City Council – May 14, 2019 – Part 2 of 2

City Council – May 14, 2019 – Part 2 of 2


>>YES, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I
WAS CONFUSED AS TO WHAT I WAS BEING ASKED TO DO BUT THIS IS TO
INTRODUCE THE MOTION BEFORE YOU. IT HAS TO DO WITH A HEARING.
>>ALL IN FAVOR? THANK YOU. THAT’S IT. OKAY.
SO WE’LL NOW GO BACK TO THE MAYOR’S KEY ITEM. WE’LL PUT THE
SPEAKERS ON THE SCREEN. COUNCILLOR PASTERNAK TO SPEAK.
>>THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. I HAVE A MOTION. WE’LL PUT IT ON
THE SCREEN, PLEASE. SO WHEN WE — WE’RE ASKING
QUESTIONS OF STAFF I RAN OUT OF TIME WHEN I WENT TO ASK THE
SOLICITOR WHETHER IN FACT THESE TORONTO PUBLIC HEALTH CUTS
VIOLATE THE CANADIAN HEALTH ACT. SINCE I WASN’T ABLE TO ASK I
WOULD LIKE THE CITY SOLICITOR TO REPORT BACK WITH THE PACKAGE IN
FRONT OF US TO EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ON WHETHER ANY ASPECTS
OF THESE CUTS VIOLATE THE CANADA HEALTH ACT. THE CANADA HEALTH
ACT AND I QUOTE IS TO PROTECT, RESTORE THE PHYSICAL MENTAL
WELL-BEING OF RESIDENTS OF CANADA AND TO FACILITATE
REASONABLE ACCESS TO HEALTH SERVICES WITHOUT FINANCIAL OR
OTHER BARRIERS. THE PROVINCES GET BLOCK GRANTS
FROM — CALLED THE CANADA HEALTH TRANSFERS AS LONG AS THEY ADHERE
TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE CANADA HEALTH ACT. WHAT WE’RE LOOKING
FROM FROM OUR CITY SOLICITOR IS WHETHER IN FACT THESE CUT BACKS
VIOLATE THE PROVISION OF THE ACT, AND THEREFORE, THEY WOULD
BE REDUCE THE DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR ON THE TRANSFER TO THE PROVINCE.
GOING BACK TO THE SUBJECT BEFORE US SPECIFICALLY ON THE CUTS TO
TORONTO PUBLIC HEALTH, IT’S PERCEIVED BY MANY AT QUEENS
PARK THAT THE FUNDS THAT THEY’RE GIVING TO THESE VITAL PROGRAMS
ARE ACTUALLY COSTS. BUT WHEN YOU LOOK CLOSELY AT THEM THEY ARE
INVESTMENTS. WHEN YOU LOOK AT STUDENT ATTRITION IT’S —
NUTRITION IT’S NOT JUST TO FEED HUNGRY KIDS IT’S NOT JUST TO
MAKE SURE THAT THEY LEARN BUT IT’S ALSO TO TEACH KIDS GOOD
EATING HABITS AND SMART CHOICES. AND IN THE LONG RUN, THAT
REDUCES DIABETES AND OBESITY, REDUCES HOSPITALIZATION AND
REDUCES PRESSURES ON OUR HEALTH CARE.
WHEN IT COMES TO DAY CARE, EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT INVESTMENTS
OF DAY CARE ARE A FINANCIAL DRIVER OF THE ECONOMY.
IT ALLOWS PEOPLE TO GO INTO THE WORKFORCE, IT ALLOWS PEOPLE TO
GO BACK TO SCHOOL TO UPGRADE THEIR EDUCATION, AND WHEN YOU
HAVE A PEOPLE IN THE WORK WHEN YOU HAVE A HIGHLY EDUCATED
POPULATION YOU’RE ABLE TO GENERATE ECONOMIC ACTIVITY.
AND WHEN IT COMES TO THE HOSPITAL — THE RESTAURANT
INDUSTRY, IT’S AN UNKNOWN WHAT THESE CUTS COULD DO TO OUR
VIBRANT RESTAURANT INDUSTRY IN TORONTO.
COULD THE DELAY OF CERTIFICATION CAUSE RESTAURANTS TO CLOSE?
COULD IT PREVENT RESTAURANTS FROM OPENING? COULD IT
DISCOURAGE CUSTOMERS FROM GOING IN THESE RESTAURANTS? THE
IMPLICATIONS OF THESE CUTS COULD BE CATASTROPHIC AS WE DON’T KNOW
EXACTLY WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS WILL BE, BUT THE INDUSTRY ITSELF
WOULD BE AT GRAVE PERRIL IF THESE CUTS WERE MADE.
FINALLY I WOULD REFER TO A COUPLE OF QUOTES AND I’M NOT
GOING TO MENTION THE NAMES OF MEMBERS OF COUNCIL WHO SAID THE
FOLLOWING. DOUG FORD’S ELECTION IS TERRIBLE
NEWS FOR THE RESIDENTS OF OUR CITY. THERE’S NO SUGAR COATING
IT, WHETHER IT’S AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR TRANSIT FUNDING THIS
IS A DISASTER. ANOTHER MEMBER OF THIS COUNCIL SAID IT’S GOING TO
BE A COMMUNITY LEVELLING ORGANIZATIONS FOR PROTEST FOR
YEARS. IT’S GOING TO BE A VERY UGLY 4 YEARS. THE CONSERVATIVE
PLATFORM 8 TO $10 BILLION HOLD AND THAT’S GOING COME OUT OF ALL
THE THINGS THAT AFFECT THE CITY OF TORONTO. NOW, THESE COMMENTS
WERE NOT MADE IN THE LAST 48 HOURS, THEY WERE NOT MADE IN THE
LAST 6 WEEKS, THEY WERE NOT MADE IN THE LAST 2 MONTHS. THESE
COMMENTS WERE MADE ON FRIDAY JUNE THE 8THTH, THE DAY AFTER
THE ELECTION. DOUG FORD WASN’T EVEN SWORN IN
AS PREMIERE. THE RHETORIC STARTED AND I URGE ALL OF US TO
JUST COOL IT NOW. LET’S TONE DOWN THE RHETORIC,
AND LET’S WORK WITH QUEENS PARK TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET THE
BEST DEAL FOR THE CITY OF TORONTO AND THE BEST DEAL FOR
THE RESIDENTS OF TORONTO. >>COUNCILLOR PERKS.
>>COUNCILLOR FILION’S INSTRUCTED ME TO TONE DOWN THE
RHETORIC. WE AS A COUNCIL HAVE A DUTY, OF
COURSE, TO FIGHT THIS HORRIBLE BUDGET FROM THE PROVINCE OF
ONTARIO. AND I’M GLAD THAT WE’VE TAKEN THAT UP.
BUT AS CIVIC LEADERS WE ALSO HAVE A DUTY TO BE CLEAR WITH THE
PEOPLE THAT WE REPRESENT ABOUT WHAT’S GOING ON. I THINK ON THAT
WE’VE SO FAR MISSED THE MARK. UNLIKE WHAT SOME HAVE SUGGESTED
I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS IS SOMEHOW VENDETTA ON THE PART OF
THE PREMIERE AGAINST THIS COUNCILLOR OR SOME MEMBERS OF
THIS COUNCIL. UNLIKE WHAT SOME MEMBERS OF THE PROVINCIAL CAUCUS
HAS SAID I DON’T BELIEVE THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE
PROVINCIAL DEFICIT AND I’LL COME BACK TO THAT IN A MOMENT. IT’S
TRUE THAT THE RETRO ACTIVITY AND THE FACT THE CUTS TO TORONTO
ARE LARGER MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR US, BUT IF YOU
LOOK AT IT IN LARGE PART IN ITS ESSENTIAL NATURE WHAT IS BEING
DONE TO THE CITY OF TORONTO NOW IS PRETTY MUCH THE SAME AS WHAT
WAS GUN DONE WHEN MIKE HARRIS WAS PREMIERE.
THE UNDERPINNINGS ARE THE SAME. THIS IS NOT ABOUT DOUG FORD,
THIS IS ABOUT RADICAL CONSERVATIVE AGENDA AIMED AT
DESTROYING THE SOCIAL SAFETY NET AND THE SERVICES THAT WE SHARE
TOGETHER AS TORONTONIANS AND ONTARIANS TO MAKE LIFE LIVEABLE
AND BETTER FOR OUR NEIGHBORS, OUR FAMILY, THE PEOPLE WE WORK
WITH AND OURSELVES. WHEN THE BUDGET WAS INTRODUCED,
THERE WEREN’T JUST LOSERS, THERE WERE WINNERS AS WELL. BIG
BUSINESS GOT A SERIES OF TAX BREAKS TOTALLING IN THE RANGE OF
ABOUT $5 BILLION. A PLANNED TAX SURCHARGE ON THE
HIGHEST INCOME ONTARIANS THAT WOULD HAVE RAISED $275 MILLION
WAS ELIMINATED. IN THE NEW PLANNING LAW IT’S CHRISTMAS FOR REAL ESTATE
— THEY WILL MAKE A FORTUNE. THERE REALLY ARE WINNERS AND
LOSERS IN THIS RADICAL CONSERVATIVE AGENDA. FOR MOST OF
US THE SERVICE THAT IS WE RELY ON, BEING ABLE TO GET TO WORK ON
A PUBLIC TRANSIT SYSTEM THAT’S WELL-RUN AND WELL FUNDED, BEING
ABLE TO PUT A CHILD IN CHILD CARE SO THAT BOTH ADULTS IN A
FAMILY CAN WORK, BEING ABLE TO RELY ON A GOOD SCHOOL SYSTEM SO
THAT YOU DON’T HAVE TO PUT YOUR KIDS INTO A PRIVATE EDUCATION
SYSTEM, BEING ABLE TO RELY ON A PUBLIC HEALTH SYSTEM THAT MAKES
SURE THAT THOSE KIDS ARE HEALTHY AND GET SOMETHING GOOD TO EAT
WHILE THEY’RE AT SCHOOL. THESE ARE SERVICES THAT WE SHARE.
THEY’RE THINGS WE PROVIDE TO EACH OTHER. WITHOUT THOSE
SERVICES, MOST OF US, FOUR OUT OF FIVE OF US, WOULD BE UNABLE
TO ENJOY THE BENEFITS AND WEALTH THAT THE CITY OF TORONTO HAS.
OUR CAREERS WILL BE LIMITED. WE WOULD NOT HAVE THE LEISURE
TIME THAT WE HAVE. WE WOULD BE SICKER. AND BECAUSE
WE DON’T HAVE THE KIND OF WEALTH THAT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE BENEFIT
TING OF FORD’S BUDGET HAVE WOULDN’T HAVE ANY OTHER OPTION.
YOU CAN’T — IF YOU DON’T OWN A HOUSE IN SOME OTHER PART OF THE
CONTINENT YOU’VE GOT NOWHERE TO RUN TO WHEN THERE’S AN EPIDEMIC.
IF YOU CAN’T AFFORD A PRIVATE SCHOOL, YOU’RE GOING TO HAVE TO
PUT YOUR KIDS IN A SCHOOL SYSTEM WHERE THINGS LIKE MUSIC LESSONS
OR SPECIAL SUPPORTS FOR KIDS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS HAVE
EVAPORATED. IF YOU CAN’T OWN 2 CARS IN YOUR FAMILY OR MAYBE
EVEN NOT ONE, YOU’RE GOING TO WATCH A TRANSIT SYSTEM FALL AND
DECLINE, MAKE IT HARDER AND HARDER FOR YOU TO GET TO WORK
EVERY DAY. THIS BUDGET, THE ATTACK ON THESE
SERVICES IS NOT AN ATTACK ON US THE CITY OF TORONTO.
THIS IS AN ATTACK ON EVERYONE IN THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO WHO
DOESN’T HAPPEN TO BE WEALTHY. THIS IS VERY MUCH ABOUT A
RADICAL CONSERVATIVE VIEW THAT SOCIETY IS COMPRISED OF WINNERS
AND LOSERS. AND THIS BUDGET IS AIMED AT MAKING SURE THAT THE
WINNERS WIN EVEN BIGGER AND THE REST OF US BECOME LOSERS.
WE HAVE TO FIGHT IT. IT’S TRUE. BUT WE ALSO HAVE TO BE HONEST
WITH THE PEOPLE THAT WE REPRESENT ABOUT WHAT IT IS THAT
WE’RE FIGHTING. WE’RE FIGHTING AN AGENDA THAT IS SIMILAR TO THE
ONE THAT WE’RE WITNESSING DOWN SOUTH, WE’RE FITTING AN AGENDA
THAT’S THE SAME AS THE ONE IN ALBERTA.
IT’S A CONCERTED AND DELIBERATE ATTACK ON THE IDEA THAT WHEN WE
SHARE THE BURDENS WE ALL DO BETTER.
THANK YOU. >>THANK YOU.
COUNCILLOR FLETCHER. >>THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I JUST
WANT TO CLARIFY. I WAS ASKING THE MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH
ABOUT THE STUDENT NUTRITION PROGRAM WHICH I’VE WORKED ON FOR
MANY YEARS AS HAVE MANY OF US IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERY
DAY CHILDREN ARE FED WHEN THEY’RE AT A PLACE THEY
HAVE TO GO EVERY DAY, WHICH IS SCHOOL. AND THE APPARENTLY
PROVINCIAL DOLLARS HAVEN’T BEEN CLAWED BACK YET BUT THE CUTS TO
OUR PUBLIC HEALTH WILL END UP DIMINISHING OUR ABILITY TO BE AS
ROBUST AS WE HAVE BEEN IN FEEDING KIDS.
AND I THINK EVEN IN THE FORD GOVERNMENT HERE AT CITY HALL,
THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT ACTUALLY WAS ROLLED BACK BECAUSE PEOPLE
FEEL SO STRONGLY ABOUT NOT TAKING FOOD OUT OF THE MOUTHS OF
KIDS THAT NEED TO EAT, THEY’RE NOT EATING AT HOME, THEY’RE LOW
INCOME KIDS. AND THEY NEED FOOD.
THEY NEED A SNACK OR THEY NEED THE LUNCH. THESE ARE VERY
IMPORTANT PROGRAMS. AND I HOPE THAT WE’RE ABLE TO FIGURE OUT
HOW TO MAINTAIN OR CONTRIBUTION AS BEST AS POSSIBLE. AND THAT
OUR STAFF AT PUBLIC HEALTH ARE WORKING WITH THE FOUNDATIONS,
TORONTO FOUNDATION FOR STUDENT SUCCESS, THE ANGEL FOUNDATION
AND OTHERS TO REALLY LOOK AT THE IMPACT, AND AS A NUMBER OF KOIRS
HAVE SAID TO LET PEOPLE KNOW WHAT THE IMPACT WILL BE. AND TO
LET THOSE WHO ARE EATING AT SCHOOL EVERY DAY TO KNOW WHAT
THE IMPACT OF THESE CUTS WILL BE ON THE VERY PROGRAMS THAT WE
HOLD SO DEAR. I HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING THIS AS
HAS EVERYONE AND I WAS REALLY AND TRLY SHOCKED TO HEAR ABOUT
THE CUTS TO CHILD CARE. IT JUST SEEMS LIKE KIDS ARE IN THE SITE
S OF THIS GOVERNMENT AT QUEENS PARK.
WHETHER THEY MEAN TO OR NOT, BUT THEY ARE IN THE SITES. WE’RE
TALKING ABOUT FOOD PROGRAMS IN SCHOOLS AND IT’S VERY IMPORTANT
FOR THEIR OUTCOMES. CHILD CARE, NOT JUST FOR KIDS,
BUT FOR THOSE PARENTS WHO NEED TO GO TO WORK. AND WE DID HEAR
FROM CHILDREN SERVICES TODAY THAT OVER PROBABLY 5,000 OF THE SUB
IS A DEES ARE LONE PARENT FAMILIES. THEY RELY ON THOSE SUB
IS A DEES IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO GO TO WORK TO BRING IN ENOUGH
MONEY TO PAY THE RENT, TO MOVE AHEAD, TO SAVE A LITTLE BIT FOR
THEIR CHILDREN’S EDUCATION, BUT THAT’S THEIR LIFELINE. IT MEANS
THAT 5,000 PEOPLE COULD SIMPLY BE TAKEN OUT OF THE WORKFORCE
BACK INTO THEIR HOME WITH THEIR KIDS.
AND REALLY AND TRUY I CAN’T TELL YOU HOW IMPORTANT IT IS, CHILD
CARE IS SO IMPORTANT FOR WOMEN TO GET OUT IN THE WORKFORCE TO
STAY IN THE WORKFORCE, TO HAVE A CAREER FOR THEMSELVES, TO BUILD
SOME EQUITY FOR THEIR PENSIONS. SO I DON’T WANT TO GO INTO THE
PENSION DISCUSSION, BUT I REALLY DO WANT TO SAY THAT THIS IS A
REALLY BIG BLOW FOR KIDS, BECAUSE EARLY LEARNING IS SO
IMPORTANT. IF FOR SOME REASON THEY CANNOT STAY IN CHILD CARE
EARLY LEARNING ARE THE DETERMINANTS OF HOW WELL YOU
WILL BE DOING LATER. AND FRAZIER — AND HIS GROUNDBREAKING WORK
SAYS 0 TO 6 THE MOST IMPORTANT YEARS FOR YOUR CHILD AND MINE.
AND AT LICENSED CHILD CARE WITH SUBSIDIZED SPOTS THAT IS WHERE
CHILDREN LEARN BEST IN GOOD CARE.
SO I’M VERY, VERY CONCERNED BECAUSE SHE SAID THEY ARE GOING
TO BE IN THE PLACES IN THIS CITY WHERE WE HAVE THE HIGHEST LEVELS
OF POVERTY. SO I’M SURE THAT OUR COUNCILLOR WHO IS THE
ANTI-POVERTY ADVOCATE, POVERTY REDUCTION ADVOCATE IS GOING TO
TAKE THIS BY THE HORNS AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT IN THOSE
AREAS WITH THOSE 11MPPS WHO HAVE CHILD CARE CENTERS THERE AND
MANY OF THEM ARE IN PARTS OF THE CITY THAT ARE UNDERSERVED, AND
HAVE A LOT OF LOW INCOME PEOPLE. SO THESE KID ARE LOW INCOME BUT
SO ARE THE MOMS OR SINGLE DADS THAT ARE USING THESE VERY
IMPORTANT SERVICES. IT REALLY IS A MATTER OF YOUR
LIFE BEING TURNED AROUND EITHER IN A GOOD WAY TO HAVE CHILD
CARE, OR SIMPLY TURNED AROUND IN THE WORST WAY POSSIBLE TO LOSE
YOUR SUB IS A DEE AND NOT BE ABLE TO GO TO WORK. PARTICULARLY WITH THOSE MPPS
THAT THINK THAT THESE ARE HARMLESS CUTS, THEY ARE NOT
HARMLESS CUTS. THEY’RE VERY DEEP AND VERY SEVERE SOMETIMES FOR
THOSE PEOPLE WHO CAN LEAST AFFORD IT.
>>THANK YOU. >>COUNCILLOR CARROLL. >>THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. I’M GOING TO HAVE TO GO BACK TO
A COMMENT ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES MADE WHICH WAS THAT WE IN THIS
ROOM NEED TO CALM DOWN THE RHETORIC AND MAYBE THEY NEED TO
CALM DOWN THE RHETORIC A LITTLE ON THE OTHER SIDE.
I HAVE TO TAKE ISSUE WITH THAT. ON BEHALF OF OUR PUBLIC SERVICE
I MADE A TWEET ABOUT IT LAST WEEKEND AND IT GOT AROUND. I
KNOW IT RESONATED WITH ONTARIANS. THERE WAS A TWEET
FROM THE MINISTER OF THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT THAT
ACTUALLY SAID THAT OUR PUBLIC SERVICE WAS ENGAG RHETORIC.
WHAT’S ON THE FLOOR RIGHT NOW — THE ITEM ON THE FLOOR RIGHT NOW
IS A FACTUAL ITEM. THESE ARE THE FACTS. OF THE BUDGET PROPOSED TO US.
AND IT IS THE ROLE OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE TO PRESENT TO US THE
FACTS. AND THAT’S ALL WE’RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY. NOW, WE’VE PAINTED PICTURES HERE
TODAY. PAINTED PICTURES OF THE IMPACT. AND YOU COULD CALL THEM
LOOKING INTO THE FUTURE. BUT THIS ROOM IS FULL PEOPLE WHO CAN
LOOK INTO THE FUTURE. THERE AREN’T A LOT OF US LEFT IN THIS
ROOM. COUNCILLOR FILION, COUNCILLOR MINNAN-WONG, BUT A
NUMBER OF STAFF WHO ACTUALLY WERE HERE DURING SARS WHO WERE
HERE WHEN WE HAD TO REBUILD FROM THAT.
WHO WERE HERE WHEN THEY VERY RESPONSIBLY TOOK THE FUNDS THAT
BEGAN TO ROLL BACK TO US AFTER THE HEALTH CARE PREMIUM WENT
INTO PLACE IN MUNICIPAL HEALTH AUTHORITY STARTED TO GET THE
75/25 SHARED RELATIONSHIP, THEY WERE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT HOW THEY
USED IT. AND HOW DID ALL OF THE 100% PROGRAMS END UP IN THE
PUBLIC HEALTH. 100% FUNDED, DID WE BEG THEM? DID WE SAY WE
CAN’T AFFORD TO SPEND A SINGLE PEND KNEE ON INFECTIOUS DISEASE
CONTROL? NO. THAT WAS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY. THEY KNEW IT AT
THE PROVINCIAL LEVEL AND THEY ASKED US TO DELIVER IT BECAUSE
WHAT WE DEMONSTRATED DURING SARS IS IT’S THE ON THE GROUND HEALTH
AUTHORITY THAT CAN DO THAT FOR YOU BEST. THERE’S NO QUESTION,
MADAM SPEAKER, THAT IT’S BETTER FUNDED OUT OF THE INCOME TAX
BASE, HEALTH CARE REALLY IS THE TYPE OF THING THAT OUGHT TO COME
OUT OF WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION AND THAT’S WHAT INCOME TAX IS. THAT
IS THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT PROPERTY TAX IS. PROPERTY TAX IS NOT A
WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION. THE CITY IS FULL OF PEOPLE WHO
BOUGHT HOUSES FOR $60,000 THAT ARE NOT WORTH 2 AND A HALF
MILLION AND THEY’RE STRUGGLING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MEET THEIR
CURRENT VALUE ASSESSMENT ON THOSE TAXES. THAT’S NOT WHAT
HEALTH CARE DOLLARS SHOULD BE DRAWN FROM.
SO WE’RE MAKING A MASSIVE DEPARTURE FROM WHAT WE KNOW IS
THE BEST POT FROM WHICH TO PULL HEALTH CARE DOLLARS, AND SAYING
CITIES, JUST DIG IT OUT OF YOUR POCKETS FROM PEOPLE’S PROPERTY
ASSESSMENTASSESSMENTS. THAT MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE, AND
IT’S BEING SORT OF LOST IN THE TRANSITION. IT’S GOOD TO HAVE
THESE IMPACT STATEMENTS, IT’S GOOD TO TALK ABOUT THE
VULNERABLE PEOPLE BEING HURT DIRECTLY BY THE PROGRAMS, BUT
YOU’RE ACTUALLY HITTING EVERY SINGLE TORONTONIAN IF YOU’RE
GOING TO MAKE THIS POLICY CHANGE AND BEGIN TO PULL FROM THE
PROPERTY TAX WHAT SHOULD RIGHTLY BE TAKEN FROM IS TAKEN ALL OVER
THE WORLD FROM INCOME TAX. AND THAT’S WHAT’S GOING ON HERE. AND WHEN WE DON’T MEET IT
THEY’LL COME DOWN AND WITHDRAW FROM WHAT IS SACED IN CANADA,
HEALTH CARE AND PREVENTIVE HEALTH CARE BUY SAYING THAT IT’S
SOMEHOW OUR FAULT IF WE DON’T COME UP TO MEET THEM WITH THE
WRONG SORT OF REVENUE. THE SAME IS TRUE IN CHILD CARE. IN THE
CHILD CARE SYSTEM THEY HAD CERTAIN GOALS THEY WANTED TO
MEET SO THEY 100% FUNDED THEM. WE DIDN’T BEG THEM, HEY CAN YOU
PLEASE GIVE US SOME MONEY AND WE’LL CHECK EVERYONE’S TEETH?
CAN YOU PLEASE GIVE US SOME MONEY AND WE’LL CHANGE THE WAY
WE PAY CHILD CARE WORKERS. THE PROVINCE DECIDED THEY SHOULD DO
IT. THEY GAVE US THE MANDATE AND ASKED US TO DELIVER IT BECAUSE
WE’RE BEST PLACED TO DO SO. BUT NOW THEY’RE SAYING NO, TAKE THAT
OUT OF THE PROPERTY TAX BASE TOO. TAKE IT ALL OUT OF THE
PROPERTY TAX BASE. MADAM SPEAKER, WE’VE BEEN HERE BEFORE
YOU WERE IN OFFICE, YOU WERE MAYOR WHEN THEY FIRST STARTED
SAYING LET’S STOP PAYING FOR THINGS OUT OF WHAT IS THE
OBVIOUS SOURCE OF REVENUE, INCOME TAX AND JUST THROW IT
DOWN ON THE CITIES. AND THAT’S WHAT’S HAPPENING AGAIN. AND SO
WE TALK ABOUT THE VULNERABLE PEOPLE. THAT’S WHY I FOCUSED IN
ON THE TRANSITION CHILD BENEFIT. THAT’S GOING TO HURT
IMMIGRANTS, REFUGEE CLAIMANTS, PEOPLE SITTING IN SHELTERS AND
HOTELS RIGHT NOW THAT WILL EAT TOGETHER THOSE TRANSITIONAL
CHILD CARE SUPPLEMENTS TO PAY FOR HOUSING, BUT IT’S THE INCOME
TAX CHANGE IN POLICY THAT’S GOING TO HURT EVERY SINGLE ONE
OF US. >>THANK YOU.
>>THANK YOU, MATTED DAM SPEAKER.
>>THANK YOU. COUNCILLOR FILION.
>>THANK YOU. I’D LIKE TO BEGIN BY SAYING I TOTALLY SUPPORT THE
MAYOR’S PLAN AND THANK HIM FOR TAKING A STRONG STAND. I THINK
PEOPLE REALLY NEED TO KNOW HOW ARBITRARY AND EXTREME THESE CUTS
ARE. AND PEOPLE ALSO NEED TO KNOW
WHICH OF THEIR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, ESPECIALLY
THEIR PROVINCIAL ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES ARE STANDING UP
FOR THIS CITY AND THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN IT.
WHY IS ALL THIS HAPPENING? I HAVE A DIFFERENT APPROACH THAN
— THAN COUNCILLOR PERKS WHO THOUGHT — THINKS IT’S A RADICAL
CONSERVATIVE AGENDA. I DON’T THINK THAT. I THINK IT’S A
RADICAL CONSERVATIVE PREMIERE. THERE’S REALLY ONLY 2 WORDS TO
EXPLAIN WHAT’S GOING ON AND THE FIRST ONE IS DOUG AND THE SECOND
IS FORD. YOU KNOW, WHY DID HE WANT TO BE
PREMIERE AND MAYOR BEFORE THAT? SIMPLY BECAUSE HE WANTS POWER.
AND MOST PEOPLE WHEN THEY — MOST
PEOPLE WANT POLITICAL POWER TO DO SOMETHING CONSTRUCTIVE AND
PEOPLE CAN HAVE DIFFERENT IDEAOLOGIES. SOMETHING THAT
LOOKS CONSERVATIVE THAT’S SOMEBODY’S LEGITIMATE VIEW FOR
HOW TO DO SOMETHING CONSTRUCTIVE. THIS SHOULDN’T BE
MISTAKEN FOR ANY OF THAT. THIS IS NOT THAT AT ALL. THIS — THIS IS A PURELY DOUG
FORD THING. IF VIRTUALLY ANYBODY ELSE THAT GOT ELECTED IN THAT CAUCUS
WAS THE LEADER THIS WOULD NOT BE HAPPENING. DOUG FORD WANTS TO DISMANTLE
GOVERNMENT, I THINK HE LEARNED THAT AT HIS FATHER’S KNEE. AND
WHAT BETTER WAY TO DISMANTLE GOVERNMENT THAN TO BE THE
LEADER OF THE GOVERNMENT, AND PRESIDE OVER ITS DISSOLUTION.
AND THAT’S WHAT HE’S REALLY TRYING TO DO HERE.
POWER ALSO ALLOWS HIM TO REWARD FRIENDS AND PUNISH ENEMIES,
WE’LL BE DEALING WITH PLANNING CHANGES TOMORROW WHICH WE COULD
TALK MORE ABOUT THE REWARDING FRIENDS. THE PUNISHING THE
ENEMIES, IT’S JUST PART OF DOUG’S NATURE. HE WANTS TO
ESTABLISH WHO’S GOT THE POWER, WHO’S THE BOSS. AND I THINK IF
HE COULD HE WOULD INTRODUCE AN OMNIBUS BILL THAT WOULD MAKE
HIM THE PREMIERE, THE MAYOR AND THE PRIME MINISTER ALL AT THE
SAME TIME. I PROBABLY SHOULDN’T GIVE HIM ANY IDEAS.
