couple years but how many years are we working
on the current plan we are moving ahead with prior to this letter, and since we deviated
from the three stop plan? How many years have we been focusing on that
work? Three years since 2016.
Three years. Is there any way we could have moved that
work faster? Any way whatsoever?
Could we have hired 20 more — could we have moved forward that work faster than three
years? Doubtful, I’m advised.
Looking down the row of experts here. It is a very difficult question to ask.
Because in hindsight yes, you could have done something differently.
But again, it is a hypothetical question. Because we don’t know the stay of the market
or if consultants hired people to do it any quicker.
It was based on the schedule with consultants to get designs ready — so three years since
we deviated from the three-stop plan and we focus on one and it has taken us three years
to get to this point. Yes.
Eglinton west. How far along the project are we and how long,
what stage gate, how long has it taken for us to get from the beginning point of design
to our current state? We are still very early in terms of design.
We relaunched this project in late 2014. Coming out of smart track.
But we were going to be looking for authority from council to move into the more detailed
design phase as we are currently in on relief line or that we have just wrapped up on Scarborough.
So we haven’t moved forward on this expansion? We have been advancing the concept.
We have been asked most recently, in December 2017, to revisit a tunnelled option by council
in conjunction with a community working group. So we were coming back to report on the results
of that additional work on other options. The downtown relief line, how long have we
been working on that for? Since 2014?
Again through speaker, since 2014 have we been working as fast as we can to advance
that line in the current technology? Through the speaker, yes.
So 2014. So there is four years there, too.
One final question. You know, my time is up.
I’m good, thank you. Thank you, Councillor Layton.
Councillor? Yes, I have one question on Eglinton west
line. So years ago when we started the Eglinton
line, and ended it at in Mount Dennis, the Kodak plan, 54 acres, metro links purchased
that property for maintenance facility and storage of the trains, right?
And there was an uproar in my community that they would rather have mixed use at that site
and some of the maintenance facility at that site.
So if they do this extension, west of James street, would it mean they are going to — they
are going to change the decision that was made by this council and previously?
Through the speaker, are you asking, would they need to expand?
Would they need to use the full 54 acres because we at that time when they first started the
Eglinton line, we debated that issue and they did not in fact need it because the line ended
at Jane Street and we o have mixed use of that site.
So if they do extend that line, would it mean that they are going to be taking the full
54 acres for Mount Dennis? There may be a need but we aren’t clear yet
whether there would be additional expletive in maintenance and storage facility that would
be developed. Even though this council, they supported mixed
use at that site and it was adopted by this council and metro links signed the agreement
with the city as well, means nothing then? So through the speaker, we would need to review
the details of that. I can’t give you a firmer answer on that.
Okay, I would like an answer at one point. Thank you.
Councillor Pasternak? Yes, thank you, madam deputy speaker.
Through you staff, I would like to follow up on legal trends and should this end up
in courts. Has the trend been in courts when it comes
to municipal provincial relations to hold fast to the traditional sort of constitutional
bna act provisions or is there fluidity? In other words, have the courts sided on the
side of municipalities as they did with shrinking of council and unconstitutionality of it?
The most important — sorry, hold on. I have a point of order by Councillor Perks.
Speaker, I think that giving us legal advice in the event of a legal battle over this is
privileged and therefore should be in camera. We’ve had our in-camera session.
I will leave those questions for a future date.
I’ve got the letter dated March 22, 2019 to city manager.
Co-signed by shelly tap and Michael Lindsay. It lists off four projects here.
That I think are considered priorities projects. What is the status of the finch west LRT?
It is not on this list. Through the speakers, detail design and construction
has begun on finch west LRT. Is it fully funded through the government?
Through the speaker, we’ve had no indication that is not the case.
Work is continuing along on that project. Okay.
Now, on may 9, 2013, council supported a motion to request that the North York relief line,
unfinished subway connection between shepherd west station and shepherd and young be recognized
as substantive project priority for phase 2 metro links funding.
I also don’t see that on the list here. And I’m just wondering whether in any of our
correspondents we’ve made mention that’s an important council direction.
It is now closing on six years old. Through the speaker, that has not been presented
to metro links in terms of the projects for funding.
We have established the, and council established, in 2016, the priorities for the transit work
that we have been doing along with the TTC. We do have that on the list of other projects
that we need to examine particularly as we are looking at a number of issues along shepherd
avenue. So when we pass a motion like this, what is
the next steps by staff? Do they execute a letter expressing council’s
wish? Do they have a meeting?
Was it ever conveyed, six years ago, that we consider this a priority project?
Or just falls away? Through the speaker, I would be checking into
that. That predates my time with the city, I’m not
certain. Okay, thank you.
That’s it. We will go to speakers now.
Councillor Cressy? Thank you.
I can begin by placing a motion. I’m moving items a and b from ex3.2 and this
is for the city to undertake public education campaign to form Torontonians of the risk
of losing control. Where do I start?
The TTC is the largest transit system in the country.
It has 530 million annual transit riders. It is an integrated and complex network involving
four rapid transit lines. 10 streetcar routes.
And 150 bus routes. And it only works when it is owned and operated
as a network. If you pull out one piece of the puzzle, it
all falls apart. And so as we know, and as is becoming increasingly
clear, the so-called upload is a, and remains, a political slogan in search of a solution.
The provincial government still doesn’t actually know what an upload means.
But as they have clearly evidenced, not just in campaign statements and previous statements,
but in a formal letter to us what the upload amounts to is the tearing up of our integrated
transit plan. And what that amounts to for ressens did the
of our city is further delays in the building after transit play.
That what the provincial upload amounts to. So if you are a Torontonian, you must be frustrated
as heck. Because this is groundhog day all over again.
This is 2010 when we had an integrated and funded transit plan that was torn up.
And nine years later, it is happening again. So Torontonians want and deserve transit.
That’s what they deserve. And in a growing city like ours, a growing
world-class city, we need expanded transit. And it is getting further and further and
further away to build transit. So what I’m grappling with, is when do we
stand up and take a stand? When do we, as a city, stand up and fight
back? And so in December when we talked about this
we were told don’t fight back. Wait until the creation of the tor.
And in February, when we met, we were told, don’t stand up and fight back, wait until
the city managers report on the status of discussions of the tor.
And today as we hear of the prove ips’ plan to mess with our system, we are told don’t
stand up and fight back wait until the negotiations of the plan.
So I worry we are, in effect, sleep walking into a bad outcome.
That the province made — the province made it very clear of its intent with respect to
an upload and that is to pursue its own objectives on transit.
Which aren’t ours. So I think it is time for us to stand up and
articulate our vision. So the lessons we have learned in six months
or eight months of discovery is that if we wait for them to throw the first punch, before
we hit back, we will lose. And we see that time and time again.
On the green belt, people fought back and won.
When the province wanted to invite the green belt, when the province wanted to cut autism
funding, people fought back and stopped it. They won.
So I know this is a delicate dance. At what point do you stand up and fight back?
We are all asking ourselves that. Is now the right time?
There is a provincial budget coming. There is other considerations.
The TTC is too central and important to the residents of this city and the future of this
city for us not to stand up. And so I believe what the moment in front
of us is a leadership moment for all of us. Do we stand up as Torontonians as our city
and do we expand work from conversations in private around the terms of the debate and
do we take that to the public to inform the public and stand up and help to lead the debate
and lead public opinion on the vital interests of transit planning, transit expansion, and
the future of our city. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Councillor Matlow?
Madam Speaker, I have a motion to change the direction of conversation.
At the table. In no way is this suggesting we move ourselves
from the table. I voted frankly to not go there in the first
place. But if we are going to be at the table then
it should be focused on what we all agree is our priority.
Improving transit in our city. We believe in a cohesive network that connects
with the region. We believe in fair integration.
We believe in moving forward with the relief line.
We believe in improving the quality of life of residents in Scarborough.
We believe in improving transit on the waterfront. We believe in improving the lives of the people
of our city. And that is what we should be talking about.
What I do not believe we should be doing, though, is handing the keys over to someone
who said they want to take our house over. Our subway is intrinsically connected with
the feeder lines on our surface routes. We know the values of our lands.
We know information we would only that pit late to them if we were at the table.
I don’t think we should allow them to expedite their plans.
I think we should be at a place with a better government in three or four years that wants
to focus back on Toronto’s interests rather than sell off Toronto’s assets to spend elsewhere.
And that is where they are going. They know they can’t afford to build subways
to various suburban areas the way they are promising.
And frankly, I don’t believe those promises will ever be met.
And they know that just because they have announced that developers are going to pay
for two extra subway stations in Scarborough, it doesn’t mean that any reasonable person,
including the development industry themselves, has suggested that that is anything other
than laughable and unrealistic. What they have done, though, is jeopardize
once again the ability to move forward with building transit to improve people’s lives.
If they start messing around with trapsity plans that have been invested on and focused
on, then once again, like city transit before, we will find ourselves in the future that
nothing gets built. Aside from a career for premier Doug Ford.
Aside from that, nothing actually gets built to improve people’s lives.
We have plans for example that had some funds and a lot of time investment to build 24 stations
in Scarborough. We should move forward with that.
We should move forward with the relief line. My focus, and I hope our focus, is not to
not to be distracted from what we hear from Queens Park.
Our focus should be demands. Focus on getting transit built.
Focus on using every tax dollar wisely. Focus on getting the job done.
Not just to build transit, as often is said, but to build the right transit that planners
would actually support. Councillor and Cressy an I have a motion before
you that’s been recommended by executive to come here.
To move forward with an advocacy public information campaign rather than what was here is some
information, what do you think. Premier Ford and ministry and others are going
out on radio and television everyday saying, hey, we need to take over the subway in Toronto
so we can build transit. The reality is they can build transit if they
want to. Across town it is built by province.
If they want to build a subway to Pickering, and I hope they don’t, but they don’t need
to upload subway to do that. They say it is about affordable housing.
Why won’t they build affordable housing atop the eckerton.
What I just said, why don’t we go out there and share that with the public?
The moment now is neither to capitulate or to try to walk between rain drops.
Our role is to provide leadership. Not to say things like we don’t know what
upload means because Doug Ford told us what upload means.
It means uploading our subway. It doesn’t mean we don’t know what taking
it over means. It means they would take over the lands, the
air rights. They would have our assets that Torontonians
paid for. Our moment now is it take a stand and abt
the table it talk about what we want it talk about and improve quality of life for residents,
improve transit and not give information way to do what they are trying to do against our
interest. My motion and Councillor Cressy’s do this,
they take a stand for our position. Our position is council to retain the TTC
and I hope that you will support our motions because it reflects exactly the leadership
that you have provided as a council. Thank you, Councillor Matlow.
Councillor Bradford? Thank you very much.
I have a motion I would like to move. Get it on the streen there.
I would like it start off by thanking my colleagues for their thoughtful commentary on this issue
and staff’s continued hard work on the file. It seems that this is a situation that is
too familiar to Toronto. And here we are again, and another scenario
with another conversation about transit planning with the province and where our priorities
as council are not necessarily lining up with the priorities of the province.
This is exactly what f frustrates Torontonians about transit, politics of transit and not
building transit connections to get the city moving again.
The point of the terms of reference that city manager has developed and accepted barely
a month ago was to set out options for a framework and we know the three options.
About how we are going to run this system. The two letters that we received from the
province was really the province telling us how they want it plan this system.
And that is reflective of their priority and very much not ours.
The big difference between running the system and deciding on how we are going to plan the
system is something that we need to be at the table and having that conversation with
them about right now. And I think the risk is of walking way is
those are discussions that we’re not going to have.
They have made it very clear that there are a number of things that they are looking into
and I think now it is more important than ever that we have a seat at the table and
we arm our city manager and legal and TTC with resources to make sure that we can engage
in that discussion. These letters are asserting planning priorities,
transit planning priorities without any of the evidence or back grouped study.
That is really critical to doing planning work.
For transit. We know that we have a transit network plan
report coming forward to executive next month where all of this stuff is being considered,
extensively by experts. For many, many months and years to build out
our transit network. The real challenge here is that we are hearing
from the province, you know, ideas and commitments around funding, but we don’t have anything
firm that would actually give us security and that sort of indication.
The government’s own transit plan or province’s notion of a plan and focus on upload was about
assuming responsibility for the subway under the guise of building subway plans.
Help us develop plan we have here in this council chamber.
When it comes to planning lines, I’m not convinced we are meeting any of those five priorities
that we are supposed to be working towards in terms of reference without identifying
the evidence that would support the transit planning that needs to take place in the City
of Toronto. Our priority as council has to be getting
transit built and avoid as much as possible tearing up another set of transit plans and
going back to the drawing board as we have time and time again.
I don’t support an upload. I’ve been very clear about that.
This council has been very clear about that. I have this position and I don’t support transit
planning taking place in these letters on the fly and I don’t support the political
gamesmanship that takes place when we are playing with services that effect Torontonians
everyday lives. More than anything I don’t support the further
delay of building transit in this city. So we need to give city manager direction
and resources to continue negotiation. If we walk away we lose any important for
the process that doesn’t make sense to me. I believe if we are sending our city manager
and TTC to negotiate we should also make sure that is an hollow negotiation and that negotiation
carries some weight. My motion is intended to reflect that.
I’m suggesting we look at every possible avenue to secure the legal backing for whatever the
outcome of the negotiation is. Thank you very much.
Thank you. We do have a question for you.
Councillor Carroll? Three minutes.
Yes. I need clarify.
I don’t understand the phasing. In particular I don’t understand, I don’t
think I understand, recommendation number 2.
Okay. In recommendation number 1 you just want them
to report here on the news of these letters? You want some analysis on the four new lines?
And how it impacts what we are coming forward with respect to the transit network plan update.
If I look at number 2, I’m not sure I understand that.
You want them to look at finding financial contribution agreements.
Is that just with respect to how those lines play out and the role in them?
Or — yes. I want to understand how through this process
we can have financial commitment answers what avenues there are for that.
Financial commitments for what? The lines just described to us?
City transit priority. Transit priority.
You want analysis of what they said are their priority which are not our priority but you
want us to secure binding financial agreements for what are our priorities?
