Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 09 June 2019

How long before I can see my MPP, Christine Elliott?  

I have no idea.

It could be in the Fall.

But I am keeping my fingers crossed. 

We learn the PCs want their MPPs to use the summer break talking to their constituents, finding out what’s important to them.

The Minister responsible for getting Ford’s legislation through Queen’s Park, Government House Leader Todd Smith, told reporters last week that the long summer recess had nothing to do with the forthcoming federal election. No. No. No. It was all about giving MPPs an opportunity to re-connect with their constituents.

“This was a decision that was made by our cabinet and our team here in Ontario. It’s time for us to sit down, talk on where we’re going to go next, talk to our constituents about what’s important to them. And we’re going to come back bigger and badder than ever in the fall.”

Encouraged by this, I decide I want to see Ms Elliott face-to-face to tell her my concerns about the way Ford’s Progressive Conservatives have subverted the legislative process. She is Deputy Leader and knows her way around Queen’s Park and must take some responsibility for what’s happening.

Subverting the legislative process

This subversion has, of course, been happening incrementally for years but now it is utterly shameless. The PCs are going full steam ahead, abandoning any pretence of consultation. They are doing away with the Committee Stage of Bills, compressing consideration of important Bills into a handful of hours of “debate”. This is all done under the guise of “time-tabling” the legislation. And all the while, the Attorney General stands aloof and apart. Unwilling to intervene.

But it wasn’t always like this.

PC MPPs like Todd Smith have in the past condemned time-table motions as undemocratic. But now they are doing themselves what they previously condemned - voting to curtail debate. This is what the “big bad” Todd Smith MPP had to say in April 2016

“Sometimes what happens here—my friend from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke describes it as the guillotine coming down and slicing off debate. He makes a very effective sound effect every time the House leader or deputy House leader moves a closure motion. We’ve seen that time and time again. They should not be using a blunt instrument—and a guillotine is not a blunt instrument—to pass legislation in this House.”

Steve Clark MPP, now Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, told us on 28 May 2015:

“Time after time, we’ve had negotiations where all of a sudden the government stops talking to us and presents bills that will either choke off debate or move bills through quickly without hearing from constituents.”

And on 7 May 2018 John Yakabuski MPP, now Minister of Transportation, complained:

“Well, how can something be duly considered if you haven’t even had the opportunity to debate it? How can you say that something has been duly considered if you haven’t even allowed the public, the stakeholders—those people who will be most affected by it, those people who will be responsible for carrying it out—the opportunity to offer opinion or views as to how that legislation might be changed, altered, improved, or have some parts of it swept away altogether, because they’re not in the best interests of the people who will be most affected?

… But if you are not considering the views of others, if you’re not considering the right of the opposition to bring a different view that might make that legislation stronger, then you are not acting in the best interests of democracy.”

Where will it all end? 

I ask myself where will it all end? Will we get a Bill to abolish York Region and amalgamate Newmarket and Aurora after 7 hours of “debate” and no Committee Stage where the Bill could be examined line by line and where expert witnesses could be called? Very possibly. Line-by-line scrutiny is not Doug Ford’s thing. There was no consultation with the public at all on Bill 5, cutting by half the size of Toronto City Council (the Better Local Government Act).

For me, I suppose the Beer Stores legislation is the straw that broke the camel’s back. Previous Bills to axe cap-and-trade and the one to cut the size of Toronto City Council stress tested the system. But now we are into completely new territory. The old structures, conventions and procedures are routinely being by-passed and ignored.

Bill 115 (aka Bringing Choice and Fairness to the People Act (Beverage Alcohol Retail Sales), 2019) was crying out for detailed forensic examination. It didn’t get it and it is now the law of the land.

How to get an appointment with your MPP

It is Friday and I am outside Christine Elliott’s constituency office with the Common Ground people, chatting to the demonstrators and getting their views about things.

After half an hour or so the good-natured crowd, waving placards aloft, moves off towards Yonge Street and I stay behind. I decide I want to see my MPP to discuss the subversion of Parliamentary procedures at Queen’s Park.

Last year I tried and failed to get an appointment with Ms Elliott to discuss her views on handguns and assault weapons and whether she thinks they should be banned (she doesn’t). There was an exchange of emails with her staff but I never managed to get past her gatekeepers. This time I resolve it will be different.