BUT, YOU KNOW, THESE CUTS REALLY ALLOW HIM TO ACHIEVE ALL OF HIS
OBJECTIVES. HE DISMANTLES GOVERNMENT AND HE GETS TO SHOW
WHO’S BOSS, WHO’S REALLY IN CHARGE OF CITY BECAUSE
UNFORTUNATELY AS IS BECOMNG PAINFULLY APPARENT
THE PROVINCE DOES HAVE TOTAL CONTROL OVER US. AND IF THERE’S
A LOT OF WEEPING AND FLASHING OF TEETH ON THE LEFT THAN, YOU
KNOW, ALL THE BETTER THAT JUST MAKES THIS DAY BRIGHTER. SO THIS CIRCLNG BACK TO
SUPPORTING THE MAYOR’S APPROACH, THE — THE PREMIERE IS CERTAINLY
NOT GOING TO STOP THIS OF HIS OWN VOLITION IN FACT, UNTIL WE
COULD EXPECT ANOTHER THREE YEARS OF IT. AND HE WILL HAVE A
GOOD TIME DOING IT. THE ONLY THING THAT WILL CURB THE EXCESS
ES OF IT, WHAT WOULD BE THE SAME THING THAT CURBED THE EXCESSES
OF THE FORD GOVERNMENT A LITTLE OVER A YEAR INTO THE FIRST TERM
WHEN A LOT OF PEOPLE OF CONSCIOUS WHO HAD VOTED WITH HIM
FOR THE FIRST YEAR OR SO SAID, YOU KNOW WHAT, HOLD ON, THIS IS
GOING TOO FAR. THERE’S STUFF HERE THAT DOESN’T
MAKE SENSE. THIS IS NOT WHAT OUR PUBLIC BARGAINED FOR. AND PEOPLE
WHO HAD SUPPORTED HIS AGENDA STOPPED. AND THAT HAPPENED , YOU
KNOW, I THINK BY THE TIME WE WERE INTO THE BUDGET ON THE
SECOND YEAR. MUCH HARDER TO DO THAT WITH A PROVINCIAL
GOVERNMENT IN PARTY POLITICS WHAT MAJORITY GOVERNMENT, BUT
IT’S REALLY THE ONLY WAY WE HAVE ANY CHANCE AT ALL OF DOING THAT
IS TO CALL PEOPLE OUT WHEN THEY TRY TO DO — WHEN THEY TRY TO
SPIN THINGS IN A WAY THAT IS JUST NOT AT ALL ACCURATE AS THE
MAYOR DID THIS WEEK. AND WE JUST HAVE TO LET THE
PEOPLE KNOW HOW IT REALLY IS. AND YOU KNOW, I HAVE NO DOUBT
THAT IT’S A VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION THAT
WOULD SUPPORT THESE TYPES OF ACTIONS. AND WE NEED TO GET THEM
TO RISE UP AS MUCH AS WE CAN. >>THANK YOU. COUNCILLOR WONG-TAM.
>>YES, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM SPEAKER. I ALSO WOULD LIKE
TO THANK STAFF FOR THEIR HARD WORK ON GETTING THE REPORT OUT
BEFORE US. I ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT THE CONTENT IN THE REPORT IS
RUSHED. LITERALLY ANNOUNCEMENT COMES OUT ON A THURSDAY OR
FRIDAY AND THEN YOU’RE TRYING TO RESPOND WITHIN THE PUBLIC
SERVICE TO MAKE SENSE OF IT, PROVIDE BRIEFING NOTES FOR US
AND SO FORTH, AND SO FORTH. SO I DO KNOW THAT THERE IS A SENSE OF
PANIC ON THE FLOOR. WE’RE ALL VERY CALM RIGHT NOW, BUT I KNOW
THAT’S CERTAINLY NOT THE WAY YOU’RE FEELING AND THAT’S RIGHT
ACROSS EVERY SINGLE DIVISION THAT’S BEING IMPACTED. SO I WANT
TO SAY THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO OUR CITY MANAGER AND EVERYONE IN
THE TOP TIER OF LEADERSHIP FOR THAT VERY STEADY HAND ON THE
TILL. I ALSO WANT TO THANK THE MAYOR FOR HIS MOTION. I THINK
THAT THIS IS A GOOD STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION IN DEALING WITH
WHAT IS GOING TO BE AN AVALANCHE OF OTHER BAD ANNOUNCEMENTS THAT
WILL BE COMING FORWARD. I THINK THAT WE NEED TO ALSO BE MINDFUL
THAT TONNG DOWN THE RHETORIC IS NOT NECESSARILY GOING TO WIN THE
NEXT ELECTION IN 2022. THIS IS NOT A SPRINT ANY MORE. 24 IS NOW
A MARATHON. ANYONE SUGGESTING THAT PERHAPS NEXT YEAR, YOU
KNOW, ALL THE BAD STUFF IS DONE THIS YEAR THEN NEXT YEAR MIGHT
BE BETTER. I THINK WE’RE GOING TO BE IN FOR ANOTHER AWAKENING.
I BELIEVE THAT, YOU KNOW, A RESPONSE WITH A BROAD MEDIA
CAMPAIGN IS CERTAINLY HELPFUL. BUT IT’S ACTUALLY NOT THE ONLY
THING THAT WE SHOULD BE DOING. AND I CERTAINLY HAVE NO QUALMS
ABOUT SPENDING OUR DOLLARS ON THAT CAMPAIGN. BUT THE MAYOR HIT
IT RIGHT ON HEAD THE LAST TIME WHEN HE SPOKE ABOUT MAKING SURE
THAT THE MPPS HEAR IT ON THEIR DOORSTEPS IN THEIR OWN
COMMUNITIES TO ME, THAT REQUIRES A MUCH LARGER COORDINATED
COALITION. AND THAT MAY MEAN FOR SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF COUNCIL,
MADAM SPEAKER, THAT THEY’RE GOING TO HAVE TO START WORKING
WITH UNIONS AND TRADE UNIONS AND CIVIL SOCIETY GROUPS AT THAT
THEY DON’T NORMALLY GET ALONG WITH. BECAUSE WE’RE ALL IN THIS
ONE TOGETHER AT THIS POINT IN TIME. THAT MEANS WORKING WITH
OUR FRIENDS, 79 AND 416, WORKING WITH ONTARIO, IT’S ABOUT WORKING
WITH EVERYBODY WHO’S WILLING TO WORK WITH US IN ORDER FOR US TO
REALLY SEND A MESSAGE HOME. AND WE WILL NOT HAVE THE RESOURCE TO
SAY REACH INTO EVERY SINGLE MPPS’S WRITING AND I THINK THIS
IS WHERE COUNCILLOR FILION IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. THE PREMIERE
IS ONLY ONE PERSON BUT SHOULD THE CAUCUS THAT SUPPORTS HIM BE
ABLE TO SHAKE SOME OF THE GRIPS IF THAT WERE TO HAPPEN THAT
WOULD CERTAINLY SEND A MESSAGE TO HIM.
WE CANNOT DO THIS BY OURSELVES. AND THAT MEANS THAT THOSE 40,000
STUDENTS THAT ROSE UP AND WALKED OUT OF SCHOOL WE’RE GOING TO
HAVE TO WORK WITH THOSE INDIVIDUALS, THOSE STUDENTS,
WE’RE GOING TO HAVE TO WORK WITH THE TEACHERS, WE’RE GOING TO
HAVE TO WORK WITH THE NURSES, WE’RE GOING TO HAVE TO WORK WITH
THE BUSINESS OWNERS WHO ARE FAIR-MINDED AND PUBLIC BROAD
SENSE OF ENGAGEMENT THAT THEY BELIEVE IN. WE’RE GOING TO HAVE
TO WORK WITH OUR RATE PAYERS ORGANIZATIONS, THE ACTIVISTS ALL
THE ACTIVISTS THAT SOMETIMES YOU DON’T LIKE TO HEAR FROM, YOU’RE
GOING TO HAVE TO WORK WITH THEM TOO. BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT IT’S
GOING TO TAKE FOR US TO SHIFT THE GROUND POLITICALLY. AND IT’S
GOOD TO START OUT WITH A MEDIA CAMPAIGN.
WE CAN BUY A FEW BILLBOARDS, PUT UP A FEW SHELTER ADS, BUT IN
ORDER FOR THIS TO REALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE FOR THE GROUND TO
SHAKE IN FRONT OF QUEENS PARK WE’RE GOING TO HAVE TO PUT ASIDE
SOME OF THOSE DIFFERENCES AND WE’RE GOING TO HAVE TO WORK
TOGETHER. AND THAT’S THE ONLY WAY , THE
ONLY WAY BETWEEN NOW AND 2022, THAT I SEE A PATH OUT OF THIS. SO THIS IS NOT ABOUT POLITICAL
THEATER. THERE HAVE BEEN TIMES WHERE WE’VE BEEN ACCUSED OF RAIS
NG OPPOSITIONAL VOICES AND SAY ING THAT’S POLITICAL THEATER.
IT’S ABOUT STANDING UP FOR YOUR VALUES AND SAYING THIS IS THE
LINE IN THE SAND. YOU CROSS IT WE’RE NOT GOING TO BE EMBROILED
INTO A BATTLE. BECAUSE THESE ARE OUR VALUES. FOR A MOMENT OF
TIME, IF THIS IS TRUY TEAM TORONTO, TRUY TEAM TORONTO, THEN
TEAM TORONTO’S GOING TO HAVE TO STAND UP FOR THE MOST VULNERABLE
IN ONTARIO. AND THAT MEANS THAT WE’RE GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK
RIGHT INTO THE FACES OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO WILL BE MOST
IMPACTED. AND THERE WILL BE A GENDER AND EQUITY IMPACT 37.
THESE DECISIONS WILL IMPACT PEOPLE DIFFERENTLY. SURE THE
RICH WILL GET RICHER BUT THEY WILL FEEL IT BUT NOT THE WAY THE
POOR WILL FEEL IT. AND THAT’S THE FIGHT. SO WE’RE
GOING TO DO THIS TOGETHER AS TEAM TORONTO, I’M GOING TO
SUGGEST THAT WE FIGURE OUT HOW TO WORK TOGETHER WITH ALL THE
OTHER CIVIL SOCIETY PARTNERS THAT ARE OUT THERE THAT ARE
ASKING FOR LEADERSHIP. AND WE NEED TO COME TO THE TABLE
WITH THAT AS A RESPONSE. . THANK YOU.
>>THANK YOU. COUNCILLOR COLLE TO SPEAK.
>>THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. >>I REALLY COMMEND THE MAYOR
FOR THIS MOTION AND HIS REALLY BATTLE FOR THE PEOPLE OF
TORONTO. HE’S BATTLING FOR THE PEOPLE OF TORONTO. AND I WANT TO THANK HIM LAST
WEEK HE AND COUNCILLOR CRESSY AND THE MEDICAL OFFICER OF
HEALTH CAME TO A TOWN HALL TO SPEAK ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF
PUBLIC HEALTH. AND WE — AND COUNCILLOR MATLOW SHOWED UP. AND
I THINK THEY DEMONSTRATED THEIR PASSION FOR STANDING UP FOR
SOMETHING THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO VULNERABLE PEOPLE IN TORONTO.
THAT’S WHAT THEY’RE DOING. THEY’RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE,
YOU KNOW, MOTHERS LOSNG DAY CARE, CHILD CARE, CHILDREN
LOSING THE BREAKFAST PROGRAM, THEY AREN’T GOING TO CALL THEIR
MPP, THEY AREN’T GOING TO CALL THE MEDIA. SO THANKFULLY THE
MAYOR AND LEADERSHIP SHOWN BY OTHER COUNCILLORS IS SOMETHING
THAT’S HELPING PEOPLE WHO CANNOT STAND UP AND FIGHT FOR
THEMSELVES. AND I THINK WE’VE GOT TO REMIND OURSELVES OF THAT.
I JUST ALSO SOMEBODY MADE REFERENCES TO SARS
AND REFERENCE TO WALKERTON. WELL, I DON’T THINK — 90% OF
PEOPLE IN TORONTO EVEN KNOW WHAT THAT IS. THEY DON’T KNOW.
THEY’RE JUST WORDS. IF WE START SAYING PUBLIC HEALTH IS
IMPORTANT BECAUSE SARS HAPPENED, YOU ASK
IN THE STREETS, WHAT IS THAT? WE HAVE TO PERHAPS REMIND PEOPLE
OF THE CRITICAL IMPORTANCE THAT PUBLIC HEALTH IS, AND TELL THEM
WHAT HAPPENS AND THE MAYOR KNOW THAT IS FULL WELL. I REMEMBER
COMING DOWN FROM QUEENS PARK TO SUPPORT THE CITY OF TORONTO
BECAUSE BUSINESSES WERE CLOSING. ALL OF CHINATOWN NOT ONLY IN
TORONTO BUT ALL OVER THE YORK REGION ALL THE CHINESE BUSINESS
PEOPLE WERE BASICALLY AFRAID OF LOSNG THEIR BUSINESSES BECAUSE
NOBODY WAS GOING. AND SO WE CAME TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE. WE ALL WENT
TO A RESTAURANT UP IN SCARBOROUGH AS ELECTED OFFICIALS
SAYING PLEASE DON’T BE AFRAID GO, BECAUSE IT’S GOING TO MAKE
IT WORSE IF YOU DON’T STAND UP AND SUPPORT PEOPLE IN THESE HARD
TIMES. AND TORONTO MADE IT ALL OVER THE NEWSCAST
INTERNATIONALLY, YOU KNOW WHAT THE WORD WAS DON’T GO TO TORONTO
BECAUSE YOU’RE GOING TO GET A DISEASE.
AN EPIDEMIC, DON’T GO. SO THAT REALITY HAS GOT TO BE SHARED
WITH THE PEOPLE OF TORONTO WHO HAVE NEVER EXPERIENCED IT,
FORGOTTEN IT, WALKERTON WHERE 700 PEOPLE DIED AND 500 PEOPLE
WERE IN KIDNEY DIALYSIS. THEY DON’T KNOW THAT.
WALKERTON, WHAT’S THAT? THAT’S WHY IT’S SO CRITICALLY IMPORTANT
TO GET THE MESSAGE OUT. I THINK THE WAY WE CAN HELP IS REALLY
LETTING PEOPLE KNOW WHAT’S IN THE BUDGET AND WHAT’S IN THE
CUTS. SO THAT’S WHY I’M TRYING TO DO
MY PUBLIC TOWN HALLS, I’M DOING ANOTHER ONE THURSDAY NIGHT ON
THE DEVELOPERS DREAM LEGISLATION 108, I’M DOING ONE ON THAT
BECAUSE THAT MEANS, YOU KNOW, THE E7BD OF DEVELOPMENT CHARGES
THAT HELP BUILD COMMUNITY CENTERS. IT MEANS THAT THE O AND
B CAN OVERRIDE HERITAGE DESIGNATION. SO FORGET YOUR
HERITAGE DESIGNATION. IT’S GOING TO BE MEANINGLESS. SO I’M DOING
A MEETING ON THAT THURSDAY NIGHT. AND I THINK THAT’S THE
JOB WE CAN DO WELL AS COUNCILLORS. HAVE THESE TOWN
HALL MEETINGS AND DO THEM IN COMMUNITIES WHERE PEOPLE ARE
LOOKING FOR INFORMATION. AND SHARE THAT INFORMATION. BECAUSE
IT’S NOT GOING TO BE DONE BY THE MEDIA, BECAUSE THE MEDIA IS ALSO
OVERLOADED. THEY CAN’T KEEP UP WITH THE PACE OF CHANGE AND
TURMOIL. AND YOU KNOW, I AGREE WITH WHAT COUNCILLOR PERKS SAID
ABOUT THIS IS RADICAL AGENDA, BUT I ALSO WANTED TO SAY TO HIM,
THE RADICAL AGENDA ALSO SEEMS TO FOCUS ON THE PEOPLE OF TORONTO. WHY RIP UP THE TORONTO TRANSIT
PLAN, CUT $1 BILLION OF EVERY DAY TRANSIT MAINTENANCE, 1 # $0
MILLION CUTS FROM THE TORONTO BUDGET, THE TAKE OVER OF PLANNING IN
TORONTO, I MEAN, SURE, THE THING ABOUT MIKE HARRIS, AT LEAST HE
CUT EVERYBODY EVENLY ACROSS THE PROVINCE. BUT THIS GUY WANTS TO
BE, I DON’T KNOW, HE WANTS TO CUT, BE THE MAYOR OF TORONTO.
HE’S JUST GONE NUTS IN TERMS OF THESE CUTS TO THE ENGINE OF THE
PROVINCE. WHY WOULD HE CUT — AND YOU KNOW WHO SHOULD SPEAK
UP? AND I REALLY CHALLENGE THE CORPORATE INTERESTS IN TORONTO
AND ONTARIO, THE BUSINESS PEOPLE. WHY THE SILENCE AS
PUBLIC HEALTH IS BEING CUT? WHY DON’T THEY STAND UP AND SAY THIS
IS NOT GOING FOR THE ECONOMY TO CUT CHILD CARE AND PUBLIC
HEALTH? LET THEM STAND UP AND SPEAK UP FOR ONCE NOT JUST
ELECTED OFFICIALS. >> THANK YOU. COUNCILLOR FORD.
>>THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU KNOW, IN THIS CONVERSATION I
THINK MANY COUNCILLORS IN HERE WANT TO PAINT, YOU KNOW, THE
SKIES ARE TURNING BLACK, EVERYTHING IS TURNING OVER, AND
I REALLY DO CALL IT FOR WHAT IT IS TO ME, TO MANY PEOPLE.
CARRYING, YOU KNOW, GOING BACK TO THE 1990S, REINVENTING THE
DAYS OF WALKERTON AND SARS AND GOING ALONG WITH THAT I THINK IS
OUTRAGEOUS. I THINK IT IS OUTRAGEOUS TO THE PEOPLE WE
REPRESENT. I THINK THAT FEAR MONGERING DOESN’T HAVE ANY PLACE
IN HERE. YOU KNOW, LET ME DO MY FEAR
MONGERING, $347 BILLION OF DEBT IN THE
PROVINCE OF ONTARIO. I HAVE THE PLEASURE OF BEING A
MILLENNIAL, 25 YEARS OLD, AND I WILL ADMIT THAT SCARES ME. AND I
THINK AS THIS GOVERNMENT IS MOVING AHEAD, NOT ON THE RADICAL
CONSERVATIVE AGENDA, ABSOLUTE NOT, I DON’T BELIEVE THAT FOR
ONE BIT, I — MADAM SPEAKER, PRO APPRECIATE.
>>MR. PERRUZZA, PLEASE STOP INTERRUPTING.
>>ON THE POINT OF ORDER I HAVE SAT IN THIS CHAMBER QUIETLY,
RESPECTFULLY OVER ALL THE OTHER MEMBERS SEEING WHAT THEY HAVE TO
SAY, I WOULD APPRECIATE THE SAME RESPECT.
>>YES, PLEASE. >>SO IT’S $347 BILLION OF DEBT
THAT SCARE ME, THAT SCARE MY GENERATION AND I THINK PEOPLE MY
GENERATION AND THE PEOPLE IN THE CITY OF TORONTO WANT TO BE
LIVING IN A CITY THAT HAS A GOOD,
STRONG FINANCIAL AND APPROVE CONVINCE THAT IS VERY STABLE AND
FINANCIALLY STABLE. YOU KNOW WHAT, I’M NOT — I’M
NOT HERE TO DEFEND — OKAY. MADAM SPEAKER, ANOTHER POINT OF
ORDER I WOULD ASK FOR THE PEANUT GALLERY TO STOP.
>>OKAY. COUNCILLOR FORD I’LL PUT YOUR TIME ON HOLD. I’M
SORRY. I DIDN’T HEAR ANYTHING. >>IT’S ALL RIGHT.
>>MEMBER OF COUNCIL, PLEASE, IF YOU WOULD STOP INTERRUPTING AND
LET COUNCILLOR FORD SPEAK. PLEASE. OKAY. GO AHEAD.
>>THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM SPEAKER.
YOU KNOW I AM GOING TO BE BRIEF HERE. I THINK WE NEED TO TURN
OUR ATTENTION TO WHAT WE CAN DO AS A CITY’S THE
ECONOMIC ENGINE OF ONTARIO TO BE FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE.
RIGHT ON THIS AGENDA, ON THIS AGENDA ALONE, AUDITOR GENERAL
HAS A REPORT WITH 227 RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE AUDIT
COMMITTEE WHICH THE MAIN DRIVER OF THEM IS COST SAVINGS AND NOT
IMPLEMENTED. MAYBE WE NEED TO TURN OUR ATTENTION TO THAT.
HOW DO WE FIND THESE EFFICIENCIES? I WATCH THE BOARD
OF HEALTH. I’VE SAT HERE. I’VE LISTENED. I HAVE HEARD VERY
LITTLE TALK ABOUT WHAT WE CAN DO WITHIN THE CITY OF TORONTO TO
REINVEST AND FIND THESE EFFICIENCES AND PUT IT TOWARDS
THE PROGRAMS WE ALL THINK ARE IMPORTANT. THERE’S BEEN VERY
LITTLE TALK OF THAT. YOU KNOW, OUR COUNCILLORS WHO
ARE HOSTING TOWN HALLS, ARE THEY GOING TO ADVERTISE THAT WE HAVE
ALL THESE OUTSTANDING AUDIT RECOMMENDATIONS? ARE THEY GOING
TO ADVERTISE THAT LAST TERM OUR AUDITOR GENERAL BROUGHT US
UPWARDS OF $30 MILLION A YEAR IN POTENTIAL SAVINGS ON CHILD CARE
PER YEAR? IS THAT GOING TO BE ADVERTISED? NO.
IT PROBABLY WON’T. I THINK IN THIS CHAMBER WE NEED
TO BE FOCUSED ON WORKING WITH THE PROVINCE, THEY ARE OUR
BIGGEST PARTNER. WE CAN’T CONDUCT THE BUSINESS WE DO AT
CITY COUNCIL FOR THE RESIDENTS OF TORONTO WITHOUT THEIR
PARTNERSHIP. SO I THINK THERE HAS TO BE A LOT MORE OF A
DIPLOMATIC APPROACH TO THIS, RATHER THAN A — PREACH. EVEN
COUNCILLOR PASTERNAK READ ON JUNE 8TH, MEMBER OF COUNCIL WERE
STEADFAST READY TO FIGHT TO THE END NO MATTER WHAT. NO OPEN DOOR. SO WHETHER IT’S
THIS OR THE NEXT ITEM OR UP UPLOADING THE — THERE’S AN
AGENDA IN HERE THAT IS FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT.
AND I THINK WE NEED TO BE WORKING TOGETHER.
THANK YOU. >>THANK YOU, COUNCILLOR COLLE,
PLEASE. IT’S INAPPROPRIATE FOR YOU TO
MAKE THOSE COMMENTS. COUNCILLOR HOLYDAY.
>>[OFF MIC]. >>YEAH.
>>THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. >>COUNCILLOR HOLYDAY.
>>[OFF MIC]. >>I’LL START YOUR TIME OVER.
>> [OFF MIC] .
>>OKAY. COUNCILLOR FORD, PLEASE.
>> DON’T INTERRUPT. >>COUNCILLOR COLLE, PLEASE. COUNCILLOR HOLYDAY.
>>THANK YOU FOR THE FLOOR MADAM SPEAKER. I HAVE A VERY BRIEF
MOTION. IT IS JUST TO AMEND THE BOARD OF HEALTH’S
RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH WE ARE CONSIDERING ALONG WITH THE
MAYOR’S REPORT. I’VE SPOKEN TO THE CHAIR OF THE BOARD OF
HEALTH. I BELIEVE THAT IT BRINGS MOST OF THE MOTIONS INTO FULL
ALIGNMENT BETWEEN THE TWO REPORTS AND E ENFORCES SOMETHING
THAT I WANT TO SAY IN MY MOMENTS HERE AT THE MICROPHONE, NOBODY
SHOULD BE SURPRISED I’M ONE OF THE FIRST COUNCILLORS HERE TO
OPENLY ADMIT THAT I’VE QUESTIONED MANY PROGRAMS IN THE
CITY. AND I QUESTIONED THEM FUNDAMENTALLY, YOU KNOW, THERE
ARE THINGS THAT WE MUST DELIVER BY RULE, OR BY SOME OTHER
POLICY. THAT’S NO DIFFERENT IN HEALTH. I THINK THERE ARE SOME
THINGS THAT THIS COUNCIL DECIDES TO DELIVER ON ITS OWN, IT SETS
ITS OWN SERVICE STANDARDS AND THOSE ARE THE WILL OF COUNCIL
AND THOSE ARE THE PROGRAMS THAT GET DELIVERED. BUT I OPENED UP
THE PUBLIC HEALTH BUDGET AGENDA ITEM BECAUSE I THINK IT WAS
IMPORTANT TO GO BACK AND READ HOW ALL THE NUMBERS WORK. AND I
ASKED THE CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER HIGH LEVEL QUESTIONS ABOUT, YOU
KNOW, HOW DOES THIS ALL FIT IN. A COUPLE THINGS JUMP OUT AT ME.
THE PROVINCIAL SUBSIDES TO TORONTO PUBLIC HEALTH IS — IT’S
NO SMALL FIGURE. AND $65 MILLION OF THAT IS VERY, VERY MATERIAL.
AND I CONTRAST THAT TO THE NET EXPENDITURES OF TORONTO PUBLIC
HEALTH. SO ALL OF THE GROSS EXPENDITURES MINUS THE MONEY
THEY COLLECT FROM GOVERNMENTS AND THEIR WHOLE PROPOSED
OPERATING BUDGET WAS $64 MILLION. THE CUT IS LARGER THAN
THE AMOUNT WE EVEN GIVE TO TORONTO PUBLIC HEALTH. SO I’M
QUITE WILLING TO HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT THE DIFFERENT
SERVICES THAT ARE IN TORONTO PUBLIC HEALTH. BUT THE CONFERS
HAS TO INCLUDE UNDERSTANDING EXACTLY WHAT IS OURS TO DELIVER
BY RULE AND PERHAPS BY RULE OF THE PROVINCE AND UNDERSTANDING
WHAT THOSE COST TO DELIVER, WHAT ARE THE ONES THAT COUNCIL HAS
SET OR CREATED ON ITS OWN, AND YOU KNOW, ARE THOSE WITHIN OUR
CONTROL TO MAKE CHANGES, PERHAPS, BUT THERE’S GOING TO
HAVE TO BE A LONG PROCESS TO DO THAT THROUGH THE BUDGET
COMMITTEE. A BIG EXCEPTION IS TO CHANGE FUNDING MID-YEAR.
$183 MILLION WORTH OF FUNDING. AND TO RIP $65 MILLION OUT OF
THAT WE’RE GETTING SHAFTED. I DON’T KNOW HOW WE’RE GOING TO
MAKE THAT — I DON’T KNOW HOW ANYBODY IN THIS ROOM KNOWS HOW
WE’RE GOING TO MAKE UP THAT GAP AS PROPOSED. IT SEEMS TO ME IT’S
JUST NOT PRACTICAL AND COULDN’T MAP THAT WAY. SO I WANTED TO
STRENGTHEN AND MAYBE MAKE THE BOARD OF HEALTH’S
STATEMENTS FORWARD A LITTLE BIT SHARPENED.
I THINK EVERYBODY ON THIS COUNCIL NO MATTER HOW YOU FEEL
ABOUT THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT, THE MANDATE OF GOVERNMENT, THE
VARIOUS SERVICES THAT WE DO, I HAVE A PROBLEM CHANGING IT
MID-YEAR. I HAVE A REAL PROBLEM WITH CHANGING THE 2019 BUDGET
AFTER WE’VE ALREADY SET IT. SO THAT MESSAGE NEEDS TO GO BACK
VERY, VERY CLEARLY. THE FACTS NEED TO GO BACK TO THE RESIDENTS
OF THE CITY. THIS IS VERY, VERY COMPLICATED STUFF. AT THE END OF
THE DAY $65 MILLION HOLE I HAVE NO IDEA
HOW WE CAN FILL THAT. GOING FORWARD SHOULD WE HAVE A
DISCUSSION WITH THE PROVINCE? THEY’RE PAYING 75% OF THE
FREIGHT IF THEY DON’T WANT TO CONTINUE CERTAIN PROGRAMS OR
TAKE EXCEPTION TO SOME OF THE DECISIONS WE’VE MADE THEN TABLE
THOSE. WE’LL TALK ABOUT THEM. WELL AT THIS POINT WE JUST HAVE
A HAIRCUT RIGHT NOW OF $65 MILLION PLUS ALL 9 OTHER
SERVICES CONTAINED IN THE REPORT I SHOULD MENTION. I THINK THE
CITY COUNCIL SHOULD POINT OUT THAT IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE
PROCESS TO SWITCH THINGS RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GAME AND WE
NEED TO SEND THAT MESSAGE THAT IT’S NOT WORKABLE THE WAY THAT
IT IS AND LET’S FIGURE OUT A PATH FORWARD TOGETHER. THANK
YOU. >>MADAM SPEAKER —
>>THANK YOU. >>COUNCILLOR MATLOW.
>>I WANTED TO STAND A POINT OF PRIVILEGE. I JUST HAD — I THINK
THE HECKLNG THAT HAPPENED EARLIER TO COUNCILLOR FORD.
>>[OFF MIC]. >>WAS UNFAIR.
>>[OFF MIC]. >>AND IT DOES HARM TO THE
REPUTATION OF THIS BODY. I HAVE SIGNIFICANT DISAGREEMENTS
WITH SOME OF THE THINGS THAT COUNCILLOR FORD SAID, BUT
COUNCILLOR FORD IS NOTHING BUT RESPECTFUL AND HE SPOKE, I
THOUGHT VERY ARTICULATELY EVEN IF I STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH HIM.
