Item - 2018.MM44.128

That Mayor John Tory be permitted to add to the agenda of today's meeting an urgent Motion without Notice concerning: 

Urgent Consideration of the Provincial Government's Plan to Reduce the Size of City Council

Reason for Urgency:

This Motion is urgent as City Council must consider a response to the Provincial announcement as soon as possible.

That:

1. City Council request the Province of Ontario to conduct a binding referendum on the number and boundaries of wards before proceeding with the proposed legislation.

2. If the Province does not conduct the referendum, City Council urge the Province to amend the Municipal Elections Act or regulations thereunder to permit the City to put a question on the ballot in 2018 on the proposed reduction in the number of wards and Members of Council.

Part 2 of motion 1a by Mayor Tory was amended by motion 5 by Councillor Doucette.

That:

City Council exempt the City Clerk from any established City policies and procedures or any part of an established City policy or procedure related to procurement, human resources, budget and information technology that the City Clerk believes is necessary or desirable in order to conduct the Toronto election.

That City Council convey its opposition to the Provincial government's intention to introduce legislation to reduce the size of City Council to 25 Councillors and a Mayor.

That City Council direct the City Solicitor to undertake legal action against the proposed legislation to reduce the size of City Council to 25 Councillors and a Mayor.

That Councillor Cressy be permitted to withdraw his motion 2b.

That:

In the event Nomination Day is changed, City Council amend the Constituency Services and Office Budget Policy to add the following:

Notwithstanding section 5.1.1 of the Use of City Resources during an Election Period Policy, City Council shift the cut-off date for Councillor communications from August 1, 2018 to August 31, 2018 or one week prior to Nomination Day whichever is later due to the change in date of nomination day.

That City Council direct the City Solicitor to consider the validity and constitutionality of any provincial legislation, including its potential violation of the rights of the citizens of Toronto to fair and effective representation and to report back to City Council at a special meeting to be called by the Mayor before Labour Day with options for City Council's consideration.

Amended by motion 8 by Councillor Shan.

That City Council amend Part 2 of motion 1a by the Mayor so that it now reads as follows:

2. If the Province does not conduct the referendum, City Council urge the Province to amend the Municipal Elections Act or regulations thereunder to permit the City to put a question on the ballot in 2018 on the proposed reduction in the number of wards and Members of Council before the Province proceeds with the proposed legislation.

That City Council request the City Clerk to maintain the current standards of accessibility to polling stations, advanced polling days, communications materials that meet our accessibility and language policies, and other electoral practices that fall within the jurisdiction of the City.

That City Council express its support to the Province to cut City Council to 25 Councillors and a Mayor.

That City Council amend motion 4 by Councillor Fletcher so that it now reads as follows:

That City Council direct request the City Solicitor to consider the validity and constitutionality of any provincial legislation, including its potential violation of the rights of the citizens of Toronto to fair and effective representation, the practicality of conducting the election, the Clerk's capacity to implement the changes, and any errors or flaws in the legislation and to report back to City Council at a special meeting to be called by the Mayor before Labour Day held on Monday, August 20, 2018 with options for City Council's consideration.

That City Council amend motion 7 by Councillor Holyday so that it now reads as follows:

That City Council express its support to the Province to cut City Council to 25 Councillors and a Mayor and in the future to continue to mirror the number of Federal and Provincial ridings in Toronto.

That City Council request that if the Province of Ontario cuts the number of City of Toronto Councillors to match the number of Federal/Provincial ridings, that the same principle be extended to all municipalities across the Province.

That Councillor Colle be permitted to withdraw his motion 10.

That City Council amend motion 4 by Councillor Fletcher so that it now reads as follows:

That City Council direct the City Solicitor to consider the validity and constitutionality of any provincial legislation, including its potential violation of the rights of the citizens of Toronto to fair and effective representation, as well as a review of the constitutional process required, and the impacts of, the City of Toronto seceding from the Province of Ontario and to report back to City Council at a special meeting to be called by the Mayor before Labour Day with options for City Council's consideration.

That City Council amend motion 7 by Councillor Holyday so that it now reads as follows:

That City Council express its support to the Province to cut City Council to 25 Councillors and a Mayor, subject to the Province conducting a binding referendum.

That in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 27, Council Procedures, City Council reconsider the vote on item as amended.

Councillor Perks, rising on a Point of Order stated that he wished to place a motion to amend the Order Paper to consider the Mayor's urgent Member Motion first, as the nomination deadline for the municipal election closes at 2 p.m. on July 27, 2018.

Councillor Holyday, rising on a Point of Order stated that it would be out of order to amend the Order Paper, as Council had already adopted the Order Paper.

Councillor Fletcher, rising on a Point of Order, stated that she wished to understand whether Councillor Perks' motion was to consider Motion MM44.128 as the first Item of business on July 27, 2018.

Councillor Holyday rising on a Point of Order, stated that he wished to understand whether Councillor Perks' motion to amend the Order Paper is out of order as the July 27, 2018 Order Paper was adopted.