As I go into the office I meet Dorian Baxter on his way out. He hasn’t seen her either. I’ve been here every Friday for weeks but I haven’t caught a glimpse of my MPP. How on earth does she spend her time? I’d love to have sight of her appointments diary and to see how much time she spends in the constituency.

“You can see her in the Fall.”

Anyway… I am standing at the reception counter asking a staff member if I can get an appointment with my MPP. I am told I shall have to email with details of what I want to see her about. Why? I ask. I am standing here in front of you and can explain. The staff member tells me the nearest appointment is in the Fall. Surely some mistake? 

OK I say. I’ll take an appointment in the Fall. 

Now I am told she can’t help me. She doesn’t do the appointments. I shall have to speak to Dawn who is Constituency Manager and Executive Assistant and she isn’t in the office. She’s gone up to Yonge Street to talk to the Common Ground people about the demonstrations outside the MPP’s office. 

I chase after Dawn and finally catch up with her and explain why I want an appointment. She tells me to email her and on Friday afternoon I send this off:

Dear Ms Gallagher Murphy

I am a constituent of Ms Elliott.

We spoke earlier this afternoon on the way up Yonge Street. 

I would very much like an appointment with Ms Elliott to discuss the Bringing Choice and Fairness to the People Act 2019. I am not an employee of the Beer Store nor do I have any links with its owners as a shareholder or in any other capacity.

However, I am concerned that the Government has decided to break its contract with the Beer Store in a way that seems to preclude compensation or any kind of remedy. I believe this amounts to arbitrary and capricious lawmaking.

Your colleague at the constituency office suggested I may have to wait until the fall for an interview but you told me you work on a two month schedule looking forward. I am out of the country from xx-xx July but, other than that, I shall change any commitments I may have so as to fit in with Ms Elliott’s schedule.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Servants of the people

The same afternoon I get an encouraging response from Dawn thanking me for emailing her and saying she will put me in her log. This is more like it! She says she will be in touch and that I should enjoy the lovely, warm, sunny weather.

This is terrific. Just as it should be. Our elected officials should be the servants of the people not their masters.

I look forward to reporting back on how my appointment goes.

Todd Smith wants to know.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

The exchanges at Question Time in the Legislature on 6 June 2019. "We will take no lessons on legislative procedure..." Vic Fedeli

Government contract

Ms. Sandy Shaw: My question is to the Attorney General. The rule of law means that governments, even—I must remind the members across—this one, should follow the law, just like every Ontarian is required to do on a daily basis. It’s a basic principle of justice and how we function as a civil society. Speaker, it’s a principle that this Attorney General is sworn to uphold. That’s why it’s so concerning that this government is ripping up contracts and ignoring the rule of law—all for beer. In fact, the Canadian American Bar Association wrote the Attorney General an urgent letter and said that this government will “undermine the rule of law.”

The Attorney General’s job is to uphold the rule of law. Has she spoken to the Premier about these serious concerns?

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, we continue—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’d ask the Minister of Finance to sit down. I apologize.

The rules of the House allow any minister to refer any question to another minister. What they’re doing is completely within the standing orders.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

The Minister of Finance to reply.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, I’ll begin like I begin this answer all the time. Most people in the province of Ontario are not aware that the government does not own the Beer Store. It is not like the LCBO, which we do own, and that great brand.

The Beer Store is owned by three global multinationals. They were given a sweetheart deal by the Liberal government. The Liberal government put profits ahead of people, a deal that’s terrible for the consumers, a deal that’s killing competition, a deal that’s keeping prices high and a deal that’s stifling the craft brewers.

International companies understand our parliamentary system. They know that a new government isn’t bound by bad legislation—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. The supplementary question?

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Back to the Attorney General: Clearly the Attorney General will not take responsibility for the severity of what she’s doing—again, all for beer.

Our international reputation as a place to do business is going down in flames. The Ontario Chamber of Commerce and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce say that this legislation hurts Ontario’s investment climate. The Canadian American Bar Association says that this is an attempt to override the law of contracts. They don’t mince words at all, Mr. Speaker. They warn that this legislation will create uncertainty and risk upsetting a functioning legal system, and say that there isn’t a precedent for ridiculous legislation like this in Canadian legal history. This plan is so reckless, it’s now an international embarrassment.