Motion says to explore opportunities to secure those commitments.
And it says including. So that is including, do you want financial
contribution proposals for everything, including the line that we ride today?
What comes forward with the transit network plan and update on that.
But they have put forward four pieces in their letters and we have our transit priorities,
which we have been clear about. So my suggestion would be that we see what
sort of opportunities through the process and the negotiation with the province to secure
financial commitments to those. For those they just proposed?
For the city’s transit priority. But the letters pretty much outline that their
priority are not our priorities. Why would they give us binding financial agreements
for priorities that are opposed to our own? I’m not sure I understand why we want to do
this at this juncture. I do understand why we might want to do it
later on when we have settled this argument but why do we want to do this now?
We don’t know whose priorities are going to be the ones met?
I want to make sure when we are engaging in a negotiation that our team on the negotiating
side of that actually has the ability to secure some commitments through this discussion and
this process. I’m sorry, I won’t belabor it.
I’m just not sure which we are securing because we haven’t arrived on that yet.
Not being a lawyer, I’m not sure what opportunities we have.
But I would like the city and our staff to report back on what the opportunities are
to secure the opportunities for the process. That was your last question, Councillor Carroll.
Thank you. Councillor Fletcher?
Thank you. How many annual trips on the TTC are taken?
We got the answer to the question. 520million trips.
A year. 520million trips.
What about gold is a privatized service? 90million trips.
We have a situation where we understand that the provincial government would upload our
system and as far as I understand, metro links, which overseas 90 million trips a year, was
now overseeing a system which engages in 520 million trips a year and moves people to business,
to schools, to shopping, throughout our city. And I have to say, that would be a very bad
business decision. A very bad business decision.
A very risky business decision. This economy of our city depends on a high
quality well functioning public transit system. I would like to say well-funded but since
we are paying freight since province dropped out, I can’t say that it is well-funded at
the moment but we do our very best. Because for our economy, for delivering 50%
of those who go to work, in the downtown core and this area of the city that is so job rich,
50% of those trips, are on transit. And we are trying to — we have a lens to
make good business decisions. We can’t turn everything over to what I’ll
call a starter company. That has so few rides a year.
And let’s remember presto. I just want to remind you of that, particularly
those who are here. Excuse me, speaker.
Please. And please stop my time.
Di. Thank you, Councillor Colle.
It is an outdated system even before it is implemented
and we no you a that in 2009 when we begged the province, let us use better technology,
higher level technology, that the TTC asked. Let’s use credit cards.
Let’s use things that people use everyday. Not a whole system built by a corporation
that was already in trouble at the provincial level.
So it doesn’t work. People aren’t paying, it is outdated.
Why would we let these folks lead on transit? I also think it is risky because it is a bad
business decision to lose local control. But I want to address a few issues in this
letter. Because everything I see in this letter, for
a government at the provincial level, that wants to speed up transit, everything they
are talking about here says delay transit. Delay transit in this city.
Somehow instead of the Scarborough subway, which we have agreed to build, whether I agree
with it or not, we have agreed to build. Now we will delay it because we are putting
more stops. The west extension, we are going to delay
it. Put it underground.
The relief line. It is ready to go.
I spent four years of my life working on that, getting it right, getting it ready, all we
need is funding, we are going to delay that, people.
We are going to delay that because we are going to have an alternative delivery method.
And if that’s a p3 you can expect a very big push back.
For that. For the relief line.
It needs to be a free-standing project from line to that is technologically outdated.
Now, I’ve got other answers from Councillor Holyday from the TTC.
But to throw in six lines that say it is outdated on line 2, meanwhile we will expand it.
And hold everything up to have a truly unique transit artery spanning the city is not beholden
to the requirements of the technologically outdated line 2.
It is probably the silliest thing I’ve ever seen written because it says delay the relief
line. It is ready, people.
It is ready to go. Delay the relief line.
Delay the Scarborough subway extension. Delay Eglinton west.
That’s what this letter says. I think for a government that wants to push
things forward, they sent us a letter that says, we’re willing to delay transit.
Thank you, Councillor Fletcher. Councillor Wong-Tam.
Thank you. I would like to move a motion.
Clerks can put it on the screen. Directing city manager and city staff to start
with the province regarding subway upload the following text.
I personally believe Madam Speaker that we cannot just go quietly into the night.
I recognize that there is a level of civility here as we hear the advice from the city solicitor
on what we can and cannot do. But I don’t believe, Madam Speaker, we have
actually done enough to express our discontent. Not at the political highest political leadership
and office here at City Council on the fact this we have to continuously protest our and
make known our opposition to the subway upload or uptake, however you want it frame it.
We are being forced into a dialogue we don’t want to be in.
We are being asked to spend money, time and resources that we don’t want to spend.
That we don’t have the luxury of spending. We are being asked to derail our transit planning
construction design and building and when we don’t want to, and Madam Speaker, it would
be an absolute mistake if we don’t remind the province at every single step that we
are doing this under protest. So let’s make sure that they know that.
And also, let’s acknowledge the fact we are doing this under protest because there is
a threat. That threat is that if you don’t do what we
say we will take it away from you anyways, because we have the right to did so.
Let’s call out that threat. Let’s call out the pressure.
Let’s call out the duress that we are bound by.
And let’s also keep our options open for litigation of what may happen if we have to go through
the judicial process to stop what we don’t want to happen.
Is there any benefit to establishing the relief line as a free standing project?
The answer has been no. It is an integral part of an integrated network.
There is no benefit. What is the alternative delivery method?
Alternative delivery method. Nobody seems to know.
Not even the province. And the city manager certainly couldn’t give
us the answer even though he tried to get the answer from the province.
So he wasn’t able to give us any advice on that today.
The progress of asking us to build or at least prioritize the Yonge Street extension and
line that up with the relief line four or five years of work that’s been undertaken
by City Council, to ask us to line that work up and move it along in parallel, is absolutely
lunacy. And if you think that we can actually do that,
wait until the Yonge Street extension is caught up four or five years ahead in development
so we can advance it together, concurrently. It won’t work.
So everything that is now before us, Madam Speaker, is really a plan by the province
and premier to delay and distract. Was transit better when ford was our mayor?
Transit planning, transit design, transit building.
No, it wasn’t. We were in absolute chaos.
Nothing got done. Will transit in Toronto operate better?
Cheaper, more affordable, better connected, under Premier Ford?
I doubt it. Because there is no track record of delivery.
Questions such as who will pay for the operating costs of these new lines?
As we are asked to reshuffle all our priorities, the answer is, we don’t know.
Did you ask the question? We tried to get the answer, Councillors.
We still don’t know. This is not just about the relief line is
not just about Scarborough it is not just transit expansion, it is about literally throwing
city in transit chaos. We are on the balls of our heels spinning
backwards trying to respond to what is clearly plan to distract us.
Will buses and street cars be compromised while we chase after the LRT and Scarborough
extension and young extension, it probably will.
Will transit get better? No, it won’t.
Will it get built? No, it won’t.
Will it get more expensive under ford? Yes, it will.
Should we proceed without protest? No, we shouldn’t.
Thank you. Thank you.
Councillor McKelvie. Thank you.
We are dealing with scope creep. This was originally sold as it would be a
discussion about subways. And now it is a letter we saw from the province
of Ontario in March. Now talking about upload of the Eglinton west
LRT. Scarborough residents are losing hope.
They want to see all levels of government working together to build a network that relies
on all modes of transportation. That is subway webs LRT, buses, all coming
together in unison so that we can get people moving to where they need to go.
I just want to reiterate that I think we need to be very careful with this process about
scope creep and watch for that. Thank you.
Councillor Colle? Thank you.
I have a motion if you can put it up on the screen.
That I want to speak to. I was on the CDC for about eight years, then
to the province, now the other side. And you know, it is like déjà vu all over
again. I don’t ne if you realize what happened in
the 1982 I think Steve Monroe here at the time.
And when we had this proposal from snc lab land.
I don’t know if you’ve heard of that company. But they came to the premier at the time.
And said, listen, we’ve got this incredible technology, linear induction motor.
It is going to be the revolutionary technology. It will run, the cost of energy, and it is
driverless. And it is going to answer all of your technology
issues in Toronto. Then you can market the linear induction motor
everywhere in the world. The only place it ended up is the mugger’s
line in Detroit. That’s about the only place Ontario ever sold
it to. And Malaysia got a piece of it too.
And I mentioned that because it is the same type of plan here that I see that is impacting
on Toronto’s number one transit authorities. And if we don’t get the relief done quickly,
you know our main line, young line doesn’t work.
You try and get on the Lawrence station out of Eglinton station, it is like Tokyo at rush
hour. It is dangerous to try and get on the subway
every morning people risk their lives trying to get on the subway.
So if we don’t get that relief done properly and quickly, we are really endangering transit
riders everyday in this city. So that’s why I’ve been focusing in on this
scheme of the relief line. The secret of scheme.
Here we are. Number one priority, all of a sudden, they
tell us with a straight face, I don’t know whether this is telephone conference call,
straight face, hey, your technology which they say they are for subway, subway, subway,
they are outdated. Subways are no good.
They are going to bring in this, you know, magic carpet ride in the sky that we’re going
to install on the number one priority and then you ask them, what is it?
Sorry, can’t tell you. And then, if you do ever tell anybody, we
are going to basically you’re breaking the rules of the agreement.
They are threatening, if you release this great technology.
So that’s why I’m asking for the city manager to say show us the money.
Show us the technology. What are you going to use on number one priority?
What is it? Why is it secret?
What’s the reason to hide it? And you know, it is so important that it is
not only technology because you have to service, you have to have yards, train people.
So if you’ve got this orphan technology like we had in Scarborough which is a disaster
since it was built, you are going to repeat that same historical mistake, biggest blunder
in Toronto transit history again. You will do it because your major line, relief
line, will have this hokey technology in the sky and is secret that we know nothing about
and then you know, these schemes are, you know, promoted in Germany and in Asia.
And in each one they fall apart because once you do the number crunching, it is a waste
of money and not efficient and the science is even an engineering doesn’t work.
So here is why we need for the city manager to say, what is this secret technology you’re
going to use and then on top of that it is going to delay the relief line, by the time
you do the analysis and new ueas and secret technology, it will delay the relief any more.
Talk about delays, when you start tunnelling the Eglinton line to the airport, you will
delay it another five years by tunnelling and the costs are going up five times.
Because you have already got the real side right there now.
Why do you have to bury it? And it is a light-rail.
LRT that would go up. Why do you have to bury that when you go by
the flats in your old area there, mayor. That’s why we need at least for them, if they
are in good faith, they should tell us what is this secret technology so we can’t say,
we are debating and working in good faith if they won’t tell us the technology they
will use on our most supported line. Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Colle. Councillor Filion?
Thank you. If you approach this with an open mind, hypothetically,
hypothetically upload the transit system done in the right way, be not terrible, yes, hypothetically
it could. Is there any chance that will happen with
these guys? I think not.
Some people describe him as a bully. Some people say he is just rough around the
edges. More like bull in a china shop.
And I think he is really both. He is a bully in a china shop.
And you know, and our transit system is more fragile than most people understand.
There is an awful lot of fine detail in the way that it is interconnected and funded and
maintained. And it is not something that you can just
go smashing around with. So while we’re at the discussion table all
around us, everything’s going to be dismantled and broken.
Councillor Cressy used a good term that we would be sleep walking into a bad outcome
so I’m really relying on the people who are at that table to make sure that doesn’t happen
and that we are indeed fully awake, eyes wide open and most importantly understand who we
are dealing with here. Councillor Bailão?
Thank you. I do have a friendly amendment to Councillor
Cressy’s motion. Around the public campaign which I believe
is the appropriate time for us to talk about having this moving forward.
Councillor, does the staff have your motion? Yeah, it is an amendment to Councillor Cressy’s.
But do they have it? Yes.
There you go. Right here.
Is not an amendment. Gets us to the same place.
So you’re moving your motion. I do believe that it is important to connect
this public information campaign about the position of council.
We do have a position and it is important that Torontonians know what the position is
and to get involved in this conversation. Madam Speaker, former colleague of ours that
is now the premier of this province used to say that there is only one taxpayer.
And I think he’s right. There is only one taxpayer.
Actually I think 2.6 million taxpayers in the City of Toronto.
In 20 years, there will be a million more. And what I don’t think if anybody is really
paying close attention is that by delaying all of these projects, how are we going to
deal with the population increase of almost 40%, how are we going to move people around
if we continue to delay project after project? This is about the livability, prove parity,
competitiveness of our city. That’s what we’re talking about.
If we don’t get on building these projects, if we continue changing our minds back and
forth and delaying especially projects like downtown relief line, how do we expect to
attract the — how do we expect people to live here and move around in this city?
If we lose billions in productivity because people are stuck in traffic, imagine in 20
years. And you know what, 20 years goes by like this.
I don’t know, took it ten years to build the extension to the York University.
Downtown reports — 30? There you go.
Downtown relief line, we can find reports from 30 years ago.
So we can’t just delay this, Madam Speaker. And the other thing is, do we understand that
70% of our TTC riders use more than one kind of transportation.
They don’t use only subway. 70% of users need the connections.
Where in this discussion is the vision about a complete network?
About moving people from our employment centers from other municipalities from bringing municipalities
together, how is that vision about actually moving people into the network?
And I hope that these are in the minds of the people that are at this table.
Yes this is about TTC users and about the future.
But really it is about the future of Toronto. We are planning and building a transportation
system but above all a city where people can move and live and we can have business allocating
in this city. Thank you.
Councillor Perks ? Thank one speaker.
I would like to begin by moving a motion that is part of public consultation.
Hear from public and committee of the hole at the next meeting scheduled April 16, 2019.
We invite all members of the public who thought they were giving input before the province
changed all of the rules of the game and an opportunity to stand right there and tell
us what they think. It is what makes this chamber worth having.
That we listen to people. I urge you to support that.
Torontonians are sick of waiting. Every morning, I’m one of them, I go out and
walk to my bus stop. It is about 40/ 60 as to whether the bus will
have enough room for me to get on. Then 20/80 about whether the next one will
have enough room for me to get on. I’m sick of waiting.