Councillor Shiner, rising on a Point of Order stated that he wished to understand why Council was voting to consider Motion MM44.128 first, when Members did not yet have a copy of it.

Councillor Robinson, rising on a Point of Order, stated that she wished to understand why Council was considering re-ordering agenda to consider the Motion that was just introduced, as the Speaker had advised her that Council would continue with the agenda that was started on Day 1 of Council.

Councillor Robinson, rising on a Point of Order, stated that there were time-sensitive development Items remaining on the agenda, and she wished to know whether Council might run out of time to complete the agenda on Friday, July 27, 2018, as Council must recess before sundown.

Councillor Holyday, rising on a Point of Order stated that he wished to know whether he could amend Councillor Perks' motion to amend the Order Paper.

Councillor Shiner, rising on a Point of Order stated that he wished to understand why Councillor Perks could speak on his motion to amend the Order Paper to consider Motion MM44.128 first for a second time.

Councillor Wong-Tam, rising on a Point of Order, stated that she wished to know whether Members could question Mayor Tory while he is asking questions of staff.

Councillor Di Ciano, rising on a Point of Privilege, stated that as a Canadian, he has the fundamental right to appeal any decision made by any government and that Councillor Perks should not subvert that right.

Deputy Mayor Minnan-Wong, rising on a Point of Order, stated that he wished to propose that Council limit speakers and questions of the mover to 3 minutes per Member.

Councillor Di Ciano, rising on a Point of Order stated that he wished to understand why Council was considering a motion to extend the meeting through the dinner recess, as he was previously informed that the meeting must recess to give City Clerk's Office staff a break.

Councillor Perks, rising on a Point of Order, stated that he wished to understand whether Council would reconvene on Monday, July 30 if consideration of the item did not finish on Friday, July 27.

Councillor Perks, rising on a Point of Order, stated that he wished the Deputy City Clerk to clarify that Council cannot waive the rule to finish before 7:30 p.m. on Friday because of sundown.

Councillor Shiner, rising on a Point of Order, stated that he wished to understand whether a motion to continue past 7:30 p.m. would require a two-thirds vote to pass.

Councillor Mammoliti, rising on a Point of Privilege stated that Councillor Layton should withdraw his remark, as he had impugned Members' motives.

Councillor Layton stated that he would not withdraw his remark as Members had admitted they knew about the proposed legislation.

Mayor Tory, rising on a Point of Privilege stated that he was honest about the information he had about the proposed legislation, and Councillor Layton should be ashamed of himself for calling his integrity into question.

Councillor Fletcher, rising on a Point of Privilege, stated that she was offended by remarks by some Members that the Council meeting had 'dragged out' over 6 days, as Council had recessed a number of times out of respect and to permit Members to attend events related to the tragedy on Danforth Avenue the previous week.

Councillor Davis, rising on a Point of Privilege, stated that Councillor Holyday should withdraw his remarks about other Members, as he is disparaging Councillors who were elected by the residents of their Wards to represent them at Council.

Councillor Holyday, rising on a Point of Privilege stated that his job as a Member is to cast votes on every issue.

Councillor Fletcher, rising on a Point of Order, stated that the Speaker should be neutral and Speaker Nunziata was at a press conference supporting the Province's legislation to reduce the size of Council, and while any Member has the right to do that, the Speaker must represent all Members of the Chamber and to deal with all questions on the item in a neutral way.

Councillor Fletcher, rising on a Point of Order, stated that the Speaker's role is to be neutral and to recognize that Members of Council have diverse opinions.

Councillor Fletcher, rising on a Point of Order, stated that her remarks were directed at the overarching role of the Speaker to preside over the Chamber in a neutral manner.

Councillor Ford, rising on a Point of Order, stated that if Councillor Fletcher has a concern with the Speaker's neutrality, she should give a specific example of the Speaker not being neutral.

Councillor Campbell, rising on a Point of Order, stated that he wished the Speaker to put an end to questions about Councillor Holyday's rationale for moving his motion 7, as opposed to questions of clarification about the content of his motion 7.

Councillor Mammoliti, rising on a Point of Privilege, stated that he gets cut-off for not asking Members questions of clarification about their motions, while Councillor Mihevc is being allowed to continue with his questions, and that he wished the Speaker to be fair to all Members.

Councillor Fletcher, rising on a Point of Privilege, stated that she wished to correct Councillor Palacio's comment about the size of the municipal government in the City of Los Angeles, which has 15 Councillors in a metro organization, and 96 Councillors representing Neighbourhood Councils.

Councillor Holyday, rising on a Point of Privilege, stated that Councillor McMahon should withdraw her remark that Etobicoke is "sleepy".

Councillor Di Ciano, rising on a Point of Privilege, stated that he also wished for Councillor McMahon to withdraw her remark about Etobicoke being "sleepy", as Etobicoke Lakeshore is the largest constituency in Canada, with large amounts of development, investment and industrial activity.

Councillor Perks, rising on a Point of Order stated that Councillor Di Ciano's proposed amendment to Councillor Fletcher's motion 4 should be ruled out of order, as it is a distinct proposition and not actually an amendment.