Why is the Attorney General willing to put Ontario down in the history books as ignoring the rule of law?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: For the member, international companies completely understand that in our parliamentary system, a government isn’t bound by legislation from a previous government. If that were the case, this afternoon we could pass a brand new piece of legislation that would disallow tax increases in Ontario for the rest of time. But we know that our governments don’t work that way. Things simply don’t work like that.

On the international front, we heard from Fitch bond rating agency just last week, after they heard about our new legislation, and they gave our province an upgrade—their first upgrade in eight years. That tells us that our plan is working, that our legislation is respected. We will take no lessons on legislative procedure from that government.

Local Teachers lobbied Caroline Mulroney about education cuts at her Holland Landing constituency office at 4pm on Friday 7 June 2019 (photo below). The MPP was absent and her office was locked up and deserted. Average class sizes are set to increase from 24 to 28.

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 03 June 2019

This morning’s Toronto Star editoral accuses Ford’s cabinet of being his enablers. 

Newmarket-Aurora MPP and Health Minister, Christine Elliott, has been singing the virtues of Bill 115, saying it will allow thirsty constituents to buy a beer at their local convenience store when they want one. She makes no mention of the Bill’s treatment of the Beer Store’s owners who are to be denied any remedy for breach of contract.

There is a case for liberalising beer and alcohol sales but no case whatsoever for ripping up without compensation a contract which, in any event, expires in 2025.

The Government relies on Ken Hughes who was appointed as the “special adviser for the beverage alcohol review”. His report on the retail landscape for beer and alcohol makes compelling reading but nowhere does he advocate ripping up the contract (the Master Framework Agreement) with the three big brewers who largely own the Beer Store. Hughes tells us:

“The alcohol retail landscape is diverse and complex. The largest retailer, the  LCBO, is government-owned and provides a significant annual contribution to the provincial treasury – $2.12 billion in 2017–18. Beer sales are dominated by The Beer Store (TBS), a near-monopoly primarily owned by three of the biggest multinational brewing companies. While most Ontarians view the retail experience at the LCBO favourably, shopping at most TBS locations has changed very little over the past century.”

Hughes recommends the Government should:

“Do everything possible under the Master Framework Agreement to authorize additional alcohol retail outlets.”

The Enabler-in-Chief

Caroline Mulroney, the Attorney General, is another local MPP who seems drunk on power. Included in her long list of responsibilities and duties she

shall advise the Government upon all matters of law connected with legislative enactments and upon all matters of law referred to him or her by the Government;

shall advise the Government upon all matters of a legislative nature and superintend all Government measures of a legislative nature;

Her Ministry’s website tells us

“As chief law officer, the Attorney General has a special responsibility to be the guardian of that most elusive concept - the rule of law. The rule of law is a well-established legal principle, but hard to easily define. It is the rule of law that protects individuals, and society as a whole, from arbitrary measures and safeguards personal liberties.

The Attorney General has a special role to play in advising Cabinet to ensure the rule of law is maintained and that Cabinet actions are legally and constitutionally valid.”

Ripping up contracts

In the second reading debate on the Bill on 30 May 2019 Nathalie des Rosiers warns that ripping up the contract could incur costs of over a billion dollars. 

“Not only does it (the Bill) say that the contracts are hereby terminated, but then it goes on to say that no cause of action arising directly or indirectly will be compensated. I want you to listen to that: “No proceeding ... for a remedy in contract, restitution ... tort, or for misfeasance, bad faith, breach of trust or fiduciary obligation ... for any past, present or future losses” will ever be compensated. They say that and after that add, “This section does not apply to a proceeding commenced by the crown.”

“Essentially, this is a piece of legislation that says that the other party to the contract will lose all its rights—its right to compensation, its right to legitimate expectation under the contract—but the government does not lose any of its rights to sue.”

What does the Attorney General Caroline Mulroney think about this? In her tweet today there is no mention of broken contracts. Just a glancing reference to fairness.

The way in which the Bill is progressing through the legislative assembly is nothing short of a disgrace. 

The Toronto Star's Martin Reg Cohn mocks Doug Ford's journey from buck-a-beer to Bolshevism. But the hijacking of Parliamentary conventions and procedures is deeply troubling. 

