YYCCC 2011-02-08 Calgary City Council - Fluoride - Feb 8, 2011

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL. WE'RE BACK IN SESSION. AND ALDERMAN
COLLEY-URQUHART. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. THERE WAS ONE LITTLE ITEM OF
BUSINESS THAT WE WANTED TO BRING FORWARD LAST NIGHT AS A MOTION ARISING IN RELATION
TO THE POTENTIAL AIRPORT TUNNEL DISCUSSION. MADAM CLERK, I BELIEVE, HAS
THE MOTION ARISING. >> THIS IS BASICALLY COUNCIL ASKING FOR US TO BE
REGULARLY UPDATED AT COUNCIL AS THE NEGOTIATIONS PROCEED SO THE WORDING OF IT IS
DIRECT ADMINISTRATION TO PROVIDE COUNCIL WITH A BRIEFING ON THE PROGRESS ON
NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE CALGARY AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND ANY CHANGES TO THE
PROJECTED COST OF THE AIRPORT TUNNEL AT EACH COUNCIL MEETING IN-CAMERA
WHEN APPROPRIATE -- WHEN APPROPRIATE, COMMENCING 2011, FEBRUARY 14th.
UNTIL AN AGREEMENT IS FINALIZED. >> DO I HAVE A SECONDER?
ALDERMAN FARRELL. >> THANK YOU. >> YOUR WORSHIP, YESTERDAY
COUNCIL MADE A MOTION WHICH WAS APPENDED TO REPORT NUMBER FIVE ASKING US TO
PROVIDE A REPORT TO COUNCIL ON THE 21st OF MARCH. I SPOKE WITH THE MAYOR
YESTERDAY AND MY INTERPRETATION OF THAT DIRECTION WAS TO PROVIDE
COUNCIL WITH AN UPDATE AS TO WHERE WE WERE AT THAT DAY. SO THE IMPACT OF THIS
PARTICULAR MOTION WOULD BE FOR US TO REPORT, THEN THE WEEK BEFORE AS WELL.
SO YOU'RE LOOKING FOR TWO UPDATES, ONE ON THE 14th, ONE ON THE 21st.
>> BASICALLY, THAT'S WHAT WE SET UP TO MARCH 21st TO LEAVE IT OPEN BUT I THINK WE
REALLY WANT TO KEEP APPRISED ON A REGULAR BASIS AS FAR AS HOW YOU'RE DOING.
>> SO WHAT I'VE SAID IS ACCEPTABLE, I'LL SIT DOWN. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. >> THAT CAN BE A VERBAL REPORT, I BELIEVE, ALDERMAN
COLLEY-URQUHART. >> SURE, VERBAL'S FINE. >> ON THE MOTION, ALDERMAN
FARRELL. ALDERMAN MacLEOD. >> THANK YOU.
I'D LIKE TO TAKE -- >> I'M SORRY, ALDERMAN MacLEOD, ON THE MOTION, THEN,
I KNOW YOU HAVE A GRIANCE. ON THE MOTION, COUNCIL, ARE WE AGREED?
ANY OPPOSED? I SEE NONE. ALDERMAN MacLEOD,
PRESENTATION. >> THANK YOU. THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME
CONFUSION THERE. IT'S MY HONOUR AND PRIVILEGE TO INTRODUCE THE NORTH HAVEN
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. WE HAVE 18 STUDENTS AND TEACHER ALLISON BATES-CHURCH
AND CHERYL PETERS, WELCOME, AND YOU'LL BE ON TV IN A SECOND, I THINK.
>> SO CLASS, IF YOU'D LIKE TO STAND SO COUNCIL CAN RECOGNIZE YOU.
AND THERE YOU ARE ON TELEVISION. ( APPLAUSE )
AND I HOPE YOU ENJOY YOUR DAY. IT'S WARMER IN HERE THAN IT
IS OUTSIDE. THANK YOU, ALDERMAN MacLEOD. AND COUNCIL, THAT TAKES US
TO ITEM 9.2.1, ROYAL OAK TRANSPORTATION. WHO IS THE VICE-CHAIR OF...
LPT? >> OH, THE CHAIR'S HERE. >> THE CHAIR'S HERE.
>> YOUR WORSHIP. >> THIS IS -- I JUST CALLED ITEM 9.2.1 ROYAL OAK ROYAL
VISTA TRANSPORTATION MOVING RECOMMENDATIONS, ALDERMAN. >> I'D LIKE TO MOVE THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF ALL THE LPT ITEMS ON THE AGENDA TODAY, YOUR WORSHIP.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DO WE HAVE A SECONDER? SECOND ALDERMAN
COLLEY-URQUHART. ON LPT 2011.02 ON THE RECOMMENDATION, ARE WE
AGREED? ARE THERE ANY OPPOSED? I SEE NONE.
THANK YOU. ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF ITEM 9.2.3, DESIGNATION OF
THE PRESIDENT DEPARTMENT AS A MUNICIPAL HISTORIC RESOURCE.
DID I MISS ONE? I'M SORRY. I'M SORRY, COUNCIL.
I MISSED ONE. ON ITEM 9.2.2, THE BRT NETWORK PLAN.
ALDERMAN CARRA -- I'M SORRY, ALDERMAN CHABOT, DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO IS THAT?
>> NO, YOUR WORSHIP, JUST HAPPY TO MOVE THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
COMMITTEE, THERE WAS A VERY LENGTHY DEBATE ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE AND I DON'T
THINK I NEED TO DEBATE IT FURTHER BUT HAPPY TO CLOSE IF SOMEONE WISHES TO DEBATE
IT. >> I SEE NO SKUG ON THAT -- OOPS.
-- DISCUSSION. ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART. >> I JUST WANTED TO -- I
MISSED THIS, BUT WHEN I BROUGHT THIS MOTION FORWARD, I REALLY DIDN'T ANTICIPATE
WE WOULD HAVE THIS COMPREHENSIVE A REPORT. AND I KNOW THAT YOU HAD TO
REALLY RAMP IT UP IN ORDER TO GET THIS WORK DONE. AMONGST MANY OTHER THINGS
THAT YOU WERE WORKING ON GM, LOGAN, SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I'M EXCITED ABOUT IT, AND I WAS WONDERING IF YOU HAD ANY IDEAS ON HOW WE COULD FUND
IT. >> MR. LOGAN. >> YOUR WORSHIP, THANK YOU.
I BELIEVE THAT ONE OF THE POINTS I MADE WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE SOUTHEAST
LRT AND THE GREEN TRIP PLANNING WAS THAT I FELT THAT THAT WAS AN OPPORTUNITY
TO MAKE PROGRESS ON SOME OF THE BRT INITIATIVES IN THE SHORT TERM BY USING SOME OF
OUR GREEN TRIP ALLOCATION. BUT WE REALLY NEEDED THIS NETWORK PLAN IN PLACE SO
THAT COUNCIL HAD THE FULL REPORT WHERE WE WANTED TO GO WITH THE PLAN AND WITHIN
THAT MASTER PLAN, WE CAN PRIORITIZE THE INDIVIDUAL ROUTES.
SO IN THE SHORT TERM, I WOULD SAY THAT THE GREEN TRIP IS OUR BEST OPPORTUNITY
TO TURN SOME OF THESE INTO REALITY. THAT'S THE INFRASTRUCTURE
SIDE OF IT. THEN WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE OPERATING PIECE.
AND THE OPERATING PIECE WILL BE A CHALLENGE. AS YOU KNOW, COUNCIL IS
TRYING TO FIND THAT BALANCE BETWEEN PROPERTY TAX INCREASES AND PROVIDING
SERVICE, SO WE'LL HAVE TO LOOK AT, IN OUR UPDATE, OUR BUSINESS PLAN UPDATE, HOW WE
CAN ROLL OUT THE SERVICE OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS. >> RIGHT.
SO IT WAS PROBABLY ALREADY ASKED AT COMMITTEE, AND FORGIVE ME, COUNCIL, BUT
DOES YOUR DEPARTMENT, DO YOU GET THAT THIS IS A TOP PRIORITY FOR THIS COUNCIL
WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT YOUR NEXT THREE-YEAR BUSINESS CYCLE?
THAT WE ARE SIGNIFICANTLY COMMITTED TO MOVING IN THIS DIRECTION?
>> ABSOLUTELY. >> OKAY. >> NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.
>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. >> ALDERMAN CARRA?
>> YEAH, I GUESS MY FIRST QUESTION IS WHAT ARE WE RECOMMENDING HERE?
ARE WE RECOMMENDING ADMINISTRATION'S RECOMMENDATIONS OR THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPC -- >> THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF
THE COMMITTEE. >> OKAY. THE COMMITTEE.
THEN I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER TO ADD. >> ALDERMAN CHABOT.
TO CLOSE. >> TO CLOSE, BRIEFLY, YOUR WORSHIP.
MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, REMEMBER THAT WE DID MOVE THE GREEN TRIP FUNDING FORWARD AT OUR
LAST COUNCIL MEETING AS AN ITEM OF URGENT BUSINESS HENCE THE REASON WHY IT'S
NOT INCLUDED AS PART OF THE LPT REPORTS THAT WERE ACTUALLY DEBATED AT THE
JANUARY 19th MEETING IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE BALANCE OF THE AGENDA HERE.
BUT PART OF WHAT WAS DECIDED AT COMMITTEE WAS THE ALLOCATION OF SOME OF THOSE
FUND, SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO SOME OF THE ROUTES THAT ARE IDENTIFIED WITHIN THIS
REPORT. SO I THINK, IN LIGHT OF COUNCIL'S PREVIOUS DECISION
ON THE GREEN TRIP FUNDING AND HOW TO ALLOCATE THOSE FUNDS OR ACTUALLY KIND OF
LEAVING IT OPEN AS TO WHERE EXACTLY WE'RE GOING TO ALLOCATE THOSE FUNDS, IT
WILL ADDRESS SOME OF THE NEEDS IDENTIFIED WITHIN THIS REPORT.
SO HOPEFULLY COUNCIL CAN SUPPORT RECOMMENDATIONS OF COMMITTEE.
CLOSED. >> VERY MUCH. ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF
LPT 2011.03, ARE WE AGREED? ARE THERE ANY OPPOSED? I SEE NONE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ITEM 9.2.3, LPT 2011.07, DESIGNATION PRESENT
APARTMENTS AS A MUNICIPAL HISTORIC SITE. ALDERMAN POOTMANS.
>> YES, THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. QUESTION, IF I MAY, TO
ADMINISTRATION. I'M NOT SURE, IT'S A QUESTION ABOUT THE OWNERSHIP
OF THIS BUILDING. IS THIS THE PRESIDENT'S APARTMENTS?
>> YES. >> YEAH. WHO OWNS IT AND THERE'S
NOTHING IN HERE TO INDICATE THEIR INTEREST IN THIS AND IT MIGHT EVEN BE A BIT OF A
PROCESS QUESTION. I'VE ALWAYS BEEN INTRIGUED ABOUT THESE DESIGNATIONS
WHAT THE ROLE OF THE OWNER IS, WHAT THE NEGOTIATION IS WITH THE CITY.
OKAY. >> THAT'S ALL INFORMATION I WAS AWARE OF.
I WAS GOING TO SAY THAT MR. WATSON WHO WOULD KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT ISN'T
HERE, AND I'M NOT TOO SURE IF MR. DALGLEISH KNOWS THE ANSWER TO THAT.
IF ALDERMAN MAR IS CONFIDENT AND THAT'S THE INFORMATION, I HOPE THAT'S AN ANSWER THAT
SUFFICES. >> I HAVE GREAT TRUST IN ALDERMAN MAR'S KNOWLEDGE ON
THIS. IF I MAY SAY, I'LL ASK ANOTHER QUESTION, PERHAPS
DIRECTED AT YOU. MR. TOBERT. IS IT REASONABLE TO EXPECT
THAT A LETTER OR SOME CONSENT FROM THE OWNER WOULD ACCOMPANY THIS?
BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT AS DESIRABLE AND AS IMPORTANT AS PRESERVATION IS
OF THESE BUILDINGS, SOMETIMES IT PUTS A SERIOUS OF -- SERIES OF FAIRLY
ONEROUS MATTERS ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER AND IS THE OWNER ACCEPTING OF THESE
CONDITIONS AS WELL? >> YOUR WORSHIP, IF I UNDERSTOOD OR HEARD ALDERMAN
MAR RIGHT, HE INDICATED THAT THE OWNER WAS AWARE AND WAS OKAY WITH IT.
I THINK THAT WAS THE WORD HE USED BUT YOU KNOW WHAT, THERE'S NO LETTER HERE TO
CONFIRM THAT. >> THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING, I ACCEPT ALDERMAN MAR'S
INFORMATION AND THANK YOU, ALDERMAN MAR. WHAT I'M QUESTIONING IS THE
MATTER OF ROUTINE, IS A MATTER OF PROCEDURE, DOES ADMINISTRATION TYPICALLY
CATCH AN OWNER'S CONSENT OR LETTER? >> NORMALLY, WE DO, YOUR
WORSHIP. IN FACT, THESE THINGS DON'T MAKE IT TO COUNCIL WITHOUT
HAVING HAD A LONG SERIES OF NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE
PROPERTY OWNER TO GET HERE. I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO IT WITHOUT
THEIR CONSENT. >> THAT WOULD BE MY EXPECTATION, EXCEPT I SAW NO
EVIDENCE OF THAT IN THE REPORT. >> I WONDER, ALDERMAN
POOTMANS, IF I COULD ASK MR. TULLY TO COMMENT ON SOME OF THE LEGAL PROCESS.
>> PLEASE. >> IT'S MORE FOR INFORMATION'S SAKE, I HAVE
NO PARTICULAR AXE TO GRIND. >> MY UNDERSTANDING, YOUR WORSHIP, IS UNDER THE ACT,
THE OWNER HAS TO BE SERVED WITH A NOTICE OF THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION AND
THEN CAN OBJECT TO THAT AND IF THE OWNER BELIEVES THAT THERE'S BEEN A LOSS IN VALUE,
THEN THE OWNER CAN MAKE AN APPLICATION TO THE LAND COMPENSATION BOARD.
ON THIS TYPE OF A DESIGNATION, YOUR WORSHIP, SO UNDERSTAND FROM ALDERMAN
MAR THAT THE OWNER IS NOT OBJECTING IN THIS SITUATION AND THIS IS A FAIRLY
STANDARD DESIGNATION. >> THANK YOU, SIR. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
>> NO FURTHER QUESTIONS ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF 9.2.3, ARE WE AGREED?
ARE THERE ANY OPPOSITE? I SEE NONE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
9.2.4, LPT 2011-08, CALGARY BUILDING PERMIT BYLAW 60M94. WHAT IT IS IS A
RECOMMENDATION TO GIVE THREE READINGS TO -- >> YOUR WORSHIP, ON A POINT
OF ORDER, I BELIEVE WE NEED TO DO THREE READINGS ON THE BYLAW.
>> WE DO. WE'RE SORTING OUT WHICH NUMBER HERE.
I SHOW 9M. >> YOU'VE GOT THE BUILDING PERMIT BYLAW.
THIS IS THE DESIGNATION BYLAW. >> I'M SORRY.
I'M SORRY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THERE'S A BYLAW ASSOCIATED
WITH THE PREVIOUS ITEM ON THE DESIGNATION OF THE APARTMENT BUILDING SO
PROPOSED BYLAW 10M2011, THREE READINGS. ON FIRST READING OF 10M2011,
ARE WE AGREED? ARE THERE ANY OPPOSED? ON SECOND READING, ARE WE
AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? AUTHORIZATION FOR THIRD.
ARE WE AGREED? UNANIMOUS. ON THIRD READING, ARE WE
AGREED? CARRIED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
NOW WE'LL GO TO BUILDING PERMIT BYLAW 64M94. AND ON THE RECOMMENDATION,
ARE WE AGREED? ARE THERE ANY OPPOSED? I SEE NONE.
ON FIRST READING OF BYLAW 9M2011. ARE WE AGREED?
ARE THERE ANY OPPOSED? I SEE NONE. SECOND READING, ARE WE
AGREED? ANY OPPOSED? I SEE NONE.
AUTHORIZATION FOR THIRD READING. ARE THERE ANY OPPOSITE --
ARE WE AGREED? ARE THERE ANY OPPOSED? I SEE NONE.
THIRD READING OF BYLAW 9M2011, ARE WE AGREED? ANY OPPOSED?
I SEE NONE. THANK YOU. BRINGS US TO U AND E.
ALDERMAN JONES. >> YOUR WORSHIP, I WOULD LIKE TO NOT MOVE THIS, I
WOULD LIKE TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT. I'D LIKE TO DO AN AMENDMENT.
>> WHO'S VICE-CHAIR? ALDERMAN FARRELL. >> THANK YOU.
I'M HAPPY TO MOVE THIS. >> SECOND. >> THANK YOU.
FOR THOSE MEMBERS OF COUNCIL WHO HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF SITTING THROUGH THE PUBLIC
HEARING, IT WAS A VERY INTERESTING DAY AND A VERY LONG DAY.
AND MOST MEMBERS OF COUNCIL SAT THROUGH THE ENTIRE PUBLIC HEARING.
WHAT WE HEARD WAS A LOT OF PASSION FROM THE PUBLIC. THERE WERE STRONG VIEWS ON
BOTH SIDES, BOTH ON THE BENEFITS OF FLUORIDE AND ON THE RISKS.
AND I WOULD IMAGINE THAT THE TRUTH IS LIKELY SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN.
WHAT'S CHANGED FROM WHEN WE DEBATED THIS IN THE '90s IS THAT WE'VE LEARNED ABOUT
MANY OTHER VIABLE ALTERNATIVES AS WELL AS EMERGING RISKS.
WHAT IT REALLY BOILS DOWN TO FOR ME IS A QUESTION OF ETHICS.
BECAUSE THERE ARE VIABLE ALTERNATIVES AND MANY, MANY DISCUSSIONS OF THE RISKS
THAT ARE EMERGING FROM AROUND THE WORLD, SHOULD WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO IMPOSE
WHAT MANY SEE AS A MEDICATION ON OUR FELLOW MAN THROUGH A PLEBISCITE?
IF YOU LOOK AT PLEBISCITE -- IF YOU LOOK AT STREET IMPROVEMENT, LOCAL
IMPROVEMENT, LANEWAY PAVING, SIDEWALK, YOU NEED 66% OF THE LAND OWNERS TO VOTE ON
IT. NO OPTING OUT. AND YET WE HAVE MADE A
DECISION, APPEARED LIKE, FOR ALL TIME, WITH A SIMPLE MAJORITY OF VOTERS.
SO 130.000 PEOPLE HAVE MADE A DECISION FOR ALL OF CALGARIANS.
AND I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. I THINK NO PERSON CAN BECOME
AN EXPERT ON THEIR NEIGHBOURS' HEALTH AND THE IMPACTS OF THAT HEALTH.
SO CONSIDERING THE AVAILABLE CHOICES, WHAT WE HEARD AS WELL, IS A WOMAN FROM
SWITZERLAND TALKED ABOUT THE EUROPEAN EXAMPLE WHERE FLURRIED ATED SALT IS
READILY AVAILABLE IN EUROPE. -- FLOURIDATED SALT. THEY DECIDED TO CEASE FLURRY
DATING THEIR TAP WATER IN EUROPE GENERALLY IN ABOUT 1970s AND MADE FLUORIDATED
SALT READILY AVAILABLE. IT'S CHEAP, EASY, AND PEOPLE HAVE A CHOICE AND THAT'S
WHERE I'M REALLY COMING FROM, IS THAT PRINCIPLE OF CHOICE. OUR RESPONSIBILITY IS TO
PROVIDE SAFE, CLEAN DRINKING WATER, AND WE HAVE MANY, MANY CALGARIANS WHO ARE
AVOIDING THEIR WATER, EVEN THOUGH THEY PAY FOR IT, BECAUSE THEY WOULD LIKE TO
HAVE THE CHOICE. WHAT REALLY RESONATED WITH ME IS THE DISSENTING POINT
OF VIEW FROM DR. NOSAUL WHO SENT US A LETTER. HE WAS ON THE EXPERT PANEL
THAT WE POINTED IN '97. AND HE WAS A DISSENTING VIEW, HE WROTE A MINORITY REPORT.
HE REMAINS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT FLUORIDE. HIS CHOICE AT THAT TIME WAS
TO REMOVE IT FROM THE DRINKING WATER, BUT HE WAS -- HE WAS SATISFIED IN
PRESENTING A MINORITY REPORT. AND HIS DISSENSION WAS ONE
OF THE REASONS WHY THE AMOUNT WAS REDUCED TO 0.7. HE SUGGESTED NO MORE THAN
0.5 TO 0.7 SO THE CITY OF CALGARY, WITH THEIR LEADERSHIP, CHOSE 0.7 AND
THAT HAS NOW BECOME, OVER A DECADE LATER, 15 YEARS LATER, IT HAS BECOME THE PREVAILING
WISDOM ACROSS NORTH AMERICA. THAT WASN'T GENERATED BY THE ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES
COUNCIL. THAT WAS THE CITY OF CALGARY ACTING AND PROVIDING
LEADERSHIP. AND I THINK WE CAN DO THAT AGAIN...
AND THE COUNCIL OF THE DAY, THANK YOU, ALDERMAN HODGES. AND I SUGGEST THAT WE DO THE
SAME TODAY. AND THIS IS A CONVERSATION THAT IS HAPPENING AROUND THE
WORLD. IT'S AN EMERGING, VERY HOT TOPIC, AND I BELIEVE WE NEED
TO ACT, AND BE THE VAN GUARDS OF -- IN CANADA. THERE WAS A LOT OF
DISCUSSION ABOUT POVERTY, I FOUND IT REALLY INTERESTING. ONE OF THE FIRST SPEAKERS
WAS SOMEONE WHO REPRESENTS A POVERTY GROUP. AND HE SAID IF YOU REALLY
WANT TO DEAL WITH POVERTY AND THE ISSUE OF TOOTH DECAY FOR CHILDREN IN LOW-INCOME
FAMILIES, DEAL WITH POVERTY AND TURN OVER THAT FUNDING TO POVERTY GROUPS TO DEAL
WITH THAT SPECIFIC ISSUE. I THINK IT'S CERTAINLY MORE DIRECTED.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE SINCE WE FIRST INTRODUCED IT, WE'RE
BABY BOOMERS. IT WAS INTRODUCED WHEN THERE WAS A BABY BOOM, AND NOW WE
HAVE AN AGING POPULATION. AND SO THE STUDY OF FLUORIDE ON A LIFETIME OF USERS FOR
AN AGING POPULATION, I DON'T BELIEVE HAS BEEN DONE THOROUGHLY.
SO, COUNCIL, I'M PUTTING THIS FORWARD. I'LL PUT MY MOTION FORWARD.
I KNOW ALDERMAN KEATING HAS AN AMENDMENT FOR THE SECOND PORTION OF IT.
I ALSO URGE YOU, PLEASE, TO SUPPORT THE SECOND PORTION. THIS ISN'T JUST TO GET
FLUORIDE OUT OF OUR DRINKING WATER. WE'VE ACCEPTED THE
RESPONSIBILITY AS A MUNICIPALITY FOR DENTAL CARE FOR MANY YEARS NOW.
THIS IS PUTTING THAT RESPONSIBILITY TO WHERE THE REAL ISSUE IS, THE ISSUE OF
POVERTY AND DENTAL HEALTH. SO I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS IN MY
CLOSE. THANK YOU. >> ON THE MOTION, ALDERMAN
JONES. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. WHAT I'M ABOUT TO DO
PROBABLY WON'T BE POPULAR, BUT I'M NOT HERE FOR A POPULARITY CONTEST.
SINCE THAT MEETING, WE WENT FROM 9:30 IN THE MORNING TILL 8:15 THAT NIGHT, WE
HEARD FROM OVER 40 TO 50 SPEAKERS. SINCE THAT DAY, I'VE HAD
NUMEROUS PHONE CALLS AND E-MAILS FROM PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE WANTING
IT LEFT IN AND WANTING IT TAKEN OUT AS WELL. REQUESTING THAT WE DO THIS
ON A PLEBISCITE. THEY DON'T FEEL THAT WE'RE THE EXPERTS EITHER.
THEY FEEL THAT IT'S THEIR DECISION TO MAKE, NOT OUR DECISION TO MAKE ON THEIR
BEHALF. AND FOR THAT REASON, I'M GOING TO BRING FORWARD AN
AMENDMENT TO THIS THAT WE REFER THIS TO A PLEBISCITE FOR THE 2013 ELECTION.
>> SO ALDERMAN JONES AND MADAM CLERK, I'LL NEED SOME HELP HERE.
IS THIS A REFERRAL OR AN AMENDMENT? IT'S A REFERRAL MOTION.
>> I WANT TO REFER IT TO PLEBISCITE TO THE 2013, AND IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH IT,
THAT'S FINE. >> SECONDED BY ALDERMAN MacLEOD.
ON THE REFERRAL MOTION. ALDERMAN -- REFERRALS ARE -- >> POINT OF ORDER.
>> DEBATABLE? POINT OF ORDER BY -- >> CAN YOU MAKE AN AMENDMENT
TO A REFERRAL? SORRY. CAN YOU MAKE A REFERRAL TO
AN AMENDMENT -- AN AMENDMENT TO AN AMENDMENT FOR A REFERRAL?
>> I WANT TO REFER THAT AMENDMENT. >> THANK YOU.
>> ONLY AT THE TIME, ALDERMAN. ON THE REFERRAL, ALDERMAN
POOTMANS. >> YES. THANK YOU --
>> ACTUALLY, COUNCIL, I DON'T DO HAND WAVING. I'M GOING TO FOLLOW THE
QUEUE HERE. >> YES, THANK YOU. I JUST BLEW IT THEN IN TERMS
OF THE QUEUE. I HEARTILY ENDORSE ALDERMAN JONES' REFERRAL MOTION.
I THINK WE'VE CREATED AN EXPECTATION IN THE MINDS OF THE PUBLIC THAT THIS ISSUE
IS SATISFIED BY PLEBISCITE. I UNDERSTAND THAT TECHNICALLY, LEGALLY,
PROCEDURALLY, WE ARE NOT OBLIGED TO FOLLOW A PLEBISCITE.
I THINK IT'S TREMENDOUSLY-IMPORTANT THAT, SPEAKING FOR MYSELF ON
COUNCIL, THAT A SMALL -- A RELATIVELY-SMALL GROUP OF EIGHT OR TEN PEOPLE CAN
ACTUALLY MAKE A DECISION OF THIS MAGNITUDE FOR THE ENTIRE POPULATION.
I KNOW WE HAVE THAT AUTHORITY, BUT I THINK, AGAIN, TO REPEAT THE PUBLIC
BELIEVES THAT THIS IS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AND THIS IS IN FACT A DECISION THEY SHOULD
BE MAKING. THE DEBATE I WOULD LOOK FORWARD TO HAVING
SUBSEQUENTLY IS WHEN THAT PLEBISCITE WOULD BE HELD, AND MY EXPECTATION WOULD BE
THAT THE PUBLIC MIGHT HAVE SOME TOLERANCE FOR WAITING TILL THE NEXT ELECTION AT
WHICH TIME THIS PLEBISCITE WOULD BE RELATIVELY INEXPENSIVE.
I THINK THAT ONE OF THE DILEMMAS THAT I HAVE IS SIMILAR TO ACTUALLY
IRONICALLY ANOTHER CURRENT ISSUE IN WARD 6 WITH CELLPHONE TOWERS, IS THERE
DOES NOT SEEM TO BE A CONSENSUS ON ANY SCIENCE, THAT THE PEER REVIEW
JOURNALS ARE, ON BOTH ISSUES, DO NOT LEAD TO A CONSENSUS WHICH DECISION MAKERS SUCH
AS OURSELVES WOULD REALLY OPTIMISTICALLY AND MAYBE IDEALLY HAVE AVAILABLE TO US,
SO FOR THAT REASON AS WELL, I THINK A PLEBISCITE IS, BY FAR AND AWAY, THE BEST
ALTERNATIVE FOR US AT THIS STAGE. THANK YOU.
>> ON THE REFERRAL MOTION, ALDERMAN MacLEOD. >> THANK YOU.
I WILL SUPPORT THE PLEBISCITE OPTION. I THINK THAT RESIDENTS OF
THE CITY NEED TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS DEBATE.
IT IS VERY DIVISIVE AMONG PEOPLE, AND I THINK THAT INDIVIDUALS HAVE THE RIGHT
TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS ON THEIR HEALTH AND MAKE THAT -- I HAVE SOME DIFFICULTY
MAKING HEALTH -- PUBLIC HEALTH DECISIONS ON BEHALF OF RESIDENTS.
I THINK IT'S FINE WHEN WE MAKE PLANNING DECISIONS, TRANSPORTATION DECISIONS, WE
HAVE THE EXPERTISE AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE TO DO.
WHEN WE MAKE PUBLIC HEALTH DECISIONS, ALTHOUGH IT'S IN THE WATER, AND WE'RE
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE WATER, I SEE IT AS AN ISSUE THAT GOES BEYOND THE PURVIEW OF
COUNCIL PER SE. AND I JUST WANT TO ADD THAT WHILE I HAVE HAD A LOT OF
E-MAILS ON BOTH SIDES, I'VE ALSO BROUGHT UP THE ISSUE IN MEETING WITH VARIOUS
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS, AND I HAVEN'T HEARD THE LEVEL OF -- HOW WOULD I PUT IT --
RANCOUR, PASSION AT THAT LEVEL. CERTAINLY PEOPLE HAVE
OPINIONS BUT IT'S MUCH MORE DIVIDED AND MUCH MORE CALM THAN WHAT I'VE HEARD HERE,
AND I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT, THAT THERE MAY BE A SILENT GROUP OUT THERE.