I JUST HOPE AS ANGRY AND UPSET WE ARE ABOUT THE POLICY
DECISIONS OF QUEENS PARK AND DOUG FORD IT DOESN’T SEEP
TOWARDS HOW COUNCILLOR FORD IS TREATED. AND I WANTED TO SAY
THAT AS A COLLEAGUE AND WE ARE TEAM TORONTO AND COUNCILLOR FORD
IS TEAM TORONTO TO WHETHER HE KNOWS OR NOT.
>>[OFF MIC]. >>GOOD.
>> COUNCILLOR — WE HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR
YOU. 3 MINUTES CLARIFICATION OF THE MOTION. >>THANK YOU MADAM SPEAKER. I’M
HOPING IT CAN BE PUT BACK UP BECAUSE IT HASN’T BEEN CIRCULATE
YET. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY. SO YOU WANT TO HIGHLIGHT 2019, AM I
TO TAKE IT BY HIGHLIGHTING 2019, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO DO THAT, THAT YOU’RE GIVING APPROVAL TO
CHANGING THE CAUTIONING FORMULA?>>NO, I THINK — YEAH, I THINK
IT STRENGTHENS THE POSITION OF COUNCIL TO TAKE STRONG OBJECTION
TO CHANGES TO THE 2019 FUNDING YEAR. I RECOGNIZE THE REALITY OF
THE SITUATION THAT I DON’T THINK THE PROVINCE IS JUST GOING TO
FORGET ABOUT SOME OF THESE PROPOSALS THAT THEY HAVE.
AND IT WOULD BE WISE OF THIS COUNCIL TO OPEN UP A PROCESS IF
THERE’S GOING TO BE A CHANGE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT’S GOING TO
BE. BUT IN THE 2019, YEAR WE CAN’T CHANGE THE GOAL POSTS OR
RESET THE FORMULA. IT’S TOO LATE.
>>SO BY — BUT BY HIGHLIGHTING 2019, ARE YOU SAYING THE
PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THE CAUTIONARY FORMULA AND HAVE US
PICK UP SUCH THINGS AS INFECTIOUS DISEASE CONTROL USING
PROPERTY TAX DOLLARS AS LONG AS IT’S IN A FUTURE YEAR AND WE CAN
PREPARE FOR IT THAT WOULD BE OKAY?
>>THAT’S NOT WHAT I’M SAYING. >>SO I GUESS CLARIFICATION.
>>PLEASE ALLOW THE COUNCILLOR TO ANSWER.
>>OKAY. >>I THINK IT’S FAR MORE
CONSISTENT WITH THE ITEM NUMBER 1 OF WHAT THE MAYOR HAS
PROPOSED. >>SO, SO THE ITEM NUMBER 1 THAT
THE MAYOR’S PROPOSED ACTUALLY DOES HIGHLIGHT 2019, BUT IN THE
FUTURE IN THE OTHER CLAUSES, WHAT IS DOES IS MAKE CLEAR THAT
THE FORMULA ITSELF IS THE PROBLEM. SO I’M WONDERING HOW
YOUR AMENDMENT STRENGTHEN IT IS OUR CASE ON THE WHOLE PROPOSAL.
HOW DOES IT STRENGTHEN IT BY NARROWING IT TO THE SIX MONTHS
REMAINING IN THIS YEAR. YOU CLARIFY FOR ME THE WORD
STRENGTHEN. >>YEP, I THINK THE MESSAGE
NEEDS TO BE SENT VERY CLEARLY, THAT IT’S NOT ACCEPTABLE TO
CHANGE THE 2019 FUNDING ARRANGEMENT.
AND THE — THE ITEMS OUT OF THE BOARD OF HEALTH WERE A LITTLE
BIT TOO GENERIC. >>SO IF SOMEONE WERE TO
STRENGTHEN OR POSITION ON THE FUTURE YEARS USING PROPERTY TAX
DOLLARS FOR FUNDAMENTALLY HEALTH CARE EXPENSES YOU WOULD CONSIDER
THAT STRENGTHENING AS WELL AND A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT?
>>WELL, IF YOU PICKED UP ON WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT AND
QUESTIONS I WAS ASKING I WASN’T REALLY CLEAR FROM THE MATH MAT
PARTICULAR SPOT FORWARD BY THE CHIEF OFFICER OF MEDICAL HEALTH
— WE COULDN’T GET THOSE ANSWERS. SO I HAVE SOME
EXCEPTIONS WITH CHANGING FUNDING ON THINGS THAT ARE REQUIRED SERVICES. THAT ARE SET
BY THE PROVINCE. THAT’S A DIFFERENT DISCUSSION THAN SOME
OF THE OTHER SERVICES THAT ARE BAKED INTO THE LARGER NUMBER.
AGAIN, BECAUSE OF THE REPORTS –>>I DID RECEIVE THOSE ANSWERS
— 3 MINUTES MADAM SPEAKER. I DID RECEIVE THOSE ANSWERS. I’M
CRYSTAL CLEAR ON THE MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH’S ANSWER.
THANK YOU. >>COUNCILLOR HOLYDAY HAS A
RIGHT TO HIS OPINION. >>[OFF MIC].
>>WELL, COUNCILLOR PERKS, CLARIFICATION.
>>THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO IF I UNDERSTAND THE CHANGE
YOU’RE MAKING IN 1 SUB A AND B, IT CURRENTLY REFERS TO ALL CUTS
TO PUBLIC HEALTH, BUT YOU WANT TO NARROW IT TO 2019.
>>WELL, I THINK THAT’S WHAT WE’RE DEALING WITH HERE. AS I
MENTION TODAY COUNCILLOR CARROLL I HAVE PARTICULAR EXCEPTION TO
THE CHANGE IN THE 2019-YEAR. AND I THINK THAT THAT SHOULD BE
HIGHLIGHTED TO THE PROVINCE. >>SO AND THAT’S FINE. I
UNDERSTAND THAT. 50I78 JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU’RE
DOING. GIVEN THAT THE MAYOR’S MOTION
NUMBER 1 DOES MAKE REFERENCE TO THE TOTAL CUTS IN THE 2019
BUDGET, WHAT IS GAINED BY REMOVING THE LANGUAGE THAT SAYS
WE OBJECT TO A PUB — ALL PUBLIC HEALTH CUTS OVER THE NEXT 4
YEARS AND SAYING ONLY 2019, GIVEN THAT WE’VE ALREADY GOT
2019 IN THE MAYOR’S MOTION, WHAT IS GAINED?
>>WHAT IS GAINED IS THAT WE NEED TO GO THROUGH A PROCESS AND
FIGURE OUT EXACTLY WHAT IT IS THAT THE PROVINCE INTENDS US TO
CUT. >>OKAY.
>>THROUGH THEIR TOP LEVEL CUT. >>ALL RIGHT. I WANT TO FOLLOW
YOU A LITTLE FURTHER HERE. >>EXECUTED ALL OF THE —
>>[MULTIPLE SPEAKERS]. >>YOUR MOTION DOES NOT SAY
PLEASE SIT DOWN WITH US AND HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT PUBLIC
HEALTH SERVICES SHOULD BE DELIVERED IN THE YEARS 2020 AND
ON, WHAT YOUR MOTION DOES DO IS REMOVE COUNCIL FROM HAVING A
POSITION THAT THE 2020, AND ’21, AND ’22
CUTS ARE NOT BEING OBJECTED TO. >>WELL, THAT HAS TO BE PUT
THROUGH THE OTHER MOTIONS THAT THE MAYOR HAS PUT FORWARD UNDER
MM7.13 WHERE HE TALKS ABOUT GOING THROUGH THE BUDGET
COMMITTEE PROCESS SO THAT WE CAN UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT THIS
MEANS IN THE OUT YEARS. AS I INDICATED IN MY SPEAKING, I
THINK THERE IS THINGS WORTH DISCUSSING. IN THE TORONTO
PUBLIC HEALTH BUDGET BUT IT’S JUST TOO EARLY ON. IT’S NOT
SOMETHING WE CAN MANAGE MID-YEAR. WE NEED SOME
OPPORTUNITY TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND MAYBE GET SOME
UNDERSTANDING OR SOME MORE DETAIL FROM THE PROVINCE WHO
SIMPLY JUST TAKEN AN ACROSS THE TOP CUT ON THE AMOUNT OF MONEY
THEY’VE SENT US. >>OKAY. FINAL QUESTION: SO YOU
AGREE THEN THAT WE NEED TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION ABOUT HOW THE
COST SHARING WORKS IN FUTURE YEARS.
SO AIM TAKE TO TAKE IT BY THAT YOU AGREE ALSO WITH PREMIERE
FORD THAT THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO SHOULD BE THE ONLY
PROVINCE IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY WHERE THE PROVINCE DOESN’T HAVE
FULL RESPONSIBILITY OF PUBLIC HEALTH COSTS.
>>I THINK THE PROCESS THAT WE WILL GO THROUGH WILL SORT ALL OF
THAT OUT. AND ONCE WE FIND OUT WHAT THOSE DETAILS ARE, WE CAN
MAKE A BETTER DECISION ON WHERE WE ARE WITH OUR POLICY.
>>THANK YOU SPEAKER. I UNDERSTAND WHY I CAN’T VOTE FOR
THIS NOW. >>THANK YOU. COUNCILLOR PERRUZZA TO SPEAK.
>>[OFF MIC]. >>CAN YOU GET OFF YOUR PHONE.
YOU’RE UP TO SPEAK. >>THANK YOU, SPEAKER. SPEAKER,
I HAVE A MOTION. AND I’M NOT GOING TO READ THE MOTION BUT
WHAT IT ATTEMPTS TO DO AND I HOPE IT DOES IT, IS BASICALLY
ASKS THAT THE CITY OF TORONTO SUCEEDE FINANCIALLY FROM
THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO. SO THAT’S ECONOMIC SUCCESSION. I’M
NOT TALKING ABOUT A CHARTER, I’M NOT TALKING ABOUT CHANGING
CONSTITUTION OR ANY OF THESE KINDS OF THINGS. THE PROVNCE
BASICALLY HAS GOT A SHACKLE. THEY’VE HAD SHACKLED — BUT
CERTAINLY SINCE — WHY? BECAUSE WE HAVE A RANGE OF CAUTIONARY
PROGRAMS THAT THEY HAVE BEEN W DRAWING THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS TO
RIGHT FROM THE GET-GO. AND BY DOING THAT, WHAT THEY
REALLY DO IS LIMIT THIS — CITY’S ABILITY TO MANAGE ITS
AFFAIRS AND AND TO GROW THE CITY’S IT SEES — SEES FIT. NOW, WITH PREVIOUS GOVERNMENTS
WHAT WE REALLY HAD WAS , YOU KNOW, YOU HAD THE HEADS UP.
THEY WOULD SAY YOU KNOW WHAT, WE’RE THINKING OF REORGANIZNG
OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH YOU, THE LIBERALS DID IT TO US, THE MIKE
HARRIS CONSERVATIVES DID IT TO US — DID IT WITH US. BUT WHAT
IS DIFFERENT NOW IS THAT THERE ARE NO MORE RULES TO THE GAME. I THINK THE MAYOR THIS MORNING
WAS GENTLEMANLY ABOUT IT. THERE’S — YOU KNOW, IF YOU’RE
GOING TO BE SERIOUS IN GOVERNMENT, IF YOU’RE GOING TO
CONDUCT YOURSELF SERIOUSLY, RIGHT, HE — PHRASES HE USED WAS
I THINK WAS BUSINESS-LIKE. THERE’S NO MORE BUSINESS-LIKE.
THERE’S NO BUSINESS-LIKE WITH THOSE FOLKS. IT’S A GAME.
IT’S A GAME. WHAT’S AT STAKE, THAT’S NOT
CLEAR. I DON’T THINK THEY KNOW. BUT THE GAME IS THIS, THE GAME
IS TO CONTINUALLY HAVE US AND HAVE TORONTONIANS IN A STATE OF
CONFUSION. IT START RIGHT AFTER THE
ELECTION WITH OUR ELECTION. WAS FOLLOWED UP WITH TRANSIT. WE
NO LONGER PLAN TRANSIT, SOMEBODY ELSE DOES, WHERE? I DON’T KNOW. BUT WHAT WE DO KNOW IS WE DON’T
GET ANY TRANSIT. AND NOW MESSING WITH OUR BUDGET. WE SET
OUR BUDGET. SO WE GO BACK, SPECIAL LEVY, THE
BUDGET — SO HERE’S ANOTHER INTERESTING THING. THE CURRENT
GOVERNMENT HAS NO TROUBLE COLLECTING TAXES FROM
TORONTONIANS. NO TROUBLE WHATSOEVER. COUNCILLOR FORD TALKED ABOUT THE
PROVINCIAL DEFICIT. I THINK THE — THE — TORONTO’S
SHARE OF PROVINCIAL REVENUES IS AROUND 42%.
WE CONTRIBUTE WAY, WAY MORE THAN WE EVER GET BACK.
IT’S NOT BECAUSE OF TORONTONIANS THAT YOU HAVE A PROVINCIAL
DEFICIT. WE KICK INTO THE KITTY, THE
PROVINCIAL KITTY. WE DON’T GET BACK ANYWHERE NEAR
WHAT WE’VE CONTRIBUTED. NOBODY’S BEEN PLANING ABOUT THAT. THE
MAYOR WAS A GENTLEMAN THIS MORNING AS WELL. HE SAID YOU
KNOW WHAT WE UNDERSTAND THAT WE NEED TO CONTRIBUTE TO REGIONAL
DEVELOPMENT ACROSS THE COUNTRY. TORONTONIANS HAVE ALWAYS
ACCEPTED THAT FACT. THAT FACT, YES. I THOUGHT I
PRONOUNCED IT CORRECTLY, THAT FACT, FACT, BUT WE DON’T GET
ANYWHERE NEAR THAT KIND OF — THAT KIND OF —
THAT KIND OF MONEY BACK. SO WHAT WE REALLY HAVE IS WE HAVE A
BUNCH OF NEW GUYS UP AT QUEENS PARK, RIGHT. AND THE OLD FOLKS
THE EXPERIENCED FOLKS ARE BEING LED BY THE NEW PEOPLE AND QUITE
FRANKLY, THE GAME’S NOT CLEAR YET. BUT WHAT’S HAPPENING IS THAT
THEY’RE MESSING WITH AND CONTINUE TO MESS WITH THE
ECONOMIC ENGINE OF THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO. AND I THINK THEY’RE
WRONG IN DOING THAT. BECAUSE I THINK —
>>THANK YOU, COUNCILLOR. >>MEANS A MAINLY HEADACHE FOR
THEM. >>THANK YOU.
>>THANK YOU. >>WE DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR
YOU. >>SURE.
>>COUNCILLOR MATLOW. >>THROUGH YOU MADAM SPEAKER,
I’D LIKE TO RESPECTFULLY ASK COUNCILLOR PERRUZZA TO WITHDRAW
HIS MOTION FOR THIS REASON. TWO REASONS: A, I WONDER IF THE
COUNCILLOR REALLY BELIEVES THAT THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT WILL
EVEN FOR A MOMENT SERIOUSLY ENTERTAIN THIS REQUEST; AND B,
THAT THERE’S BEEN NO CONSIDERATION THAT I CAN SEE
BASED ON THIS MOTION FOR WHERE THE OFFSETS WOULD COME FROM TO
TAKE THE PROVINCIAL FUNDING AWAY THAT IS CURRENTLY FUNDING
PROVINCIAL PROGRAMMING AND SERVICES THAT WE ALL RELY ON NO
MATTER WHERE THOSE DOLLARS ARE COMING FROM THROUGHOUT THE
PROVINCE. WOULD YOU CONSIDER PERHAPS FOCUSSING ON MAYOR
TORY’S MOTION, LET’S WORK AS A TEAM, LET’S FOCUS ON OUR END
GOAL AND LET’S NOT GO TO THESE KINDS OF PLACES TODAY.
>>LOOK, I’M GOING TO SUPPORT THE MAYOR’S MOTIONS PERFORM
HERE’S WHAT MY MOTION ASKS, MAYBE I DIDN’T EXPLAIN IT WELL.
THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT GIVES US $2.4 BILLION A YEAR IN
SUPPORTS AS PART OF OUR OPERATING BUDGET. WHAT THIS
MOTION WOULD DO IS IT WOULD SAY FORGET ABOUT IT, DON’T GIVE US
THE MONEY GIVE US PROVINCIAL IN CONNECTION TAX POINTS EQUIVALENT
TO $2.4 BILLION AND WE’LL FIGURE OUT WHAT PROGRAMS WE SPEND IT ON
AND WE’LL FIGURE OUT WHAT WE CARRY ON WITH AND WHAT WE DON’T
CARRY ON WITH. THEY CAN KEEP THIS MONEY JUST GIVE US THE TAX
POINTS AND LET US CONTROL THOSE TAX POINTS. WHAT THAT WOULD DO
IS CREATE, IS CREATE ESSENTIALLY — IT’S BASICALLY SPEAKS TO WHAT
YOU’RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE IN SAY ING THE CITY OF TORONTO NEEDS —
NEEDS TO BE A MATURE LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT AND WE CAN’T ALWAYS
BE HAVING TO RELY ON WHAT THESE FOLKS ARE GOING TO DO FOR US,
AND WHAT THEY’RE GOING TO GIVE US, AND WHEN THEY’RE GOING TO
GIVE IT TO US AND WHAT LEVEL BECAUSE THAT PROVIDES NO LEVEL
OF CERTAINTY TEE. AND YOU CAN’T GOVERN YOURSELF THAT WAY. GIVE
US THE TAX POINTS. THEN WE’LL FIGURE OUT HOW TO MOVE FORWARD. IT’S ABOUT ECONOMIC
INDEPENDENCE. IF THEY EVER — I AGREE WITH YOU THEY LIKE
CONTROL, THEY WANT TO SHACKLE US, THEY DON’T WANT TO GIVE US
ECONOMIC INDEPENDENCE. THEY WANT OUR ENSLAVEMENT TO THEM. AND
THAT $2.4 BILLION, THAT’S ESSENTIALLY WHAT IT DOES.
>>THANK YOU. >>BECAUSE WE’RE GOING TO GO IN
A FEW SHORT WEEKS AND START OUR BUDGET PROCESS ALL OVER AGAIN
AND IT COULD MEAN A 7% PROPERTY TAX INCREASE TO BASICALLY TRY TO
FIND THIS MONEY. SO HE’S GOT NO PROBLEM TAKING THE MONEY. WHAT
HE’S SAYING IS YOU GUYS NOW GO AND GET SOME MORE.
>> THANK YOU, THANK YOU. COUNCILLOR LAYTON TO SPEAK.
>>YES, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM SPEAKER.
FIRST OFF, I’D JUST LIKE TO THANK THE MAYOR FOR PUTTING
FORWARD THE MOTION AND MAKING IT HIS KEY ITEM WHICH I THINK
HIGHLIGHTS THE IMPORTANCE THAT IS — THAT COUNCIL IS PUTTING ON
THIS CHANGE. YOU SEE, ONCE AGAIN THE PROVINCE HAS PLUNGED OUR
CITY, THIS COUNCIL INTO CHAOS. WE PASSED A BUDGET 3 MONTHS AGO.
WE’RE 5 MONTHS INTO 2019, YET WITHOUT ANY
WARNING, WITHOUT ANY CONSULTATION, WITHOUT ANY
THOUGHT TO WHAT THE IMPACT WOULD ACTUALLY BE ON THE
DELIVERY OF SERVICE TO TORONTONIANS, TO RESIDENTS OF
ONTARIO, THE PROVINCE HAS DROPPED A BOMBSHELL ON SEVERAL,
SEVERAL IMPORTANT, IMPORTANT POLICY AND PROGRAM AREAS.
THE PROVINCE IS PUTTING AT RISK THE HEALTH AND THE HOUSEHOLD
BUDGETS OF ALL RESIDENTS OF TORONTO.
AND WHAT’S WORSE IS THEY’VE ALSO DECIDED TO TAKE OUT THIS VENDETTA AGAINST ONTARIO KIDS BY
JEOPARDIZNG THEIR FUTURE AND DEVELOPMENT. THESE CUTS ARE
CRUEL. THEY FOCUS ON THE MOST VULNERABLE PEOPLE IN OUR CITY.
CUTS TO PUBLIC HEALTH, TO PROGRAMS THAT TRY TO CONTAIN DISEASES, CUTS TO
PROGRAMS THAT 2350ED CHILDREN SO THAT THEY CAN LEARN WELL, CUTS
TO PROGRAMS THAT PREVENT THE SPREAD AND EXPOSURE TO FOOD
BORNE ILLNESSES, CUTS TO EMS AS OUR CITIZENS AGE AND NEED MORE
OF THESE SERVICES. YOU KNOW, COUNCIL HAS ALREADY STOOD
OPPOSED TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH — TO THE PROVINCIAL CUTS TO TO
PUBLIC HEALTH. WE DID THAT AT OUR LAST COUNCIL MEETING. NOW,
IS TIME FOR US TO BRING THIS TOGETHER WITH THE LATEST ROUND,
ROUNDS OF CUTS THAT WE’VE JUST STARTED TO — TO LEARN ABOUT AND
UNDERSTAND. LET ME FOCUS VERY SPECIFICALLY
ON CHILD CARE. AND YOU CAN BRING UP THE OVERHEAD IF YOU WOULD.
THE PREMIERE IS TRYING TO MAKE US BELIEVE THAT THE CUTS ARE
ADMINISTRATIVE IN NATURE. THAT — BUT HE’S NOT BEING
HONEST. AS WE HEARD EARLIER TODAY, ONLY 17%, 17% OF THE CUT
IS TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGETS OF OUR PROGRAMS. AN
ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGET THAT THE PROVINCE MANDATES BASED ON THE
SUBSIDY PROGRAM. THE PROVINCE ACTUALLY MANDATES US TO HAVE
THAT ADMINISTRATIVE COLLECTION. BUT A FULL 50% OF THESE CUTS ARE
COST SHARED SUBSIDIES, DIRECTLY THOSE IS UP I HAD DEES THAT
13,000 KIDS ARE WAITING FOR SO THEY CAN GO TO CHILD CARE. SO
PARENTS CAN GO BACK TO WORK. WE’RE GOING TO HAVE TO CUT 6,000 NEW SUBSIDIES GOING
FORWARD. THERE’S A 13,000 WAIT LIST FOR
SUBSIDIES AND 50% OF THE MONEY, THE $80 MILLION THAT’S BEING
PROPOSED TO BE CUT COMES OUT OF THOSE PROGRAMS. BUT THAT’S NOT
ENOUGH. 33% OF THE MONEY BEING CUT ACTUALLY COMES FROM SERVNG
PROGRAMS FOR KIDS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS. KIDS STRUGGLING WITH A VARIETY
OF DIFFERENT ISSUES THAT MAKE IT MORE EXPENSIVE AND MORE
DIFFICULT FOR THEIR CHILD CARE TO DELIVER THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL
OF SERVICE. LET’S TAKE IT OUT ON THEM. SO WE’RE TARGETING AT LEAST THE
CHILD CARE CUTS ARE TARGETING LOW INCOME AREAS BECAUSE THE
CHILD CARES THAT HAVE MORE SUBSIDY FEES RELY ON MORE FEES
ARE MORE VULNERABLE TO THESE CUTS. THEY MAY HAVE TO CLOSE.
BUT WE’RE TARGETING THOSE AREAS AND THOSE INDIVIDUALS THAT RELY
ON THE MOST. AND THEN ON TOP OF THIS, EVERY
FULL FEE PAYING PARENT WITH A KID IN CHILD CARE IS GOING TO
GET A 4.6% INCREASE IN THEIR BILL,
EVERY SINGLE FULL FEE PAYING PARENT.
WE’RE TARGETING ALL OF THOSE FAMILES AND IT’S NOT FAIR. AND WITH RESPECT TO THE COMMENTS
FROM COUNCILLOR FORD HERE AND WITH RESPECT TO THE COMMENTS
THAT ARE COMING, WE HAVE REACHED OUT, THE MAYOR HAS REACHED OUT,
THESE CUTS CAME WITHOUT CONSULTATION, WITHOUT WARNING
HALFWAY THROUGH THE FISCAL YEAR.>>THANK YOU. OKAY WE CAN PUT THE — READY TO
VOTE. OKAY THE MOTION BY THE MAYOR,
ALL IN FAVOR. YES, RECORDED VOTE. >>COUNCILLOR LAI, PLEASE.
>>THE MOTION CARRES 25-1. MOTION 2. DO, DO, DO, DO. COUNCILLOR COLLE, YOU’RE NOT IN
THE LEGISLATURE. >>[OFF MIC] .
ALL IN FAVOR. >>RECORDED.
>>RECORDED. DON’T POINT YOUR FINGER TO ME,
COUNCILLOR COLLE. >>[OFF MIC].
>>HE’S DOING THE ITALIAN GESTURE. MY FATHER USED TO DO THAT ALL
THE TIME. >>THE MOTION CARRES 25-1. >>YOU KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS,
RIGHT? COUNCILLOR PERRUZZA. HIS MOTION. RECORDED VOTE. >>THE MOTION DOES NOT CARRY,
THE VOTE IS 8-18. >> OKAY. [INAUDIBLE] OH THAT’S THE
OTHER ITEM. OKAY. THAT WAS THE ITEM — OH, WE VOTED ON THE
AMENDMENTS, RIGHT. OKAY. SO NOW, THE OTHER ITEM. HL6.1, MOTION BY COUNCILLOR
HOLYDAY, RECORDED VOTE. >>THE MOTION CARRES 16-10.
>>ITEM AS AMENDED ALL IN FAVOR. CARRIED. OKAY. WE’LL NOW GO TO THE SECOND
KEY ITEM. ON PAGE 3EX5.1 ONTARIO PLACE. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? NO QUESTIONS? >>[OFF MIC].
>>THE MAYOR’S SECOND KEY ITEM ONTARIO PLACE. ANY QUESTIONS?
OKAY. SPEAKERS. OKAY. MAYOR, DID YOU WANT TO
SPEAK? >>[OFF MIC].
>>[INAUDIBLE] WAIT FOR A FEW SECOND BECAUSE I THINK MAYBE I
WENT A LITTLE TOO FAST. >>[OFF MIC].
>>I DON’T KNOW IF MEMBERS OF COUNCIL KNOW WHAT ITEM WE’RE AT.
>>[OFF MIC]. >>I SAID IT THREE TIMES BUT
EVERYBODY’S LOOKING KIND OF CONFUSED. BEHALF PARAGRAPH MAYOR TORY TO
SPEAK. >>WELL, MADAM SPEAKER, THANK
YOU. I WON’T BELABOR THIS. I HAVE THOSE MOTIONS HERE AND WHAT
THEY ESSENTIALLY DO IS TO BRING TOGETHER THE WORK THAT WAS DONE
BY THE TORONTO EAST YORK COMMUNITY KENNESAW SUBCOMMITTEE
AND WORK THAT’S BEEN DONE BY CITY STAFF AND BRING IT ALL INTO
ONE. I THINK THE GIST OF IT THAT I WANT TO SPEAK TO IS — AND
REALLY IN DIRECT CONTRAST TO WHAT WE JUST DID, BUT IT’S
REACHING OUT A HAND THAT SORT OF SAYS WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY HERE
AND LET’S NOT MISS IT. AND THE OPPORTUNITY IS TO TAKE THE
INTENTION OF THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT TO HAVE ANOTHER LOOK AT ONTARIO
PLACE AND DECIDE WHAT TO DO WITH THAT AND QUITE PROPERLY SO AND
COMBINE THAT WITH THE HARD WORK THAT’S BEEN DONE AT EXHIBITION
PLACE, BY THE CHAIR AND THE BOARD. AND BY OUR OWN CITY STAFF AND
HAVE A MORE COOPERATIVE CONSOLIDATED LOOK AT THE 2
PREMISESES TAKEN TOGETHER. THAT DOESN’T MEAN THAT THERE HAVE
BEEN FAILED ATTEMPTS IN THE PAST AND ALL THAT KIND OF THING,
THEY’VE BEEN FAILED ATTEMPTS FOR WHATEVER SERIES OF REASONS IT
DOESN’T MATTER. BUT IN THIS CASE WHAT WE’RE SAYING AND I’M REALLY
HOPEFUL THAT THE PROVINCE WILL IN A GENUINE WAY ADOPT A
DIFFERENT APPROACH THAN WHAT WAS ADOPTED ON BUDGET. IT WAS
RETROACTIVE, IT WAS DONE WITHOUT CONSULTATION. HERE IS AN
OPPORTUNITY, I THINK, FOR US TO SIT TOGETHER AND IT WILL ONLY
WORK IF IT’S DONE IN A GENUINE WAY, FRANKLY LEGALLY IF IT’S
DONE IN GENUINE WAY. EVEN THOUGH FOR EXAMPLE, WE ACTUALLY OWN A
PIECE OF THE ONTARIO CITY, THE CITY OF TORONTO DOES I
UNDERSTAND THE FACT THAT IT CAN BE LEGISLATED BY A LOT OF
THINGS, ONE OF TWO WAYS OF DOING THIS. ONE IS THE PRODUCTIVE WAY
FOR THE PEOPLE OF TORONTO AND THE PEOPLE OF ONTARIO, AND THE
OTHER WAY IS KIND OF LIKE THE WAY THE BUDGET HAS GONE. — [TECHNICAL DIFFICULTY] I SAID THIS MORNING GENUINE
COLLABORATION AND COOPERATION — IT DOES NOT MEAN YOU SEND PLANS
DOWN TO THE CITY HALL AND SAY THIS IS HOW WE’VE DECIDED TO
DEAL WITH YOUR WATERFRONT OR YOUR EXHIBITION PLACE. I
ACKNOWLEDGE THE FACT THAT ONTARIO POLICE IS LARGELY OWNED
— AND I THINK OVER MANY OF THOSE YEARS A GOOD JOB WAS DONE
AT THAT. BUT AT THE SAME TIME IT IS STILL OUR WATERFRONT WHERE
THE WATER MEETS THE LAND IS PART OF TORONTO’S WATERFRONT. WE’VE
DEMONSTRATE OVER THE YEARS, WE AND THE OTHER 2 GOVERNMENT THAT
IS WE CAN WORK TOGETHER TO DEVELOP AND EVOLVE THAT
WATERFRONT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PEOPLE OF ONTARIO, CANADA
AND TORONTO. AND I THINK WE HAVE ANOTHER
OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT AGAIN NOW WITH THE FULL INVOLVEMENT OF
EXHIBITION PLACE, THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE ONTARIO PLACE
GOVERNANCE AS IT NOW IS WHICH IS — AND THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE
PEOPLE AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CITY OF TORONTO.