I’m sure tens, hundreds of thousands of Torontonians are sick of full buses coming and coming late.
I don’t know about you but I’ve been hearing from Torontonians on platforms when the subway
breaks down for some reason and are terrified, absolutely terrified that something will go
wrong and someone will be killed. These are things that actually worry Torontonians
and make them hate the transit system that they have right now.
And everyone around this council knows that. We have been told we need to buy more buses,
more streetcars and subway cars and places to put them and if we don’t do these things
we can’t run the system we’ve got. These are the most important things that Torontonians
are waiting for and need. We all know it.
But the province of Ontario doesn’t. We went to a table in good faith.
We had an option there. Option 3 that city managers talked about saying
let’s talk about funding formula. Let’s talk about what the TTC really needs.
And Premier Ford who doesn’t know the first thing about the public transit system has
decided none of that is important. What’s important is vanity lines he wants
to build. And build his way.
And we have expansions, once expansion projects happen, once we’ve done the work of getting
in state of good repair and having enough operating money to run frequent service.
Yes, we need to do that and every single proposal that the premier put on the table moves the
day when those new subways or transit lines might actually open further into the future
so that Torontonians will wait even longer. We have seen this movie before.
If you were on council, two terms ago, you remember in December of 2010 when rob ford
walk id out of his office and said to the press, I’m canceling all of the transit projects
and I’m going to build subway, subways, subways instead.
And his brother Doug said, I’ve got an idea how we can do it for free.
And you know what we got? Zero.
Absolutely nothing. Except an eight years of frustration, conflict
between members of this council, trying to put pieces back together and transit riders
ready to give up on us. That the ford legacy.
And that’s exactly the movie that we have been invited to sit and watch.
Watch passively. It is very interesting to me that the province
of Ontario who knows nothing about running TTC feels free to put out their list of demands.
What has to happen? We haven’t been invited to give our list of
demands. Where’s the letter from the mayor or City
Council saying, you have got to fund the state of good repair backlog and get to a descent
operating agreement before we come to the table.
Those are our terms. Take them or leave them.
Why does Doug Ford get to say this, and we, the people responsible for the system, haven’t
had the courage to do our bottom line yet? Now I know there is a disagreement among some
of us about when you go to the table and when you don’t go to the table.
I think that has to do with our experience and how we got into politics.
Some of us have been in politics all of our adult lives.
We have relationships that brought us into political parties.
We work in the business community and line the curtain when decisions are made.
Some of us come out of activist movements who know that governments never surrounder
a right, never improve a service, never listen to the public unless you protest.
We know that’s what works with Doug Ford. It is time for this council to lead.
Thank you, Councillor Perks. Councillor Holyday?
Thank you. I will comment on some of the irony that I
see in the chamber as I often do. I’m looking a the this letter from the province
to the city. I just hope members of council spend the next
little while, we’ve got some motions here to go out and make an information campaign
with the public about what is going on. But I hope we spend our time reality testing
and checking with people about what they think. You know, I recon if you stopped your average
transit rider and say, they want it add more stops on the Scarborough extension, they would
say okay. They are paying for it, check.
Eglinton west extension, they want to bury the project they are working on.
In my community, that’s check, check. Because that’s what they want.
They talk about relief line south about technology they think is b better.
Great. They are paying for it, great.
Then they talk about the young extension. Maybe it is a reasonable one and after the
literal street fight we had last term about trying to get cars off the Eglinton up in
North York, to me that sounds great. You’re going to provide additional transit.
But you know, instead, the last comments and there is a protest.
That’s not exactly what he said. But the spirit of stuff I’m hearing in the
chamber today, let’s pick a fight, great. I don’t know p I think your average transit
rider wants us to get on with the process. Here we have a province that has come around
and said, look, we have interest in uploading a system and we are serious about it.
We have a negotiation at the table with you. Great.
Get on with it. But what we hear around the chambers, let’s
find ways to mess that up or show them that we disagree with everything and drag this
on. I don’t know, I mean, we may or may not agree
with the prove ips on a lot of items. I think a lot of people would depending on
the geography of where you live on what your approach is to transit.
To me I think this chamber’s number one priority should be to keep the movement going forward
to keep the plans rolling forward. To make sure that things are going to get
built. And you know what, if we can get funding from
the province to do this, if they want to become partners, on things they haven’t become partners
on, great. Let’s get on with it.
That the average citizen and average transit rider and average person in a car expect of
this chamber. Let’s just get on with it.
Thank you. Thank you.
Councillor Carroll? Thank you.
Getting on with the rider is my same set of priorities.
I find it interesting, Madam Speaker, to watch street coverage.
Even in December when we began discussing street loading.
I’m talking about interviews on radio and tv.
On social media, there are bots, or we are dealing with provincial government with its
own government so who knows. But man on man interviews, time and time again,
we hear the same thing from riders. I don’t care who owns it.
I need a better ride this morning. Need a better ride now.
I find that to know that when I get on, it won’t stop.
It is not just this morning or tonight, they are speaking to the last 25 years almost.
Since we add descent partner ship with other orders of government it run the system that
exists today. And so, hearing those comments back in December
and even most recently, I have tried to approach one of my responsibilities this term.
I sit on Councillor Robinson’s Toronto Transit Commission.
And I have tried to be keenly aware that what that means may change radically somewhere
in this term of office. But whatever happens, we know from the comments
that the premier made in the run-up to his election and after his election that he will
be expecting us to operate the system that transit riders are riding today.
No matter where this goes, he is going to expect that.
So I am focused on that system. Singularly.
I know we will debate ad nauseam these new proposals.
I know they will lead to us mashing our teeth. But if he wants to hurry along and go with
the redesign he will go with the redesign and guess what it is going to take him.
It will take him exactly the worldwide industry standard.
Can you start your fantasy 30 years early. Can you start your conversation in Barcelona
15 years early but the fact remains under all environmental assessment rules under all
of the engineering principles and rules that we know worldwide, any private sector firm
will tell you, and any public sector executor will tell you, if you are going underground,
once you start, the whole process is 12 years. Even when we go to Asian countries, they say,
they built that thing in two years. Barcelona built all of this in four years.
All of it had before it 8 to 12 years of engineering. Technical engineering.
That’s all that’s gone on here since 2013. Report after report after report.
To move us along. To the point we are now finally almost ready
to tender out the Scarborough extension. I didn’t vote for it.
But it is on its way. And I can’t ignore that.
Because council is supreme when council makes a decision like that.
And so the work has carried on. But what is happening now is that the province
is saying no, council is not supreme. You don’t have supremacy over your community.
I will take over from here. And I will walk you back two main three stage
gates. Because your super bus terminal no longer
makes sense if I take this line beyond Scarborough Town Centre.
And your realignment isn’t where the stations were on the rt.
So whether or not we can do something instead of Lawrence and wherever that is closer to
Kennedy right now doesn’t make sense. There is no question that they have to walk
backwards in time. And reengineer those things.
I have only given you the difficulties with one of the four things they want it radically
change. So I know that we are going to argue and argue
and argue about that. But if the province want it ignore us and
start tomorrow, it is still going to take them 12 years.
And Scarborough will have nothing for 12 more years.
And we have moved heaven and earth to try and get them something.
And to get them moving. And make no mistake, around the world when
a state takes over transit system and says, hey, cite, you operate it, riders don’t connect
the dots. They get up in the morn pg p that ride fails
them. It’ll be all our fault, even though we do
not truly have the financial control to keep that system in a state of good repair.
We struggled with it when we lost our partner 25 years ago and we will struggle to run it
when someone else owns it and we have no way of guaranteeing a good ride.
I’m focused on the system we own now, Madam Speaker.
And if that isn’t the first term — thank you, Councillor.
Thank you. Councillor Ford?
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. And I too feel my colleague’s sentiments.
The irony in the chamber this afternoon. First off, I think what hasn’t happened enough
this afternoon is thanking staff for the work they are doing.
There’s no question that this is a monumental task in front of all of us.
So I want to thank them for their incredible work that they are doing day in and day out.
I don’t think it comes as any surprise that I think the only right path forward is to
work with the province. Like any other municipality around the world,
you are always working with other levels of government on infrastructure priorities.
You always are. You always need to be partner there.
And I don’t think, there are colleagues in this chamber that are going the opposite direction
with that. I think the priorities that were laid out
in the provinces letter from Michael Lindsay, I support.
I this I that conversation is for April when we discussed the priority, I won’t go deep
into that. But one of the contradicting opposing notions
here today is people saying that the government or Doug Ford or whoever you want to say, planned
this takeover from the beginning. Why are we at the table?
They know what they are doing. But right on the opposite hand we have those
same oppositions saying they don’t even have a plan.
Government doesn’t even have a plan to do this.
Scarborough voted how many times? 18, 19, 20, I I’ve heard, to vote for a Scarborough
subway. One for three stops.
One more one stop. But they have endorsed a subway multiple times.
It is once again the same opposition in this chamber who are saying, we cannot delay this.
But haven’t said that if a vote happens right now on the Scarborough subway for one stop,
the same people who are opposing the government talk to the government would vote against
that project as well. There is more irony.
For residents of north, I think tunnelling LRT is a great idea.
I have been to multiple consultations, spoken with a number of stakeholder groups.
I can tell you, 99% of the residents would like to see that tunnel.
Does it cost more? Of course.
But for a much greater return on investment. And it astonishes me that there are individuals
in this chamber who say no thank you to the substantial infrastructure investments for
our transit. Many people in the report are asking staff.
Many question, what does this mean? What does that mean?
And piecemealling what comes to the city. The only way we have dialogue on that is being
at the table. And those questions will be answered.
No plan, whether the City of Toronto and anything we do here, we walk into this chamber with
all of the answers and say, here we go. What do we do?
We debate about it. We consult.
We discuss. And it goes through a process.
What difference is it here? It is the process.
So on the motion as a whole, I support the city manager’s work.
I support the robust consultation process. And I think that the provincial government
made it very clear in this letter, not to mention the last election, it they are very
serious about building transit. And I think that it works to our — it works
against us to not be at the table with them. So I’m voting to continue these conversations
and stay a partner with the province and really focus on investments for the people of Toronto.
Thank you. Thank you.
Councillor Peruzza? Thank you, speaker.
Speaker, people ask me, as they ask most of you, Anthony, why is it that we are not building
more subways? Why aren’t we building a stop year adding
that to the line? Given that the subway is City of Toronto transit
system? Except now for a couple stops up in vine?
You can’t get your act together? The answer to that is, the response to that
is simple, we get our act together. We have a great list of projects.
But we got no money. We got no money to build them.
So we rely on the province to give us the money to build them.
So why aren’t we building subways in Toronto? Because the provincial government doesn’t
give us money to build subways. Hello?
It’s not complicated. Why doesn’t the provincial money give you
money to build subways in Toronto? The provincial government isn’t built to built
subways in Toronto. It is not a political winner in waw waw.
You don’t come along and say, I’m going to build $10 billion because I’m giving votes
up in waw waw. Provincial government is vote base in outside
of Toronto. Toronto is the whipping boy.
There is no caucus up at Queens Park. That has broad representation from City of
Toronto. How would they develop priorities for Toronto?
When it is always a changing group. No why they don’t do it?
Because they are not built to do it. In fact, from time to time when you start
a project like Eglinton subway, they cancel it.
Why? Because it is not a political winner in Kingston.
You want to stop subway construction in Toronto dead in its tracks.
Get the provincial government to control it. They control it now financially.
Through many. We at least because we have broad representation
across the City of Toronto here in this chamber, each and every one of us, represent a Toronto
district. We can at least hammer out priorities and
we do. Then we go begging for money.
Every once in a while, because of the way we are built, as a government, we get to extract
little things from them like the Scarborough sun way.
I didn’t agree with that. I didn’t agree with the Scarborough subway
but we did extract some support from them on that one.
They could simply say, no. See you later.
You’re on your own. We bit the bullet on that one.
A special levy. You now recall the city building levy or fund
or whatever we call it, but we got this little kitty going, right?
And they participate and build a Scarborough subway.
You want it kill the Scarborough subway? Let them establish priorities.
Do what Councillor Ford suggests. Now I understand, I understand Doug Ford spent
some time here. I get that.
And he gets the City of Toronto, you know, it should be three so let’s take it over and
figure that out. But he is going to soon realize that that’s
not how you get votes up in Muskoka. It doesn’t happen that way.
We are like family. We disagree.
We are in it for better, for worse, all the time, on everything.
But do we take a position where we say, you know what, we will do that.
It would be full hardy. You want to go back to Torontonians an be
able to answer this we question when they ask you that.
When they say, why aren’t we building subways? Because Queens Park is not built to build
subways in the City of Toronto. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you.
Councillor Thompson? Thank you very much, speaker.
Speaker, I rise to speak to ex3.1. Engagement with the province on Toronto’s
transit system. The first quarter, 2019, status report.
I want to thank the city manager and his team for bringing forward a report that lays out
an approach at the Executive Committee speaker. The city manager laid out the three streams
and approaches that he and the team was going to take in order to discuss with the province
the city’s needs and desire and concern about this particular process.
We, as council, have given him a it ising and he is following that task.
We have received some information that has come forward to the city manager and the CEO
of the ttbc, Mr. Larry, oh, we have access to that information in terms of the discussion
that’s taking place. We have access to what the province would
like to do with respect to the four lines that most people have been talking about here
today. And it doesn’t prevent the ongoing dialogue
in discussion that the city manager and his team are having with the province and the
special adviser, the deputy ministers and so on along with the professional team from
the TTC. Clearly, it is very perplexing and confusing
because of the challenges that there is. This goes back to decades beyond Doug Ford
and goes back to many provincial leaders in terms of what has not happened or relationship
with respect to the city an province and so on.
We have a premier who has indicated that he would like to do certain things.
And just for the record, Madam Speaker, I can say this to you today and members of council,
I have spoken to the premier about a three-stop in Scarborough because a lot of that, those
stops are in my specific area and corresponding Councillor, Councillor Ainslie.