I ALSO THINK THAT THE TIME BETWEEN NOW AND THE PLEBISCITE GIVES US --
EVERYONE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET INFORMED ON THIS BECAUSE AS WAS EXPRESSED BY ALDERMAN
FARRELL, THERE IS A LOT OF INFORMATION OUT THERE, AND IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO
DISCERN WHAT IS SUBSTANTIVE RESEARCH AND RESEARCH THAT HAS BEEN LESS RIGOROUS.
WE'VE SEEN THAT IN OTHER ISSUES RELATED TO VACCINATIONS WHERE RESEARCH
HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE SOMETHING THAT WAS THOUGHT TO BE QUITE SUBSTANTIVE HAS
BEEN PROVEN TO BE NOT SO MUCH SO. AND I WONDER HOW WE EVALUATE
SOME OF THAT HERE AS WELL. SO I WILL SUPPORT THE PLEBISCITE OPTION.
>> THANK YOU. ON THE AMENDMENT, ALDERMAN KEATING.
ON THE AMENDMENT. I'M SORRY, THE REFERRAL. >> OKAY.
I WASN'T GOING TO SPEAK TO THIS BECAUSE I ACTUALLY HAD MY LIGHT ON FOR AN AMENDMENT,
BUT I THINK I WILL. WHEN WE WERE HERE, I HAVE TO ADMIT THE BEST EVIDENCE I
HEARD FROM A MEDICAL DOCTOR WHO WAS PRO-FLUORIDE SUMMED UP ALL OF THE RESEARCH IN
TWO SIMPLE STATEMENTS. THAT IT IS LIKELY TO BE A BENEFIT, AND IT IS UNLIKELY
TO BE HARMFUL. AND THEN WHEN WE LOOKED AT OTHER RESEARCH, AND WE FOUND
THAT ROUGHLY THERE'S -- IF WE TOOK INTO ACCOUNT AND WE ACCEPTED THAT THERE IS ABOUT
A 15% LESS CAVITY RATIO IN FLUORIDE THAN NON-FLUORIDE IN SMALL CHILDREN, I THINK
THERE'S A BETTER WAY, AND I THINK THAT BETTER WAY IS OPTION TWO WHERE WE CAN
BENEFIT THE PEOPLE IN CALGARY A LOT BETTER THAN FLUORIDATION ACROSS THE
BOARD. THEREFORE, I WILL NOT SUPPORT THE REFERRAL AND I'D
LIKE AN AMENDMENT IF IT DOESN'T GO THROUGH. >> THANK YOU.
ON THE REFERRAL, ALDERMAN MAR. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
WELL, I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THIS BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT I BELIEVE THAT
THIS WILL IN FACT TRIGGER THE $6 MILLION CAPITAL UPGRADE IN THE TIME FRAME
THAT WE ARE ABLE TO BRING THIS TO BEAR. IF WE ARE GOING TO GO AND
HAVE A PLEBISCITE, AND LET'S SAY THAT PLEBISCITE, WHERE WE'VE HEARD FROM OUR
CONSTITUENTS NUMEROUS TIMES, IS OVERWHELMINGLY TO REMOVE IT, AND THEN WE'VE GONE
AHEAD AND WASTED THAT $6 MILLION CAPITAL UPGRADE. I STILL BELIEVE THIS IS MASS
MEDICATION WITHOUT CONSENT. I BELIEVE THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD NOT
BE INVOLVED IN BECAUSE IT IS -- FALLS UNDER HEALTH CARE WHICH IS A PROVINCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY AND I THINK THAT I HAVE HEARD FROM MY CONSTITUENTS VERY, VERY
CLEARLY GET IT OUT SO I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION TO GO TO A PLEBISCITE.
>> I'M GOING TO ASK MR. PRICHARD TO COMMENT ON THE CAPITAL UPGRADE AND
WHETHER OR NOT, IF THE DECISION TO GO WITH THE PLEBISCITE IS ENDORSED BY
COUNCIL, IF WE CAN, IN FACT, DELAY THAT CAPITAL EXPENDITURE.
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. WELL, I THINK THE FIRST THING IS THAT IT'S NOT $6
MILLION. IT'S, FROM WHAT WE KNOW NOW, FROM THE PRELIMINARY WORK
WE'VE DONE WITH THE CONSULTANT, IT'S CLOSER TO 3 TO 4 MILLION.
WHAT WE WOULD DO IS WE WOULD NOT SPEND -- WE WOULD NOT SPEND ANY MORE MONEY THAN WE
HAD TO TO KEEP THE SYSTEM GOING, LET'S PUT IT THAT WAY.
WE'VE BEEN ANTICIPATING WHAT THE DIFFERENT OUTCOMES COULD BE AT THIS DEBATE AND BEEN
THINKING ABOUT THAT, AND WOULD GO IN VERY CAREFULLY IN A VERY MEASURED KIND OF A
WAY AND REALLY ONLY DO WHAT WAS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO KEEP THE SYSTEM RUNNING
UNTIL THE PLEBISCITE WERE TO HAPPEN. WITHOUT THROWING GOOD MONEY
AFTER BAD. SO IT WOULD BE QUITE A MEASURED -- SO, YES, THERE
WOULD BE SOME COST POTENTIALLY BUT NOT THE FULL EXTENT.
WE WOULDN'T GO AHEAD AND DO A MAJOR UPGRADE. >> THE ENTIRE 3 MILLION
WOULD NOT BE SPENT -- >> THAT'S CORRECT. WE WOULD JUST DO WHAT WE
COULD DO TO KEEP THE SYSTEM GOING IN ANTICIPATION OF A RESULT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
>> DO YOU HAVE ANY SORT OF ORDER OF MAGNITUDE COSTS WHAT THAT MIGHT BE?
>> NO, WELL, LESS THAN $4 MILLION. YOU KNOW, WE HAVEN'T EVEN
DONE THE ENGINEER. ONCE WE HEARD THIS IS COMING TO COUNCIL, WE KIND OF PUT A
BRAKE ON THE ENGINEERING. WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY SPECIFICALLY SET ASIDE OR
APPROVED IN CAPITAL BUDGET. THAT WAS GOING TO BE IN 12 TO 14 ANYWAY, SO YOU WOULD
NOT HAVE SEEN ANY SIGNIFICANT SPEND UNTIL 2012 AT THE EARLIEST SO IN TERMS
OF BEING ABLE TO MAKE A SYSTEM TO KEEP A SYSTEM RUNNING UNTIL WE'VE ALREADY,
WITH A POSITIVE DECISION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, THEN, I MEAN, WE'RE USED TO DOING
THAT. >> THANK YOU, MR. PRICHARD. ON THE REFERRAL, ALDERMAN
STEVENSON. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. NO, I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING
THE IDEA OF GOING TO A PLEBISCITE. I THINK THAT -- I PERSONALLY
THINK COUNCIL MADE A MISTAKE IN DOING THE PLEBISCITE BEFORE.
OF COURSE THERE'S BEEN I THINK IT'S SEX PLEBISCITES SO WE'VE SPENT -- SIX
PLEBISCITES SO WE'VE SPENT A LOT OF MONEY ON PLEBISCITES AND WE'VE GOT NOTHING TO
GIVE CLEAR INDICATION OF WHAT THE PEOPLE OF CALGARY WANT THROUGH THOSE
PLEBISCITES, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU THINK THAT 20 TO 30% OF THE PEOPLE VOTE AND THEN WE
GET 52 OR 53% THAT SAY TO DO IT. WHAT DO WE DO IF WE HAVE A
PLEBISCITE AND IT COMES BACK AT 48% WANT IT OR 52% WANT IT?
WHAT DO WE DO? WHEN WE HAVE SO MANY EXAMPLES OF BYLAWS IN THIS
CITY, LOCAL IMPROVEMENT BYLAWS AND SO ON, WHERE WE SAY THAT 66% OF THE PEOPLE
AFFECTED HAVE GOT TO AGREE TO IT, NOT 66% OF THE PEOPLE WHO DECIDE TO VOTE, BUT 66%
OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE AFFECTED HAVE TO AGREE TO IT OR ELSE IT CAN'T BE IMPOSED
ON THE OTHER 33%, HERE WE ARE SAYING THAT A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE PEOPLE IN
THE CITY CAN IMPOSE SOMETHING FAR MORE SERIOUS THAN A LEVY OF A FEW HUNDRED
DOLLARS ON THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE THE REST OF THE MILLION PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THIS
CITY. I DON'T THINK -- WE HAVE ALL KINDS OF EVIDENCE NOW OF THE
FACT THAT THERE'S QUESTIONS, QUESTIONS OVER AND OVER WE'RE HEARING OF QUESTIONS
ABOUT THE SAFETY OF THE -- OF THIS PRODUCT, THIS INGREDIENT, BEING PUT INTO
THE WATER, AND I'M READING MORE AND MORE, I'M JUST READING ABOUT THE TENNESSEE
WHERE THEY'RE ACTUALLY DIRECTING THE STATE HEALTH DEPARTMENT TO HALT
ACTIVITIES TO PROMOTE THE PRACTISE OF WATER FLUORIDATION, AND THEY GO ON
TO TALK ABOUT FLUORIDE-GATE. BRINGING INQUIRIES INTO -- THEY'RE SURFACING ABOUT WHY
THE CENTRE FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND OTHER GROUPS HAVE NOT OPENLY COMMUNICATED
IMPORTANT SCIENCE THAT CONTRADICTS YEARS OF ASSURANCES THAT FLUORIDE HAS
BEEN EXHAUSTIVELY RESEARCHED AND POSES NO HEALTH RISKS. WHY AREN'T THEY DOING THIS?
SO WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE LEGAL BATTLES ON THIS AND
ONE OF THE PEOPLE SAID THAT THE CHAIRMAN -- HERE IT IS, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE NATIONAL
HEALTH COUNCIL FLUORIDE COMMITTEE STATED THAT WHEN WE LOOK AT THE STUDIES THAT
HAVE BEEN DONE, WE'VE FOUND THAT MANY OF THESE QUESTIONS ARE UNSETTLED, AND WE HAVE
MUCH LESS INFORMATION THAN WE SHOULD. SO I THINK --
>> ALDERMAN STEVENSON, WITH RESPECT, YOU HAD FOUR MINUTES, NEVER ONCE TOUCHED
TIME. >> SO I THINK THAT IT'S WRONG FOR US TO --
>> ALDERMAN STEVENSON, WITH RESPECT, DEBATE IS LIMITED TO TIME.
>> OKAY. SO THEN... PARDON?
YEAH, IN CLOSING. IN A TIMELY MANNER, AND TO BE BRIEF, AS ALDERMAN CHABOT
ALWAYS SAID, TO BE BRIEF, WE SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERING THIS BECAUSE THREE YEARS IS
TOO LONG FOR US TO WAIT. SEE I GOT THE TIME IN THERE, YOUR WORSHIP.
IT'S TOO LONG FOR US TO -- >> THANK YOU, ALDERMAN STEVENSON.
>> TWO-AND-A-HALF YEARS -- LET'S MAKE A DECISION TODAY. >> ALDERMAN CARRA.
>> RULE WITH AN IRON FIST, YOUR WORSHIP. >> THAT'S THE WAY YOU DO
BUSINESS. >> THAT'S THE WAY YOU DO BUSINESS, SIR.
I DON'T THINK I'VE PROVEN TO DO BUSINESS THAT WAY. BUT I THINK I'M EATING INTO
MY TIME. THE CLOCK IS TICKING HERE SO I'M GOING TO -- I WOULD SAY
THAT OF THE FOUR OPTIONS THAT THIS COUNCIL HAS BEFORE IT, WHICH IS VOTE TO REMOVE,
VOTE TO KEEP, VOTE TO REFER TO A PANEL OR VOTE TO REFER TO A PLEBISCITE, PLEBISCITE
IS THE ONE THAT IS ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE FOR ME, AND THIS IS A POSITION
THAT I'VE ARRIVED AT -- >> ALDERMAN CARRA, WITH RESPECT, AS TO TIME.
ON THE REFERRAL. >> PARDON ME? >> THE ONLY DEBATABLE THING
IS TIME. THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN -- >> WE'RE DEBATING THE
REFERRAL. >> ONLY -- >> THAT IS NOT EVEN REMOTELY
-- >> WITHOUT AMENDMENT IS EXCEPTED TO TIME.
>> WELL, THAT HASN'T BEEN THE PRACTISE OF THIS COUNCIL --
>> CARRY ON. >> -- THIS ENTIRE SITTING. >> PERHAPS I'M MISREADING
THE PROCEDURAL BYLAW BUT I'M NOT PREPARED TO ALLOW THE WHOLE DEBATE TO START OVER
AGAIN. CARRY ON, ALDERMAN CARRA. >> SO...
OKAY. SO AM I UNDERSTANDING THAT WE ARE NOW DEBATING THE
REFERRAL OR ARE WE JUST -- >> EXCEPT... >> I MEAN, I CAN STATE
UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT IT IS THE PRACTISE OF THIS COUNCIL TO DEBATE REFERRALS.
MR. TULLY, DO YOU HAVE A READING ON THIS? >> I'M SORRY, I STAND
CORRECTED. YOU CAN ONLY AMEND IT WITH RESPECT TO TIME.
>> OKAY. >> ( Inaudible ) ( LAUGHING )
>> ALL RIGHT. SO WE'RE JUST SAYING -- ALL I'M SAYING IS THAT OF THE
FOUR OPTIONS THAT SIT BEFORE THIS COUNCIL, I THINK THAT A PLEBISCITE IS THE LEAST
ACCEPTABLE. I THINK THAT THE IDEA THAT YOU CAN HAVE A TYRANNY OF
THE MAJORITY TYPE SITUATION DECIDE WHAT THE POPULATION ON A WHOLE DOES.
I MEAN, WHAT THIS -- WHAT THIS COUNCIL HAS BEFORE IT IS REALLY A PLEBISCITE ON
PUBLIC HEALTH. AND I THINK THAT IF THE PUBLIC WANTS TO DO A
PLEBISCITE, IT IS WITHIN THEIR DEMOCRATIC RIGHT TO GET THE SIGNATURES SIGNED
AND BRING IT BEFORE THE NEXT ELECTION. BUT I WAS A SIGNATORY TO
THIS MOTION BECAUSE I HEARD FROM SO MANY CITIZENS WHO ARE NOT HAPPY WITH FLUORIDE
IN THEIR WATER, I SUPPORTED BRINGING IT TO U AND E BECAUSE I BELIEVE WE HAD TO
HAVE THE PUBLIC WEIGH IN, WE HAD TO HEAR FROM HEALTH SCIENCES, SO I DON'T THINK
THAT DEFERRING THIS TO A PLEBISCITE IS A -- IS THE ACTIVITY LEADERSHIP REQUIRED
FROM THIS COUNCIL SO I WILL IN NO WAY BE SUPPORTING A PLEBISCITE REFERRAL.
>> ALDERMAN CHABOT, ON THE REFERRAL. >> WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO
SEE IT AGAIN UP ON THE SCREEN, I'M NOT CLEAR ON THE EXACT WORDING THAT ALDERMAN
JONES USED ON HIS REFERRAL. MADAM CLERK, DO YOU HAVE IT TYPED VERSION OF THAT?
AND THE REASON I'M ASKING TO SEE IT, YOUR WORSHIP, IS I THOUGHT IF SOMEHOW HIS
REFERRAL COULD HAVE BEEN SOMETHING THAT COULD BE PUT AS A QUESTION TO THE
ELECTORATE AT THE NEXT ELECTION, BUT DEALING WITH THE ISSUE TODAY, AND THEN
GETTING SOME ADDITIONAL, I GUESS, REASSURANCES FROM THE PUBLIC, I DON'T THINK I
STILL CAN SUPPORT IT BUT NONETHELESS I THINK IT WOULD BE MORE PALATABLE.
THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN HERE IT BASICALLY SAYS THAT WE CONTINUE ON STATUS QUO UNTIL
THE NEXT ELECTION AND USE THAT, I GUESS, DIRECTION FROM THE PUBLIC TO DETERMINE
WHETHER OR NOT TO CONTINUE TO CONTINUE WITH THIS PROCEDURE.
I DON'T REALLY THINK THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD EVEN CONSIDER DOING,
SHOULD HAVE NEVER CONSIDERED DOING. IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT
THERE'S TWO THINGS THAT ARE ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR LIFE.
AIR AND WATER. WE CERTAINLY PUT IN ALL KINDS OF REGULATIONS IN
REGARDS TO THE QUALITY OF OUR AIR IN ENCLOSED ENVIRONMENTS AND EVEN IN
THOSE INSTANCES, THERE IS A CHOICE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT TO ENTER THOSE
PREMISES. WHEN IT COMES TO WATER, THOSE PEOPLE THAT WE ARE
TALKING ABOUT THAT WE WANT TO PROTECT, THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE LEAST ABLE TO AFFORD TO
LOOK FOR ALTERNATIVES, I.E. BOTTLED WATER OR REVERSE OSMOSIS TO REMOVE THE
FLUORIDE FROM THE WATER. IF THERE'S ONLY ONE IN A MILLION PEOPLE THAT ARE
ALLERGIC TO THIS PRODUCT, THEY SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO OBLIGATORY REQUIREMENTS
BY THE REST OF THE POPULATION, SO AS WITH ALDERMAN FARRELL, I TOO
AGREE THAT THIS IS CERTAINLY A MORAL ISSUE, THAT THOSE PEOPLE WHO CAN LEAST DO FOR
THEMSELVES ARE THE ONES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PROTECTING AND YET THEY'RE
THE ONES THAT WE'RE PUNISHING THE MOST BY PUTTING THIS FLUORIDE IN THE
WATER SO I'M NOT GOING TO BE SUPPORTING THE PLEBISCITE BECAUSE I THINK, AS ELECTED
MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, WE ARE ELECTED TO DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE.
THE ELECTORATE EXPECT US TO DO THE HARD WORK, THE HEAVY LIFTING, THAT THEY DON'T
NECESSARILY WANT TO GO THROUGH. AND TO SUGGEST THAT EVERYONE
WILL HAVE TIME BETWEEN NOW AND THE NEXT ELECTION TO DO THEIR OWN DUE DILIGENCE,
I'LL ARGUE THAT HAVING HAD VERY TOUGH TIME WHEN I WAS RAISING MY KIDS TRYING TO
KEEP FOOD ON THE TABLE, THERE WAS NO TIME FOR ME TO LOOK FOR EXTRACURRICULAR
ACTIVITIES OR LOOKING TO FURTHER INFORM MYSELF ON CERTAIN ISSUES.
MY ELECTED OFFICIALS, I PUT A LOT OF CONFIDENCE IN THEIR ABILITY TO DO THAT HEAVY
LIFTING FOR ME, SO I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THE PLEBISCITE AND WOULD
ENCOURAGE MEMBERS OF COUNCIL NOT TO EITHER. >> ALDERMAN FARRELL ON THE
REFERRAL. >> THANK YOU. WELL, I WON'T BE SUPPORTING
IT, AND I THINK I'VE STATED THE REASONS WHY I BELIEVE PLEBISCITES AREN'T
APPROPRIATE FOR A DECISION OF THIS NATURE. ALDERMAN POOTMANS AND
ALDERMAN MacLEOD KIND OF MADE THE ARGUMENTS FOR ME. ALDERMAN POOTMANS OUTLINED
THE VERY REASON WHY WE SHOULDN'T TAKE THIS TO PLEBISCITE.
THERE'S NO CONSENSUS ON THIS ISSUE. UNTIL THERE'S CONSENSUS,
UNTIL ALL THE JURYS IN ABOUT FLUORIDE, WE CANNOT PUT IT IN OUR DRINKING WATER AND
FEEL THAT WE ARE DOING OUR ETHICAL DUTY. YES, IT'S A DIFFICULT
DECISION TO MAKE FOR COUNCIL. ALDERMAN MacLEOD SAID THAT
WE SHOULDN'T MAKE THESE DECISIONS FOR OUR RESIDENTS. I DON'T BELIEVE ANYONE HAS
THE RIGHT TO MAKE A DECISION OF THIS NATURE FOR THEIR NEIGHBOUR.
AND BECAUSE THERE ARE VIABLE ALTERNATIVES THAT ARE CHEAP AND READILY AVAILABLE, LET'S
MOVE IN THAT DIRECTION. IT'S A MORE CONTEMPORARY APPROACH.
AND GIVE PEOPLE THE CHOICE. AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE ETHICS OF IT, GERBER BABY
FOOD IN THE U.S. NOW OFFERS UNFLOURIDATED WATER FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE TO USE
FORMULA BECAUSE BABIES OF A CERTAIN AGE, BABIES ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE ACCESS TO
FLOURIDATED WATER. BREATH MILK DOES NOT HAVE FLUORIDE IN IT.
BUT THE SAD THING IN THE U.S. IS CHILDREN OF LOW-INCOME FAMILIES DON'T
GET ACCESS TO GERBER BABY WATER. BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO
PURCHASE IT. ANYWAY, THIS IS GOING TO BE AN INTERESTING DEBATE.
I'M SURE THERE'S GOING TO BE ANOTHER MEMBER... >> ALDERMAN POOTMANS.
ON THE REFERRAL. >> ( Inaudible ) >> I'M SORRY?
>> ( Inaudible ) >> OKAY. BUT JUST WHEN I TURN IT OUT
-- ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART ON THE REFERRAL. >> THE GOOD ARGUMENTS HAVE
BEEN MADE WHY WE NEED TO MAKE THE DECISION TODAY. I BELIEVE IT'S A COP-OUT FOR
ELECTED OFFICIALS AND COUNCIL TODAY TO NOT MAKE A DECISION ON THIS MATTER.
THAT'S WHY I SO ENJOYED THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ALL THE FOLKS THAT CAME FORWARD AND
PRESENTED SOME REALLY, REALLY GOOD ARGUMENTS ON BOTH SIDES.
SO TO ME, IT'S A COP-OUT IF WE DON'T PROCEED. ABSOLUTELY PLEBISCITES DO
NOT LEAD TO CONSENSUS. IF ANYTHING, THEY'RE SORT OF LIKE OUR DEBATE YESTERDAY IN
REGARDS TO THE TUNNEL. IT'S A HUNG JURY. IT'S PRETTY CLOSE TO 50/50
ALL THE TIME, AND IT'S NOT A DEFINITIVE CHOICE. WHAT DISAPPOINTS ME MOST,
YOUR WORSHIP, IS THAT THE PROVINCE DOESN'T TAKE LEADERSHIP AROUND THIS
ISSUE. IT'S THE SAME AS WHEN WE HAD TO TAKE ON THE PUBLIC POLICY
ISSUE WITH REGARDS TO SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES AND THE DANGERS OF SECONDHAND
SMOKE. AND ALL THE RESEARCH THAT IS VERY EVIDENT ABOUT THE
DANGERS TO ONE'S HEALTH. SO IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CLEAR PUBLIC POLICY IN
ALBERTA, OBVIOUSLY THEY DON'T THINK IT'S IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO IMPOSE THIS ON ALL
OF THE CITIZENS ACROSS THIS PROVINCE. THEY'RE SILENT ON THE
MATTER. SO -- AND SO SHOULD WE BE. SO TODAY, WE NEED TO DECIDE
THAT WE WILL REMOVE FLUORIDE FROM OUR WATER AND NOT -- AND NOT RENEGE ON OUR DUTY
AS ELECTED OFFICIALS TO MAKE THAT DECISION. THANK YOU.
>> ALDERMAN DEMONG ON THE REFERRAL. >> YOUR WORSHIP, IF I MAY
ASK ADMINISTRATION A QUESTION. MR. PRICHARD, YOU AND I HAD
HAD CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THE POSSIBLE CAPITAL UPGRADE THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO IN
THE FLUORIDE. AND YOU HAD MENTIONED AT ONE POINT THAT IT WOULD BE
EASIER TO DO THE UPGRADE IF WE WERE NOT FLUORIDATING AT THE TIME.
WOULD YOU MIND SPEAKING TO THAT? >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
THE QUESTION CAME UP EXPOSING IS IT EASIER TO DO THE UPGRADE NOW WITH A LIVE
SYSTEM VERSUS SHUTDOWN AND RETROFIT IT AND UPGRADE IT AND CLEARLY FROM OUR POINT
OF VIEW, THE EASIER OPTION IS IF YOU'RE NOT HAVING TO WORK AROUND A LIVE SYSTEM, A
SYSTEM UP AND RUNNING, THAT YOU'RE HAVING TO COMPLY WITH THE, YOU KNOW, STANDARDS AND
THE DOSING REQUIREMENTS AND SO ON, AND HAVE TO KEEP EVERYTHING RUNNING AND ALL
THE PROCEDURES AND SAFETY PROCEDURES YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH, IT WOULD CLEARLY A
LOT EASIER AND I WOULD SUGGEST MORE COST EFFECTIVE TO BE ABLE TO ACTUALLY SHUT
THE SYSTEM DOWN AND THEN GO IN THERE AND UPGRADE IT, YOU KNOW, WITH NOTHING RUNNING.
>> THANK YOU, MR. PRICHARD. I AM, AS YOU'RE AWARE -- >> ALDERMAN POOTMANS, I
WONDER IF YOU'D ALLOW ME. MR. PRICHARD, HOW LONG WOULD YOU HAVE TO SHUT A SYSTEM
DOWN TO TAKE A LIVE ONE OFF AND PUT A NEW ONE ON, IN OTHER WORDS, HOW LONG WOULD
THE CITY BE WITHOUT FLOURIDATED WATER? >> IT DEPENDS HOW MUCH LEAD
TIME WE HAVE. YOU CAN IMAGINE THE PROCESS IS THAT YOU HAVE TO DO YOUR
RFP, ENGAGE A CONSULTANT, DO THE DESIGN, A CONTRACT, ENTER A CONTRACT, AWARD IT
AND THEN GET THE WORK DONE, AND SO IT IF DEPENDS AT WHAT POINT WE HAVE THE DIRECTION
FROM COUNCIL TO DO THAT. I MEAN, IF YOU LOOK AT THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF TIME, IT
WOULD BE FROM THE TIME YOU'VE ACTUALLY GOT A TENDER AWARDED, A CONTRACT AWARDED,
YOU'VE GOT THE DESIGN DONE AND YOU'RE READY TO MOVE IN AND THEN YOU FLIP THE SWITCH
AND THEN YOU GO IN AND DO THAT WORK, AND THAT'S I'M GUESSING PROBABLY GOING TO
TAKE, YOU KNOW, SIX MONTHS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. WE'VE GOT TWO PLANTS, WE DO
ONE FIRST AND THEN THE OTHER. THE CONVERSATION AROSE IN
THE CONCEPT OF DISCONTINUING FLUORIDE TONIGHT AND WENT BACK LATER AND THE DECISION
WAS MADE TO START IT UP AGAIN, WHICH IS A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT QUESTION BECAUSE
THEN YOU'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND GET LICENCE APPROVALS AND ALL THAT PART OF THE
PROCESS AS WELL. TYPICALLY, WE WOULD ALLOW FOR A YEAR FOR THIS KIND OF
PROCESS FROM THE POINT OF YOUR DESIGN CONSTRUCTION, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THE SYSTEM
IS UP AND RUNNING AND WE'RE WORKING WITH AN EXISTING SYSTEM OR IT'S SORT OF WE'RE
STARTING FROM SCRATCH. WE PROBABLY WOULD ALLOW OURSELVES A YEAR FOR THE
WHOLE PROCESS. >> SO IN SUMMARY, ONCE YOU HAVE ENGINEERING WORK --
>> YOUR WORSHIP -- >> I'M JUST CLARIFYING A QUESTION.
>> ON A POINT OF PROCEDURE. >> POINT OF ORDER. >> THAT'S FINE.
>> PLEASE, CARRY ON, ALDERMAN. >> SUMMARIZE YOUR ANSWER,
MR. PRICHARD, IF YOU HAD THE ENGINEERING WORK DONE, SHUT IT OFF, DID THE WORK, TURNED
IT ON, SIX MONTHS. >> I'M GUESSING, YEAH, SIX MONTHS TO A YEAR.
>> THANK YOU. THAT WAS WHAT I WANTED, THANK YOU.
>> MY POINT IS THAT I'M A BIG BELIEVER IN DIRECT DEMOCRACY.
I'M ALL IN FAVOUR OF PLEBISCITES. I -- I -- IN REFERENCE TO AN
AMENDMENT THAT I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE MADE TO THE REFERRAL, I KNOW I'M NOT
ALLOWED TO, I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE SEEN THE FLUORIDE TAKEN OUT OF THE
WATER OVER THE NEXT THREE YEARS AT THIS COUNCIL MEETING AND IF CALGARIANS EN
MASSE ARE INTERESTED IN HAVING THIS FLUORIDE PUT BACK IN, THEY COULD EASILY
MAKE, AS ALDERMAN CARRA HAD MENTIONED, PUT THE SIGNATURES TO PAPER, FORCE A
PLEBISCITE, AND AT THAT POINT, IT WOULD BE CHEAPER AND EASIER FOR US TO
RE-INSTALL THE FLUORIDE RATHER THAN DOING IT AS AN ONGOING PROCESS.