SO AND BY THE WAY IF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WANT TO BE PART OF
THIS TOO IN TERMS OF ANY INTEREST THEY HAVE IN IMPROVING
THAT SECTION OF TOWN THEN OF COURSE WE’D BE INTERESTED. I
THINK THERE’S NOTHING BUT OPPORTUNITY HERE, BUT I THINK
IT’S GOING TO REQUIRE US TO HAVE MADE THE FIRST MOVE. I WILL SAY
AS I SAID THIS MORNING I WAS THE PERSON THAT REACHED OUT TO THE
PREMIERE PRIVATELY IN AUGUST AND SAID TO HIM AS WE STOOD AT
EXHIBITION PLACE, AT THE OPENING CEREMONES FOR THE CME WE REALLY
SHOULD BE WORKING ON THIS TOGETHER. WE SHOULD BE WORKING
ON THIS TOGETHER EVEN THOUGH AT THE TIME ALL THE TALK WAS ABOUT
ONTARIO PLACE. NOW, WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE WITH
THAT, BUT IT HAS TO BE DONE IN A SPIRIT OF GENUINE COLLABORATION.
IT’S REALLY QUITE DIFFERENT AND I GUESS MAYBE WHAT THE BUDGET
HAS SHOWN US THE PLACE YOU COULD END UP IF YOU DON’T OPERATE THAT
WAY WHICH IS STILL A PLACE WE’RE TRYING TO GET OUT OF. BUT I
THINK THIS OFFERS US THE OPPORTUNITY FROM VIRTUAL THE
BEGINNING TO COOPERATE AND COLLABORATE TOGETHER TO PRODUCE
SOMETHING WE CAN ALL BE PROUD OF AND THAT THE PEOPLE WILL BE
PROUD OF IT. AND THEY’LL BE PROUD BOTH BECAUSE OF THE RESULT
BUT I THINK THEY’LL BE PROUD OF THE WAY WE DID IT IF WE CAN WORK
TOGETHER. SO I COMMEND THESE MOTIONS TO YOU, I COMMEND THIS
PROCESS INITIATIVE TO YOU THAT REACHES OUT TO THE PROVINCE AND
ASKS THEM TO WORK WITH US, AND I JUST LOOK FORWARD TO THEM
HOPEFULLY SAYING YES TO THAT PROCESS, PARTICIPATNG IN IT IN A
GENUINE WAY. THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILLOR CRESSY TO SPEAK.
. >>WELL, THANK YOU, SPEAKER. AND
I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE MAYOR’S MOTION THAT BRINGS TOGETHER 4
ITEMS. THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ONTARIO PLACE RECOMMENDATIONS, A
CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT, A PRESERVATION BOARD
ITEM AS WELL AS AN ITEM FROM THE EXHIBITION PLACE BOARD. ON THAT
NOTE I’D LIKE TO THANK STAFF ACR OSS DEPARTMENTS FROM HERITAGE TO
PLANNING TO WATERFRONT, THE MEMBERS OF THE EXHIBITION, THE
ONTARIO PLACE SUBCOMMITTEE, COUNCILLORS LAYTON, PERKS,
FLETCHER AND MYSELF. AND MARK GRIMES WHO BROUGHT A LETTER
FORWARD ON THIS TO EXHIBITION PLACE. ONTARIO PLACE IS 155
ACRES OF PUBLIC LAND IN THE HEART OF OUR CITY ON THE FRONT
OF OUR WATERFRONT. AND WHEN IT WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1971, IT WAS
ESTABLISHED AS AN URBAN PARK FOR ALL
ONTARIANS. WHILE THERE MAY STILL BE 1.5 MILLION VISITORS, THAT’S
MORE THAN THE CN TOWER ON THE BASIS OF PARK, NOBODY WOULD TELL
YOU THAT IT’S NOT SET OR TIME FOR AN UPLIFT AND A
REVITALIZATION WE KNOW IT IS, BUT YOU ONLY GET ONE CHANCE TO
REVITALIZE ONTARIO PLACE, YOU ONLY GET ONE AND THUS, IT’S
CRITICAL THAT YOU GET IT RIGHT. NOW, THE PROVINCE OWNS MOST OF
THE LAND AT ONTARIO PLACE BUT AS THE MAYOR SAID THEY DON’T OWN
ALL THE LAND. IN FACT, THE CITY OWNS PART OF IT. MORE THAN BEING
AN OWNER AS PART OF LAND IN THE CITY WE HAVE A DIRECT INVESTED INTEREST RELATED TO THE
TRANSIT REQUIREMENTS, THE INTEGRATION WITH EXHIBITION
PLACE THAT IS BEING TALKED ABOUT FOR DECADES.
THERE HAS BEEN MOTION AFTER MOTION AT THE CITY ABOUT LOOKING
AT THE TWO EXHIBITION PLACE AND ONTARIO PLACE AS A PRECINCT. SO
THE SIMPLE FACT IS THE CITY CAN’T GO IT ALONE BUT NOR CAN
THE PROVINCE. THIS WILL ONLY WORK AS A
REVITALIZATION EXERCISE. NOW, THE PROVINCE IMAGINED ITS
INTENTION, WHAT WE’VE DONE HERE IS COME IN AND SAY, OKAY IF YOU
WANT TO REIMAGINE ONTARIO PLACE IT HAS TO BE LED AND DRIVEN BY
CLEAR PRINCIPLES BASED ON PUBLIC POLICY AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
SO WE’VE BEEN PROACTIVE AT THE CITY, AND THAT’S WHAT IN FRONT
OF US HERE TODAY IN ARTICULATE AGO SERIES OF PRINCIPLES THAT
WE’RE BEING ASKED TO VOTE ON, CONNECTION TO THE WATERFRONT,
HERITAGE PRESERVATION, THE EXPANSION OF PARK LAND, BRINGING
ARTS AND CULTURE IN WITH YEAR-ROUND ANIMATION, ALL OF
THAT IS REQUIRED. AND I SHOULD TELL YOU THAT WHEN IT COMES TO
ONTARIO PLACE, IT’S NOT JUST PEOPLE WHO GREW UP GOING TO SEE
BANDS THERE IN THE’70S AND ’80S WHO WERE PAYING ATTENTION. I’VE
BEEN BLOWN AWAY AT THE THOUSANDS OF TORONTONIANS AND ONTARIANS
WHO HAVE RESPONDED, JUST EVERY DAY RESIDENTS WHO HAVE COME OUT
TO TOWN HALLS. SO WHAT WE KNOW ONTARIO PLACE AND EXHIBITION
PLACE SHOULD BE WHICH IS SOMEWHERE THAT EXISTS FOR
EVERYONE. AND I THINK MANY OF US ALSO KNOW WHAT IT SHOULDN’T BE
WHICH IS A MEGA MALL OR CASINO. SO I’LL SIMPLY CLOSE BY SAYING
THAT THE FUTURE OF ONTARIO PLACE SHOULD BELONG TO ALL ONTARIANS,
ITS FUTURE SHOULD BE DECIDED — WE CANNOT ALLOW THE FUTURE OF
ONTARIO PLACE OR EXHIBITION PLACE TO BE DECIDED IN BACK
ROOMS, RATHER IT’S INCUMBENT ON US TO SEEK THAT REVITALIZATION
AND THAT’S WHY I THINK WE’RE BEING PROACTIVE INPUTTING
FORWARD OUR PRINCIPLES THAT SHOULD GUIDE OUR PARTICIPATION
IN IT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>THANK YOU.
COUNCILLOR LAYTON TO SPEAK. >>YEAH, THANK YOU.
I JUST WANTED TO ADD TWO THINGS IN PARTICULAR. ONE, THAT WE HAVE
AN OPPORTUNITY HERE TO DO ONE OF TWO THINGS. ONE IS TO CREATE
SOMETHING THAT WE CAN BE PROUD OF, AND THAT WE CAN TAKE OUR
KIDS TO AND OUR GRANDKIDS TO FOR GENERATIONS, OR WE HAVE — WE
MAKE THE MISTAKE THAT IS TO SKWAUNDER THIS AMAZING PUBLIC
RESOURCE. THE SECOND POINT I WANT TO MAKE IS AROUND WASING
TIME. LET’S NOT CONTINUE TO WASTE
TIME, GO BACK TO ZERO ON A PROJECT LIKE ONTARIO PLACE AND
EXHIBITION PLACE. YOU SEE, WHEN I FIRST TOOK OFFICE IN 2010, I
THINK I WAS LIKE MANY TORONTONIANS AND DIDN’T KNOW
EXACTLY WHAT WAS GOING ON ON THE EXHIBITION PLACE. I KNEW ONTARIO
PLACE VERY WELL, KNEW OF THE FAIR, KNEW OF SOME EVENTSES BUT
I TOO QUESTIONED THE BENEFIT OF VAST PARKING LOTS AND SOME OF
THESE UNDERUSED HERITAGE BUILDINGS. BUT THE MORE I GOT TO
APPRECIATE AND LEARN ABOUT THE SITE THE MORE I GOT TO EXPLORE
SOME OF THE SECRETS THAT ARE IN EXHIBITION PLACE WITH THE ROSE
GARDEN, THE GARDEN OF THE GREEK GODS, THE PUBLIC ART THAT’S ON
THE SITE, THE BEAUTY OF SOME OF THE BUILDINGS AND THE HISTORY OF
THINGS LIKE THE ROYAL, THE CNE, SOME OF THE OTHER EVENTS THAT
HAVE ACTUALLY GIVEN SHAPE TO THE GROUNDS, THE MORE I PREESHTD
THAT THERE ARE ACTUALLY A LOT OF PLAYERS INVOLVED.
AND ONCE MORE AS THE NEIGHBORHOOD GREW UP AROUND IT,
MORE AND MORE PEOPLE WERE LAYING CLAIM, HAD A STAKE IN THE
DEBATE. AND I THINK THAT HAVING NOW
LEARNED WHAT I HAVE ABOUT EXHIBITION PLACE AND SPENT TIME
ON THE BOARD, SPEND TIME AS THE LOCAL REPRESENTATIVE, I REALIZED
THAT WE DO TRUY NEED TO HAVE A STRONG VISION FOR THE SITE.
IT NEEDS TO NOT ONLY SERVE OUR PURPOSE AS A CITY WHICH MEANS
LARGE — SOME LARGE SCALE EVENTS. BUT IT ALSO NEEDS TO
SERVE THE LOCAL PURPOSE. AND IN A NEIGHBORHOOD SURROUNDED
BY THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF FORT YORK, PARKDALE, LIBERTY VILLAGE,
WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF WATERFRONT LAND TO BE USED BY THOSE INVADES
THAT NOW LIVE THERE. AND WE NEED TO PUT A FOCUS ON
ENSURNG THAT THAT PUBLIC RESOURCE IS KEPT AND REMAINS AS
A PUBLIC RESOURCE. THERE WILL, OF COURSE BE CALLS
FOR SOME PRIVATE INTERESTS ON THE SITE. AND I’M NOT SAYING
THAT WE SHOULDN’T OPEN THAT UP. IN A — IN A SITUATION WHERE
WE’RE PLANNING BOTH ONTARIO PLACE AND EXHIBITION PLACE WE
SHOULD WELCOME SOME ACTIVATION. BUT WE’VE GOT TO BE VERY CAREFUL
THAT THOSE ACT INVASION ARE SERVING A WIDER PURPOSE. BECAUSE
IF YOU THINK OF THE DEBATE THAT WE GOT INTO AROUND SOME OF THE
MORE RECENT LAND EXCHANGES AROUND EXHIBITION PLACE, YOU
START TO QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT THOSE — THOSE SETS OF VALUES
AND GOALS WERE WELL-ESTABLISHED. NOW, NO ONE PROBABLY UNDERSTANDS
THE ONTARIO PLACE SITE MORE THAN OUR MAYOR. MAYOR TORY WAS
INVOLVED IN WHAT I WOULD DESCRIBE AS A GOOD PROCESS BUT
AT ITS CORE IT WAS PROPOSED UNDER A VERY TROUBLEG MOTIVE.
AND THAT WAS THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULDN’T PUT ANY MONEY IN, THAT
WAS THE — THAT WAS HOW THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DAY TIED MAYOR
TORY’S HANDS. AND SO WE COULDN’T COME UP WITH
A GRAND VISION FOR THE SITE. WE COULDN’T GO OUT AND ASK
PUBLIC WELL, IF YOU WERE REALLY WANTED TO BUILD SOMETHING YOU
COULD BE PROUD OF, WHAT WOULD IT LOOK LIKE, BECAUSE HE WAS TOLD
YOU GOT TO DO ALL THOSE THINGS BUT YOU CAN’T SPEND ANY MONEY.
SO WE WERE STUCK IN A BAD PLACE. ALL OF US KNOW YOU DON’T GET
SOMETHING FOR NOTHING ALTHOUGH MANY OF US THINK WE CAN BUILD
TRANSIT PLANS BASED ON NO FINANCING, THAT IS NOW, WE ALL
KNOW THAT’S IN FACT, NOT THE CASE. SO I WOULD URGE THE
PROVINCE TO COME TO THE TABLE AND THE CITY NOW, THAT WE’VE
EXTENDED A HAND TO REMAIN THERE TO TRY TO GET THIS RIGHT. WE
HAVE TRIED THIS MANY TIMES BEFORE INCLUDING THE LAST TERM
OF COUNCIL, BUT I THINK IT’S WORTHY GIVING ANOTHER TRY. >>THANK YOU.
THAT’S IT FOR THE SPEAKERS. WE’LL PUT THE MOTIONS ON THE
SCREEN. OKAY MOTION 1A, ALL IN FAVOR.
CARRIED. >>OUT OF POINT OF ORDER I WAS A
BIT SORT OF — WHEN I GOT UP TO SPEAK BECAUSE IT HAPPENED SO
QUICKLY. I WAS SURE THERE WOULD BE QUESTIONS OF OTHER SPEAKERS.
I TALKED A LOT ABOUT COOPERATION BETWEEN THE ONTARIO GOVERNMENT
AND THE CITY OF TORONTO WHICH I HOPE IS GOING TO BE SOMETHING
THAT WE’LL — THIS WILL ONLY WORK IF THAT HAPPENS. BUT I
DIDN’T MENTION THE COOPERATION THAT’S TAKEN PLACE INSIDE THE
CITY. AND I MEAN EVEN INSIDE THIS COUNCIL AND THAT INCLUDES
COUNCILLOR GRIMES, COUNCILLOR CRESSY AND MEMBERS OF THE
SUBCOMMITTEE AND INCLUDES THE CITY STAFF. A GOOD EXAMPLE IN
HERE AS WELL THE REASON IT ALL WENT SO FAST BECAUSE THERE WAS
SO MUCH TIME SPENT TALKING BACK AND FORTH. WE BROUGHT 4 ITEMS
INTO ONE AND DEALT WITH IT WITHIN 25 MINUTES. THERE’S BEEN
A LOT OF CARE AND TIME TAKEN BEFORE WE GOT HERE. AND IT’S A
MODEL. I WANT TO THANK ALL THOSE INVOLVED, COUNCILLOR GRIMES,
COUNCILLOR CRESSY, SUB K4I9 TEE, THE STAFF.
I DIDN’T SPEND ENOUGH TIME BECAUSE I WAS — I WANT TO THANK
THEM VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.
>> THANK YOU. MOTION 1B. ALL IN FAVOR? RECORDED. >>COUNCILLOR MCKELVIE, PLEASE.
>>COUNCILLOR WONG-TAM, PLEASE. THE MOTION CARRES UNANIMOUSLY 25
IN FAVOR. >>MOTION 1C.
DID WE NEED A RECORDED VOTE ON THIS ONE? YES.
>>YES. >>RECORDED VOTE. >>THE MOTION CARRES UNANIMOUSLY
25 IN FAVOR. >> ITEM AS AMENDED ALL IN
FAVOR. CARRIED. SO ON T — PAGE 7T5.27 IT’S ON
THE SCREEN. ALL IN FAVOR. >>RECORDED VOTE, RECORDED VOTE.
>>RECORDED VOTE. >>COUNCILLOR FILION, PLEASE. THE MOTION CARRES UNANIMOUSLY 25
IN FAVOR. >>ON PAGE 7T5.26. ALL IN FAVOR.
CARRIED. OKAY SO THAT’S IT ON THAT ITEM. OKAY ON PAGE 3EX5.7. NUMBER OF UNWANTED
FIREARMS IN TORONTO. DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS TO STAFF? COUNCILLOR FLETCHER.
>>I’M NOT SURE IF THIS IS APPROPRIATE BUT UNWANTED
FIREARMS AND I BELIEVE THAT’S THE PROGRAM THAT WE’RE USING TO
ADDRESS THAT, THE BUY BACK, BUT I’M VERY INTERESTED IN WHAT IT
WOULD TAKE TO HAVE ANY LEGISLATION THAT WOULD ALLOW THE
CITY OF TORONTO TO DISCRETELY DEAL WITH HANDGUNS WITHIN OUR
OWN BOUNDARIES, LEGALLY. IN OTHER WORDS, RATHER THAN A
COUNTRY-WIDE BAN THAT WE WOULD HAVE AN ABILITY TO LIMIT OR BAN
HANDGUNS WITHIN OUR CITY LIMITS.>>THROUGH THE SPEAKER, THERE IS
A REPORT COME FORWARD — COMING FORWARD TO COUNCIL. I BELIEVE IN
THE JULY CYCLE THAT WILL ADDRESS ALL OF THE POTENTIAL
OPPORTUNITIES FOR LEGISLATIVE OR REGULATORY MEASURES TO ADDRESS
GUNS. >>AND IT WILL ALSO COVER VERY
CLEARLY THAT PATHWAY? >>I WILL CERTAINLY RAISE THAT
WITH THE STAFF DRAFTING THAT REPORT, THAT THERE’S BEEN AN
INTEREST IN THAT. IT WILL BE LOOKING AT ALL AVENUES AVAILABLE
TO THE MUNICIPALITY. >>WELL, THAT ONE IS NOT
AVAILABLE AT THE MOMENT. I’M WONDERING IF CITY LEGAL WOULD
LIKE TO COMMENT ON IF THERE’S ANY PATHWAY THAT ARE — THAT OUR
CITY SOLICITOR ACTUALLY KNOWS OR HOW HIGH THAT HURDLE IS.
>>THROUGH YOU MADAM SPEAKER LAST AUGUST COUNCIL ASKED FOR
REPORTSES ON A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT ISSUES PERTAINING TO
GUN CONTROL WITHIN THE CITY OF TORONTO WE’RE LOOKING AT THOSE
AND THERE WILL BE A REPORT COME TO THE JUNE CYCLE OF EXECUTIVE
COMMITTEE. >>AND YOU’RE SPECIFICALLY
LOOKING AT — I GUESS I’M ASKING ON THAT IT’S ONE THING TO REPORT
AND SAY WELL, WE CAN’T DO IT, AND IT’S ANOTHER THING TO REPORT
AND SAY HERE’S HOW THAT WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN. SO I’M QUITE
INTERESTED IN WHICH ONE WE’RE PURSUING.
>>WE CAN LOOK AT ASKS THAT COUNCIL COULD MAKE FOR NEW
LEGISLATION, AND COMMENT ON THAT IN THE REPORT.
CERTAIN ASPECTS OF GUN CONTROL ARE SQUARELY WITHIN THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT’S JURISDICTION AND OTHERS ARE SQUARELY WITH THE
PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT’S JURISDICTION.
>>AND SO FAR NONE ARE IN CITY’S JURISDICTION.
>>THERE’S VERY LITTLE ROOM. >>VERY LITTLE ROOM.
>>YES. >>OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>>YOU’RE UP. .
>>THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM SPEAKER. JUST A FEW QUESTIONS
WITH RESPECT TO THE FIREARMS THAT HAVE BEEN TURNED IN AS PART
OF THE BUY BACK PROGRAM. CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT TYPES
ARE THERE AND WHO’S ACTUALLY TURNING THEM IN? ARE THERE
FIREARMS BEING STORED IN PEOPLE’S BASEMENTS, BEEN AROUND
FOR 30 YEARS AND THEY’RE BEING BROUGHT IN, OR THIS IS OUR —
ARE FIREARMS BEING BROUGHT IN BY THOSE WHO ARE USING THEM
CREATING THE CARNAGE AND CHALLENGES THAT WE’RE ACTUALLY
HAVING IN THE CITY. >>THROUGH SPEAKER, WITH RESPECT
TO THE TYPES OF FIREARMS THERE’S BASICALLY 2 DIFFERENT
CATEGORIES, LONG GUNS AND HANDGUNS. THE SPLIT ROUGHLY IS
2-3RD LONG GUNS, 1-3RD HANDGUNS. CERTAINLY THERE IS A DESIRE TO PARTICULARLY COLLECT
HANDGUNS. WITH RESPECT TO WHO IS TURNING
THEM IN, THAT ANALYSIS HASN’T BEEN COMPLETED. THE PROGRAM
CONCLUDES THIS FRIDAY. WE CAN CERTAINLY TALK WITH TORONTO
POLICE SERVICE TO GET AS MUCH OF THAT INFORMATION ONCE THE
PROGRAM IS COMPLETE. AS WE CAN.
>>SO THROUGH YOU, SPEAKER, THE ISSUES THAT WE’RE HAVING IN THE
CITY AND PERHAPS ELSEWHERE OUTSIDE OF THE CITY, IS IT AN
ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO LONG GUNS, OR IS IT AN ISSUE WITH RESPECT
TO FIREARMS, HANDGUNS IN GENERAL?
>>THERE ARE ISSUES WITH RESPECT TO ALL GUNS. LONG GUNS CAN BE
MODIFIED. >>YEAH, BUT HAVE THEY BEEN?
ARE THEY? IS THAT ONE OF THE PROBLEMS WE’RE HAVING IN THE C
ITY? >>THERE IS AN ISSUE WITH LONG
GUNS BEING USED IN THAT WAY IN THE CITY.
>>YEP. >>BUT CERTAINLY HANDGUNS ARE A
FOCUS. >>SO THESE HANDGUNS THAT — AND
I REALIZE YOU JUST INDICATED THAT I GUESS MORE ANALYSIS HAS
GOT TO BE DONE, BUT THE ONES THAT HAVE BEEN TURNED IN, CAN
SOMEONE HELP ME TO UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS AND PROCEDURE THAT
IS REQUIRED FOR TURNING THEM IN? IS IT THAT THEY’RE BROUGHT TO A
STATION AND THEN THEY ARE DEALT WITH, OR WE DON’T TAKE THEM TO A
STATION, THE POLICE WILL GO TO YOUR HOME AND/OR MAYBE MEET YOU
OFF SITE SOMEWHERE, CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN HOW THAT PARTICULAR
PROCESS WORKS? >>WITH THIS PARTICULAR
INITIATIVE, THE APPROACH IS TO ENCOURAGE INDIVIDUALS WITH
FIREARMS THAT THEY WISH TO DISPOSE OF, DISPOSE OF TO
CONTACT TORONTO POLICE SERVICE. ON THE NON-EMERGENCY LINE.
TORONTO POLICE SERVICE THEN ARRANGES TO COME AND COLLECT THE
FIREARM. >>RIGHT. AND WHEN THOSE
FIREARMS — OR THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN
COLLECTED WHETHER OR NOT THEY BE LONG GUNS AND/OR HANDGUNS HAVE
THERE BEEN ANY TESTING DONE ON THESE FIREARMS TO DETERMINE
WHETHER OR NOT THERE’S A CONNECTIVITY AT ALL WITH RESPECT
TO THESE FIREARMS BEING UTILIZED IN GUN CRIME AND OTHER INCIDENTS
IN THE CITY? >>THERE IS. THE FIREARMS ARE SO
TESTED. AND THAT’S DONE BEFORE ANY REMUNERATION IS PAID FOR THE
FIREARM. >>SO THEN THIS — SO THERE’S NO
NEED FOR ANALYSIS WITH RESPECT, WE HAVE THAT INFORMATION BECAUSE
AS YOU’VE JUST INDICATED, WE HAVE THAT INFORMATION.
>>WE WILL HAVE THAT ANALYSIS, YES.
>>SO THEN, ARE WE GETTING TO THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM OR
JUST SIMPLY SAYING THAT WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO GATHER AND REMOVE
SOME OF THESE BEFORE IT GETS INTO THE HANDS OF THOSE WHO
WOULD BE ABLE TO UTILIZE THEM TO CREATE THE PROBLEMS THAT WE’RE
ACTUALLY TRYING TO ARREST IN THE CITY?
>>THIS INITIATIVE IS NOT TARGETED AT ROOT CAUSES. IT IS
TARGETED AT REMOVING AND ANY GUN THAT IS REMOVED FROM THE
PUBLIC IS A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
WE HAVE MANY, MANY OTHER INTERVENTIONS WHERE WE’RE
LOOKING TO ATTACK THE ROOT CAUSES.
>>SO THEN WE OUGHT NOT TO GET TOO EXCITED WITH RESPECT TO THIS
PROCESS. I MEAN, I’M ALL FOR REMOVING GUNS, PERIOD, BUT I
THINK THAT SOME OF THE CHALLENGES THAT WE SEE IN THE
CITY AND THE EXPECTATION OF THE PUBLIC, SHOULD WE THEN PERHAPS
TEMPER THAT A BIT WITH RESPECT TO THAT PROCESS IN TERMS OF
THEIR APPRECIATION OR UNDERSTANDING, AND I ASK THIS
QUESTION BECAUSE THOSE ARE SOME OF THE QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF
PUBLIC OF ME. I’M NOT CRITICIZ ING THE PROGRAM. I JUST WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE DON’T ESTABLISH A FALSE NARRATIVE IN
THE ASSUMPTION THAT SOMEHOW REMOVAL OF THESE AS YOU SAY
TWO-THIRDS LONG GUNS AND 1-3RD HANDGUNS ARE NOT BEING USED FOR
CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES THAT CREATES THIS FALLS NARRATIVE.
>>THROUGH THE SPEAKER, THIS IS NOT THE SOLUTION TO GUN
VIOLENCE. IT IS CERTAINLY AN IMPORTANT STEP AND A WORTHWHILE
INVESTMENT TO REMOVE AS MANY GUNS FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC AS
POSSIBLE. >>OKAY. GREAT. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. >>THANK YOU.
>>COUNCILLOR KARYGIANNIS YOU HAD
SOME QUESTIONS FIRST. >>THANK YOU.
HOW SUCCESSFUL HAS THE PROGRAM BEEN SO FAR?
>>THROUGH THE SPEAKER, WE ARE PREACHING 1500 FIREARMS BEING
COLLECTED THROUGH THE PROGRAM. WE HAVE RUN GUN AMNESTIES AND GUN BUY BACKS IN
THE PAST AND THAT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE IS BETTER THAN MOST
BUT NOT AS HIGH AS SOME AS WE’VE RUN IN THE PAST.
>>SO 1500. >>1500 GUNS, HOW MANY ARE LONG
GUNS AND HOW MANY ARE HANDGUNS. >>ROUGHLY A 2-3RD, 1-3RD SPLIT
IN FAVOR OF THE LONG GUNS. >>A THOUSAND LONG GUNS AND 500
HANDGUNS. >>APPROXIMATELY, YES, AND WE
HAVE ANOTHER THREE DAYS TO GO IN THE PROGRAM. THE PROGRAM RUNS
UNTIL FRIDAY. >>WOULD YOU BE EXTENDING THE
PROGRAM, WOULD THAT BE A POSITIVE STEP FORWARD?
>>THAT’S NOT CONTEMPLATED AT THIS TIME, AND THAT WE WOULD
TAKE THE LEAD FROM OUR COLLEAGUES IN TORONTO POLICE
SERVICE. >>THANK YOU. >>THANK YOU.
COUNCILLOR COLLE YOU HAD SOME QUESTIONS.
>>YES, JUST OF STAFF IN TERMS OF YOUR DISCUSSIONS WITH THE
POLICE AND BEING INVOLVED IN THIS AMNESTY PROGRAM, I WONDER
IF YOU COULD HELP ANSWER A QUESTION. WHAT I HEAR ON THE
STREETS IS THAT THERE’S MORE GUNS THAN EVER BEFORE AND
THEY’RE EASY TO GET, EASY TO RENT, AND ALSO THAT YOUNGER
PEOPLE ARE — SEEM TO BE CARRYING MORE GUNS THAN THEY HAD
BEFORE, THAT’S AGAIN ANT DOUGH TALLY.