I will also tell you that just this Monday we had a meeting with the Glenn Andrews community
association that there are over 100 people in that room.
We were talking about the three stops we need foad are Scarborough.
We went through an election where predominant discussion around transit was for a three-stop
in Scarborough. And I understand that when ideas come forward
and perhaps the province’s intent is inconsistent with respect to our intent.
But that’s what the table is for, for discussion and negotiation.
And I’m pretty confidence that the city manager and his team is going to lead the particular
process. We heard about protesting and walking away
from the table and so on. Unfortunate thing is that is not the appropriate
approach between levels of government. We are a level of government.
We have a responsibility to act on behalf of the citizens that we represent.
We may not like what the province has it say, but there is a not opportunity for us to bring
forward what we believe are the best interests for Torontonians.
That situation is actually in front of us here today.
That’s what we are talking about. We have more information in terms of what
the province would like and we will put what we wanton the table and I will finally say
this, speaker, that the mayor’s leadership on this has been very strong.
He has been very focused. He has given through council the city manager
the lead to act on this. But he too has concerns and I’ve heard what
he has indicated. And if it is an approach that we have to take
as council to walk through this process, and try to ensure that we can get what is in the
best interest of the City of Toronto, because although we may want to build many lines,
whether or not bus lines, brts or what have you, we don’t have all of the resources to
make that happen. There is a reliance on the provincial government
strongly, also further reliance on the federal government with respect to building a system.
It would be nice if there was a formula in place where that would have been done.
That’s not the case. So it is a work in progress and I’m going
to follow city manager’s lead on this and mayor’s lead.
Thank you. Thank you.
CoCouncillor Layton? Yes, I have a motion.
To publicly disposal value, I think it is self explanatory so I won’t get hoo that.
You know what, it would be funnier if it wasn’t the truth that we are actually talking about
an agency taking this on, this work on, that brought us the presto rollout.
And that brought in the up express at $27 a fare.
This is their doing. This is not an agency that the people of Toronto
have a lot of confidence in. I have to tell you, if you ever worked with
metro links, I’m sure you have, many of our divisions said we waited a year to get a simple
approval on an engineer drawing for two pedestrian bridges that delayed the projects year.
One will open in about a month and another about eight months from now hopefully.
But it took about aier to get them to review a very simple pedestrian crossing.
That’s not the type of organization people have a lot of faith in.
Someone was talking about the average transit riders, I’ve been out talking to after rnl
transit riders and they are really afraid of what a delay would mean to their daily
commute. The move, now that we know, will happen, to
Toronto’s transit system if we allow and sit quietly while the province makes this move.
Will there be delays? Yes, there will.
We heard that we have been three years into designing the one stop subway extension in
Scarborough. Three years.
Three years of all out work. There is no speeding that work up.
If we was and we find out there was we know we have to answer for that.
At least those that voted to support the project. Will have to answer for why you delayed project
if Scarborough. Because it strikes me, this year, was the
year of opening the Scarborough LRT. This year.
You know what is in the ground right new Scarborough? Nothing.
You know what is going to open this year or next year or year after that and year after
that and after that, of that, after that? Nothing.
No what this proposal that the province does? Lengthens that by that three years.
Three more years. We hear from Councillor Ford, Holyday, let’s
move on right ahead, by delaying three years if we don’t stay and fight?
No. Will it cost more?
Yes, it will. Not only sunk in cost but adding other items
on. We have heard, at least province has inkling
that the price doubled. We may dispute that but I believe in my heart
and soul that this property will come in a couple weeks and we will see a cost increase.
May not be double. I’ll give them that.
May not be double but it’ll be an increase. Will there be more crowding ?
Yes, there will. We have years more until we will see projects
design and we don’t know what will come on line first.
I can’t trust that just as we roll towards another election, that the province isn’t
going to move to get votes outside of the core of Toronto and say no, we’ve got to advance
that work a little bit quicker. Will transit get better ?
No, it won’t. Because one fundamental thing.
These decisions won’t be decided in this chamber. Which is the most democratic and transparent
decision-making body in the country, or province at left.
No. They will happen at cabinet behind closed
doors with ministers, most of which aren’t from the City of Toronto.
They have no idea the experience that our transit riders have on a daily basis.
That many of you have. I know because I have run into Councillor
Holyday. I have run into Councillor Perks.
I ran into the mayor. Before you were elected.
I ran into you one morning. We had a great chat.
We understand the experience of riding on the subway.
So what do we do? You know what?
We stand up and we speak out. This is not political theatre.
This is community organizing and this is democracy. We take a lesson from the teachers who are fighting
against class size. This is
more expensive and prolongs crowding. Thank you, Councillor Layton.
Councillor Robinson? Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
I think something that we can all agree on in this chamber is there is deep frustration
and cross this city on actual on transit and people want that more than anything, the backbone
of our city and people want to see these major expansion projects accelerated.
They don’t want to experience any more delays, they just want things to move forward.
I’m sure you hear it like I do, every single day.
Whether as my capacity as chair in TTC or bordering along line 1, the young line.
Many people in my neighbourhoods that walk to subway everyday, and have trouble as Councillor
Colle talked about, getting on the young line. So we will talk more about how to address
that issue but one key way is through the relief line.
I will chat about that in a minute. But at the end of the day, ultimately it is
our job in this chamber to deliver transit services to residents of Toronto.
And Torontonians must be at the centre of that discussion.
That is a critical piece of this puzzle. That said, I’m very concerned about the significant
can’t time and resources that we have already invested to make significant progress.
I emphasize significant. Because I’m very impressed with various city
divisions and TTC and work they are doing on major lines and expansion plans.
They are really moving along quickly. They are committee and prioritizing.
Major expansion programs. They are hiring staff.
They are acquiring properties and purchasing specialized technologies.
Looking at boring machines. Undertaking complex design work for these
projects. As I said in my questions, I am concerned
about some cost 37 we all should be. We have hit the 60% mark.
60% of the design work is complete and well under way.
As I said earlier we all have to keep in mind it takes about two years, if not a bit more,
to design a station fully. So these are important time lines and deadlines
we have to keep in mind as we go through this process and TTC staff, in fact yesterday morning,
once again remind meg that the SRT will reach a state of ongoing failure by 2026.
And again, if you didn’t know that, we discussed it a bit at our last TTC board meeting, but
I will repeat it. SRT will reach a state of ongoing failure
by 2026. Always in that state.
As I’ve been saying for years, the relief line is the city’s top transit priority.
And within this document before us, that landed on our desk last night, there is a lack of
clarity, a lot of questions about new technology. The term free-standing.
So we need answers to those questions. Already completing 50% on the line and each
stage must be carefully considered to minimize construction in a busy downtown course.
It has to be very thoughtfully planned out and designed.
I think it is critical and I think you would agree with me that we improve the capacity
on line 1 before adding additional ridership. People are waiting two or three trains at
peak hours. We have overcrowding.
But even up in our neck of the woods at young and Eglinton, it has become an issue.
It is not very sexy but so important is the state of good repair and not very politically
rewarding but major issue as council and TTC board we have to continue to address and we
have to keep at the forefront and we have to make sure we are investing.
The list of unfunded projects has grown single year.
Since 2014. And currently backlog is 23.7 billion in unfunded
projects to maintain and improve capacity on the existing system.
Forget about building anything. That’s just our existing system.
There is major pressure at TTC. At the end of the day, I, like you, believe
discussion comes to better outcomes. Wasn’t to make sure Torontonians have the
ability to participate in ongoing discussions. I will support city manager’s work and mayor
as well as some of the motions before us today. Thank you, Councillor Robinson.
That was the last speaker. So Mayor Tory?
Speaker, thank you very much. First of all, can I begin by thanking members
for what I think has been a very thoughtful and by and large constructive.
And I think city manager and the team have done a very diligent job answering questions
today, to the best of t their ability. And I think city manager has done a great
job at this table thus far. I will return to that.
Because I trust him to advise us on an ongoing basis with how those discussions are going.
I want to briefly deal with motions. Deputy Mayor Bailão’s motion,.
I think Councillor Perks motion is not necessary.
I fully intend to help staff and others to do, of having a robust public consultation
process with meetings well attend end we get people out to say their peace about all of
this that we don’t need to have a committee of the whole meeting here.
It is better in a local setting where people can have the opportunity to say what they
want to say. Speaker, my number one concern about all of
this, more so than whatever ends up happening is between no upload, partial upload and full
upload is actually new that we have letters in hand is the matter of delay.
I think has been mentioned by a number of people around this chamber.
Somebody asked the question early on this morning, was city manager alarmed by what
was going on in discussions. If you want to ask me what alarmed means,
it is not the fact we are talking. It would be irresponsible not to talk.
What alarms me more than anything else is the notion we will face delay on these projects.
I think it is inevitable. A number of people have spoken to this.
I will say respectfully, the premier was on television just before we went on at 2:00.
And suggesting that nothing had been around here.
For example on the subject of Scarborough subway.
A number of us that were not on with the Scarborough, and to the point I would take issue saying
not only — not only has there been nothing done we are at the stage to move to construction
procurement at the end of the year on the project and start to move forward.
Same is true of the relief line. You just heard a number I had been heard before
from the chair of the TTC. That’s from a time where quite frankly at
any first time in office there hadn’t been any money and any work done and it is now
at 15% and that is work moving forward. We have found a way as a city to accelerate
that work. So contrary to nothing being done, in fact
with the partnership of the province and federal government we have together invested $150
million. First significant investment in the relief
line and it’s been done. So contrary to the notion expounded, I say
respectfully that is just not true. We have been making progress on these.
Second alarm, if someone asked if I was alarmed by anything, is the notion we should go away
from the table. As a result I would urge members not to support
Councillor Matlow’s motion. It has right in it the notion we are least
in part walking away from a tibl. I don’t know where you partly walk away.
Where you are in a meeting and part is discussed and you say I have to leave for a few minutes
then come back. It is just not possible.
I believe strongly, I said it this morning, I said it when I introduced the report, and
I repeat it now. We do not have the opportunity to express
concerns, to register objections, put forward our own ideas, to remind the people at the
table to the need to discuss our preferred option which is no uploading and maintenance
in TTC city hands if by are not there. It is important to stay there.
Final thing I want to say is this, Madam Speaker, I trust Chris Murray our city manager.
And if Chris Murray decides on his judgement as professional public servant who quite fraimpgly
didn’t have a — he has our team sweater on as a city but not a team sweater no are any
particular transit line or any particular technology.
He is there to represent our position, which we have set out.
He is there to represent our interests. I believe very strongly that if he stays at
the table and he is who he is the professional that he is with his team, and all of the advice
he has to back him up, including advice he is seeking to go on and get with resources
we will provide him with today that he will come an tell us at the appropriate moment.
People often put it that he will come an tell me or I will decide it is time to leave the
table. Well decide.
We as City Council will divide together. What it is that we are to do as that moment
arises when Chris Murray city manager comes to tell us that things are not where they
need to be. I trust him to do that.
I trust us then to make the right decision and the decision of being at the table or
not at table is a City Council decision. Not a manager’s position or city manager decision.
I trust this council to do the right thing. That time, quite frankly to have plans in
place this Councillor Perks was talking about. You hope it doesn’t go there.
You would like to think we could form a good deal where we got some money to do the things
we know we can do. But having said all this it is our responsibility
to make sure we have plans and we can proceed forward.
Most of all, I will conclude on this note, people want us, as has been said here many
times, to get on with building transit. They expect us to try as part as we can to
work together to get that done with the other governments.
And they, therefore, expect these discussions and have a point of view and move forward
to get the transit built. That’s what they want from us and that is
what I’m trying to do as mayor and as one of the 26 people that are trying to address
the city’s interest. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So we can put the motions together.
So we will have a five-minute break and then we can put the motions together.
Okay, 1 is on the screen.
Okay, record vote, yes. Councillor Peruzza, please.
The motion to delete recommendation 3 and approve part 1 of the motion carries 18-8.
Okay, part 2. Recorded vote.
Councillor Wong-Tam, please. The vote does not carry, 7-19.
Part 3. Recorded vote.
Motion to delete recommendation 3 and adopt part 3 of the motion carries, 23-3.
Motion number 3. Councillor Bradford, recorded vote.
Motion 3 carries unanimously. 26 in favour.
Motion 4. Recorded.
Councillor Carroll, please. Motion 4 does not carry.
The vote is 10-16. Motion 5 by Councillor Colle.
Recorded vote. The motion carries unanimously, 26 in favour.
Motion 7. Recorded vote.
Councillor Peruzza, please. The motion does not carry.
The vote is 9-17. Motion 8.
Recorded vote. Motion carries, 23-3.
Okay on ex3.1 as amended. Recorded vote.
Councillor Crawford and Councillor Peruzza, please.
Councillor Matlow, your vote, please. Item as amended carries 23-3.
Okay, on ex3.12. We have two motions.
Motion number 1. Recorded vote.
Councillor Perks, please. The motion does not carry.
The vote is 8-18. Motion number 6.
Recorded vote. The motion carries, 25-1.
Are you asking for it to be reopened? To reopen, all in favour, carry, let’s do
the vote again. Councillor Matlow, please.
The motion carries unanimously, 26 in favour. Okay, we do have some members motions that
we need to add. Councillor Layton.
Yes, thank you very much. This is an urgent member’s motion.
There is a tribunal tomorrow and they would like direction on a settlement offer today
so we don’t have to send all of the city staff down tomorrow.
They will circulate it. I urge you to look at the purple paper because
we would like to get it done before 0.25 all in favour?
Carried. Councillor Cressy?
Thank you, speaker. This is urgent as the bylaw was passed more
than eight months ago. All in favour?
Carried. Councillor Wong-Tam?
You have two? Yes.
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I move the motion before you.
This matter is urgent. Organizers are requesting their required permits.
All in favour? Carried.
Okay, on the other one? Is it going on the screen?
Okay, thank you. Thank you, very much, Madam Speaker.
This matter is urgent. There is a matter before the province.
We would like it take a position on this as City Council.
This is recording site plan review process. All in favored.
Carried. Councillor McKelvie?
Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is in regard to a mosque in the development
fees associated with that. It is urgent as they have been fund-raising
for many months and are ready to start construction. All in favour.
Carried. That’s it.
Our next item is page 3, ex3.4. Councillor Ainslie.
You held the item down. Do have you questions of staff in Councillor
Ainslie? Your item?
Well, the next item on page 3. Ex3.4.
Councillor Ainslie questions for staff? Sure.
So one of the questions I wanted to ask was around the-we used to have a cycling subcommittee.
That was not considered for reestablishment. Through the speaker, in front of you are the
ones that are recommended right now. Council can choose to establish an advisory
board. They set up a process to do so in council
in 2015. So there is always the option it establish
a body if it meets the needs of standing committee to seek advice from the public.
At this point in time we haven’t had a cycling advisory body for a number of terms.
Because that work was taken into the program area to undertaken a they also included other
forms of engagement, not just through an advisory, but other forms of engagement that the program
staff do on a regular basis. Okay.
So you feel that the work of the advisory body is being adequately done now within the
department? We do, Councillor.
That’s why we haven’t recommended establishment of it at this time.
All right, thank you very much. Councillor Fletcher.
To follow up I will ask transportation services about that.
As far as having a body for cycling, walking, active transportation, would you support such
a committee or advisory that would be named officially to have a venue for all of the
ideas and plans to be vetted? I feel, through the speaker, I feel like the
amount of consultation, broad consultation, that the staff do now that we have an adequate
amount of staff to deliver programs, is adequate to get information and have dialogue with
the community on these issues. And so I think that absent having additional
staff, my experience in other cities dealing with advisory boards or engaging with them
is that there is actually a pretty significant effort on staff’s time to engage and support
that board. And so from my perspective, having our staff
engaged in in that around projects is probably the most beneficial.
Okay. And I will just ask Mr. Williams, on the film
board, this was the spotlight on Toronto and that’s the strategic plan for the, the plan
developed for the next number of years for the film industry from the city’s perspective.
Correct. When you travel or the mayor travels to different
cities, Los Angeles, or going to wherever, this is something that you take with you as
far as understanding that. And it is with the board.
Do you feel that it is one thing to say this is a board for the industry because it is
fairly significant industry, and it is another thing to say you have a committee.
Do you not feel there is more weight and this is the film board’s document and it is better
to have a film board rather than a film committee, advisory committee.
While I appreciate the need for consistency and directions taken already, we have used
the word board frequently and it would be confusing to change it.
It would be confusing to change that. Just for the work being done and for the industry.
Thank you very much. Thank you.
Councillor Thompson, questions? Yes.
Thank you, speaker. Through you to staff, with respect to the
reporting out to the respective standing committees, I’m just wondering, I have a motion that seeks
to have two reports. Like a midterm and end of term report.
Does that pose a problem for that information? From my perspective, for the three coming
through staff supported by economic development culture, makes sense for accountability and
to demonstrate impact. I can’t speak to the fourth one, though.
Certainly we agree that the change this term was from away from an annual report, so certainly
midterm or end of term report would certainly be consistent with those objectives.
We feel like, as well, that the City Clerk’s Office provides a good running record of all
of the motions and decisions that come forward as well.
If there is anything additional midterm or end he of term.
Right. My final question, at Executive Committee,
the question is asked about other advisory bodies and so on.
And there was a number of specific ones mentioned. And you’ve said to of course, it was asked
earlier, regarding those committees, you’ve said that they can be brought forward as requested.
Were these ones requested or just brought forward?
Through the speaker — I’m having some difficulties actually just hearing.
There is a lot of conversation going on. Councillors, please.
Councillor Crawford, please. Councillor Colle.
Okay, go ahead. Through the speaker, at last term of council
we undertook an exercise where we actually connected a survey with the public members
of the advisory body. We actually received quite a bit of input
and would consider extending that input to the chairs and other stakeholders and other
program staff as we proceed to determine what advisory bodies would be best put before council’s
recommendation. At this point, the four of you, public members,
determining that there was still sufficient mandate left in the work that they were doing,
to recommend establishment of them. And of course, throughout the period of the
term of council committees do request city manager to report back on other possible advisory
bodies as well which we would certainly do as they arise.
Right. Now, with respect to you talking about the
exit surveys and so on, I’m just wondering, did you also as part of that process, did
you interview or talk to Councillors or chairs of committees as well.
And these particular standing committees that these advisory bodies would report to?
Did you consult with those Councillors? We did not for three of the bodies on this
list. It was an oversight on our part and certainly
something we would recommend doing in the future.
For the French committee, the chair is no longer a member of council.
And for the other two bodies, they had completed their mandate.
But certainly it is something that was an oversight from staff and something that we
see as a gap in our information gathering for sure.
Again, you just said something that the other committee said completed their terms.
I’m just wondering, is it important to have consistency?
For example, all of these advisory bodies play a crucial role, because I know sometimes
— Councillor Thompson, hold on. There is way too much noise.
Please. So what I’m actually just wondering, because
we gain valuable information and input from these advisory bodies, I’m just wondering
whether or not they could be more consistency with respect to having them in terms of ongoing.
Is it necessary to continue to reappoint? Can we just not have these as standing bodies
that would actually report and advise those particular committees, standing committees
that they report to? I’m wondering how you feel about that?
Certainly, if I understand your question, is why don’t we just establish them permanently?
Yes. These bodies are intended to advise council
on term issues and there are issues that emerging all the time.
As we have seen, some bodies whose mandates are completed or assumed by program or service
area. Or were time-limited to start with.
The body which they advise, standing committee, is dissolved at end of council term and this
committee which, and this council, which determines the advisory bodies that it requires going
forward, not based on the previous terms. Thank you.
Councillor Robinson? To the general manager of transportation,
last term we met consistently with stakeholders, correct?
From the cycling community, pedestrian community, and groups like madd and ride alive.
I think 30 or 40 stakeholder groups we were consistently meeting with through roger brown’s
group at the time to get input on road safety. Is that correct?
Through the speaker, that is correct. There was a summit every year which we hope
it continue. Right.
There was an annual summit where we filled the chamber really with stakeholder groups.
From every perspective. As well as also periodically meetings that
were done in a more, I guess, effective way in that they were meeting in city hall and
small rooms having intimate discussions about road safety from a cycling perspective, pedestrian
perspective, and even transit users. Through the speaker, that’s correct.
It was quite focused on the program of vision zero so all stakeholders add stake in that.
They came together to advance the program. As opposed to a general group.
Okay. Great.
Thank you very much. Thank you.
Councillor Colle? Yeah.
Just in terms of advisory committees, does the attention to have citizens advise council
so the members made up of Councillors or citizens? Through the speaker, council advisory bodies
are established under chapter 27 which determines that the body is made up of members of the
public more than 50% and members of council. So a particular body that reports to the same
committee. : How are people appointed?
Through the public appointments process through city clerks.
How are Councillors assigned different committees or do they have to be designated by someone
or how does the Councillor get to be on the advisory board?
Through city — through Striking Committee. Thank you.
So no standing positions for Councillors? They have to all go through the Striking Committee?
Correct, yes. Except for the — where there may be in some
terms of reference where there is a designate for a standing committee for example, me actually
being specifically designated as such. So our statutory members then?
If it is reflected in the terms of reference but that would need to be adopted by council.
Sn. Okay, thank you.
To speak Councillor Ainslie? I’m fine.
Councillor Layton? Yes, thank you very much.
Madam Speaker I wanted to arise two things? One I wanted to thank a member of the chamber
and there is support moving forward in particular based on my experience as co-chair of the
affairs committee. And first and foremost I would like to thank
our mayor. Mayor Tory, and his predecessor, mayor ford.
These weren’t mayors where I was in the inner circle selected for executive or certainly
not aligned all the time politically. But both mayor ford and Mayor Tory gave me
a special privilege to co-chair aboriginal affairs committee.
And I say that because we had to fight to get the committee reestablished and ever since
we did in 2011, and I have had a learning experience and I have made new friendships
and I have done a lot of personal exploration on and in contemplation in my place within
this council and in really day-to-day life. It hasn’t been an easy process.
Not everyday has been easy in that role and doing that learning.
But it has really, it has really allowed me to come to appreciate the work that we do
as a city around reconciliation. And respect for our indigenous brothers and
sisters living in the City of Toronto. I have so much pride in the work that I’ve
been able to participate in on that committee. Every time we open a meeting, and we hear
the lapped acknowledgement, every time I look on the square and see the flags and soon to
see the installation in recognition of the residential schools, hopefully soon.
Every time I talk to the commit aye about efforts they are undertaking.
Every time I hear something about the aboriginal indigenous incubator that Councillor Wong-Tam
has been championing, every one of these pieces had to do with one of the members of that
indigenous affairs committee. Their advocacy, their advice, their guidance.
See tag program develop, it was in my first month when Councillor Fletcher who prior to
mayor ford was council designated on the committee and she delivered me a big binder and said,
good luck. And we took on this agenda of both the truth
and reconciliation work but also the commitment to indigenous people.
We have been able to develop plans around working with hr in the city manager’s office.
Around unemployment strategy for indigenous people.
We know that we have had some success in that strategy.
Not where we want to get to but there is some success.
If we can demonstrate movement on some core things like appointments to committees, and
outside of the indigenous affairs committee but broadening indigenous voices, this is
the type of movement that the community reflects on and respects.
And if I’m chosen for that role, which I will certainly put my name for it in again, or
not, I will value that time and I have a deeper appreciation to Mayor Tory and mayor ford
for that time to serve. I encourage you to all support recommendations
going forward. This is vital for our city and making sure
the decisions we make here are well balanced and well informed.
And a particular inks that to staff and city manager’s office for their hard work on this.
I should also note we celebrated this last year with the opening of indigenous affairs
office within that’s decade of advocacy on the part of the aboriginal community of Toronto
and this work was done through the indigenous affairs committee.
I thank them for that. Thank you.
Councillor Fletcher? Thank you.
I just have a few motions here as indicated in the board, the name of committee be changed
to board. And secondly, just to tidy up this other reference
piece, where we are clear that it is film Ontario and the consent delegates to the committee.
Just clear for the new members. And like Councillor Layton, I just want to
say how proud and pleased I was to spend previous four years in co-chairing this committee,
which is an important one for Toronto’s economy and business and film industry in the city
and its role and its place in the film industry in North American internationally.
So I think that having the board reconstituted as a board is pretty important.
I have spoken to our chair of economic development and he is concurrent with that.
He is in other motions there. And just thank everybody for their work on
getting this reconstituted again. If anything it is unfortunate that it is not
up and running already. And that it won’t be apparently up and going
until June. Which I think for an advisory committee and
end I us try is important for this one for $2 billion industry in the city that we really
should be a little quicker getting it up and working because there are so many things that
are happening right now in film and in the lands and studios and other really important
decisions that we can make here in the city. And while we don’t make decisions about tax
credits, that’s a provincial thing. And I’m very happy that the incoming provincial
government has decided to maintain those tax credit and keep the industry strong.
There are a whole number of things that we are able to do.
I would say that one of the exciting things we did last time as far as work force development
was concerned, was the xoto, schools, and they got to start as co-op placement, and
workplace on a set, with carp enters, with directors guild, and it was very exciting.
A very successful program. I want to thank Mr. Williams for backing that
and having faith in that as really good thing for young folks who are at risk.
And as part of our future development of workplace, or sorry, work force development.
Also a shout out to, I don’t see, — she was standing there.
Magalee sammard and other members of the film office for the fantastic jobs that they do
everyday. We owe you a big debt of gratitude for keeping
our industry strong. Thank you.
Thank you. Councillor Thompson?
Thank you very much, speaker. I have a question relating to the question
I asked staff, which is to amend those particular items, the three committees, Councillor Fletcher
has spoken to the film. I’m in agreement.
In essence have a midterm an annual report coming from the advisory committees to the
standing committees respective standing committees and so on.
I think is important for us to know what those advisory commit ayes are doing and things
coming forward and achievements and so on. So this motion actually seeks to ensure we
are informed on an ongoing basis during the course of the year as opposed to just the
year-end. Thank you.
Can we put the motions on the screen? Councillor Fletcher’s motion?
All in favour? Carried.
Recorded vote. Councillor Peruzza, please.
The motion carries unanimously, 22 in favour. Councillor Thompson’s motion.
All in favour? Carry.
Item is amended. All in favour.
Carried. Page 3, ex3.5.
Councillor Perks. Administrative amendments to reserve fund
accounts. Do you have questions?
I can just move it. Speaker, our brilliant public service has
persuaded me that I can just move it as it is.
You’re just release? Yes.
All in favour. Carried.
Page 3, ex3.7. Deputy Mayor Minnan-Wong?
Oh, I’m sorry. Councillor Wong-Tam.
Sorry. It is for item 3.7 delegation of authority
for liquor licenses. Is that correct?
Okay. I do have a motion.
And if clerks can put that on the screen. I spoke to Councillor Layton.
I have incorporated changes he is also looking for, madam speak per p while clerks get it
on the screen. And it is to number one proceed with recommendation
else of city clerk and to ensure that those recommendations are going to move ahead.
But also to ask and to report back March 2020 on the effectiveness of that delegation that
they are asking for and specifically to use the following four points as evaluation template
and hopefully we will get to the right outcome. And I think that for members of City Council
who have, who often times have to keep their eyes on the big long party clause and sort
of watch it grow through their local community council meetings a not keep an extra big eye
on it to make sure we are not missing anything as items jump on during City Council, we are
hoping, I think, as clerks we are hoping to streamline that process.
But at the same time make sure that it gives us the outcome that they are looking for.
I want it thank clerks for also working with us on this motion.
Thank you very much. Okay, so on page 3, ex3.7, Councillor Wong-Tam
has put the amendment on the screen. All in favour?
Carried. Item is amended.
All in favour? Carried.
Page 3, ex3.8. Councillor Thompson?
You had indicated earlier you were waiting for a report and that was delivered?
Circulated? Councillor Thompson?
Yes, speaker, I did get the information I needed.