IN THE MEANTIME, WE WOULD BE SAVING POSSIBLY 6 TO $8 MILLION IF INDEED HAVE
PLEBISCITE SHOWED WE DIDN'T WANT FLUORIDE. FOR THOSE REASONS ALONE, I'M
GOING TO SAY "NO" TO THIS PLEBISCITE REQUEST. I WOULD LOVE TO SEE AN
AMENDMENT AFTER THE FACT. THANK YOU. >> ON THE REFERRAL, ALDERMAN
HODGES. >> YOUR WORSHIP, IT'S ALWAYS POSSIBLE TO DISMISS A
PLEBISCITE WHENEVER IT MAY BE HELD BUT, IN FACT, THIS IS THE VERY ISSUE WHICH HAS
BEEN DETERMINED OVER THE YEARS BY PLEBISCITE INCLUDING THE LAST ONE, OF
COURSE. SO TO IGNORE THAT HISTORY, I THINK, IS POLITICALLY A
MISTAKE. WE KNOW THAT THERE ISN'T ANY PUBLIC CONSENSUS ON THIS OR
SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT ASKING FOR A PLEBISCITE, SETTING
ONE UP, IS A COP-OUT IN TERMS OF DECISION MAKING BECAUSE, INDEED, AS I SAY,
THIS IS A VERY ISSUE IN THE HISTORY OF CALGARY THAT HAS BEEN DETERMINED BUT A
REFERENDUM OR PLEBISCITE. I REMEMBER THE RADIO DISCUSSIONS, NOW SOME OF YOU
WEREN'T AROUND FOR THIS, OF COURSE, THE RADIO DEBATES ON RADIO IN THE LATE 1950s IN
CALGARY ON FLUORIDE AND THE CONTROVERSY ABOUT FLUORIDE IN THE LATE '50s SO CLEARLY
THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY CONSENSUS FOR A LONG TIME. HOWEVER, AT THE END OF THE
DAY, I AM IN FAVOUR OF ALDERMAN JONES' MOTION. I THINK IT MAKES SENSE, IT'S
BEEN DEALT WITH THIS WAY BEFORE. AND THERE'S NO COMPULSION AS
-- UNDER THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT ACT THAT COUNCIL IS BOUND BY A DECISION,
WHATEVER THE DECISION MAY BE. EXPRESSED IN A PLEBISCITE SO
I THINK IT'S A GOOD RESOLUTION SHOULD COUNCIL ADOPT IT.
>> ALDERMAN JONES TO CLOSE ON THE REFERRAL. >> YOUR WORSHIP, IT WAS
INTERESTING DEBATE, AND IT WAS QUICK. I LIKE QUICK.
YOU KNOW, THIS IS NOT MY PERSONAL CHOICE, I HAVE TO SAY.
I'M NOT IN FAVOUR PERSONALLY OF FLUORIDE IN THE WATER. AS A MATTER OF FACT, I WENT
TO MY DENTIST THIS MORNING, AND I ASKED HIM THE QUESTION, WHAT HE THOUGHT ABOUT
FLUORIDE IN THE WATER AND HE SAID WELL, IT'S KIND OF A MOOT POINT WHEN YOU THINK
ABOUT IT BECAUSE HE SAYS MOST PEOPLE GIVE THEIR KIDS GUMS AND CANDY AND IF THEY
DON'T BRUSH THEIR TEETH, IF THEY DON'T BRUSH THEIR TEETH, ALL THE FLUORIDE IN THE
WATER ISN'T GOING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE SO IT'S NO DIFFERENCE TO ME.
I'LL JUST SIT DOWN AND SAY THIS IS CLOSED. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
CALL THE ROLL. CALL THE VOTE, PLEASE, COUNCIL.
ONLY ONE, ALDERMAN POOTMANS. >> ON THE RECORDED VOTE, YOUR WORSHIP, ALDERMAN MAR
AGAINST, ALDERMAN HODGES FOR, ALDERMAN FARRELL AGAINST, ALDERMAN CARRA AGAINST,
ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART AGAINST, ALDERMAN CHABOT AGAINST, ALDERMAN DEMONG
AGAINST, ALDERMAN MacLEOD FOR, ALDERMAN POOTMANS FOR, ALDERMAN KEATING AGAINST,
ALDERMAN STEVENSON AGAINST, ALDERMAN JONES FOR, ALDERMAN LOWE FOR.
>> ON THE MAIN MOTION, ALDERMAN MacLEOD. >> THANK YOU.
I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO REFER THIS TO A PANEL.
>> SECONDED BY ALDERMAN POOTMANS. AND BY THAT, ALDERMAN
MacLEOD, ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE -- >> AS OFFERED BY THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY. I'M NOT GOING TO GO INTO GREAT DETAIL.
WE TALKED ABOUT THIS AT U AND E, THE UNIVERSITY DID MAKE AN OFFER TO GO THROUGH
THE RESEARCH. I WOULD LIKE TO ADD, HOWEVER, IN MAKING THIS MOTION, I AM
CONCERNED ABOUT THE COMPOSITION OF THE PANEL AND WOULD BE VERY OPEN TO
INCLUSION OF A VARIETY OF PEOPLE AS REFLECTED BY THE PRESENTATIONS THAT WE'VE
HAD. I WANT SCIENTIFIC FOR SURE, I WANT IT SUBSTANTIVE
RESEARCH FOR SURE, BUT I ALSO WANT IT TO BE INCLUSIVE OF ALL THOUGHTS ON THE
ISSUE. AND I THINK SOME PEOPLE HAVE EXPRESSED INTEREST THAT THAT
WOULD INCLUDE ETHICS AS WELL AS ALTERNATIVE MEDICINES AND SOME OF THOSE SORTS OF
THINGS AS WELL. >> ALDERMAN MacALLOW, IN YOUR CLOSE, I'M GOING TO ASK
YOU HOW YOU MIGHT SEE -- MacLEOD -- TO FORM -- THE PANEL BEING FORM, HOW YOU
WOULD CONSTITUTE THIS PANEL, BECAUSE THE OFFER FROM THE UNIVERSITY IS QUITE
SPECIFIC. SO I'M GOING TO ASK YOU JUST TO CONSIDER THAT IN YOUR
CLOSE. >> I'M AFRAID I DON'T HAVE THE UNIVERSITY'S LETTER HERE
WITH ME, SO I CAN'T RESPOND TO THAT, IF IT IS SPECIFIC. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT
INCLUSIVE AND I THINK, IF WE'RE GOING TO DO A PANEL, THAT IT MUST ABSOLUTELY BE
VIEWED AS BEING CREDIBLE BY ALL SIDES. >> OKAY, THANK YOU.
ON THE REFERRAL, ALDERMAN KEATING. >> ONCE AGAIN, I WAS GOING
TO SPEAK TO AMEND IT BUT I WILL GO DOWN THIS ROUTE. I REALLY BELIEVE THAT WE
HEARD CREDIBLE TESTIMONY LAST TIME, AND I'M COMING BACK TO MY STATEMENT WHERE A
MEDICAL DOCTOR SUMMARIZED THE EVIDENCE AND IS PRO-FLUORIDE BUT HE SIMPLY
STATED THE BEST THEY CAN DO IS IT'S LIKELY TO BE A BENEFIT, AND UNLIKELY TO BE
A HARM. AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT ANOTHER PANEL WILL DO OTHER
THAN THAT. THANK YOU. I WILL NOT SUPPORT IT.
>> ON THE REFERRAL, ALDERMAN POOTMANS. >> YES, THANK YOU.
>> YES, THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. I GUESS, SPEAKING FOR MYSELF,
I JUST DON'T FEEL I HAVE THE POLITICAL AUTHORITY AND LEGAL AUTHORITY BUT I
CERTAINLY DON'T FEEL I HAVE THE MORAL AUTHORITY OR THE SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE TO BE
MAKING THIS DECISION AND WOULD CRAVE THE GENEROUSLY OFFERED EXPERTISE OF THE
UNIVERSITY AND WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO SUPPORT THIS MOTION.
THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. >> ON THE REFERRAL, ALDERMAN MAR.
>> WELL, I STRUGGLED WITH THIS ONE, NOT BECAUSE OF THE SCIENTIFIC NATURE BUT AS TO
WHETHER OR NOT THE PANEL WOULD BE MADE UP OF PHILOSOPHICAL MAJORS WHEN
THEY COULD COME AT US WITH THE IDEA AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS RIGHT OR WRONG.
WE ARE MAKING A DECISION THAT IS ETHICAL IN NATURE. DOES THE MAJORITY HAVE THE
RIGHT TO IMPOSE ITS WILL AND MASS MEDICATE A MILLION PEOPLE?
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT IS THE CASE. I THINK THAT WE ARE DOING
SOMETHING HERE THAT HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO ONCE AGAIN BRING BACK CLEAN, NATURAL
WATER WITHOUT MASS MEDICATING PEOPLE WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT SO I WILL NOT
BE SUPPORTING THIS. THANK YOU. >> ON THE REFERRAL, ALDERMAN
CARRA. >> IN MY SORT OF INTERRUPTED DEBATE LAST TIME, I SORT OF
SPUTTERED OUT THE IDEA THAT THIS IS REALLY SORT OF A REFERENDUM ON PUBLIC HEALTH.
AND I THINK THAT THE U OF C -- PUTTING TOGETHER AN EXPERT PANEL IS A VERY
INTERESTING IDEA, BUT WE'VE SEEN THESE SUPERPANELS PUT TOGETHER BEFORE AND THEY
HAVE BEEN BASICALLY BIOMEDICAL ETHICS AND HEALTH SCIENCES PANELS THAT OPERATE
WITHIN THE FRAME OF REFERENCE AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF BIOMEDICAL ETHICS AND
HEALTH SCIENCES. AND I THINK THAT THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT PERHAPS
TRANSCENDS THAT. I THINK THERE ARE THREE AREAS THAT HAVE TO BE
REPRESENTED IF WE'RE GOING TO BRING ANYTHING NEW TO THE TABLE.
AS ALDERMAN MAR SAID, AN ETHICAL POSITION OUTSIDE OF THE REALM OF BIOMEDICAL
ETHICS. IT'S A PHILOSOPHICAL PROPOSITION AND SOMETHING
THAT I THINK IS FAIRLY DEFINING FOR OUR TIME FOR BETTER OR FOR WORSE.
I THINK IT'S POLITICAL SCIENCE QUESTION, OF CONSIDERABLE SIGNIFICANCE,
GIVEN THE CURRENT -- GIVEN THE CURRENT DOWNLOADING AND THE NATURE OF MUNICIPALITIES
WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF PROVINCIAL AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS ACROSS NORTH
AMERICA AND THE FACT THAT MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS ARE THE LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT
CLOSEST TO PEOPLE BUT ALSO THE MOST DISENFRANCHISED, THE AREAS IN WHICH MOST OF
OUR WEALTH IS CREATED BUT WHICH DON'T SEE A LOT OF VALUE FOR THAT, AND THEN THE
FINAL THING IS I THINK IT'S AN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE, AND THERE ARE TREMENDOUS NUMBER
OF PERSONALITIES NO WAY BEING ADDRESSED AT THE BIOMEDICAL ETHICS LEVEL, AND
IF WE COULD PUT TOGETHER A PANEL THAT'S CREDIBLE, THAT APPROACHES THIS WITH FRESH
EYES, WITH HEALTH SCIENCE AND IS A BIOMEDICAL ETHIC COMPONENT AS WELL, I WOULD
BE VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THAT PANEL BUT I DON'T SEE THAT BEING ON THE TABLE, AND I
DON'T SEE THAT COMING TO THE FOREFRONT AND, AS A MATTER OF FACT, I THINK A DECISION
TODAY MIGHT FORCE THAT KIND OF PANEL TO COME TOGETHER AND TO CONVENE AND TO ADD
SOMETHING NEW TO THIS DEBATE. SO, YOU KNOW, IN THE SPIRIT
OF THE FACT THAT I'M RESPONDING TO WHAT I SEE AS A CONSIDERABLE FEELING
WITHIN A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF THE ELECTORATE TO REALLY CHALLENGE THE ASSUMPTIONS OF
THE PAST, I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE PANEL AS CURRENTLY CONSTRUED.
I DON'T SEE IT COMING TOGETHER, BUT I SEE A DECISION TODAY PROVOKING
THAT KIND OF PANEL THAT MIGHT ACTUALLY ADD SOMETHING MEANINGFUL TO THE DEBATE OR
SOMETHING NEW TO THE DEBATE. SO I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS ONE.
>> ON THE REFERRAL, ALDERMAN DEMONG. >> THE SIMPLE CON AT THE
PRESENT TIME THAT YOU'RE -- CONCEPT THAT YOU'RE ASKING IT TO GO TO A MEDICAL PANEL
GOES TO THE POINT THIS IS A MEDICAL QUESTION, WHICH IS NOT -- WHICH IS NOT WHAT
THIS COUNCIL IS HERE FOR. I ENCOURAGE WHOLE HEARTEDLY THAT THIS UNIVERSITY SET UP
THIS MEDICAL PANEL, GO RIGHT AHEAD, DO THIS, TAKE THEIR FINDINGS TO THE PROVINCE AND
HAVE THE PROVINCE DO WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING AND THAT IS WITH REGARDS TO
MEDICAL. THANK YOU. >> ON THE REFERRAL, ALDERMAN
STEVENSON. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING
THIS. I BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE THE RESEARCH, MANY OF US HAVE
BEEN STUDYING IT FOR MANY YEARS, AND I DON'T THINK A PANEL THAT ACTUALLY PUTS THE
RESEARCH INTO A NICE PACKAGE AND SENDING IT TO US IS GOING TO DO ANY GOOD, SO I
WILL NOT SUPPORT IT. >> ON THE REFERRAL, ALDERMAN CHABOT.
>> YOUR WORSHIP, HONESTLY, BASED ON WHAT I SEE BEFORE ME, I REALLY DON'T SEE WHAT
IT'S DOING. IT SAYS THAT THE ISSUE OF FLUORIDE BE REFERRED TO A
PANEL AS SUGGESTED BY UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY'S LETTER AT THE HEARING ON
JANUARY 26th, 2011. NOW, IF COUNCIL APPROVES THIS, MY QUESTION THEN IS IT
REALLY DOESN'T DO ANYTHING TO RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE BEFORE US.
SO THEN ARE WE STILL DEBATING THIS ISSUE? I'M NOT SURE HOW THIS MOTION
WAS EVEN ACCEPTED BECAUSE IT'S NOT REFERRING TO THE REPORT THAT'S BEFORE US.
>> I WOULD SUGGEST, ALDERMAN CHABOT, THAT -- AND JUST FOR THE -- FOR YOUR INFORMATION,
I'M GOING TO READ THE OPERATIVE PARAGRAPH IN THE UNIVERSITY LETTER, IF I MAY.
I PROPOSE THAT OUR FACULTY SUPPORT THE CITY BY STRIKING A GROUP WHICH COULD DRAW ON
THE EXPERTISE OF OUR NEW CALGARY INSTITUTE FOR POPULATION AND PUBLIC HEALTH
TO CRITICALLY REVIEW THE MOST UP TO DATE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE AND PROVIDE CLEAR
EVIDENCE-BASED ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ABOUT RISK AND BENEFIT OF WATER FLUORIDE.
I WOULD ENSURE THAT MEMBERS OF THE REVIEW COMMITTEE WOULD BE EXPERTS IN PUBLIC
HEALTH AND SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY. THIS GROUP WOULD BE ABLE TO
PROVIDE A REPORT TO YOU WITHIN WEEKS. SO I WOULD SUGGEST WHAT'S
REFERRED, WE WOULD WANT A DATE, AND I WOULD ASK ALDERMAN MacLEOD FOR A DATE,
WHEN WE COULD HAVE IT BACK -- >> RESPECTFULLY, YOUR
WORSHIP, I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE LETTER, I'VE READ THAT LETTER.
I ACTUALLY WATCHED THE VIDEO OF THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS THAT TOOK PLACE HERE.
I ALSO TOOK PART IN THIS DEBATE IN MY LAST TERM, SO I'VE BEEN PRETTY BROUGHT --
PRETTY FAMILIAR WITH ALL OF THE ISSUES BOTH PRO AND AGAINST.
WHAT I'M SAYING HERE IS PROCEDURALLY, YOUR WORSHIP. WHAT I SEE BEFORE ME IS A
REFERRAL, IT SAYS REFERRAL, I'M NOT SURE WHAT EXACTLY IT SAYS.
IT DOESN'T SAY REFER THIS REPORT. IT JUST SAYS REFER THE ISSUE
OF FLUORIDE. WHAT'S BEFORE US IS NOT THE ISSUE OF FLUORIDE.
WHAT'S BEFORE US IS WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO PUT FLUORIDE IN OUR
WATER. NOT WHETHER OR NOT FLUORIDE IS OF BENEFIT TO US OR NOT.
IT'S WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT TO PUT FLUORIDE IN OUR WATER, SO THIS REFERRAL MOTION, IN
MY OPINION, IS NOT PROPERLY PUT. AND SHOULD BE REFUSED ON THE
BASIS OF THE FACT THAT IT'S NOT PROPERLY PUT. QUITE SIMPLY.
SO I CAN'T SUPPORT IT, FOR MANY REASONS, THAT BEING ONE OF THEM.
>> ON THE REFERRAL, ALDERMAN MacLEOD TO CLOSE. >> THANK YOU.
THANK YOU FOR THAT, ALDERMAN CHABOT. I THINK THE MOTION DOES NEED
SOME WORK. YEAH. SO THE ISSUE OF THE -- IT
SAYS IT'S SUGGESTED IN UNIVERSITY CALGARY'S LETTER, AND THAT REFERS TO
EVIDENCE-BASED ANSWERS, WITH EXPERTS IN PUBLIC HEALTH AND SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY, SO I
DON'T THINK THAT EXCLUDES THE KINDS OF PEOPLE THAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS
OF CREATING THE PANEL. HOWEVER, IT WOULD SEEM THAT THERE IS NO SUPPORT FOR THIS,
AND SO I WILL CLOSE. THANK YOU. >> I'M JUST -- IS THIS A
REFERRAL OF A REFERRAL? >> NO. >> NO, IT'S NOT.
AND ON THE REFERRAL, WE CALL THE ROLL, MADAM CLERK. >> ALDERMAN KEATING.
>> NO. >> ALDERMAN MacLEOD. >> YES.
>> ALDERMAN MAR. >> NO. >> ALDERMAN POOTMANS.
>> YES. >> ALDERMAN STEVENSON. >> NO.
>> ALDERMAN CARRA. >> NO. >> ALDERMAN CHABOT.
>> NO. >> ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART. >> NO.
>> ALDERMAN DEMONG. >> NO. >> ALDERMAN FARRELL.
>> NO. >> ALDERMAN HODGES. >> YES.
>> ALDERMAN JONES. >> YES. >> DEPUTY MAYOR LOWE.
>> YES. >> YOUR WORSHIP. >> ON THE MAIN MOTION,
ALDERMAN KEATING. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. I'M LEARNING HOW TO PAY
JEOPARDY, AND I THINK I WAS FAST ENOUGH THAT TIME TO CONTINUE WITH AN AMENDMENT.
IF WE CAN HAVE THE AMENDMENT UP, PLEASE. I STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT
FLUORIDE IS A BENEFIT, AND I STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING IN THIS
AREA FOR THOSE WHO NEED IT. I AM AGAINST THE IDEA OF A GARDEN HOSE OR A FIRE HOSE
APPROACH TO TRY AND IDENTIFY AND HELPING THOSE WHO NEED IT.
THE SECOND PART OF THIS MOTION IS CRUCIAL IN MY VIEW, TAKING IT AWAY AND NOT DOING
SOMETHING ELSE IN RETURN DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR.
AND SO I HAVE AMENDED THE SECOND PART SLIGHTLY TO MAKE THE WORDING, I GUESS, A
LITTLE MORE OPEN, BUT I DO HOPE THAT YOU WOULD SUPPORT THIS IN THE FACT THAT WE ARE
HERE TO HELP THOSE THAT MOST NEED IT RATHER THAN THE APPROACH THAT WE'VE BEEN
TAKING WITH FLUORIDE. FLUORIDE IS A BENEFIT, BUT IF DONE CORRECTLY.
THANK YOU. >> ON THE AMENDMENT, DO WE HAVE A PRINTED COPY, YOUR
WORSHIP? >> NO, WE DON'T. >> ON THE AMENDMENT, ARE WE
AGREED? ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART. >> YOUR WORSHIP, COULD I
HAVE A SECONDER, PLEASE? >> SECONDED BY? ALDERMAN JONES, THANK YOU.
>> I CAN'T HEAR YOU. >> OKAY. ( LAUGHING )
>> I HAVE AN AMENDMENT, YOUR WORSHIP. >> AN AMENDMENT.
>> I WANT TO CLEAN IT UP A LITTLE BIT. AND FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED
THAT COUNCIL DIRECT ADMINISTRATION TO ESTABLISH A STAKEHOLDER GROUP TO
IDENTIFY OPTIONS TO ADDRESS THE DENTAL HEALTH OF CHILDREN LIVING IN POVERTY.
SO WE WANT TO SEE THE OPTION IN ORDER TO -- I DON'T KNOW IF IT NEEDS TO BE IMPROVED
BUT TO ADDRESS DENTAL HEALTH ISSUES. SO TO ADDRESS DENTAL HEALTH
ISSUES. ISSUES AFTER HEALTH. >> DO I HEAR A SECONDER?
>> YES. >> IS THAT OKAY, ALDERMAN KEATING?
>> ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT, I'LL JUST RUN THROUGH THE LIGHTS IN THIS
CASE. ALDERMAN JONES. >> YES, YOUR WORSHIP.
THE ONLY PROBLEM I'VE GOT WITH THIS IS WHY DO THE CHILDREN HAVE TO BE LIVING
IN POVERTY? WHY CAN'T IT BE IDENTIFY OPTIONS TO ADDRESS THE BEST
WAY TO IMPROVE DENTAL HEALTH ISSUES FOR CHILDREN PERIOD. CUT THE POVERTY.
CAN I TAKE POVERTY OUT? >> I DON'T THINK WE CAN GO THAT FAR PROCEDURALLY.
WE DO THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT. >> I THINK IDENTIFYING IT IN
CHILDREN IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN SAYING IDENTIFYING IT AS CHILDREN LIVING IN
POVERTY. >> WE HAVE TO DEFEAT THIS ONE.
TIME-OUT, OKAY. >> WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT -- YOU CAN'T HAVE
TWO AMENDMENTS TO THE AMENDMENT ON THE FLOOR AT THE SAME TIME SO EITHER
ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART CAN ACCEPT THAT OR NOT, BUT YOU HAVE TO VOTE ON THE ONE AND
THEN AMEND IT AGAIN AFTERWARDS. >> EXACTLY.
>> I'LL STAND WITH ALDERMAN JONES AND JUST SAY THAT WHAT WE HEARD IN THE DEBATE WAS
THAT ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS FOR KEEPING FLUORIDE IN IS --
>> I THINK ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART, IS THAT YOUR CLOSE --
>> NO, HE WAS -- >> SHE'S ANSWERING MY QUESTION, YOUR WORSHIP.
>> HE WAS WONDERING IF IT WAS FRIENDLY THAT I WOULD TAKE OUT POVERTY.
SO I'M JUST SAYING THAT THAT'S WHAT WE HEARD, TO ADDRESS THE REASON WHY
FLUORIDE'S IN THERE, IS BECAUSE OF CHILDREN LIVING IN POVERTY THAT CAN'T AFFORD
OTHER MEANS. SO IT'S NOT VERY FRIENDLY. >> WELL --
>> I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU JUST ASK IF THAT WORD BE CULLED SEPARATELY.
>> I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CAN CALL A WORD SEPARATELY. >> THE ISSUE THAT I HAVE
WITH IT, YOUR WORSHIP, WHAT IS POVERTY AND WHERE DO YOU DIVIDE THE LINE?
I KNOW YOU DO BUT THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT MAY WANT --
>> ONE SPEAKER AT A TIME, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> I'M STANDING SO I'M THE
ONE SPEAKING. ( LAUGHING ) >> ( Inaudible )
>> YOU GUYS OVER THERE, BE QUIET. NOW YOU MADE ME FORGET WHAT
MY ISSUE WAS. ANYWAY, CHILDREN LIVING IN POVERTY, ONE IS IDENTIFYING
WHERE THE POVERTY LINE IS AND THERE MAY BE A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT MAY WAN TO
PARTAKE IN IT THAT AREN'T IN POVERTY AND I THINK WE SHOULD GIVE EVERY
OPPORTUNITY TO PEOPLE WHO WANT FLUORIDE FOR THEIR CHILDREN HAVE THAT RIGHT
RATHER THAN DEALING WITH THIS ISSUE. >> ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE
AMENDMENT, ALDERMAN CHABOT. >> WELL, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH WHAT'S PROPOSED BEFORE
US, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT IT'S NOT REALLY A MUNICIPAL RESPONSIBILITY.
WE'RE KIND OF ACCEPTING A MUNICIPAL -- WE'RE ACCEPTING A PROVINCIAL RESPONSIBILITY,
AND IMPOSING MUNICIPAL TAXES TO TRY AND RESOLVE AN ISSUE THAT ULTIMATELY SHOULD BE
TAKEN CARE OF BY THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT. AND I THINK TO SUGGEST THAT
WE CONTINUE TO DO THIS IN PERPETUITY IS NOT RIGHT. I THINK TO ESTABLISH A
STAKEHOLDER GROUP, IDENTIFY DIFFERENT OPTIONS, IT'S A VERY LAUDIBLE GOAL,
SOMETHING THAT IF WE WANT TO UNDERTAKE, I GUESS IT WOULD BE THE WILL OF THIS COUNCIL.
BUT INSOFAR AS CONTINUING THIS PROCESS AND WHATEVER THE FINDINGS OF THAT, I
GUESS, REVIEW OR UNDERTAKING DETERMINES, ULTIMATELY SHOULD NOT BE OUR
RESPONSIBILITY. SO I THINK THERE SHOULD BE A TERM LIMIT IMPOSED ON HOW
LONG WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO DO THIS IF WE'RE GOING TO DO IT AT ALL, AND BEING AS
THERE'S AN AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT THAT'S CURRENTLY ON THE FLOOR, WE WILL VOTE
ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT, AND FOLLOWING THAT VOTE, THE OUTCOME OF
THAT VOTE, SHOULD IT BE FAVOURABLE, I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE THAT WE PUT IN A
TERM LIMIT TO WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED HERE AS AN ADDITIONAL AMENDMENT TO THE
AMENDMENT OR VOTE ON THE ENTIRE THING AND THEN I'LL PUT IT FORWARD AS AN
AMENDMENT AFTER THE FACT. EITHER WAY, WHATEVER THE PROCESS THAT YOU'D LIKE TO
UNDERTAKE, YOUR WORSHIP, I WILL TAKE YOUR WORTHY ADVICE ON WHEN I SHOULD PROPERLY BE
PUTTING THIS AND WE'LL SIT ON THAT POINT. >> WE HAVE TO GET THESE OUT
OF THE WAY, ALDERMAN CHABOT. ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT, ALDERMAN CARRA.
ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT, ALDERMAN FARRELL. >> THANK YOU, I'LL SPEAK TO
BOTH OF THEM. I'LL SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT AND I DON'T
MIND THE IDEA OF LOOKING AT A LIMIT. I THINK IT PROBABLY SHOULD
ALSO COME BACK TO COUNCIL WHAT THE STRUCTURE OF THIS IS, IF THERE'S GOING TO BE A
FINANCIAL COMMITMENT. WHAT WE HEARD FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WERE
ADVOCATES OF FLUORIDATION WAS THAT CHILDREN LIVING IN POVERTY WHO ARE GOING
THROUGH A DENTAL HEALTH CRISIS. THE INTERESTING THING IS IN
THE U.S., THE CITIES THAT HAVE THE BIGGEST DENTAL HEALTH CRISIS ARE THE CITIES
THAT HAVE BEEN FLUORIDATING FOR DECADES, SO IT'S NOT A PANACEA.
WHAT I'M SUGGESTING WITH THIS AMENDMENT OR THIS ORIGINAL MOTION IS THAT WE
LOOK AT SOMETHING MORE MEANINGFUL, SOMETHING THAT LOOKS AT HEALTH AND WE'RE
ALSO LEARNING THAT IT'S REALLY HEALTH, DIET, HYGIENE THAT MAKE THE BIGGEST
DIFFERENCE, SO LET'S MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE, IF WE CAN. AND SO RATHER THAN
COMPLETELY ABDICATING OUR RESPONSIBILITY I'M SUGGESTING WE ACTUALLY TAKE
REAL RESPONSIBILITY. BECAUSE IT'S AN IMPRESSION OF MINE THAT ONCE WE
FLUORIDATE, KIND OF WIPE THEIR HAND OF THE ISSUE AND WE'RE DONE WITH IT, AND I
DON'T THINK WE ARE. >> ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT PUT BY
COLLEY-URQUHART TO CLOSE. CLOSE? ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE
AMENDMENT, CALL ROLL, MADAM CLERK. >> THE AMENDMENT TO THE
AMENDMENT, YOUR WORSHIP, WAS MOVED BY COLLEY-URQUHART, SECONDED BY ALDERMAN MAR.
MAY I CALL THE ROLL NOW, YOUR WORSHIP? >> PLEASE.
>> THANK YOU. ALDERMAN MacLEOD. >> AGREED.
>> ALDERMAN MAR. >> YEAH. >> ALDERMAN POOTMANS.
SORRY, YOUR WORSHIP, HE WASN'T IN THE CHAIR. ALDERMAN STEVENSON.
>> YES. >> ALDERMAN CARRA. >> YES.
>> ALDERMAN CHABOT. ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART. >> YES.
>> ALDERMAN DEMONG. >> YES. >> ALDERMAN FARRELL.
>> YES. >> ALDERMAN HODGES. ALDERMAN JONES.
>> YES. >> ALDERMAN KEATING. >> YES.
