Item - 2020.MM27.15
Tracking Status
- This item was considered by City Council on December 16, 2020 and was not adopted.
MM27.15 - Don’t Leave Scarborough Residents on the Bus: It’s Finally Time to Move Forward with the Light Rapid Transit Plan That Will Provide More Service, for Fewer Dollars, and Can Be Up and Running Sooner - by Councillor Josh Matlow, seconded by Councillor Paul Ainslie
- Decision Type:
- ACTION
- Status:
- Not Adopted
- Wards:
- All
City Council Decision
City Council on December 16, 17 and 18, 2020, did not adopt Motion MM27.15.
Background Information (City Council)
Communications (City Council)
(December 15, 2020) E-mail from
Hamish Wilson (MM.Supp.MM27.15.1)
(December 16, 2020) E-mail from Sharon Yetman (MM.New.MM27.15.2)
(December 16, 2020) E-mail from Sharon Yetman (MM.New.MM27.15.2)
Motions (City Council)
Motion
to Waive Referral
(Carried)
Speaker Nunziata advised Council that the provisions of Chapter 27, Council Procedures, require that Motion MM27.15 be referred to the Executive Committee. A two-thirds vote of the Council Members present is required to waive referral.
Vote (Waive Referral) Dec-17-2020 2:26 PM
| Result: Carried | Two-Thirds Required - MM27.15 - Waive referral |
|---|---|
| Total members that voted Yes: 24 | Members that voted Yes are Paul Ainslie, Ana Bailão, Brad Bradford, Shelley Carroll, Mike Colle, Gary Crawford, Joe Cressy, John Filion, Paula Fletcher, Mark Grimes, Stephen Holyday, Cynthia Lai, Mike Layton, Josh Matlow, Jennifer McKelvie, Denzil Minnan-Wong, Frances Nunziata (Chair), James Pasternak, Gord Perks, Anthony Perruzza, Jaye Robinson, Michael Thompson, John Tory, Kristyn Wong-Tam |
| Total members that voted No: 1 | Members that voted No are Michael Ford |
| Total members that were Absent: 0 | Members that were absent are |
Motion
to Adopt Item
(Lost)
Vote (Adopt Item) Dec-18-2020 9:45 AM
| Result: Lost | Majority Required - MM27.15 - Adopt the Item |
|---|---|
| Total members that voted Yes: 8 | Members that voted Yes are Paul Ainslie, Shelley Carroll, Joe Cressy, John Filion, Paula Fletcher, Mike Layton, Josh Matlow, Gord Perks |
| Total members that voted No: 15 | Members that voted No are Ana Bailão, Brad Bradford, Mike Colle, Gary Crawford, Michael Ford, Mark Grimes, Stephen Holyday, Cynthia Lai, Jennifer McKelvie, Denzil Minnan-Wong, Frances Nunziata (Chair), James Pasternak, Jaye Robinson, Michael Thompson, John Tory |
| Total members that were Absent: 2 | Members that were absent are Anthony Perruzza, Kristyn Wong-Tam |
Point of Order
by
Councillor James Pasternak
Councillor Pasternak, on a Point of Order, asked the Speaker to rule on whether Motion MM27.15 was in order.
Ruling by Speaker Frances Nunziata
Speaker Nunziata accepted the Point of Order and advised Members that she would review the matter and then provide her ruling.
Point of Order
by
Councillor James Pasternak
Councillor Pasternak, on a Point of Order, stated that he had previously asked the Speaker to rule on whether Motion MM27.15 is in order.
Ruling by Speaker Frances Nunziata
Speaker Nunziata accepted the Point of Order and made the following ruling:Members, earlier in the meeting I was asked to review Members' Motion 27.15 regarding the Scarborough subway extension.
The motion proposes that Council request the Province to change its plans for the project.
This motion is in order.
I considered whether the motion should at least be subject to a vote to reopen a previous matter, which is required by the Council Procedures if a member is asking the Chamber to consider the same set of facts within 12 months of a previous decision.
However, Council has not considered the same question in the last 12 months. Furthermore, the Members cite the news about the closure of the Scarborough RT before the opening of a new subway line as the reasons for their motion, and this likely constitutes new information in any event.
A vote to reopen is not required.
Some have suggested that the motion should be ruled out of order because Council has already decided the matter once and for all.
Parliamentary principles preserve the rights of an assembly to change its mind.
This is confirmed by Robert's Rules of Order which is our Parliamentary authority under our Council Procedures.
It says a motion to rescind or amend something previously adopted is in order.
To rule otherwise would invalidate many past decisions in this chamber, including perhaps even some on this agenda. It would also set a precedent that would tie the hands of this Council in future by preventing cancellation or amendment of prior decisions.
For these reasons, I am ruling that the motion is in order.