I was asked to move the following motion, I believe it is available to be put on the
screen, this is consistent with number 2. This information remains confidential and
in its entirety as it pertains to personal matters and identifiable individuals.
I have nothing further to say. All if favour?
, o Councillor Perks, sorry. You want it speak?
Yes. I have spoken on this topic before.
And I want to register it once again. The City of Toronto puts an enormous amount
of public money into this organization for what I think are really limited results.
We have very little accountability for how that money is spent.
And quite frankly, the City of Toronto could do better on its own.
We have tremendous assets here and we should, I think, at some point consider exiting from
this organization. So I will be voting against this motion here
today. Okay.
Councillor Carroll to speak. Madam Speaker, I have no need to go into camera.
I simply wanted to make sure that Councillors are in fact reading the supplementary in-camera
report on this. Because it will outline the financial ramifications
that Councillor Perks was just talking about. Councillor f Fletcher?
I just want to go through start and go through the whole line.
We used to have tedco, its function wag economic development.
Jobs. Helping people move and worked very closely
with our economic development division. They were able do a lot of things across the
city. They worked with Councillor Grimes.
In Scarborough with Councillor De Baeremaeker. Jobs on the
waterfront does not have to just be high-end housing.
There is employment and it is creative industry employment that we have.
Then that was broken up in 2008 or 2009 into Port Lands, a leasing committee, and invest
Toronto. Now Toronto Port Lands company, through all
of its dividends and leases ended up paying for invest Toronto.
$2.5million aier went over to invest Toronto. I would have to say that while the Port Lands
corporation new its business and certainly delivered good leases and everything else,
I’m not so sure that invest Toronto was as successful.
We looked and said, is it successful? Are we getting what we need?
How are you working to attract businesses to the City of Toronto?
Because folks we’re kind of a big player here. We are putting a lot of cash out there.
But we didn’t have our own ability to go out and get those jobs.
It was still going through the provincial government.
At a certain point we decided we weren’t getting the value for our dollars this we should have
had and global got set up. I’m just going to say to you, I would like
to see exactly how many jobs were brought to this city with the focus from that staff
on getting employment in this city. I want to give a big shout out to economic
development. I think they work night and day to bring employers
here. Night and day.
To bring employers here. And to make us open for business if you want
to say that, but good business they work for good jobs.
They have a very broad, broad mandate and they deliver.
And we have an ambassador as somebody who goes out to talk about those jobs.
Quite frankly, I’m just not sure that we get everything we need from Toronto global.
As a matter of fact, in the big amazon bid, and I pointed it out to this council, what
was in the prospectus was incorrect. With the millions and millions of dollars
we feed there, incorrect. Quite frankly, I think it is a political operation,
political appointments and we have to revisit, high-paying political appointments.
What are we getting on notice deliver for the dollars we put in, deliver.
That is what we need to make sure happens. Thank you.
Thank you. So we’re just on the item, right?
Councillor Thompson’s motion? All in favour?
Carried. Item is amended.
All in favour. Carried.
Pardon? Recorded vote.
Councillor Peruzza, please. Item many as amended carries, 19-3.
Next item is page 3, ex3.10. Councillor Ainslie.
Yeses? Yeses?
Questions? Councillor Fletcher, what happened?
I need to reopen the last one. I voted the wrong way.
Motion to reopen. Carries.
Let’s vote. Again.
Councillor Robinson, please. Councillor Ford, please.
The item as amended carries, 18-4.
Okay. Ex3.10.
Councillor Ainslie? Do you have questions?
No, I don’t. Okay, so what would you like to do?
So I is a motion. I have consulted with the Toronto police services
I.t. Staff and deputy chief Coxson this morning.
We reached an agreement or recommendation on moving the motion on the screen forward.
P. The minutes on the screen, ex3.10.
On the screen. All in favour.
Carried. Item as amend id.
All in favour? Carried.
On page 3, ex3.11. Councillor Ainslie, you held the item down.
I think it was made time specific for tomorrow morning.
Oh that’s right, yes. I do have a motion.
I submitted to the clerks. I don’t know if it is ready yet.
For what? On this item.
I thought it was — sorry? It is for tomorrow.
Okay. Yeah.
Okay. On page 4.
Au1.4. Audit Committee Councillor Carroll?
Yeses? No, Madam Speaker.
I can release that. I just needed to finish reading it.
Thank p you. On the item, all in favour, carried.
Page 4, hl3.5. Councillor Ainslie, you held the item down.
Relief services. Questions?
I don’t have any questions. I do have a motion I submitted to clerks.
I don’t think it is ready yet, though. When did you submit it to clerk?
Oh, it’s ready. Okay, there is the amendment.
All in favour? Carried.
Item is amended.
All in favour. Carried.
Page 5. Economic development ec2.3.
Councillor Cressy held it. I have some questions on that one.
Page 5. Councillor Ainslie, you’re releasing ca4.5?
I am. Okay.
All in favour. Pardon?
Toronto accessibility advisory committee. All in favour.
Carried. Page 5.
Ec2.8. Bias.
Councillor Colle? Do you have questions?
Yeah. I was wondering if I could get a hold of the
budgetary submissions on the bias. Okay, just a second.
I would hold that down. I want to see their budgets.
So you have in the motion — we’re on the item now.
Yeah. Yeah.
You have in the motion the top line budgets. For those particular bias that are coming
through at this time. Is your question about one of those bias or
about the other bias? I want to look at budgets of the bias in my
ward. It is in the agenda.
The detailed expenditures? Yeah.
Well, no. They are budget.
I want to see what they spend their money on.
Yeah, I want to see the budget. We will get the bias in your ward.
We have that tings in. We don’t have it for everybody.
I can’t tell you off-hand right now which ones we have and which we don’t have.
Whatever you have, I think there is four there from my ward and I would like to see them.
We will get you that by tomorrow morning. Sure.
That’s good. In the meantime, are you going to release
the item? No.
Because I want to see the budgets.
All right, we will hold it down then. There are a number of other bias.
Do you want to just hold yours down? We will get the BIA listed in the motion.
We will hold the item down for tomorrow. Councillor Thompson.
I don’t want the information on my bias. I’m on the board.
I know what is in their budget. I would simply say this, if Councillor wishes
to have that information, it is his right and he should have that information.
Yes. But notwithstanding, it is not my understanding
that Councillor has the authority to change what is in a BIA budget.
So I don’t know necessarily that it makes any difference as to whether or not we move
this along and the information is presented to the Councillor so he can review it.
We can’t change their budget. So it doesn’t matter what it says.
We don’t have the authority to change it. No, you’re absolutely correct.
These budgets were determined through an agm meeting that each of the bias held and most
Councillors attend these meetings and they know.
But if you don’t, we can’t change it because it was adopted.
Right. It was adopted by the board of management.
So I don’t know — Mayor Tory? I heard Mr. Williams.
I think he was trying to be helpful by saying he would supply them all.
I only heard one or two people asking. With the staff time involved in retrieving
those and printing them. If Councillor Colle wants those, that’s a
fair request. But I don’t think Mr. Williams should be taken
up on his offer to supply them all. It is a waste of staff time.
I think most people have seen the budgets. Thank you.
For two Councillors that have asked for them. Councillor Cressy?
I was going to reaffirm that on behalf of myself and Councillor Layton.
The mayor has spoken to it, so that’s fine. Clarification, I know we just moved past it,
it is held in my name, speaker I know you wanted to deal with this tomorrow.
Can we get clarity on when it would be held tomorrow?
It is in my name. Yes.
You weren’t here at the time so I asked to hold it down until tomorrow because I had
issues and I have to get all of my documentation. If you don’t mind.
For tomorrow. No, I don’t mind.
Ways here. Oh, I did call you are name.
I didn’t think you were at your desk. So are we dealing with it tomorrow morning?
Yes, yes, yes. Okay.
Thank you. I may just release it, Councillor Cressy.
Yeah, it is just that I had an item, I moved a motion on this a few years ago, and because
I had concerns on it. And I just have to get all of my paperwork
to ensure that it is included as part of the bylaw.
That’s all. On page 5, gl2.15.
Councillor Karygiannis. I move
on recommendation. Do you want to ask questions?
Okay, Councillor Holyday, have you questions. I just want to make sure I understand this
motion correctly. And staff, with interpretation, so this is
seeking a report back to I guess council eventually on the notion of as employer of the City of
Toronto providing paid off religious holidays that go beyond the days off under our collective
agreement. That’s what this is asking for, have I got
that right? I just want confirmation from someone that
that’s what this says. Who is answering your question?
I’m not sure who is here. I guess it is a labour relations issue?
Okay, I’ll put your time on hold. Is anybody here to answer the question?
Through the speaker, I don’t see right now but if we have our resources — I’m okay to
go straight to a vote on the item, Madam Speaker. I believe I’ve got the right interpretation.
I’m okay to cease my questioning. Well, let’s be clear.
Deputy Mayor Minnan-Wong? Yes, I’m wondering if we should hold this
down for someone from labour resources or someone to come down.
Can ask my questions on-line or publicly. I’m not prepared to vote on it because I have
questions. Okay.
Okay, that’s fine. Page 6.
IE2.2. Gardiner expressway and dawn valley parkway.
Councillor Holyday, you held the item down. Do have you questions?
I do not. Okay.
Did you want to speak? It is not a hold.
We’re on the item. We’re on the item.
Just one moment, please. Can you clear the screen, please?
Councillor Holyday to speak. Thank you.
IE2.2 and IE2.3, they are one in the same. They are a request that City Council has seen
before, just a request to close the expressway. Some of the feedback that I had heard is an
increasing concern about the practice of doing this.
And my only request really is not to interrupt this process at this juncture.
But in future reports from the general manager to include some discussion about alternatives
to closing the expressway, this is really looking into a future.
Because I respect that these reports are permitting closure for the next three years.
But as the city becomes more and more congested and we are a seven-day of the week city, maybe
there is another way to deliver these type of events and I just think it should be included
in the reports so that council can look at it.
That’s all. Okay.
Do we have any — oh. Councillor Fletcher?
Okay, Councillor Carroll, you have questions of Councillor Holyday?
It pertains to both. I was just wondering if you happen to interact
with staff such that you would know that these steps have been taken before and that agreements
were reached with the organizations. You’re aware of that?
I did consult with staff on the motion and the motion is that a very distinct to include
some of that information in the reports because they weren’t — that wasn’t articulated.
O they can talk about past conversations with the groups.
The information that is coming forward, whether it is feasible or not to did events in a different
way. I think it should be part of a report that
comes to council whether or not it is examined. Fair enough.
Thank you. Okay.
You have a question on the next item. Clear the screen.
So Councillor Holyday on IE2.2, Councillor Holyday has a motion that’s on the screen.
All in favour? Recorded vote.
Councillor Filion and Councillor Peruzza, please.
The amendment does not carry. The vote is 10-15.
All in favour? Carried.
IE2.3. Councillor Fletcher, you have questions?
I’m just, on these, where the gardners closed, and it is very interesting at that time in
ward 14 used to be ward 30. I guess I’m just asking — I don’t think there
is any cost to close any of these highways, is there?
That’s our contribution? Through the speaker, this is a private event
and so there is a cost. I believe they pay somewhere in the order
of $30,000. 30?
30000 the total cost, permit cost is a little over 30,000.
That’s for the private triathlon festival? If it is a nonprofit event, is there still
a cost? There is but reduced fees for nonprofit.
We passed a new suite of fees, I believe it was last year.
Is that part of the fees for sidewalk sales and everything else?
Correct. We add different category for private event
versus nonprofit versus BIA, farmer’s mark pets p.
Is that cost recovery for 2.3? It is at left cost recovery, yes.
Okay. That’s all I wanted to know.
Thank you very much. Thank you.
Councillor Holyday to speak? I can be quite brief.
I just wanted to move the same motion. The reports are similar in nature and experience
and so the motion is the same. Clerks advise me, couldn’t make a generic
motion, one per item. So I would like to move the same motion.
Thank you. Okay, Councillor Holyday’s motion.
Recorded vote. Councillor Cressy, when you’re seated, please.
Amendment does not carry. Vote is 7-18.
On the item, all in favour. Carried.
On what? On the item?
Okay. On the item as amended.
Recorded vote. If is not amended.
On the item. Councillor Karygiannis, please.
Councillor Carroll and Councillor Peruzza, please.
The item carries unanimously, 25 in favour. Now let’s go back to page 5 because I understand
we do have staff here to answer questions on gl2.15.
On the City of Toronto’s policy on statutory holidays.
So Deputy Mayor Minnan-Wong, you had questions? Do you have questions?
Okay, Councillor Karygiannis questions? Questions of staff.
How many members do we have — how many people do we have working for us?
Approximately 37,000 employees. How many of them are of different religious
backgrounds or ethnic backgrounds that might take advantage of such a motion.
I can’t hear, I’m getting vibes from Councillor. I can’t hear.
Through the speaker, I would say it is hard for me to estimate how many of them are falling
into different religious categories. Except I will say the city does make an effort
it reflect the diversity — just put my name on hold.
Councillor Holyday, I can’t hear the individual.
I regret that Councillor feels he is being heckled.
But — I didn’t say heckled. I said I can’t hear.
It is interesting, I can’t even speak on a point of privilege without being interrupted
by my colleague. Which happens quite often.
I want it make sure that that was of record I was conversing with the clerk to clarify
an an an item on the speaker’s list. Thank you.
The question I have, what is your information on individuals that celebrate other religious
holidays besides the ones we have on the list? Unfortunately, I don’t have the exact numbers,
through the speaker. However the City of Toronto is an incredibly
diverse place and our work force similarly. So I will expect that we probably have a large
number of employees represent different faiths that are non-Christian because I think that
the point you are making Councillor is that most of the holidays that are currently recognized
are primarily Christian holidays. I would agree there are a large number of
employees that are from other faiths. But I do not have a precise number.
If I were to question you, all Christian holidays fall on the same dates as ones we have, would
you agree with me or disagree with me that there is in the eastern calendar there is
holidays that fall on different dates? That’s correct.
That there are — yes, there are Christian dom naigs that are different from the ones
we currently celebrate, correct. Would you estimate we have 450% plus of people
in the City of Toronto that are visible minorities, would that be correct?