>> DEPUTY MAYOR LOWE. >> NO. >> CARRIED, YOUR WORSHIP.
>> ON THE MOTION AS AMENDED, ALDERMAN STEVENSON. >> WELL, YOUR WORSHIP, I
SUPPORTED THAT AMENDMENT BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS BETTER THAN WHAT WE HAD
BEFORE. >> THIS IS ACTUALLY ON THE AMENDMENT, ALDERMAN
STEVENSON. I JUST CALLED IT WRONG. >> OKAY.
SO IT'S ON THE AMENDMENT. >> YEAH. >> DO I HAVE A TIME LIMIT?
ANYWAY, I HAVE A CONCERN BECAUSE THIS IS SO OPEN-ENDED, WE'RE SAYING
DIRECT ADMINISTRATION TO ESTABLISH THIS GROUP, AND THEN WE TALK ABOUT THE
AMOUNT OF MONEY TO BE SAVED, TAKEN FROM THE AMOUNT OF MONIES THAT WE'RE SAVING.
THERE'S NOTHING THAT SAYS THIS COMES BACK TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL.
THERE'S NOTHING THAT SAYS HOW MUCH MONEY THEY CAN SPEND, ARE THEY GOING TO
SPEND $6 MILLION, WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO DO WITH THIS, SO I'M THINKING THAT SOMEHOW
WE HAVE TO AMEND THIS, THAT WE ASK THEM TO BRING US BACK A PLAN FOR THIS, SOMETHING
TO THAT EFFECT. YOU GOT ONE? OKAY.
I'LL LEAVE IT TO MY -- NO, I'LL JUST SAY MY COLLEAGUE, ALDERMAN CHABOT.
>> ON THE AMENDMENT, ALDERMAN CHABOT. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE AN ADDITIONAL AMENDMENT, AND I HAVEN'T FINALIZED ALL THE
WORDING TO IT BECAUSE I WASN'T SURE EXACTLY HOW OR WHAT WE SHOULD DO WITH IT,
THE FINDINGS OF THIS PROCESS. WE'VE IDENTIFIED A SOURCE OF
FUNDS. IT'S TO BE TAKEN FROM THE MONEY SAVED FROM NO LONGER
ADMINISTERING IT, AND WE MORE OR LESS HAVE A NUMBER THERE.
AM I NOT CORRECT, MR. PRICHARD? >> I WOULD NEED A LITTLE BIT
MORE CLARIFICATION FROM COUNCIL ON THAT. IT DOESN'T REALLY -- IT SAYS
IN AN AMOUNT, IT DOESN'T SAY THE FULL AMOUNT, TAKEN FROM THE MONIES --
>> TAKEN FROM THE MONIES SAVED FROM THE DISCONTINUATION OF
FLUORIDATION. >> I WOULD APPRECIATE FURTHER DIRECTION FROM
COUNCIL, I THINK ON THAT, DOES IT INCLUDE CAPITAL MONEY, THE ONE-TIME CAPITAL
SAVINGS OR ONGOING OPERATING AND IS IT IN PERPETUITY. >> I THINK THE INTENT WAS
PROBABLY FROM OPERATING, SO IT WOULD -- PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN STATED THAT WAY,
SAVE FROM THE -- MONIES SAVED FROM THE OPERATIONAL DISCONTINUATION --
>> I THINK THE WORDS YOU'RE TRYING TO INSERT IS MONIES SAVED FROM THE OPERATIONAL
BUDGET. -- OPERATING BUDGET. >> MONIES REALIZED FROM THE
OPERATING -- >> YOU'RE LOOKING FOR CHANGES OR SAVINGS IN THE
OPERATING BUDGET DUE TO THE DISCONTINUATION OF FLUORIDATION WHICH I THINK,
MR. PRICHARD, IS ABOUT -- >> MONIES SAVED FROM THE OPERATING BUDGET DUE TO
DISCONTINUATION OF FLUORIDATION. >> YOUR WORSHIP, IN THE
AMOUNT TAKEN FROM THE OPERATING -- OPERATIONAL MONIES SAVED FROM THE
DISCONTINUATION OF FLUORIDE, AND IF IT'S ALL OF THE OPERATIONAL MONIES, THEN
IT'S AROUND $750.000 A YEAR. >> OKAY. >> I THINK, AGAIN, THERE
SHOULD HAVE BEEN SOME ADDITIONAL DIRECTION THERE AS WELL IN REGARDS TO WHAT
THE LIMIT IS. UP TO WHATEVER THAT LIMIT IS, BUT NONETHELESS, JUST
PUTTING IT AS IT IS, I THINK, IS SUFFICIENT. HOWEVER, WHERE DOES IT GO?
WHERE DO THE FINDINGS OF THIS STUDY GO? I THINK THAT'S WHAT'S
PRIMARILY MISSING, WHAT ALDERMAN STEVENSON WAS REFERRING TO, AND IT SHOULD
BE RETURNING BACK TO COUNCIL THROUGH SPC ON U AND E AND HERE'S WHERE I STRUGGLE WITH
IT. COMMUNITY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES, YOU THINK THAT
WOULD BE BETTER? ( LAUGHING ) >> THAT WAS HILARIOUS.
ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS. I WISH I HAD THAT ON VIDEO. >> ERICA, DO THAT AGAIN.
>> ( Inaudible ) >> CAN WE MAKE SURE OUR MIKES ARE OFF.
EXCEPT WHEN WE'RE SPEAKING, THANK YOU. >> SO THIS WOULD BE AFTER
THE DISCONTINUATION OF FLUORIDATION AND RETURN TO COUNCIL THROUGH SPC, I STILL
BELIEVE IT'S AN ENVIRONMENTAL -- IT'S NOT REALLY -- IT IS CERTAINLY --
COMMUNITY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES, I AGREE, WITH THE ALDERMAN FARRELL.
AND RETURN TO COUNCIL THROUGH SPC ON SP -- CPS, COMMUNITY PROTECTIVE
SERVICES, WITH OPERATIONS... >> ( Inaudible ) >> TAKEN FROM THE SAVINGS OF
THE OPERATING BUDGET. >> THAT SECOND TAKEN AFTER BUDGET SHOULD BE TAKEN OFF.
>> ( Inaudible ) >> TAKEN FROM SAVINGS IN THE OPERATING --
>> ( Inaudible ) >> ALDERMAN CHABOT, DO YOU NEED A FEW MINUTES TO SIT
DOWN AND COMPOSE THIS? WE MOST CERTAINLY CAN MOVE ON TO OTHER ITEMS.
>> THE FIRST PART OF MY PROPOSAL, YOUR WORSHIP, RESPECTFULLY, WAS TO CORRECT
SOME OF THE WORDING IN THE PREVIOUS MOTION. MY AMENDMENT WAS
PREDOMINANTLY TO GIVE IT DIRECTION AS TO WHERE IT SHOULD GO, AND WHAT THOSE
RECOMMENDATIONS ENTAIL. NOW, BECAUSE THERE WAS SOME REFERENCE TO THE FACT THAT
IT WASN'T CLEARLY IDENTIFIED WHAT THE SAVINGS WERE, FROM WHERE THEY WERE TAKEN,
THAT'S THE REASON I TRIED TO DO SOME OF THIS OTHER AMENDMENTS IN THE BODY OF
THE AMENDMENT. BUT I THINK, MADAM CLERK, CAN PROBABLY CORRECT THE
WORDING TO REFLECT OUR INTENT WITHOUT MY OR ANY OF THE MEMBERS OF COUNCIL'S
INPUT ON IT. DO WE HAVE IT? >> NO.
>> YOUR WORSHIP, IS ALDERMAN CHABOT ASKING ME TO -- >> DRAFT UP MY MOTION?
>> REDESIGN? >> NO. >> ALDERMAN CHABOT --
>> LET ME JUST READ IT. TAKEN FROM THE OPERATING BUDGET FROM THE
DISCONTINUATION OF FLUORIDATION AND RETURN TO COUNCIL -- I DON'T THINK
THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE WORDING. IF SOMEBODY DOESN'T LIKE THE
WORDING, OF COURSE, THEY CAN CERTAINLY AMEND IT TO BETTER REFLECT WHAT THEY THINK IT
IS THAT I'M TRYING TO PUT FORWARD. >> THIS IS AN AMENDMENT TO
THE AMENDMENT, ALDERMAN CHABOT. >> YES, ONCE WE VOTE ON THIS,
SOMEBODY CAN SUBSEQUENTLY MAKE FURTHER AMENDMENTS. >> THAT'S TRUE.
>> I THINK IT'S FINE THE WAY IT IS, WITH RECOMMENDATIONS TO -- JUST WITH
RECOMMENDATIONS, I THINK, IS FINE. I'LL JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT.
>> ( Inaudible ) >> DO I HAVE A SECONDER FOR THIS?
>> NO LATER THAN, I GUESS, YOU'RE RIGHT, NO LATER THAN, WHAT?
DECEMBER 2011. >> ( Inaudible ) >> YEAH, SO WE'LL BE
NOVEMBER, NO LATER THAN NOVEMBER 2011, YOUR WORSHIP, SO WE CAN INCLUDE IT IN OUR
THREE-YEAR BUDGETARY DISCUSSIONS. >> SECONDED BY ALDERMAN
COLLEY-URQUHART. ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT.
ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT. CALL ROLL, MADAM CLERK.
>> ALDERMAN MAR. >> YES. >> ALDERMAN POOTMANS.
>> NO. >> ALDERMAN STEVENSON. >> YES.
>> ALDERMAN CARRA. >> YES. >> ALDERMAN CHABOT.
>> YES. >> ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART. >> YES.
>> ALDERMAN DEMONG. >> YES. >> ALDERMAN FARRELL.
>> YES. >> ALDERMAN HODGES. >> YES.
>> ALDERMAN JONES. >> NO. >> I'M SORRY?
>> NO. >> ALDERMAN KEATING. >> YES.
>> ALDERMAN MacLEOD. >> YES. >> DEPUTY MAYOR LOWE.
>> NO. >> CARRIED, YOUR WORSHIP. >> OKAY.
ON THE AMENDMENT, WHICH I BELIEVE WAS PLACED BY ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART.
ALDERMAN STEVENSON. >> YOUR WORSHIP, I THINK THERE NEED TO BE SOMETHING
ELSE IN BETWEEN ADMINISTRATION TO ESTABLISH A STAKEHOLDER GROUP BECAUSE
AREN'T WE LOOKING FOR A PLAN TO ESTABLISH A STAKEHOLDER GROUP?
WE DON'T WANT TO DIRECT THEM TO ACTUALLY PUT THAT FORWARD, WE'RE ASKING THEM TO BRING
TO US A PLAN TO PUT THIS ALL IN PLACE, ARE WE NOT? SO IF WE WERE TO PUT, AND
FURTHER BE RESOLVED THAT COUNCIL DIRECT ADMINISTRATION TO BRING US A
PLAN TO ESTABLISH A STAKEHOLDER GROUP, WOULD THAT -- WE'RE NOT TELLING
THEM TO GO OUT AND ESTABLISH THE STAKEHOLDER GROUP YET AT THIS POINT, ARE WE, YOUR
WORSHIP? >> ALDERMAN STEVENSON, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.
>> OKAY. WELL, I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED AS NOBODY'S SURPRISED AT
THAT. BUT I THOUGHT WHAT WE WERE DOING WAS DIRECTING, MAYBE
MR. TOBERT, COULD YOU HELP ME ON THIS? >> WELL, THIS IS AN AWFUL
LONG TIME TO PREPARE A PLAN. WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO REPORT BACK TILL NOVEMBER, SO MY
THINKING WAS THE IMPLICATION HERE WAS TO DO MORE THAN PREPARE A PLAN.
IT WAS SET UP THE COMMITTEE, STUDY THE ISSUE, BRING BACK RECOMMENDATIONS IN NOVEMBER.
THAT'S THE WAY I INTERPRET WHAT'S WRITTEN. >> OKAY.
THEN I STAND CORRECTED, THANK YOU. >> ALDERMAN POOTMANS.
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. JUST VERY QUICKLY, I'M NOT QUITE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE
INTENT. I BELIEVE WE HAVE A BUDGET OF APPROXIMATELY $750.000,
WHAT IF THE PLAN WOULD COST MORE THAT THAT, IS IT THE INTENT TO SPEND WHAT'S
NEEDED OR TO AN AMOUNT OF 750 AS A MAXIMUM? >> IT'S PRETTY HARD TO HAVE
SAVINGS MORE THAN WHAT'S IN THE BUDGET, YOUR WORSHIP. >> NO, WHAT I'M SUGGESTING
IS THIS TO ME IS IF WE'RE SETTING UP A PLAN IN AN AMOUNT TO BE TAKEN FROM
SAVINGS, IS THE PLAN MAXIMUM GOING TO BE 750.000? WHAT IF THIS PROBLEM IS MUCH
MORE THAN THAT. >> WE KNOW THE PROBLEM IS MUCH BIGGER THAN THIS BUT
WE'RE LIMITED BY HOW MUCH WE SAVE. >> WHICH IS ACTUALLY A
PRETTY IMPORTANT PART TO MAKE FOR THOSE CONCERNED ABOUT DENTAL HYGIENE AND
HEALTH OF YOUNGSTERS, I THINK IT'S DELIVERED TO BEGIN WITH A LITTLE BIT
TONGUE AND CHEEK BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, IF THAT'S THE RESPONSE, THEN I THINK
WE HAVE A DIFFERENT OBLIGATION HERE WITH THIS AMENDMENT WHICH IS TO
ADDRESS THE GENERAL HEALTH CARE OF THOSE YOUNGSTERS THAT PERHAPS ARE IN SOME
PERIL NOW OF NOT HAVING THE DENTAL HEALTH THEY MIGHT OTHERWISE HAVE ENJOYED.
>> YOUR WORSHIP -- >> THAT'S NOT ON THE TABLE. >> YOUR WORSHIP, IF I MIGHT.
THIS IS STEPPING ON TO A SLIPPERY SLOPE, THOUGH, BECAUSE TO DATE, WE'VE
LIMITED OURSELVES TO THE SAVINGS THAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED WITH FLUORIDATION
BEING REMOVED. THERE'S NOTHING TO STOP CERTAIN INTEREST GROUPS FROM
LOBBYING US TO INCREASE THAT. ONCE YOU STEP ON THE SLOPE.
>> THANK YOU. >> MADAM CLERK ASSOCIATION WE'RE DOWN NOW TO THE
AMENDMENT, IS THAT RIGHT? THE AMENDMENT AS AMENDED. AND WHO -- THAT WAS ALDERMAN
KEATING TO CLOSE. GO AHEAD. >> I DO WANT TO ADDRESS A
COUPLE OF ISSUES THAT HAVE COME UP SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THIS AMENDMENT, AND IT
WAS THE INTENT THAT THIS IS A TARGETED APPROACH TO HELPING THOSE YOUNG CHILDREN
WHO NEED THE FLUORIDE RATHER THAN THE FIRE HOSE OF SPRAYING IT ON EVERYBODY AND
HOPING THAT THOSE PEOPLE GET THE BENEFITS. THE WORD "POVERTY", IN MY
VIEW, IS QUITE CRUCIAL TO SOME DEGREE BECAUSE THOSE CHILDREN WHO SEE DENTISTS,
WHO BRUSH THEIR TEETH, DO NOT NEED THIS PROGRAM. THOSE CHILDREN WHO DON'T
HAVE THAT CAPABILITY FOR WHATEVER REASON DO NEED IT AND THEREFORE WE'RE ASKING
RESOURCES ONCE AGAIN BE WHITE WASHED OR BROAD BASED ACROSS THERE RATHER THAN THE
TARGETED APPROACH THAT WAS IDENTIFIED TO BE. I DO ALSO HAVE A LITTLE BIT
OF A PROBLEM OF JUST PUSHING IT OFF TO THE SIDE AND SAYING IT'S A PROVINCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY BECAUSE I'D LIKE TO SAY WE'RE HERE TO HELP PERIOD.
AND IF WE USE THE IDEA OF THE PARABLE, THE GOOD SAMARITAN DID NOT DECIDE
WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY IT WAS, THEY ACTUALLY JUST DID IT, AND I THINK IN SOME CASES
THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO DO. THE LIMIT IS FROM THE SAVINGS OF THE BUDGET.
THE 750.000, AND THAT'S THE END OF THE STORY. IF THE PLAN IS BIGGER,
THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE TO GET INTO THAT OTHER DEBATE OF WHEN IS THE PROVINCE GOING
TO COME FORWARD AND HELP OUT BUT AT THIS POINT, WE'RE REALIZING A SAVINGS BUT THE
SAVINGS WAS, IN MY VIEW, NOT THE INTENT, IT WAS TO MAKE A BENEFIT THAT IS BETTER THAN
WE HAVE NOW. AND THIS MOTION, I BELIEVE, DOES THAT, SO I HOPE YOU
SUPPORT IT. >> OKAY. AND IF YOU'LL ALLOW ME, I
HAPPEN TO AGREE WITH ALDERMAN JONES. WE'RE EITHER DOING IT FOR
KIDS, WE ARE NOT. WOULD YOU CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE, MADAM CLERK, ON THE
AMENDMENT. >> ALDERMAN MacLEOD. >> AGREED.
>> ALDERMAN MAR. ALDERMAN POOTMANS. >> NO.
>> ALDERMAN STEVENSON. >> YES. >> ALDERMAN CARRA.
>> YES. >> ALDERMAN CHABOT. >> YES.
>> ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART. >> YES. >> ALDERMAN DEMONG.
>> YES. >> ALDERMAN FARRELL. >> YES.
>> ALDERMAN HODGES. >> YES. >> I'M SORRY, ALDERMAN
HODGES. >> YES. >> THANK YOU.
ALDERMAN JONES. ALDERMAN KEATING. >> YES.
>> ALDERMAN LOWE PARDON ME, DEPUTY MAYOR LOWE. >> NO.
>> THANK YOU. >> SORRY, ALDERMAN MAR? >> ( Inaudible )
WE'RE ON THE MAIN NOTION NOW, ARE WE NOT? >> NO, NO.
>> OKAY, SORRY, SORRY. >> ON THE MAIN -- CARRIED. THANK YOU.
ON THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED, ALDERMAN FARRELL TO CLOSE.
>> THANK YOU. I WON'T BELABOUR THIS. WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS
DEBATE MANY TIMES. >> WE HAVEN'T DEBATED THE -- >> THE MIKE WASN'T ON.
>> IT WAS ON AND IT GOT TURNED OFF. ( Inaudible )
>> I WILL PUT YOUR LIGHT ON FOR YOU. >> WE HAVE NOT DEBATED THE
MAIN MOTION. >> OKAY. I KEEP TELLING PEOPLE TURN
ON YOUR LIGHTS. SO TURN ON YOUR LIGHTS. ALDERMAN CARRA ON THE MAIN
MOTION. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I WANT TO START BY SAYING THAT I THINK IT'S UNDENIABLE THAT FLUORIDE IS A POSITIVE
FOR DENTAL HEALTH. I THINK WHAT'S AT STAKE HERE ARE TWO ISSUES.
NUMBER ONE IS WHETHER FLUORIDATION IS THE BEST DELIVERY METHOD AND THEN THE
ENTIRE SYSTEM IN WHICH WE MAKE THE DECISION AS TO WHETHER FLUORIDATION IS THE
BEST DELIVERY METHOD. NOW, I THINK THERE IS A MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION
OF CALGARY THAT DEEPLY DOESN'T CARE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
BUT I THINK THERE'S A GROWING MINORITY OF THE POPULATION AND A SIGNIFICANT
MINORITY THAT CARES VERY DEEPLY, AND I THINK THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF
THAT SIGNIFICANT AND GROWING MINORITY IS AGAINST FLUORIDATION.
AND I THINK THAT THAT'S A REALLY INTERESTING AND PROBLEMATIC PROPOSITION.
NOW, I WANT TO STATE THAT I AM A FAN OF PUBLIC HEALTH. BUT I'M DEEPLY CONCERNED
THAT PUBLIC HEALTH IS SERIOUSLY ON THE ROPES. IT DOES NOT HAVE THE CACHE
THAT IT HAD WHEN IT ROSE UP AND ERADICATED THINGS LIKE SMALL POX, WHEN IT ROSE UP
AND ERADICATED THINGS LIKE TUBERCULOSIS AND POLIO, AND I THINK THAT THAT'S
PARTIALLY BECAUSE WE'RE LIVING FAT ON AN ERA OF PLENTY.
I THINK IT'S PARTIALLY BECAUSE WE'RE STARVING OUT OUR PUBLIC HEALTH.
BUT I ALSO THINK THAT IT'S PARTIALLY BECAUSE PUBLIC HEALTH IS SORT OF AN
OLD-SCHOOL MODEL THAT IS NOT ADAPTIVE TO NEW AND GROWING SORT OF PHILOSOPHIES WITHIN
THE POPULATION. AND I'M NOT ENTIRELY 100% SUPPORTIVE MAYBE OF SOME OF
THESE PHILOSOPHIES. ALDERMAN MacLEOD STATED THAT IT'S NOT REALLY OUR JOB TO
ADDRESS ISSUES OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND THAT WE SHOULD DEFER IT TO THE POPULATION
AS A WHOLE FOR A PLEBISCITE. I'M ACTUALLY OF THE OPINION THAT WHEN WE MAKE DECISIONS
ON PLANNING MATTERS, ON LAND USE MATTERS, WE ARE ADDRESSING PUBLIC HEALTH
DECISIONS IN A MUCH MORE MEANINGFUL WAY, IN A MUCH MORE SIGNIFICANT WAY THAN WE
DO OVER THE ISSUE OF FLUORIDATION. AND I THINK THAT SORT OF
SYSTEMS APPROACH HAS TO SORT OF COME TO THE FLOOR, HAS TO SORT OF -- I THINK THAT'S
PART OF THE NEW ERA. I THINK A POTENTIAL DANGER OF THIS NEW ERA AND THIS NEW
APPROACH THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS AN ATOMIZED INDIVIDUALISTIC POPULATION
THAT'S DISCONNECTED FROM ANY SORT OF RESPONSIBILITY TO THE WHOLE.
AND I THINK THAT THAT NEGATIVE, THAT POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IS ATTACHED TO
THINGS THAT WE DO WITH REGARDS TO LAND USE AND PLANNING.
SO I AM -- I HAVE HEARD FROM THE POPULATION VERY SIGNIFICANTLY -- ARE WE WE
GETTING SO MUCH FEEDBACK HERE? IS YOUR MIKE ON?
I'VE HEARD LOUD AND CLEAR FROM THE POPULATION THAT THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WHO CARE
ABOUT THIS MATTER DO NOT WANT THEIR WATER FLOURIDATED AND THEY FEEL THAT IT'S NOT
THE MAJORITY OR THE STATE'S JOB TO IMPOSE ON THEIR BODIES.
AND SO I THINK THAT WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH PUBLIC HEALTH IN A WAY THAT
ADDRESSES THIS NEW REALITY, ADDRESSES THE STRENGTH OF IT, AND ALSO ADDRESSES THE
WEAKNESSES OF IT, AND I THINK IT'S AN INTERESTING TIME, BUT I WILL BE
SUPPORTING THIS MOTION BECAUSE I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THIS TIME.
AND THE WILL OF THE POPULATION, AND SORT OF THE ETHICAL LANDSCAPE IN WHICH
WE LIVE IN. AND I'M ALSO NOT A FAN OF SORT OF, TO USE ALDERMAN
KEATING'S PHRASE, FIRE HOSE APPROACHES. SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS
MOTION. >> ALDERMAN STEVENSON ON THE MOTION.
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. WELL, EVEN IF WE ACCEPT THE FACT THAT THERE IS BENEFIT
TO THE TEETH WITH THE TOPICAL APPLICATION OF FLUORIDE, THERE'S NO --
NOBODY IS TELLING US TO SWALLOW IT. IN FACT, WE GO TO GREAT
LENGTHS TO MAKE SURE THAT TOOTHPASTE IS NOT SWALLOWED AND, OF COURSE, AT THE
DENTIST, THEY CERTAINLY DO A LOT TO MAKE SURE YOU DON'T SWALLOW THE FLUORIDE THERE.
AND WE HAVE THE SAME SITUATION WITH SUNSCREEN, THAT'S, OF COURSE, GOOD FOR
THE SKIN, BUT WE CERTAINLY WANT WANT TO INGEST IT. SO IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE
HAVE TO LOOK AT AND SAY IS THERE A BENEFIT TO US DRINKING THIS FLUORIDE AND
THE ANSWER IS DEFINITELY NO. WHAT'S HAPPENING IS THAT LIKE THE NATIONAL RESEARCH
COUNCIL NOW IS ACKNOWLEDGING THAT KIDNEY PATIENTS, DIABETICS, SENIORS, AND
BABIES TO BE SUSCEPTIBLE SUBPOPULATIONS THAT ARE PARTICULARLY VULNERABLE TO
HARM FROM INGESTED FLUORIDES. I THINK THERE IS SO MUCH
EVIDENCE NOW THAT THIS FLUORIDE HAS A POTENTIAL TO DO HARM, AND WE DON'T HAVE
ANYTHING, AS I ASKED THE DOCTORS WHEN WE HAD THEM AT COMMITTEE, IF THERE WAS ANY
PROOF OF ANY BENEFIT TO CALGARIANS FROM FLUORIDE, AND NO ONE SEEMS TO BE ABLE
TO PROVIDE ANY PROOF THAT THERE'S A BENEFIT, AND THERE'S NO QUESTION SOME ARE
BEING HARMED. THERE'S ALL KINDS OF MOVEMENTS AROUND THE NORTH
AMERICAN CONTINENT AND ACROSS THE WORLD TO REMOVE FLUORIDE.
I DON'T KNOW OF ANY THAT'S BEING PUT IN. THE REASON IS BECAUSE
THERE'S MORE AND MORE EVIDENCE ALL THE TIME, SO WE AS A COUNCIL HAVE TO SHOW
SOME LEADERSHIP HERE AND WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO FORCE THIS ON ALL CALGARIANS.
I WOULD REALLY QUESTION OUR RIGHT TO PUT IT IN BUT I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT --
I DON'T QUESTION AT ALL OUR RIGHT TO REMOVE IT. IF IT IS PROVEN TO BE SAFE
IN THE FUTURE, WE CAN REVISIT IT BUT WE -- COUNCIL SHOULD BE TAKING THIS OUT.
THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. >> ALDERMAN FARRELL, YOU'RE TO CLOSE.
ALDERMAN POOTMANS ON THE MAIN MOTION. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
TO ADDRESS ALDERMAN CARRA DIRECTLY ON THIS POINT, I WOULD NOT PAUCITY THIS AS A
MINORITY RIGHTS ISSUE. I THINK, AS YOU PUT IT, THERE ARE INDEED PROBABLY
MINORITIES, I WOULD SUGGEST FOR THE REMOVAL AND I WOULD VENTURE TO SUGGEST MAYBE A
MINORITY GROUP THAT IS FOR MAINTAINING FLUORIDE AND A MAJORITY OF PEOPLE, I WOULD
AGREE, ARE PROBABLY PERHAPS INDIFFERENT. GOING TO A PLEBISCITE IS NOT
A PARTICULARLY-APPEALING SOLUTION BUT, IN THE END, I THINK THAT THERE'S A
RISK/BENEFIT ANALYSIS AT WORK HERE, AND I THINK ONLY THE POPULATION CAN MAKE THAT
DECISION. DO THE BENEFITS OUTWEIGH THE RISKS OF FLUORIDE AND FOR
THAT REASON, AMONG OTHERS, I BELIEVE THAT I WILL HAVE TO NOT SUPPORT THIS RESOLUTION.
AND SIT DOWN. THANK YOU. >> ON THE MAIN MOTION,
ALDERMAN MacLEOD. >> THANK YOU. I'M NOT GOING TO GO INTO
GREAT LENGTH ABOUT THE DETAILS ON FLUORIDE. I THINK MOST OF THAT'S BEEN
SAID EITHER IN COMMITTEE OR HERE TODAY. WE'VE READ LOTS OF E-MAILS,
SOME BOOKS, AND RESEARCH ABSTRACTS, AND NOW WE'RE GOING TO MAKE A DECISION
LIKE WE'RE SCIENTISTS, AND WE UNDERSTAND IT. I -- I GUESS THE -- I'M
SORRY? >> IT'S ALL RIGHT, ALDERMAN MacLEOD.
>> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAS DEEPLY CONCERNED ME ABOUT THIS DEBATE, AND
ALDERMAN CARRA AND I HAVE HAD THIS CONVERSATION, HE RAISED IT AS WELL, IS THE
ATTITUDE TOWARDS PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICIALS, AND I'M DEEPLY CONCERNED THAT OUR
PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICIALS ARE BEING LABELED AS PRO-FLUORIDE.
THESE PEOPLE ARE SCIENTISTS AND MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS WHOSE JOB IT IS TO LOOK AT
EVIDENCE AND TO MAKE DECISIONS IN THE BROAD BEST INTERESTS OF PUBLIC HEALTH.
I THINK TO FRAME THEM IN A POLITICAL CONTEXT IS COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE.
THEY DRINK THE SAME WATER AS WE DO. AND I DON'T THINK THEY'RE
MOTIVATED BY ANY ILL WILL. I THINK THAT THEY ARE INFORMED AND THEY HAVE TO
MAKE DECISIONS, WHETHER IT BE MEDICAL DECISIONS OR PUBLIC HEALTH -- BROAD
PUBLIC HEALTH DECISIONS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE PUBLIC ON BALANCE, AND NOT
DOING INDIVIDUAL HARM ON MINORITY RIGHTS ISSUES AS WAS MENTIONED EARLIER.