WHAT ARE POLICE SAYING ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF GUNS ON THE STREET AS
IT RELATES TO THIS AMNESTY PROGRAM?
>>THROUGH THE SPEAKER, ALL OF THE ISSUES YOU’VE IDENTIFIED ARE
OF CONCERN BOTH TO OUR COLLEAGUES AND TORONTO POLICE
SERVICE AND TO OUR COLLEAGUES IN THE CITY WHO WORK WITH
COMMUNITIES DEALING WITH GUN VIOLENCE.
I WOULD BE HAPPY TO PROVIDE A REPORT AFTER THE PROGRAM IS
CONCLUDED. WE CAN CERTAINLY GET SOME ANALYSIS AND COMMENT FROM
TORONTO POLICE SERVICE AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE PROGRAM.
>>YES. AND THE SECOND QUESTION I HAVE IS IN TERMS OF THE SOURCE
OF THESE UNLAWFUL HANDGUNS USUALLY, YOU HEAR A LOT OF
DIFFERENT SORT OF EXPLANATIONS THAT THEY SAY THAT THEY’RE BEING
SMUGGLED ACROSS THE BORDER, THEY’RE BEING STOLEN OUT OF
HOMES, THEY’RE BEING TRANSPORTED ACROSS CANADA, DO WE HAVE ANY
INFORMATION FROM THE POLICE OR IN YOUR WORK ABOUT WHERE THEY’RE
ALL COMING FROM?
>>THERE IS DATA WITH RESPECT TO THE ORIGIN OF CERTAINLY CRIME
RELATED GUNS. AND IN THE REPORT THAT WILL BE COMING FORWARD IN
JUNE, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO PROVIDE SOME OF THAT DATA. I
DON’T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME TODAY. BUT WE’RE HAPPY TO GET
YOU THAT DATA. >>OKAY. THANK YOU. >>OKAY. THANK YOU, COUNCILLOR
COLLE. THOSE ARE THE ENDS OF QUESTIONS. COUNCILLOR
KARYGIANNIS YOU HELD THE ITEM DOWN.
>>I DO HAVE A MOTION THAT I’D LIKE TO PUT IT UP, PLEASE.
BASICALLY WHAT I’M LOOKING FOR IS THAT WE EXTEND THIS TO JUNE
17TH, BY ONE MORE MONTH, AND WE ASK THE TORONTO POLICE SERVICES
BOARD IN ORDER TO LOOK AT IT. I THINK IT’S A GOOD INITIATIVE. WE
HEARD THERE WERE 1500 GUNS THAT HAVE BEEN COLLECTED, 500
HANDGUNS, 1,000 LONG GUNS. I THINK THAT GOES A LONG WAYS IN
PROTECTING OUR CITIZENS. 500 GUN — HANDGUNS ESPECIALLY THAT ARE
OUT OF CIRCULATION, THAT LIMITS THE AMOUNT OF HANDGUNS THAT ARE
LIMITED TO CRIMINALS IN ORDER TO COMMIT ACTS AND CERTAINLY
CITIZENS OF TORONTO THAT DON’T WANT THOSE HANDGUNS CERTAINLY
GIVE THEM BACK. SO I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE EXTEND THIS BY
ASKING THE POLICE SERVICES BOARD TO EXTEND IT BY ONE MONTH IF NOT
MORE IN THEIR WISDOM AND FOR US TO CONTINUE IN THAT PROCESS IN
ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT HANDGUNS COME OFF THE STREET. >>THOSE ARE YOUR COMMENTS.
THANK YOU. MR. MAYOR YOUR NAME IS NOT THERE, BUT I UNDERSTAND
YOU WANTED TO SPEAK ON THE ITEM. YES, I HAVE NO ONE ELSE.
>> THERE’S NO ONE ELSE. WELL, MADAM SPEAKER, FIRST OF ALL, I’D
JUST LIKE TO SPEAK FOR A MOMENT TO THE PROGRAM ITSELF AND WHAT
WE’RE HERE TO DO IS OF COURSE TO FUND THE PROGRAM AS IT — AS IT
HAS BEEN PROPOSED WHICH WITH THE TIME LIMIT OF LATER THIS WEEK.
AND I THINK IT HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL. AND AGAIN, I KNOW
THERE’S BEEN A GREAT DEAL OF DEBATE ABOUT THIS. I’VE HEARD IT
AS I TRAVELED AROUND THE CITY, TALK RADIO. I THINK MOST AVERAGE
CITIZENS ACTUALLY THINK THIS IS ONE OF A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT
WE CAN DO TO TRY AND TAKE GUNS OFF THE STREET OR OUT OF THE
COMMUNITY. AND FACT IS THAT A LOT OF THESE GUNS ARE GUNS THAT
WERE IN FACT, LYING AROUND HOUSES OF LAW ABIDING CITIZENS
AND SO ON. THEY WERE THE ONES THAT CALLED THE POLICE. IN FACT
I’M SURE MOST OF THEM ALL OF THEM HAVE BEEN LAW ABIDING
CITIZENS. A LOT OF THOSE IF THEY WEREN’T USED IN SORT OF ENDED UP
BEING STOLEN AND USED IN CRIMINAL OFFENSE THAT IS WAY,
SOMETIMES IF THEY’RE LYING AROUND A HOUSE OR PROPERTY THEY
CAN END UP BEING USED IN ACTS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. THAT’S A VERY
COMMON THING THAT TRAGICALLY HAPPENS IN OUR COMMUNITY. TO ME,
THE NOTION OF GETTING THESE I THINK IT’S NOW UP TO 1500 GUNS,
GETTING THEM OUT OF THE COMMUNITY AND INTO THE HANDS OF
POLICE FOR TESTS INSTRUCTION IS NOTHING BUT A GOOD THING. IF IT
MEANS ONE GUN DOESN’T FALL INTO THE HANDS OF A CRIMINAL TO
COMMIT A CRIMINAL ACT INCLUDING ACT OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE — I
WILL SAY THAT THE DATES FOR THE PROGRAM WERE QUITE DELIBERATELY
SELECTED BY THE POLICE SERVICE. AND YOU HAVE TO RELY ON THEIR
EXPERTISE ON THESE MATTERS AS TO SORT OF THE TRYING TO THINK OF
THE RIGHT WORD, THE OPTIMUM PERIOD OF TIME DURING WHICH TO
HAVE THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATE IN THIS.
AS YOU MIGHT EXPECT THE NUMBERS OF THE GUNS THAT WERE TURNED IN
HAD AN INITIAL BURST THAT WAS THE MAJORITY OF THE 1500. IT HAS
SLOWED DOWN DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME. AND I THINK, I CAN’T
REALLY REPRESENT THEIR VIEWS HERE TODAY BECAUSE I DIDN’T
FRANKLY EXPECT THERE WOULD BE A MOTION TO EXTEND THE PROGRAM
WHICH CARRES WITH IT BY THE WAY FINANCIAL CONSEQUENCES AS WELL
WHICH WE’RE NOT HERE TO APPROVAL. WE’RE HERE TO APPROVE
THE BUDGET AS IT WAS COME TEMPERATURE PLATED TO THE 17TH
OF MAY, BUT I THINK THEY MIGHT BE HERE TO SAY WE’D BE BETTER
OFF TO DO ANOTHER BUY BACK ANOTHER TIME RATHER THAN EXTEND
THIS ONE IN TERMS OF OPTIMIZNG AGAIN, THE ATTENTION AND THE
MONEY OF THE POLICE SERVICE TO THIS PROJECT. SO I WILL NOT
BECAUSE I DON’T THINK IT’S A GOOD IDEA TO CARRY ON WITH THIS
ACTIVITY, I WILL VOTE AGAINST COUNCILLOR KARYGIANNIS’S MOTION
AND RATHER APPLY MY OWN EFFORTS TO TRY TO CONVINCE THE POLICE
SERVICE THAT WE SHOULD DO ANOTHER GUN BUY BACK SOME TIME
IN THE FUTURE WHEN WE GET ANOTHER FRESH START, ANOTHER
BURST OF — AND ANOTHER ROUND OF GUNS THAT WILL COME OFF THE
STREET. I BELIEVE EXTENDING IT ANOTHER MONTH IN THIS INSTANCE
WILL HAVE MINIMAL RETURNS AND THAT IS BASED IN PART ON SOME
DISCUSSIONS I’VE HAD WITH THE POLICE SERVICE AT THE BEGINNING
OF THIS INITIATION OF THIS PARTICULAR BUY BACK.
THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. >> OKAY. THANK YOU, MAYOR TORY.
SO SEEING NO OTHER SPEAKERS, COUNCILLORS, WE HAVE BEFORE US
FIRST A MOTION — A REQUEST FROM COUNCILLOR KARYGIANNIS, I THINK
WE CAN PUT IT ON THE SCREEN TO REQUEST THE POLICE BOARD TO
EXTEND THE PROGRAM. SEEING NO REQUESTS FOR A
RECORDED VOTE ALL IN FAIR. OH DID I HEAR RECORDED. RECORDED
VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR.
>>THE MOTION DOES NOT CARRY, THE VOTE IS 8-15.
>>OKAY. COUNCILLORS, ON THE MAIN ITEM ALL IN FAVOR. NOT
HEARING A REQUEST FOR RECORDED, ALL IN FAVOR. OH, A RECORDED
VOTE HAS BEEN REQUESTED. COUNCILLOR LAI, THANK YOU,
COUNCILLOR FLETCHER. .
>>COUNCILLORS, THAT BRINGS US TO PAGE 3 AUDIT 2.1. MOVING
FORWARD TOGETHER OPPORTUNITIES TO ADDRESS BROADER CITY
PRIORITIES IN TORONTO COMMUNITY HOUSES COOPERATION
REVITALIZATIONS, COUNCILLOR FLETCHER, YOU HELD IT. I
UNDERSTAND YOU HAVE A QUICK RELEASE UNLESS THERE ARE
QUESTIONS OF STAFF FIRST. SEEING NO QUESTIONS OF STAFF, WE WERE JUST GOING TO DISPENSE
OF THIS ITEM SO THAT — >>[OFF MIC] .
>>COUNCILLOR FLETCHER. >>MOTION IS TO CITY COUNCIL
REQUEST EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR HOUSING SECRETARY IN
CONSULTATION WITH CREATE TO TO REPORT TO THE JULY 3RD, 2019,
MEETING OF THE 34R57K HOUSING COMMITTEE ON CITY OPTIONS THAT
MAYBE INCLUDED ON REVITALIZATIONS THAT HAVE YET TO
OBTAIN PLANNING APPROVALS. AND THAT’S DIRECTLY FROM THE AUDITOR
GENERAL’S RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 1. SO WE’LL JUST SEE WHAT’S
POSSIBLE BEFORE WE CLOSE EVERYTHING OFF. WITH THAT I
WOULD JUST MOVE THAT AND THE REPORT.
>>OKAY. ON THE AMENDMENT BY COUNCILLOR FLETCHER ALL IN
FAVOR. CARRIED. ITEM AS AMENDED. ALL IN FAVOR. CARRIED.
OUR NEXT ITEM IS ON PAGE 3 AUDIT 2.4 REVIEW OF URBAN
FORESTRY. COUNCILLOR FILION HELD THE ITEM
DOWN. DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS OF STAFF?
COUNCILLOR FILION, COUNCILLOR FILION. YOU HELD THE ITEM DOWN.
DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS OF STAFF? >>I DON’T KNOW IF ANYONE ELSE
DOES. >>DOES ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS
OF STAFF. PLEASE PUT YOUR NAME. COUNCILLOR CARROLL QUESTIONS.
>>ONE SIMPLE QUESTION, MADAM SPEAKER. AND I APOLOGIZE BECAUSE
THIS MAY HAVE BEEN ASKED IN AUDIT. I WASN’T ABLE TO ATTEND
THAT MEETING. THE CENTRAL — CENTRAL ISSUE
HERE IS — IS REQUIRNG AN INSTALLATION OF GPS AMONGST OUR
CONTRACTED SERVICES AND THEN IT APPEARS WE WEREN’T MONITORING
IT. WHAT I’M WONDERING IS IF IN THE COURSE OF THE AUDIT ANYONE
WOUND THE CLOCK ALL THE WAY BACK TO WHEN IT WAS FIRST PROPOSED WE
DO THAT, WHEN IT WAS FIRST PROPOSED TO US, WERE WE OFFERED
A PROJECT THAT WOULD HAVE INCLUDED THE HUMAN RESOURCES
POSES TO PROPERLY MONITOR THIS? IS THIS A MATTER OF BRINGING
FORWARD A PROPOSAL AND THEN TRIMMING IT BACK IN
IMPLEMENTATION IS WHAT I’M GETTING AT.
>>THERE’S TWO SEPARATE ITEMS. >>RIGHT.
>>OUR CONTRACTOR VEHICLES. >>RIGHT.
>> WHICH WAS FIRST REQUIRED IN 2017 AS PART OF THE CONTRACT
SGRFRNL RIGHT. >>SECOND ISSUE THAT THE AUDITOR
RECOMMENDED IS INSTALLING GPS IN ALL THE CITY CONTRACTED
VEHICLES. >>YES.
>>AND WORK IS ALREADY UNDERWAY TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN IN THE NEXT
SEVERAL MONTHS. >>RIGHT.
>>SO ON THE CONTRACTOR VEHICLES THERE ARE GUIDELINES THAT WE
HAVE IN PLACE AROUND MANAGNG THE — THE WORKLOAD OF THOSE
CONTRACTORS IN DOUBLE-CHECKING THEM. THE GPS WHICH WE DON’T
HAVE REAL TIME ACCESS TO IS USED AS THAT FULL PROOF WITH THE
CONTRACTOR IF WE’RE QUESTIONING THEIR DAILY LOGS. SO MOVING
FORWARD AND PART OF THE AUTD DID IT OR’S RECOMMENDATION WE’LL BE
INCREASING OUR REQUIREMENTS AROUND THOSE TYPES OF CHECK
BACKS SPECIFICALLY USING THE GPS.
>>MOVING FORWARD. >>THAT’S CORRECT.
>>BUT WHAT I’M ASKING IS WHEN WE HAD THIS GRAND IDEA SO THAT
WE COULD HAVE MORE MANAGEMENT AND BE MORE ACCOUNTABLE, IN
TERMS OF MANAGNG CONTRACTED SERVICES, WHEN WE PROPOSED WHAT
WE NOW DO AS OF 2017, DID WE BRING FORWARD A MORE RIO BUST
FORM OF MONITORING AND THEN TRIM IT BACK TO GPS.
>>WE DID NOT. ONCE THE REQUIREMENTS OF CONTRACTORS WERE
BROUGHT INTO THE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS WE CONTINUED TO USE
THE SAME RESOURCES TO MONITOR THE CONTRACTOR WORK.
>>SO THE QUESTION IS THIS: DOES THE LEARNING EXTENT TO NOT
ONLY IMPROVING THIS PROGRAM, BUT HAVE WE NOW LEARNED IF WE’RE
GOING TO USE — IF WE’RE GOING TO ADD A MORE TECHNOLOGICAL
BASE TO HOW WE HOLD CONTRACTED SERVICES ACCOUNTABLE, ARE WE
LEARNING FROM THIS? THAT WHEN WE FIRST DEVISED THAT, WHEN WE
FIRST PROPOSED THAT AND GO THROUGH THE PROCUREMENT, GO
THROUGH THE STAFFING MODEL, GET COUNCIL TO ADOPT IT, THAT BUILT
INTO IT GOING FORWARD FROM THE GET-GO FROM IMPLEMENTATION WILL BE THE TYPE
OF MANAGEMENT THAT THE AUDITOR GENERAL IS TELLING US WE SHOULD
HAVE DONE HERE RIGHT FROM THE GET-GO.
>>THROUGH THE SPEAKER, THAT’S CORRECT. I SHOULD ALSO MENTION
THAT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF OUR OWN WORK ORDER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
WHICH IS HAPPENING THROUGHOUT THE CITY, WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN
APPROXIMATELY 1 YEAR AND ALL FORESTRY IS THE FIRST ROLLOUT OF
THAT PROGRAM WHERE THE TYPE OF GPS MONITORING YOU’RE SPEAKING
ABOUT WILL BE PART OF THAT MORE AUTOMATED APPROACH. SO IT WILL
TAKE THE MANUAL WORK AWAY FROM STAFF WITH REAL TIME MONITORING
OF THOSE CONTRACTS. >>BUT A HUMAN WILL DO THE
MONITORING SO THAT WE’RE NOT SPENDING ON THE TECH FOR
NOTHING. >>THAT’S CORRECT.
>>OKAY. THANK YOU. >>THANK YOU. COUNCILLOR HOLYDAY, QUESTIONS.
>>THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. I THINK MY FIRST QUESTION IS TO
MR. — I JUST WONDERED IF I COULD UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT
BETTER WHAT THE CODIFIED REQUIREMENTS ARE OF
MANAGERS IN GENERAL, I MEAN THE WHOLE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND
PEOPLE TO LOOK AFTER AND OVERSEE WORK IS REGARDING CONTRACT
MANAGEMENT. WE’VE GOT A LOT OF CONTRACTS. THIS IS JUST ONE
EXAMPLE OF THEM IN THIS PARTICULAR AUDIT.
>>THROUGH THE SPEAKER, THE PURCHASNG BYLAW DOES PROVIDE FOR
PROVISIONS THAT SET OUT THAT DIVISION HEADS AND THE PROJECT
LEADS THAT THEY ASSIGN TO MANAGE CONTRACTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR
CONTRACT MANAGEMENT. AND I’M SURE IN VARIOUS JOB DESCRIPTIONS
CONTRACT MANAGEMENT IS INCLUDED AS JOB DESCRIPTIONS FOR VARIOUS
TYPES OF STAFF. .
>>SO I’LL MAKE THE OBSERVATION AND I WONDER IF YOU COULD
QUALIFY OR CONFIRM THAT, BUT A GENERAL GOVERNMENT AND LICENSING
COMMITTEE WE DO OFTEN GETS REPORTS TO WHICH WE QUESTION YOU
ON ON CONTRACTS AND CHANGES TO CONTRACTS. AND OF COURSE T AUDIT
COMMITTEE WHERE THERE’S A FEW OF THEM ON THIS PARTICULAR AGENDA
AND WE SEE THEM OFTEN ON CONTRACTS. WOULD IT BE FAIR TO
SAY THAT THE PURCHASEG BYLAW AND PERHAPS OTHER BYLAWS ARE
IMPORTANT AND APPLICABLE TO THE LIFE OF THESE CONTRACTS?
>> THROUGH THE SPEAKER, YES, I HAD SAY THAT IT IS. IT’S
IMPORTANT THAT IF WE’RE GOING TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTUAL
ARRANGEMENTS WITH THESE VENDORS THAT WE’RE MANAGNG THEM TO THE
CONTRACT. SO THAT WE CAN ENSURE WE’RE
GETTING BEST VALUE. >>WHEN YOU EMBARK ON A
PROCUREMENT PROJECT WITH ANY DIVISION OR ANY DEPARTMENT, WHAT
DOES YOUR AREA DO TO DISCUSS THIS CONCEPT OF THE REQUIREMENT
FOR CONTRACT MANAGEMENT GOING FORWARD, OR MAYBE EVEN A
BROADER QUESTION: IS IT CONSIDERED PART OF THE
PROCUREMENT LIFE CYCLE OF A PROJECT TO MANAGE IT ONCE IT’S
PAST THE SELECTION OF A VENDOR STAGE?
>>THROUGH THE SPEAKER, IT IS CERTAINLY PART OF THE
PROCUREMENT LIFE CYCLE. AS PART OF THE PROCESS WE’LL REMIND DIVISIONS OF THEIR
RESPONSIBILITY TO MANAGE THE CONTRACTS, LOOK FOR
OVEREXPENDITURES, YOU KNOW, GET THE PROPER APPROVALS IN ADVANCE.
WE DON’T HAVE — BEYOND THAT WE DON’T HAVE PURCHASNG DOES NOT
HAVE A CENTRALIZED CAPACITY TO ASSIST DIVISIONS IN DOING THAT,
BUT WE ARE TRYING TO BUILD IN SOME TOOLS OURSELVES AND JAMIE
HAS MENTIONED TOOLS THAT THEY’RE TRYING TO BUILD INTO ASSIST
THEIR ABILITY TO MANAGE CONTRACTS BETTER.
>>TO THE CITY MANAGER, MADAM SPEAKER. AS WE WORK THROUGH THIS
FILE AT AUDIT COMMITTEE, THIS PARTICULAR AUDIT WE LEARNED A
LOT ABOUT HOW IT WORKS WITH FORESTRY AND HOW THE CONTRACTS
ARE OVERSEEN, HOW THE WORK IS DIVIDED. BUT PERHAPS THERE STILL
ARE QUESTIONS UNANSWERED OR CONCERNS OUT THERE. I MEAN YOU
OPEN ANY NEWSPAPER YOU CAN SEE THAT. I WONDERED THROUGH YOU
MADAM SPEAKER, TO YOU THE CITY MANAGER, IS THIS SOMETHING THAT
THE MANAGEMENT TEAM IS LOOKING AT? AND NOT JUST ABOUT THIS
FILE, BUT CONTRACTS IN GENERAL, AND MAYBE ABOUT THIS FILE? ARE
YOU TAKING A CLOSER LOOK AT THE FINDINGS OF THE AUDITOR AND WHAT
ARE YOU DOING AS THE HEAD REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CITY’S
MANAGEMENT TEAM TO DEAL WITH THIS CONCEPT OF WATCHING THESE
THING UNFOLD? >>SO THROUGH THE SPEAKER,
YOU’LL RECALL, COUNCILLOR, WHEN WE WERE PRESENTING THE BUDGET
BACK A FEW MONTHS AGO I TALKED ABOUT THE MEET FOR THE TORONTO
PUBLIC SERVICE TO EARN COUNCIL AND THIS COMMUNITY’S TRUST AND
CONFIDENCE. SO WHEN YOU GET A REPORT LIKE THE ONE THAT WE HAVE
HERE FROM THE AUDITOR IT STARTS EITHER TO CALL INTO QUESTION
WHETHER OR NOT WE’VE EARNED THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE WHEN WE
HAVE THESE KINDS OF PROBLEMS SURFACE. SO THAT TO SAY THAT
JULIE AND I HAVE IN FACT, BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR
MATTER THAT’S BEEN BROUGHT TO EVERYONE’S ATTENTION, THERE IS A
DEEPER DIVE BEING DONE RIGHT NOW TO LOOK AT WHAT RULES WERE
FOLLOWED, WHAT RULES MAY NOT HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED AS CAREFULLY
AS THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN. WE’RE LOOKING AT IT FROM BOTH
CERTAINLY A TORONTO PUBLIC SERVICE STANDPOINT BUT ALSO FROM
THE CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILIIES AS WELL.
AND SO WITH ANY DEEP DIVE I EXPECT THAT THE END WILL BE
FINDINGS AND THOSE FINDINGS WILL RESULT IN MEASURED REACTIONS TO
THOSE FINDINGS. SO I’M NOT GOING TO PREDICT WHAT IT IS OBVIOUSLY
THAT WE’RE GOING TO DO AT THIS POINT IN TIME, BUT YOU KNOW, I
GO BACK TO THE IMPORTANCE OF EARNING TRUST AND CONFIDENCE OF
THIS COUNCIL AND THIS COMMUNITY. AND THAT’S WHAT I’M COMMITTED TO
DOING. AND IN TERMS OF THE BROADER NATURE OF CONTRACTS AND
OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE THAT PAYMENTS DON’T OCCUR UNTIL
THE WORK HAS BEEN PROVEN, THAT’S A UNIVERSAL REQUIREMENT, I THINK
OF ALL THINGS THAT WE PURCHASE FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR, AND
AGAIN, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO BE VIGILANT ON THAT. I DON’T EXPECT
PURCHASNG TO OVERSEE EVERY TRANSACTION IN THAT MANNER AS
POINTED OUT, BUT CERTAINLY THE PROGRAM OFFICES THAT ARE
CONTRACTCONTRACTING WORK DO HAVE THAT RESPONSIBILITY.
>>THANK YOU. COUNCILLOR FLETCHER.
>> I JUST HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT ON THIS
FILE. AND WOULD IT BE THE SAME
MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT ON THE CONTRACTORS, THE SAME MANAGER
OVERSEEING THE CONTRACTORS AS ARE OVERSEEING THE CITY CREWS
THAT ARE GOING OUT? >>SO THROUGH THE SPEAKER, THE
REQUIREMENTS ON CONTRACT MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT ARE
ACTUALLY MORE THAN THE OVER SIGHT ON THE SAME CITY CREWS.
SO AS AN EXAMPLE THERE’S A REQUIREMENT FOR OUR FOREMAN FOR
CITY CREWS TO VISIT ONE CREW PER WEEK. THERE’S A REQUIREMENT FOR
OUR FOREMEN — >>OUR PEOPLE, YEAH.
>>SO VISIT ONE CITY CREW PER WEEK AS A SITE VISIT. THE
REQUIREMENT IS 2 CONTRACTOR CREWS PER WEEK FOR THE
CONTRACTOR CREW. SO THE OVERSIGHT REQUIREMENTS ARE
ACTUALLY HIGHER THAN WITH CITY CREWS.
>>AND SO HOW MANY FOREMEN — FOREPERSONS ARE THERE OVERSEEING
CITY CREWS AND HOW MANY ARE THERE OVERSEEING THE CONTRACT?
>>THERE’S A TOTAL OF 18 FOREMEN, FOUR PEOPLE.
>>18, FOUR PEOPLE AND THE NUMBER THAT ARE DEDICATED
SOCIALLY TO CONTRACT MANAGED WORK?
>>THEY MAY NOT BE COMPLETE DEDICATED TO CONTRACT
MANAGEMENT. THEY WOULD HAVE A GROUP OF CREWS.
>>HOW DID THEY REPORT OUT AND WHO DID THEY REPORT TO?
>>SO THE 4 PEOPLE WILL REPORT TO SUPERVISORS, WHO WILL REPORT
TO MANAGERS WHO THEN REPORT INTO THE DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION WHO
ULTIMATELY REPORT TO SAY MYSELF.>>AND MAYBE I’LL ASK THE AUTD
DID IT OR GENERAL SURGEON — AUDITOR GENERAL —
>>RIGHT THERE. >>SO THE LITTLE GPS MAPS THAT
YOU HAD FOR THE CREWS, DID YOU HAVE THE SAME MAPS FOR THE THE
FOREPEOPLE, THE FOREPERSONS SHOWING WHERE THEY HAD GONE AND
THEIR OVERSIGHT. >>SO WE’RE LEARNING THAT
THERE’S 2 VISITS A WEEK TO CREWS.
>>WE DIDN’T FOLLOW THE SAME MAP BECAUSE THE CITY VEHICLES DO NOT
HAVE GPS IN THEM, BUT WE DID MONITOR WHEN THEY DID THEIR
INSPECTIONS. WE DID FIND THEY DID THEIR INSPECTIONS IN THE
MORNING. AND NOT SO MUCH IN THE AFTERNOON. THAT’S WHERE WE FOUND
MOST OF THE ISSUES WAS IN THE AFTERNOON.
>>THANK YOU. AND YOU ALSO FOUND THAT SOME
CONTRACTORS THAT LOOKS AS IF THEY WERE DOING PRIVATE TREES,
IS THAT YOUR ASSUMPTION THAT AT TIMES THAT THERE WAS PRIVATE
TREE WORK BEING UNDERTAKEN BY CERTAIN —
>>IT WAS WORK DONE IN A CEMETERY, THEY WEREN’T CITY
TREES. AND ESSENTIALLY THERE WAS WORK THAT WE COULDN’T TIE TO
CITY TREES. >>SO WHERE THE STOP WAS.
>>CORRECT. >>I MEAN, IT’S ONE THING TO
STOP AT A COFFEE SHOP, WE KNOW THAT’S FOR THE COFFEE, BUT ON A
STREET ADDRESS OR RESIDENTIAL STREET ADDRESS THAT ISN’T ON THE
LIST THEN YOU MIGHT ASSUME THAT THAT IS NOT A CITY TREE, THAT’S
— >>CORRECT.
>>– THAT’S A PRIVATE TREE. >>CORRECT.
>>OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR REPORT.
>>THANK YOU. COUNCILLOR PASTERNAK.
>>THANK YOU. THANK YOU MADAM SPEAKER, THROUGH YOU TO THE
AUDITOR GENERAL. I NOTICE IN RECOMMENDATION 5 YOU MAKE
REFERENCE TO MOVING OR TOWING PARKED VEHICLES FOR TREE
TRIMMING. HOW OFTEN ARE WE TOWING VEHICLES BEEN THE 3-HOUR
PARKING LIMIT FOR THE TRIMMING OF A TREE?
>>QUESTION, HOW OFTEN — >>I MEAN ARE THESE LEGALLY
PARKED VEHICLES OR — AND HOW QUICKLY CAN YOU ARRANGE FOR A
TOW TRUCK TO — TO TOW A CAR FOR TREE TRIM.
>>SO MADAM SPEAKER, THEY TOW THEM AWAY FROM THE AREA NOT
NECESSARILY COMPLETELY TOW THEM. OUT OF THE ENTIRE DISTRICT. THEY
JUST MOVE THEM SO THEY CAN ACCESS A TREE. BUT WE FOUND ON
AVERAGE BETWEEN A HALF AN HOUR AND 3 AND A HALF HOURS WAS
DEDICATED TO THAT TIME WHERE THE TREE — THE TREES COULDN’T BE
ACCESSED. >>SO THE SUBCONTRACTOR OR CITY
CREW WOULD CALL A TOWING COMPANY AND HAVE THE CAR MOVED.
>> CORRECT. >>IS THAT HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS?
>>THAT’S CORRECT. >> OKAY. I GUESS RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 2
WITH THE — WITH THE GPS IN CITY VEHICLES HAVE
ANY CONSULTATIONS TAKEN PLACE WITH OUR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
UNITS ON WHETHER WE CAN EVER GET THAT DONE, OR WOULD THEY —
>>THROUGH THE SPEAKER WE ARE FOLLOWING THROUGH AS NOTED IN
THE — IN OUR RESPONSE. WE SUPPORT ALL OF THE AUDITOR
GENERAL’S RECOMMENDATIONS IN THIS REPORT. WE ARE LOOKING AT
THE IMPLEMENTATION RIGHT NOW OF GPS FOR ALL FORESTRY CREWS AS A
BEGINNING. AND WE WILL BE CONSULTING WITH OUR BARGAINING
UNITS BUT THAT CONSULTATION HAS NOT TAKEN PLACE YET.
>>WHEN IT COMES TO I GUESS RECOVERING FUNDS THAT
HAVE BEEN PAID FOR NON-WORK, IS THERE — IS THERE ANY HOPE TO
RECOVER THOSE FUNDS? ARE WE HOLDING BACK ANY INVOICES, OR
ARE WE CANCELLING CONTRACTS? WHAT’S OUR ACTION?
>>SO THROUGH THE SPEAKER, ALL OF THE ABOVE. OUR FIRST RECOURSE
IS TO BE MEETING WITH OUR VENDORS AROUND THE RESULTS OF
THE AUDITOR GENERAL’S REPORT WHICH WE’VE ALREADY BEGUN THOSE
MEETINGS. WE’RE REVIEWING ALL OF THE LOGS THAT THE AUTD DID IT OR
GENERAL BROUGHT UP WITH THEM. THAT WERE PROBLEMATIC TO HAVE
THEM LOOK AT THEIR OWN LOGS TO MAKE SOME COMPARISONS, AND
CERTAINLY OUR INTENT WOULD BE TO RECOVER ANY OVERPAYMENT THAT THE
CITY HAS — HAS ALREADY DONE THROUGH THESE INVOICES.
>>SO ON OUR CONTRACTS, ARE WE PAYING ON A PER TREE BASIS, OR
ARE WE PAYING — ARE THEY SORT OF MONTHLY?
>>SO THROUGH THE SPEAKER, FOR THESE VENDORS, THE CONTRACTS ARE
HOURLY AND WEEKLY AROUND THE INVOIING OVERSIGHT.
>>AND DO THE SAME COMPANIES DO THE PLANTING AS WELL?
>>PARDON ME? >>ARE THE COMPANIES THAT WE
HIRE FOR PLANTING ON THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, THE SAME COMPANIES
WE HIRE FOR TRIMMING? >>THROUGH SPEAKER, THESE
VENDORS ARE DOING A VARIETY OF FOREST TEE OPERATIONS INCLUDING
TREE PLANTING. >> OKAY. THANK YOU.
>>THANK YOU. OKAY. THAT’S IT FOR THE
QUESTIONS. SPEAKERS. COUNCILLOR FILION.
>>YES. THANK YOU. SO THIS IS OBVIOUSLY IT WOULD
APPEAR THAT WE HAVE COMPANIES THAT ARE CONTRACTED TO THE CITY
WHO WEREN’T DOING THE JOB THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO DO. AND THEY
WERE PEOPLE WHO WORKED FOR THE CITY WHO WERE SUPPOSED TO BE
SUPERVISNG THEM WHO WEREN’T DOING THE JOB THEY WERE SUPPOSED
TO DO. THAT’S ALL DISTURBING AND
EMBARRASSING AND THAT’S ALL IN THE NEWSPAPERS AND I THINK MOST
PEOPLE KNOW THAT STORY. THERE’S A FLIP SIDE TO THIS, HOWEVER,
WHICH I THINK ADDRESSES THE NEED FOR TRUST AND CONFIDENCE
THAT OUR PUBLIC WOULD HAVE IN WHAT WE DO HERE. AND THAT IS THE
FACT THAT WE FOUND THIS, AND NOT ONLY DID WE FIND IT, BUT WE WERE
WILLING TO FIND IT IN A VERY PUBLIC AND POTENTIALLY
EMBARRASSING WAY BECAUSE WE HAVE AN AUDITOR GENERAL WHO WE NOT
ONLY SEND OUT TO DO THIS WORK AND TO REPORT BACK VERY
PUBLICALLY, BUT RECENTLY WE EVEN SAID DO MORE OF IT, AND WE
INCREASED HER BUDGET IN A TIME WHEN WE WERE FLATLINNG A LOT OF
OTHER BUTTED GETS. WE SAID HERE’S SOME MORE FUNDING, GO OUT
AND DO MORE OF THIS. SO I THINK BOTH THE PUBLIC AND THE
PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT CAN FEEL BOTH CONFIDENT AND IN THE CASE
OF THE LATER PERHAPS ENVIOUS, THAT WE DO HAVE A SYSTEM IN
PLACE THAT FINES THE INN — FINDS THE INN EFFICIENCES AND
HAS AN EFFECTIVE WAY OF DEALING WITH THEM. SO I JUST WANTED TO
ADD THAT TO THE MIX. THANK YOU. >>ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS
ON THE ITEM? OKAY. SO ON THE ITEM.
OKAY. I — COUNCILLOR FLETCHER TO SPEAK.
>>YES, SIMPLY WANT TO NOTE THAT IN SOME PARTS OF THE CITY WHEN
THERE’S GOING TO BE TREE TRIM OF OUR TREES THAT ARE IN OUR
RIGHT-OF-WAY, THE NIGHT BEFORE THERE ARE SIGNS, AND I’VE SEEN
THIS IN MY WARD, THAT GET PUT OUT ADVISNG EVERYONE THAT TREE
TRIBAL WILL BE TAKING PLACE. IT DOES NOT HAPPEN ACROSS THE
ENTIRE CITY. DOESN’T HAPPEN IN EVERY WARD. I DON’T KNOW WHAT
TRIGGERS THAT, OR HOW YOU GET THAT, BUT I THINK THAT SHOULD BE
THE STANDARD PRACTICE. BECAUSE HEARING THAT CREWS ARE
WAITING FOR A TOW TRUCK, THAT JUST SEEMS LIKE TREMENDOUS
WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY, PERHAPS THERE’S OTHER TREES THAT ARE
CLOSE BY ONE COULD TRIM, OR WATER. BUT THERE NEEDS TO BE A
MUCH STRONGER REGIMEN TO LET THE PUBLIC KNOW THAT THERE WILL BE THAT — THAT THAT
ROAD WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE BETWEEN CERTAIN HOURS AT CERTAIN
TIMES BECAUSE WE WILL BE TRIMMING TREES.
SO IF WE WERE TO LOOK AT THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WE’VE LOST
IS THAT WAY IT’S PROBABLY A VERY LARGE AMOUNT OF MONEY. AND I DO
THINK — I HAVE SEEN THIS WORK. AND I DON’T KNOW IF IT’S A PILOT
PROGRAM, IT’S NOT A PILOT PROGRAM, IT’S JUST NOT UFTD
EVERYWHERE. AND WHERE THERE IS PERMIT
PARKING PEOPLE NEED SOME EXPECTATION THAT THEIR PERMIT
— BLESS YOU — THAT THEY’RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO USE THEIR
PERMIT AT THAT CERTAIN TIME. SO THEIR PERMIT PARKING RIGHTS
WILL BE TAKEN OVER BY GREATER CITY RIGHTS WHICH IS TREE TRIM.
SO I’M LOOKING AT THE GENERAL MANAGER AND SHE’S NODDING HER
HEAD THAT THIS IS A PRACTICE A THAT ALONG WITH ALL THE OTHER
RECOMMENDATIONS THE AUDITOR GENERAL HAS MADE WE SHOULD DO
THAT BECAUSE I DON’T THINK THAT WAS IN AS STRICT OF A
RECOMMENDATION AS IT COULD HAVE BEEN. THANK YOU. >>THANK YOU. ON THE ITEM RECORDED VOTE. >>OUR NEXT ITEM IS ON PAGE 4. >>I’M SORRY WE FORGOT TO CHANGE
THE CHAIR, THE VOTE IS UNANIMOUSLY 23 IN FAVOR.
>>THANK YOU. THE NEXT ITEM IS ON PAGE 4HL6.3, SERVICE
AGREEMENTS AWARDED. AND EXECUTED BY THE MEDICAL
OFFICER OF HEALTH. COUNCILLOR HOLYDAY YOU HELD THE ITEM DOWN.
DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS? .
>>[OFF MIC]. >>DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS? >>NO, MADAM SPEAKER I WAS ABLE
TO GET THEM OFFLINE. >>OKAY.
DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS. OKAY ON THE ITEM ALL IN FAVOR. CARRIED.
NEXT ITEM ON PAGE 4G L4.7 REDEVELOPMENT OF ST. LAWRENCE
MARKET NORTH DEPUTY MAYOR MINNAN-WONG
YOU HELD THE ITEM DOWN. DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS OF STAFF?
OKAY. >> YES.
>>OKAY. QUESTIONS. >> YEAH, WHAT WAS THE ORIGINAL
CONTRACT PRICE FOR THIS PROJECT?>> HOLD ON I’LL RESET YOUR TIMER.
>> THANK YOU. >>THROUGH THE SPEAKER THE
ORIGINAL CONTRACT PRICE WAS 81 MILLION.
>>SO THE REPORT IN 2010, SAID 75 MILLION.
THE REPORT IN 2010, REPORT SAID IT WAS 75 MILLION.
>>OH, SO THAT’S THE PROJECT VALUE OF THE PROJECT BACK IN —
YOU’RE CORRECT IN 2009, THE PROJECT WAS A CLASS D BUDGET AND
BASED ON THE CONCEPT DESIGN AT THAT TIME. THE BUDGET WAS 79
MILLION. >>AND THAT WAS FUNDED OVER
VARIOUS YEARS, CORRECT? >>THAT’S CORRECT. THROUGHOUT
THE PROCESS OF DESIGN THE BUDGET WAS REVISITED AGAIN IN 2013,
WHEN THEY HAD WERE AT SCHEMATIC DESIGN. AT THAT POINT THEY
REALIZED — STAFF REALIZED THAT THE PROJECT
BUDGET WAS BASED ON $2,009 AND HAD TO BE INCREASED AT THAT
POINT IN TIME. >>WHEN WE BUDGET THOSE THINGS
DON’T WE ADJUST FOR INFLATION? >>TYPICALLY, YES, WE DO.
>>DID WE MISS THAT IN THIS ONE?>>I WASN’T HERE AT THAT TIME.
SO I — TYPICALLY WE WOULD — WE WOULD BUDGET FOR ESCALATIONS,
BUT, AGAIN, AT THAT TIME I WASN’T HERE SO I CAN’T ADDRESS
THAT WE. >>ALL RIGHT. THEN MAYBE —
>>CAN ANYBODY ANSWER THAT QUESTION?
>>THROUGH THE SPEAKER, I’LL JUST GIVE YOU A BIT OF THE
HISTORY DEPUTY MAYOR, SO IN 2013, THEY HAD BEEN DOING VALUE
ENGINEERING OF THE PROJECT BECAUSE THE ACTUAL AMOUNT WAS
OVER A HUNDRED MILLION, SO WE BROUGHT IT DOWN TO 91. WE CAME
TO COUNCIL FOR THE BUDGET AND GOT IT APPROVED IN 2014 FOR
91.4. >>SO WE START AT 75.
>>WE START AT 75. IT HAD 250U8 NO DESIGN. SO THERE WAS NO
INFORMATION TO ACTUALLY DICTATE WHETHER I IT’S 75 OR 91. SO THE
WORK THAT WE DID WITH THE WINNING DESIGN WAS THROUGH THAT
PROCESS THAT BROUGHT US TO 91 DOT 4.
>>DID THEY USE THE TERM CONCEPTUAL WHEN THE PROJECT WAS
APPROVED IN 2010? AND PUT IN THE BUDGET?
>>I CAN LOOK THAT UP FOR YOU DEPUTY MAYOR.
>>SO NOW WE’RE UP TO 160 MILLION, YES?
>>WE ARE AT 160 AND THAT IS THE REQUEST.
>>THAT MEANS THAT WE’VE HAD A BUDGET INCREASE IN THIS PROJECT
OF $41 MILLION WHICH REPRESENTS A 55% INCREASE IN THE PROJECT. >>THROUGH THE SPEAKER, THAT IS
CORRECT. >>SO WHILE I’M ACTUALLY GOING
TO GIVE YOU SOME INFORMATION, DEPUTY MAYOR, THAT IS IMPORTANT
TO UNDERSTAND. IN 2013 WE’RE AT 914, 2017, 2018 WE HAD
REQUESTED TO GO TO 102, AND WE DID. AND THERE WAS A LOT OF WORK
AROUND THAT WE DID — THAT WAS NOT PART OF ANY BUDGET AND WE
CAME TO COUNCIL FOR THAT APPROVAL THAT GOT US TO 102.
THEN WE ACTUALLY WENT TO ACTUAL TO MARKET AND WE’RE AT 116 NOW
AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE 102 AND 116 IS ABSOLUTELY 90% OF
IT HAS TO DO WITH CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND THE MARKET RIGHT NOW.
>>SO WELL, FIRSTLY, JUST FROM A REPORT WRITING ARRANGEMENT, I DON’T SEE THIS IN THE SUMMARY.
I DON’T SEE THIS IN THE FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS. I HAVE A
CERTAIN LEVEL OF CONCERN. AND I DON’T KNOW TO THE DEPUTY CITY
MANAGER OR THE CITY MANAGER THAT IF YOU’RE GOING TO BE COMPLETELY
TRANSPARENT AND IF YOU’RE GOING TO GIVE THE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
THAT WE SHOULD START FROM THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT PRICE.
>>SO — >>IS THAT, MR. CITY MANAGER, IS
THAT AN UNREASONABLE PROPOSITION?
>>THROUGH THE SPEAKER, I THINK ON THE SURFACE NO, IT’S NOT AN
UNREASONABLE WAY TO COMMUNICATE.>>RIGHT. SO IN THE FINANCIAL
IMPLICATIONS WE SHOULD BE DISCUSSING IT’S BEEN A 55%
INCREASE AND IT’S $41 MILLION OVER BUDGET.
>>THROUGH THE SPEAKER, SO BASED ON WHAT WE’VE HEARD, THAT’S A
REASONABLE CONCLUSION. >>YEAH. SO THIS IS NOT SORT OF THE FIRST
PROJECT, THAT UNION STATION COME UP, THIS SEEMS TO BE — THERE
SEEMS TO BE REASONS ON MANY DIFFERENT CAPITAL PROJECTS THERE
SEEMS TO BE DIFFERENT REASONS ALL THE TIME THAT WE’RE RUNNING
OVER BUDGET. AND THIS IS NOT NEW TO THIS
CHAMBER. I GUESS MY QUESTION IS: ARE
THERE ANY PROJECTS THAT WE’RE TRACKING THAT WE SHOULD BE
CONCERNED ABOUT, THAT ARE GOING TO EXHIBIT SIGNIFICANT COSTS,
OVERRUNS THAT WE KNOW ABOUT RIGHT NOW?
>>THROUGH SPEAKER, THE PROJECTS ARE IN FRONT OF YOU, DEPUTY
MAYOR. >>PARDON ME?
>>THE PROJECT IN FRONT OF YOU THIS ONE IN PARTICULAR AND THE
UNION STATION THAT WE’RE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT. I JUST
WANTED TO SAY THAT THERE ARE LINKS IN THIS REPORT THAT
ACTUALLY STIPULATE SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT HAPPENED THROUGHOUT
2009 THROUGH NOW. WE’LL TAKE YOUR MESSAGE ON THE FINANCIAL
IMPACT PIECE AND PUT IT IN THERE FROM NOW ON.
>>OH, NO. I LOOKED AT THE REASONS. I WISHED WE’D SEEN ALL
THOSE THINGS AT THE FRONT END TO GIVE COUNCIL A CLEAR POSITION, SO THAT WE WEREN’T
TALKING ABOUT COSTS COMING BACK AND ASKING FOR MORE MONEY.
>>OKAY. THAT WAS YOUR LAST QUESTION.
>>THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. >>THANK YOU.
COUNCILLOR CARROLL. >>THANKS, MADAM SPEAKER.
I’M JUST — I DID NOT OPEN ALL OF THE LINKS BECAUSE IT DOES GO
BACK, BUT I’M WONDERING IF YOU CAN REFRESH MY MEMORY ON HOW THE — THE RECOVERABLE DEBT MATRIX WORKS. THERE’S
RECOVERABLE DEBT ON THIS PROJECT. IT WAS THERE FROM THE
VERY BEGINNING. THAT WAS SORT OF THE — TO PROCEED EVEN AT ALL
STARTING OUT ALMOST 40 MILLION IN RECOVERABLE DEBT, WHERE IS
THAT RECOVERABLE FROM? >>THROUGH THE SPEAKER, THE
RECOVERABLE DEBT COMES FROM I GUESS COLLAPSNG OF LEASES, THE
COURT OPERATIONS OCCURRING ON LEASED PROPERTY WILL BE MOVING
INTO CITY-OWN SPACE. ADDITIONAL REVENUES THAT WILL BE
GENERATED THROUGH THE PARKING FACILITY BENEATH THE BUILDING AS
WELL AS RENTAL OF UNITS AND DIFFERENT EVENTS THAT WOULD BE
HELD IN THE NORTH MARKET BUILDING.
>>OKAY. SO IT DOES INCLUDE THAT. SO THERE WAS THAT ADDED
COMBINATION. SO THE RECOVERABLE DEBT HAS WITHIN IT, IT HAS THE
COLLAPSE THE LEASES, BUT IT ALSO — PARKING REVENUE IS IN THERE.
BUT THE NUMBER THERE HAS NEVER CHANGED. IT IS A MATTER WHEN WE
DO THIS, CAN WE LOOK AT THIS AS SAYING IT’S RECOVERABLE DEBT BUT
OVER A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME FOR A DIFFERENT AMOUNT OF MONEY? OR
IS THAT NUMBER — DOES THAT NUMBER HAVE TO BE
STATIC? WE’RE TALKING ABOUT THERE’S 40 MILLION AND ONLY EVER
BEEN 40 MILLION, 39.7 IN FACT.
AND THEN THERE’S ALSO A CASH CONTRIBUTION FROM TPA, BUT THAT
RECOVERABLE AMOUNT HAS NEVER CHANGED EVEN THOUGH THIS IS
GOING UP. IS THERE THE POSSIBILITY, WOULD IT BE
APPROPRIATE THAT WE COULD ALSO LOOK AT AT THE END OF THE DAY
WHAT IS THE TOTAL AMOUNT AND OVER A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME,
THE BUSINESS CASE IS STILL THERE?
>>SO WE DID THROUGH THE SPEAKER, WE DID REVISIT THE
BUSINESS CASE TO ENSURE THAT THE RECOVERABLE DEBT AMOUNTS WOULD
STAY TRUE AND MAY WELL. THE INCREMENTAL BUDGET ASK IS BEING
FUNDED THROUGH AN ALTERNATE SOURCES WHICH IS DEBT FUNDING,
SO NOT THE RECOVERABLE PORTION. WHEN WE REVISIT THE BUSINESS
CASE THERE WASN’T ANY MORE ROOM FOR RECOVERABLE DEBT FUNDING
WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE TO LOOK AT OTHER SOURCES.
>>AND THE PORTION THAT’S PARKING REVENUE, ARE WE
COMMITTED TO THAT AT A CERTAIN RATE AND A CERTAIN AMOUNT FROM
TPA, OR THE FACT THAT THIS WAS REALLY THE FIRST CONVERSATION ON
THIS WAS BACK IN 2008, 2009, AND THEN — AND A
LOT HAS AND SINCE THEN. AND WE HAVE MANY TIMES INCREASED THEIR
RATES, IS IT A MATTER OF WHATEVER WE’RE COLLECTING A
CERTAIN PERCENTAGE WILL GO TO RECOVERABLE DEBT OR HOW DOES
THAT PLAY OUT? >>THROUGH THE SPEAKER YOU’RE
REFERRING TO THE 2 STREAMS, THE RECOVERABLE DEBT PORTION IS
DRIVEN Storage failure 4 TPA ON AN
ANNUAL BASIS THROUGH OPERATING. SO THOSE ONES THROUGH THE
REVISIT OF THE BUSINESS CASE WON’T CHANGE. WE ARE IN
DISCUSSIONS Storage failure 4 THEY COULD BE
REVISITED AT THE POINT OF OCCUPANCY PERHAPS.
>>SURE. >>OKAY.
>>AND WE’VE BEEN IN CONVERSATIONS ABOUT ADDITIONAL
CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE PROJECT AS A WHOLE GIVEN SOME OF THE ITEMS
THAT YOU’VE REFERENCED IN TERMS OF RATE CHANGES, MARKET CHANGES
AND WHATNOT. >>RIGHT.
>>SO WE ARE HAVING THOSE CONVERSATIONS, AND I BELIEVE WE
MAY HAVE MADE REFERENCE TO THAT IN THE REPORT. SHOULD ANY
ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS COME, AND THEY WOULD OBVIOUSLY OFFSET
ANY ADDITIONAL DEBT THAT WE’VE PUT TOWARDS THE PROJECT.
>>OKAY. THANK YOU. THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS, MADAM SPEAKER.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILLOR WONG-TAM.
>>THANK YOU, VERY MUCH MADAM SPEAKER AND THROUGH YOU TO
STAFF. HOW LONG HAS THIS PROJECT BEEN ON THE BOOKS FOR THE CITY
OF TORONTO? WHEN DID THE EARLIEST CONVERSATIONS BEGIN
ABOUT THE REVITALIZATION OF THE NORTH MARKET?
>>THROUGH THE SPEAKER, COUNCIL APPROVED IN 2002, THAT — TO REVIEW THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE. >>AND DURING THAT PERIOD OF
TIME THERE WAS A NUMBER OF CONVERSATIONS WITH STAKEHOLDERS
INCLUDING THE USERS OF THE MARKETS I’M SURE A BROAD
CONSULTATION WITH THE GENERAL COMMUNITY, REPORTS BACK HERE TO
THE CITY COUNCIL, THIS IS NOT A SHORT PROCESS.
>>NO, THERE’S BEEN MANY MILESTONES BETWEEN 2002, AND
2019. IN 2004, COUNCIL APPROVED THE WORK
ING COMMUNITY WHICH BROUGHT TOGETHER COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS
AS WELL AS STAFF, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS TO
LOOK AT WHAT COULD BE DONE AS A REDEVELOPMENT, THROUGH 2006 AND
‘8 STAFF GOT TOGETHER AND WORKED WITH DIFFERENT DIVISIONS IN THE
CITY AND DETERMINED THAT COURT SERVICES WHAT THE BEST
ALTERNATIVE USE FOR THE ST. LAWRENCE MARKET NORTH. AND IN
2009, BASED ON THE INPUT FROM THE COMMUNITY AND STAFF, COUNCIL
APPROVED A DESIGN COMPETITION GLOBAL DESIGN COAL TWICE IN
2010, THAT WAS AWARDED. 2011 THE CONTRACT WAS AWARDED TO THE
DESIGN FIRM. IN 20 — EXCUSE ME. THROUGH
2013, DESIGN WAS UNDERWAY ON THE ST.
LAWRENCE MARKET BUT WE WERE DESIGNING ALSO AND BUILDING THE
TEMPORARY MARKET TO THE SOUTH OF THE SOUTH MARKET. IN 2007 — I’M
SORRY –’17 WE START THE EXCAVATION AND REMEDIAL WORK
THAT’S WHEN WE HAD THE DELAY AND HAD TOO DO THE DIG.
>>AND WITH RESPECT TO, YOU KNOW, RENDERINGS AND CONCEPTS
AND EARLY PROJECTIONS TO ACTUAL DETAILED DESIGNS AND FIXING THE
PROGRAM IN PLACE, IT WOULD BE EXPECTED TO SEE SOME CHANGES IN
THE QUANTITY ITEM OF THE ESTIMATES, IS THAT CORRECT?
>>THAT’S CORRECT. >>AND WHEN IT COMES TO
ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDINGS IN THE OLD CITY OF TORONTO, ESPECIALLY
IN THE ORIGINAL PORTIONS OF TORONTO, HOW MUCH SAY DOES THE
CITY HAVE WHEN WE HIT AN ARTIFACT, THE SHOVEL HAS TO
BE PUT DOWN ON THE GROUND. WHO PLACES THOSE ORDERS AND WHEN CAN
WE COMMENCE AGAIN? >>THROUGH THE CHAIR
ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT IS A REQUIREMENT THE PLANNING ACT. SO
WE’RE MANDATED TO DO THAT ON ARC LOGICALLY OR HERITAGE
SIGNIFICANT SITES AND THIS IS ONE.
>>AND WHEN THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIND TOOK PLACE, THERE’S
GENERALLY, I BELIEVE, SOME PARTICIPATION FROM THE PROVINCE.
>>THERE IS. >>AND SO THERE IS A DIFFERENT
TEAM OF INDIVIDUALS THAT HAVE TO COME IN TO ASSESS THE SITE TO
DETERMINE WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE TREATMENT OF THOSE
ARTIFACTS. AND THEN HOW LONG DID THAT TAKE
FROM THE FINDING OF THE ART — THE STAGE 4 TO WHEN YOU GOT
PERMISSION TO PROCEED WITH THE NORMAL ORDER OF CONSTRUCTION.
HOW LONG WAS THAT HESITATION GAP?
>>APPROXIMATELY 2 YEARS. >>[TECHNICAL DIFFICULTY] .
>>[TECHNICAL DIFFICULTY] .
>>ANY FURTHER SPEAKERS ON THE ITEM? OKAY. ON THE ITEM ALL IN FAVOR.
CARRIED. .
WHO ASKED FOR A RECORDED VOTE? OKAY. RECORDED VOTE. >>COUNCILLOR PERRUZZA, PLEASE. COUNCILLOR, PERRUZZA, PLEASE. >>THE ITEM IS ADOPTED 21-2. >>OKAY OUR NEXT ITEM IS ON PAGE
4G L4.14. USE OF CARGO BIKES. COUNCILLOR
LAYTON HELD THE ITEM DOWN. DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS OF STAFF? ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS OF
STAFF? COUNCILLOR LAYTON, DO YOU HAVE
QUESTIONS OF STAFF? >>NO.
>>YEAH. >> OKAY. SO SPEAK, COUNCILLOR
LAYTON. >>THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER, I
HAVE A SMALL MOTION– THE GENERAL MANAGER IN CONSULTATION
WITH LOCAL 79 AND 416 TO CONSIDER POSSIBILITY OF WAIVING
THE REQUIRED — PROVIDED BEINGSES ARE NOT USED ON PUBLIC
ROADS AND B, THE POSSIBILITY OF WORKING WITH THE REQUIRED CITY
DIVISIONS TO SHORTEN THE BIKE TRAINING PROGRAM TO HALF A DAY
SIMILAR TO THE CITY’S G PERMIT PROGRAM FOR OPERATNG MOTOR
VEHICLE. THIS ORIGINATED WITH WHAT IS SEEN NOW AS A WIDESPREAD PUSH TO TRY TO GET
LOW CARBON ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS FOR
SERVICE VEHICLES. WE KNOW THAT FEDEX, CANADA POST ARE ALL
LOOKING AT THESE FOR USE CITY-WIDE. THE GENESIS WAS A
LETTER I WROTE LAST TERM THAT WAS ACTUALLY CONNECTED TO
SOMETHING THE CITY OF EDMINGTON WAS DOING. I WAS WONDERING IF IT
COULD BE APPLIED IN TORONTO. THE CITY STAFF HAVE DONE THEIR DUE
DILIGENCE AND LAUNCH A — IF YOU CAN IMAGINE IF YOU’VE BEEN IN
OUR PARKS RECENTLY BECAUSE OF THE WEATHER, THEY’RE ALL DUG UP
BY THE TRUCKS GOING THROUGH THEM. TO DO MINOR MAINTENANCE
AND REPAIR. LIKE THERE’S THESE RUTS BESIDES
THE PATHWAYS AND IT’S COSTING US MONEY TO FIX. AND LIKE THEY’VE
GOT ENGINES RUNNING TO KEEP — TO KEEP THE CABS WARM OR COOL OR
WHATEVER, AND THEY’RE REALLY JUST — IT’S NOT
NECESSARY. OR AT LEAST IN MY ESTIMATION IT’S NOT NECESSARY.
AND I THINK TAKING A LOOK AT THE CITY’S USE OF CARGO BIKES IN
SOME OF OUR LARGER PARKS, IF YOU HAD ONE IN A LARGE PARKS TO HELP
EMPLOYEES MOVE STUFF AROUND NOT ALL EMPLOYEES WILL BE ABLE TO
BENEFIT FROM THIS PROGRAM. NOT ALL PARKS WILL BE ABLE TO
BENEFIT, IT’S NOT IN MY WARD. BUT I’LL TAKE STAFF’S ADVICE ON
THIS. THE ONE POINT THAT I THINK STAFF NEEDED A BIT MORE
DIRECTION ON AND STAFF FROM FLEET HELPED ME WITH THIS, IS
THERE WAS A REQUIREMENT FOR CITY STAFF THAT — TO USE BIKES IN THE CITY TO BE CAN-BIKE
CERTIFIED. CAN-BIKE CERTIFIED IS A GOOD
CERTIFICATION. WHILE I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT CAN-BIKE IS AN
INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT TRAINING PROGRAM, I WOULDN’T WANT THE
PILOT TO BE — TO — TO UNFORTUNATELY PROBABLY NOT
SUCCEED SIMPLY BECAUSE NO ONE COULD USE THE BIKE.
AND SO I WOULD PREFER AND I’VE REACHED OUT TO THE LOCALS TO SEE
WHAT THEIR THOUGHTS MIGHT BE, I DON’T WANT TO PRESCRIBE IT HERE
TO WAIVE IT, I WOULD PREFER US HAVE A COLLABORATIVE
RELATIONSHIP WITH THEM, AND TO SEE IF SOMETHING’S POSSIBLE TO
LOWER THE BAR FOR THIS PILOT TO POTENTIALLY SUCCEED. THANK YOU.
>> OKAY. WE DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU. COUNCILLOR KARYGIANNIS.
>>THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, I DO HAVE TWO BUT THE COUNCILLOR
ASKED THE ONE THAT HE REACHED OUT TO THE LOCALS. I WAS
WONDERING, HAS HE SPOKEN TO STAFF REGARDING THE HOW DOES
THAT REFLECT THE AGREEMENT WITH UNION AND THE — THE CONTRACT,
THE — THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS?>>I HAVE NOT. AND THAT’S WHY
IT’S — THE REQUEST IS REALLY TO CONSIDER, I DIDN’T WANT TO
PRESCRIBE IT BECAUSE WE WEREN’T — WE WEREN’T THAT —
WE WERE PRETTY FAR ALONG WITH THE PILOT. I DON’T WANT TO SEND
IT BACK. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT HAPPEN. AND I THINK GIVEN THE
RELATIONSHIP WE HAVE WITH 79 AND 416, IF WE CAN MAKE SOME
CONSIDERATION BASED ON CONTRACT GREAT,; IF WE CAN’T THEN I’M
PREPARED TO JUST LET IT DIE AT THE STAFF LEVEL.
>>THROUGH YOU, CHAIR, WITH COUNCILLOR LAYTON FEEL
COMFORTABLE THAT WE ADD A LINE IN THERE THAT SAYS PROVIDED THIS
IS AGREED — IT’S AGREEABLE IN THE CONTRACT?
>>I’D BE CAREFUL WITH THE LANGUAGE BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT’S
REQUIRED IN THE CONTRACT. BUT I SUSPECT THAT WAS FOR
PERMANENT EMPLOYEES THAT WERE ON ROADS WHERE THIS IS SPECIFIC TO
IN PARKS AND JUST FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE PILOT. AND I
THINK TO ALSO MAKE IT VOLUNTARY. I SEE WHERE YOU’RE GOING AND
IT’S MY INTENT TO NOT FORCE THIS ON THE LOCALS. IF THERE’S ANY
APPETITE FROM THE SPEAKER IF WE WANT TO HOLD IT DOWN FOR A
COUPLE MINUTES I COULD PROBABLY MAKE A CHANGE.
>>IF THE COUNCILLOR WANTS TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT HE CAN MAKE IT
ON HIS OWN. >>WHY NOT SAY JUST IF I MIGHT
ANSWER YOUR QUESTION WITH A PROPOSAL THAT — THAT AS A
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT WE CHANGE IN CONSULTATION WITH TO WITH
AGREEMENT OF? >>FANTASTIC, SUPER. OKAY.
SOUNDS GOOD, THANK YOU. >>IT WILL READ CITY COUNSEL —
I’M JUST READING IT BACK FOR THE CLERKS. FLEET SERVICES AND THE
GENERAL MANAGER PARKS FORESTRY RECREATION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF
LOCALS 79 AND 416. >>CONSULTATION —
>>WITH CONSULTATION AND AGREEMENT, SURE. >>OKAY. SO WE HAVE THE MOTION
BY COUNCILLOR LAYTON. ALL IN FAVOR. CARRIED.
ITEM AS AMENDED. ALL IN FAVOR. CARRIED.
>>THANK YOU. >> PAGE 5. PH5.1.
THE RIGHT TO ADEQUATE HOUSING.
COUNCILLOR WONG-TAM YOU HELD THE ITEM DOWN. QUESTIONS OF STAFF?
>>NO, JUST TO SPEAK. >>DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS OF STAFF? FOR PLANNING AND HOUSING. NO.
COUNCILLOR WONG-TAM TO SPEAK. >>TO SPEAK, YES, THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, MADAM SPEAKER. I WANT TO RISE AND JUST
ACKNOWLEDGE THE GOOD WORK THAT’S ACTUALLY HAPPENING IN PLANNING
AND HOUSING COMMITTEE LED BY OUR ESTEEMED CHAIR DEPUTY MAYOR BAILAO I SHOULD
SAY. IT WAS A VERY GOOD MEETING AS DEPUTY MAYOR BAILAO HAS
STATED EARLIER AS SHE INTRODUCED THE MINUTES OF OUR MEETING. NOT
ONLY DID WE HAVE — A UN — ON ADEQUATE HOUSING APPEAR BEFORE
US, THAT WAS ALSO THE SAME WEEK AS THE LAUNCH OF A VERY
IMPORTANT DOCUMENTARY CALLED THE PUSH THAT REALLY HELPED
HIGHLIGHT HOW HOUSING CAN BE REPOSITIONED IN ALL OUR
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK AND ALL OUR PLANNING DOCUMENTS AND HOW
WE DEVELOP POLICES WITH A RIGHTS BASED APPROACH. AND I THINK SHE
REALLY HELPED DEMYSTIFY WHAT THAT MEANS FOR THE COMMITTEE. I
THINK STAFF THAT WERE PRESENT ALSO LEARNED A FEW THINGS.
WHAT’S ALSO IMPORTANT IS THAT THAT FILM WAS RECEIVED WITH
GREAT ACCLAIM. I THINK THAT REALLY DOES HELP EXPLAIN A
NUMBER OF THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING IN THE CITY OF TORONTO
INCLUDING THE HOUSES CRISIS. ONE OF THE COMPONENTS OF HER FILM THAT IS ABSOLUTELY
CRITICAL TO UNDERSTAND AND HELP US UNDERSTAND WHY WE ARE IN THE
THROWS OF THIS THIS HOUSING CRISIS IS THIS RAMPANT
MODIFICATION OF HOUSING. IT IS NO LONGER JUST A SPECULATOR HERE
OR THERE, OR PERHAPS THE LOCAL DEVELOPER. THESE ARE MASSIVE
INVESTMENT TRUSTS THAT ARE COME IN AND THE CAPITAL IS GLOBAL.
THEY KNOW NO BOUNDARIES AND LITERALLY COMING INTO
NEIGHBORHOODS SUCH AS PARKDALE AND OTHER AREAS — THIS IS ALL
HAPPENING UNDER OUR NOSE. AND SO WHILE WE HAVE PRESSURES
AND WE’RE SEEING THE SHELTERS FULL AND WE’RE SEEING THE NUMBER
OF PEOPLE STRUGGLING AND PANICKING FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WE NEED TO RETHINK HOW WE’RE GOING TO
BUILD THE NEXT 10-YEAR HOUSING PLAN. I THINK THE WAY WE NEED TO
DO THAT IS EXACTLY AS IT IS NOW BEING PROPOSED IN NEW YORK CITY
AND BARCELONA AND OTHER WORLD CLASS CITIES. AND THIS IS ALSO
HAPPENING AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. THE NATION GOVERNMENT HAS
ADOPTED A HUMAN RIGHTS APPROACH TO HOUSING. THEY HAVE SIGNED
ONTO INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT THAT IS THIS IS HOW WE SHOULD
ACTUALLY POSITION THE POLICY AND THE THINKING AND THE BUILDING OF
HOUSING IN CANADA. ALL OF THAT MEANS IS THAT WHEN THOSE MONEYS
ARE AVAILABLE FOR GRANTS WE NEED TO AS A SUB NATION GOVERNMENT
MUNICIPALITES AS WELL AS PROVINCES START TO POSITION OUR
THINKING AND OUR POLICES THE WAY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS.
SO THAT’S A REALLY GOOD, GOOD SIGN.
BECAUSE I THINK THAT THERE IS HOPE, THERE IS A WAY FOR US TO
NOT JUST BUILD OUR WAY OUT OF IT, BECAUSE THAT’S ACTUALLY NOT
GOING TO WORK. CLEARLY IT’S BEEN — IT’S BEEN DEMONSTRATED THAT
IT’S NOT A SUPPLY ISSUE TO OUR HOUSING CRISIS, BECAUSE IF IT
WAS, I KNOW THAT IN MID-TOWN AND YONGE AND THE DOWNTOWN CORE AND
IN COUNCILLOR FILION’S AREA IN NORTH YORK WHERE THERE IS RAM
PANT DEVELOPMENT OFTENTIMES UNCHECKED WHERE WE’VE ALREADY
EXCEEDED THE VOLUME OF HOUSING THAT WE NEED AND BASED ON THE
DEVELOPMENT PIPELINE AND YET AFFORDABILITY IS NOT — IS NOT
IN ANY OF THOSE CONSIDERATIONS. SO THIS TO ME, IS A VERY
IMPORTANT PIVOT TALL POINT IN OUR DISCUSSION AND I’M EXTREMELY
PROUD OF THE COMMITTEE’S WORK AND APPROACH TO POSITIONS
HOUSING AS A RIGHT. AND I THINK THAT WHEN WE GO OUT TO PUBLIC
CONSULTATION WHICH IS ALREADY HAPPENING LED BY — AND THE
DEPUTY MAYOR, I THINK WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS MAKE SURE WHEN THE
REPORT COMES BACK AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS COME BACK WE
HAVE TO RETHINK AND REPOSITION HOUSING AS A RIGHT. EVERYBODY
SHOULD HAVE ACCESS TO BASIC HOUSING. WE’RE NOT TALKING ABOUT
GLAMOUROUS PALACES BUT THEY SHOULD NOT BE LIVING ON THE
STREET AND WE HAVE TO MEET PEOPLE WHERE THEY ARE. IF THAT
MEANS PEOPLE NEED SUPPORTIVE HOUSING AND ROOMING HOUSES, WE
HAVE TO HAVE THE WIDEST RANGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND I ALSO
THINK WE NEED TO REDEFINE WHAT AFFORDABILITY IS. IT HAS TO BE
INDEXED, INDEXED AND MARKETED TO PEOPLE’S ACTUAL INCOMES AND NOT
NECESSARILY TO THE AVERAGE MARKET RENT. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. >>THANK YOU.
COUNCILLOR PERKS TO SPEAK. >>THANK YOU, SPEAKER. A TIME IS
GOING TO COME WHEN WE LOOK BACK AND ARE REALLY, REALLY PROUD OF
OURSELVES. I WANT TO BEGIN BY ACKNOWLEDGNG
THE ROLE THAT COUNCILLOR BAILAO TOOK ON THIS IN HER — ON HER
CAPACITY AS CHAIR OF THE PLANNING AND HOUSING COMMITTEE
INVITNG IN THE UN SPECIAL — GAVE ALL OF US ON PLANNING
APPEAR HOUSING COMMITTEE NEW INSIGHT TO WHY THE AFFORD
ABILITY CRISIS IS HAPPENING IN THE CITY OF TORONTO. I’M GOING
TO TELL YOU A COUPLE OF QUICK STORIES ABOUT THINGS GOING ON IN
MY WARD. MANY OF YOU WILL HAVE HEARD ME TALK ABOUT THE — GROUP
ONE OF THE MOST DIFFICULT AWFUL LANDLORDS IN THE CITY OF
TORONTO. WHAT THEY HAVE DONE IS BASICALLY CASH COWED THE
BUILDINGS THEY WERE IN, THEY’VE RUN THEM DOWN. WE’VE RECENTLY
HAD TO GO IN WITH THE TSSA AND THE FIRE CHIEF AND TURN OFF THE
ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS FOR 1500 PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY HAVE RUN IT
INTO THE GROUND. YOU KNOW WHAT THEY DID? THEY LOOKED AROUND
THE WORLD AND THEY SAID IT’S EASY TO MOVE BIG SUMS OF CAPITAL
AROUND. THEY TOOK ALL THEIR MONEY OUT OF TORONTO AND WENT
AND BOUGHT UP A BUNCH OF BUILDINGS IN BUFFALO, IN WESTERN
NEW YORK AND THEY’RE GOING TO CASH COW THOSE. WHAT CAME AFTER
THAT IS A DIFFERENT FIRM THAT HAS A DIFFERENT MODEL CALLED TIM
BRER CREEK. THEY WASH ASSETS WHICH MEANS THEY COME IN, THEY
BUY IN UNDERINVESTED HOUSING, PUT IN SOME MONEY UPGRADE IT A
BIT, BRING IT UP TO A STANDARD. AND WHEN A UNIT GOES VACANT THEY
KEEP IT VACANT UNTIL THEY’VE UPGRADED THE PROPERTY, AND THEN
THEY PUT IT BACK IN A NON-RENT CONTROLLED MARKET AT A MUCH
HIGHER RENT. ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY’VE GOT A BIG FLOW OF
REVENUE. AND THEY STAY AND DO THAT UNTIL THEY’VE RECOVERED
THEIR INVESTMENT AND THEN THEY MOVE ALONG TO THE NEXT ONE.
WHAT HAPPENS IN — TO THE PEOPLE WHO ARE LIVING THERE IS A LOT OF
THEM LOSE THE ONLY PLACE THEY COULD AFFORD TO LIVE IN THE CITY
OF TORONTO. IT’S ACTUALLY ONE OF THE PLACES WHERE PEOPLE FROM
STREETS TO HOMES WOULD GET HOUSED. AND THAT’S GONE.
ANOTHER LITTLE STORY. I HAD A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION, MODEST
LITTLE DEVELOPMENT. THE DEVELOPER CAME IN, GOT THE
PROPERTY ZONED UP, AND THEN SOLD IT.
AND THEN THEY SOLD IT TO ANOTHER GUY WHO SOLD IT TO ANOTHER GUY
WHO SOLD IT TO ANOTHER GUY. WE’RE ON THE 4TH OWNER BEFORE
SOMEBODY ACTUALLY BUILDS SOMETHING. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF
THE GUYS IN THE CHAIN THOUGH MADE MONEY. EVERY SINGLE TIME.
THE HOUSING CRISIS THAT WE’RE FACNG NOW AS WE LEARNED AT
COMMITTEE, THESE STORIES ABOUT HOW LAND SPECULATION AND ASSET WASHING IS ACCELERATNG
GLOBALLY AS MONEY MOVES FASTER, IN A DIGIT ADVERTISED AND
DEREGULATED GLOBAL HOUSING MARKET, AND REMEMBERING THAT
HOUSING IS CLOSE TO HALF OF THE WORLD ECONOMY, IT’S HALF OF
WHERE THESE LARGE FINANCIAL ENTITIES, THESE REAL ESTATE
INCOME TRUSTS, AND YOU KNOW, FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS THAT
BUNDLE MORTGAGES, THEY’RE ALL RECOGNIZNG THAT A WAY TO MAKE A
QUICK RETURN IS TO INFLATE LOCAL REAL ESTATE PRICES.
AND THAT MORE THAN ANY ISSUE HAVING TO DO WITH SUPPLY IS WHY
WE HAVE AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS IN THE CITY OF TORONTO.
AND AS WE MOVED TOWARDS NOVEMBER WHEN WE HAVE OUR NEW HOUSING
OPPORTUNITIES PLAN, MR. — AND HIS TEAM — TODAY WE WILL GIVE A
DIRECTION TO THEM SAYING WHEN YOU DESIGN OUR HOUSES PROGRAM,
BE MINDFUL OF THESE ISSUES. REMEMBER HOUSING ISN’T LIKE BUY
ING POTATO CHIPS. IT’S ONE OF THE NECESSITES OF LIFE.
AND OUR HOUSING SYSTEM HAS TO BE DESIGNED TO REFLECT THAT.
SO CONGRATULATIONS TO COUNCILLOR BAILAO AND ALL THE MEMBERS OF
PLANNING AND GROWTH COMMITTEE FOR BRINGING THIS TO US, AND I
HOPE WE GET A VERY STRONG VOTE IN FAVOR.
>>ON THE ITEM ALL IN FAVOR. CARRIED. RECORDED VOTE. OKAY. WELL.
>>[OFF MIC]. >>RECORDED VOTE. .
>>COUNCILLOR WONG-TAM, PLEASE. COUNCILLOR CARROLL, PLEASE. >>THE ITEM IS ADOPTED
UNANIMOUSLY 22 IN FAVOR. >>PAGE 5PH5.3, COUNCILLOR WONG-TAM DO
YOU HAVE QUESTIONS CREATNG AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOMES? DO WE
HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? NO. OKAY. COUNCILLOR WONG-TAM TO SPEAK.
>>YES, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM SPEAKER. I RISE AGAIN IN
SUPPORT OF THIS PARTICULAR REPORT. AND I WANTED TO SET A
FEW THINGS STRAIGHT OUT IN THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
THERE WAS — THERE WAS ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE FORD
GOVERNMENT ON APRIL 29TH, AS — THEY BASICALLY ANNOUNCED THE
FACT THAT THEY’RE ALSO BRINGING BACK THE OMB. AT THAT POINT IN
TIME, THEY SAID LOOK, YOU KNOW THIS IS WHAT THEY’RE DOING
THEY’RE UNLOCKING LAND AND THEY’RE GOING TO BUILD SOME
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WHICH WE CAN ALL GET BEHIND EVERY SINGLE LAST
ONE OF US CAN GET BEHIND THIS. WHAT THEY DIDN’T AM IS THAT THIS
ANNOUNCEMENT WAS ALREADY MADE SEPTEMBER 13TH, 2017, BY THE
LIBERAL GOVERNMENT. AND I KNOW THAT IN THE WEST DON LANDS
COMMUNITY I PROUDLY STOOD WITH MAYOR TORY, KOIR BAILAO AS WELL
AS COUNCILLOR PAULA FLETCHER AND SOME OF THE MPPS AT THAT TIME.
THAT’S WHEN THEY ANNOUNCED THAT THEY WERE GOING TO CREATE UP TO
2,000 UNITS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THAT WAS NOT MENTIONED IN THEIR
PRESS ANNOUNCEMENT EARLIER THIS APRIL.
WHAT THEY ALSO DIDN’T MENTION, AND I THINK I NEED TO SAY THIS,
IS THAT MY LOCAL COMMUNITY AND I KNOW SHARE THIS WITH COUNCILLOR
LAYTON, THE BAY CLOVER HILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION WORKED SO
HARD FOR YEARS . THIS AFFLUENT COMMUNITY WORKED HARD
WITH MYSELF. WE WENT TO VISIT INFRASTRUCTURE ONTARIO, WE WROTE
LETTERS TO DIFFERENT MINISTERS, WE WROTE LETTERS TO THE PRE AT
THAT TIME AND WE SAID WE KNOW YOU HAVE THIS PARCEL OF LAND
THAT’S HELD BY INFRASTRUCTURE ONTARIO AND WE WANT YOU TO NOT
JUST SELL IT OFF TO THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE BIDDER. SO
THEREFORE, WE DON’T NECESSARILY NEED MORE CONDOS ON BAY STREET,
WHAT WE NEEDS SOME FORM OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WE NEED
GREEN SPACE AND WE WANT TO WORK WITH YOU. TO THEIR GREAT CREDIT,
THEY DON’T GENERALLY DO THIS, BUT TO THEIR GREAT CREDIT THEY
LISTENED AND SHIFTING THEIR POSITIVES AROUND TO MAKE SURE
WHEN THEY UNLOCKED GOVERNMENT-OWNED LAND JUST AS
WE’RE DOING NOW, THEY WERE GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT IT HAD SOME
CITY BUILDING COMPONENTS AND GOING TO MEET THEIR PRIORITIES.
SO EVEN THOUGH IT WAS NOT SAID AT THE FORD ANNOUNCEMENT APRIL
29, 2019, I NEED TO SAY IT TODAY.
I WANT TO THANK THEN PREMIERE AND HER GOVERNMENT FOR LISTENING
AND RESPONDING TO THE LOCAL COMMUNITY. I WANT TO THANK THE
OFFICIALS AT INFRASTRUCTURE ONTARIO WHO WORKED WITH OUR
OFFICE AS WELL AS THE OFFICE OF COUNCILLOR BAILAO, AS WELL AS
THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMITTEE AS WELL AS THE DIRECTOR OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, OUR OFFICE HERE, TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY
HEARD REQUEST OF THE LOCAL COMMUNITY. I ALSO WANT TO THANK
THE BAY CLOVER HILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION BECAUSE THEY WERE
QUITE VISIONARY. THEY GOT IN FRONT OF THIS PROJECT AND SAID
THEY NEEDED TO SEE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THEIR COMMUNITY THAT
IT CANNOT JUST BE ONLY MARKET CONDOMINIUMS. THAT WAS NOT SAID
IN APRIL OF 2019, BUT I FELT IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR COUNCIL AS
THEY APPROVE THIS PROJECT TO REALLY UNDERSTAND WHO GOT BEHIND
ALL OF THAT. AND IT TOOK A LONG TIME, BUT IT WAS TRUY A GOOD
NEWS STORY. AND I REALLY WISH THAT THEY — THE ANNOUNCEMENT
ACTUALLY INCLUDED ALL THOSE PARTICULAR ACTORS, THOSE
POLITICAL ACTORS AND COMMUNITY ACTORS THAT REALLY MADE THIS
HAPPEN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>ON THE ITEM RECORDED VOTE. .
>>COUNCILLOR KARYGIANNIS, PLEASE. THE ITEM IS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY
21 IN FAVOR. >>OKAY. PAGE 5, PH5.6.
VITAL SERVICE DISRUPTIONS IN APARTMENT BUILDINGS. DO YOU HAVE
QUESTIONS OF STAFF? >>I DO.
>>OKAY. COUNCILLOR HOLYDAY QUESTIONS OF STAFF.
>>JUST LOOKING TO SEE WHO’S HERE THAT MIGHT BE ABLE TO —
>>BEHIND YOU. .
>>MR. GRANT THERE. >>OKAY.
>>THANK YOU FOR YOUR REPORT ON THIS. THE REPORT GETS INTO A COUPLE OF
MAJOR BASIC THEMES I’LL GIVE YOU A SECOND TO GET IN YOUR SPOT
THERE. BUT IF I’VE GOT IT RIGHT, IT TALKS A LOT ABOUT MAINTENANCE
STANDARDS ELECTRICAL MAINTENANCE STANDARDS AND THEN SOME PLANS
AND COMMUNICATION PLANS AND CONTACT LISTS, WOULD I BE
CORRECT IN SUMMARIZNG THAT IT’S THE BASIC NATURE OF YOUR REPORT? GIVES COUNCIL SOME ADVICE ON
MAYBE MOVING FORWARD ON HOW TO IMPLEMENT OR OPERATIONALIZE
THOSE IDEAS. >>[OFF MIC] .
>>SORRY. THAT’S CORRECT. AS YOU CAN CONTEXTUALIZE IT WHAT WE’RE
TRYING TO DO IS LEVERAGE AN APARTMENT BUILDING BYLAW WE
HAVE TO INTRODUCE SOME OF THESE NEW ITEMS.
>>I REMEMBER THE COUNCIL DEBATE AROUND HERE ABOUT A CONTACT
LIST, YOU KNOW JUST A SIMPLE LIST OF WHO LIVES WHERE AND WHO
MIGHT MEET HELP EVACUATNG THAT TYPE OF THING.
YOU HAD SOME RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE REPORT I THINK THERE WERE 4
OF THEM, THERE WAS A NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS ADDED
AT THE COMMITTEE, WERE THOSE SOMETHING THAT WERE — THAT CAME
OUT OF THE REPORT OR DEVELOPED BY YOU 1234 OR WERE THEY
SOMETHING THAT WAS JUST THE GENESIS WAS AT THE COMMITTEE?
>>THE GENESIS WAS AT THE COMMITTEE. THEY WERE SHARED WITH
STAFF. IT’S SOMETHING WE ARE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW WITH OUR
COLLEAGUES IN FIRE AND THE OFFICES OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
AND REPORTING BACK NEXT MONTH ON A NUMBER THOSE ITEMS.
>>MAYBE THIS IS JUST A GENERAL QUESTION, SOME OF THE
REQUIREMENTS THAT WERE CONTAINED IN THE LIST FOR YOU TO EXAMINE
SOME OF THE ADDITIONALS THAT WERE ADDED WERE THINGS LIKE THE
LANDLORD PROVIDING TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION IF THERE WAS AN
EVACUATION OR DISRUPTION, BOTTLED WATER, FOOD, SNACKS,
BLANKETS, ALL OF THOSE KINDS OF THINGS, IS THERE — DO WE HAVE
ANY LAWS? ARE THERE ANY EXAMPLES OF THIS LEVEL OF
SERVICE THAT WE WOULD LOOK TO A LANDLORD TO PROVIDE ?
>>SO THIS IS A REPORT REQUEST. SO WE ARE LOOKING INTO ALL THESE
THINGS. IF WE AGREE WITH THINGS WE’LL BRING THEM FORWARD; IF
WITH WE DISAGREE WE’LL SAY WHY. THERE ARE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
THAT WE’RE ALL RESPONSIBILITY FOR. AND THERE’S ALSO THE
RESIDENTIAL TENANT SEE’S ACT. WE WILL REPORT BACK ON THE
FEASIBILITY OF THOSE. >>WHAT HAPPENS ACCORDING TO THE
WAY THIS IS WRITTEN, I MEAN, WHAT HAPPENS IF THERE’S A
GENERAL POWER OUTAGE IN THE AREA, WOULD I BE CORRECT IN
INTERPRETING THE ASKS OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE LANDLORDS ON
THIS REPORT REQUEST IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE LANDLORD NEEDS TO STEP
IN AND START TAKING ADDITIONAL ROLES AND HAVE YOU HAD ANY
FEEDBACK FROM THE LANDLORD COMMUNITY ABOUT PROVIDING THOSE
LEVEL OF SERVICES? >>WE HAVE, YES. IT WILL BE CHALLENGING. WE NEED
TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT IMPACT IS, AND WORK WITH THEM. BUT,
AGAIN, WE ALSO HAVE TO LOOK AT, AGAIN, EACH INDIVIDUAL YOU HAVE
TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR IN THE FIRST 72 HOURS. THERE ARE SOME
PIECES THAT WE CAN BRING FORWARD AS EDUCATIONAL PIECES IN OUR
NEXT REPORT. >>WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY THAT
THERE ARE DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN THINGS
UNFOLD, SOMETIMES THERE ARE ISSUES THAT HAPPEN INSIDE A
BUILDING AND YOU KNOW, YOU CAN TRACE IT BACK, YOU MIGHT EVEN BE
ABLE TO BLAME THE LANDLORD FOR THE UNFOLDING OF A SITUATION
THAT CAUSES THE BUILDING POWER TO BE SHUT OFF OR A FIRE OR
SUCH, BUT THERE’S OTHER SITUATIONS THAT REALLY HAS
NOTHING TO DO WITH A LANDLORD OR MAYBE JUST TRUY AN ACCIDENT
WHERE THERE’S A FIRE OR SOMETHING IN A BUILDING. ARE
THERE ANY OTHER CASES, OR EXAMPLES IN HISTORY WHERE
GOVERNMENT’S PLACED THE ON NEWS ON THE LANDLORD AND HOW WOULD
THEY FAIR? HOW COULD THEY BANK MONEY TO PAY FOR THE TEMPORARY
ACCOMMODATIONS OR YOU KNOW, STOCKPILE EMERGENCY SUPPLIES?
WHERE WOULD THEY KEEP IT? DO WE HAVE ANY PRECEDENT OF THAT?
>>I CAN’T THINK OF A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE. IT IS SOMETHING WE’LL
LOOK AT. IT IS A SIGNIFICANT COST AND THE FEES ABILITY OF
DOING THIS AGAIN IS THE BODY WORK THAT WE’RE TAKING AWAY TO
LOOK AT AND TO UNDERSTAND THE IMPACTS ON LANDLORDS BUT WE ALSO
WANT THE TENANTS TO HAVE AGAIN, THE APPROPRIATE HOUSING.
>>THE LAST QUESTION PRESUMABLY THERE’S COSTS TO DO ALL THIS. I
MEAN, YOU COULD LOOK AT WHAT PRIVATE INSURANCE COSTS FOR A
TENANT TO GIVE YOU SOME CONCEPT YOU KNOW OF THE LEVEL OF RISK
AND WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO CARRY THAT RISK. IS THERE MECHANISMS
IN ANY OF OUR POSITIVES HERE FOR LANDLORDS TO PASS THESE COSTS
ONTO THE TENANTS WHO EFFECTIVELY THEY’RE ENSURNG THROUGH THESE
TYPE OF PLANS AND MECHANISMS AND REQUIREMENTS IN PLACE, OR DO THE
LANDLORDS HAVE TO ABSORB THAT AND HOW CAN THEY EVER RECOVER
THOSE COSTS. >>RIGHT. SO WE ARE WORKING WITH
THE INSURANCE BOARD TO UNDERSTAND CONTENTS INSURANCE
VERSUS TENANT INSURANCE. WE ARE LOOKING AT THAT. YOU ARE CORRECT
THAT TO T COULD BE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT AND THE COSTS COULD BE
PASSED ONTO THE TENANTS. >>THANK YOU. COUNCILLOR THOMPSON.