The First Reading (when the Bill is printed) was last Monday, 27 May 2019. The Second Reading - the first opportunity for MPPs to debate the principles of the Bill - followed on Thursday 30 May 2019. There is simply not enough time for MPPs to digest all the implications of the Bill and seek expert advice. In other common-law legislatures there is a convention that, outside emergencies, at least two weeks (or two weekends) should pass between first and second readings to allow Members of Parliament to think about the draft legislation in front of them. Apparently at Queen’s Park that isn’t a consideration. 

Bone-headed

Ford’s placeman, the bone-headed Mike Harris (personally appointed as a PC candidate by Ford, not by the riding association) criticized Nathalie des Rosiers in the Second Reading debate for daring to talk about breaking contracts: 

“They can talk all they want about ripping up contracts and this and that, but they were the ones who entered into these contracts in the first place. They were the ones who brought these deals to the province of Ontario, they were the ones who bankrupted this province and they were the ones who put us in the position now where we have to come in and we have to clean up the mess.”

The NDP’s Suze Morrison says:

“We’re talking about what is the priority for Ontarians right now. Is it spending $1 billion ripping up a contract that only has six years left on it? Maybe it’s a good contract, maybe it’s not, but we can revisit it in six years when it expires, and get a new, better deal in six years. If the sky is not falling, come back at this in six years. It’s not the highest order of business on the list.”   

Last September during the furore over the cuts in Toronto council, Doug Ford told journalists:

“Democracy is going every four years to elect a government no matter whether it’s federally or provincially or municipally without worrying about your mandate being overturned.”

Arbitrary

Ford boasts that he is elected and judges aren’t. Ford believes that Parliament is sovereign and it trumps the judges every time. But is that always the case? Even here? 

An Attorney General worth her salt would recognise Bill 115 for what it is – an arbitrary exercise in legislative authority. 

The program motion on the Order Paper today guillotines debate on the Bill. There will be no continuation of the Second Reading debate, no committee stage and no consideration of outside opinion. The debate on the Third Reading (the final stage before enactment) will last one hour.

It is a clear abuse of process.

It is also something that Christine Elliott and Caroline Mulroney, both lawyers, should be concerned about even if their boss isn’t.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

How Bill 115 will be dealt with in the Legislative Assembly. Today's Order Paper reads:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 47 and notwithstanding any other Standing Order or Special Order of the House relating to Bill 115, An Act to amend the Liquor Control Act with respect to the termination of a specified agreement, when the Bill is next called as a Government Order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the Second Reading stage of the Bill without further debate or amendment and at such time the Bill shall be ordered for Third Reading, which Order may be called that same day; and 

That, when the Order for Third Reading of the Bill is called, one hour shall be allotted to the Third Reading stage of the Bill, with 20 minutes apportioned to the Government, 20 minutes to Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, 10 minutes to the Liberal Party Independent Members and 10 minutes apportioned to the Green Party Independent Member. At the end of this time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the Bill without further debate or amendment; and 

That notwithstanding Standing Order 81(c), the Bill may be called for Third Reading more than once in the same sessional day; and 

That in the event of any division relating to any proceedings on the Bill, the division bell shall be limited to 20 minutes. 

Update 5 June 2019: The Twitterverse reports Andrew's Convenience Store was convicted last year of selling e-cigarettes to minors.

Update on 6 June 2019: You can read the Third Reading debate on 5 June 2019 here. Bill 115 has now received Royal Assent. 

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 01 June 2019

Yesterday (Friday 31 May 2019) the Common Ground people staged another of their rolling demonstrations outside Christine Elliott’s office in Newmarket. 

I spot a new face behind dark sunglasses in animated conversation. Under his arm is a clip-board with a leaflet calling for an end to cuts to legal aid.

I decide I gotta speak to this guy who looks as if he has a story to tell. As I approach he thrusts a little piece of paper in to my hand which tells me about Ontario’s multi-billion dollar debt. The last line reads:

“What is it about this that you do not understand??”

Terrific! I’ve bumped into an agent provocateur. 

I suggest it is probably a bit more complicated than 17 words on a Post-it size piece of paper.

He shakes his head. No.

Remember Mike Harris?