AND THAT'S THE ONLY POINT I WANT TO MAKE IN CLOSING. THANK YOU.
>> ALDERMAN JONES ON THE MAIN MOTION. >> YOU'LL BE PLEASED TO KNOW
I'M GOING TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT. ( LAUGHING )
YOUR WORSHIP, PART OF WHAT I SAID, I THINK THIS ISSUE IS FOR ALL CHILDREN, NOT JUST
SHOWS LIVING IN POVERTY SO I'D LIKE TO STRIKE "LIVING IN POVERTY."
AND END IT AT "CHILDREN." >> DO WE HAVE A SECONDER? ALDERMAN MacLEOD, THANK YOU.
ON THE AMENDMENT, SEE MY LIGHTS HERE. ALDERMAN FARRELL ON THE
AMENDMENT. >> THANK YOU. I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS
AMENDMENT. I THINK THAT'S CERTAINLY THE ARGUMENTS THAT WE HEAR FROM
PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICIALS IS THE MAJOR REASON WE NEED TO DO THIS BECAUSE CHILDREN WHO
ARE LIVING IN POVERTY DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO APPROPRIATE DENTAL CARE AND SO -- I'M
NOT SURE IF IT'S CONTRARY. >> ( Inaudible ) >> NO?
ALL RIGHT. NO, I THINK THEN WE REALLY ARE ENTERING A FIELD THAT WE
DON'T BELONG IN. I THINK WE'RE ON THE VERGE, FRANKLY, BUT I'M PREPARED TO
ENTER INTO ANOTHER TERRITORY, HEALTH CARE TERRITORY, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CHILDREN
LIVING IN POVERTY. BECAUSE NO ONE ELSE IS LOOKING AFTER THEM IN THIS
AREA. SO I CAN'T SUPPORT IT. >> ALDERMAN DEMONG ON THE
AMENDMENT. ALDERMAN MAR ON THE AMENDMENT.
ALDERMAN KEATING ON THE AMENDMENT. >> I WOULD JUST LIKE TO
AGAIN FOLLOW UP WITH THE REASONS WHY THAT WAS IN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN IN CALGARY WHO DO NOT NEED THIS PROGRAM.
ON THE FLIP SIDE, THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN WHO NEED THIS PROGRAM, AND I
THINK WE HAVE TO GO BACK TO THAT TARGETED APPROACH AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE THE
ONES GETTING IT AND NOT A BROAD BASE. THANK YOU.
>> ALDERMAN MacLEOD ON THE AMENDMENT. >> MY REASON FOR SUPPORTING
THIS IS THAT IT'S NOT BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THE CHILDREN LIVING IN POVERTY
PROBABLY HAVE A HIGHER NEED BUT THEY'RE NOT THE ONLY ONES WITH NEED.
IT'S ANOTHER MEANS TEST, THEY'RE BEING SEPARATED OUT AT SCHOOL AS BEING THE POOR
KIDS THAT GET DENTAL CARE, I THINK THERE'S A VARIETY OF ISSUES AROUND THAT.
I'M NOT SURE HOW WELL WE CAN ADMINISTER THAT AND IT ADDS A COMPLEXITY THAT I'M NOT
SURE IS APPROPRIATE. >> THANK YOU. I'VE GOT LIGHTS GOING ON AND
OFF HERE LIKE CRAZY. I BELIEVE THAT'S EVERYBODY. ON THE -- YOU CLOSED,
ALDERMAN JONES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ON THE AMENDMENT, ARE WE
AGREED? ARE THERE ANY OPPOSED? CALL A ROLL PLEASE, MADAM
CLERK. >> ALDERMAN POOTMANS. ALDERMAN STEVENSON.
>> YES. >> ALDERMAN CARRA. >> NO.
>> ALDERMAN CHABOT. >> NO. >> ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART.
>> NO. >> ALDERMAN DEMONG. >> NO.
>> ALDERMAN FARRELL. >> NO. >> ALDERMAN HODGES.
>> YES. >> ALDERMAN JONES. >> YES.
>> ALDERMAN KEATING. >> NO. >> ALDERMAN MacLEOD.
>> YES. >> ALDERMAN MAR. >> NO.
>> DEPUTY MAYOR LOWE. >> YES. LOST, YOUR WORSHIP, 6-7.
>> WHO DO WE HAVE LEFT ON THE MOTIONS? ALDERMAN DEMONG ON THE
MOTION, MAIN MOTION. >> SIMPLY PUT, TO ME, THE FLUORIDE, CONCEPT OF
FLUORIDE IN THE WATER OR NOT IS A MEDICAL ISSUE, AND IT SHOULD BE PLACED DIRECTLY ON
THE MANTLE OF THE LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT THAT'S RESPONSIBLE FOR MEDICAL
ISSUES AND THAT IS THE PROVINCE. WE HAVE A DWINDLING AMOUNT
OF MONEY THAT THE CITY IS ABLE TO USE IN ITS ONGOING OPERATIONS.
AND TO ME, FLUORIDE IS NOT AN AREA THAT WE SHOULD BE DEALING WITH.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE PLACED TO THE PROVINCE, AND I THINK IT'S UP TO
EVERYBODY IN THE PROVINCE TO MAKE THEM AWARE OF THIS. THANK YOU.
>> ALDERMAN MAR ON THE MAIN MOTION. >> SORRY, THANK YOU.
I AGREE WITH A LOT OF DEBATE THAT'S GONE ON HERE AND I THINK IT'S VERY, VERY
HEALTHY. THERE'S TWO OPPOSING SIDES AND WE'RE VERY, VERY
PASSIONATE ABOUT THIS ISSUE. FUNDAMENTALLY, I BELIEVE THAT THIS IS AN ETHICAL
QUESTION. I BELIEVE THAT THIS IS AN OBLIGATION OF ANOTHER ORDER
OF GOVERNMENT. AND WE ARE UNDERTAKING IT. WE CAN'T AFFORD TO DO IT.
I BELIEVE THAT THIS IS ALSO MASS MEDICATION, AS I'VE SAID BEFORE, WITHOUT
CONSENT. AND WE NEED TO GET RID OF IT NOW.
THANK YOU. >> ALDERMAN KEATING ON THE MAIN MOTION.
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. COMING BACK, AND I REALLY LIKE THE IDEA WE HAD A
COMMENT HERE ABOUT PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICIALS HAVING TO MAKE DECISIONS, AND I THINK
THAT WAS CORRECT. THEY MADE A DECISION ON A BROAD-BASED TREATMENT OF A
DENTAL OR ORAL HYGIENE. THE OTHER THING, THOUGH, IS WITH THIS MOTION, IT OFFERS
A DIFFERENT DECISION THAT CAN BE MADE AND, IN MY VIEW, A MUCH BETTER DECISION THAN
THE ALTERNATIVE, SO I WILL SUPPORT IT. THANK YOU.
>> ALDERMAN JONES ON THE MAIN MOTION. >> SHOULD I MAKE ANOTHER
AMENDMENT? YOUR WORSHIP, ALL I WANT YOU TO DO IS CALL THE TWO
THEREFORE IT BE RESOLVED SEPARATELY. >> I WILL.
( PLEASE STAND BY ) ON THE FIRST RESOLUTION. [Inaudible]
YOUR WORSHIP, ON THE RECORDED VOTE... (NAMES BEING READ)
IT'S CARRIED. >> CALL THE VOTE. AGAIN, RECORDED ON THE SECOND
RESOLUTION, MADAME CLERK. SORRY, RECORDED VOTE. ON THE VOTE, YOUR WORSHIP...
(NAMES BEING READ) CARRIED, YOUR WORSHIP. >> AND, COUNCIL, ON THE THIRD
RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE THE PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS, ARE WE AGREED?
I SEE NONE THAT'S OPPOSED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT TAKES US TO AUDIT.
ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART? ARE YOU MOVING BOTH... [Inaudible]
THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE AUDIT 2011-03 AND 04? SORRY.
2011-07. ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS ON AUDIT 2011-03.
ARE WE AGREED? ARE THERE ANY OPPOSED? SORRY?
[Inaudible] I'M SORRY. WHO SECONDED THAT?
I BELIEVE IT WAS ALDERMAN MacLEOD. ON AUDIT 2011-07, THE AUDITS
WORK PLAN. ARE WE AGREED? SOMEBODY'S LIGHTS ON?
ALDERMAN POOTMANS, I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD. [Inaudible]
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. I'M NOT SURE -- CAN ANYBODY SPEAK TO A DETAILED QUESTION ON
THIS REPORT. GM STEVENS, I BELIEVE, COULD YOU TRY IT?
IT'S A PRETTY MINOR MATTER, BUT I LIKE FOR SYMPTOMS AND COMPLICATED EVIDENCE OF
INTEREST. ON 941,xD PACKET PAGE 951. IT'S A CHART OF COSTS AND I.T.
STAFF COUNTS AND I.T -- >> WE'RE BY THAT ONE, I'M AFRAID.
>> THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO ASK. I WAS UP FOR IT AND WASN'T RECOGNIZED.
SO WE AGREED TO DEAL WITH IT. I ASKED AND YOU SAID YES. >> I'M SORRY, I MISUNDERTSOOD.
I DID NOT SEE YOUR LIGHT ON WHEN I CALLED THE QUESTION, ALDERMAN POOTMANS.
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR RELAXATION. THE TOTAL I.T COSTS THE DOLLARS
PUT USER IN CITY OF CALGARY IS $11.000. SO RELATIVELY LOW, LOW END OF
THE COST SPECTRUM DOLLARS PER USER. YET FOR THE CITY OF CALGARY
STAFF COUNTS ARE HIGH. AND SOFTWARE COUNTS ARE HIGH. AND I WAS WONDERING WHAT OTHER
INPUT IS PARTICULARLY LOW THAT WOULD ENABLE US TO HAVE SUCH A LOW-COST PER USER?
IT JUST IS EVIDENCE OF A DISCONNECT THAT I'M WONDERING WHAT THAT'S TELLING US.
>> SO I SEE WHERE YOU'RE PICKING OUT 10.000. IT'S ON THE EXTREME SORT OF
NORTH OR WEST -- WEST CORNER OF THE PAGE. IT SAYS TOTAL I.T. STAFF COST
AND I.T. STAFF COUNT AT 18. THERE IS A LOT OF I.T. STAFF WHO DO PROJECT CAPITAL WORK.
SOME PAID FOR UNDER CAPITAL BUDGETS THAT ARE WITHIN I.T. A LOT, THOUGH, ARE PAID FOR BY
I.T. BUDGETS THAT ARE WITHIN THE BUSINESS UNITS. THERE IS AN AWFUL LOT OF
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT GOING ON. >> THAT WOULD NOT BE PART OF THE I.T. COST AS IN THE FIRST CHART.
>> YES. >> THANK YOU. AND I WOULD ASSUME THE SAME
LOGIC WOULD APPLY TO THE TOTAL I.T. SOFTWARE COST. THIS IS CAPTURING COSTS FROM
UNITS. THAT WOULD EXPLAIN IT. >> YES.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. PERFECT. >> YOU CONTENT WITH THAT,
ALDERMAN POOTMANS? GEE, THANYES, THANK YOU. >> MOVING ON TO 2011-07.
ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE WE AGREED? ARE THERE ANY OPPOSED?
I SEE NONE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'M SORRY.
YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHY WE HAVE LIGHTS. [Inaudible]
JUST OPPOSED? DID SOMEBODY OVER THERE HAVE QUESTIONS?
OKAY. THOSE OPPOSED, PLEASE. ALDERMAN CHABOT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. TAKES US TO NOTICES OF MOTION. EXTENDING THE FREE FARE ZONE.
WHO WANTS TO PRESENT THIS? ALDERMAN JONES? ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART OR
ALDERMAN CHABOT? ALDERMAN CHABOT. >> TRYING TO USE MY LIGHT, YOUR
WORSHIP. >> GOOD. MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN DEBATED PREVIOUSLY, AND THAT'S EXTENDING THE LRT FREE FARE ZONE TO
STAMPEDE STATION OR TO THE FIRST STATION. NOT TO BOTH STATIONS.
I THINK THERE'S SOME SUGGESTION THAT WE'RE INTENDING ON EXTENDING THE FREE FARE ZONE TO
BOTH STATIONS AT THE STAMPEDE GROUNDS BUT ACTUALLY THE INTENT IS ONLY TO EXTEND IT TO THE
FIRST. IT IS REPRESENTED IN THE NOTICE OF MOTION.
I GUESS THE MAIN REASON THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT DOING THIS, YOUR WORSHIP, IS THAT TOURISM
HAS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW AND, PARDON ME, YOUR WORSHIP, I DID FORGET TO MENTION I DO HAVE
35 COPIES OF LETTERS -- ACTUALLY 33 NOW BECAUSE MYSELF AND ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART HAVE A
COPY THAT IF MADAME CLERK COULD DISTRIBUTE, WITH LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM TOURISM CALGARY AS
WELL AS FROM CALGARY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT THAT I THINK WOULD HELP TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE
DISCUSSION AND WITH YOUR PERMISSION, YOUR WORSHIP, WOULDN'T MIND IF THESE COULD BE
DISTRIBUTED TO MEMBERS OF COUNCIL. AND IT TALKS ABOUT SOME OF THE
ISSUES THAT WE'RE FACING TODAY AND THE ABILITY FOR US TO ATTRACT LARGER EVENTS, LARGER
TRADE SHOWS AND LARGER CONVENTIONS. AND THE FACT THAT MAYBE OUR
TELUS CONVENTION CENTRE IS UPSIZED. AND, OF COURSE, MEMBERS OF
COUNCIL HAVE HEARD THIS BEFORE THAT WE SHOULD PROBABLY HAVE A MUCH LARGER FACILITY TO
ACCOMMODATE SOME OF THE NEEDS ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF THE SIZE OF OUR CENTRE.
BUT BECAUSE OF THE BMO CENTRE IN THE STAMPEDE GROUNDS WE HAVE SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER CAPACITY
WHEN WE COMBINE THE TWO FACILITIES. AND IN THE PAST, WE'VE HAD A
COUPLE OF EVENTS SUCH AS RENDEZVOUS CANADA THAT CAME TO CALGARY WITH ABOUT 2,000
DELEGATES IN 2009. AND THAT IN ITSELF PRETTY MUCH CONFIRMS THE VALUE OF PROVIDING
THAT FREE FARE ZONE FLOW BECAUSE OF HOW SUCCESSFUL THAT EVENT WAS.
WHAT WE'RE LOOKING TO DO IS PROVIDE A POSITIVE CONTRIBUTION OR POSITIVE ENVIRONMENT FOR
TRADE SHOWS AND CONVENTIONS TO COME TO THE CITY AND SEE THIS AS A SEAMLESS KIND OF A MECHANISM
TO MOVE TO AND FROM THEIR HOTEL AS WELL AS TO THEIR VENUE OR BETWEEN VENUES, IF IT'S COMBINED
FACILITY TYPE OF ATTRACTION THAT WE'RE PROVIDING, AND THIS WOULD OF COURSE PROVIDE SOME GREATER
SYNERGY BETWEEN THE TELUS CONVENTION CENTRE AS WELL AS THE BMO CENTRE AT THE STAMPEDE
GROUNDS. THERE'S BEEN SOME TALK ALSO ABOUT THE LOSS OF REVENUE, AND
ALBEIT THAT THERE MAY BE INCREASED VOLUME ON THE SYSTEM, THE SYSTEM WILL OPERATE ONE WAY
OR ANOTHER WHETHER IT'S FULL OR WHETHER IT'S EMPTY. AND IF WE ARE DOING IT FOR THE
PURPOSE OF INCREASING THE OPPORTUNITY AT THE BMO CENTRE ON THE STAMPEDE GROUNDS
PREDOMINANTLY AND THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE THAT WILL BE PARTICIPATING IN THE EVENTS WILL
EITHER BE DRIVING THERE OR WILL BE GOING FROM THE HOTELS HERE IN THE DOWNTOWN CORE TO THE BMO
CENTRE AND IN THE MORNINGS TO GO TO THE EVENT AND CONVERSELY IN THE EVENINGS WHEN THE EVENTS ARE
CONCLUDED, THEY'LL BE COMING FROM THE BMO CENTRE TO THE HOTELS IN THE DOWNTOWN.
THEREFORE, THEREBY ACTUALLY PREDOMINANTLY MOVING IN A REVERSE TRAFFIC MOVEMENT AS
OPPOSED TO WHERE THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE ARE MOVING IN THOSE PEAK HOURS.
THE PEAK HOURS AS WE ALL KNOW THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE ARE COMING FROM THEIR RESIDENTIAL
HOMES INTO THE DOWNTOWN, THEREFORE GOING NORTHBOUND. WHEREAS MOST OF THE PEOPLE GOING
TO THE CONVENTION CENTRE FROM THE DOWNTOWN WILL BE GOING SOUTHBOUND IN THE EARLY MORNINGS
AND IN THE REVERSE DIRECTION IN THE EVENINGS. NOW, NOT GOING TO DISPUTE THAT
THERE'S GOING TO BE PROBABLY INCREASED CONGESTION DURING THE COURSE OF THE DAY.
BUT AS WE ALL KNOW, THE TRAIN IS RUNNING REGARDLESS WHETHER IT'S FULL OR EMPTY.
SO IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT IT'S GOING TO CONTRIBUTE NOT ONLY FROM A TOURISM PERSPECTIVE
IN REGARDS TO HOW IT COULD POTENTIALLY ATTRACT MORE PEOPLE TO THIS CITY IF WE CAN OFFER
LARGER EVENTS AND MORE PEOPLE COMING TO THIS CITY AND IN ESSENCE BECOMING AMBASSADORS FOR
US TO PROMOTE OUR CITY TO OTHER PEOPLE, BUT ALSO IT'S GOING TO ADD FROM AN ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE
IN THAT IF LARGER EVENTS COME TO THIS CITY, IT WILL CERTAINLY BENEFIT OUR CITY FROM AN
ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE, MORE ACTIVITY AT RESTAURANTS, HOTELS WILL BE FULLER.
THE LIST GOES ON. ANYWAYS, I'LL STAND DOWN FOR A MOMENT, YOUR WORSHIP, AND LISTEN
TO ANY OTHER DEBATE. MY COLLEAGUES, OF COURSE, ARE VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THIS MOTION
AND CONTRIBUTED SIGNIFICANTLY TO THE DRAFTING OF THIS NOTICE OF MOTION, ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART
IN PARTICULAR THANK YOU FOR YOUR HARD WORK ON THIS ISSUE. SO IF THERE'S ANY OTHER DEBATE,
EITHER OF US I'M SURE COULD ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES. >> ON THE MOTION, ALDERMAN
COLLEY-URQUHART. >> OH, I WAS GOING TO WAIT, BUT I'LL SPEAK NOW.
I WANT TO WELCOME OUR ESTEEMED GUESTGUESTS FROM THE CALGARY STAMPEDE.
AND JUST TO COVER A FEW THINGS, SO IN THE MOTION, COUNCIL, YOU'LL SEE THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO
START THIS IN MAY. WE RECOGNIZE IN THE NUMBERS WHERE THERE MAY BE A REVENUE
SHORTFALL, THESE AREN'T HARD NUMBERS. THAT'S WHAT Mr. WONG THINKS
THEY MIGHT BE OR COULD BE. SO WHAT WE'D LIKE TO DO IS COME BACK IN A YEAR AND EVALUATE THE
IMPACT, POSITIVELY AND NEGATIVELY, THAT THIS HAS HAD. BECAUSE, I'LL TELL YOU, I'M ALL
SIGNED UP TO ADD THE ZOO ONTO THIS. AND WE ALL OF US GOT THE E-MAIL
TODAY. AND IN MY VIEW, ANYTHING THAT SUPPORTS TOURISM IN THIS CITY WE
SHOULD MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO ACCOMMODATE. AND --
[Inaudible] YES. IF THERE WAS AN AMENDMENT WE'D
BE HAPPY TO DO THAT. SO LET ME JUST IDENTIFY A FEW THINGS, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, IN
THE LETTER THAT YOU'VE JUST RECEIVED, IF YOU LOOK AT RANDY WILLIAMS' LETTER FROM TOURISM
CALGARY, THE FIRST PARAGRAPH HE TALKS ABOUT ARE THE TWO KEY BENEFITS: CALGARY TOURISM AS
YOU KNOW HAS GONE THROUGH A MAJOR REORGANIZATION, AND THEY ARE MOVING ON THEIR PATHWAY TO
BECOMING AROUND AGGRESSIVE DESTINATION MARKETING ORGANIZATION.
AND THEY BELIEVE THAT THIS WOULD ASSIST IN BOTH ATTRACTING AND SERVICING MEETINGS AND
CONVENTION BUSINESS IN CALGARY. AND PRIMARILY OUR THOUGHT BEHIND THIS IS THAT WE REALLY NEED TO
CONNECT THE FACILITIES AT THE CALGARY CONVENTION CENTRE AND THE BMO CENTRE NOW THAT IT'S
REALLY OPERATIONAL AND AN EXCELLENT FACILITY. IT'S A SEAMLESS ENTITY WHEN
WE'RE TRYING TO APPLY FOR THESE WORLDWIDE EVENTS AND ACTIVITIES. AND ALSO THE INDIVIDUAL AND
SMALL GROUP TRAVELERS TO CALGARY WILL HAVE BETTER ACCESS FROM DOWNTOWN HOTELS AND ONE OF THE
THINGS THEY POINTED OUT IN THIS THAT I THOUGHT WAS REALLY VALUABLE TO UNDERLINE WAS THAT
TOURISM CALGARY HAS AT LEAST 500 MEMBERS, AND THOSE INCLUDE RESTAURANTS, STORES, ATTRACTIONS
AND SO ON. AND IT JUST, IN OUR VIEW, ALDERMAN JONES AND CHABOT AND I,
BELIEVE THAT IT JUST ADDS TO THE VIBRANCY OF THE DOWNTOWN WITH OUR TOURISTS AND ATTRACTING
THESE MAJOR, MAJOR CONVENTIONS. BECAUSE IF YOU TURN THE PAGE OVER AND LOOK AT CALGARY
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, THEIR LETTER -- ALTHOUGH THEY DO HAVE SOME RESERVATION ABOUT ENDORSING
THIS WHOLEHEARTEDLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY BECAUSE THERE MAY BE A REVENUE SHORTFALL.
THEY'RE THE FIRST TO ADMIT THAT WE'RE REALLY SHORT ON CONVENTION SPACE.
AND WE NEED CERTAINLY LARGER CONVENTION FACILITIES, AND THAT IS BEING WORKED ON.
I'M SURE ALDERMAN POOTMANS AND OTHERS WILL ATTEST TO THAT. SO WHEN YOU ADD IN THE -- AS A
FREQUENT USER OF THE STAMPEDE GROUNDS FOR TRADE SHOWS AND OTHER MAJOR EVENTS, CALGARY
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOUND THAT THE CURRENT FARE SITUATION IS MOST INCONVENIENT TO OUR CLIENTS
AND GUESTS, ESPECIALLY THOSE FROM OUT OF TOWN. AND IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH,
YOU'LL SEE THERE THAT DEPENDING ON HOW AGGRESSIVE THE EVENT ORGANIZERS ARE, SOME OF THEM DO
GET THE TRANSIT FARE WAIVED. AND IT'S PART OF THE WHOLE EVENT PACKAGE.
RIGHT? BUT IT'S NOT SORT OF ACROSS THE BOARD.
AM I RUNNING OVER, YOUR WORSHIP? OKAY. WELL, THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP,
FOR SUPPORTING THIS NOTICE OF MOTION. [Laughter]
>> ALDERMAN KEATING. THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. I DID HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT
THIS, AND I REALLY SUPPORT, AND I UNDERSTAND, THE FREE FARE ON TRANSIT DURING A CONVENTION OR A
MAJOR TRADE SHOW AND THOSE SORTS OF THINGS. EXTENDING IT IN THIS ONE
DIRECTION, UNFORTUNATELY, I'M JUST WONDERING OF THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE RESIDENTS
WITHIN THAT AREA GET A FREE ZONE AND NOBODY ELSE DOES. WHAT ABOUT DELEGATES WHO HAPPEN
TO STAY IN HOTELS IN OTHER AREAS THROUGHOUT THE CITY WHO WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO CAPITALIZE ON
THIS? I WOULD MUCH SOONER SEE A -- I GUESS A MOTION OR SOMETHING
ALONG THIS LINES THAT SAYS WE GIVE FREE PASSES TO ANYONE WHO ATTENDS A MAJOR EVENT IN CALGARY
ACROSS THE CITY AND THEN THEY CAN STAY WHERE THEY LIKE. AN EXAMPLE IS I HAPPENED TO GO
TO THE GREY CUP ON BEHALF OF THE CITY, AND YOUR TICKET GAVE YOU A FREE FARE ON TRANSIT AND THAT
WAS AUTOMATIC. I WOULD SOONER SEE SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
THANK YOU. >> ALDERMAN FARRELL. ON THE MOTION.
>> THANK YOU. I HAVE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS. IT'S AN INTRIGUING IDEA.
I THINK THERE MAY BE OTHER OPTIONS THAN JUST PROVIDING A FREE FARE ZONE.
WHAT I CAN SEE IS COMMUTERS COMING AND PARKING ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS, TAKING
ADVANTAGE OF THE FREE FARE. SO THAT IS A BIG CONCERN. I THINK WE MAY END UP OPENING UP
SOMETHING WE DON'T ANTICIPATE. THAT'S THE FIRST QUESTION. I'VE GOT SEVERAL.
Mr. LOGAN. >> YOUR WORSHIP, I WOULD SAY THAT ONE OF OUR CONCERNS WITH
THAT AS WELL AS IT COULD BE AN UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE, THAT AS YOU KNOW, THE STAMPEDE PARK HAS
A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF PARKING. AND THIS WOULD BASICALLY OPEN UP
A HUGE PARK AND RIDE LOT AT THE EDGE OF DOWNTOWN. >> SO -- OKAY, I KNOW PEOPLE
HAVE SUGGESTED THAT WE DO THE SAME WITH THE SUNNYSIDE STATION. THE RESIDENTS OF SUNNYSIDE WOULD
BE APPALLED BY THAT, BECAUSE WE WOULD END UP HAVING A MAJOR TRAFFIC PROBLEM.
BUT IS THERE A WAY -- I'VE BEEN TO SOME CONFERENCES WHERE IF YOU ATTEND A CONFERENCE YOU GET A
PASS AND THE PASS -- I MEAN, NEW YORK, THEY'VE GOT A VERY ELEGANT SYSTEM THAT CAN KIND OF TAKE YOU
ANYWHERE. YOU CAN USE IT AS MANY TIMES AS YOU WANT DURING THE DAY, AND IT
RUNS OUT AFTER A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME. IS THERE SOMETHING -- I THINK WE
NEED TO DO MORE. BUT IS THERE SOMETHING ELSE WE COULD DO?
I'M THINKING OF THE U PASS THAT WE HAVE. THAT KIND OF THING.
>> YOUR WORSHIP, I THINK THAT -- I SUPPORT WHAT A COUPLE OF THE ALDERMEN ARE SAYING ABOUT MAKING
THIS A MORE ATTRACTIVE DESTINATION FOR CONVENTIONS BY COMBINING OUR RESOURCES.
AND I THINK THAT THERE'S A WAY TO ACCOMPLISH THAT GOAL IN A DIFFERENT MANNER.
I WENT ON LINE AND I LOOKED AT SORT OF WHAT ARE THE EVENTS THAT ARE ON RIGHT NOW, HOW DO YOU
START TO GET YOUR EVENT THERE? IS THERE A WAY THAT A DELEGATE COULD SELECT THAT TRANSIT OPTION
FOR EVEN A DAY BEFORE AND AFTER, SO MAYBE THEY DO GO TO THE ZOO OR GO TO ANOTHER PART OF THE
CITY TO DO SOMETHING ELSE WHILE THEY'RE HERE. WE HAVE WORKED WITH CONVENTIONS
IN THE PAST. WE HAVE WORKED WITH SPORTING EVENTS IN THE PAST SO THAT THE
TICKET DOES BASICALLY GIVE THEM A FARE FOR THE DAY. WE'VE DONE IT AT A MODEST FEE.
AND I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO APOLOGIZE FOR THE FACT THAT WE PROVIDE A HIGH-QUALITY, SAFE
RELIABLE SYSTEM. AND THERE'S A VALUE TO THAT. PEOPLE DON'T GO TO THE EVENTS
FOR FREE. WHY -- YOU KNOW, I'M AT A BIT OF A LOSS TO UNDERSTAND WHY WE
WOULD PROVIDE THIS SERVICE AT NO COST. >> SO, HMMM.
>> THAT WASN'T THE QUESTION. >> WHAT WAS THE QUESTION? >> THE QUESTION WAS WHAT ARE THE
ALTERNATIVES. >> I KNOW, EVERYONE'S TIRED, AND YOU SHOULD BE -- I IMAGINE
YOU'RE PARTICULARLY TIRED BECAUSE YOU'RE ON YOUR FEET FOR HOW MANY HOURS YESTERDAY
ANSWERING ALL SORTS OF QUESTIONS. BUT THERE SEEMS TO BE AN
APPETITE TO LOOK AT A MORE CREATIVE WAY TO IMPROVE TOURISTS' ACCESS TO DIFFERENT
PARTS OF OUR CITY. CERTAINLY LINKING DIFFERENT FACILITIES AND I'M NOT CERTAIN
IF THIS IS THAT METHOD WE SHOULD DO. IT SEEMS LIKE IT COULD OPEN UP
TO COMMUTERS AS WELL. SO HOW CAN WE TARGET IT AND WHAT WOULD YOU NEED IN ORDER TO LOOK
AT IT MORE CLOSELY? >> YOUR WORSHIP, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THERE'S WAYS THAT WE COULD
WORK WITH BOTH THE STAMPEDE GROUP AND THE CONVENTION CENTRE AND OTHER PEOPLE SUCH AS THE
CALGARY STAMPEDERS AND FIND WAYS TO COMBINE THEIR EVENTS WITH A TRANSIT FARE TO ATTRACT PEOPLE
TO USE OUR SYSTEM IN COMBINATION WITH THEIR EVENTS. >> GOING NORTH, YOU'RE
SUGGESTING -- >> WHY LIMIT IT TO THESE TWO? >> YES.