>>THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM SPEAKER. THROUGH YOU TO STAFF YOU WOULD AGREE THAT
BOTTLED SERVICES AND STATISTICS AND INFORMATION AND SO ON WOULD
BE REQUIRED NOT JUST SIMPLY FOR LANDLORDS AND PROPERTY RENTERS
AND SO ON? >>ABSOLUTELY, YES.
>>RIGHT. SO AND I REALIZE THE THEME OF THIS WITH RESPECT TO
YOU KNOW, APARTMENT BUILDINGS, AND RENTAL AND SO ON. BUT I
WANTED TO EXAMINE PERHAPS A BIGGER PICTURE. WE HAD THE ICE
STORM A FEW YEARS AGO. THERE WERE MANY PEOPLE IN THEIR HOMES
THAT NEEDED SERVICES AND/OR NEEDED ASSISTANCE, BUT WE AS A
CITY, WE DON’T HAVE ANY TYPE OF INFORMATION THAT HELPS US TO
UNDERSTAND, FOR EXAMPLE, A SENIOR WHO LIVES ALONE AND ISN’T
ABLE TO GET OUT, DOESN’T DRIVE AND HAS NO ELECTRICITY, NO
POWER, WATER WASN’T RUNNING OR WHAT HAVE YOU. I’M JUST
WONDERING WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULDN’T BE LOOKING AT THIS IN
A MUCH MORE WHOLE SOME OR LARGER WAY FOR THE CITY TO DEAL WITH
SOME OF THESE ISSUES. WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THIS PERHAPS NEEDS TO
BE MUCH MORE FOCUSED IN TERMS OF RESPONDING TO THE VITAL SERVICE
NEEDS OF OUR RESIDENTS WHEN THERE ARE TIMES OF EMERGENCIES?
>>YES, THAT’S A FAIR QUESTIONS AND WE NEED TO LOOK AT BROADER.
THE REASON THIS IS HERE BECAUSE OF THE INCIDENTS THAT FOCUSED
IT. >>NO, NO, NO AND I APPRECIATE
THAT. I JUST WANTED TO SEE. SO RECOGNIZNG WHAT THIS IS AND SO
IF I WERE TO BRING A MOTION THEN I THINK IT WOULD PROBABLY BE A
MEMBER’S NOTICE OF MOTION, THINKING ABOUT IT FOR SOME TIME
I JUST WANTED TO GET YOUR PERSPECTIVE THOUGH IN TERMS OF
WHETHER OR NOT YOU THINK THAT THE CITY SHOULD BE DOING MORE TO
ENSURE THAT WE UNDERSTAND WHO IN OUR RESPECTIVE WARDS AND
NEIGHBORHOODS WOULD NEED SPECIFIC ASSISTANCE DURING TIMES
OF MAJOR EMERGENCIES. >>AT THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING
WHEN THIS WAS BROUGHT UP IT WAS DETERMINED THAT IT SHOULD BE A
VOLUNTARY LIST, NOT MANDATORY. SO PEOPLE DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO
THEIR OWN PRIVACY AND WHETHER THEY SHARE THAT THEY ARE
VULNERABLE OR NOT, BUT I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE HELP
PEOPLE. BUT WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT — WHAT THE
SCOPE OF THAT IS. >>WITH GREAT RESPECT, YOU’RE
NOT PROVIDING THAT AS SORT OF A VOLUNTEER BASIS FOR THE
LANDLORD FOR RENTAL PROPERTIES, ARE YOU? YOU’RE SUGGESTING THAT
WE LOOK AT ESTABLISHING SUCH? >>WE’RE SUGGESTING ESTABLISHING
A LIST — IN EACH APARTMENT BUILDINGS VOLUNTARY IN THE EVENT
THAT YOU NEED HELP TO GET DOWN THE SET OF STAIRS, OR YOU MAY
NEED ASSISTANCE. >>SO WOULD THE SERVICES PROVIDE
LIKE WATER AND OTHER THINGS, SUPPLIES THAT YOU TALK ABOUT
THROUGH THE QUESTIONING OF COUNCILLOR HOLYDAY, DEPUTY MAYOR
HOLYDAY, WOULD THAT BE VOLUNTARY AS WELL?
>> SO THAT IS A PIECE OF WORK THAT WE NEED TO DO. IT’S NOT
NECESSARILY VOLUNTARY. AGAIN, EACH LANDLORD, WHAT WE’RE TRYING
TO LOOK AT IS WHAT THE PREPAREDNESS EACH INDIVIDUAL HAS
TO HAVE FOR 72 HOURS, AND THEN — AND MOVING ON FROM THERE.
>>NO, I THINK — JUST SO THAT I CAN UNDERSTAND THIS, IT’S MY
UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU KIND OF INTIMATED THAT LANDLORDS WOULD
BE RESPONSIBLE, RIGHT. >>[MULTIPLE SPEAKERS].
>>TO HAVE THE LANDLORDS BE RESPONSIBLE TO HAVE A LIST OF
TENANTS WHO THEY CAN COMMUNICATE WITH TO EDUCATE THEM ON WHAT’S
HAPPENING IN THEIR BUILDING. >>IF THE TENANTS CHOOSE TO
PARTICIPATE. >>THAT’S CORRECT.
>>OKAY. GREAT. THANK YOU. >>THANK YOU. COUNCILLOR BAILAO.
>>THANK YOU, THROUGH YOU MADAM SPEAKER.
>>HOLD ON. WHO’S PHONE IS RING RINGING? [TECHNICAL DIFFICULTY] .
>>THERE WOULD BE COSTS FOR OUR STAFF TO BE OUT THERE, TO
INVESTIGATION, TO AUDIT, YES. >>OKAY.
>>AND WHAT ALL THE LONG LISTS OF ISSUES THAT YOU WERE ASKED TO
LOOK AT, IT WAS ACTUALLY PROVIDED BY A MEMBER OF THE
COMMITTEE THAT EXPERIENCED THIS SCENARIO AND IT’S JUST A LONG
LIST OF THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN ASKED THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN
COMPILED AND ASKED YOU TO LOOK AT IT. SO IT’S BASED ON
EXPERIENCE, BASED ON WHAT COMMUNITY NEEDED, AND A REQUEST
FOR YOU TO LOOK AT THE MANY ISSUES THAT ARISE DURING THESE
SITUATIONS. CORRECT?
>>THAT’S CORRECT. AND I ASKED THE QUESTION OF MY STAFF TODAY
OF WHY IT WAS SO LONG BECAUSE IT WAS CROWD SOURCED WITH ALL THE
PEOPLE THAT WERE IMPACTED. WE HAVE TO LOOK AT ALL THE AREAS —
>>[MULTIPLE SPEAKERS]. >>QUITE HELPFUL FOR YOU BECAUSE
BASED ON THE UNFORTUNATE EXPERIENCE THAT WE’VE ALREADY
HAD IN OUR CITY THERE WAS SOMEBODY THAT ACTUALLY CROWD
SOURCED ALL THIS INFORMATION PROVIDED IT TO YOU, BASED ON
REAL SCENARIOS AND SITUATIONS THAT HAPPENED FOR YOU TO TAKE A
LOOK AT IT TO SEE IF WE CAN BE HELPFUL IN FUTURE SITUATIONS,
THAT WE HOPE NOT TO BE THERE BUT WE’RE TRYING TO BE PROACTIVE AND
BE PREPARED CORRECT? >>THAT’S CORRECT, VERY
COMPRESSED TIME LINES. >>AND THE OTHER THING WE’RE
DOING AS WELL IS ACTUALLY PREVENT THE RISK OR MINIMIZE THE
RISK FOR THE CITY BECAUSE THIS COULD GO INTO MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS THAT THE CITY HAS TO PROVIDE OF ASSISTANCE IF WE
DON’T WORK WITH LANDLORDS AND TENANTS TO NOT ONLY MAINTAIN OR
BUILDINGS BUT HAVE PLANS IN CASE THE SITUATIONS ARISE IS THAT
CORRECT? >>THAT’S CORRECT.
>>THANK YOU. >>COUNCILLOR HOLYDAY TO SPEAK. >>THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.
I’LL BE QUITE BRIEF ON IT. I’M GOING TO ASK TO SEPARATE OUT THE
VOTES ON 5B AND 5C. AND THE REASON FOR
THIS IS THIS IS A BIT OF A BALANCNG ACT. I VERY MUCH
FOLLOWED AND RESPECT THE UNFOLDING OF SOME OF THE
INCIDENTS THAT WERE THE GENESIS OF THE REPORT AND I’VE GOT AN
EMERGENCY PLANNING BACKGROUND AMONGST SOME OF THE WORK THAT
I’VE DONE IN MY PAST. BUT THERE’S A BIT OF A BALANCE
IN WHAT YOU ASK OF LANDLORDS BECAUSE WE ALSO WANT TO BE A
CITY THAT ENCOURAGES LANDLORDS TO GET IN THE BUSINESS OF OWNING
AND RENTING OUT BUILDINGS. AND I KNOW WE’VE TALKED A LOT
ABOUT SMALLER LANDLORDS AND SOME OF THE OTHER COUNCIL POLICES BUT
THERE ARE THE LARGER BUILDINGS, 3450ED YUM SIZED BUILDINGS MAY
BE CONTEMPLATED BY THIS POLICY. I JUST FIND IT’S A LITTLE BIT
MUCH TO ASK LANDLORDS TO BEGIN TO PLAY THE ROLE OF ENSURNG OR
TAKING ON RESPONSIBILITES THAT TRADITIONALLY FALL TO THE
TENANTS AND SPECIFICALLY IN HERE THERE’S THINGS ABOUT PROVIDING
FOOD, PROVIDING BLANKETS, PAYING FOR HOTEL ACCOMMODATIONS AND THE
LIKE. AND THERE ARE SOME VERY GOOD THINGS MIXED INTO THE
MOTIONS, PLEASE DON’T TAKE IT THEY’RE ALL BAD, I JUST FIND
THOSE ARE A FAIRLY HIGH BAR. AND FOR THE SAME REASON THAT I DON’T
THINK IT’S PALATABLE FOR THIS COUNCIL TO MANDATE THAT EVERY
TENANT CARRY INSURANCE ON CONTENTS OF THEIR APARTMENTS
THAT WOULD HANDLE THIS TYPE OF A SITUATION I’M NOT SURE WE SHOULD
FORCE THAT DOWN ONTO THE LANDLORDS, BECAUSE ULTIMATELY
SOMEBODY HAS TO PAY FOR IT AND ULTIMATELY THAT’S PROBABLY THE
TENANTS AT THE END OF THE DAY. I REALIZE IT’S A REPORT REQUEST.
AND YOU KNOW, MLS IS GOING TO LOOK AT THIS, AND LOOK AT A LOT
OF THE HEAVY COMMUNICATIONS AND LISTS AND THINGS THAT WE’VE
ASKED THEM TO LOOK AT ON THIS, BUT JUST SENDING THE SIGNAL FROM
COUNCIL I THINK IS ONE THAT WE SHOULD BE AWARE OF. I’M SURE
THERE ARE LANDLORDS WATCHING THIS AND ADDING THAT TO THEIR
COLUMN OF DECISIONS THAT THEY’RE TRYING TO MAKE WHEN TRYING TO
CHOOSE THE TENURE OF THEIR NEXT PROJECT WHETHER IT BE CON MINUTE
YUM OR APARTMENT BUILDING. I JUST WANT TO BE CAREFUL WITH THE
STARTEDS THAT WE’RE ASKING THEM TO LIP UP TO. THEY ALL TRANSLATE
TO COSTS. I’M NOT SURE ALWAYS THERE — —
A CIVIL DISRUPTION OF POWER OR ENERGY. WE KNOW FROM THE
ADVERTISNG GOVERNMENT CANADA THEY’RE ALL SUPPOSED TO BE
RESILIENT OUR SELF FOR 72 HOURS AS MR. GRANT BROUGHT UP.
SO EVEN SENDING THE MESSAGE THAT WE’RE GOING TO TRANSFER THAT
RESPONSIBILITY TO SOMEBODY ELSE LOOK YOU DON’T HAVE TO WORRY
ABOUT IT ANY MORE I THINK IS HEADING DOWN THE WRONG PATH AND
PERHAPS IS EVEN COUNTER TO THE SPIRIT OF EMERGENCY
PREPAREDNESS. SO FOR THAT REASON — I CAN’T SUPPORT THOSE. CAN A
I CAN SUPPORT THE BALANCE OF THE REPORT AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS
COMING FORWARD. I THINK THEY’RE EXCELLENT AND I
THINK THEY WILL MAKE US A MORE RESILIENT CITY AND WE’LL SEE
THESE EMERGENCES UNFOLD AND BE RESPONDED TO IN BETTER WAYS ONCE
SOME OF THESE MECHANISMS ARE IN PLACE. THANK YOU.
>>THANK YOU. COUNCILLOR WONG-TAM.
>>THANK YOU, VERY MUCH MADAM SPEAKER. AS THE AUTHOR OF THE —
OF THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS SO THE ONES THAT WERE ADDED TO
THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND MIGHT
BE VERY HELPFUL MADAM SPEAKER, FOR THE MEMBERS OF COUNCIL. 650 PARLIAMENT I THINK WE CAN
ALL AGREE WAS A CATASTROPHIC DISASTER, AND THAT DISASTER HAS
LEFT 1500 INDIVIDUALS RESIDENTS OF TORONTO WITHOUT A HOME.
AND THEY HAVE NOW BEEN WITHOUT A HOME FOR CLOSE TO 10 MONTHS.
THEY’RE GOING ON — THEY’RE GOING ON ABOUT A YEAR AND WHAT
WE’RE HEARING IS THAT HE MAY NOT COME BACK EVEN AS THEY HIT THE
ONE YEAR MARK. WHAT WE LEARNED WAS THAT WE JUST WEREN’T READY.
AND IT’S NOT ABOUT NECESSARILY MAKING THE LANDLORD DO
EVERYTHING, BUT WHAT WE WEREN’T READY FOR WAS A LANDLORD THAT
DIDN’T KNOW WHAT TO DO. AND SAME PROPERTY OWNER HAD ANOTHER
PROPERTY AT 2 # 0WELSLEY WHERE THE BUILDING WENT DARK. I KNOW
THAT MAYOR TORY WAS OUT THERE IN THE EVENING I WAS OUT THERE IN
THE EVENING AS WELL AS AN INCREDIBLE NUMBER OF FIRST
RESPONDERS TRYING TO MAKE SENSE OF THE ABSOLUTE CHAOS. ONCE
AGAIN THAT SAME PROPERTY OWNER, THE SAME ONE, THE ONE THAT
DIDN’T DO WELL WITH THE MERGE PLANNING FOR 650 PARLIAMENT YOU
FIGURED THEY WOULD HAVE LEARNED A FEW THINGS THEY ARE NOT READY
FOR THE FIVE DAY, ALMOST 6-DAY BLACKOUT AT 260 PARLIAMENT. AT
THAT PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME THE DEPUTY CHIEF OF TORONTO
POLICE MADE A CALL BECAUSE THE SHELTERS WERE LITERALLY FULL.
THERE WAS NO ONE TO PLACE ANYBODY. THERE WERE ONLY ABOUT
300 HOTEL ROOMS THAT WERE AVAILABLE IF WE WERE TO MOVE
THEM INTO A HOTEL. THE CALL WAS MADE THAT TO KEEP THEM IN THE
DARK IN THE COLD IN JANUARY WHERE IT WAS GOING DOWN TO MINUS
30 AND MINUS 25 IS TO KEEP PEOPLE IN THE DARK WITHOUT
WATER, WITHOUT POWER, IN A BLACK WITH VULNERABLE PEOPLE, WITH
PEOPLE LIVING WITH ILLNESS, PEOPLE LIVING WITH MOBILITY
CHALLENGES, IS TO KEEP THEM IN THE DARK RATHER THAN PUT THEM ON
THE STREETS OR FIND A HOTEL ROOM. THERE WAS JUST NO ADEQUATE
PLANNING. SO THIS PARTICULAR SET OF SET OF
RECOMMENDATIONS I RECOGNIZE IT’S LONG, BUT IT REALLY CAME OUT OF
SO MANY DIFFERENT CONVERSATIONS THAT I HAD WITH THE LOCAL
COMMUNITY, AND THE FIRST RESPONDERS. BECAUSE THEY WERE
ALL TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE SENSE OF A CHAOTIC
SITUATION, AND YOU DIDN’T HAVE A LANDLORD THAT WAS BEING — THAT
WAS PROACTIVE. SO THERE ARE COSTS TO 650
PARLIAMENT. THERE ARE COSTS TO 260WESLEY. WE’RE GOING
TO HAVE TO SUE THEM. I THINK WE’RE GOING TO HAVE TO FINE AND
INITIATE SOME LEGAL CLAIMS. AND THE NUMBER OF RESOURCES, THE
AMOUNT OF RESOURCES THAT THIS CITY SPENT, THIS COUNCIL SPENT
TO TAKE CARE OF A LANDLORD THAT WASN’T DOING THEIR JOB, I
SUSPECT IT’S GOING TO BE INTO THE MILLIONS EASILY. SO
SOMEBODY’S GOT TO PAY. YOU’RE RIGHT. ABSOLUTELY SOMEBODY’S GOT
TO PAY. I DON’T THINK THAT IT SHOULD BE
EXCLUSIVELY THE TENANTS ESPECIALLY FOR A BUILDING THAT’S
NOT WELL MANAGED, WHERE THEY — WHERE IT WAS CONFIRMED FOR US
THAT THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM HAD NOT BEEN INSPECTED FOR DECADES,
I DON’T BELIEVE AT ALL THAT THE LANDLORD — THAT THE BAR IS TOO
HIGH, THAT THEY’VE DONE TOO MUCH, BURDEN IS TOO GREAT.
WHEN ALL I’M ASKING FOR IS STAFF TO CONSIDER ALL THE INFORMATION
THAT WE’VE GATHERED AND ASK US IS THIS DOABLE, CAN WE IMPLEMENT
IT? IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WILL WORK FOR EVERYBODY, INCLUDING
THE CITY OF TORONTO AND THE TAXPAYERS OF TORONTO WHO ARE
GOING TO HAVE TO PAY THE BILL IF WE DON’T RECOVER SOME OF THE
COSTS THAT WE SPENT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE RESIDENTS WERE OKAY AND
TAKEN CARE OF. AND IT HAD EVERYBODY TO DO WITH
THE FACT THAT EVERYTHING WE HAD TO ASK FOR WAS AN ASK. WE HAVE
TO ASK FOR BLANKETS, WE HAVE TO ASK FOR WATER, WE HAD TO ASK FOR
SECURITY, WE HAD TO ASK FOR JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING.
IT WAS A NEGOTIATION EVERY STEP OF THE WAY. IT WAS FRUSTRATING.
DARN FRUSTRATING. AND IT WAS UNFAIR TO THE RESIDENTS BECAUSE
WE WERE NOT READY TO DEAL — WELL, WE WERE READY TO DEAL WITH
THE SITUATION, BUT THE LANDLORD WAS NOT READY TO DEAL WITH HIS
SITUATION. AND THAT IS WHAT I THINK IS THE
MOST FRUSTRATNG THING FOR THE RESIDENTS OF ST. JAMESTOWN AND
KNOWING THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT AN AGEING BUILDING
STOCK ACROSS THE CITY WHEN IT HAPPENS IN YOUR COMMUNITY,
THERE’S A VERY GOOD CHANCE YOU’RE GOING TO LOOK BACK ON
THIS DAY AND SAID I’M REALLY GLAD THAT COUNCILLOR WONG-TAM
AND THE COMMUNITY AND FIRST RESPONDERS AND EVERYBODY ELSE
CAME TOGETHER AND FIGURED IT OUT THEN SO THAT YOU DIDN’T HAVE TO
MAKE IT UP ON THE FLY WHEN THE CAN A FAST TOO FEE LANDS IN YOUR
COMMUNITY AND YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>>THANK YOU. SO COUNCILLOR HOLYDAY WANTS A STRAIGHT — OH,
COUNCILLOR THOMPSON. 50U BE THE LAST SPEAKER.
>>THANK YOU VERY MUCH.. >>I JUST WANTED TO RISE AND
THANK COUNCILLOR WONG-TAM FOR OBVIOUSLY INITIATNG A LOT OF
THIS. WE SAW HER AND HER COMMUNITY WHEN THESE INCIDENTS
OCCURRED. AND FOR ANY OF US WHO HAVE HAD ANYTHING SUCH AS AN EMERGENCY
SITUATION IN OUR COMMUNITY WE HAD A FIRE IN MY AREA WHERE A
MAN ACTUALLY DIED, AND THE LANDLORD HIMSELF HAD HE AND HIS
PARTNER WHERE SOME PLACE WE DON’T KNOW WHERE TO THIS DATE
AND THE RESIDENTS NEEDED ASSISTANCE AND THE CITY DID COME
TO — TO THEIR ASSISTANCE. AND AS I SAID, SOMEONE DIED. AND
CLEARLY TO THE MAGNITUDE THAT THE COUNCILLOR HAD EXPERIENCE
WITH THE 2 RESPECTED BUILDING IN HER AREA, MINE WAS NOT ANYWHERE
NEAR THAT IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT WERE IMPACTED,
BUT AS I INDICATED EARLIER, MADAM SPEAKER, SOMEONE ACTUALLY
DIED IN THE FIRE THAT TOOK PLACE IN MY WARD.
WE ACTUALLY HAD TO SEEK OUT THE ASSISTANCE OF A HOTEL IN THE WORD AND IN THE 41 AREA
TO HELP TO PUT RESIDENTS UP, BECAUSE THERE WERE NO
OPPORTUNITY IN TERMS OF GETTING TOUCH WITH THE LANDLORD. I DO
THINK THAT AS WE REALIZE THROUGHOUT THE CITY WE HAVE A
LOT OF OLDER STOCK OF RENTAL UNITS THAT ARE IN NEED OF
REPAIR. AND IT’S NOT JUST THE DOWNTOWN CORE IT IS OUT IN THE
WEST END, IT’S OUT IN THE EAST END, IT’S IN THE NORTH END OF
THE CITY. I DO THINK THAT WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS.
AND I THINK THIS IS A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. I DON’T
THINK THAT WE’RE SUGGESTING ANY MEANS THAT SIMPLY THAT WE’RE
GOING TO PUT THE BURDEN AND ONUS SO MUCH ON THE LANDLORD,
BUT IF WE ARE WE HAVE TO DO THAT IN A BALANCED WAY, BECAUSE AT
THE END OF THE DAY WE KNOW IN A ALL OF THE COSTS WILL BE PASSED
BACK ONTO THE TENANTS. BUT IF LANDLORDS ARE TAKING CARE OF
THEIR PROPERTIES, WE WOULDN’T FIND OURSELVES IN THESE
PARTICULAR CONDITIONS. AND I THINK THAT IS PART OF WHAT
THE MESSAING HERE IS. I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT FOR US TO
ALSO KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE ELDERLY RESIDENTS IN THESE
BUILDINGS. AND WHAT FLOORS THEY’RE LOCATED,
WHERE — WHAT UNITS THEY’RE IN AND HOW WE OFFER ASSISTANCE TO
THEM. I DO THINK AS WELL THERE IS A
BROADER REQUIREMENT IN FACT, TO ENSURE THAT ACROSS THE CITY WE
DO SOMETHING SIMILAR TO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTES IN OUR
RESPECTIVE WARDS. DURING THE ICE STORM I FOUND PERSONALLY A
NUMBER OF RESIDENTS WHO WERE OFF IN ABLE AND STILL LIVING IN
THEIR HOMES, BUT BECAUSE OF THE EMERGENCY AT THAT TIME WITH THE
ICE STORM THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO GET OUT. THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO
GET ASSISTANCE AND SO ON. LUCKY THING THAT I KNEW WHERE SOME OF
THEM LIVED, AND WE WERE ABLE TO PROVIDE WHETHER OR NOT IT’S
COFFEE, WATER AND SOME ASSISTANCE TO THEM. I THINK AS A
CITY WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BE AWARE AND BE MINDFUL OF THESE
REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS UPON US
AND LOTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES ARE TAKING PLACE IN OUR
RESPECTIVE CITIES AND OUR TOWNS AND NEIGHBORHOODS AND SO ON. SO
I THINK WE NEED TO BE AWARE OF THIS. AND I JUST SIMPLY WANTED
TO THANK THE COUNCILLOR. I SAW THE PAIN, I SAW THE PROBLEM.
SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN YOUR AREA ACTUALLY CAME TO
MINE AS WELL BECAUSE THE RELATIVES LIVED IN THE AREA. SO
THEY WERE TRYING TO SEEK SHELTER AND ACCOMMODATION AND I DID MEET
A NUMBER OF THEM. AND I IS A THE PAIN IN TERMS THEIR EXPRESSION
AND EMOTIONS. I SAW THE YOUNG CHILDREN WHO WERE IMPACTED BY
THIS. THIS IN MY VIEW, IS A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. THANK
YOU. >>THANK YOU. >>COUNCILLOR HOLYDAY HAS ASKED
THAT WE VOTE ON 5B AND 5C RECORDED VOTE. >>COUNCILLOR BAILAO, PLEASE. >>PARTS 5B AND C ARE ADOPTED
22-2. >>ON THE ITEM ALL IN FAVOR.
RECORDED VOTE. COUNCILLOR BAILAO, PLEASE. >>THE BALANCE OF THE ITEM IS
ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY 24 IN FAVOR.>>QUICK RELEASES BEFORE WE
RECESS. COUNCILLOR FLETCHER. >>YES, PAGE 8, CC7.2 TERMS FOR
APPOINTMENT FOR TORONTO’S LOBBYIST REGISTER STAR AND
CLERKS HAVE A MOTION TO MOVE A. EXTEND TERM —
>>OKAY. >>TO DO WHAT?
>>TO FINISH HER TERM. >>OKAY. SO ON CC7.2, THE — THE AMENDMENT IS THERE. ALL IN
FAVOR. CARRIED. ALL RIGHT. COUNCILLOR CRAWFORD.
>>THANK YOU, IT WAS A NEW ITEM, IT’S SC6.4 TRAFFIC AND PARKING
AMENDMENTS. IT WAS CIRCULATED. >>OKAY. SO YOU MOVE. ALL IN
FAVOR. CARRIED. COUNCILLOR LAYTON.
>>YES, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THIS IS ON PAGE 9. CC7.10, 129 TO 131, 292 TO
294DUNDAS STREET WEST THERE WAS AN AMENDMENT CIRCULATED, BUT IT
WAS CONFIDENTIAL. >>YES, WE HAVE IT.
>>AMENDS THE INSTRUCTIONS. IF EVERYONE HAD A CHANCE TO TAKE A
LOOK IF I COULD — >>MOVE IT.
>>ALL 234 FAVOR, CARRIED. ITEM AS AMENDED ALL IN FAVOR,
CARRIED. OKAY. SO WE JUST HAVE — COUNCILLOR CARROLL DID YOU
WANT TO RELEASE CC — DEPUTY MAYOR MINNAN-WONG — DID YOU —
NO, OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WE DO HAVE A MOTION THAT WE I’D LIKE TO
ADD. BEFORE WE RECESS. OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR, CARRIED.
THANK YOU. >>RECORDED WE’RE JUST INTRODUCING
IT. RECORDED VOTE. SO AM I GOING TO SEE THAT YOU’RE
NOT MY FRIEND? >>[OFF MIC] COUNCILLOR PERRUZZA SAID THIS
WILL SHOW YOU WHO YOUR FRIENDS ARE.
>>[OFF MIC]. >>THE MOTION TO ADD THE ITEM
CARRES UNANIMOUSLY 24 IN FAVOR. >>I HAVE LOT OF FRIENDS. COUNCILLOR BRADFORD YOU HAVE A
MOTION TO INTRODUCE THE CONFIRMING BILL.
>>THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. A MOTION HERE THAT BE GRANTED TO
INTRODUCE A BILL — THE PROCEEDINGS OF CITY COUNCIL
MEETING 7 ON MAY 14TH, 2019. >>SHALL LEAVE BE GRANTED TO
INTRODUCE THIS BILL RECORDED VOTE. >>COUNCILLOR WONG-TAM, PLEASE.
>>COUNCILLOR LAYTON, PLEASE, YOUR VOTE. >>THE MOTION TO INTRODUCE THE
CONFIRMING VOTE CARRES UNANIMOUSLY 24 IN FAVOR.
>>THIS WILL BE PASSED AND DECLARED AS A BYLAW RECORDED
VOTE. >>COUNCILLOR MATLOW, COUNCILLOR
KARYGIANNIS, COUNCILLOR BAILAO, PLEASE.
>>COUNCILLOR PERKS, PLEASE. AND COUNCILLOR PERRUZZA, PLEASE. MOTION TO ENACT THE CONFIRMING
BILL CARRES UNANIMOUSLY 24 IN FAVOR.
>>CC7.3 WAS WITH JUST DISTRIBUTED TO MEMBERS OF
COUNCIL. THAT WILL BE OUR ITEM TOMORROW MORNING. RECESSED UNTIL TOMORROW AT 9:30.
YOUR HOMEWORK IS TO READ CC7.3.

Leave a Reply

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