Last year during the Provincial election campaign I recall Chris Ballard reminding us that Mike Harris spent 15.5 cents of every dollar on debt interest and the (then) Liberal Government was spending 8 cents. At the time I thought it was a good debating point. Other things being equal, it is better to have less debt than more debt but sometimes Governments have to borrow to invest. They don’t want to raise taxes or (in the case of the Federal Government) print money - the only alternatives to borrowing. Sometimes Governments choose to increase public debt by taking over (or nationalising) private debt. 

That’s what happened in the UK. I lived through it and remember it well. In September 2007 at the start of the global financial crisis, we saw the first run on a British bank in 150 years. The Government stepped in to save UK banks from meltdown, guaranteeing all deposits. Bank shareholders never lost a single penny and their private debts were taken over by the State. £137 billion of public money (around CAN $233 billion) was spent between 2007 and 2009 to stabilise the financial system and prevent economic collapse. 

In some shape or form this was happening around the globe, even in the United States where the contagion started. 

"Whatchathink of that?"  

No easy answer

The man-in-the-white shirt concedes that’s a difficult one. Hmmm.

Even in Canada, which weathered the global financial crisis relatively well, debt went up.

Stephen Harper was Prime Minister from February 2006 to November 2015 during which time Canada’s debt rose from $467,268 million to $ 612,330 million. 

Anyway… I ask the man-in-the-white-shirt if I can read the leaflet on his clipboard. He decides he doesn’t get along with me and testily says no. I am immediately given another copy by someone standing close by. I ask him why he has the leaflet and clipboard and he says he is going into Christine Elliott’s office to talk about it.

As it happens, Elliott, a lawyer herself, has spoken out about access to the justice system. Back in 2009 she was worried that plans to harmonize the PST and the GST charged on legal services would result in higher legal costs for “hard-working Ontarians”.

Harder to get access to justice

She fires this broadside at Attorney General Chris Bentley:

“Why is your government making it even harder for Ontarians to have access to our justice system?”

“Why is your government putting even greater stress on an already strained legal system and putting more vulnerable Ontarians at risk?”

She is furious: 

“Access to legal services is becoming ever more remote in this province.”

Ford’s 30% cut to the legal aid budget this year will, of course, make access much easier.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.a

Update on 12 June 2019 from the Toronto Star.

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 30 May 2019

Newmarket Council’s most talented flip-flopper, Tom “Pancake” Vegh, has been flipping again. 

On Tuesday 21 May 2019 he declares he is in favour of selling Town land to the developer, Briarwood:

 “I am in favour of Scenario 2 now because I think it is needed and it is a real opportunity and it is consistent with our Secondary Plan.”

Six days later on Monday 27 May 2019 Vegh says:

“I am going to be voting in favour of not selling the Hollingsworth site but holding on to it for future community use.”

Vegh is all over the place. He points approvingly to a story in the local press telling us he made a pitch for a library on Hollingsworth. He says:

“The debate over the need for a new library is long over. The only question now is where and when.”

Whoa! In October 2018 he told voters that if they elected him the new library would be at Hollingsworth Arena, presumably in the coming 2018-2022 term. At least that is the inference we were all invited to draw seven months ago.

"Spoken frequently"

On Monday he tells his colleagues:

“I have spoken frequently about a new library on this site.”

Total fiction.

He didn’t say anything about a new library or seniors’ centre during the Council’s priority setting exercise despite being invited by the Mayor to say whatever he wanted to say. In fact, since the election in October he has been completely silent on how he would deliver on his promise. 

What else did we learn from the Deputy Mayor’s 4 minute 15 second speech to his colleagues?

Vegh concedes there may never be a library at Hollingsworth

He now says there is no guarantee there will ever be a library at Hollingsworth.

“…the library must go through its own process that will evaluate and rank all the possible site locations in Town for a new building if that is the route that they choose to go. So there is no guarantee that going through that process the library will land on the Hollingsworth site and there is no guarantee we are looking at a library.”

He says a library is just one of the options. So why didn’t he qualify his promise to the voters saying he would push for a library at Hollingsworth if that’s what the Library Board wanted? That the decision wasn’t really up to him.

Seniors' Centre is forgotten

Vegh didn’t mention a new seniors’ centre at all. It was his very own senior moment.

He conveniently forgets the promises he made a few months ago that got him to where he is now.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Tom "Pancake" Vegh's remarks on Hollingsworth on Monday 27 May 2019:

Tom Vegh: “There was some discussion on this regarding the Hollingsworth Arena site and for those members of the public who may not be too clear about where it is or what the issue we are dealing with … was that Newmarket Council decided to decommission Hollingsworth Arena and leaving us with two options basically. One was to sell the site to be redeveloped as seniors’ housing and some sort of community space or hold on to the property for future community use.” 

“The site itself is located at Davis and Patterson and most of the site is the old single use arena and parking lot. South west of it is the heath centre. South east corner is the Roxborough Retirement. There is a medical centre on the north west corner and the north east corner is vacant which was formerly a gas station and immediately east of the site, adjoining the site, is the parking lot for Huron Heights High School. At the north east corner, the former gas station, we’ll be building two condo buildings there.” 

“The developer who is building those two large buildings offered to purchase the Hollingsworth site to redevelop it as seniors’ housing and community space and through our Secondary Plan the site is zoned for this type of mid-rise residential development. This is very attractive because Newmarket’s seniors population has grown by about 30% in the last decade and by 2026 there will be more seniors in York Region than youth.” 

“The housing proposed by the developer for the seniors will be condos with probably some sort of assisted living component which is really important for some but, frankly, it would not be affordable to most so it would not be any type of affordable seniors’ housing. The other option was to hold on the property for some sort of future community use and with Newmarket being only being about 14 square miles land, particularly land that is already owned by the Town, is precious, precious to us. We know our population will grow and that we will have intensification and this makes the ownership of a good sized unfettered piece of property even more important for the residents of Newmarket.” 

“The plan there is to eventually demolish the arena – because we have decided to decommission it – leaving us with a significant piece of land to redevelop for future community use. Regarding seniors’ housing, I do sit on the Board of Housing York Inc and I am actively working towards more affordable subsidised seniors’ housing and as I mentioned before the seniors’ housing proposal for this site would not be affordable to most seniors. And for those seniors who do have a little bit more money and can afford it we have other condos in development which are housing options for them.”

“Looking at this site – if we are holding on to it - there are many possibilities for this site and I have spoken frequently about a new library on this site. But before anything is done with this site we would be going through a full and transparent community consultation process. People who know our library know that it is about 40 years old and has not been able to change with the times as it needs to due primarily to its facility restrictions. The library is in an older building, multiple storeys and it just packed with books and not enough space. The building is not well suited for the functions of a modern library.” 

“However – and this is a big however – the library must go through its own process that will evaluate and rank all the possible site locations in Town for a new building if that is the route that they choose to go. So there is no guarantee that going through that process the library will land on the Hollingsworth site and there is no guarantee that we are looking at a library.” 

“There are lots of opportunities for that site to build facilities, build things that we will need for our growing population concerning the intensified area but the library is certainly one of the options for them. So I am looking forward to how we can redevelop this site for needed and exciting community uses and I am going to be voting in favour of not selling the Hollingsworth site but holding on to it for future community use. Thank you.”

Ward councillor Jane Twinney follows Vegh. She says there was no decision on a seniors’ building. 

“Even though it was tabled as an idea we didn’t have any formal plans brought to us so we don’t know where it was gonna land, that particular building.” 

Victor Woodhouse says it is important to have green space close to high density and that council has made an excellent decision to go for parkland.

“Certainly green space is a very scarce commodity and as we continue to grow it will continue to be a scarce commodity. I certainly support the concept that there be those breathing areas, close to the high density… when those two towers get built.”

Grace Simon says she now fully supports Council’s decision having originally voted with Vegh. Kelly Broome pays tribute to the work of ward councillor Jane Twinney and says she is looking forward to involving the community more and having them being a part of the process. 

Summing up, the Mayor, John Taylor, mentions the developer’s contribution to parkland – in kind or in cash. He talks about competing interests and needs within the community for housing options, green space and recreation. He talks about intensification more generally. He thinks the decision on going for green space will hold up well over time. He concludes:

“The library board certainly will be involved and engaged in thought about the future of libraries in this term but ultimately the decision to build a library or a satellite or nothing is the decision of Council. And that would be our decision when that time comes.” 

(Check against delivery)