AND WHAT ABOUT THE FEW FLAMES GAMES THAT I'VE GONE TO, THE TRANSIT PROVIDES, LIKE, CONSTANT
SERVICE TO GET PEOPLE OUT OF STAMPEDE PARK. AND I IMAGINE THERE'S A
SIGNIFICANT COST TO THAT. BUT PEOPLE ARE ALL WILLINGLY PAYING FOR IT.
MORE PEOPLE TAKE THE TRANSIT THAN DRIVE THERE. SO HOW WOULD THAT IMPACT THE --
THE REVENUE WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT. >> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
WE HAD THOUGHT ABOUT IT THAT IF THE FREE FARE ZONE WAS EXTENDED, WE WILL INCREASE THE PEAK LOAD
BEFORE AND AFTER THE EVENTS BY HAVING MORE PEOPLE USE IT TO AND FROM THE DOWNTOWN.
SO WE WOULD HAVE TO PLAN FOR THAT IN OUR SERVICE DELIVERY. >> AND WE HAVEN'T REALLY
ANTICIPATED HOW TO COVER THE COSTS OF THIS. BECAUSE THIS WOULD BE AN ONGOING
COST THAT WOULD BE INVESTED INTO OUR BUDGET. I'M NOT OPPOSED TO IT.
I THINK WE SHOULD BE BOLSTERING TRANSIT WHENEVER WE CAN. I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THE IDEA OF
IT. I THINK IT HAS A OT OF MERIT. I DON'T KNOW IF WE'VE BEEN -- I
THINK THERE MAY BE SOME OTHER CREATIVE OPTIONS. SO, COUNCIL, I THINK I'D LIKE TO
REFER IT -- I DON'T WANT IT TO HAMPER DEBATE. SO WE CAN STILL DEBATE A
REFERRAL. >> YOU CAN DEBATE A REFERRAL. IF YOU'RE THINKING OF REFERRING
IT, ARE YOU CONSIDERING REFERRING IT TO ADMINISTRATION FOR REVIEW OF OTHER OPTIONS AND
REPORT BACK -- >> WELL, REVIEW OF THIS. THE POSSIBLE UNFORESEEN IMPACTS
AND OTHER OPTIONS WITH THE GOAL TO -- WHAT'S THIS? [Inaudible]
NO, NO. I'M MUSING. WE'RE ALL TIRED!
I THINK THAT'S WHAT I'D LIKE TO ATTEMPT TO DO, AND I'M NOT TRYING TO -- NOT TRYING TO
STYMIE IT. I THINK IT NEEDS SOME MORE EXPLORATION.
>> DO WE HAVE A REFERRAL? >> A REFERRAL. DATE?
[Inaudible] >> SO IT'S A REFERRAL TO ADMINISTRATION TO EXAMINE
ALTERNATIVES TO RETURN TO LPT NOT LATER THAN, Mr. LOGAN? >> AND THE MOVERS.
[Inaudible] >> YOUR WORSHIP, JUST GLANCING AT THE CALENDAR AND I BELIEVE I
HEARD LPT REFERRAL WOULD BE THE ROUTE THROUGH? >> AND YOU WOULD NEED TO WORK
WITH THOSE GROUPS TO SEE WHAT THEIR NEEDS ARE. >> YES, YOUR WORSHIP.
WE'VE MISSED THE FEBRUARY DATE. THE NEXT AVAILABLE ONE WOULD BE MARCH.
WHERE WE COULD POTENTIALLY MEET WITH THOSE GROUPS TO TALK ABOUT HOW THAT WOULD WORK.
TO TRY TO MAK MAKE IT MORE SEAM. I WOULD ASK MAYBE FOR A BIT MORE TIME.
WE HAVE A NUMBER OF IRONS IN THE FIRE RIGHT NOW. IF COUNCIL WOULD INDULGE THE
APRIL THE 28th LPT? >> AND THAT STILL GETS THE -- THERE STILL MIGHT BE SOMETHING
IN PLACE BY THE -- >> THAT WOULD STILL GIVE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO PUT IT IN PLACE
PRIOR TO THE SUMMER. AND I NOTICE THAT THE DATE WAS MAY 2011.
THAT WOULD STILL BE PRIOR TO MAY 2011. AND THERE WOULD BE A COUNCIL
MEETING ON MAY 9th OF 2011. >> AND WOULD YOU INCLUDE THE THE MOVERS OF THE MOTION AS WELL?
>> ABSOLUTELY. >> THANKS. AND I'M SEEING SOMETHING LIKE
THE... [Inaudible] >> GO AHEAD, SECONDER.
>> DEMONG ACTUALLY SECONDED. >> AND WHAT I SEE AS A NEGOTIATION SIMILAR TO THE WAY
WE NEGOTIATED THE U PASS AND THAT. ACAD AND SAIT PASS.
THANKS, I'LL SIT DOWN. >> ON THE REFERRAL. ALDERMAN MacLEOD.
>> THANK YOU. APPARENTLY WHAT HI TO SAY WAS NOT UNIQUE IN THOUGHT.
I WOULD SUPPORT THE REFERRAL AND I THINK THERE ARE ALTERNATIVE MECHANISMS, SOME OF WHICH I'VE
USED WHEN I'VE ATTENDED CONFERENCES IN OTHER CITIES. AND I...
ARE THE MICS ON OVER THERE? OR IS THE NOISE JUST CARRYING? I'M NOT SURE.
IT'S KIND OF THROWING ME. SORRY. I SUPPORT THE REFERRAL AND I'LL
LEAVE IT AT THAT. >> ALDERMAN CARRA. >> REITERATING WHAT ALDERMAN
MacLEOD SAID. I THINK THAT THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS THAT THIS CAN GO,
AND I THINK IT NEEDS TO GO. I THINK WE NEED TO SUPPORT TOURISM CALGARY.
I WAS WILLING, I THINK, TO JUST SAY YEAH LET'S TRY IT FOR A YEAR HERE AND THROW DOWN AND SAY
THAT. THE THING THAT FREAKED ME OUT WAS THE IDEA OF STAMPEDE GROUND
BECOMING A MEGA PARK AND RIDE. WHICH WOULD POTENTIALLY HAVE TO BE CONTROLLED, BUT THERE'S
NOTHING IN HERE THAT... [Inaudible] I DO THINK THAT THERE'S MULTIPLE
WAYS WE CAN GO. AND IF WE CAN SORT OF COMMIT TO A COLLABORATIVE PROBLEM-SOLVING
APPROACH BETWEEN THE STAMPEDE AND THE ADMINISTRATION AND COUNCIL TO SORT OF FIGURE OUT
HOW TO JUST MAXIMIZE OUR TOURISM BANG FOR OUR BUCK AND THE -- WHILE ALSO MAKING SURE WE SORT
OF HOLD ONTO A MODICUM OF USER PAYISM. I'VE BEEN TO CONTINUES OF
CONFERENCES WHERE THERE'S A PASS INCLUDED WITH THAT, WITH YOUR CONFERENCE ENTRY.
AND I'D LIKE TO SEE THE PROS AND CONS AND I'D LIKE TO -- BUT I AM SUPPORTIVE OF THIS.
BUT I THINK A REFERRAL IF IT DOESN'T DELAY US BEING ABLE TO DEPLOY IN MAY, I WILL SUPPORT.
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. CAN WE SEE THE REFERRAL ON THE -- OKAY.
[Inaudible] OKAY. THANK YOU.
I CAN'T -- IT'S NOT -- I CAN'T AMEND THE REFERRAL? BECAUSE I THINK THAT THE ZOO
SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THIS, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW WE COULD ACCOMPLISH THAT.
SO WOULD WE HAVE TO HAVE A -- LIKE A MOTION ARISING TO ASK THEM TO INCLUDE THE -- OR IS
THAT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THAT COULD BE... [Inaudible]
ANYWAY, WE'RE PUTTING THE SCIENCE CENTRE THERE TOO. WE SHOULD BE INCLUDED THAT STOP.
SO IS IT POSSIBLE FOR ME TO DO A MOTION ARISING ASKING TO ADD THAT INTO THIS CONSIDERATION?
>> I'LL ACCEPT THAT AS A MOTION ARISING. >> THANK YOU.
>> ON THE REFERRAL, ALDERMAN POOTMANS. >> YES, THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
ACTUALLY MAYBE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS AND THEN -- MAYBE I SHOULD START WITH THIS.
I JUST OPENED A MESSAGE FROM THE MAYOR, AND HE MENTIONED A FEW THINGS.
FIRST WAS A MATTER -- PERSONNEL MATTER. SECOND, WE'VE ALL GOT THIS ON
OUR MACHINES. SECOND I MEANT TO SEND YOU ALL A NOTE ON THE FREE FARE ZONE
NOTICE OF MOTION. YOU'VE ALL READ IT, THAT'S WHY YOU'RE DOING THIS NOW.
YOU'RE VERY PRESCIENT BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE MAYOR WAS ASKING FOR.
REFERRING -- WELL, LET ME READ IT IF PEOPLE HAVEN'T. I'M THINKING WE NEED A BROADER
REVIEW OF TRANSIT AND ITS LONG-TERM PLANS. AND THAT THIS QUESTION WOULD --
MEANT TO SEND YOU ALL A NOTE ON THE FREE FARE ZONE MOTION. I'M THINKING WE NEED A BROADER
REVIEW OF TRANSIT AND ITS LONG-TERM PLANS. AND THAT THIS QUESTION WOULD FIT
INTO THAT. I AM IN FAVOUR OF TABLING IT OR REFERRING IT TO COME BACK TO
LPT. I WOULD REVIEW THIS MOTION. PERHAPS WE CAN AMEND TO IT TO
EXPRESS THAT. AS PART OF THE FLAVOUR OF THAT REVIEW IS ALREADY IN DISCUSSIONS
WITH THE CALGARY CONVENTION CENTRE, ON WHOSE BOARD I SERVE, SOME SENSE THERE ARE A NUMBER OF
ORGANIZATIONS IN TOWN THAT ARE INTERESTED IN TAKING ADVANTAGE OF A HIGH-QUALITY SERVICE.
BUT AS I THINK YOU MENTIONED IN PASSING, GENERAL MANAGER LOGAN, THERE IS A COST.
THIS IS A SERVICE THAT'S PROVIDED, AND FOR EVERY VALUABLE SERVICE THAT THIS CITY PROVIDES,
I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE A -- AN A-- VERY BROAD APPROACH, A NONSILOD APPROACH THAT I THINK
IS GOING TO BE A SERIOUS POLICY EFFORT TO DETERMINE HOW THAT MIGHT LOOK FOR ALL THE VARIOUS
CORPORATE PARTNERS IN TOWN AND OTHER NOT FOR PROFIT -- I MEAN, I THINK THERE ARE SEVEN OR EIGHT
OF THEM. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF AGENCIES IN TOWN THAT SHOULD BE PART THIS
DISCUSSION AS WELL. THIS COULD BECOME A RATHER LARGE UNDERTAKING.
THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. >> COUNCIL WILL RECESS TO 3:45. >> ON THE REFERRAL, ALDERMAN
CHABOT. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. WELL, I'M GOING TO ADDRESS A
COUPLE OF ISSUES HERE THAT I PROBABLY WON'T GET A CHANCE TO ADDRESS IN MY CLOSE, IF THIS
REFERRAL PASSES. AND THESE ARE SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP BY
SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF COUNCIL THROUGH THEIR DEBATE. TALKED ABOUT ONE DIRECTION
BETWEEN BMO OR DOWNTOWN AND -- ALL RIGHT, BETWEEN DOWNTOWN AND THE BMO CENTRE.
AND OUR INTENT HERE IS TO DO THIS AS A PILOT PROJECT. YOU'LL NOTE IN THE SECOND
RECOMMENDATION OR THE THIRD RECOMMENDATION NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THE INTENT IS TO
HAVE THIS REPORT BROUGHT BACK TO SPC AND LPT IN JUNE OF 2012. WHAT WE WERE LOOKIN LOOKING FORA
ONE-YEAR PILOT PROJECT TO ASSESS THE VALUE OF INTRODUCING THIS FREE FARE ZONE AND THE FINDINGS
OF THAT COULD THEN BE UTILIZED TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT WE COULD EXPAND ON THAT FREE FARE
ZONE. THERE WAS TALK ABOUT A U PASS. AND HOW OTHER CITIES HAVE USED
THE U PASS FOR THEIR CONVENTIONS AND THEIR CONFERENCES AND SUCH. AND A U PASS IMPLIES THAT YOU'D
BE ABLE TO UTILIZE YOUR PASS TO USE THE TRANSIT SYSTEM THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
AND I THINK THE COST IMPLICATIONS OF THAT WOULD BE SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER THAN WHAT
IS PROPOSED THROUGH THIS NOTICE OF MOTION. OF COURSE, THE MAIN INTENT FOR
US IS TO PROVIDE A POSITIVE EXPERIENCE, INCREASE THE POTENTIAL FROM AN ECONOMIC
PERSPECTIVE FOR THE HOTELS, RESTAURANTS AND TOURISM AND BY INTRODUCING OR PROVIDING AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR LARGER EVENTS TO SEE CALGARY AS A POTENTIAL VENUE BECAUSE OF THE INCREASED
CAPACITY THAT THE BMO CENTRE PROVIDES TO THE TELUS CONVENTION CENTRE.
IT WOULD IN ESSENCE CREATE A WHOLE BUNCH OF AMBASSADORS FOR OUR CITY TO PROMOTE OUR CITY
ELSEWHERE. IF WE HAVE 2,000 DELEGATES COMING HERE EVERY COUPLE MONTHS
THAT'S CREATING A PRETTY LARGE BODY OF INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE HELPING TO PROMOTE THE CALGARY
EXPERIENCE BY HAVING BEEN HERE, HAVING A SEAMLESS TRANSITION BETWEEN THE TWO VENUES I THINK
WOULD GO A LONG WAY TO PROMOTING THE WHOLE WELCOMING ATTITUDE OF CALGARY.
PARKING WAS BROUGHT UP AS POTENTIALLY HAVING THE STAMPEDE GROUNDS BECOMING A PARKING ZONE
FOR PEOPLE WHO UTILIZE THE TRANSIT SYSTEM FOR FREE. AND THEREBY INCREASING
ADDITIONAL COSTS TO THE SYSTEM. WE ALL KNOW WHERE OUR PARK AND RIDE AREAS LIE RIGHT NOW IN
REGARDS TO THE UTILIZATION RATE, AND THAT'S $3 PER DAY. THE STAMPEDE GROUNDS IS
CURRENTLY GATED, AND TO PARK IN THE STAMPEDE GROUNDS, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT IT'S ABOUT $12
TO PARK IN THE STAMPEDE GROUNDS. SO TO SUGGEST THAT IT'S GOING TO CREATE A BIG LARGE PARKING ZONE
FOR PEOPLE WHO USE THE TRANSIT SYSTEM, IN MY OPINION, IS NOT SOMETHING THAT'S SUPPORTED BY
OUR CURRENT PARK AND RIDE FACILITIES THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE.
SO IN SHORT, YOUR WORSHIP, I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THE REFERRAL MOTION.
AND HOPE COUNCIL WON'T SUPPORT IT EITHER. AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN LOOK AT
DOING THIS AS A PILOT PROJECT AND TAKE THE FINDINGS FROM IT TO LOOK AT EXPANDING ELSEWHERE.
THANK YOU. >> ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART ON THE REFERRAL.
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. CAN YOU AMEND THE REFERRAL? >> NO.
[Inaudible] >> WELL, FIRST OF ALL, COUNCIL, LET'S JUST GIVE THIS A TRY
TODAY. LET'S PILOT THIS FOR A YEAR AND SEE HOW IT GOES.
IT SEEMS THE INTENTION OF OUR MOTION TODAY IS TO TRY THIS FOR A YEAR AND TO JUST EXPAND THE
FREE FARE ZONE, MOVE SLOWLY, BE CONSIDERED AND INTENTIONAL IN HOW WE DO THIS, AND THEN
EVALUATE THE WHOLE PROCESS. I HEAR A LOT OF OTHER GREAT IDEAS TODAY.
BUT THAT WASN'T THE INTENTION OF OUR MOTION TODAY. IF SOMEONE WANTS TO BRING A
MOTION FORWARD THAT'S GOING TO ADDRESS THIS WHOLE STRATEGY BEYOND WHAT WE'VE ASKED FOR, NO
PROBLEM. BUT IT WASN'T OUR INTENTION TO GET INTO ALL OF THIS WITHOUT
GOING THROUGH A PERIOD OF JUST TRYING THIS OUT AND EVALUATING AND WEIGHING THE IMPACT.
SO I'M HOPING THAT YOU WON'T SUPPORT THE REFERRAL AND THAT WE CAN TRY THIS OUT AND SEE HOW IT
WORKS TO SUPPORT TOURISM IN CALGARY. THANK YOU.
>> ALDERMAN STEVENSON ON THE REFERRAL. [Inaudible]
SO THIS -- MY MOTION, THEN, TO ADD THE OTHER WILL HAVE TO BE DONE AFTER THIS?
>> YEAH, YOU CANNOT AMEND A REFERRAL. >> SO IF THE REFERRAL IS
ACCEPTED, THEN I'LL ADD THIS. I'M ACTUALLY GOING TO VOTE AGAINST THE REFERRAL, BUT IF IT
IS ACCEPTED THEN I WILL ADD THIS OTHER TWO IT. THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
>> ALDERMAN JONES ON THE REFERRAL. >> YES, YOUR WORSHIP.
I'M NOT IN FAVOUR OF THE REFERRAL BUT IN DISCUSSION IN THE BREAK WITH Mr. BECK AND
Mr. FRASER, I WANT TO ASSURE COUNCIL THAT THEY'VE INDICATED THAT STAMPEDE GROUNDS WON'T BE
USED AS A PARK AND RIDE AS FAR AS THEY'RE CONCERNED BECAUSE THEY NEED IT FOR THEIR OWN
CLIENTS. THEY DON'T PLAN ON DOING THAT. SO I'M SURE THE BOARD WOULD
CONCUR WITH THAT. ANY FEARS THAT THE COUNCIL HAS ABOUT IT BEING A PARK AND RIDE
HAS JUST BEEN ALLAYED BY THE FACT THEY'VE SAID IT WON'T BE AND IT WON'T...
[Inaudible] >> JUST ON A POINT OF PROCEDURE, IF THIS GETS REFERRED THEN WE
CAN'T DO A MOTION ARISING OR ANYTHING. RIGHT?
BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING BEFORE US. >> MADAME CLERK?
I'M SORRY? >> YOUR WORSHIP, WE HAVE IN THE PAST.
>> WE HAVE IN THE PAST. >> IT'S ALMOST LIKE A MOTION... [Indiscernible]
ADD A FURTHER QUESTION FOR THE ADMINISTRATION -- >> TO LOOK AT.
>> TO LOOK AT THAT IN CONJUNCTION WITH. [Inaudible]
>> OKAY. WELL, THANK YOU. >> ON THE REFERRAL, ALDERMAN
HODGES. >> YOUR WORSHIP, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, THIS IS AN ANNUAL
MOTION. IT COMES UP AT LEAST ONCE A YEAR.
I CAN REMEMBER FOUR OR FIVE TIMES. THERE'S USUALLY BEEN A
RESOLUTION WITH TOURISM GROUP I THINK THAT WHAT ADMINISTRATION WOULD LIKE TO LOOK AT TO HAVE A
CHANCE TO WORK ON. WHETHER IT'S PASSES THAT ARE DISTRIBUTED TO PEOPLE FROM
OUTSIDE OF CALGARY ATTENDING CONVENTIONS OR WHATEVER, IT MIGHT -- THE SOLUTION MIGHT BE I
THINK THAT'S INFORMATION WE NEED. I DON'T HAVE THE PREVIOUS
NOTICES OF MOTION HERE, BUT I KNOW IT'S AN ANNUAL EVENT AND THEREFORE THERE'S A FAIR AMOUNT
OF INFORMATION ABOUT IT FROM PAST NOTICES OF MOTION. SO I WILL SUPPORT THE REFERRAL.
>> ALDERMAN FARRELL TO CLOSE ON THE REFERRAL. >> THANK YOU.
I HOPE THIS ISN'T SEEN AS A WAY TO KILL THIS. I'M NOT INTENDING THAT AT ALL.
I JUST WOULD LIKE TO LOOK AT SOME OTHER OPTIONS WITH THE GOAL OF ACHIEVING SOMETHING SIMILAR.
AND I WOULD THINK THAT IF ALDERMAN JONES, LOOKING AT THE ZOO, I'D ALREADY ASKED
Mr. LOGAN WHETHER OR NOT MEMBERS OF COUNCIL WHO BROUGHT THE MOTION FORWARD WOULD BE
INVOLVED IN THIS ROUNDTABLE, AND HE HAD SUGGESTED YES, OF COURSE. SO I THINK THAT'S IMPLICIT.
BUT I THINK IT'S JUST LOOKING AT TRANSIT IN A DIFFERENT WAY. >> ON THE REFERRAL, ARE WE
AGREED? ARE THERE ANY OPPOSED? CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.
(ROLL BEING CALLED) (ROLL BEING CALLED) ON THE MAIN MOTION, ALDERMAN
COLLEY-URQUHART. >> YOUR WORSHIP, HE WAS READY TO DO A MOTION ARISING ON THE
REFERRAL, BUT I'M THRILLED WITH THE OUTCOME SO I'LL DEFER TO MY HONOURABLE, DISHONOURABLE,
COLLEAGUE TO CLOSE. [Laughter] >> ON THE MAIN MOTION, ALDERMAN
FARRELL. >> THANK YOU. I'M SORRY.
I DON'T HAVE IT ANYMORE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'VE DONE WITH IT.
ALDERMAN HODGES. OH, THANK YOU. I'M NOT SURE HOW W WE CAN ABSORB
1.5 TO 2 MILLION INTO THE TRANSIT'S OPERATING BUDGET WITHOUT IMPACTING THE BUDGET.
SO I THINK WE NEED TO HEAR BACK ON WHAT THE IMPACTS ARE TO THE BUDGET.
IT MEANS THE BUDGET GOES UP, OR WE CUT. AND WE DECIDED AT THE BUDGET NOT
TO CUT. SO... HOW WOULD YOU INTERPRET THIS?
Mr. LOGAN. >> YOUR WORSHIP, GIVEN THE TIMING THAT'S PROPOSED IN THE
MOTION OF MAY, IF WE WERE TO EXTEND THE FREE FARE ZONE AT THE BEGINNING OF MAY, LET'S SAY,
THEN WE WOULD LOOK TO THE REVENUE THAT WE WERE SEEING COMING INTO THE SYSTEM AT THE
END OF MAY, JUNE, JULY. I WOULD SUSPECT BY THE TIME WE CAME BACK TO COUNCIL IN
SEPTEMBER WE WOULD HAVE A FAIRLY GOOD IDEA OF WHAT OUR REVENUE CHANGE HAD BEEN.
WE CAN ISOLATE IT BY AREA. >> AND YOU CAN ABSORB THIS? >> I DON'T HAVE JANUARY'S
NUMBERS. WHERE WE WERE COMING OUT OF LAST YEAR, WE WERE TRACKING RIGHT ON
BUDGET, SO WE'RE NOT RUNNING A BIG SURPLUS. IT REDUCES OUR FLEXIBILITY JUST
LIKE ANY OTHER BUDGET DISCUSSION THAT WE'VE HAD RECENTLY. AS YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK WE'RE
REALLY KEEN TO ABSORB THIS. I THINK WE'D LIKE TO KEEP OUR REVENUE UP SO WE CAN CONTINUE TO
PROVIDE THE SERVICE AND HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY TO DO SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE GET ASKED TO
DO. >> OKAY. THANK YOU.
>> JUST TO REITERATE WHAT GM LOGAN SAID, IT'S AMAZING HOW MANY TIMES MEMBERS OF COUNCIL
EMPHASIZE HOW IMPORTANT TRANSIT IS AND EXPANDING SERVICE AND BRT, BUT YET THEY WANT TO CUT
THE REVENUE, WHICH REALLY MEANS YOU'RE CUTTING SERVICE. >> SO I THINK I NEED TO MAKE AN
AMENDMENT, WHICH WOULD BE TO REPORT BACK TO COUNCIL ON THE IMPACTS ON TRANSIT, BOTH BUDGET
AND SERVICE. OR SERVICE AND REVENUES. NO, PRIOR.
I THINK WE NEED TO SEE... >> SO -- >> WELL, I THINK WITHIN THE NEXT
FEW WEEKS, IF POSSIBLE. >> SO HOW WOULD YOU PHRASE THAT, ALDERMAN?
I THINK IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE ANOTHER REFERRAL. REFERRAL TO ADMINISTRATION FOR A
REPORT -- >> REFERRAL LOST -- >> BUT YOU CAN DO ANOTHER ONE.
REFER TO ADMINISTRATION -- >> I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO WIN.
>> THERE'S ALWAYS ANOTHER VOTE, ALDERMAN FARRELL. TO QUOTE ALDERMAN HODGES.
>> I THINK WE NEED MORE INFORMATION ON WHAT THE IMPACTS TO -- AND I DON'T WANT TO DO A
REFERRAL. IS THERE ANOTHER -- AND I HAVE...
PARDON? [Inaudible] I THINK TRANSIT SHOULD BE ABLE
TO DETERMINE -- THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO FORECAST THE IMPACTS OF THIS, I WOULD THINK.
>> WE HAVE, YOUR WORSHIP. >> YOU HAVE. >> WE'VE LOOKED AT -- THERE'S A
NUMBER OF MAJOR DRIVERS. WE KNOW -- WE'VE LOOKED AT THE REVENUES COMING AND GOING FROM
THE STATION. WE'VE LOOKED AT THE SPECIAL EVENTS ON THE STAMPEDE GROUNDS
PARTICULARLY THAT DRIVE SIGNIFICANT REVENUE. PRIMARILY THE STAMPEDE ITSELF
WHICH IS ABOUT $900.000 WORTH OF REVENUE. >> SO WE DEBATED FOR QUITE SOME
TIME ON 500.000. WITH OUR TRANSIT BUDGET DURING BUDGET TIME, I BELIEVE.
SO WOULD THE MOVERS BE WILLING TO WAIT A WEEK SO I COULD -- WE COULD GET THE INFORMATION IN THE
NEXT MEETING? [Please Stand By] ARE WILL ABSORB THE
REVENUE LOSS, THEN I'M OKAY WITH IT. I THINK THERE'S OTHER WAY OF
DOING THIS. CONFERENCE PASSES ARE DIFFERENT THAN NEW PASSES.
I DON'T SEE THAT AS A PROBLEM. YOU CAN RESTRICT THE ZONES OR HOWEVER YOU WANT TO DO IT.
I'M COMPLETELY IN SUCH THE CONCEPT. I AM NOT IN SUPPORT OF A FLAT
OPENING UP OF EXTENDING OF TREAT-FARE ZONE. >> ON THE MAIN MOTION, ALDERMAN
COLLEY-URQUHART. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. WELL I THINK THAT WHEN WE GOT
RID THE THREE DOLLAR PARKING FEE THAT WAS ABOUT $6 MILLION OR $4 MILLION AND IT WAS
SUPPOSEDLY -- I THINK IT WAS ABSORBED INTO THIS, WE'RE LOOKING AT PROBABLY A HALF A
YEAR TO DO THIS. AND BY THE TIME YOU GET THIS ROLLING JUNE 1st AND YOU'VE
GOT SIX MONTHS I THINK THAT WE CAN ABSORB THIS AND JUST TRY AT COUNCIL.
AND WE WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
>> ALDERMAN CARRA OBJECT THE MAIN MOTION. ON THE MAIN MOTION.
>> I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT AS MUCH AS I HAVE RESPECT FOR OUR FRIENDS OF THE STAMPEDE AND, YOU
KNOW, FEEL THAT THIS IS A REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT INSTITUTION TO THE CITY OF
CALGARY, AN ASSURANCE THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO USE THIS AS A PARK AND RIDE, WE NEED
SOMETHING MORE TOOTHSOME THAN THAT. WE NEED SOMETHING THAT HE CAN
CAN HANG OUR HAT ON A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN THAT. AND SO COULD I MAKE, YOU KNOW, A
MOTION ARISING TO ADDRESS THAT? WOULD THAT BE THE WAY TO DO IT? OR CAN IT BE AN AMENDMENT TO --
I THINK AN AMENDMENT WOULD BE THE WAY TO GO. CAN WE JUST SAY AS A -- YEAH, AS
A D -- NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED. CAN WE ACTUALLY MAKE IT C AND
PUSH C TO -- D IS NINE. AND JUST SAY THAT THIS IS SUBJECT TO THE STAMPEDE PUTTING
IN PLACE MEASURES ACCEPTABLE WITH REGARD TO PREVENTING THE STAMPEDE GROUND ON OFF-PEAK
TIMES FROM FUNCTIONING AS A PARK AND RIDE ZONE? I CAN ASK Mr. LOGAN --
>> Mr. TOBEERT WANTED TO SPEAK TO THIS. >> YOUR WORSHIP, ENFORCEMENT IS
ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE. RATHER THAN TRY TO THIS WAS A MECHANISM, IF THERE'S A GREAT
DEGREE OF TRUST BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE STAMPEDE COULD WE NOT TAKE SOMETHING IN WRITING FROM
THE STAMPEDE WHICH SAYS: THEY UNDERTAKE TO NOT OPERATE THEIR PARKING ON THEIR GROUNDS AS A
PARK AND RIDE SITE? >> I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT. BECAUSE THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS
NOT TO CREATE A REVENUE CASH COW FOR THE STAMPEDE ON THE BACKS OF CALGARY TRANSIT.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS TO PROMOTE TOURISM AND CONVENTION. NO, NO.