Through the speaker, I think approximately 50.6% of the population of Toronto is racialized
but racialized people also celebrate a whole range of faiths including Christian.
Fz if you were to put in there eastern orthodox be would add 10%, is that correct?
Roughly? Unfortunately, throo through the speaker,
I do not have an exact estimate. But the census data does give us some indication.
But I do not have that information available. Is that reflected in the work force that we
do have in the City of Toronto? Through the speaker, the city works hard and
it is our intention to reflect the diversity of the population that we serve.
Madam Speaker, point of order. Madam Speaker, point of order.
I can’t hear myself. There’s too many conversations.
Thank you. Appreciate your thoughts.
Thank you. Would you say this 50% plus of our work force
would be falling in that venue this people celebrate other religious holidays besides
the mainstream ones? Through the speaker, unfortunately, I’m not
able to answer that question. But I will say that we have a diversity of
faiths amongst our employees so there are, I will assume, there are many of our employees
who celebrate holidays other than the ones that are currently provided — would that,
20%, 30%, 40%, 50 50%? What would the number be?
Your best guesstimate? Through the speaker, I just have no basis
on which to — I have no data on which to base an answer it that question.
I could certainly consult the census data and that might give us a census of the population
of Toronto. I’m asking about our work force.
I agree. I understand that is what you are asking.
Unfortunately that’s not data we currently have.
Based on the data that the — I mean, from census Canada, what is the estimate of the
population that celebrates other holidays? Toronto?
Through the speaker, I do not have that information but I can certainly look it up.
I thank you. But no disrespect, you knew you were going
to get these questions today coming in here. I’m just wondering, if you can help me in
any way, shape or form to understand. Councillor, staff has responded and — Madam
Speaker — no, first of all, Councillor, you were going to release it.
It wasn’t until another member of council held it that they had questions.
I’m out of order by asking questions, Madam Speaker?
No, you are not out of order. But staff is commenting they don’t have the
answer to that. Can we hold it down so you can get answers
by tomorrow? No.
Just to clarify you are looking me to look up census data and get the religious d data
in Toronto? I’m wondering how many — you have asked — you
don’t have the numbers. No, she said that.
If we — we can report back but I can tell that you we do not currently collect that
data from our employees. So I will — we will have to come up with
a mechanism for collecting that data in order to provide that information.
Would you have the data of how many of our employees book off days of religious holidays?
That’s your last question. We would have, through the speaker, we would
have — people use vacation, it would be impossible to tell what reasons are for the holidays
that people take off. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
This is. Did I get it right this is a proposal for
a report to look at allowing city employees paid days off for religious holidays which
fall outside of the statutory holidays that we’ve got?
Have I read that right? Just a yes or no.
That’s correct. Thank you.
Is it a fair comment, although I don’t have all of the details, that when considering
the many, many diverse religious beliefs and practices and faiths and approaches to religion
that there would be quite a gamut of days that could be taken off by an individual at
any given time. I’m not going to say everyday of the calendar
but many, many days of the calendar would have some faith with a day of significance?
Through the speaker, that is correct. We did an exercise through the equity diversity
division where we tried to have a calendar to recognize all of the dates and we did recognize
that point that many of the weekdays do fall on our religious holidays for some people
in Toronto. There is a lot going on a calendar is my point,
and you would agree with that? That is correct.
Do we track the faiths of our employees or would we hold them to account?
How would we go about determining the faith of an employee for someone that comes by and
says, it is my religion to do x, y, d zed. The city conducts an equity survey but we
do not ask employees for their faith so we currently do not have a mechanism for tracking
that. In order to practically manage attendance
that an employer and employee would have to have those type of discussions and agreements
and some certainty around someone’s faith. This is what this implies in order to exercise
such a proposal. Am I right on my reasoning on that?
Yes. Yes we would need some information from the
employee about their religious — and I’m free to change my religion at any point?
That is correct. And is it fair comment that the various faiths
and religions would require different quantity of days off?
Some faiths would require many and some maybe one or none.
Through the speaker, that is correct. My knowledge is that there are different religious
faiths with different number of days of observance, correct.
Are you aware any of mechanism where we could both accommodate the spirit of what is suggested
in the motion to be reported on and also achieve fairness amongst employees who would be looking
at each other about the numbers of days that they’ve had off?
Through the speaker, I would say one thing that city currently has in addition to vacation
days and holidays, the city also has float days and so it is the city’s position that
days that we currently have available for our employees are fair.
The religious holidays we do permit observances are statutory holidays.
Our current policy when handling this is that there are a number of days available to employees
to take off both from vacation and float from a practical standpoint if it is a day you
want to celebrate to celebrate your faith your manager would be happy to give it to
you to take off? Through the speaker, yes.
There are other mechanisms for employees to take days off.
Vacation and float being primary ones. Lastly, based on rules from let’s say the
human rights commission or other employment standards or just good labour practice, do
you think managers in Toronto public service would be most likely to accommodate an employee
request for a day off based on their faith or day of faith recognition.
Through the speaker, my expectation is that managers will go out of their way to accommodate
days off. I understand the practice today is that employees
use vacation and float days when they have days off and they are accommodated in that
way. And last piece, days off and entitlement to
days off, are those normally within the purview of say collective bargaining?
As opposed to a council discussion here. Is that something that normally happens at
the bargaining table? Through the speaker, yes.
Thank you. Thank you.
Councillor Robinson? Questions?
Yeah. My question is related vacation time.
And lieu time and overtime. So let’s think about a large percentage of
the work force in the 10 to 20 years of service. Can you give council an example of someone
in the 15 to 20 or 10 to 15 and how many vacation days would they get plus lieu days and potential
overtime? Okay, through the speaker, I will try to remember
our vacation policy. I believe that an employee in 15-year range
will probably have about five weeks of vacation. And lieu time will be based on, depends on
the employee status, if it is a unionized employee.
I meant management. Sorry.
I’m talking about management today. Time of hours depends on the person’s job.
Lou time is overtime. So depends on your job and how much overtime
you working and that determines how much you accumulate.
But you can accumulate up to 105 hours of paid lieu time.
Certain brackets and not employees up to wage grade 11 and employees beyond that don’t currently
— after 105 paid hours for overtime, what happen fess that is exceeded?
Compensated by time off? Depends on class of employees.
But for most employees it is not compensated. Max is 105 per annual year of service?
There are exceptions. Some employees can accumulate additional but
for most 105 is the maximum. That is how many days?
Three weeks. And you didn’t mention floater days.
Through the speaker, all employees get two float days a year.
Two float days per year. Correct.
Use it or lose it? Correct.
In summary, I think what you are saying is a vacation policy is pretty strong here at
city hall with five weeks of vacation for 15-year employee plus two floater days, plus
a potential of three weeks overtime which a lot of our staff, lets face it, do overtime.
They are out at public meetings all the time. And working very hard often on usually on
evenings. Correct?
Through the speaker, I would say that our policies are quite generous in terms of vacation
time, correct. Quite generous.
What I heard earlier and what I experienced when I was in the system is managers are usually
very respectful of people’s religious practices and if they require a day off I have never
ever heard of an incident where that wasn’t approved or is you supported.
Would you agree with me? City has robust policies in terms of equity
and we encourage our managers to approve vacation and different divisions from different practices
but yes that is correct that would be a priority to approve a day that’s been requested for
religious observance. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Any further questions?
Councillor Karygiannis. If anyone goes through the City of Toronto,
I counted a few thousand folks that are Greek, I counted a few thousand folks that are Chinese
and the list can go on. If you are of a different ethnicity, there
are days on the calendar that you must observe. We in our offices, collective offices, give
our staff those days off. Some of us even celebrate those days when
it falls on our religious day. For this city, the beacon of the rest of the
world to follow, and we do have more than 50% of our population which is of different
backgrounds, and visible minorities, for us not to do the exercise and come back with
a report, for us to not allow for our staff to do that exercise, we should truly be ashamed.
Colleagues, it is only a report. Let’s see how it would affect us.
All of us, no exception, have staff that come with us when we go to events of a different
ethnic minority. Sometimes we even bring staff that is made
sure to be the same ethnicity as that. Let’s stop doing window dressing.
Let’s do the walk and talk. Let’s find the report and find what’s in it
and start allowing staff one or two days like the rest of us have.
For us not to have those numbers readily, I have to tell you, all you have to do is
look outside this chamber. And this chamber, we do not represent what
truly is Toronto. Outside, when you go out any particular location,
any crosswalk, you will see people and if you question them, you will readily note that
they celebrate, if they are Chinese they celebrate mid autumn festival.
Chinese New Year. Greeks, celebrate Good Friday that sometimes
falls on other days. If they are eastern orthodox they celebrate
Christmas 15 day , 13 days later. I don’t see why we can’t go through the exercise
just to find out what it is. Just to find out what it cost us.
And to truly say to our staff that this city is truly market culture.
Let’s not just talk about it and let’s not say we are truly multicultural and let’s go
beyond about taking the staff member with us to a function happens to be of that particular
ethnicity. If you are going to do the talk, do the walk.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Deputy Mayor Minnan-Wong?
Yes. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I have a motion. Refer to city manager for consideration during
upcoming labour negotiations. This does involve labour negotiations.
We should be parking this if the Councillor wants to bring this forward and come to the
labour relations discussions when we are putting forward our mandate and that’s probably the
best place to discuss this. I’m not saying that Councillor put forward
this motion that he doesn’t have a good point but this isn’t — this is neither the time
nor the place to have it discussion in my particular view.
And I had a discussion with city manager and he agrees with this.
Thank you. Councillor Karygiannis, questions?
A lot of our staff are nonunion. They are not part of this labour negotiation.
Staff that work in your office, Councillor, are not union.
How are we going to be representing them and how do we take care of them with this motion
that you have? I think Madam Chair the first thing that we
need to do is decide what we do with our unionized work force then we can decide after that.
And we often do that in this — in the process of coming up with a agreements.
First thing we do is deal with 416 and 79 and then of that we will deal with the nonunion
arrangements. How many people are nonunionized within our
city, Councillor, would you know? I don’t have that number.
As I say, again, to the extent — this is clarification with a motion.
He wants it present it to the labour department. What about people that are not part of the
labour negotiations. What about them?
Madam Chair, I answered that question but I will say it again.
Yeah. The way that we usually deal with negotiations
with our — with the nonunion and union, we first do the 416 and 79 and after that, we
deal with the rest of our employees. That is the process.
416 and 79 usually sets the tone for everything else.
Okay? Thank you.
Yeah, so we’re now, we’re now speaking on the referral for two minutes.
So right hand column. On the referral.
Okay. Let’s vote on the — council Wong-Tam, two
minutes on referral. Yes be thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
Councillors, I would urge you not to vote on referral at this point in time.
We don’t have the information that Councillor Karygiannis and I are asking staff for.
Simply refer this back to the labour negotiations. We actually don’t have the information before
us. Which is exactly why the motion that we moved,
I moved with Councillor Karygiannis is to ask staff to explore the feasibility of changing
the statutory religious holiday policies for sit aye of Toronto.
It important to know there is no point of accepting it off to another committee when
you don’t even have the information. They will also need the information.
They need a baseline to start from before they can even begin any type of discussions
and course that work has to be done with the support of our executive director people equity
and human rights. You have to do step 1 before step 2.
Thank you. On referral, Councillor Holyday.
Two minutes. This is.
Yes, thank you, Madam Speaker. I want it say, I support the referral.
You know, to have this type of report, this type of public council discussion, at this
point in time, and I appreciate the sentiment of my colleague Councillor Karygiannis and
what he is thinking about on all this. But at best it’s awkward and really at worst
it is ill advised if we are entering into a collective bargaining process.
I don’t know why we would want to have a side process which potentially conflicts or undermines
that type of work. I have to ask, what is the best for the city
at large. There are people in the work force and employees
and citizens, taxpayers, a bunch of them, but I think you have to look at this as what
is in the best interest and creating a sub process that interferes with an overall process
may not be the best course. And I think this is a serious matter and that
we should exercise care. Thank you.
Thank you. Councillor Karygiannis.
Thank you. If you want to kill something, send it to
committee. I can see what Councillor Holyday and Minnan-Wong
are doing. They are afraid to let staff come back with
report. So one speaks against it and the other wants
to defer for labour negotiations. If you want to kill something, kill it by
sending it to committee. I urge you folks, do what is right for our
city. Don’t just sit there and talk about our city
and how great it is. Do what’s right for it.
Let’s get the report. See what’s in there.
And proceed from there. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
On the referral, recorded vote. Councillor Filion, please.
The referral motion does not carry. Loses on a tie, 11 for each side.
Yes, Councillor k Karygiannis. I feel insulted on this on my religion I think
the Councillor should stand up and apologize. It is not next about dental health care.
It is about the responsibility we have as a city.
Let’s not make fun of it. Councillor, that’s not a point of order.
Okay, so now we have the item. Recorded vote.
Hold on. Yes, we have other speakers, yes.
I’m s sorry. So Councillor — sorry.
We were voting on the referral. Councillor Wong-Tam to speak.
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I’m going to urge members of council to simply
adopt the recommendation that’s before us. I think it is absolutely critical that we
actually take a look at the religious holidays that we do permit without question we can
take off and staff can take off that are before us the day they are registered as statutory
holidays. Reality is that there are only ten statutory
holidays, nine, ten, on the calendar in Ontario. I just looked it up.
It’s ten. And ten across the country.
That changes from province and territory depending on some of the more regional local celebrations.
And not every single one of those dates are necessarily religious holidays.
They just happen to be a staff holiday. When I take a look at my own office team and
composition that’s there, I know that my staff have to take time away from their desk and
their workplace and it is actual lay little confusing because they take it off as personal
time, to be quite honest. What they don’t get is recognition from their
city that their own religious holiday, that they celebrate with communities and friends,
is recognized as that. So they take it off as a personal day.
It is time that they don’t get on what would be a personal day.
And so it really is a matter of equity and fairness.