REQUEST THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE STAMPEDE BOARD WRITE A LETTER TO THE MAYOR AND CITY
COUNCIL CLEARLY STATING THE STAMPEDE'S COMMITMENT TO TREAT THE EXTENSION OF THE -- OR TO
PREVENT PARK AND RIDE ACTIVITIES FROM OCCURRING AT THE STAMPEDE BOARD THAT THE STAMPEDE GROUND
GROUNDS -- >> I THINK THAT'S A MOTION IN RISING, ALDERMAN.
>> IS IT? I'M HAPPY TO BE -- FOR IT TO BE A MOTION ARISING.
I'M JUST CURIOUSLY TECHNICALLY ON WHY THAT'S THE CASE. IF THE CLERK SWOB KIND A WOULD S
TO EDUCATE ME. >> IF YOU LOOK AT THE THRUST OF THE MOTION AND THE MAIN POINTS
OF IT, IT IS TO GO THROUGH IN DIRECTING THE ADMINISTRATION ABSORB DIRECTING THE FREE FARE.
REQUESTING SOMETHING FROM THE STAMPEDE BOARD WOULD BE A MOTION ARISING ONCE THIS PASSED.
IT'S IRRELEVANT UNTIL THAT PASSED. >> THANK YOU.
>> ALDERMAN KEATING ON THE MAIN MOTION. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
HAVE I SPOKEN TO THIS ALREADY? >> NOT ON THE MAIN MOTION. >> I LOST THERE.
I COME BACK TO, I GUESS, A STATEMENT I MADE EARLIER. I'M VERY IN FAVOUR OF THE IDEA
OF MAKING THE EASY TRANSITION BETWEEN DOWNTOWN CONVENTION AND THE STAMPEDE CONVENTION.
AND MAKING THAT. BUT I BELIEVE THAT THIS IS SPECIFIC TO DELEGATES AT A
TOURISM VENUE. NOT ACROSS -- AND WE DO HAVE A LARGE AMOUNT OF
RESIDENTIAL IN THIS AREA WHO WILL END UP BENEFITING FROM THIS WHERE THEY WILL NOT BENEFIT FROM
ANY OTHER PLACE IN THE CITY. AND THAT CAUSES ME PROBLEM. THAT GOES BACK TO MY ORIGINAL
MOTION -- OR ORIGINAL MENTION THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS, I THINK WE SHOULD OFFER IT FREE
TO THE DELEGATES IN THIS AREA SO THEY CAN GO BACK AND FORTH WITHOUT QUESTION.
BUT OPENING IT UP ACROSS THE ZONE DOES GIVE ME DIFFICULTY. BECAUSE THEN AGAIN WHERE DO WE
STOP? WE GO TO THE ZOO? THERE'S A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO
CAN DRIVE TO THE ZOO AND PARK AND COME INTO DOWNTOWN FOR FREE. THEN WE HAVE THE McMAHON
STADIUM AND ON AND ON. SO I THINK IF WE'RE DOING SOMETHING SPECIFIC FOR DELEGATES
AT CONVENTIONS AND WE WANT TO MAKE IT NICE AND FREE WE DO THAT.
BUT WE JUST DON'T OPEN IT ACROSS THE BASE. THANK YOU.
>> ALDERMAN DEMONG ON THE MAIN MOTION. >> I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHO I'M
ADDRESSING THIS TO. POSSIBLY THE CITY MANAGER. HAVE WE HAD ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH
THE CITY TOURISM AND OR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT? I'M SORRY NOT CALGARY TOURISM,
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AS TO WHAT KIND OF NUMBERS WE COULD BE LOOKING AT AS REVENUE FOR THE
CITY IN INCREASED TOUR -- WELL -- YEAH IT'S NOT REALLY THE TOURISM THAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR.
IT'S THE BUSINESS TOURISM MORE TO THE POINT ISN'T IT? >> IS THERE A QUESTION THERE?
>> MY QUESTION MORE IS TO THE ACTUAL BUSINESS SIDE OF THIS. AS TO WHETHER THERE WOULD BE AN
INCREASED AMOUNT OF CONVENTIONS ACTUALLY BEING HELD AT THIS. HAS THERE BEEN ANY DOCUMENTATION
ON THIS WHATSOEVER? >> YOUR WORSHIP I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY.
AND I WOULD ARGUE THAT IT'S UP TO THOSE PROPONENTS FOR THIS TO PRESENT THAT.
>> DO YOU HAVE ANY RECOMMENDS STOOS HOW I WOULD TRY AND GET THOSE KIND OF NUMBERS?
>> I DON'T KNOW. REFERRAL MOTION MIGHT WORK. >> WELL, AS MUCH AS I'M ALL IN
FAVOUR OF TRYING TO GET MORE TOURISM, MORE BUSINESS, I'M A DELEGATE TO MANY CONVENTIONS
MYSELF. USUALLY THEY'RE HELD UP IN EDMONTON BECAUSE THEY DO HAVE
FACILITIES THAT CAN HOLD THESE KIND OF CONVENTIONS WITHOUT MOVING THEM AROUND THE CITY.
I AM GOING TO HAVE TO ASK FOR A REFERRAL VERY SIMILAR TO THE ONE THAT WE JUST SAW.
I'M SORRY I'VE RECONSIDERED MY VOTE IN THE LAST FEW MINUTES THINKING ABOUT IT.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME NUMBERS WITH REGARDS TO HOW THIS IMPACTS TRANSIT.
AND IF WE CAN GET SOME INFORMATION FROM BOTH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND OR ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AS FAR AS NEW -- >> SO ALDERMAN DEMONG, IF -- BECAUSE IT'S GOT TO BE DIFFERENT
THAN THE LAST ONE I COULD SUGGEST SOME LANGUAGE FOR YOU. DID YOU GET INTERCEPTED ALONG
THE WAY? IS THERE HIGHJACKING OCCURRED ALONG THE WAY?
>> WELL, NO. WHEN I FIRST VOTED ON -- AGAINST THE REFERRAL I THOUGHT THIS WAS
A FANTASTIC IDEA AND THAT THIS WAS GOING TO INCREASE BUSINESS, INCREASE TOURISM ON A REGULAR
BASIS. AND IN RETROSPECT I'M THINKING WOULD I LIKE TO SEE WHAT KIND OF
NUMBERS THIS WOULD INDICATE. >> SO MAY I HELP WITH YOU SOME LANGUAGE?
>> YES, I WOULD LOVE THAT ASSISTANCE. >> SO, REFER THE MATTER TO
ADMINISTRATION. FOR A CONSULTATION WITH CALGARY TOURISM.
AND CALGARY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. >> AND CALGARY TRANSIT.
AND ANY OTHER STAKEHOLDERS FOR AN EVALUATION OF ECONOMIC IMPACT IN THE CITY.
>> AND THE MOVERS OF THIS MOTION? >> ECONOMIC IMPACT ON THE CITY.
AND IMPACT ON TRANSIT'S ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET AND SERVICE LEVELS.
BECAUSE I THINK THOUGH ALL PLAY INTO IT. >> WELL YOU'RE A FAR BETTER MIND
READER THAN A CITY CLERK, YOUR WORSHIP. (LAUGHTER)
IT DEPENDS WHETHER SHE WAS QUICK ENOUGH TO GET IT DOWN. TO REPORT BACK TO COUNCIL -- NOW
WHEN DO YOU THINK THIS CONSULTATION COULD BE COMPLETED? >> YOUR WORSHIP, THERE IS ONE
OTHER REPORT COMING THAT THIS WOULD RELATE TO. WE HAVE OUR FAIR STRATEGY REPORT
COMING TO LPT IN MAY. THAT DIDN'T OCCUR TO ME WHEN I SPOKE EARLIER.
BUT THAT -- YOU KNOW, THIS IS ALL ABOUT WHAT ARE WE GOING TO CHARGE FOR OUR SERVICE?
>> SO, TO BE INCLUDED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE FARE STRATEGY REPORT?
>> OR CONCURRENT WITH IT. >> OR CONCURRENT WITH. EITHER OR.
ALDERMAN DEMONG HOW IS THAT? >> I WAS GOING TO HOPE TO REFER IT BACK TO BE A APRIL MEETING IF
THAT WAS AT ALL FEASIBLE. I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT YOUR COMMENT WAS TO THAT EARLIER.
>> SORRY YOUR WORSHIP. MY PREVIOUS COMMENT WAS THE APRIL 20th LPT AND MAY
9th COUNCIL. JUST ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON SOMETHING WE ALREADY HAD
SCHEDULED. >> IS IT FEASIBLE TO PULL THAT BACK IN -- AND BRING IT IN
CONCURRENTLY? >> I PREFER NOT TO PULL A FARE STRATEGY BACK.
THAT ONE IS FAIRLY INVOLVED. AND WE HAVE A NUMBER OF OTHER REPORTS CUED UP WITH THE SAME
STAFF. >> WELL, I CAN SEE THIS BEING A SEPARATE ISSUE IN AND OF ITSELF.
I WOULD LIKE TO PUT SAID REFERRAL MOTION ON TO THE FLOOR. >> SHE'S WAITING FEVERISHLY AT
FINISHING IT. >> JUST WAIT A MOMENT UNTIL WE GET IT.
>> DO I HAVE A SECONDER? >> YES, PLEASE. >> OH, ALDERMAN POOTMANS THANK
YOU. BE SEATED. OKAY WE'LL JUST WAIT UNTIL THE
LANGUAGE GETS UP, ALDERMAN POOTMANS. YEAH I KNOW HE'S PREPARED TO
SPEAK. JUST MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE IT. >> ALDERMAN POOTMANS IT'S ON THE
SCREEN. PLEASE GO AHEAD. >> YES, YOUR WORSHIP.
WOULD I HEARTILY ENDORSE THIS. IT ALSO OCCURS TO ME, IF I MAY ASK A QUESTION OF THE
PROPONENTS. IT OCCURS -- ON READING AND ON REFLECTION AND LISTENING TO A
LOT OF THE COMMENTS TODAY THE FIRST TWO WAREHOUSES SPEAK TO OUR COMPETITIVENESS AND OUR
ABILITY TO ATTRACT CONVENTIONS. I SIT ON THE CONVINC CONVENTION. I'M WONDERING IF I HAVEN'T
REALLY HAD A CHANCE TO DISCUSS THIS MOTION IN ANY GREAT DETAIL WITH MANAGEMENT OR THE BOARD AT
THE CONVENTION CENTRE, BUT IT OCCURS TO ME THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF BUSINESS AND PERHAPS
THE STAMPEDE OFFICIALS, ENOUGH OF A MECHANISM TO HEAR FROM THEM, PERHAPS NOT, HAS ALREADY
BEEN BOOKED. TYPICALLY THESE EVENTS ARE WELL OUT.
AND THERE MIGHT BE ONE OR TWO SMALL SHOWS. BUT ANY SIGNIFICANT BUSINESS
RIGHT NOW I'M GUESSING THE MAJORITY OF IT IS PROBABLY ALREADY IN PLACE.
AND TO OFFER THIS INCENTIVE AT THIS LATE DATE -- WELL IF YOU CARE TO RESPOND THAT WOULD BE
GREAT, THANK YOU. >> POINT OF ORDER. SOMEBODY DIDN'T QUITE READ MY
MIND PROPERLY. ECONOMIC BENEFITS TO THE CITY AND IMPACT ON TRANSIT.
>> AND I'LL TRY AND OPEN UP MY MIND A LITTLE FARTHER NEXT TIME. >> TO THE CITY.
>> THANK YOU. >> THANKS VERY MUCH. DISCUSSION ON THE REFERRAL.
DEBATE AND REFERRAL. ALDERMAN CHABOT. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
A COUPLE OF ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP. THERE'S ONE OF THEM QUESTIONS
FROM ALDERMAN DEMONG HAD TO DO WITH LOST REVENUE. AND THE IMPACT.
THAT WAS ALSO RAISED BY ALDERMAN McLEOD BEING AN ISSUE IN REGARD TO HOW ARE WE GOING
ABSORB THIS LOST REVENUE? OW IS THIS GOING TO IMPACT THE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM?
AND IF I MAY JUST BRING YOU BACK JUST A COUPLE OF YEARS IN THAT IN 2009 CITY COUNCIL APPROVED AN
INCREASE TO THE OPERATING BUDGET OF $150.000 MAN-HOURS. AND I THINK I BROUGHT THIS UP
DURING BUDGET DEBATE. IN 2009. SO IN -- PARDON ME, IN 2008 WE
APPROVED AN INCREASE OF 150.000 MAN-HOURS TO PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.
TRANSIT RIDERSHIP DID NOT GO UP. IN 2009. SO, HOW WAS THAT LOST REVENUE
ABSORBED INTO TRANSIT? I NEVER HEARD THE ANSWER TO THAT YET.
AND 2010, THE SAME SITUATION OCCURRED OVER AGAIN. WE HAD THAT 150 -- NO, ACTUALLY
WE PULLED BACK SOME OF THOSE MAN-HOURS IN 2010. I THINK TO THE TUNE OF ABOUT
60.000. BUT RIDERSHIP STILL DIDN'T GO UP COMMENSURATE TO 2008.
AND AGAIN, THE PROJECTED REVENUE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT INCREASE IN MAN-HOURS WASN'T REALIZED.
SO, I'M NOT SURE HOW TRANSIT ABSORBED THAT. AND MAYBE SOMEHOW IN CONJUNCTION
WITH THE TRANSPORTATION BUDGET. BUT IT SOMEHOW DISAPPEARED. AND I DON'T KNOW HOW IT IMPACTED
OUR SYSTEM, WHETHER IT DECREASED OUR LEVEL OF SERVICE. EXPIEM SURE IAND I'M SURE IT PRN
SOME WAY OR SOME FASHION. ALTHOUGH I DON'T KNOW HOW TRANSPORTATION DID IT, BUT I DO
PUT A LOT OF CONFIDENCE IN OUR MANAGERS TO BE ABLE TO MANAGE WITHIN THE BUDGET ALLOCATIONS
THAT WE'VE GIVEN THEM. THIS IS A DIRECTION THAT WE'RE TRYING TO GIVE COUNCIL.
IN MOVING FORWARD ON A NIEWN NEW OPPORTUNITY IN MAKING IT SEAMLESS.
WORLD SKILLS AS AN EXAMPLE WAS ONE OF THE FEW ORGANIZATIONS THAT WAS ABLE TO NEGOTIATE AN
AGREEMENT AT NO COST TO THEM. MOST OF THE ORGANIZATION WHEN THEY WANT TO HAVE A FREE TRAVEL
BETWEEN THE TWO VENUES USUALLY END UP PAYING FOR IT. AND SO THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH
NEGOTIATIONS PROCESS WITH TRANSIT FOLKS TO COME TO AN AGREEMENT ON WHAT THE ACTUAL
COST SERVICE THAT. SO, NOT DISPUTING THAT THERE MAY BE A COST ASSOCIATED WITH IT.
I'M JUST SAYING THAT THIS -- OUR INTENT HERE IS TO LOOK AT THIS AS A PILOT PROJECT.
SO AS FAR AS THIS REFERRAL IS CONCERNED, LOOKING AT THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS AND BENEFITS
WHILST I THINK IT MAY BE A WORTHY THING TO DO AS A MOTION ARISING, I DON'T THINK IT WOULD
NECESSARILY PROVIDE ADDITIONAL BENEFIT TO LOOKING AT A PILOT PROJECT BETWEEN THESE TWO
VENUES. THERE WAS ANOTHER ISSUE THAT WAS RAISED.
OH, YES, THANK YOU FOR THAT. BOOKINGS. WE RECEIVED A REPORT RECENTLY.
AND I THINK IT WAS AT COMMUNITY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES WHERE THE TELUS CONVENTION CENTRE
PRESENTED TO US IN REGARD TO THEIR BOOKINGS AND TO THE FUTURE.
YES, IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN AN AUDIT. SO IT DID SHOW THAT FOR 2011,
THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE SITE WAS BOOKED, IN FACT. BUT NOT ALL.
BUT IN 2012 THE BOOKINGS WERE -- THERE WAS ALMOST NONE AND 2013 SHOWED 0.
COY NOT BELIEVE IT. ZERO. SO OF COURSE I BELIEVE WITH
ALDERMAN POOTMANS THAT THESE THINGS ARE BOOKED WELL IN ADVANCE.
BUT TO SHOW ZERO FOR 2013 TO ME, CONSIDERING THAT THESE EVENTS TYPICALLY REQUIRE TWO TO
THREE-YEARS' WORTH OF PLANNING, ESPECIALLY THE LARGE ONES, THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE AT LEAST BEEN
ENTERED -- HAVE ENTERED INTO DISCUSSIONS WITH TELUS. THIS IS BOOKING AT CREATING
INCREASED OPPORTUNITY FOR THESE LARGER EVENTS TO START THESE NEGOTIATIONS WITH OUR CITY, WITH
THE TELUS CONVENTION CENTRE. AND I DON'T THINK THIS IS A BAD IDEA.
I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO DO HERE WITHIN THIS REPORT.
BECAUSE THIS ESSENTIALLY STAGNATES THE OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS
OPPORTUNITY. TO REPORT BACK AS A MOTION ARISING I THINK WOULD BE MORE
APPLICABLE TO THIS PARTICULAR MOTION SO THEY COULD PROVIDE A REPORT BACK TO US.
SO WE COULD DELINEATE EXACTLY WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS ARE OF DOING THIS AND POTENTIAL
BENEFIT. I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THIS BUT IT'S A GOOD IDEA.
>> ALDERMAN McLEOD ON THE REFERRAL. >> THANK YOU.
ON THE -- I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE THIS JUNCTURE TO GO BACK TO THE DEBATE THAT WE HAD
AROUND THE BUDGET. WITH RESPECT TO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWN TRANSIT HOURS AND
RIDERSHIP AND WHAT THE LAG TIME IS ON THAT. I DO THINK THAT -- AND I WANT
TOAMP SIZE I'M FULLY SUPPORTIVE OF THE CONCEPT. I AM NOT SUPPORTIVE OF TRANSIT
ABSORBING THE LOSS. THAT'S MY PROBABLY WITH THIS. I WILL SUPPORT REFERRAL, BECAUSE
I THINK THERE'S OTHER WAYS AROUND IT. AND THAT WE CAN MANAGE THIS AND
COME FORWARD WITH THE ANSWER THAT THE PROPONENTS OF THIS MOTION ARE LOOKING FOR.
BUT I DON'T THINK IN ITS CURRENT FORM CAN I SUPPORT IT. SO I WOULD PREFER THE REFERRAL
FAILING THE REFERRAL I WILL VOTE AGAINST THE MOTION ITSELF. >> ALDERMAN HODGES ON THE
REFERRAL. >> JUST BRIEFLY I SUPPORTED THE EARLIER REFERRAL AND I THINK
THIS MOTION IS WORDED MORE ACCURATELY. SO I'LL BE SUPPORTING THIS.
>> THANK YOU. >> ALDERMAN DEMONG TO CLOSE ON THE REFERRAL.
>> I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN OF THE LOST REF REVENUE IN PREVIOUS YEARS IN TRANSIT.
AND I'M NOT SURE IF ADDING MORE LOST REVENUE IS GOING TO SOLVE THAT PROBLEM.
IF WE ARE BOOKING TWO TO THREE YEARS IN ADVANCE ON THESE CONFERENCES, I'M NOT SURE HOW A
THREE-MONTH DELAY IS GOING TO MAKE A GREAT DEAL OF DIFFERENCE IN THE LONG RUN.
FURTHERMORE I'M NOT SEEING HOW THIS IS ACTUALLY GOING TO DELAY THE NOTICE OF MOTION, ASSUMING
THAT THIS RECORD COMES BACK AND WE PROCEED WITH THE IDEA. CLOSE.
>> THANK YOU. >> ON THE REFERRAL. ARE WE AGREED?
OPPOSED. >> ALDERMAN DEMONG. >> YES.
>> ALDERMAN FARRELL. >> YES. >> ALDERMAN HODGES.
>> YES. >> ALDERMAN JONES. >> NO.
>> ALDERMAN KEATING. >> NO. >> ALDERMAN McLEOD.
>> YES. >> ALDERMAN MAR. >> YES.
>> ALDERMAN POOTMANS. >> YES. >> ALDERMAN STEVENSON.
>> NO. >> ALDERMAN CARRA. >> YES.
>> ALDERMAN CHABOT. ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART. >> NO.
>> SORRY, DEPUTY MAYOR LOWE. >> YES. >> I ALMOST FORGOT YOU.
CARRIED, YOUR WINDSOR SHIP. >> ALDERMAN HODGES ARE YOU GOING TO MOVE --
SORRY? NO. TURN IT ON, WILL YOU PLEASE.
THERE WE ARE. >> NOW IT SEEMS TO BE OKAY. >> YOUR WORSHIP I'LL MOVE -- WE
HAVE A NUMBER OF IN-CAMERAS -- >> NO. I PREFER TO DO THE URGENT
BUSINESS AHEAD OF TIME. >> URGENT BUSINESS -- THIS WAS YESTERDAY, MONDAY
FEBRUARY 7th AT 9:30. WELL JUST A SECOND. IF HE DOESN'T HE DOESN'T.
MADAM CLERK USUALLY HAS SOME EXTRAS. >> YOUR WORSHIP, I DON'T HAVE
COPIES. I WAS LOOKING THROUGH MY MATERIAL.
AND I NOTICE THERE'S A WHOLE BUNCH OF IN-CAMERA THINGS. AND SOMEHOW EITHER I MUST HAVE
MISPLACED THEM OR SOMETHING, BUT IF POSSIBLE IF I CAN HAVE COPIES OF THAT -- NO, I DON'T.
I LOOKED THROUGH MY STUFF. >> SO THERE'S THE NOTICE OF MOTION.
THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER'S REPORT. >> DOES ANYBODY NOT HAVE BOTH OF
THOSE DOCUMENTS? DOES ANYBODY NOT HAVE BOTH OF THOSE?
THE BLUE SHEETS, ALDERMAN CHABOT? >> THAT BLUE SHEET.
AND THE NOTICE OF MOTION. I'M SORRY, THE BLUE SHEET IS -- NO.
THAT'S NOT IN-CAMERA. NO, IT'S NOT IN-CAMERA. >> RIGHT ONE OR LEFT SPHWHU ONE?
>> YOUR WORSHIP ARE WE PREPARED? >> DOES EVERYBODY HAVE BOTH PIECES OF MATERIAL?
>> I HAVE. >> ALDERMAN HODGES. >> YESTERDAY MORNING AT 9:30
THIS MATTER OF URGENT BUSINESS WAS PUT ON THE AGENDA. IF READS FAIRLY
STRAIGHTFORWARDLY. WE HAVE A COUPLE OF SITUATIONS. >> IF COY ASK FOR A SECONDER.
>> SECONDED BY ALDERMAN JONES. >> ALDERMAN CHABOT -- OKAY, THANK YOU.
OFF WE GO. >> I'LL TRY IT AGAIN, YOUR WORSHIP.
SPEAKING FROM EXPERIENCE ON THIS ISSUE OF PATHWAYS VERSUS SIDEWALKS, THIS HAS OCCURRED IN
MY AREA WHERE A NEW REGIONAL PATH WAS BUILT. THE ORIGINAL SIDEWALK WAS
REMOVED. THE CONCRETE SIDEWALK AND A THREE-METRE WIDE ASHPHALT PATH
WAS PUT IN ADJACENT TO SEVERAL-A NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES ON SOUTH SIDE OF 32nd AVENUE
NORTHWEST, IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF WHERE MARKHAM HALL WAS LOCATED. YES, THE PATHWAY IS ON PUBLIC
LAND. AND IN FACT IN PART IT GOES THROUGH A PARK AREA, BUT THE
ADJACENT HOMEOWNERS ARE NOW BEING NABBED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY TO REMOVE THE
SNOW AND ICE. WHICH ISN'T A SMALL ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO A THREE-METRE-WIDE
ASHPHALT PATH. SO, WE HAVE A FOUR-PART MOTION HERE.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE STREETS BY LAW BE AMENDED TO EXEMPT PROPERTY OWNERS FROM
CLEARING DESIGNATED PATHWAYS. MEANING ASHPHALT PATHWAYS TO THEIR FULL WIDTH WHERE SUCH
PATHWAYS ARE ADJACENT TO THEIR PROPERTY. AND THAT WARNINGS, ORDERS AND
ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES BE STAYED. THAT RESIDENTS AFFECTED BE
INFORMED OF THEIR RESPONSIBILITY WITH RESPECT TO MAINTENANCE OF DESIGNATED PATHWAYS ADJACENT TO
THEIR PROPERTIES. IN THE MEANTIME HERE BEFORE THE BYLAW IS AMENDED OF COURSE.
AND FOUR, THAT THE BYLAW AMENDMENT DEFINITIONS AND RESPONSIBILITY AND PROPOSED
CITIZEN AND EDUCATION PLAN BE BROUGHT TO THE STANDING POLICY COMMITTEE ON COMMUNITY AND
PROTECTIVE SERVICES NOT LATER THAN 2011, SEPTEMBER. SO THIS ISN'T A HUGE ISSUE.
BUT IT IS NEVERTHELESS AN ISSUE FOR PROPERTY OWNERS WHO WERE TOTALLY UNAWARE THAT THEY'RE NOW
GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR A NATIONAL PATHWAY. >> ON THE MOTION, ALDERMAN
JONES. >> YOUR WORSHIP I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR ALDERMAN HODGES.
IT'S IN THE FIRST PART OF THE THEREFORE NOW BE IT RESOLVED. CLEARING DESIGNATED PATHWAYS TO
THEIR FULL WIDTH. WHAT WIDTH DO YOU PROPOSE THAT THEY CLEAR THEM TO?
>> GET MY MICROPHONE TUNED UP HERE. THE COMPROMISE THAT Mr. BRUCE
AND COMPANY HAVE COME UP WITH IS THREE FEET. IN OTHER WORDS, THE OLD CONCRETE
PATHWAY WAS ABOUT THREE OR THREE AND A HALF FEET WIDE. THIS IS IN ONE OF THE OLDER
DISTRICTS. IT'S NOT IN A NEW AREA OF THE CITY WHERE THE SIDEWALKS NEED TO
BE WIDENED. >> JUST WONDERING IF THAT SHOULDN'T BE IN YOUR MOTION.
>> AMEND IT. >> I CAN'T. I SECONDED IT.
I JUST THINK IT SHOULD BE IN THERE SO THAT THERE IS A DESIGNATED WIDTH THAT YOU GOT TO
DO IT THERE. SOMEBODY WILL DO A FOOT. >> I ACTUALLY LEFT IT OUT,
ALDERMAN JONES, SO THAT THAT COULD BE DETERMINED. I MEAN I'M SURE THERE'S SOME
LANGUAGE -- >> THEN IT SHOULD SAY TO BE DETERMINED BY THE BYLAW OFFICER.
>> NO, NOT BY THE BYLAW OFFICER. >> IT'S GOING TO BE DETERMINED BY SOMEBODY.
>> HOWEVER YOU WANT TO DO IT. >> I CAN'T. I SECONDED THE MOTION.
>> WELL WE COULD DO AN AMENDMENT THEN, GOT IT TO ONE METRE. >> I'D BE HAPPY TO DO THAT.
>> WELL IT WOULD BE A NUMBER THREE. IF YOU'D LIKE TO PUT AN
AMENDMENT. >> ON THE MOTION, ALDERMAN STEVENSON.
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR LOGAN, RIGHT.
SORRY. Mr. LOGAN, COULD YOU TELL ME WHAT THE CITY POLICY IS AS FAR
AS SNOW REMOVAL ON PATHWAYS LIKE THIS? DO WE REMOVE THESE?
REMOVE THE SNOW OR TAKE CARE OF THAT? >> YOUR WORSHIP I BELIEVE WITH
RESPECT TO PATHWAYS, GM WOULD BE THE CORRECT ONE. >> OH, OKAY.
>> SO, YOUR WORSHIP, THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WIDTH OF PATHWAYS ACTUALLY, IT'S A ONE TO
TWO RATIO. SO THE SIDEWALK WOULD BE 1.2 METRES.
AND THE HALF WAY IS 2.5 METRES. AND WHAT WE HAVE HERE AND ALDERMAN HODGES IS INDICATING
THAT IT'S AN ISOLATED CASE BUT INCREASINGLY THERE ARE PATHWAY CONNECTORS IN FRONT OF PEOPLE'S
HOMES THAT LEAD TO SEGMENTS OF THE COMMUTER PATHWAY. AND SO A HOMEOWNER MAY FIND
THEMSELVES WITH A TWO AND A HALF METRE WIDTH OF SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF THEIR HOME RATHER THAN THEIR
CONVENTIONAL SIDEWALKS. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT WHAT I'M WANTING TO KNOW IS
DO WE AS A CITY CLEAR THE SNOW FROM THE REGIONAL PATHWAYS? >> WELL THE ANSWER IS YES, WE DO
ON PRIORITY ROUTES. BUT NOT IN EVERY SINGLE CASE. SO THAT'S THE ISSUE IN TERMS OF
WHETHER OR NOT THIS HAS A SIGNIFICANTLE BUDGET IMPLICATION, IF -- SIGNIFICANT
BUDGET IMPLICATION IF THE CITY WERE TO TAKE IT OVER. AND IF THE HOMEOWNER WAS
CLEARING HALF THE PATHWAY THERE MAY BE AN ISSUE WITH ICE ACCUMULATE ON THE OTHER HALF AS
THE WATER MELTS. SO I'M NOT SO SURE THAT IT'S A SIMPLE CASE OF JUST ASKING THE
HOMEOWNERS TO CLEAR HALF OF IT. >> I'M JUST LOOKING TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T HAVE A DOUBLE STANDARD
HERE. THAT WE'RE SAYING TO THE HOMEOWNER THEY HAVE TO CLEAR IT,
BUT WHEN WE HAVE THE SAME PATHWAY DOWN THE ROAD A LITTLE BIT WE DON'T KEEP IT CLEAN.
>> YOUR WORSHIP I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT AT THE NUB OF THE ISSUE. BECAUSE THESE ARE SIMULTANEOUSLY
ACCESS SIDEWALKS, IF YOU WANT TO USE THAT WORD, IN FRONT OF SOMEONE'S HOME WHERE THE
HOMEOWNER TYPICALLY IS ASKED TO CLEAR THEM. AND NOW THE SUGGESTION IS THAT
IF THEY ONLY CLEAR HALF OF THAT, IS THAT THE APPROPRIATE SOLUTION?
>> BECAUSE I'M USING MY OWN NEIGHBOURHOOD AS AN EXAMPLE WHERE THESE PATHWAYS GO IN FRONT
OF A CITY PARK. AND THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY CLEANED BY THE
CITY. AND YET THE NEIGHBOURS ON EACH
SIDE WOULD HAVE TO CLEAN IT IN FRONT OF THEIRS. NOW IS THAT -- AM I RIGHT ON
THAT? >> WELL I WOULD SAY THAT IT'S CERTAINLY TRUE.
AND THIS IS WHERE IT SORT OF FALLS BETWEEN Mr. LOGAN AND I IN THAT THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE
THE SNOW REMOVAL TBOWJT CLEAR EVERY PIECE OF CITY-OWNED WALK TODAY.
>> RIGHT, YEAH. AND THAT'S WHAT CONCERNS ME. I'VE BEEN TOLD THAT IF IT WAS
CEMENT -- ORDINARY SIDEWALK THAT IT WOULD BE CLEARED.
BUT WHEN IT'S A PAVED PATHWAY, IT'S CALLED A PATHWAY THEN IT'S NOT.
AM I BEING MISINFORMED ON THAT? >> YOUR WORSHIP, IT VARIES. IT'S SIMILAR TO THE ROADWAYS.
WE HAVE PRIORITIES. AND THERE ARE SOME PORTIONS OF THE PATHWAY THAT ARE CONSIDERED
INTEGRAL TO THE COMMUTER SYSTEM. AND THEY GET CLEARED ON A PRIORITY BASIS.
THERE'S SOME IN RECREATIONAL AREAS. IN FACT I THINK COUNCIL
DISCUSSED THIS A FEW WEEKS BACK. AND SOMETIMES THEY DON'T GET DONE FOR MONTHS LITERAL LIMIT I
DON'T KNOW THE SPECIFIC PROPERTY IN QUESTION HERE. THEY DO GET CLEARED IT.
JUST VARIES. >> I GOT TO SAY THAT YOUR ANSWERS ARE CLEAR AS
SNOW-COVERED MUD, RIGHT. >> SORRY. >> BECAUSE I REALLY DON'T HAVE
AN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION THAT I'M ASKING. BECAUSE YOU'RE SAYING THAT IT
VARIES, BOTH OF YOU ARE SAYING THAT IT VARIES DEPENDING ON THE -- SO, THAT'S JUST THE WAY
IT IS WITH OUR POLICY I GUESS. >> I GUESS IT'S SIMILAR TO ROADS.
DO WE CLEAR ROADS? YES. BUT WE CLEAR HIGH PRIORITY ROADS
FIRST. LOW PRIORITY ROADS LATER. >> SEE I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT
THE PRIORITY. I'M SAYING: ARE THEY EVEN
ON OUR LIST TO CLEAR? THAT'S WHAT I'M GETTING AT.
I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THEY ARE NOT CLEARED, PERIOD. >> YOUR WORSHIP I WOULD SAY THAT
THAT'S TRUE. I THINK -- WHAT'S AT ISSUE HERE IS THIS IN IN FRONT OF SOMEONE'S
HOME. SO THEY CAN'T ACTUALLY WAIT FOR US TO COME.
SO ALDERMAN HODGES IS PROPOSING A COMPROMISE WHERE HALF OF THE PATHWAY WOULD BE CLEARED.
IS HALF OF A PATHWAY BEING CLEARED BETTER THAN ASKING A HOMEOWNER TO SHOVEL TWO AND A
HALF METRES OF PATHWAY? YES, WOULD I SAY SO. BUT I WOULD THINK THAT WE WOULD
BE WATCHING IT CAREFULLY TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT INCREASING THE HAZARD FOR OUR CITIZENS.
BENEFIT WOULD BE THE CITIZEN WOULD NOT FEEL LIKE THEY WERE OVERLY BURDENED.
AND THERE WOULD BE AT LEAST SOME SHOVELING GOING ON A CONSISTENT BASIS.
>> THANK YOU YOUR WORSHIP. >> ON THE MOTION, ALDERMAN FARRELL.
>> SO, DOCTOR HARGESHEIMER, THERE'S A PATHWAY IN BRENTWOOD THAT WE'RE EXPERIMENTING WITH A
NEW MATERIAL, THE RUBBERIZED STUFF. IT'S QUITE WIDE.
AND THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT HAD IDENTIFIED THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE REQUIRING --
THAT GUYS WERE DOING THE TRAFFIC CALMING ON CHARLESWOOD HAD SUGGESTED THAT WE WOULDN'T BE
REQUIRING THE RESIDENTS TO CLEAR THE ENTIRE WIDTH. THAT WE WOULD EXPECT THEM TO
CLEAR THE WIDTH OF A REGULAR PATHWAY BECAUSE IT WOULD BE TOO MUCH TO ASK TO CLEAR SOMETHING
TWICE AS WIDE. SOMEHOW THIS DIFFERENT? >> I THINK THIS IS EXACTLY THE
SAME. >> SO, DO YOU SEE A PROBLEM WITH THIS?
>> WELL THE QUESTION IS, IN SOME CASES THERE WILL BE SOME HAZARDS CREATED BY THE SNOW PILING UP
DESPITE THE PATHWAY. AND IT MAY CAUSE INCREASED ISSUES IN TERMS OF SAFETY.
THEN WHO'S LIABLE IN TERMS OF: IS IT THE HOMEOWNER WHO'S CLEARED HALF OF IT?
OR IS IT THE CITY? >> OKAY Mr. BRUCE I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR FROM HIM.
WOE BE AVAILABLE WHEN THIS COMES TO COMMITTEE? >> WELL I HAVE A NOTE FROM Mr.
BRUCE HERE WHICH BASICALLY SAYS THAT THEY SHOULDN'T BE -- THAT PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BE ASKED TO
CLEAR THE FULL WIDTH IF THAT'S -- BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T ASK FOR THE WIDER PATHWAY TO BE
PUT IN FRONT OF THEIR HOME. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NO NOT --
>> THAT'S NOT THE QUESTIONS BEFORE US TODAY, THOUGH. THAT THE CITY IS GOING TO GO AND
FINISH CLEARING THE REST I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT HAPPENING. WE KEEP ON CUTTING YOUR BUDGETS
AND ASKING TO YOU DO MORE. >> RIGHT, SO IS IT BETTER FOR THE HOMEOWNER TO SHOVEL HALF OF
IT? ABSOLUTELY. >> SO WE NEED TO START TALKING
ABOUT FINES. I KNOW ON MY STREET A GOOD NUMBER --
WELL, I THINK WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH SNOW CLEARING IN OUR CITY. AND IT'S OBVIOUSLY A HAZARD IN
SOME AREAS. >> OKAY, THANKS. >> ALDERMAN CHABOT.
>> WELL MAYBE ON A SIMILAR VAIN TO SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES, IN ONE OF MY COMMUNITIES THEY'VE HAD
THIS PATHWAY IN FRONT OF THEIR HOMES FOR A LONG TIME. SO THAT MEANS IF THIS WERE TO
PASS THEY'D ONLY BE REQUIRED TO ONE METRE OF THAT PATHWAY, IF I GET THAT RIGHT.
I'M JUST WONDERING NOW ABOUT THESE -- WHAT DO THEY CALL THEM, LIKE CATWALKS, IN BETWEEN HOMES
THAT CONNECT STREET TO STREET. THOSE ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE HOMEOWNER AND YET I SEE THE
MAJORITY OF THOSE NOT BEING CLEARED. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT IS GOING
TO BE PART OF THIS WHOLE INFORMATION SYSTEM IN REGARDS TO RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES?
>> JUST CHECKING WITH Mr. TULLY AND MEMORY SERVES ME THAT IN SOME CASES -- NOT ALL, BUT IN
SOME CASES THOSE ARE ACTUALLY THE PROPERTY OF HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.
>> WELL OF COURSE I'M REFERRING TO THE COMMUNITIES -- MY COMMUNITIES WHICH ARE OLDER
COMMUNITIES. AND THEY'RE NOT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATIONS.
THOSE ARE ALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION BASED BUT THERE'S A LOT OF THESE CATWALKS THAT RUN
ALL THE WAY THROUGH, LIKE FOR AN EXTRA SIX OR SEVEN BLOCKS BECAUSE IT'S BASED ON A GRID
SYSTEM. YET A LOT OF THESE HOMEOWNERS DON'T KNOW IT'S THEIR
RESPONSIBILITY TO CLEAR HALF WAY DOWN THERE THAT. SO THAT'S PART OF THIS
COMMUNICATIONS PORTION IS THERE I GUESS INTEANT TO INFORM THOSE INDIVIDUALS THAT IT'S THEIR
RESPONSIBILITY TO CLEAR THOSE CATWALKS AS WELL? >> YEP.
>> THAT'S EXCELLENT. THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
>> ALDERMAN MAR. >> WELL I WAS GOING TO TRY MY HAND AT AN AMENDMENT TO TRY TO
MUDDLE THROUGH THIS BUT I THINK THAT THERE IS OBVIOUSLY AN ISSUE WITH REGARD TO TRYING TO
DETERMINE WHOSE DISCRETION THIS IS IN. AND HOW WE'RE GOING TO
COORDINATE THIS. BUT I'M AT A LOSS AS TO HOW WE CAN DO THIS.
TO TRY TO CREATE THIS DEFINITION HERE EVEN THE FLY. SO IS THERE AN ADMINISTRATIVE
SUGGESTION AT THIS TIME? >> WELL, YOUR WORSHIP, I SPOKE TO BOTH BILL BRUCE AND TO BASHIR
JAMAL IN PARKS AND ANIMAL BYLAW SERVICES. AND THERE WAS MIXED OPINION IN
TERMS OF WHETHER THIS WOULD HELP THE SITUATION OR NOT. BECAUSE NOW WE'RE STARTING TO
HAVE SOME INCONSISTENCY, BUT THE POINT IS THAT IT REALLY ISN'T FAIR FOR THE HOMEOWNER TO HAVE
TO SHOVEL TWICE AS MUCH SIDEWALK JUST BECAUSE HE HAPPENS TO HAVE A PATHWAY IN FRONT.
AND IF THEY SHOVEL HALF OF IT AND DO A GOOD JOB THAT WOULD BE A BETTER CITIZEN BENEFIT THAN
NOT. AND SO, THE REMOVAL OF THIS FROM THE BYLAW THE WAY ALDERMAN
HODGES IS SUGGESTING IS PROBABLY WORTH A SHOT. I MEAN, AT THIS POINT NEITHER
Mr. LOGAN OR I CAN GIVE YOU A DEFINITIVE: THIS IS GOING TO BE CAUSING ISSUES ANSWER.
SO, TO BE FAIR TO THE RESIDENTS, THE OTHER THING IS THAT Mr. BRUCE DID TELL ME THAT WE HAVE
NOT BEEN ENFORCING ANY -- OR GIVING ANY VIOLATION TICKETS TO ANY CITIZEN WHO IS IN THIS
SITUATION. >> EVEN IF THERE'S A CITIZEN COMPLAINT?
>> AS FAR AS I'M AWARE, THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY TICKETS GIVEN. IN THIS SITUATION.
BUT MAYBE ALDERMAN HODGES HAS FURTHER INFORMATION ON THAT. >> WELL, OKAY.
I THINK THE TROUBLE WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS THE STREETS BY LAW BE AMENDED TO EXEMPT PROPERTY
OWNERS FROM CLEARING DESIGNATED PATHS TO THEIR FULL WIDTH. SO, WHAT WE SHOULD DO IS HAVE A
NUMBER IN THERE AS TO HOW WIDE THE EXPECTATION SHOULD BE. >> I COULD SUGGEST SUGGESTLE
SOMETHING. >> WHICH WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE NORMAL WIDTH OF A
SIDEWALK IS. AND I THINK THAT'S A FAIR AND REASONABLE EXPECTATION.
>> ALDERMAN MAR IF I COULD SUGGEST LANGUAGE FOR YOU. LOOKING AT POINT NUMBER FOUR.
>> YES. >> AFTER THE WORD RESPONSIBILI RESPONSIBILITY, IF YOU INSERTED
THE WORDS: "INCLUDING THE WIDTH TO BE CLEARED" THAT WOULD ALLO ALLOW -- OR TO A WIDTH OF ONE
METRE YOU COULD -- >> RIGHT. SO TYPICAL SIDEWALK IS ONE
METRE. >> YEAH, I WOULD SAY THE WIDTH TO BE CONSISTENT WITH CITY
STANDARD CITY SIDEWALK. AND I THINK THAT'S REASONABLE. >> YEP THEN THAT CLEARS IT UP.
>> I BELIEVE THAT WAS -- THAT'S THE AMENDMENT. AND I THINK THAT'S VERY CLEAR
EXPUNSABLE. THANK YOU. I'LL TAKE MY SEAT.
>> DO I HAVE A SECONDER FOR THAT AMENDMENT? ALDERMAN FARRELL THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. ON THE AMOUNTMENT. JUST GO THROUGH THE LIGHTS.
ALDERMAN MacLEOD. ALDERMAN HODGES. ALDERMAN KEATING.
ON THE AMENDMENT ARE WE AGREED? INSERT THE WORDS IN POINT NUMBER FOUR --
IT'S GONE. DID YOU HEAR THAT COUNCIL? DID NOT PROVIDE AN ELECTRONIC
COPY OF THIS. IT WOULD TAKE US A LONG TIME TO TYPE IT ALL UP.
WHAT WE'RE INSERTING -- POINT NUMBER FOUR, THAT THE BYLAW AMENDMENT DEFINITIONS
RESPONSIBILITY INCLUDES THE WIDTH TO BE CLEARED TO BE THE REPRESENTATIVE EQUIVALENT OF A
CITY SIDEWALK. STANDARD CITY SIDEWALK. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY
DESCRIPTORS WE NEED IN HERE. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE AMENDMENT ARE WE AGREED?
ARE THERE ANY OPPOSED? SEE NONE THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ON THE MAIN MOTION, ALDERMAN
MacLEOD. >> THANK YOU. I THINK MY FIRST QUESTION WAS
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PATHWAYS AND SIDEWALKS. AND I THINK I'VE GOT THE ANSWER
TO THAT NOW. BUT THE OTHER PIECE I HAD, QUESTION I HAD WAS ABOUT IN SOME
OF MY COMMUNITIES THERE IS CUT-THROUGH PATHWAYS THAT GO BETWEEN THE STREET AND GREEN
SPACES THAT ARE ADJACENT TO HOMES. IS THAT THE KIND OF THING WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT AS WELL? OR THAT'S NOT REQUIRED TO BE SHOVELED AT ALL.
>> Dr. HARGESHEIMER? >> I BELIEVE ALDERMAN HODGES MIGHT BE ABLE TO ANSWER THIS IN
HIS CLOSE BUT I BELIEVE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS EXPHIEWTER PATHWAYS THAT --
COMMUTER PATHWAYS THAT GO RIGHT IN FRONT OF SOMEBODY'S HOUSE INSTEAD OF A SIDEWALK.
SO EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE LITTLE PATHWAYS THAT CONNECTS THE STREET TO A GREEN SPACE IS
NOT GOING TO BE SHOVELED BECAUSE WE DON'T SHOVEL ALL OF THE PATHWAYS.
WE ONLY SHOVEL HIGH PRIORITY PATHWAYS JUST AS Mr. LOGAN ONLY DOES THE SIDEWALKS -- OR
THE ROADS. SO, NO THIS ISN'T THE SAME THING.
>> I GUESS MY QUESTION IS MORE ABOUT RESIDENT RESPONSIBILITY. BECAUSE IT'S LIKE GOING AROUND A
CORNER, IF YOU LIVE ON A CORNER LOT, YOU SHOVEL YOUR WALK ALL THE WAY AROUND THE CORNER.
IF IT'S -- IT'S LIKE A WALKWAY BETWEEN TWO HOMES, BUT I DON'T THINK -- IN FACT I KNOW MOST OF
THE RESIDENTS DON'T SHOVEL THAT. I WOULD ASSUME THAT'S NOT REQUIRED THEN.
>> AS ALDERMAN SHABBOT POINTED OUT THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE EDUCATION PROGRAM.
>> OUT OF INTEREST, ARE THEY? >> ALDERMAN -- Dr. HARGESHEIMER GO AHEAD.
>> SO THE PATHWAYS SHOVELING BUDGET IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SHOVEL ALL OF THOSE STRETCHES
BETWEEN A ROADWAY AND A GREEN SPACE. >> YOUR WORSHIP I CAN ADDRESS
THIS IN MY CLOSE. >> ALDERMAN HODGES TO CLOSE. >> YOUR WORSHIP, THE PUBLIC
ACCESS EASEMENTS AS THEY'RE CALLED BETWEEN PROPERTIES GENERALLY THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF A
PROPERTY ENCOMPASSES HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF THOSE IN THE CITY.
IN FACT PROBABLY THOUSANDS. THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE. THESE ARE COMMUTER ASHPHALT
PATHWAYS LEADING FROM THE SAY NORTHWEST, NORTHEAST, THE NORTH, DOWN TO THE RIVER VALLEY TO THE
MAIN PATHWAY SYSTEM DOWNTOWN. THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT. IT'S NOT ABOUT THOSE, AS I SAY,
HUBS OF PUBLIC ACCESS EASE -- HUNDREDS OF PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS THAT LINK STREET TO
STREET. BY THE WAY DISWROWS ADD TO THAT, ALDERMAN MacLEOD WHENEVER
THIS COMES BACK TO COMMITTEE, SOME PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS HAVE IMPROVEMENTS.
THEY HAVE ASHPHALT PATH. OTHER PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS ARE JUST DIRT AND GRAVEL
PATHWAYS THEY'RE NOT IMPROVED. SO I DON'T KNOW HOW WE WOULD REASONABLY EXPECT PEOPLE TO
SHOVEL DIRT -- THE SNOW OFF THE DIRT PATHWAYS. UNIMPROVED PATHWAYS.
SO COUNCIL WOULD I APPRECIATE IF WOULD YOU APPROVE THIS AND WE CAN SORT THIS COUNT AT
COMMITTEE. FULLY SORT IT OUT IN THE FALL. THANK YOU.
>> ON THE MOTION ARE WE AGREED? ARE THERE ANY OPPOSED? I SEE NONE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
OOPS. ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART. OKAY, THANK YOU.
COUNCIL THAT TAKES US TO C-2011-7. THE NEXT MATTER.
>> Mr. CHAIR, I'M -- >> SECOND. >> I'M THINKING THAT I WOULD
LIKE THIS MEETING TO BE DONE. I'M NOT SURE IF ANYONE ELSE AGREES WITH ME.
BUT I AM WONDERING -- >> IF WE MOVE IT ON I WILL HAVE US OUT OF HERE BEFORE SIX.
>> WELL, NO. UM, I THINK WHEN WE GET TIRED WE END UP SPEAKING LONGER.
AND WE DON'T WANT TO SHORT SHRIFT ANY ITEMS. I'M WONDERING, Mr. TTON EARTH,
IF OF ANY THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE ANY URGENCY OR IF THEY CAN WAIT A WEEK?
>> YOUR WORSHIP THERE'S NOTHING THAT CAN'T WAIT A WEEK. >> THERE ACTUALLY IS ONE THAT
CANNOT WAIT A WEEK. PERSONNEL ITEM. >> ALL RIGHT.
OH. SO, TAKES US TO THE BLUE SHEET ITEM.
>> YOUR WORSHIP, IF I MAY. BASED ON YOUR PREVIOUS COMMENTS, IF I COULD I'D LIKE TO MOVE TO
TABLE THE ENTIRE AGENDA, EXCEPT FOR THAT ONE ITEM. >> SECOND.
>> TO MONDAY. THE NEXT MEETING OF COUNCIL. >> ON THE TABLING MOTION, WHICH
IS NOT DEBATABLE, AND COUNCIL WE CAN FINISH THIS AGENDA WITHIN THE NEXT LITTLE WHILE.
ARE WE AGREED? >> AGREED. >> ARE THERE ANY OPPOSED?
>> NO. >> IF THAT WOULD -- CALL THE ROLE PLEASE MADAM CLERK.
>> ALDERMAN JONES. ALDERMAN KEATING. >> NO.
>> ALDERMAN MacLEOD. >> NO. >> ALDERMAN MAR.
>> NO. >> ALDERMAN POOTMANS. >> NO.
>> ALDERMAN STEVENSON. >> NO. >> ALDERMAN CARRA.
>> PLEASE. >> ALDERMAN CHABOT. >> YES.
>> ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART. >> YES. >> ALDERMAN DEMONG.
>> NO. >> ALDERMAN FARRELL. >> YES.
>> ALDERMAN HODGES. >> DEPUTY MAYOR LOWE. >> NO.
>> LOST. >> TAKES TO US C-2011-07. ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART I'LL
ACCEPT AS YOU THE MOVER OF THIS. IF I HAVE A SECONDER. ALDERMAN JONES.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. IF YOU'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE IT.
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. THIS REPORT ATTACHMENT IS HERE FOR APPROVAL.
IN IS THE SAME INFORMATION PROVIDED TO COUNCIL MEMBERS ON JANUARY 26 PRIOR TO THE WORKSHOP
AND THERE WASN'T THE OPPORTUNITY TO ACTUALLY HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE IT SO IT'S BROUGHT BACK
TODAY AS AGREED. AND IF I COULD JUST SAY THE PROGRAM IS WELL UNDERWAY.
THERE IS A FULL LAUNCH STARTING FEBRUARY 11th. SO THIS FRIDAY, INCLUDING MEDIA
BRIEFING MATERIALS FOR COUNCIL, EVERYTHING. SO WE'RE -- THIS IS ROLLING
QUITE QUICKLY. >> THANK YOU. >> ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS,
ALDERMAN HODGES. >> NO. >> ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS,
ALDERMAN POOTMANS. COULD WE TURN ON YOUR LIGHT, PLEASE.
>> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. ON THIS FRIDAY IS IT SOMETHING COUNCIL IS EXPECTED TO ATTEND AS
WELL? I'M TRYING TO CHECK MY CALENDAR SO SEE IF WE'VE BEEN INVITED.
>> YOUR WORSHIP IT'S MORE IN THE TERMS OF THE LAUNCH OF THE WEBSITE THERE WILL BE
INFORMATION PROVIDED TO ALL MEMBERS OF COUNCIL THAT KIND OF THING.
>> SO THE ANSWER IS NO? ANSWER IS NO, THANK YOU. >> ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF
C-2011-07 ARE WE AGREED? >> AGREED. >> ANY OPPOSED?
OKAY. OPPOSED BY? >> Mr. CHABOT.
>> ALDERMAN CHABOT. TAKE -- GOING CAMERA.
ALDERMAN HODGES SECOND BID ALDERMAN JONES ARE WE AGREED? >> AGREED.
>> WE JUST DO IT BEHIND? >> OKAY. >> THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.
WOULD I MOVE THAT COUNCIL RISE AND REPORT. COMMITTEE RISE AND REPORT.
>> THANK YOU. AND -- >> IT'S COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE,
ACTUALLY. >> ALDERMAN STEVENSON. OH, I'M SORRY.
ARE WE AGREED? >> AGREED. ALDERMAN STEVENSON.
>> THANK YOU. WITH REGARD TO THE SOUTHLAND LEISURE CENTRE ARENAS, THAT
COUNCIL APPROVE AN APPROPRIATION INCREASE TO RECREATION CAPITAL PROGRAM 507 FOR THE SOUTHLAND
LEISURE CENTRE ARENA PADS REPLACEMENT PROJECT TO BE FUNDED BY THE LIFE CYCLE MAINTENANCE
AND UPGRADE RESERVE AS INDICATED IN THE BUSINESS PLAN BUDGET IMPLICATIONS.
AND NUMBER TWO: DIRECT THAT THIS REPORT, EXCEPT FOR THE ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATIONS,
REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL UNDER SECTION F 41 A AND 241 G AND 25-1 C.
TWO OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT UNTIL THE REQUEST
FOR PROPOSAL PROCESS IS CONCLUDED. >> SECOND BID ALDERMAN MAR.
ARE WE AGREED? ARE THERE ANY OPPOSED. I SEE NONE.
ALDERMAN FARRELL. >> THANK YOU. N-20-10-25 PUBLIC ACCOUNT
LIBRARY BOARD ACCOUNTS TABLE REPORT N-2010-25 TO THE APRIL REGULAR MEETING OF COUNCIL AND
THAT THE REPORT RESUME -- I'M SORRY. REPORT RESUMES AND DISCUSSION
REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL UNDER SECTION 17-1 AND 19 OF FOIP. >> SECONDED BY ALDERMAN
MacLEOD ARE WE AGREED? OBJECTIONS I SEE NONE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ALDERMAN HODGES. >> NO PERSONNEL ITEMS TO REPORT. >> NO PERSONNEL ITEMS TO REPORT.
THANK YOU. NO, NO, I THOUGHT WE HAD ONE MORE. YEAH, OKAY.
ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART. >> THANK YOU YOUR WORSHIP. ON BEHALF OF MAYOR NENSHI AND
MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, Mr. TOBERT, WE HAVE ALL CONDUCTED OUR CORPORATE PERFORMANCE
SCORES. AND I'M PLEASED TO BRING FORWARD THESE RECOMMENDATIONS ON BEHALF
OF COUNCIL. THAT WE ADOPT MAYOR NENSHI'S RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE CITY
MANAGER'S PERFORMANCE REVIEW OF 2010 ON YOUR VARIABLE PAY AWARD EQUIVALENT TO 7.8% OR
$24.570..02. JUST KIDDING. S OF Mr. TOBERT'S BASE SALARY.
AND THIS OF COURSE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THERE'S NO BASE SALARY INCREASE AS THERE HAS BEEN IN
PREVIOUS YEARS. AND FOR THIS YEAR OF 2011. AND WE REQUESTED THE MAYOR MEET
WITH Mr. TOBERT REGARDING HIS 2010 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW IN ACCORDINGANCE WITH THE MGA
SECTION 205.1. AND FURTHER THRAWFLTS THE PERFORMANCE REVIEW AND REPORT
REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL UNDER SECTION 17.4-G OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF
PRIVACY ACT. MADAM CLERK WE'VE ALL FURNISHED BACK IN OUR SCORES.
WITH THAT IF THERE'S A SECONDER I WOULD ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT. >> SECONDED BY ALDERMAN FARRELL
ON. THAT THE DISCUSSION, I SEE NONE. ARE WE AGREED?
ANY OPPOSED. I SEE NONE. ALDERMAN HODGES.
>> READING OF INQUIRIES DEFENDING YOUR WORSHIP. >> COULD I BRING FORWARD THE
PERSONNEL MATTER, MY OTHER ONE? >> I'M SORRY ALDERMAN COLLEY-URQUHART.
>> OKAY, AND THIS IS ON THE PERSONNEL BRIEFING. AND THE DECISION OF COUNCIL IN
RELATION TO LABOUR BARGAINING THAT COUNCIL RECEIVE A VERBAL REPORT ON PERSONNEL BRIEFING AND
THE DECISION OF COUNCIL, THE LABOUR BARGAINING FOR INFORMATION.
AND THAT THE DISCUSSION WITH RESPECT TO THE VERBAL REPORT REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL UNDER
SECTIONS 21-1-A, 24-1-B, 21-C AND 21-G OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF
PRIVACY ACT. THIS MATTER WILL BE DEALT WITH ON MONDAY WHEN WE HAVE OUR FULL
COUNCIL. THANK YOU. DO I HAVE A SECONDER?
THANK YOU ALDERMAN CHABOT. >> THANK YOU. ARE WE AGREED?
OPPOSED? ARE WE SAFE -- ALDERMAN CHABOT IS OPPOSED.
NOW I THINK ALDERMAN HODGES WE ARE GOOD TO GO. >> OKAY.
JUST SIMPLY MOVE ADJOURNMENT, YOUR WORSHIP. >> ON ADJOURNMENT ARE WE AGREED?
ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DINNER I DO NOT BELIEVE HAS BEEN
ORDERED.
OH, DINNER HAS BEEN ORDERED?