And I’m Chinese-Canadian. In Chinese calendar probably the most important
celebration is the Lunar New Year. In all my years in this country, and I love
my country, but there has never really been an opportunity for me to take any time off,
not at school, not at work to say, I’m actually going to spend time with my family.
And that is actually a very — it is where we are.
But I don’t think it is where we need to be. Especially since we live in the most multicultural
diverse city on the planet. And we have people who come from around the
world who have chosen Toronto as home. It is only natural that Toronto, especially
this corporation, that we actually lead with a different example.
We can’t be held up to the same standard of what is happening in Ontario holidays.
Or across the edges and coast of the country. Because Toronto is so uniquely different.
I think it is actually very important for us to just have a dialogue.
Let’s get an understanding of what we can and cannot do.
And then from there, decide on how we will proceed.
Keep in mind that this is an issue of recognizing that we are a diverse city.
People from diverse backgrounds and it is an issue about fairness.
What holidays we recognize, we will leave that to staff.
How we proceed afterwards, we will look forward to recommendations and to pretend that we
are in a diverse city and city of great pluralism would be a mistake.
Thank you. Okay.
On the item recorded vote. Members, cancel previous votes.
I notice lights are still lit up. Make sure to press one of buttons.
Councillor Bradford please. Deputy Mayor Minnan-Wong, please.
The item carries, 19-4. Page 7.
NY4.1. North York Community Council.
Sorry, back to page 6. PH3.2.
Revisions for municipal shelters. Councillor Cressy, you held the item down.
Do you have questions? No.
Councillor Cressy? I have no questions.
Does anybody have any questions? Deputy Mayor Minnan-Wong?
So what does this report — this report says that these shelters are no longer — well
maybe can you explain it for me. Through the speaker, the report brings forward
zoning revision for municipal shelters. Permitted with certain performance standards.
Those two performance standards we propose to remove our 250-metre distance separation
between shelters, municipal shelters and a performance standard this requires the shelter
to be 80 metres from a major road and major road is defined in the zoning bylaw.
So if these revisions were replace id say last year, would there — do you have any
locations, does the city have any lotions and it would have looked at?
Do you have any locations that are in your sites?
Recent from — I think that — I was about to defer to you.
There were 33 different sites during that period of time.
That it did not meet these performance standards. Some of them very, very appropriate and just
on the edge of the performance standard. And that didn’t allow us to look at those
sites. So do you have those — all right.
You have a list of those sites? Through the chair, we could gather a list
of those, yes. Okay.
So you could provide them to members of Councillor, to myself?
Sure. Yes.
All right. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Councillor Pasternak.
Thank you. Thank you Madam Speaker.
My understanding is for shelters to really do social work they are supposed to do.
They would be located on Ontario roads close to social services.
Close to recreational assets. Maybe a library.
Medical facilities. Transit hubs.
And I’m just wondering, ford works against that philosophy.
You are correct. However there have been sites that meet all
of those criterias that are really right on sort of that arbitrary edge of those numbers
that would have worked very well but because it may have been 90 metres or a hundred metres
rather than 80 metres we weren’t able to look at them.
When locations are just so close to the bylaw, could you not bring it to council or many
of the adjustment to adjust accordingly? Take it on a case by case basis rather than
a blanket reform of the bylaw? That’s possible.
Those performance standards could be adjusted by the committee of adjustment.
Given the emphasis that council has placed on facilitating the shelter program and doing
every little bit we can, if you will, to facilitate the shelter program.
And we felt it was something that we could do to help the program delivery hearing this
a few sites had zoning issues. And in the context of previous matters that
have been considered around separation distances in particular, we felt it was time to address
that issue more fundamentally. These matters can be resolved by commit aye
but we felt in the spirit of doing everything we can to facilitate the program that we are
recommending they be removed. Additionally, one of the issues with that
is time. And we end up losing sites very quickly, generally
if the city doesn’t move on them in this real estate market.
It seems to me that you lost the opportunity completely rather than working through our
process here, through committee of adjustment. I don’t understand why things that were so
close weren’t brought before us for — through the chair, city is not able to purchase a
site until all of those things have been resolved. It is a matter of timing.
Something is on be a a property is up for sale, if the city isn’t able to put in an
offer quickly, we can often lose those sites. So the commit aye of adjustment process takes
up time, valuable time in trying to secure the site.
Under the report or the recommendations that you brought forward, would there still be
community consultation or based on new community consultation framework that we pass last year?
Through the chair, absolutely. We would follow the same process that was
passed last year. Okay.
Thank you. Thank you.
Councillor Layton? I would just like to recognize our former
colleague and np for — not university of Rosedale, adam Vaughan, who is at his usual
seat up in the media gallery. And when he was here, he was always up there,
too. Councillor Filion?
Questions of the chief planner. So when some years ago we brought in a bylaw
that allowed shelter, housing and all zones, is that correct?
Yes, that’s correct. Correct me if I’m wrong, is that the trade-off
was that we put in the restrictions and it be on a main road or close to main road and
that there be a limited distance with spaces and that is kind of the trade-off that convinced
council to allow shelters at all zones, if I remember correctly.
Yes. Through the speaker, staff had not, that was
not a recommendation of city staff at the time.
That is ultimately something that I believe four of the five community councils recommended
and ultimately bylaw approved at Ontario Municipal Board included those provisions.
But that was something that council had desired to manage it.
So it came from the community council as and councils?
That’s correct. Okay.
With what is being proposed, there would be no limitations whatsoever on any type of shelter
at any location, is that correct? Through the chair, limitations are by zone,
first of all. So no shelters and employment zones and where
they are permitted, it would be — it would be regulated by the performance standards
in that zone. So the height of the building, shape of the
building, setbacks and any performance standards required and in addition zoning provisions
there would be any program provisions that are administered through shelter housing and
support. I will get to where under what is being proposed
where — and I apologize for picking Willowdale as an example, I just pick the area I know.
So I believe that in Willowdale, the only place that would meet the standards would
be outside of the main roads would be a closed school.
Through the speaker, if the use was permitted in a close school, some zoning may not.
May be more defined for example. Some have holes in the seasoning bylaw.
I thought this would allow them in all zones? Residential zones, right?
Correct? In residential — residential zones.
Residential commercial zones. So a closed school in the middle of the neighbourhood,
if that met performance standards then any shelter can go in there as of right.
No nothing. I would ask Mr. Mitsy to supplement.
At the moment, the city’s bylaw permits shelters in all zones except employment.
However, a lot of the — most of the school sites were upheld when the new zoning bylaw
came in place. And so, a lot of the school sites are what
we call holes. And in those holes, the legacy bylaw still
prevail. So depending on how old that school is, and
when the buy las was adopted to create that school, it could have very well just had a
zone category that just said school and that still could prevail.
I’m not aware of any of that. So would we consider a closed school in the
middle of neighbourhood as an appropriate site for all types of shelters?
Through the chair, so of course every site you have to look on its face.
And there is no intention to move shelters into the middle of neighbourhoods and I can
tell that you over the past couple of years we have looked at quite a number of school
sites and we haven’t used any of them. Many are too big.
There is program reasons and we look at the individuals that we’re serving.
So serving families is much different than individuals.
One more question. If there is no intention of putting any shelter
at all in the middle of neighbourhood for example a closed school, why would we be approving
a bylaw that allows anything anywhere? Why would we not have fine tuned that a little
bit? It just simply didn’t meet the arbitrary numbers
put in place years ago. Councillor Colle?
Just a question of staff. In terms of selecting one of these sites,
is there any type of coordination or consideration given to other housing sites that may be there
for the vulnerable? In other words, if there is a half way house
a block away, or if there is a methadone clinic across the street, like I had that situation
in one part of my ward abutting Councillor Bailão’s ward.
And do you take that into consideration before you even designate a site as being appropriate?
Really, chair, absolutely we consider all of the services that are there, all of the
programs that are offered and we consider that, the whole picture, when we look at a
site. Even if there is a group home, would you make
yourself available that information? Is there a general I have vicinity where you
may be considering a she shelter? Absolutely.
What about a supportive agency. Do they consult you before they decide to
establish half way house for instance in an area?
Would you be contacted by corrections Canada? Is there a protocol in place?
Through the municipal service, absolutely. Any programs that by operate, we interact
with, other community agencies that we work with and fund.
Other orders of government, though, sometimes there may be provincial or federal housing
that there isn’t a consultation between the City of Toronto.
Therefore, it is possible for a you supportive housing agency to establish one of those housing
locations near one of the proposed city sit shelters?
Through the chair, that would be possible. Thank you.
Yeah, okay. So we have time for two more questions.
Councillor Karygiannis, quickly. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I do intend to go to my five minutes but I do appreciate you want me to expedite.
Would you be able to look at anywhere in the city and put up a homeless shelter?
Or is there a particular location that can you look at?
Yeah, so through the chair, we would be guided by the zoning bylaw.
So there are, plan further — the similar question earlier, other than employment areas
we would be looking across the entire city. But very closely, you know, the search criteria
of SSHA is really what drives ultimately the decision making, the location decision making
process. So you’re trying to tell me that employment
lands are something untouchable when it comes to housing and putting people up.
This is what I’m hearing? It is a residential use and they are inconsistent
employment lands commissions in the official plan.
But if I’m not mistaken, through the chair, employment lands are probably somewhere where
the cost of acquiring the land, cost of building is very low.
And that is the place this we can put more people up versus residential areas.
Would you disagree with me on that? Well that may be the case we have employment
lands policies that govern the land use of those areas and official plan and residential
uses are not permitted. Would you consider that maybe we can make
an exception for the homeless shelters in those lands?
No. I think you are setting up a precedent for
other residential uses in those areas that would threaten the stability of those employment
areas. In employment lands can we put up a hotel?
I believe you can put up a hotel in some employment lands.
So if we put up a hotel and the city wishes to rent space in that hotel to house the homeless,
what’s the difference? Through the chair?
We are dealing with two performance standards, I’m trying to understand the question and
context of the performance standards that are in front of us.
In employment land we can put up a hotel. Correct.
Subject to the zone. There could be somewhere they are not permitted.
The city can go to that hotel, as we have done in the past, and say we want to rent
that hotel in order to place homeless people this there, correct?
I see someone shaking their head. It has happened, yes, I believe.
Therefore, — and all of these sites have to clear zoning.
Why I’m hesitating is there could be something specifically in that area.
I don’t want to mislead new my answer. Therefore, if you put one plus one equals
two, I will extrapolate, if I was to dot math, employment land hotel, hotel, rent from the
city, and there for homeless shelter that’s where I extrapolate.
I could be wrong. Have you approached or has your staff been
approached for different sites from employment land for people who say look I will put up
homeless individuals? On occasion we have had inquiry for sites
where they are not permitted and SSHA looked elsewhere.
We did the math and we said can you go around that and permit p it.
If real estate brings a site and it is in employment
land in a shelter we do not pursue that site because it does not meet the zone.
You have an individual that says, I have property, I’m willing to put up homeless people, why
are we not talking them up on it? Through the chair, staff can’t open a shelter,
like a new shelter, you have to go through the zoning bylaw.
You have to follow performance — you have to establish 1 plus 1 equals 2.
We did establish that. If somebody has employment land and that individual
has place to put up a shelter. More specific, Shaqina mosque.
Why can’t we take this individual’s offer that says I can take the homeless out of the
cold. Why are we refusing to do it?
Again, I think hotels are permitted in some specific employment areas.
And in those areas, where we have, I’m looking at SSHA staff, where we have allowed a — I’m
trying to think of an example where we have allowed a shelter.
So I think there are — I think the distinction is if there is a hotel and SSHA wanted to
rent rooms we could rent rooms. Okay, thank you.
Your time is up. Councillor Layton?
Councillor Layton, I know your member’s motion 526 has to be moved tonight.
There is urgency. Yes, thank you, very much.
Councillor Layton. I don’t believe there are any questions.
Least no one approached me. I would like to move staff recommendations,
which are confidential instructions to settle at the at the LPAT and send my deep thanks
to staff on this and to community associations involved.
There are three community associations, University of Toronto as well as land owners in the city.
There is much hard work that went into that. Much heavy lifting done by my colleague, Councillor
Perks. Councillor Cressy.
And I thank you very much for your consideration. Thank you.
All in favour? Carried.
Councillor — [ inaudible ] no. No.
Speaker, I would like to — [ inaudible ] : Okay. A motion to finish this item.
Recorded vote. No.
Okay. Recorded vote.
Councillor Cressy wants to finish this item. Councillor Pasternak, please.
Councillor Carroll. Councillor Perks.
Deputy Mayor, please. The motion does not carry.
The required two-thirds majority has not been achieved.
The vote 13-10. Thank you.
Councillor Ainslie you have a motion to introduce the bill.
Councillor Ainslie? You have a motion to introduce a bill.
Thank one Madam Speaker. We be granted to introduce bill 518 introduce
this bill. Recorded vote.
Councillor Bailão when you’re seated, please. Councillor Karygiannis, please.
Councillor Peruzza, please. Councillor.
Councillor Minnan-Wong, please. Councillor peruse request please.
Bill carries unanimously, 23 in favour. Shall this bill be passed, it is a bylaw.
Rerecorded vote. Councillor Layton, please.
Councillor Cressy. Councillor Ainslie.
Councillor Wong-Tam, please. Councillor Thompson, please.
Deputy Mayor Minnan-Wong, please. The motion to enact the bill carries unanimously,
23 in favour. Councillor Filion you have a motion to introduce
the confirming bill. Be granted to introduce the bill to confirm
to the point of introduction of this motion. The proceedings of City Council meeting 5
on March 27, 2019. Shall be granted to introduce this bill.
Recorded vote. Councillor Layton, please.
Councillor Cressy. Ainslie, thank you.
Councillor, please. Councillor Peruzza, please.
Councillor Karygiannis, please. Motion to introduce confirming bill carries
unanimously. This is declared as bylaw.
Recorded vote. Councillor Wong-Tam, please.
Deputy Mayor Minnan-Wong. Councillor Layton, please.
Mayor Tory, please. Motion to enact confirming bill carries, unanimously,
24 in favour. Recessed to tomorrow 9:30.
Thank you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *