COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG Wednesday, December 13, 2017

The Council met at 9:41 a.m.

The Clerk advised the Speaker that a quorum was present.

The Speaker called the meeting to order.

The opening prayer was read by Councillor Schreyer.

ROLL CALL

Clerk: Madam Speaker Councillor Sharma, His Worship Mayor Bowman, Councillors Allard, Browaty, Dobson, Eadie, Gerbasi, Gillingham, Gilroy, Lukes, Mayes, Morantz, Orlikow, Pagtakhan, Schreyer and Wyatt.

INTRODUCTION AND WELCOME OF GUESTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

Madam Speaker: I would like to now recognize our pages for today's meeting, please welcome Avery Groeneveld who resides in the South Winnipeg-St. Norbert Ward and she attends Fort Richmond Collegiate. Also with us is Max Thompson, who attends St. Boniface Diocesan High School and resides in the St. Boniface Ward. Thank you both for joining us and for serving Council today. Mr. Mayor, you now have the floor for morning announcements.

Mayor Bowman: Thank you, Madam Speaker and good morning to everyone that’s joined us here in person in the gallery, all those that are watching via Livestream, welcome to our pages. My wife was a…is a graduate, a very proud graduate of F.R.C. and so welcome to you both. And I do have just a few very short remarks to make this morning. I had the recent pleasure of having my first formal meeting with the new Grand Chief of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, Mr. Arlen Dumas, welcomed him here to this floor for a tour and I’m wearing the A.M.C. pin today in respect of all our members of our First Nations and our Indigenous community here in Winnipeg and across Manitoba. I want to thank him very much for the ongoing dialogue and collaboration. A.M.C. has been…has been a strong partner in our journey to reconciliation, is a proud signatory to the Indigenous Accord and I want to acknowledge and thank him and other leaders in our community that have joined the Indigenous Accord. As well as all of my Council colleagues who were there for a very historic day back in June. This last month has been very busy for us. I know many of us have spent a lot of time in this chamber. I know a number of guests in the gallery have been here numerous times as well and I’m sure everyone here today has lots on their plate both here at City Hall as well as preparing for the holiday season. And I want to thank all of my colleagues for all of the extra time they've invested over the last few weeks as we consider the 2018 Preliminary Budget. It seems like only yesterday we were in this chamber debating the budget. As all of us know, this time that we spend here working on behalf of our citizens does come at the expense of time with family and friends and I just wanted to acknowledge the significant time commitment that all of us continue to make on behalf of Winnipeggers that we so proudly serve. And I want to wish all councillors all the very best over the holiday season. I hope everyone is able to enjoy a safe and enjoyable holiday period. I want to wish everybody a Merry Christmas, a Happy Hanukkah, Kwanzaa and overall just an enjoyable holiday season with your family, your friends and your loved ones. As well as I want to extend a holiday greeting to all of our valued City of Winnipeg staff and Winnipeggers across our city. Just a reminder, of course, to please be responsible during the holiday period when I know many are enjoying or celebrating with drinks, so just remind everybody to please plan ahead and drive safely. Finally, I’d like to recognize the hard work and the dedication of our emergency workers and responders and to thank them for helping to keep us all safe, keep our loved ones safe and our neighbours and our friends and family over this holiday period. We're very grateful you're there for us over the holiday season and throughout the year and with that, I just wish you Madam Speaker and my Council colleagues, all the very best of the holiday season. Thank you, merci and megwich.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Councillor Mayes for your morning announcements.

Councillor Mayes: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Firstly, just to clear the record, I’ve never done the singing thing that Councillor Schreyer is giving, but I have quoted many a song lyric here so my thanks to Councillor Schreyer for that recognition. Two things briefly, Madam Speaker, because it's a communications item, we won't technically be debating the Ward Boundaries Commission Fund Report, but I just wanted to commend Clerk Lemoine and the two other commissioners who I think did a very good job, others may have different views, but this was something that Councillor Lukes and I both pushed for the discrepancies and sizes of wards had frankly have become untenable or unworkable and so I’m very pleased we went for it. We took the latest data that was available, did a very fair job I think of realigning boundaries in terms of making the size of the different wards much more equitable. I might have drawn different lines 2 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG December 13, 2017

somewhere, others might have drawn different lines somewhere, but by and large the total size of each ward now is much more similar and there's…there's accounting for growth in there as well so my thanks to Mr. Lemoine and the others for undertaking what we only do about once every 10 years around here, so we probably won't have the chance to talk about this again, but certainly it’s in my view even-handed and non-partisan job that was done. The last item that I did want to rise…did want to rise to say a few words about Al Shane, who’s our head of Golf Services who’s going to be retiring at the end of this year and I think Councillor Gilroy was going to do the same, but he's been a happy warrior in the sometimes less than happy Canoe Club public consultation that we're having which has been the democracy in action. We have a lot of people with a lot of different views, but Al has been unfailingly attentive, good-natured and he's a believer in our product, a product of public golf. He's been a champion for that. I think he's done a very good job. I think we're going in the right direction. So I just want to make a personal note of thanks to Mr. Shane who…who’s been frankly a lot of fun to work with and I wish him well in retirement.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Councillor Mayes for that.

MINUTES

Councillor Pagtakhan moves that the Minutes of the meeting held on November 15, 2017 be taken as read and confirmed.

Madam Speaker: All in favour? Contrary? Carried. Councillor Lukes.

DELEGATIONS

Councillor Lukes: Madam Speaker, I would like to suspend the rules so that we could hear delegations from Jason Carter, bike to Winnipeg…Bike Winnipeg.

Madam Speaker: Okay, all in favour of the suspension? Contrary? Carried. He's added to the list. Thank you very much. I have been informed that Mr. Sel Burrows has an urgent family medical issue to deal with. He’s on the delegation list, but with your concurrence, I’d like to move him to the front of the list. Thank you. Mr. Sel Burrows, if I could please call you up at this time along with Annette Champion Taylor. They're here in…to speak to the notice of motion moved by Councillor Eadie and seconded by Councillor Browaty, regarding the North District Police Station. You have 10 minutes, sir, and welcome.

Sel Burrows: Thank you. Is…I have a copy of my motion. I think there's enough copies there. First of all, I’d like to say thanks to allowing me to speak first. Being old and being a caregiver, becoming a caregiver, makes it a little more difficult to be involved in civic issues and…but I think it's very important that the inner-city voice be heard. I’m here in support of Councillor Eadie’s motion regarding the placement of the North Winnipeg Police Station. I think everyone here is aware of the strong support from the community of North Point Douglas for our Winnipeg Police Service. Personally, I’ve had a fantastically warm working relationship going back with Chief Keith McCaskill who really encouraged us to become involved. Chief Clunis was another person who cared deeply about the inner-city and now I’m able to work very, very closely with Danny Smyth, he's come and sat in my living room and discussed issues. We don't always agree, but I certainly have a huge amount of respect for him, particularly in the difficult issues he's dealing with at the moment. I’m speaking to this in terms of having some expertise. I had the honour of serving on the Police Advisory Committee, the predecessor of the Police Board, appointed by Sam Katz who knew l would never vote for him, but he still appointed me to that, which was kind of interesting. We definitely need a new police station in the North End. The Hartford station is outmoded and in the wrong place as well. But it's sad that we're…that I have to be here that we're talking about the major place that is being considered for the police station. We're looking at a 50 year investment, 50 years, the new police station’s going to be in the spot that you guys decide where it’s going to be. It's a time for a need for some vision. It may seem like a simple decision, but the impact on the inner-city is going to be quite, quite large. And there…there's really a need to think…and for those of us in the inner-city, I want to say to the politicians here, we depend on politicians, City councillors, from other areas of the city to care about us. We have the majority of the issues that hurt people the most, hurt the reputation of our city the most, whether we talk about our being the violent crime capital or one of the cities with the most racism. Most of those issues come out of the inner-city and in Point Douglas, we’ve shown by involving the community that many of those things are far from perfect can be overcome. But we depend on City councillors from outside of the inner-city to support and care about those who have less, who are less powerful. There are three major reasons against the proposed site for the…of the old Ex grounds. First of all, and it's interesting because OurWinnipeg is having hearings about the need for more green space, this is one of the very few COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG 3 December 13, 2017

large green spaces in the inner-city and the North End. Really, there…if you want to look at…there really is very little. I grew up in the south end and I was used to having parks everywhere. We don't have green space everywhere and it’s…we should be thinking about more green space, not less. Even more important is the lack of recreation fields. It may seem like a big space, but it's, again, one of the very few recreation spaces and, again, I have some expertise. Many, many years ago, I was a City of Winnipeg recreation director in the area that’s now right over here, centennial. I was involved in helping get the Freight House Community Centre started and we used to have championship teams from the inner-city. Now, there are no teams or very few teams. If you want to have a safer, healthier city, we must have more recreation space for our young people. In my e-mail I sent out, it says, if there are no team jackets, they will wear gang colours and it's true. We have a massive problem of lack of recreation space. WASAC, the Winnipeg Aboriginal Sport Achievement Centre, that Councillor Gilroy knows very well and others you are aware, is one of the greatest assets we have in the inner-city and it uses that space. In the summer, there are 200 kids out on that sports grounds every day. That's one of the few grass fields where kids can play soccer in the inner-city. WASAC was consulted about this and in the report, it will say WASAC was consulted. I spoke to the executive director and I said…he says, yeah, we were consulted. What did you say? You said, we said that we have great concerns about the impact it will have on our ability to have recreation, but it's very difficult for an organization like WASAC, which is funded much by the City, proudly funded by the City, to comment on that. Finally, policing. The placement of the police station has a major impact on policing. One of the reasons we’ve been relatively successful in cutting back crime and calls for service to the police in north Point Douglas is we have been involving the poorer parts of our community, the people that are most likely to be victimized in crime in the crime process. Police officers come and sit in my kitchen regularly and we discuss things and they come out and they meet with people who normally would never be involved with the police. We have a positive relationship between the grassroots police officer and the grassroots people, but one of the most difficult things is getting people in the inner-city to report crimes. They're afraid of the system. There are certain crimes that you can only report if you physically go to the police station. Hartford has been a major problem for us because it's nowhere near a bus route. So people who don't have cars, which is 40% of the people in the inner-city North End, can't go and report crimes because there's no direct bus route. The site that you're talking about that is being considered has no direct bus route. Once again, we will be cutting off the poorer people who are most likely to be victims of crime to being able to report certain types of crime. I want to talk about another problem that's come up on this and this is the consultation. You’ve all heard of false news. Well, I’m sorry to inform you that the City of Winnipeg is involved in something called a false consultation. And at this point I want to say thank you, Mayor Bowman, for clarifying something that was not clear in the consultation that other sites are being considered. Many of us went to a consultation meeting to discuss the placement of the Winnipeg Police North End Police Station and we were shocked to discover that we were being consulted on where on the old Ex grounds the police station would be placed. Would it be on the Nomads Football Field? Would it be on the baseball diamond or would it be on the space that the kids play soccer on? That's what we were being consulted on. That is false consultation. The poor young guy who was presenting this, he was so embarrassed. He knew that what he was being forced to present was an official position of some level of City services that that's where they wanted the police station and they wanted to go through this false consultation process. I think that the 100% of the residents present at that hearing, that consultation said, no, we don't want it on any of those three options. We want you to think about an option where poorer people can get the bus to go to the police station. We want to have an option where it does not take up recreation and green space because we want more recreation and green space. Other councillors, they need it, but we have way less than most of the other areas. So I just want to end by saying thank you very much for taking the time to hear me and letting me go ahead. It is a little stressful at times. I really, really ask that you take Councillor Eadie's concerns seriously, think deeply about a 50-year decision and not plunk it on our green recreation space. Thank you very much.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Burrows. We will take questions…questions shortly. I just want to remind everyone in the gallery that there are no presentations permitted from the gallery at all, positive or negative. Thank you. Mr. Burrows, we'll hear from the next delegation and then call you back for questions. That would be Miss Annette Champion Taylor, if you could please come forward. She’s from the William Whyte Residents Association in support of the same item. Welcome.

Annette Champion Taylor: Can I just correct that? I’m actually here on behalf of the William Whyte Citizens on Patrol.

Madam Speaker: Okay, thank you very much for that.

Annette Champion Taylor: Okay. Okay, good morning Your Worship Mayor Brian Bowman, City Councillors and visitors to the gallery. My name is Annette Champion Taylor and I’m here as a representative of the William Whyte Citizens on Patrol. I’m here today to support Councillor Ross Eadie's motion to find a more appropriate location for the North District Police Station and not use parks and recreation space. In November, I and another Citizens on Patrol member attended an information session to discuss the proposed options for the new police station. Unfortunately, we were very disappointed to discover there really were no options, only scenarios on where the building might be located at the old Ex grounds as Sel pointed out. When the discussion came up about other potential locations, mystery 4 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG December 13, 2017

locations as I would call them, there was no discussion to be had. As Councillor Eadie pointed out in his motion, the presenters could not name a private property due to the price of land going too high and because of that, they could not go on to the private land to inspect it for suitability for a police station. I must say we're very baffled on how we're supposed to make any kind of an informed decision when all the cards are not on the table. At the November workshop where other members of our group attended, the information was just as vague about the mystery properties and they were equally as disappointed with no options aside, other than the old Ex grounds. This was very upsetting to our group and many others that attended. Most people felt like this was a done deal and a complete waste of time. It is our understanding that there was some consultation with the Nomad's Football Club and WASAC. We were informed that if the police station were to be built at the old Ex grounds and the Nomad's would be affected, there would be provisions for a new fieldhouse and playing fields. I’m not sure how this…how this is how we should get our recreation dollars to build or improve recreation space. If there's a need for a new fieldhouse and it seems to be identified now, then we shouldn't have to plunk a police station on a recreation field to get one. A shared concern with the community is the loss of recreational space as well as limiting future development for this purpose. Our area’s in desperate need of more parks and green space, not less. Once it's gone, it's gone. Our experience in William Whyte is that a lack of green space and recreational opportunities for our youth has compounded problems related to crime and safety. We also feel the process to choose this location is flawed in that it is not taking the neighbourhood housing plans for William Whyte into consideration as part of your research, and I don't know if any of you who had the time to read our housing plan from 2013, but it's online and this used to be our bible. It still is. The William Whyte Neighbourhood Housing Plan was created in conjunction with the Dufferin Neighbourhood Housing Plan in 2013 with funds from the City of Winnipeg Housing Improvement Zone, HIZ. The resulting five-year plan is intended to guide the efforts of the William Whyte Neighborhood Association and the Dufferin Residents Association of Winnipeg along with their neighbourhood partners until 2018. The plans were developed in consultation with community members from both communities. They took a lot of time to create and they didn't come cheap. These plans include a vision for the neighbourhood supported by action statements to achieve goals. The City of Winnipeg to agree to consider the neighbourhood housing plan when development is proposed in these neighbourhoods. If a development proposal does not fit within the vision of the plan, the developer may be required by the City to consult the community. This we feel has not been done appropriately, especially when we leave out important people like occupants of Flora Place. WASAC and the Nomad’s are not representative of the North End in its entirety. In regards to recreation and green space, the plan states the following, “Multiple responses were allowed regarding what was missing in the neighbourhoods; Splash pads, parks and gardens were all identified as things that residents felt were needed in the neighbourhood. Unanimously residents agreed if the housing plan does one thing, it should ensure William Whyte and Dufferin are equally respected with other Winnipeg neighborhoods. For residents, respect translates into equal enforcement of laws and by-laws, maintenance of properties, investment in infrastructure and provision of recreational leisure options. The neighbourhood desperately needs to improve parks and open spaces.” It is pretty obvious the neighbourhood housing plans do not align with removing even partially recreation or green space from our neighbourhood. As per the plan, William Whyte and Dufferin are to be equally respected with other Winnipeg neighbourhoods. We don’t believe…

Madam Speaker: Please wrap up.

Annette Champion Taylor: I am wrapping up. We don't believe the other recently built stations required a loss of developed…community recreation space for their constructions. Will you please give us the same consideration? The new facility needs to fit within the community and an appropriate site needs to be identified. Consideration must be given as it relates to major access and accessibility for community members. This building project needs to be well thought out and all options explored. I’m almost done. For 15 years, our group has worked with the Winnipeg Police Service to address crime and improve safety in our community. We value the good relationship we have and are excited about the construction of a new station to serve our area. We hope you will consider our concerns and make the right choice for the people of our neighbourhood. Thank you.

Madam Speaker: Thank you. We'll now take questions. Councillor Wyatt.

Councillor Wyatt: Thank you, good morning, thank you both for coming down and speaking and Sel, thank you for all of your efforts over the years for what you have done in Point Douglas and for the inner-city to improve the situation over the years there. And it's remarkable, and I have enjoyed working with you to do that amongst other members of Council. My question is this, are you aware…more are you aware questions, are you aware that Council has not formally selected or given direction to select any site with regards to this project that's now underway? We'll call it that.

Sel Burrows: Yes, we're aware. Our concern was that the consultation or false consultation was going to be the major bit of information that councillors would have to make their decision on the site and that what we were presented with by City officials was…made us fear that the only site that was going to be considered was the old Ex grounds.

Madam Speaker: Okay, second question, Councillor Wyatt. COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG 5 December 13, 2017

Councillor Wyatt: Yes, and are you aware that no different than when it comes to assembling land or sorry, disposing of land by the Real Estate Department that we have to go to public often to tender that when it comes to assembling the land, we as a city in audit after audit with regards to real estate transactions which were extensive in the last little while, there are recommendations in those audits with regards to the acquiring of land as well for the purpose of building new facilities that those auto-recommendations are not being followed in this due term?

Sel Burrows: We're getting into some of the technical issues that we're holding in our back pocket in case we have problems. We have been honoured that former senior city officials in the real estate area and other areas are providing us with background information that would assist us if we get into a conflictual situation. We're here in the hope that we will not be in a conflictual situation.

Madam Speaker: Final question, Councillor Wyatt.

Councillor Wyatt: And are you aware that as of yesterday or as of today, sorry, as of today Council is establishing…and by yesterday's budget, an Independent Fairness Commissioner which will have the authority to review all real estate transactions of the City of Winnipeg to ensure that policies are being followed and that this matter could be referred to that individual or that office?

Sel Burrows: Yes, and we're very pleased that Council has taken that action.

Councillor Wyatt: Thank you.

Madam Speaker: Thank you. Councillor Schreyer.

Councillor Schreyer: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m not sure to whom to address the question whether to Annette Champion Taylor or to Sel Burrows, but I do want to ask whether there’s consideration…have they thought about other locations where the police station could be in the area?

Annette Champion Taylor: Sorry, can you just repeat that (inaudible)…

Councillor Schreyer: I wanted to know if there’s other areas, other locations where the police station could be considered as a venue.

Annette Champion Taylor: Yeah, we as community talked about what we'd like to see. We don't know what's out there, we weren't the ones looking around for properties, but ideally if we could have something on Main Street with a major access, major bus route for people who just don't drive. When we even consider having it anywhere near the old Ex grounds, people are going to have a really hard time getting there. It's removed. If you have it on a major thoroughfare like Main Street and there's got to be something out there. I don't know if Selkirk Avenue is an appropriate place, but we’ve got so many derelict buildings, you do the community a favour if you mowed a few of them down, bought the properties and, you know, considered improving our area aesthetically as well, but ideally if we could find something on Main Street, I think it’s…would be a perfect location. Different people have suggested places where the old brewery used to be or I know the transit station eventually is going to move. It's a big area. I don't know if these are possible, again, I’m not the one doing the research out there, but really, we feel there's got to be another option. To us, this is not an option. Anybody that I’ve talked to just thought that it was bizarre, to be quite honest, having it at the North Centennial area, the old Ex grounds.

Madam Speaker: Thank you. Councillor Eadie.

Councillor Eadie: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just…my concern, of course, is recreation in the area. Since I have been elected and even before I was elected in the area, there's been a number of activities going on and I’m just wondering if either…either of our delegates…delegations has…had they participated in the North End Community Renewal Corps Recreation Master Plan that was happening back in around 2011, ‘12? And if you did attend, what did you hear in those meetings?

Annette Champion Taylor: You're asking me to go way back to 2011, oh, my goodness. Yeah, you know what, I was previously involved in the William Whyte Residents Association as it used to be. I don't know how many people know that the funding didn't come through to Neighborhoods Alive so our whole organization changed. I’m no longer with the organization. And the information we got with these recreation plans, it was all about recreation and building up places like North Centennial. There's so much opportunity there. It's a beautiful parcel of land. You've got, you know, Nomad's there, you’ve got baseball fields. I understand they're going to be doing splash pads, wading pool improvements. That's awesome. There's so many children in need in this neighbourhood. That's the way we need to go. You don't take a 6 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG December 13, 2017

beautiful space like that and put in a police station. It just does not fit. What we need to have there is things that are appropriate for the existing use. And when we were at the workshop, actually, there was a gentleman who does motocross biking whatever, and he thought, you know, there’d be an opportunity here, what a great space. I think it has to stay what it's intended for and not disfigure it, so to speak. We do need a new police station, we all agree on that, but wrong location. We need to up our recreation. Did that answer your question, Ross?

Councillor Eadie: Thank you very much.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Sel Burrows: Could I just add a…

Madam Speaker: Certainly.

Sel Burrows: That recreation study which I was involved in a long time ago, called for a massive increase in recreation opportunities and I’ve just finished being one of the people consulted on a report that was provided to your recreation department, Peter de Graaf, the director, which is studying how are we going to get more teams in the inner-city because if we ever do want to have a safer, less crime-ridden, so the City of Winnipeg itself is looking into how do we get more recreation and more teams going. So there's lots of documentation that justifies having more, not less.

Madam Speaker: Thank you. Mr. Mayor.

Mayor Bowman: Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I’d like to thank both of you for coming in here today. I know both of you have been champions for the inner-city and I’ve enjoyed our conversations that we've had in the past and look forward to continuing the dialogue. I’m pleased that Councillor Wyatt highlighted that Council is yet to receive information and to make a decision ultimately. I know that there's been some debate amongst members of the Police Board as well as from the locals, Councillor Eadie, who I gather you've had dialogue with as well. The comments that you made today with regards to information you're keeping in your back pocket, I have to take some issue with that because it does cast, certainly, it certainly infers something about the Public Service which we don't, without getting clarity on what you're speaking with, I would ask that especially given the fact that this council pushed for and thankfully as a result of the Province, we now have whistleblower protection. I would encourage you if you have any information that…that questions whether or not the City of Winnipeg staff are following or not following any respective rules that you report it and you advise us as you, you know, are able to. My question for you is I guess whether or not there's information that you're being…that you've been provided from certain members of Council in contravention of any confidentiality obligations with the Police Board? And that would be my concern.

Sel Burrows: I want to answer several of the questions there. Number one, the material in the back pocket, that arose because of our lack of trust over what I call…I’m calling the false consultation and thanks to your clarification that may no longer be necessary. Also these were materials that were developed around some of the technical issues that are not my great strength. And what I’m referring to is if we as…my experience has been that when people of goodwill sit down to solve problems together, we can solve problems well. However, someone from the City officials was able to go to the Nomad's and offer them a new clubhouse and a new sports field. We can't find out who with the City of Winnipeg had the authority to make…

Madam Speaker: Councillor Wyatt moves extension of two minutes. All in favour? Contrary? Carried.

Sel Burrows: So you know, I’m going to make some more phone calls, I’ve made a few and I’ve talked to Chief Smyth about it and he referred me elsewhere, I’ve talked somewhere else, they referred me elsewhere. So the fact that we may be saying, you know, and I’m not implying that anybody is doing anything illegal, I’m just saying that we are getting technical skills together if we need them. We don't want to have them, but these are problems in communication. I work very closely with several government departments…City departments. They're wonderful to work with. We're having a little trouble on this one.

Annette Champion Taylor: Can I just add to that? In no way, were we implying anything illegal was going on, but if you can understand the audience, the people at these workshops, right away, you know, it's like oh, we're only getting this piece of information, not that piece of information. So people don't always understand and their backs go up so to speak.

Madam Speaker: Thank you. Councillor Wyatt or pardon me, Councillor Orlikow.

Councillor Orlikow: Thank you very much, and I completely understand your concerns, completely, 100 percent. Councillor Eadie has been incredible at advocating it and we’ve worked together. Last time, he actually…it was COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG 7 December 13, 2017

Councillor Eadie who approached about the Nomad's initially his issue. We met and we discussed alternative sites and so are you aware that we’ve even posted it and unfortunately got that information, maybe you weren’t aware, that we are examining other sites?

Sel Burrows: Yes, just in the last few days that's come forward, we got an email two days ago talking about that, and you, the Mayor spoke to that publicly. I don't know if all councillors are aware that the…what’s called the Molson site, the…right by Redwood Bridge is now on the public market. It's up for sale and so we're hoping that the Real Estate Department will include that in its discussions.

Madam Speaker: Councillor Schreyer moves extension. Two minutes. All in favour? Contrary? Carried. Councillor Wyatt…Councillor Orlikow, second question.

Councillor Orlikow: Thank you very much. Just I…I know we had this conversation months ago with Councillor Eadie so unfortunately, I’m not sure why you weren’t aware that that was our intent and our promise to do that, but you are aware as well that to…which makes this site very valuable in many regards is that it requires two-thirds vote, also an appraised value of the land would have to be put forward. Two-thirds vote by Council to have this happen because Council wisely put that in there to ensure that we protect the green space, are you aware of that?

Sel Burrows: Yes, and…but we're here just to encourage people to have a unanimous vote against having the site there. And we do respect the fact that Council will make a wise decision, but we do want to have the inner-city voice heard.

Madam Speaker: Okay, thank you. Could I ask you to just stay at the podium just in the interest of time, both of you. Thank you. Councillor Orlikow, final question.

Councillor Orlikow: Final question is, you are aware that when this report comes forward, we will be having that discussion about with all the information including the cost of new sites, and alternative sites and connectivity and all of that, that the report will come forward and we will be discussing that, you are aware of that?

Sel Burrows: Absolutely. Thank you.

Madam Speaker: Councillor Wyatt.

Councillor Wyatt: I was interested to hear your comment about the Nomad's site and the money being offered for a facility. There was a budget, we dealt with a budget yesterday, capital and operating, and there was no money in that operating…capital budget for the construction of a new field or fields or what have you, facility, for the Nomad's. So I’m kind of…I’m at a loss to understand how…where that money is coming from and who's been offering the money to the Nomad's on behalf of the City of Winnipeg.

Madam Speaker: Okay. And that concludes our question period. Councillor Lukes, you’re moving extension. Okay, last two minutes. All in favour? Contrary? Carried.

Annette Champion Taylor: Okay, at the workshop, one of our Citizens on Patrol members went over to the table and talked to one of the gentlemen from the Nomad's and we discussed it after and this is what was reported to me. What, where, who, and about the money, I don't know, but it was a comment that was made to one of our members that there would be an allowance for a new clubhouse or fieldhouse, and playing field. This is definitely something that was reported back to me. We did not get any names or anything.

Madam Speaker: Okay, Councillor Wyatt.

Councillor Wyatt: So you're aware that you also have the ability like other groups here today to file Freedom of Information, FIPPA, to determine what direction has been given by what public service, by who, to where, to determine exactly what's been happening behind the scenes with regards to this. Because it sounds like to me that there's been promises made to the Nomad's because you're not the first person to say this. That for money to pay for a new field, and we have no idea…this Council has no idea where that money is coming from or where the budgets are coming from. Are you aware that you can file…

Annette Champion Taylor: No, actually, I learned a lot today, I really did. I’m glad you pointed that out because very often when you get these groups, people present rumours as well so it would be interesting to know and I’m glad to hear it wasn't just me and my friend that had heard this and, yeah, would like to get to the bottom of it. Because, again, where the mistrust starts coming is when the rumours start flying so if we could get that, that would be great. 8 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG December 13, 2017

Councillor Wyatt: And final question, are you aware that the proper process that should be followed by the Real Estate Department of the City of Winnipeg is to issue a request for proposals to determine what lands potentially may be available, whether it be from the City or from the private sector for the construction of a new police headquarters in northwest Winnipeg? Has an RFP been issued further to what Mr. Burrows said that he’s…understands that something is coming forward?

Sel Burrows: You're getting into technical areas that are beyond my skills and I’m assuming that councillors will ensure that the proper process does take place. We just want to make you aware.

Madam Speaker: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Burrows. That concludes our question period for this delegation. Thank you very much for your presentations. I’d like to call now Mr. Chris Schafer representing Uber Public Policy Manager. He’s in support of Item 5 of the report of the Executive Policy Committee dated December 6th, 2017 regarding Transition of the Regulation of Vehicles for Hire from the Province of Manitoba to the City of Winnipeg. We'll have 10 minutes on the clock. Following that, we will hear from Ms. Prashanthi Raman if I can ask you to come forward at this time, and we'll hear you following Mr. Schafer's presentation.

Chris Schafer: Good morning Mayor, Your Worship, and City Council councillors. My name is Chris Schafer. I’m a public policy manager with Uber Canada. Thank you for the opportunity to address you this morning. I won't take all of the 10 minutes, I know I was at committee with the opportunity to speak, but also the opportunity to speak to a number of you in advance throughout the time we've been examining this issue. I just want to highlight a few things and…that I highlighted at Executive Policy Committee. Winnipeggers want ride-sharing. They want choice, options for getting in and around the city they live and call home. We ran a petition that garnered in very short time for 11,000 signatures calling on both the Province to pass Bill 30, Local Vehicles for Hire Act, and City Council to pass a by-law, a progressive smart by-law to regulate ride-sharing in the city of Winnipeg. Following that, there was a…the most recent polling data available in the City of Winnipeg was from Nano’s Research, conducted in mid-October. It found that over four in five Winnipeggers support or somewhat support allowing Uber as a transportation option in the city of Winnipeg and close to eight in ten Winnipeggers support or somewhat support, having Winnipeg City Council pass a by-law permitting Uber and ride-sharing. There is significant support across the city of Winnipeg for ride-sharing as an option amongst many other options including local taxi and public transit. A letter was published in mid-October signed by a number of high profile, well-known in Winnipeg stakeholders calling on Winnipeg City Council to embrace ride-sharing through drafting and passing of a by-law to regulate such. The Winnipeg Airport Authority is in support. Other folks like Gail Asper of the Asper Foundation, Marshall Ring, CEO of Manitoba Technology Accelerator, Brent Bellamy, Creative Directory of Number Ten Architectural Group, the list goes on. Key Winnipeg-based stakeholders, that call Winnipeg home, in support of ride-sharing and the passage of a by-law today. You would’ve also received a letter from MADD Canada, Mothers Against Drunk Driving in…earlier this month, calling again on Winnipeg City Council to embrace ride-sharing to pass a by-law to regulate ride-sharing, their concern obviously being driving under the influence. We are partners, national partners, with Mothers Against Drunk Driving. They see choice in transportation options be it taxi, public transit, ride-sharing, as a means to reduce the instances of driving under the influence and they expressed their support for the passage of the by-law that's before you today that was unanimously endorsed at Executive Policy Committee. I also highlighted at EPC, the work that staff here have done to draft a by-law that is very consistent with by-laws across Canada. In material I shared with you in writing, I won't walk through it today, but a high degree of uniformity and consistency in by-laws passed across Canada, as you understand and know, Winnipeg is not the first city to contemplate regulation of a new industry, the ride-sharing industry. A number of cities before you have done so already, and in doing so I think to their credit, staff here have taken a look at what other cities have done, reasons for why they have regulated as such and crafted a by-law that mirrors almost uniformly all of the key policy issues across cities and have drafted a by-law. So I think in some respects that can give Winnipeg City Council here, but also Winnipeggers that live here, the comfort that what's being contemplated here has, in fact, been embraced and passed in city councils across Canada to date. Last thing I’ll highlight is that one thing I think in one area in particular that Winnipeggers can be particularly proud of is…is the safety that's embraced by this by-law. The driver screening background is the most robust provisions I’ve seen in any by-law to date in Canada, in my time with Uber Canada, and it's going on four years now. I’ve worked on pretty much every by-law in this country starting with Edmonton and then many others. These are the most robust driver screening provisions I’ve seen proposed by any city councils to your credit and the proposed amendment, even with the proposed amendment, is the most robust driver screening, safety, background check process that will exist in any by-law to date in Canada to your credit. So I will wrap up there. I do look forward if there are any questions to entertain those, but thank you again for the opportunity to address you this morning.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Schafer. Next, we'll hear from Miss Prashanthi Raman. She’s the Director of Public Policy with Lyft Canada. Welcome, you have five minutes on the clock.

Prashanthi Raman: Thank you. Good morning, Your Worship Mayor Bowman and Executive Committee members. I would like to begin by recognizing we are on the traditional territory of Treaty One and Métis people. My name is COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG 9 December 13, 2017

Prashanthi Raman and I’m pleased to join you here today as Lyft’s Director of Public Policy for the central region. I appreciate the opportunity once again to share Lyft's support for the draft by-laws under consideration by the Council today and speak to the benefits of peer-to-peer ride-sharing for the city of Winnipeg and the people of Manitoba. In 2012, Lyft became the first company to establish peer-to-peer on-demand ride-sharing. Every week, Lyft connects millions of people with efficient, affordable and safe rides in their community. Ride-sharing enhances access to alternative forms of transportation and acts as a complement to the existing transportation infrastructures in communities across the nation. More than anything, Lyft is about giving people choices. Lyft's peer-to-peer ride-sharing model aims to enhance access to transportation alternatives, support and supplement existing public transportation services and reduce single occupancy vehicle trips, assisting Winnipeg and Manitoba in reducing greenhouse gas emissions which I understand to be a very large priority here. Through Lyft's platform, people do not just connect to give and receive rides, they also get to know one another. Lyft is your neighbour with a car. Lyft now operates in all 50 American states and just yesterday we began operating in Toronto, our first market outside of the United States. Wherever we operate, Lyft's number one priority is a safety of its users. Lyft drivers are extensively pre-screened and have passed a thorough driver record review in addition to having their vehicle pass a comprehensive vehicle inspection. Our focus on safety and security continues throughout the Lyft experience. Every ride is protected by Lyft’s commercial automobile liability coverage which protects riders and drivers throughout the ride. What really distinguishes Lyft from traditional for-hire transit services is how we utilize technology to ensure a safe riding experience. Every Lyft ride is tracked via GPS. When a rider is matched with a driver via Lyft, the rider receives a picture and a user rating of the driver and the make and model of the vehicle coming to pick them up. Lyft user rating system allows a rider to provide instant feedback on safety, navigation and overall ride experience. Drivers are also able to rate riders and flag abusive or dangerous situations. That is real-time feedback that you won't find with legacy services and puts safety first and foremost in the experience of our drivers and riders. Lyft proudly supports additional measures being considered by the Council today to provide drivers and riders, whether ride-sharing or legacy industry, with additional public education tools and safety information. We are proud that Lyft is more than just a ride-sharing application. It is your friend with a car. Lyft has the potential to bring Winnipeggers together through the medium of ride-sharing and it offers opportunity to earn flexible, supplemental income by using their private vehicle to ride-share with their neighbours. Two thirds of Lyft drivers drive less than 15 hours a week. They're casual drivers who don't fall within the traditional livery or taxi framework. The Lyft community is made up of retirees, single moms, graduate students, folks trying to get around and families simply trying to make ends meet. We know that upon launch in Winnipeg, that will continue to be the case. Along with these community benefits, we believe that Lyft will contribute to a more sustainable city and province. Over 80% of cars on the road have only one occupant. By getting a Lyft instead of driving their cars, our riders are not just saving time, they are reducing their carbon footprints and lowering greenhouse gas emissions, again, an environmental priority that Lyft shares with Winnipeg and Manitoba. The draft by-law before you today will create a regulatory framework that will allow Lyft to secure robust background checks and the latest technology to connect users to safe, affordable and friendly transportation options. We look forward to working with the City staff following approval of this by-law to ensure timely implementation and introduce Winnipeggers to Lyft in the New Year. Thank you for your time.

Madam Speaker: Thank you. We'll now take questions, Councillor Wyatt.

Councillor Wyatt: Thank you for your presentations. We’ve met before. Mr. Schafer, we haven't met, but thank you very much for your presentations. You know, Winnipeg has had…or Manitoba, I guess, because we're new to these regulations being brought forward to us, but following the tragedy of a taxicab driver being murdered by a passenger, the Province of Manitoba issued an inquiry or commission that came forward with a number of recommendations that were then implemented in the industry, this is before the existence of both of your companies, but not that long ago. And the recommendations were many, but one of the key recommendations was the establishment of safety shields inside all livery vehicles. And I say livery vehicles because that's really the terminology that the Province has used over the years. It seems that that is something that your firm or firms refused to install or live up to. If you believe in a level playing field, which you say you do, why can't you also agree to the safety shields which is something that we’ve found in Manitoba to be quite important.

Madam Speaker: It's your choice. Could one of you come forward?

Prashanthi Raman: Thank you, councillor for your question. Your safety is very important to the platform and it is why riders and drivers choose ride-sharing so frequently. The safety aspect that you spoke to is really, you know, pertain to the technology that we bring to the platform with the drivers' make and model of the vehicle, with the real time GPS tracking, with the two-way real-time feedback so anonymity of the taxi drivers go away and we believe that that drives down the issue of potential violent situations that you're referring to. We also understand that that is something that we're going to continue to work on with the City and we understand that the Mayor has put forth an additional funding for public education, safety efforts, and we support those.

10 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG December 13, 2017

Chris Schafer: I won't repeat. I’ll just add a little bit that it isn't uncommon historically in by-laws across Canada. I’ve spent a lot of time looking at historical taxi and limousine by-laws that predate ride-sharing in Canada, and it wasn't uncommon, given the nature of the…the different nature of industry and business models to have a taxi by-law that had…because of the nature of that model where you don't know who is getting in the back seat of your cab because you street hail or go to a taxi stand and the drivers carry cash to make transactions, presents some risk to the taxi driver. So the reason why some taxi by-laws across Canada have had shields or cameras. Limousine industry around the same time, of course, didn't have…most by-laws don't have those provisions for limousine. They regulate it differently for different industries. Limousine is largely contractual, pre-arranged, unlike the taxi industry. So the regulatory frameworks even pre ride-sharing were different for different industries.

Madam Speaker: Councillor Wyatt.

Councillor Wyatt: So I’ll ask my question again because I didn't receive an answer, but so I’ll ask my question again. Why do your firms, after we’ve had extensive studies of this, consultations, in-depth reports that have been done at length and were reported to the Manitoba Legislature with recommendations made on this, that have been implemented, why do your firms refuse the very basic standard of safety which are the shields in your cars, why do you refuse to have those installed?

Prashanthi Raman: Over 80% of our drivers drive 15 hours or less a week. The difference is that these are people's personal vehicles, councillor. And so to add that additional component without a significant increase in public safety is something that we continue to look at. We don't operate anywhere where shields are required in the personal vehicles and that is simply because we think that the technology goes far, very far, to securing…to secure safe rides for both the driver and the passenger.

Chris Schafer: Again, through you, Mayor, I won't spend time repeating, I’ll just highlight that given that Winnipeg is examining the potential for a by-law here, other cities have in Canada, while this similar debate has happened in committees and councils across Canada, after that debate is concluded, there is not a city in Canada that has imposed through a ride-sharing by-law, the requirement for all of the reasons my friend at Lyft has expressed. None of those by- laws have required shields, cameras, strobe lights, for ride-sharing industry and it's not uncommon not to have those in the limousine industry as well, given the different nature of the industries with which we're regulating here.

Councillor Wyatt: My follow-up question is, the only city in Canada that also has transit drivers shield-in and taxi cab drivers so…so what you're telling me, just to confirm, is because your business model does not include the ability to have shields that we should water down and reduce our safety regulations to meet your personal business models of your corporations. Can you just confirm that, please?

Prashanthi Raman: We believe that technology answers a lot of those safety questions, councillor.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much. Councillor Sharma, please.

Councillor Sharma: Mr. Schafer, this question is directed to you. Can you tell us of any violent situations that may have occurred where drivers of Uber vehicles have been harmed in Canada or the United States?

Chris Schafer: Through you, Mr. Mayor…I’m not aware of…

Councillor Sharma: It's not through the Mayor, it's through the Deputy…

Chris Schafer: Sorry, Deputy Mayor. I’m not aware of any instances of a violent nature in Canada.

Councillor Sharma: Let me cut you off right there. Second question, I’ll get to the second question, what about the murder of the Uber driver in Chicago?

Chris Schafer: Through you, Deputy Mayor, so my answer was…your first question I believe was in Canada.

Councillor Sharma: I said Canada or the U. S. It's really important to listen today because this is a very important debate.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Councillor Sharma, please let the delegate answer the question, thank you.

Councillor Sharma: Did you want me to restate the question then? So the question was has any Uber driver in Canada or the U.S. been harmed through a violent attack? COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG 11 December 13, 2017

Chris Schafer: Through you Deputy Mayor, sorry, I’m used to in other cities always going through the Mayor or Chair, so my apologies. So to answer your question, councillor, thank you for the question, I’m not aware of any in Canada. There have been rare, thankfully rare instances, internationally. What I will say is unfortunately those things as we know in society, walking outside, me coming here to City Council today presented some risk to myself. But the question always is, is can we, through by-laws, and through practices embedded in the platforms for ride-sharing, do all we can…we can never eliminate risk. That's impossible in each one of our lives. We'd like to, but it's not possible. And I think I’d be lying if I said otherwise. The question is, can by-laws and this one is, on par and actually takes it step further is…in further many respects to improve safety. And that coupled with the platforms themselves, the fact that it's cashless, it's not anonymous, the fact that, for example, one thing that councillors here may not be aware of that at a tap of a button within ride-sharing apps like Uber, you can share your trip with a loved one. What does that mean? That loved one, a click of a text message gets all the information of the trip that you are on plus real time GPS routing from your beginning point to your destination. All of those features and many others in ride-sharing apps, we believe, help to go that distance to ensure safety on the platform.

Councillor Sharma: Second question yeah. Mr. Schafer, Mr. Nelson died in Chicago. He was an Uber driver of yours. Do you think the shield would’ve protected him? Because his brother, who I spoke to last Thursday, certainly thought it would have.

Chris Schafer: Through you, Deputy Mayor, I don't know the particularities of that unfortunate episode. I do know, for example, that there are probably, unfortunately, people that if they're inclined to violence are going to find some way to be violent. That is unfortunate. It is a reality and we do everything we can…and I think this by-law drafted here has robust safety considerations, robust practices built in, based on the best practices of by-laws in Canada and goes measures further to improve safety such as the proposed amendments that the Mayor spoke to earlier this week. And then all the elements of ride-sharing platforms…and that…that the aspect of a ride-sharing platform you have to consider is we always look at it as an iterative process, right? So we're constantly learning. We’ve got 16,000 global employees and many of them devoted to safety, constantly improving the app.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Council, there's a number of questions that we have, so the practice has been one extension of two minutes, sometimes we've had two, would we…what would…would the will of Council…

Councillor Eadie: Move extension for another 15 minutes.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Well, that's a bit excessive. Is that the will of Council, 10 minutes, 5 minutes?

Councillor Wyatt: There’s a motion to move. (Inaudible)

Madam Deputy Speaker: Okay, okay, fair enough. I’ll call the question, 15 minutes. All those in favour? It’s carried. Thank you, Councillor Wyatt. Councillor Schreyer.

Councillor Schreyer: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’ve heard the term ride-sharing over two dozen times. I have noticed consistently that our by-law is not dealing with ride-sharing. Our by-law states officially and always we're dealing with the by-law regarding vehicle-for-hire. Can those presenting delegations explain the difference between ride-sharing and the vehicle-for-hire, how it is that Winnipeg has ride-sharing today?

Chris Schafer: Through you, Deputy Mayor, thank you councillor for the question. Ride-sharing is…would fall under the by-law here for vehicles-for-hire in the city of Winnipeg, just as taxi would. And so we're looking forward to hopefully based on the will of Council to the passage of what I think is a very, very good by-law and then looking towards a March 1st date of being able to offer ride-sharing here in the city of Winnipeg, hopefully based on the will of Council today.

Councillor Schreyer: Madam Speaker, I’m confused, he said that this would apply to the taxis as well as to Uber and called it ride-sharing again. Thus I have to ask, is he implying that taxi is ride-sharing?

Prashanthi Raman: Thank you, councillor for your question. They are…they are two different models. I think they're being considered under two different regulatory frameworks right now which I understand is…I believe is what the point of the question is.

Councillor Schreyer: Madam Speaker, he said that it would be the same regulation.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Councillor Schreyer, it's not a debate, you have a question, let the delegate answer and then you can ask a third question. Thank you. 12 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG December 13, 2017

Prashanthi Raman: Sure. Lyft is a peer-to-peer ride-sharing network. We are a platform that allows people to use their personal vehicles to give other individuals from point A to point B.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Councillor Schreyer, do you have a third question?

Councillor Schreyer: I didn't get an answer. But as Councillor Wyatt pointed out we've had a murder of a bus driver, we’ve had a murder of a cab driver, we have an evolved system for the City regarding vehicles-for-hire, regarding cabs. Do they believe that the shield will save lives in Winnipeg?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Prashanthi Raman: The regulatory framework that has been set forth in the by-law today provides a robust and comprehensive framework to allow for the safety of passengers and drivers.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Schreyer, you’ve had your questions, it's Councillor Eadie's turn. Councillor Eadie.

Councillor Eadie: Yes, thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, the model business that these personal vehicles- for-hire, they're not really ride-share, let's be clear. If we’re going to start regulating ride-share, you better tell Equay that are all of a sudden they’re making profit and they’re not, they shouldn't be regulated. We are regulating personal vehicles for hire as a separate thing in this and I would point out that the particular model that they have and, Madam Speaker, I heard the representative from Uber talk about a number of wealthy people, Gail Asper, all these corporations, so my…I would like to…

Madam Deputy Speaker: A question, please.

Councillor Eadie: The question is yeah, I’m just framing it, my question is, how does Lyft and Uber feel about not being accepting people who do not have credit cards who are poor and cannot do that? How do they feel about…and why does that they believe is the best model?

Prashanthi Raman: So Lyft does allow for a prepaid credit cards to be used on the platform. It is a cashless system which enhances the safety measures for the ride-sharing network. I mean so that is something that we do institute it as part of being a driver or a passenger.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Councillor Eadie, do you have a second question?

Councillor Eadie: Yeah, the question is do you believe that you're discriminating against poor people?

Chris Schafer: Through you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the question, councillor and definitively, no. Ride-sharing has a business model in many instances offers rides that are cheaper and more affordable for residents and that in and of itself expands the opportunity for grant transportation options to some of the more poorer areas of the city and folks here in Winnipeg and I look at that as an absolute positive choice. It also I will add, for folks that want to consider driving, that opportunity to press a button and get supplemental…and earn supplemental income, it’s…it may not seem like a lot for someone like ourselves to be able to earn a couple thousand dollars extra a month, but that can be the difference between a staycation or a vacation. That could be the difference between being able to afford a repair on your house if that was just to come up suddenly. It could mean the difference between saving for your child's education or not or paying down a mortgage, by earning that supplemental income on a flexible schedule of your own. That opportunity for Winnipeggers to participate in the sharing economy that way is very attractive to a number of people.

Councillor Eadie: And the final question, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Yes, Councillor Eadie.

Councillor Eadie: I’m wondering what their comment would be, did you know that the people who are pushing for Uber to come in are talking about how evil the traditional industry is and did you know and what’s your comment about this that four million trips are provided in 2016 and there was only 500 issues of problems with those taxis? Do you think that is a good percentage of delivery of service?

Chris Schafer: Through you, Madam Chair, thank you again councillor for the question. I have spent some time in the city of Winnipeg over the course of three and a half years as this issue’s moved through the province and to the city of Winnipeg now today. I’ve ridden in a number of taxicabs in the city and I know these folks here, many of them in the COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG 13 December 13, 2017

room today to be some of the most hardest-working people I have met. They have worked in an industry that has a number of challenges structurally to it and these are people, a lot of them, with PhDs and Master’s degrees that came to Canada for that Canadian dream to live a better life, to create one for their children, and the time I’ve spent with these people I know them to be some of the hardest-working people in the industry and I think, frankly, they all deserve respect. They all deserve our gratitude for serving the citizens here of Winnipeg. I know that to be the case with taxi drivers across cities and provinces that I travel to in this country, so I applaud them for that.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much. Councillor Mayes.

Councillor Mayes: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. A lot of talk about safety and I want to commend the Mayor's Office for their work on the safety issue over the past week or so in terms of developing this idea of a safety surcharge that you spoke about. My question to Miss Raman, one difference between this city and Toronto, for example, is the auto insurance here is socialized, it's Autopac. It would seem to me we are…we’ve been forced to move this forward without having a definitive position from Autopac about various rates. If there's some inducement offered by Autopac to say, look, you can voluntarily install a shield. We'll cut X hundred off, we’ll cut some amount off the premium voluntarily install a shield, I would assume you wouldn't take issue with people if they voluntarily choose to install a shield.

Prashanthi Raman: Thank you for your question. We are actually in conversations with the Manitoba Public Insurance folks so that we are ensuring that we are in compliance with the regulations that they've put forth for this new regulatory framework. And to specifically answer your question, our drivers are independent contractors so we cannot force them or deny them some aspect of what they would choose to do in the sense of if they choose to install a shield by themselves they are able to do so. That just wouldn't be the protocol that we would institute for them.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That's it. Mr. Mayor.

Mayor Bowman: Thanks very much. Thanks very much also for the respectful responses to some inflammatory questions. I do appreciate that. One of the things that I’ve been doing over the course of this debate is speaking with mayors of other Canadian cities who do currently allow for ride-sharing about just the nature of the debate. And right now, it's clear from the discussions and the questions you're getting today, there's likely an effort to filibuster and to take a lot of time here today and to make many of our other delegates wait which is fine and the prerogative of Council members, but I guess given your experience more recently in Toronto and in other Canadian cities, if you can comment on what is the…what have you seen occur in other cities? I mean, there's obviously the arguments for and against the introduction of personal transportation provider businesses in markets. I’m just wondering if you can comment on themes that you see in arguments you’re hearing here and whether or not they're consistent across Canada and, more importantly, what has been the experience after councils have taken the step forward to bring in some positive change and some choice in the marketplace?

Chris Schafer: Through you, Madam Chair, thank you Mayor for your question. So in my role with Uber and almost four years, as I say, I’ve worked with cities on almost every by-law starting in Edmonton across this country. So I’ve got that…that level of experience that you're referring to, Mayor. My experience has been…it's a similar debate in cities. The consultation here, again, to I think the credit of the staff, I haven't compared them objectively from each city-to-city, but my sense here is that it's been very comprehensive. The outreach to community groups and stakeholders in the city to their credit has been quite robust. And of course it goes through committee and Council and there's an opportunity for the public and industry representatives to dispute and speak afterwards. We have compliance teams at Uber as I’m sure my friend at Lyft does as well. We sit down with cities, walk through how to operationalize these things, how to work together and get the job done to bring everyone in the industry into compliance with the new by-law. The City of Ottawa as a reference at EPC, did their one-year by-law review on a model, very similar, if not identical, to what’s proposed here. And noted very, very extremely high rates of compliance, very pleased and our relationships that Uber and I’m sure Lyft will enjoy in cities in Toronto and perhaps others here, will be the same. Our goal is to work very closely with cities on compliance and have that mutually beneficial relationship going forward.

Prashanthi Raman: Sure, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I appreciate it, Your Worship. And I appreciate the question. I have actually been with Lyft for over three years managing markets across the entire United States and there is a very similar theme of questions. I think we share an interest very uniformly that public safety is the most important and we think that these by-laws provide that with a robust and a comprehensive aspect without compromising that public safety at all. We can say with regards to your second question about what the experience is post us coming is phenomenal. People really value the technology and the ability to be able to press a button and get from point A to point B in a safe, efficient and affordable way. In Chicago, which I keep hearing is being mentioned today, over 63% of our rides begin or end in areas of underserved areas of transportation. That means that those areas that are not currently being filled by mass transit or other public options. And so we have seen people who have otherwise been isolated in communities to be able to access different points. Top five destination points in various cities happen to be to the drugstore to get medicine, to the 14 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG December 13, 2017

grocery store to get food, to get to a public transit stop to get around town to get to maybe a job interview or to their job. These are vital aspects of everyday lives. 55% of drivers use their supplemental earnings to meet mandatory expenses; rent, utilities, electricity, and it has become transformative in their lives not only from the driver perspective but also from the passenger perspective. And so we are very encouraged and excited by the regulatory framework put forth today and our hope is to bring ride-sharing to Winnipeg very shortly.

Madam Speaker: Councillor Gillingham.

Councillor Gillingham: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Just a quick question, do either of you have any statistics on jurisdictions that you have gone into or your organizations have gone into as far as any impact on the reduction of drinking and driving?

Prashanthi Raman: Sure, I think the most recent study that I’ve heard and it actually came out of Chicago, so that there's about 31% of a reduction in DUIs for…in the last year in Chicago.

Madam Speaker: Thank you. Councillor Wyatt.

Councillor Wyatt: Yes, thank you, Madam Speaker. The Public Service, the City of Winnipeg are public servants or political staff or consultants, how long ago did you start working with them? Or when did you have your first meetings to work with them on this by-law or in general?

Madam Speaker: Can you answer the question and we’ll (inaudible) questions period.

Chris Schafer: Through you, Madam Chair, thank you councillor for the question. I’ve been with Uber for…as of June 2018, it will be four years. So anytime in my experience a city starts or a province, it could be here as well…starts talking about or looking at potential reform to the vehicles-for-hire industry. I usually in my role as a public policy manager engage with councillors or legislatures, MLAs here, on reform if that's the will, sharing information and knowledge about our particular industry and frankly what other cities have done in contemplation of ride-sharing and what that regulation looks like. So I spend a lot of my time in a role like that and I do that in cities and provinces across Canada.

Madam Speaker: Okay, thank you. That concludes question period. Councillor Schreyer, you’re moving extension for how long? Five minutes. All in favour? Contrary? We'll need a two-thirds vote. I didn't hear a lot of contraries. Contrary? Okay. We'll have a recorded vote then. I’m not sure what the vote is here. All in favour of adding five-minute extension, please rise.

A RECORDED VOTE was taken the result being as follows:

Yeas

Councillors Dobson, Lukes, Schreyer and Wyatt

Nays

His Worship Mayor Bowman, Councillors Allard, Browaty, Gerbasi, Gillingham, Gilroy, Mayes, Morantz, Orlikow and Madam Speaker Councillor Sharma

Madam Speaker: That will conclude the question period for this delegation. Thank you very much for your presentations. Okay. Next, I would like to call up Mr. Scott McFadyen. He is a representative of the Winnipeg Community Taxi Coalition. Following that, we'll hear from Mr. Surinder Sandhu. Welcome, Mr. Schafer, you have 10 minutes on the clock.

Scott McFadyen: I’m sorry, are those packages being distributed?

Madam Speaker: They will, does the Clerk have them? Mr. Clerk? They will be momentarily.

Scott McFadyen: Okay.

Madam Speaker: Can I request that the pages circulate the packages immediately? Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Schafer, 10 minutes on the clock if you could please begin.

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG 15 December 13, 2017

Scott McFadyen: Great. His worship, councillors, thank you again for the opportunity to be here today. We've submitted a package of information for you including polling information, and polling hot off the presses that shows that more than three-quarters of Winnipeggers supports cameras and equivalent safety standards for cabs and Uber. There’s the second piece in there, our vision so you know we put…started putting together our plans for a post by-law world and we've heard from many Winnipeggers during the course of this debate about our services and we're listening. And we look forward to working with the many stakeholders who have been identified in this process to improving the service for Winnipeggers. We’ve also included our 23 recommendations made to the City on the vehicle-for-hire by-law along with our research paper that we commissioned to back what we say. So what we say is actually backed by research. Number five are amendments that call for an equivalent level of safety for cabbies and fairness in licensing and fares. And then number five, we have some correspondence from the provincial liberals calling on councillors to vote no to this. Our meeting requests with the Mayor, the Provincial Minister Wharton, who incidentally did not meet with us, letters of support from the Manitoba Sikh Society, Canadian Sikh Association Guru Nanak Darbar and a Facebook post from a local small business woman who’s had some issues dealing with an individual called Uber Mike. This small business woman has offered to speak to any councillor today. They want to talk about her challenges in dealing with Uber’s complaint process and dealing with some of the challenges of an independent contractor. So if anyone at any point wants to speak with that individual in the Facebook post, you know, please, please let me know. So thank you again for the opportunity to present. Cabdrivers believe in playing by the rules. That's exactly what we have done through the discussion on Bill 30, and these by-laws. They've been to countless meetings, Mr. Mayor, they've been with meetings with MLAs. They’ve been with meetings with City councillors and City officials. They’ve sat through hours upon hours upon hours of committee meetings at the legislature with the full attention of MLAs and ministers. And they're here again today because their future and families' future is at stake. So, you know, please stand up, give a wave, those people that…

Madam Speaker: Mr. McFadyen, there’ll be no presentations from the gallery.

Scott McFadyen: Okay, thank you.

Madam Speaker: Thank you.

Scott McFadyen: The industry has been proactive in terms of providing recommendations and research, Mr. Mayor. We’ve been fully participating in our democratic right to participate in the public policy development process. These people are part of our community. And they're remarkable. Cabdrivers take our senior citizens to the emergency ward at 3:00 in the morning when no one else wants to. They pick up our kids from the bars after hours. We take tens of thousands of people to work every day, every week, every year, in rain, sleet and snow. On Christmas, on holidays, when no one else wants to work, we're working. We work 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. You may notice that 99% of cabdrivers are new Canadians. And a huge percentage, 55%, Mr. Mayor, have a post-secondary degree. And they are raising the next generation to be extremely high achievers. Cabdrivers are small business owners. They're professional drivers. They take a course in safety to defend themselves from attacks. They take accessibility training to teach them how to assist persons with disabilities get in and out of a vehicle. They take English language proficiency training. These are 1,600 full-time jobs, thousands of Winnipeggers. These aren't part-time amateur drivers. So now what? Now please understand, Mr. Mayor, that our community taxi service is more than prepared to compete and build on some of the innovation it has, such as the apps that we already have. We have Uber's technology. We have this technology that everyone is so excited about. But in order for us to compete, it must be fair. So I believe the question before Council today is, what will the future of this industry be? And what will the impact be of this by-law on Winnipeg? And what we have seen and what we have researched and what we have presented in an extremely short period of time is that the consequences of this by-law, as they're currently written, will be disastrous for this industry. And the by-law's impact will be felt far beyond our industry. And here's a few examples; the by-laws impact gridlock and greenhouse gas emissions. We know that. They impact negatively public transit revenue. I’m sure Councillor Gillingham, that’s got to cause some concern. The impact services for those people who do not have a smartphone and a credit card. And they certainly impact Manitoba Public Insurance. And this is supported by the research that we have submitted to the City. Councillor Browaty, there's issues with compliance. There's massive budgeting holes. There's enforcement issues with this, new licenses. So Uber can operate as many or as few vehicles as it wants to. So flooding the market with new licenses before we even understand the impact of Uber is premature. And I actually believe that Uber and Lyft agree with us on this. Don't introduce…don't flood the market with new licenses. The fee structure. The fee structure that’s proposed sees taxi fees go up dramatically, presumably to cover the cost of enforcing Uber, why else are our fees going up? The fare structure. The fare structure allows for surge pricing for Uber, predatory pricing. But also limits the taxi industry's ability to regulate pricing itself. That's not fair. Our industry has a zero tolerance for impropriety or any allegation of impropriety. Drivers are suspended immediately if there's any issue whatsoever. So our analysis…our analysis is of the by-laws is that these are the weakest safety requirements for Uber in all of Canada. And I’ll give you a few more examples. No more…or no commercial licenses like Calgary. There's no training requirement for Uber drivers in this by-law, none at all. We have to do it. For Uber, the new by-laws allow a driver to register first and 16 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG December 13, 2017

prior to their criminal background and child abuse registry screening passing so they can be on the road before the child abuse registry is passed. Will Uber also be administering its own screen as it has in other jurisdictions? No cameras, which presumably a tech-savvy company like Uber would love. No shields, a $500 cost, 10 minutes to install a shield, $500, 10 minutes. Uber is gone if there's a requirement for shield. The City is requiring so much of the taxi industry and too little of Uber and the other companies. This is not a level playing field. I’ll leave you with a restaurant example. If you own a restaurant, and the City allows a restaurant to open up next to you that does not have to adhere to health and safety standards, is that fair? Is that safe? And will your restaurant stay in business? So vote no. This by-law needs…from your amendments, from the wording of your amendments on Monday, this by-law needs further refinement and improvement before passing. To debate and pass this in seven days is rushed. We are scrambling to put in place a regulatory structure for a government-run marketing board and enforcement body in seven days. This is a mammoth task. And, mark my word, we'll be back here in a short period of time talking about safety. We want to work with you to improve the by-laws and we'll continue to be part of the solution. We're asking for to you work with us. We’re your constituents. We are your taxpayers. We are your neighbours. We are your fellow Winnipeggers. Vote not yet, for some of you who aren’t allowed to vote no, vote not yet and vote no and give us a chance to build our service. I’ve got 20 seconds. Apps. So the premise of the by-law is that apps keep you safe. Well, there’s such thing as ID fraud, credit card fraud, stolen phones, there's random acts of violence which is occurring more and more. Transit isn't installing a shield because of the threat of cash being stolen from transit drivers. Thank you.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Mr. McFadyen. We'll hear from the next delegate and call you back up for questions momentarily. Mr. Surinder Sandhu, also in opposition to the vehicle-for-hire item. He’s the director at Unicity Taxi. You have five minutes, sir.

Sukhjinderpal Sandhu: Sorry, I want to request that it’s not Surinder, Sukhjinderpal Sandhu and I want to correct that. Good morning, Madam Speaker, His Worship Mayor and the councillors. My name is Sukhjinderpal Sandhu. I’m driving with Unicity for 20 years. I want to talk to you about what this by-law means to those of us who are part of our community taxi service. This has…this is very traumatic time for us, our family and our communities. We are proud to serve our community. Our goal always will be safe, reliable service to all the Winnipeggers. We believe the taxi industry continues to offer the riding public, advantage in comparison to new market entrants such as Uber and Lyft through fast, safe, reliable service throughout the city, 24/7, insured vehicle, trained professionally licensed drivers and metres pricing that is constant all the time, all the day. We have embraced the future with the state-of-the-art app for dispatch. We have been committed to our environment with the belief that is a virtually entirely fuel efficient vehicles. We are proud of our taxi service in Winnipeg. It is one of the safest. We are proud that our taxi service in Winnipeg is one of the safest in North America. Our goal is to make it the best terminal customer service in North America. In customer service, I have even sent a few emails to Mike Pagtakhan. We want to provide a good service to all the citizens of Winnipeg. What…sometimes we are…we are not allowed to do because of the by-laws. City of Winnipeg by-law such as fire lanes. All of the malls we go to, whenever we have to pick up an old person with a walker or a wheelchair, we can't provide them our service. We get a $150 ticket every single time we pick up someone from the Walmart front entrance unless they come into the parking. We believe in fairness, safety and community. That is why we oppose this by-law. Despite the amendment that has been proposed, these by-laws are seriously flawed. First of all, you are going to add new licenses without even waiting to see what impact Uber and companies like Uber will have on market. Uber and companies like them can add in as many vehicles as they want, that is why…that is not fair. There’s supposed to be a review before issuing a new license otherwise you will completely undercut our ability to compete. Second of all, you are putting a new financial burden on the taxi industry. When we will have to compete with the internet based taxis that can set whatever price they want while they’re still…when we are still subject to maximum fare. Two-thirds of the revenue will come from the taxi industry, when you will have fund revenue mostly part-time internet based taxi drivers. They will be creating most of our…most of your administrative enforcement burden. We strongly object to the ten cents per ride taxi tax. Third of all, safety. The vast majority of the Winnipeggers are saying they’re same safety rule sort of like to all, all the vehicles-for-hire, taxi, Uber or whatever. That includes shields, camera. It includes other safety initiatives such as training, what you have is a by-law that has five phases of requirements, obligation for a taxi driver, and a third of phase for the Uber driver. So what you are doing is first of all creating a huge impact on our livelihoods. We have people who are seriously going to be looking at the brink of bankruptcy who face losing their homes, their future kid, their kids’ future. You want to then flood the market with additional taxis.

Madam Speaker: Could you wrap up, Mr. Sandhu?

Sukhjinderpal Sandhu: Well, all I’m saying is I will be opposing it. I have a few…actually, we have the app, and each time that a person calls from our app, our car numbers goes to the customer, our phone number goes to the customer, our picture goes to the customer. So why is there a difference between with the taxi and Uber? Why they can't have camera and safety shield? And we have 30 employees working in our office, 25 of them are females, five of them are male. And, Mr. Mayor, you asked that why there's no girls or ladies driving taxis? It's not safe, especially in Winnipeg. In the North End and 30 years ago… COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG 17 December 13, 2017

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Sandhu. We have to take the questions now. I appreciate your presentation. Councillor Wyatt, you had your hand up.

Councillor Wyatt: Yeah, thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you for coming here today and speaking. I don't recall a time when a business community that…small business community that has been around so long and is of such a large size, individual businesses, has been treated this poorly by this level of government knowing full well that the ride- sharing companies have had meetings for months and months and months behind the scenes, crafting this by-law with our public service and consultants and elected or elected official staff. What is your thoughts in terms…I have a number of thoughts to this and I guess one of my thoughts is I believe that there's no doubt if we look at the gallery today, there's no doubt that in…and I can say this, I believe and I’ve heard in the community, systemic racism I think in terms of how this community has been treated, the fact that we actually had a motion that was put forward in this Council…

Madam Speaker: Your question, Councillor Wyatt.

Councillor Wyatt: Well, we had a motion put forward…

Councillor Gerbasi: Point of order, Madam Speaker. The Councillor is accusing this Council of racism. I’d like him to withdraw that. That’s completely out of order.

Madam Speaker: Councillor Wyatt.

Councillor Wyatt: Systemic racism, I did not to speak of this Council.

Madam Speaker: Councillor Wyatt, if you could get on with your question, please.

Councillor Wyatt: Thank you. I…the question I pose is this, we moved a motion that called for a working group to be created, a working group. The idea that you would sit down and work together with all parties including the ride-sharing companies and the administration to come up with a by-law that we could work for the first time. We are now going to be the regulator of this industry. To what extent, did that working group actually convene and work?

Sukhjinderpal Sandhu: Actually, we only had one meeting that was 20 minute…sorry, one hour and out of that, that was on the 27th of November. Just before the by-law came to the Council.

Madam Speaker: Mr. McFadyen.

Scott McFadyen: Yeah, and just to kind of like further clarify so that there was the one working group meeting. Members of the taxi industry were randomly selected to come to that meeting. So our voice was diluted and there's many people speaking to different strategies and what not. Your question is heard. I would say, you know, in my many years of working in government relations that I have never ever seen anything like this. We’re bringing in, you know, something, one of the City officials said this is like the equivalent of bringing in the milk marketing board. So this is a marketing agency. This is a enforcement agency brought in in seven days. There’s been very little productive dialogue on this. And, you know, I’m cautious to use the R word to describe anything that goes on here, but you know, you look at the fight that, you know, people are having with the Sterling Lyon Parkway, you know, those citizens get hurt pretty quickly.

Madam Speaker: Anything further, Councillor Wyatt?

Councillor Wyatt: Yeah, I do have another question. The challenge that you’re facing right now, you had…you had one meeting and you spoke…were able to only speak for 20 minutes, so could you please confirm that you had no dialogue with the Public Service in terms of the actual development of this by-law before it actually came forward?

Scott McFadyen: Yeah, that's correct. We did have, you know, there was a focus group meeting in September where members of the taxi industry were randomly selected. There was a one working group meeting where again, members of the taxi industry were randomly selected. When we went to, you know, meet with the Mayor, we, the Winnipeg Community Taxi Coalition requested the meeting. It was open up to a whole bunch of other people we didn't know. When we presented our research and recommendations to the City administration, you know, again, the meeting was opened up to a whole bunch of, you know, people we didn't know. So, you know, I think your suggestion is that, you know, was the process unfair? I’m not going to speculate as to why the process was unfair. But the answer to that question is that the process was grossly unfair.

Madam Speaker: Final question, Councillor Wyatt. 18 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG December 13, 2017

Councillor Wyatt: And more are you aware questions, you're aware that the reason that you're here today is because the Provincial Government, the Provincial Conservative Government, devolved this agency at…when the Mayor requested in the State of the City speech in March, devolved this to us through deregulation, to have unbridled free market regulation or lack thereof at the municipal level, knowing full well what would play out here, are aware that this…we're here today debating this today because of what the Provincial Conservative Government has done?

Scott McFadyen: Most certainly. What we do know is that over a thousand days ago, Mayor Bowman was elected to, you know, bring in Uber. It was part of his platform. Correct me if I’m wrong. Mr. Mayor, I don’t want to...

Madam Speaker: Mr. McFadyen, your comments will come through the Speaker's Chair.

Scott McFadyen: Oh, sorry, Speaker, sorry, we're like, you know, you can understand that we're relatively new to this process. It's been…it's been a really difficult time. We've had to fast track all of this through, you know, a thousand days we’ve known about this. We've had seven days to deliberate this. This is the livelihood of thousands of Winnipeggers. Seven days, seven days to discuss our livelihood. That's not fair.

Madam Speaker: Thank you. Councillor Schreyer.

Councillor Schreyer: Thank you, Madam Speaker. In direct parallel to the preamble offered by His Worship in his question, he made the point saying that there was filibustering and inflammatory comments, Madam Speaker, I may add that His Worship made his…made his question, and other good questions were asked during the extension period time.

Madam Speaker: Your question, Councillor Schreyer.

Councillor Schreyer: Madam Speaker, I didn't get answers to the questions we asked by the previous delegations but therefore, I’m…I have to ask now…where did…where did we believe that the City got their understanding of the current car-for-hire taxi industry here in Winnipeg if they didn't consult with you?

Sukhjinderpal Sandhu: I really don't know where they get those by-laws unless they're written by the Uber guys.

Madam Speaker: Okay. Councillor Schreyer, second question.

Councillor Schreyer: Madam Speaker, Uber talks about…and they talk about something that’s excellent, competitiveness, using technology and that's fantastic. And it looks like it's having an effect on the taxi industry throughout the continent. Technology does that, it advances. Having said that, Madam Speaker, do our delegates believe that technology is a substitute for safety regulations?

Sukhjinderpal Sandhu: Not at all. By adding three cents, will it make Winnipeggers safe? No, it does not. You need a safety shield and camera. When you have a camera, you are protecting both the driver and the passenger. Otherwise, there's allegations against something, all you are doing he said/she said, the camera is watching you and that's your witness right there. And Uber in England had a sexual harassment every single week. They've never reported it to the police. So how they can say like they will be there…the person will be protected, how will they protect those seniors?

Madam Speaker: Okay, thank you. Councillor Eadie.

Councillor Eadie: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m not sure if you're prepared to answer this question, but Madam Speaker, it seems to me, Madam Speaker, that under this by-law the personal vehicles-for-hire, not ride-share because we're not regulating Equay in true ride-share offerings because these personal vehicles are in the business to make money, not to help somebody get someplace safe, okay? Let's be clear about that. This is about business. It's about making money, making a living, and so whereas true ride-share is about sharing the costs in an ability to be able to utilize a motor vehicle to get somewhere. So let's be clear about that. But my…what I’m concerned about is that they are not limited in the number of vehicles they can have on the road at any one time. Madam Speaker, it seems to me that…that they're going to be a lot more personal vehicles on the road at peak hours when demand is there…

Madam Speaker: Your question, Councillor Eadie.

Councillor Eadie: I’m just about to deliver it. I just…during peak hours, and so my question, Madam Speaker, is simply, you know, we’ve got to get the factual information on the table. Has anybody found out from Edmonton or anywhere how much business they're taking at peak hours off the streets?

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG 19 December 13, 2017

Madam Speaker: Okay, Councillor Gillingham moves extension. Five minutes. Two minutes. All in favour for two minutes? Contrary? Carried.

Scott McFadyen: Yeah, so, you know, we obviously had a look at the draft administrative report. We're not overly confident that the City has done its due diligence in terms of looking at what other jurisdictions are doing. What I will say, you know, in respect to the whole concept of ride-sharing is that the by-law’s actually aptly named. The by-law is called the Vehicle-for-Hire Act. Ride-sharing, however, is Paul giving me a ride to the Jets game or Paul giving me a ride to the curling club. If a fare…sorry, sorry, if you are paying a person, if there's a commercial interaction that is dispatched through a fare, it's a taxi. If it walks like a taxi, if it talks like a taxi, it's a taxi.

Madam Speaker: Councillor Eadie.

Councillor Eadie: My…one more quick question would be to the Unicity driver. Does Unicity's app discriminate by…does the Unicity app allow people without credit cards to use that service?

Sukhjinderpal Sandhu: Yes, we allow anybody who we have their data on our internet can use our app. And also, some of our taxis, we’re…what we are doing is testing free Wi-Fi for the customers.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Councillor Gillingham.

Councillor Gillingham: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Just a question for Mr. McFadyen through you, I think Mr. McFadyen, you began your comments, something about the taxi drivers working on Christmas holidays when no one else wants to work, working 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, can you confirm, Mr. McFadyen, that personal transportation providers do not or will not work on Christmas holidays when others don't want to work that and personal transportation providers would refuse to work 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, can you confirm that?

Scott McFadyen: No, because I didn't make any insinuation that that was the case. What I was saying is that we work 24/7, 365.

Madam Speaker: Thank you. That concludes our question period today for these delegations. Thank you very much for your presentations. Next, I will call forward Mr. Garth Steek and Mr. David Ames presenting together in support of Item 5 of the report of the Standing Policy Committee on Infrastructure Renewal and Public Works dated October 31st, 2017 regarding Wilkes Avenue Alignment to William R. Clement Parkway Extension. We'll have 10 minutes on the clock. Mr. Steek, Dr. Ames.

Garth Steek: Madam Speaker, good morning. Dr. Ames has previous commitments. I’d like him to have the opportunity to speak first and I’ll follow thereafter.

Madam Speaker: Sure.

Garth Steek: Thank you.

David Ames: Good morning, Madam Speaker, Your Worship Brian Bowman, Council. I’d like to congratulate the taxi group that's here with their representative, Mr. McFadyen, to alienate 400 people in a single comment, strong work. My name is Dr. David Ames. I’m the president of the South Wilkes Community Association. I’ve spoke in front of most of you, I think there’s six new councillors that have yet to hear my ramblings. I would like to give you a brief history regarding east/west alignment of the William R. Clement Parkway now known as the Sterling Lyon Parkway Extension. Everything I speak to is factual and can be proven. This road alignment has been floating around for many years waiting to be snuck in. Doug McNeil claimed he found it back in a document from 1994 in an informational traffic study for the area. That study was then superseded by a MMM study which is now known as WSP. In 2012, the stated recommendation was 20 Wilkes for safety. These are both informational. In a meeting with MMM regarding the same study in 2012, then Councillor Havixbeck was again shown this alignment which she considered inconceivable and told the consultants not to consider something like this. Ironically, she was told that the late Bill Clement had funny enough said the same thing back in 2008. It stayed buried until 2014. In 2014, capital budget was approved by Council to include the functional design study of the WRCP extension. In October of 2014, an RFP was put forward at the end of Havixbeck's term, the beginning of Mr. Morantz's term, including the 20 of Wilkes is the east/west corridor. It has been shown multiple iterations of the master…the Winnipeg master plans. Dillon and MMM consultants bid, MMM won that consultation. It went back to IRPW or Infrastructure Renewal and Public Works in December of 2014, the then Chair Janice Lukes as well as current member, Devi Sharma voted to include funding from the Charleswood transportation levy to expand the scope of the work and double the money of the RFP, amending the capital budget. New language was included to not only look at 20 Wilkes but also looking at a southern realignment. This was not part of the original 20 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG December 13, 2017

RFP. There was not a single Council member that spoke to nor questioned this movement. It was reproved for a total of $1.6 million at that point. Process began and the first public engagement on this file was March 2015, only presentation was on the William R. Clement Parkway. There was no talk of an east/west route at that time. Of note, on the public boards with the phrasing precincts require a “precinct plan” to ensure organized development and transportation planning. This is yet to occur. Conspicuously, nothing further was publicly conducted regarding the file even though the RFP said completion in 16 months. In July of 2015, the administration through the COO directed Public Works to “cease and desist” any further public engagement open houses until the fall of 2015. We can come back to this. Mr. Suderman references this with Mr. Berezowsky on the multiple stop work orders on the file and a FIPPA released email dated October 28th, 2017. That summer, Brett Ferguson was contracted by WSP to work on estimating and costing of property and routes on this file. He was later contracted by SWCA which is the South Wilkes Community Association. He was given the file by WSP at that time with a single route. This is July of 2015 before public engagement. That is the road route 4. This is the full six months before the public engagement of the east/west alignments. He actually commented that he thought it was strange at the time that there wasn't multiple routes listed and inquired and he was told that there was one route going forward. That is the work he did. January 2016, was the next public engagement a year after the RFP was undertaken with first display of east/west corridor, three options. One was the twinning of Wilkes, two was what they call the North Sterling Lyon Parkway Route and three was the South Sterling Lyon Parkway Route. The public was asked to rank for the order option one of the 20 Wilkes was the primary choice. June 2016, an environmental impact study draft was completed, including fully engineered roads with drainage. This was then authorized to the Province, approved in summer 2017. The study is a farce. The extrapolated information from the study area was north of Wilkes. September 2006, no further engagement until registered letters for the October 2017 meeting with impacted homeowners almost a year later. In the interim, permits were issued, homes were bought and sold. The City purchased land along the route, six properties in total. All with the City knowing full well the deleterious impact and damage to property values that all would suffer along this preordained route. It felt like the fate of complete. I learned about this at the last meeting on the 5th of October that I was asked to go to. I was anonymously given a file in late September that showed part of this route and my home. I was floored. I engaged Councillor Morantz. He assured me he did not know of the plan to rip through the South Wilkes area. We rapidly incorporated a community association. We hired law firms and consultants, all to deal with the file process and damage to the value of our homes, a process the City sat on for years with no meaningful engagement and no transparency. We continue to carry the burden of this now. Councillor Morantz and Doug McNeil met with our association at our first board meeting October 21st. They both vehemently denied any prior knowledge of the road route or the significance of the impact. They both acknowledged the significant lack of oversight on this $300 to $400 million project and they vowed to work with us and make this right. The Mayor stepped up and committed to standing with the South Wilkes Community. This became about more than a road. This became about repairing a horrible process, about a lack of engagement and transparency that happens throughout this city. Today's theme seems to be false consultation from the first speaker, Mr. Burrows to the Taxi Board, to us as well. The lack of engagement and transparency that happens throughout this city was reflected in MMM which is now WSP, facing a disaster before its St. Boniface roadways that Mr. Allard can speak to. That RFP was retendered after MMM was taken off it. It was then awarded back to WSP. Where is the accountability? You elected officials are our voices, elected to be vigilant and protect the citizens from corruptive processes. We need you now. I implore you to stand with the South Wilkes Community and pass the motion, Item 5 from IRPW, address these broken processes city-wide, protecting those who may not have a voice or understand how to engage process or making it transparent and accountable regardless of status. As Councillor Eadie inappropriately and unfairly characterized our community as “millionaire homeowners trying to get around process” now knowing the flawed process and history, I’m sure Councillor Eadie would be damned to let this happen in his ward. I understand from the Clerk that the passing this motion moves the precinct plan as a by-law. I’m asking for further shoring up its position by adding the specific precincts planning concurrently, monies and a timeframe. We spoke about precincts MNO&P being specifically added to the motion because it doesn't list them specifically. We'd like that an RFP be issued January to be…attempted to complete in June and that the CAO report to the Standing Policy Committee on Property and Development on a quarterly basis. We believe that a funding for this project given that the budget is so contentiously and tightly was passed, be identified as a Wilkes South fund to a maximum of $200,000 towards the precinct planning for the four precincts and that 500,000 from the same fund be allocated towards proper analysis of the WRCP extension and appropriate east/west connection. And I respectfully ask, Madam Chair, that this item be moved up earlier on your agenda if it all possible. We’ve been very fair in not having every single person present today or past meetings or restate what’s been said over and over, and we hope you’ll move this earlier, so all the people that are still left here can get to work. Thank you.

Madam Speaker: Thank you. Mr. Steek. There was a few minutes on the clock still, yeah.

Garth Steek: Madam Speaker, Mr. Mayor, members of City Council, Mr. McNeil, bureaucrats. We're here today because of the constant vigilance of the citizens of Charleswood. It's absolutely astonishing to think that the bullying of the bureaucracy resulted in this scenario. We're in a situation here where people are living in flux and they have a major potential for losing value in their properties. I would argue that this is the most important clause that you’re going to pass during this term and there's a very definite reason for it. Do you have the courage to stand up to the bureaucrats and COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG 21 December 13, 2017

hold them accountable for what happened on this file? Mr. Mayor, during the time that we were undergoing the examination relative to police headquarters, you wanted to see an independent public inquiry. This file demands it. On November the 1st, the CAO stated point blank, both the bureaucrats and WSP knew what was happening on this file. Councillor Morantz in the same article said, no, it was only the civic bureaucrats that knew what was going on. What's the truth? Furthermore, on the 29th in a critical meeting of City Council and when you break, I would urge you to take a look at the EPC meeting of the 29th at minute 40. Councillor Morantz has been relentless in asking for the truth on this file. But he also asked once again of the CAO, what’s the status of this file. I’m not paraphrasing. I’m going to quote it to you. The CAO said, “I reviewed this matter with the Director of PP & D. I spoke to people in Public Works and I spoke to the consultants and that’s my report.” Read it. It’s there. You're no further ahead than you were a month ago. You don't know who authorized this. You don't know when they authorized it. You don’t know why they authorized it. This thing is scandalous. You have to have a public inquiry. We will never know the truth on this file, Mr. Mayor, without it. Even you in the paper, as recently as the 30th of November…

Madam Speaker: Mr. Steek, your comments will come in through the Chair.

Garth Steek: Thank you Madam Speaker, through you to the Mayor. You are quoted as saying you're having a problem understanding whether or not we're getting the full story on this particular project. Well, let me leave you with another thought and it was interesting through you, Madam Speaker, once again in this case, that Councillor Mayes…Councillor Mayes talked about how great the democracy was relative to the issue with Mr. Shane. Councillor Mayes certainly knows that there's ample jurisprudence when government willingly and knowingly harm citizens for reparation. So I’m going to suggest to you, let’s find out who a leader on this Council is. Somebody on this Council should be moving a motion directing this City to reimburse the people of Charleswood for the legal fees they have incurred. Why should they be incurring legal costs because of the bullying tactic of the bureaucracy? Simply wrong. They’ve already expended over $30,000 on legal fees and there’ll be more and I’ll go one step further. I’ll tell you where to get the money. It should be going to the CAO’s Office. They're at the apex of this triangle. Let them remunerate these citizens and maybe they want to allocate some of it from the Public Engagement Department who obviously oversaw this. A lot of you around this Council don't know that in the meetings, the second, third, fourth and fifth, which I’m sure Councillors Orlikow and Morantz will speak to because they were there. Are you aware of the fact that the bureaucracy would not allow those meetings to be tape recorded? I went into a meeting with Mr. McNeil and the first thing he told me was that I was going to be recorded. It's a disgrace. Finally, Mr. Mayor, I’m going to make this very, very clear. Something profoundly wrong happened here. The people around this table know it. The people up here know it. This isn't a threat, it's a promise. I will do everything possible to find out what happened on this file. That includes filing requests for information, attending at the standing policy committees. The abrogation of process in this entire file is without parallel.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Steek. We’ll now take questions. You’re just wrapping up?

Garth Steek: Yeah, if I could just…one minute.

Madam Speaker: Twenty seconds.

Garth Steek: Thank you. Like many of you, I happened to watch the senatorial elections last night in Alabama. And you probably all heard the same quote over and over from Martin Luther King, “The moral arc”…I see the Mayor nodding his head, he knows where I’m going. “The moral arc of the universe bends far, but it also bends towards justice.” How many times did I hear Councillor Morantz say, I want the truth? On the 29th, he's quoted in the paper saying, “I give up. I’m turning it over to bureaucracy.” Not good enough. Not good enough.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Steek.

Garth Steek: We deserve the truth.

Madam Speaker: Question from Councillor Eadie.

Councillor Eadie: Yes, thank you, Madam Speaker. I first would like to start off by actually apologizing for my statement I made at EPC some…what was that, two months ago, I can’t remember, Madam Speaker. And I apologize because a home is a home, Madam Speaker, and whether you're wealthy or not, a home is a home and we have to be concerned about that, Madam Speaker. And so my question is just simply aren't all of the other options going to be taking away people's homes?

Garth Steek: Madam Speaker, through you to Councillor Eadie, I think Mr. Ames would like to address that.

Councillor Eadie: For Mr. Ames or Dr. Ames. 22 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG December 13, 2017

Madam Speaker: Sure.

David Ames: First off, Councillor Eadie or Madam Speaker, thank Councillor Eadie for his apologies accepted and it's very big of him to acknowledge that. Not every route actually has deleterious property impacts as far as home loss. It is…been shown that the twinning of Wilkes will affect some of the property along Wilkes. Sixty percent of that frontage owners have actually signed affidavits saying that they were willing to accept that. There was three to five homeowners along there that actually came forward at EPC which is why we thought we needed an area structure plan, so this needs to be put on the table because somebody is going to be impacted. We’re not happy with the fact they were looking at 50 direct expropriations and hundreds of other direct impacts of those people being on the frontage of a new road that was hidden and if that was their choice, why did they just not bring it forward? Why was that not shown clearly super early in this process? It is still yet to come out.

Madam Speaker: Any further questions? Councillor Lukes.

Councillor Lukes: This is for Mr. Ames. Mr. Ames, are you aware that if Motion 5 passes that…that any point in the future, even after an area structure plan is done or a precinct plan, that Council can override the decision and that route 4 or option 4 may still be viable and may be considered?

David Ames: There's no such thing as a sure win in this for anybody. But I would be shocked, if they would do something as deleterious and ridiculous as putting Option 4 in after we’ve shown how significant those impacts would be and there's no value in putting it there. It's actually to accommodate a bigger issue with the WRCP intersection, they’ve decided to have that fall based on a 400 metre long overpass that may not be the best option. They found it to be the cheapest option. But there's significant impact with that that has not been addressed yet at this point. The precinct plan would allow a by-law and part of the rules of that precinct plan we said that the character and the quality of the neighbourhoods that are established which are the four or five streets that are there cannot be impacted. They have to work within that area so I guess it falls to definitions and sound practice.

Madam Speaker: Second question.

Councillor Lukes: So am I to understand correctly that throughout this whole process, that you’ve not been provided with any clear explanation on how this oversight could’ve happened and who could be responsible? Like, you’ve not got…you’ve not received any answer, any clarification, from speaking with the CAO or the Mayor or Councillor Morantz?

David Ames: No.

Councillor Lukes: Last question. And are you aware that this Council operates under a governance model that’s called strong mayor model where the Mayor has stated that he prefers this model because it allows him to be ultimately accountable, are you aware of this model that we operate under?

David Ames: I am.

Councillor Lukes: Thank you.

Madam Speaker: Councillor Schreyer, on to you for questions.

Councillor Schreyer: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was really impressed with the research and presentation given by both Mr. Ames and Mr. Steek. I’m not sure to whom to address my…Dr. Ames, excuse me…my question, but my understanding…to be clear and concise, my understanding is all we're asking for today in this is a re-evaluation based on greater public consultation and a process of greater account accountability in that process?

David Ames: Not exactly. There's a motion that went through IRPW that was then amended at EPC. The amended motion is what we asked to come forward. We had asked for stronger provisions in it such as monies assigned to it, a date an RFP could move forward and essentially a timeline so that this could be moved. Because the truth is that the only way that we can mitigate the damage that's been done to us is actually have a shovel in the ground or something on a piece of paper saying that this is the route. So as Councillor Lukes referred to, we want this to happen and we need it to happen now, we’ve been very gracious in pulling back and trying to work with the administration, the community, you know, even the people that weren't standing with us initially are standing with us now. We’ve put protections in to make sure that this doesn't run roughshod through that South Wilkes area because it doesn't need to. Because it's the easiest design or sometimes the most cost efficient is not always the best design for a growing city and we're not against growth, we are for controlled, engaged growth.

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG 23 December 13, 2017

Madam Speaker: Thank you. Any further questions for our delegations? Okay. That concludes…Councillor Wyatt.

Councillor Wyatt: Just reading your motion out, the first time I saw it was…this identified…be it resolved…be it resolved that a source of funding for this project be identified as the Wilkes South Fund to a maximum of $200,000. So the Wilkes South Fund you're talking about here, where is this…where is this money coming from, this $200,000 that you're proposing?

David Ames: Madam Speaker, I believe that Councillor Morantz may be able to speak better to that. The motion of…or the amendment that we put forward is to be in addition to the motion that was already moved at EPC. We'd like that added for clarity in the motion that’s being voted on today.

Madam Speaker: Okay, second question, Councillor Wyatt.

Councillor Wyatt: Is this coming from the mill rate support of the City or where is the funding for this coming from right now? Where…what’s the…this funding here, is it public money…is it private money and if it is public money, where within the City is the funding source just so we know?

David Ames: Madam Speaker, I believe it is public funding. I’m not a civic politics expert and I don't espouse to know all of the processes of the City or I probably wouldn't be here. Again, I think Mr. Morantz can speak to that.

Madam Speaker: Okay, thank you. Final question.

Councillor Wyatt: So it’s more are you aware, are you aware that if it is not specific to a fund that’s been identified or exists, we have a…every year, Council Policy exists where we, the Standing Committee of Property Development has to come forward and if the Public Service has to come forward to the standing committee to issue a report with regards to the various secondary plans, precinct plans, that are going to be done on an annual basis and there are many plans that are in that list that have been sitting there waiting for their turn for funding and unless this funding has been identified already, it's hard to make the case when other projects are in the list and in the queue that have been waiting for some time. Are you aware?

Madam Speaker: Dr. Ames.

David Ames: Madam Speaker, I am aware of some of those processes. I’m not aware of each of the individual pieces that are sitting but I could probably speak intelligently enough to say that they had not been impacted the way that we have waiting for precinct plans. We're asking for this to be put in because of the disaster of the management of this file. There is no precinct plan put in. We have already suffered significant cost, depreciation on our houses that has been quantified, much less turning our lives on our, you know, on our sides for the last three or four months. So yes, this is extenuating and these are exceptional circumstances and I hope that you treat them as such.

Madam Speaker: Okay, thank you. Any further questions? Seeing none, we thank you for your presentation today.

Councillor Lukes: Madam Speaker, not sure if we’re going to break now, but I would ask that that we suspend the rules to speak to…to let some other delegations speak to Item No. 5, Transition of the Regulation of Vehicles for Hire from the Province to the City.

Madam Speaker: Okay, do we have a list of names?

Councillor Lukes: I’ve provided it to the clerk.

Madam Speaker: Okay. There's a list of just…let me have a look at it here.

Councillor Lukes: That we could at least allow them five minutes. No questions.

Madam Speaker: Approximately 19 residents are on the list to speak to the Transition of the Regulation of Vehicles-for- Hire item. Five minutes, no questions. It will be suspension of the rules. Pardon me, Mr. Clerk. Yes, we can read the list. Madam Clerk.

Clerk: Bupinder Mangat, Jaspal Bedi, Harjinder Dhillon, Gurmail Gill, Iqbal Chahal, Iqbal Gill, Tarlochan Gill, Kuljit Gill, Jagtar Gill, Jagtar Kler, Rajwant Brar, Manjinder Ghuman, Alexander Ashton, Manjit Dhillon, Iqbal Dhillon, Jaswant Deol and Peter Chopra and Anish Vij and Roger Vin.

24 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG December 13, 2017

Madam Speaker: Okay, there's a motion on the floor to suspend the rules, five minutes each for each speaker with no questions. All in favour? Contrary? Carried. Mr. Mayor.

Mayor Bowman: Madam Speaker, I know a number of these delegations have been waiting some time to speak. I would suggest we continue through and break for lunch after we’ve heard from them.

Madam Speaker: Okay. All in favour? Contrary? Okay, are the delegations in the room right now? Can we verify that because at noon, we do break and I’m just wondering about process if they are aware of that. Yeah, okay. So I’d like to call them out and make sure they're here in the room. Mr. Bupinder Mangat, if you could please come forward. Okay, I guess for those that aren't here, we could perhaps hear them after the recess if that's…if Council is amenable. Mr. Bupinder Mangat.

Bupinder Mangat: Good afternoon, everybody, Honourable Mr. Mayor and every councillor. I just wondering about if…like, here comes in Uber and Lyft in here, we are working since almost 50 or 40 years almost, and people are used to us. And we have the good connection with customers, everybody here. And also another thing if Uber or Lyft have safety features like who is picked up the customer? We have also the same thing. We have the good app system and also phone calling system that is working very good. And also we have if the drivers pick up the customer, the customer know that driver phone number or the driver name or the driver picture, that’s also another safety feature. And also, we have the camera or safety shield, everything and the camera is capturing like the whole car, like the driver, also the customer. And another thing, we have like good drivers now. We have good training system, if anybody like without a license, then our companies explain everything about losing regulations and they follow the rules and the regulations as a driver. Then the customer, if they have any complaint we have the complaint, like, the site at the taxis, they have a number of our companies, or the Taxi Board that is another safety feature. I think so. And another thing, Mr. Mayor or the councillor, if you allow the Uber or Lyft and another taxi license, why you, like, checking first what is the Uber and Lyft proponents after you allowing the regulatory (inaudible) everything because Winnipeg is not a big city I think, it is maybe 7 or 800,000 people. We have lots of taxis now and accessible taxis and the Handi-transit, everything. In my opinion, if you think about first, review like first Uber and Lyft allowing here then it would checking if the more taxis are needed, then we're going to decide after that, my thinking. Another thing Unicity and Duffy’s is working I think a long time in Winnipeg, and people know about each of everything. And Uber, they have lots of controversy, every city I think. England, they have already banned it there because they have a lot of chances, lots of happening over there and Ubers in Montreal, they have also the controversies because if you are allowing here and after that, this is also happening are you like cancelled there or I don’t know you guys keep this running? And my thinking, think about first is checking whole like Canada or the U.S. or whatever the other countries, what is the review like for Uber or Lyft and any other ride- sharing companies and then you learn here.

Madam Speaker: Thank you very much. Thank you. Now, we need to go back to a delegation that was added to the list, Mr. Jason Carter from Bike Winnipeg. If he's still here, you can come forward and following that, I’ve had some members of Council that have emailed me. They're unclear about hearing 19 delegations before lunch time, is everyone clear that we could be here for another hour or so? Or is it the will of Council to break after Mr. Carter's presentation? Okay, we'll hear from Mr. Carter here first. Mr. Carter, thank you.

Jason Carter: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you very much to Mr. Mayor and councillors for allowing me to speak this morning. I’ll try…I will make it short no matter what. I’m here on behalf of Bike Winnipeg. Bike Winnipeg is the rebranding of Bike to the Future which was formed in 2003 after an acrimonious dispute on the critical mass rides, prior to that was the Recreation and Transportation Committee of the Manitoba Cycling Association. I was a former president of that association in 2011. That committee also was instrumental in developing the cyclist map of Winnipeg and we can trace our roots back to involvement with the City of Winnipeg back to the era of post-war insurgence or upswing in number of cyclists and all the way back to 1883, two years prior to the development of the fire grade here in the city. Our position here on this matter is really quite narrow. We would like the development of commercialized vehicles whether they be taxis, Ubers, Lyft or whatever they're called, not to be allowed into the diamond lanes. We believe that the diamond lanes are working effectively and necessarily quite well. Ironically, across my desk yesterday came a notice and article from Street Blogs which is the instrumental advocacy organization of New York which has aligned itself with Janette Sadik-Khan which I’m sure you’re familiar with. And the article was Boston tests faster bus service by simply…may serve simply by laying out cones. In other words, a pop-up dedicated diamond lane in Boston because it works. It works for the buses and it works for cyclists. It is faster. Why is it faster? It's not because of speed, bus drivers are pros. They're not going to go above the posted limit. It works because in relationship to the jams and blockades and other problems with our ever increasing volume of motorized vehicles on…in the city, the buses having a dedicated lane move faster from point to point without…normal part. In those ways and nodes of buses, there are the cyclists and that works well. We've had decades of involvement with cyclists. It has been acrimonious at times, but for the most part, our relationship with the buses has worked. In Pembina Highway, it is working better because we now have dedicated bike lanes, but in many of the other structures, this is the only alternative for people to go. Bike Winnipeg here directly claims COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG 25 December 13, 2017

representation of 13,500 regular commuters, commuters every day. We also claim representation of 200,000 occasional cyclists, people who will pick up their bike from the dusty garage and put it on the road. How do those people resolve the transportation problem of getting A to B? They take a direct line. We are embedded in the grid network and that direct line often involves diamond lanes. Our concern here is that it’s…that it is…it is in a commercialized system here, it is that it's a quantity-based revenue stream. In other words, you have to pick up fares. If Mr. Wyatt puts up his hand and whistles like he's at a football game, I as a driver and a commercial vehicle have to go and pick him up right away. I have to dart into that diamond lane or I have to speed up because the guy behind me is going to get that fare. That creates more chaos in that buffer zone. And diamond lane does operate like a buffer zone especially for pedestrians, right? One step off the curb and you're into the diamond lane, okay? So what happens if you have buses in there only? You have a node, big node areas, quiet times, we can also hear 40,000 pound vehicle moving along. An electric 1.9 seconds from 0 to 60 vehicle will cause extreme risks in a small car will cause extreme risk as well. The drivers have to be ready for that…that risk and the pedestrians have to do that as well. We also are concerned with what happens once the cars enter and go along this…this roadway. We have a definite problem here in Winnipeg with stopping at red lights and turning directly into the right hand turn. This is called a right herd…right-hook configuration and that configuration is a risk to cyclists and pedestrians on the curb as well.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Carter for your presentation today.

Jason Carter: Thank you.

Madam Speaker: Appreciate it. Okay. So we're continuing on with the delegation list. There's about 18 delegations that we'll be hearing from. Next is Mr. Jaspal Bedi, if he’s here, Mr. Jaspal Bedi, followed by Mr. Harjinder Dhillon. Welcome, Mr. Bedi.

Jaspal Bedi: Thank you Madam Speaker, Mr. Mayor and the councillors for giving us a chance to speak today. When we went in front of the Provincial Government, we were told that they're simply transferring the jurisdiction to the City by introducing Bill 30. We were assured that all of our concerns and inputs would be looked after by the City of Winnipeg. Mr. Premier himself assured us that he has full faith in our mayor that when it comes to safety, the City would not compromise in any way whether it's for our drivers or the public or passengers. These by-laws have no safety, none so ever, for the ride-sharing drivers or their passengers. Here are some stats for Uber and Lyft. Thirty two deaths involving Uber and Lyft drivers from 2016 to 2017, 327 numbers of alleged sexual assaults in year 2015 and 2017, 86 numbers of imposers from 2015 to 2017, 13 alleged kidnappings by Uber drivers from 2014 and 2017. Uber was sued 435 times in 2017 alone. Just last week, Uber driver was brutally murdered. He was stabbed to death by a 16 year old girl. Are we going to wait until it happens in our own city with our own citizens before we take safety seriously? It could be mine or your friend or relative or someone's loved one. Once a life is taken, you can never bring it back, nothing can replace the devastating effect it leaves on the family when someone dies. How can you blindfoldly vote yes for these by-laws when you know that there's no safety measures in place for our public or the ride-sharing drivers. It is your duty to protect the people of Winnipeg when it comes to safety. We don't want to be the one to tell you that we told you so when bad incidents happen or someone gets killed. Now 60 extra cabs, as of February 2018, we don't know how many PTP vehicles will be on our streets. We don't know if that number will be 500, 1,000, 1,500 or 2,000 or even more. The industry is going to be flooded with these vehicles. Our taxi business starts to slow down after the month of February. It makes no sense adding the extra 60 cabs when we're losing ridership, business is slow and we're flooding the industry with hundreds, if not thousands of PTP vehicles. The City should be…the City should definitely wait and see what the impact is going to be with these PTP vehicles for the first year. Maybe we won't even need the extra cabs at all once we know how many vehicles are in total serving our city. If you issue those extra licenses for taxis, they will have to pay for cameras, shields, metres, strobe lights and all the extra accessories. They will have to pay $11,000 for the…for insurance for the first year. How will they survive and pay for those bills when there's hardly any business for them? So please wait and see how things unfold. You can always add more taxis the following year if needed, but you cannot take the license back once they're issued. Now about us, we, the taxi industry, are your local small business people. Many of us are proud new Canadians. All of us have come to this great country, Canada, and this great city, Winnipeg, to make a better life for our families. Many of us were farmers from the country that we migrated from, many of us have sold our land from back home and houses, brought the money here and invested locally in this great city that we call home now. All the money we make from this industry we put it back into this local economy. We buy cars locally. We shop locally. We pay our taxes here. We are all hard working people. We work hard for long hours in very challenging environments. We make ends meet for all our family members. I have never met a family from our community that has ever been on welfare or social assistance system. We have never asked for any handout. But today, we are asking all of you for a hand up to stand by us. We are your local people that work for you. It's your duty to support and help your local business. Not…it's your duty to help support and help your local business to survive, not to destroy. We are the new and proud members of Chambers of Commerce. I had the privilege of attending the fundraising event for them just recently. I love the speech you gave that night, Mr. Mayor. You said you and your staff work always hard for your local business. You ended your speech by saying, “Please let us know what we're doing right and please let us know what we're not 26 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG December 13, 2017

doing right.” I’m telling you today and to the councillors that this is not right. These by-laws are not right in any way or fair in any ways for us.

Madam Speaker: If you could wrap up please, Mr. Bedi. Thank you. Okay.

Jaspal Bedi: I just want to end by saying the decision that you make today, the decision to bring food on our family table, to send our kids to…pay for their educations, pay for the activities depend on your decision. Your votes will decide our future. We will remember and we will not forget. I just want to make that clear. We always remember who our friends are, who stand beside us in the difficult times, but we never forget the ones that tried to ruin us. Just one last question, I’ll just take 10 seconds. You guys are all professionals. You are all involved in the business world. Please explain this to my industry and my community that when you take away half of the income of a business and more than double or triple their expenses, how is that business going to survive? Because that is what this by-law is doing for us.

Madam Speaker: Thank you very much.

Jaspal Bedi: Thank you.

Madam Speaker: Thank you. Mr. Harjinder Dhillon followed by Mr. Gurmail Gill. Mr. Harjinder…

Harjinder Dhillon: Harjinder Dhillon.

Madam Speaker: Okay, excellent. Thank you.

Harjinder Dhillon: Thank you Madam Speaker, and our mayor and all of the members of Council. Good afternoon. I think a lot of things, my friends, they discussed earlier last week, Wednesday, and we are in the same spot back again. And these people, they…my friend that just spoke before me, he explained a lot of things and as you guys know I just want to go a little bit back to remind everyone, all of the leaders, who they’re leading us and we have a faith. When the Provincial Government was campaigning and our Premier, Mr. Pallister, he promised with the industry, you guys don't have to worry, I am promising with you, it's going to be a level playing field or game. It's going to be equal for everyone. Whoever will come in this market and will drive as a cab, work as a cab, and I have objection, these ride-sharing words they are putting in our mouths. This is not ride-sharing. You guys know better than me, what is the meaning of ride- sharing. This is industry, this is a taxi industry. People are paying fare to go from A to B point, dispatched through the internet. We have the same ability, people they can do that. We have an app, extra things we have, people they can call over the phone, people that don't have smartphones, they can't afford smartphones, and people, we already explained a lot of times, they're old schooling, they're seniors, they need our service. And these internet companies, they just designed for those people, they can call cabs A to B, just a quick pick up and a drop off. And I have a question for you guys. Who will serve those seniors? Who will serve those people who don't have a smartphone? Who will serve those seniors who they’re going to get grocery, 80 year old, 90 year old? We are serving them. These companies, they are not going to serve them. And mark my words, if this business is going to…not viable for us, we're not going to make a living after a year and two years, this industry is going to be demolished. And our citizens, they are responsible for this mistake, why we brought these companies in because we can't compete with them. Because their expenses are so low, our expenses are so high because we’re regulated and they’re not. So this is very common sense, question or answer and all you guys know this burden will go back to the all taxpayers. Who will serve those seniors? Those people, they have walkers, they have wheelchairs, we are serving them. So I’m requesting you guys all again, we are one family. We are living in this country since the last…especially in Winnipeg last 50 years, our uncles, our seniors. They spend their lives, 40, 50 years in this business. And I’m going to straight tell you, very straight, very blunt, that we are suffering through the two generations. Old generations, they don't have anything today because business is gone with a one stroke of a pen. Next generation is my son and all of these people that are friend of mine and there’s kids…they’re going into universities. They are pushing us. How are they going to afford their educations?

Madam Speaker: Thank you for your presentation.

Harjinder Dhillon: So please (inaudible) decide anything. Think twenty times and make your decision. Thank you very much.

Madam Speaker: Thank you. Mr. Gurmail Gill followed by Mr. Iqbal Chahal. Mr. Gill, welcome.

Gurmail Gill: Good afternoon, everybody present here and Madam Speaker. I’ve been driving a cab in 1984 and since then to now technology has changed. That's very nice, good thing. The man left already told us, her answer, technology. We have the best technology here in our taxi industry. We have an app. We have a GPS. We have all information, our picture, our name, our phone number to the customers and camera in our taxis for protection of people, our passengers, COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG 27 December 13, 2017

young kids, girls, boys, from the bars we’re picking up, camera (inaudible) us, more than the driver, for the passengers. And a shield, shield is the best protection. Any technology can't stop the knives or machete come to you. Any kind of buttons won't stop that. But shield gives you extra few seconds or more (indiscernible) to get out of your cab or whatever you can do. And it comes to the diamond lane, my friend before said, like, only cycle and the buses allowed there because of the effect, he told us they will not only coming in 7:00 to 9:00 in the morning, 3:30 to 5:30 at the ending. Those peak hours and he said you can step on that sidewalk and weekly zones so what would happen after 9:00 to 3:30 and after 5:30 too, anybody can step…jump in front of the any vehicle, that's not the point. And, of course, safety's best concern and flooded industry like a putting more vehicles, same concern that everybody told you. Like you should how wait because when other ride-sharing, they’re called, there's no such thing as ride-share, that's a infinite taxi, same thing, like a taxi. They call you and they hire you and, of course, you have to pay advance to them, but our technology here and our apps here already telling you, you can pay after. Even we take a little risky business here because end of the destination, sometimes we don’t get paid, but we still give the services. We still give the services to those handicap people and the people who don't have a credit card, people who don't have a smartphone, and all of the Safeway grocery trips et cetera, et cetera. And…what I am going to say…I forgot. That's enough, I guess. Thank you.

Madam Speaker: Thank you for your presentation today. Mr. Gill, thank you. Mr. Iqbal Chahal followed by Mr. Iqbal Gill. Okay, so Mr. Iqbal Gill. That's fine. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Iqbal Gill on the record now. Thank you.

Iqbal Gill: Hello, good afternoon to everyone. It is…thanks for Madam Speaker and all the Council members. I just wanted to be…don't want to take too much time here because all the speaker already spoken our concerns and everything. I just want to point out a few things here…is a…is nobody mentioned on the…this thing is the by-law says that Class 5 driver cannot drive the Ubers. They're not the professionals as the Class 5 as MPI. We are the taxi drivers and I’m driving for almost 20 years. And we all has a Class 4 and we know how to deal with a professionalism on the driving on the roads, on the winter condition and all kind of things. For now is happening is a Class 5 driver you guys put in is, if it’s a Class 5, it's a professional driver I think is that MPI and all of those should be amended in those books too because Class 5 is concerned with the professional driver. Not sure. That’s my question to all the councillor here if anybody can answer after that when they have time. How they’re going to save the lives when they’re sitting in the back of the car if they're not the professional, if they don't know the deal with the weather condition and all kind of things. Second thing is for private industry is no training for the driver. When we go to the schools and they…even the kids who go to the schools and the teachers always tell them about the safety tips for when they have the weird time is coming or all the fire exit and everything. How does the Uber driver…they teach them for the safety and how they’re going to say, you’ve saved themselves and the passenger because they don’t have no training. If one person is coming from the one month out of the country, they’re going to have the license and they’re going to start driving the Uber. How they’re going to save them or how he’s going to save himself? There's no training required. I don't understand why, why we have to go for the seven, eight weeks for the training and why can't they if they wanted the same rules and same everything? And third thing is the taxi fares. High burden on public. We want to decrease our fare before we think about it, compete with the coming of the market here, part is the…it’s the opposite things are happening, they give us to a raise because they want to…the City want to fill up their pockets and because they don’t want to get the budget for the taxi industry. They want to put the burden on the taxi owners. Why we have to pay the $600 for the business license. Same thing is the Uber, whoever going to drive for those industry. They have the business owner too. They’re going to be…they’re going to get the T4s. Why we? Why we have to pay the $600 every single trip we have to pay to the 10 cents, and we’re having a raise on our fares, I understand. But who’s going to come to our taxi if they’re getting the cheaper rides on the Ubers and all other industries, my question to all of the councillors. I have a lot of things as a global breach like is privacy. Everybody says in Canada when I came here, privacy is a big effect. Everybody sees in the news that there's a global breach for the privacies, 800 people, they stole the credit or the…I don't know what they did…the hacker, who is responsible for that, it's going to come in the city and Winnipeg too, who’s going to be responsible, all the councillors or the Mayor or the dead taxi drivers going to be for those please. I had a question for all those. And same thing, somebody says compared to limos and taxis, they all has a pretty much same. I cannot explain on that one too for a little bit, for one second. The limos has fixed rates. If they go to one stop to second, they don't put the third charge. It doesn't matter, the winter or the summer, they all has the fixed rate from one stop to the second stop. Does the Uber and other industries has a fixed rates? They can make a surcharge whenever they want, it's not same, the same law ground as the taxi. It's not even the same like as around the taxi. Taxi doesn’t have driver, driver, owner has nothing to say with that. When is that approved by the government for that fare? You can't touch the fares, they have a seal on the metre. The Uber doesn't have any restrictions. All the questions to the Council, please answer when you have the time. That's okay. I cannot stop, I guess here. Personal driver trips just the one…take another 20 seconds. This is the main big topic concern here. The Uber take the call, one stop to the other stop and whoever can take the driver like (indiscernible) under the Uber driver. I take trip from one to another destination, is the guy stopped there and I can give him my personal number. Here when you need that cab next time, call me, don't bother the Uber. That's exactly happening in other cities. Nobody mentioned that point. Please think about who is going to care about that passenger when it's going to come to my car. It's going to flood the market or everything. Who’s going to be responsible for that passenger if he gets hurt? 28 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG December 13, 2017

Madam Speaker: Okay, Thank you.

Iqbal Chahal: Is Uber going to be responsible for that or the councillors? Thank you very much.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Gill.

Councillor Wyatt: Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Yes?

Councillor Wyatt: Madam Speaker, I supported the motion of the Mayor to have lunch after the delegations but unfortunately, I’ve been drinking coffee and I do need a bit of a…and I’d like to hear the delegations. Could we just take a 5, 10 minute break if it’s possible just so we can washroom break, is it…so…because I’d like to be back in the room when the delegations are speaking so, you know, my nature…nature beckons.

Madam Speaker: Okay, so there's that question and I continue to get emails, is it Council's will to break for recess now? Or the five minute break? Well, that's what I was just asking, the revisit for the lunch. We also have staff that are working diligently. I want to remind everybody on our behalf here today. So I’m posing the question instead of keep…I’m getting texts and emails from all of you, so I’m going to put the question out there. Is it the will of Council to break till 1:30 for lunch? All in favour? Contrary? Carried. Thank you. Council will re-adjourn at 1:30.

Reconvened meeting of Winnipeg City Council of December 13, 2017, at 1:30 p.m.

Madam Speaker: Good afternoon, pleased to welcome everyone back to this Council meeting of December 13th, 2017. We are currently still hearing delegations. I will call up Mr. Tarlochan Gill. The rest of the delegations we're hearing are in opposition to the vehicle-for-hire by-law. Mr. Tarlochan Gill, five minutes on the clock. Welcome, sir.

Tarlochan Gill: Good afternoon, the Speaker, ma'am and Mayor Bowman and all the councillors. First of all, I want to thanks to the Mayor and all the councillors. We’re trying from last couple of years about the diamond lane we got from you as a trial basis. I hope we always follow your rules and regulation to keep it permanently. I think I’m driving a cab for almost 28 years. We have lots of expectations and we know what kind of difficulty we feel in our job. This job is not easy. It's a stressful job. I request all the councillors and the Mayor once we are getting the diamond lane, we should at least get at the same time, especially in downtown, we have the buses are going to make a left to right turn, we should be allowed to do the same thing to provide faster and the better service to the Winnipeggers. Second, all those by-laws are made, even changes thankful to remove 20 years restrictions on those medallion licenses. And third one from 120 cars motion was made for 60 cars. I wanted all the councillors and Mayor made sure heard as strongly and hard on those 60 cars. By being…providing a service to the Winnipeggers, there are enough cars on the road. Since…from starting March 1st, ride-sharing is going to be there. Nobody knows what the impact is going to be. Maybe thousand, two thousand drivers are there working on peak hours, some will be working full hours. Do we need those 60 cars at the same time? I request all the councillors those 60 license should be delayed till end of year. If City thinks still they need those taxis for them, they can go to 120 or they can start end of the year with the 60, but they should wait until this all things that will be looked for the industry, because if the 60 cars are there and 200 ride-sharing is there, this industry is already wiped out. We will be out of business because ride-sharing and industry whatever the business we are having, we are going to share it. Our bread and butter is going to be shared with the ride-sharing. When we are paying so much expenses, we are paying higher amount of insurance, we are paying dispatch fees, we’re paying all the concessions, we're paying airport fees on the second thing, our business, Taxi Board license was 200 it went to 600, now there is another burden on us for 10 cents for fare. Expenses are gone way higher from the…our head. We don’t know how we will cover these all things. In these by-laws, I…most of the things you did better for the diamond lane and remove (indiscernible) is going against us. All…this by-law is…Uber is getting bigger advantage for these by-laws. Previously, our ride-sharing representative, he said that that ride-sharing and the limos are all the same, they doesn't have the shields. But in limos, it's a totally different business because in limos, the bigger cars, the drivers have a separate cabin. The customers are at the back so they don't need shields. For the executive cars, those are the smaller…the have the bigger accounts like the cruise, the Great West Life, they are having…they have to drop them point to point. So they don't have any effects to put those shields, but on ride-sharing, these cars will be called on the bars, the drunks will be there, now we know what’s going happen, already we have seen there is lots of complaints for whatever happened in Chicago, just recently it happened. There are so many sexual harassment is done, so many incidents happened which until now never heard against Uber that they're supporting these criminal drivers. And they’re taking license away recently in the States, one of COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG 29 December 13, 2017

the Uber driver who ran over the people, who was driving Uber taxi for, ride-sharing car for part time, these are all things should be brought in the City Hall. So they should think ten times to say yes to all these by-laws so we need more changes so Winnipeggers could be safe. I will say one more thing. I want to say all these councillors and Mayor is elected by the public to make Winnipeg great. We want to see that, but not to make America great because 25% of the profit is going there. Thank you.

Madam Speaker: Thank you very much. I’d like to ask at this time if Iqbal Chahal is here. His name was called earlier, but he wasn’t in the gallery. Okay, we'll move on to Mr. Kuljit Gill, followed by Mr. Jagtar Gill. Welcome, Mr. Gill.

Kuljit Gill: Yes, I would like to thanks Mr. Mayor and member of City Council. Thank you for the time. Mr. Mayor, you are a former privacy lawyer, is that right?

Madam Speaker: Mr. Gill, you’ll bring your comments through the Speaker, the Chair.

Kuljit Gill: Okay, I’ll do that.

Madam Speaker: Okay, thank you.

Kuljit Gill: Uber compromised 800,000 Canadian privacy and over 52 million globally then they try to hide for a year, paying someone to stay quiet. Is that fair? Mr. Mayor, you're a privacy lawyer. You should be more vigilant and very concerned about, but instead you're bringing in on the red carpet Uber which already has failed its users with largest global data breach. Privacy advocates are alarmed, why Mr. Mayor, you’re not alarmed?

Mayor Bowman: Madam Speaker, do you mind…can I just ask that you enforce the rule equitably, whether someone’s in opposition or in favour. You've asked once and I note there’s been two instances where the comments are directed at a member of Council, in this case, myself.

Madam Speaker: Yeah, so just again to reiterate, you’ll bring your comments to the Speaker. So if you’ve got Mr. Mayor written in your speech, you would say maybe through the Speaker or look at me. I know it's hard when you're writing, reading from a script.

Kuljit Gill: Privacy advocates are alarmed, why, Mr. Mayor, you're not alarmed? You have a responsibility to protect Winnipeg citizens, why as City councillors are not alarmed? Canadian Sikh Association of Manitoba issued a statement saying regulators are (indiscernible) two other (indiscernible) issue statements that Sikh community is not impressed with the way we are being treated. It is undramatically and gross, disgusting to the industry and Sikh community if these regulations pass. You are ruining the industry. When your Chief Transit Officer wished he had two more years at the consultation meeting, by rushing, Mayor, the City councillors, this is not a leadership, it’s a simply reckless, thank you.

Madam Speaker: Okay, thank you, Mr. Gill. Next, we'll hear from Mr. Jagtar Gill followed by Jagtar Kler. Are either of them here today? Okay. We'll go to Mr. Rajwant Brar followed by Mr. Manjinder Ghuman. So again, just to remind everyone, the rest of the delegations, any comments should not be directed at any member of Council or the Mayor. It should come through the Speaker's chair.

Rajwant Brar: Okay. Good afternoon, everybody. I’m here simply to state that this bill is very unfair. And we are loaded with all kinds of regulations. On the other side, you're bringing someone with zero regulations. Public safety should be forefront. It took us almost 75 years to come up to this safety level. Taxi Cab Board, one of the mandate they had was also protecting the public, not just drivers. Who’s going to protect the public with the Uber cars and who you know behind the driver seat? We're not scared of the competition. We're simply asking if someone is going to come into this field, it should be coming with a fair regulations, with the same regulations. And we have an overhead of $35,000 each. And someone who is going to walk in with zero equipment, zero regulations, how are we going to compete? The way this by-law sounds is that City Hall has simply wants to phase us out, and I don't think it's fair. That's all I’m going to say. Thank you very much.

Madam Speaker: Okay. Thank you. Next is Mr. Rajwant Brar or pardon me, that was him. Mr. Manjinder Ghuman.

Manjinder Ghuman: Good afternoon to everybody in the City Hall. First of all, I’m very thankful to the Mayor and the councillors who made some amendments in the by-laws and we need some more amendments in these laws. For example, we think that discriminated as the penalties, 118 different types of penalties which are in the by-laws. And out of 118, 102 are only on here in the taxi business. And Uber’s or PTP has only the 16. It is totally we think that it’s a discrimination with us. And secondly, the amount of fine is doubled as compared to the PTP to a taxi industry. And in PTPs, half of them taxis. So please, we need these amendments also in this by-law. And also, providing the safety, we 30 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG December 13, 2017

are thankful to you that you have allowed safety shields in the PTP cars. We think that you should also fix the cameras as a…cameras and shields are also in the handicap accessible vans and the cars as well as in the buses so why not in Uber cars? We don’t know these persons who are working for the Ubers have the license of one month or two months, mostly they are the immigrants and they have the international licenses. They can drive their cars without any training in the MPI and they can drive the cars for the Uber. So there is no knowledge about the safety and any type of training. So please amend all these things. And thirdly, you have put all the burden on the taxi industry of 1.3 million. How we can pay this amount? Because that same amount of number of fares we're getting and they will share from those amounts...number of fares. And the number of fares will be less to the industry. So how are we going to pay all these expenses? We don't know. The Ubers, they will be 1,000, 2,000 or 200. They are only working on the Class 5 license, not the taxi license. We’re paying for the taxi license, $70. Why they can’t pay? If you fix those pieces on them, the City can…maybe increase the burden on taxi industry maybe less. So please, we need more amendments in this by-law, thank you.

Madam Speaker: Thank you. We’ll now hear from Mr. Alexander Ashton followed by Mr. Manjit Dhillon.

Alexander Ashton: Thank you, Speaker, His Worship Mayor Bowman and councillors. I’m quite grateful to…for being able to speak again. I spoke at EPC and now I’m in front of all councillors. My name is Alexander Ashton. I’m an urban planner and I am conducting research and outreach for the Winnipeg Community Taxi Coalition. So during our meetings, we did warn Council and Administration about the lack of research, proof and over-exaggerations from Uber and Lyft and I will address some of these. And I have not had much time to do this. Again, the words belief were said concerning safety from these corporations. It is quite clear that they either don't know how effective their app is for safety, for convictions or for reports of things like sexual abuse or they're at…or they’re just not sharing that research. Belief is just a word. It’s synonymous with that. Let me remind you that the murder of Pritam Deol, and the most recent murder of the conductor for the Winnipeg…the driving conductor of the Winnipeg Transit were not about money. Furthermore, the more recent murder of the taxi driver in Manitoba was in Thompson. It was a female driver and it predictably resulted in cameras and shields in Thompson. In terms of drunk driving, I’ll quote research completed in June of this year and it is empirical and not funded by Uber or Lyft. It is based on city statistics in the U.S. that had Uber and similar corporations operate, cease operations and re-establish operations. The school of medicine from the University of Pennsylvania concluded that, and this is a direct quote, “The researchers found no evidence that Uber's resumption resulted in fewer total injury crashes or fewer serious crashes.” There’s also an issue of other research piggy backing on the general trend of drunk driving statistics declining year after year, efforts made by advocacy groups, City's reduction of parking and investment in public transit. These are far, far more effective strategies and proven beyond doubt that a city can put in place. On the loss of transit, impacts are already felt in Calgary after half a year of Uber's operations. From even looking at old statistics, there are over 100,000 trips a month, which is not looking at this month. That no one knows where they come from and the city has admitted that they're possibly coming from Transit. Again, I’m in contact and trying to get this information. Uber and Lyft have taken six percent of Transit Ridership in several major American cities. And to pose the question, is the city ready for this additional drop in the long term? The Mayor of Chicago whose brother is an investor in Uber has stated that Uber has cost the city $40 million which include losses from transit. Chicago has far stricter rule on vehicles, drivers’ hours, higher…far higher accessibility fees and just some of the surcharges will reach almost 92 cents Canadian and still the city says it is losing money. Lyft talks about a last mile solution, but in fact has a full time or has a full sized bus working on the profitable routes in Chicago only during peak hours. So if Lyft came here and set up a bus that only operated for one hour, two hours in rush hour during the morning and afternoon for let's say the university of other profitable routes, and let transit take care of the unprofitable routes, again, how would the City manage that? Increased traffic, research has shown that vehicle miles travelled will increase. This means more traffic and more greenhouse gases. In New York, which has one of the best mass transit systems in North America, for the first time in many years, car-based services, not transit, account for most growth in travel. That is a direct quote. For sustainable transit only 9% of Uber users would think of not owning a car. This goes directly against or shows the complete over-exaggeration of a Travis Kalanick’s TED Talk, a study has determined that 49 to 61% of ride-hail trips would not have been made or would have otherwise been made on transit, bike or foot. So again, it reduces…research I’ve shown here, it reduces sustainable transit of all forms.

Madam Speaker: I’ll ask you to wrap up briefly.

Alexander Ashton: Okay. Again, the traffic violations in San Francisco, 60% of all these traffic violations would include stopping in front of buses, stopping on bike lanes is all from Uber and Lyft and the police commander is looking at a lawsuit against them.

Madam Speaker: Okay, thanks very much, Mr. Ashton for your presentation. Next, we’ll hear from Mr. Manjit Dhillon followed by Mr. Iqbal Dhillon. Pardon me, I think it's Ms. Manjit Dhillon, yes.

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG 31 December 13, 2017

Councillor Wyatt: Madam Speaker, I’d like to move also suspension of the rules so that Tiger Dhillon, Inderjit Dhillon Kuldeep Tur and Balkar Brar may be able to speak.

Madam Speaker: Was that four additional delegations?

Councillor Wyatt: Correct, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Okay, all in favour of suspension of the rules to hear four additional delegations, five minutes, no questions? All in favour? Contrary? Carried. Okay, okay. All in favour of the extension, please rise. Sorry, you have to speak up then, I really didn't hear very many people.

A RECORDED VOTE was taken the result being as follows:

Yeas

Councillors Browaty, Dobson, Eadie, Lukes, Mayes, Schreyer, Wyatt and Madam Speaker Councillor Sharma

Nays

His Worship Mayor Bowman, Councillors Allard, Gerbasi, Gillingham, Gilroy, Morantz, Orlikow and Pagtakhan

City Clerk: The vote Madam Speaker, Yeas 8, Nays 8.

Madam Speaker: Okay, we will not be hearing the additional delegations. That’s a lost vote. Councillor Wyatt, please refrain from comments such as that. Ms. Manjit Dhillon, you have the floor, five minutes.

Manjit Dhillon: My name is Manjit Dhillon. Good evening, everybody. I’m a single mom. I lost my husband in eight year to cancer. I had three year old daughter that time. I struggle in my life to raise my daughter. I’ve got a room myself, go school, little bit English, then I go to training, I got a license and then I buy share in the company, I invest my husband's insurance money in there to save for our future. Now, my job security and my old age security, everything, going to finish. You know, yesterday when I was sitting in my driveway, I crying there, only seven dollar I got a tip after hour. They’re nasty. Then I almost going to phone the Mr. Mayor Office to tell…ask my neighbour, how long I was sitting in my driveway? Sometimes sleeping over there, no trip, no trip. Only busy time we have sometimes is you know, like a fast move. Otherwise no business. Christmas season, then people going party, they call to take them home, we try to better to give them service. You know, otherwise, no business. If other…so many taxis come on the road, how we can survive? Our company expensive and tourist, you know now more increasing of our license fee, everything, you know, personal our expensive, all we can afford. So hard for us. You know, people order taxi, you know, they sort of keep patients. They go to hospital emergency. They have to stay in the line. They go on shopping, they have to stay in the line. Nobody gives them as it like a, just magic. Taxi is not a magic. People order. You know, winter time, we have to deal with the traffic, weather. You know, it’s a busy season. Transit trying to keep to everybody’s service. So hard for us, you know. And also we have…I got a drive four, five years, beginning is my Handi-Transit schedule. I have experience. I’ve got training. Now again, City force us to take again that training. I pay $100. I could spend eight hours to do…get that training. They make us to feel, make us to feel how is, you know, who people can't see, how hard for them. Old people sitting on the wheelchair, so hard for them. They make me to sit on the wheelchair ramp, ride on the ramp, two week my arm hurt. I can feel how hard for them. We service to everybody. You know, if blind people, we help them. If wheelchair people, we help them. You know, it’s hard for us. If no income, it's hard to survive the families. So many people spend more than 4, $500,000 on the ride-share and they’re sold back home house, land to come here, bring a family here. If income drop, they have to file bankruptcy, right? We don’t want us like a welfare peoples more, more come in the…in our city, right? People have no choice than they have to break the (indiscernible), right? Really, really, people life going to destroy. And also, as of which one is like a Uber driver, you know, it’s…I can, you know, like if you are crunchy, you know, like this matter, people going to start when they get from Sage Creek last year, for airport trips to find $40 trip from there, right? Or they can give them personal phone number. You don't need to call Uber, you call me direct, I can give you a ride. You know, really, really, you know, it’s like going to, you know, mess the business. Then we sitting in the area, we have not others choice only dispatch. Then we have no income, hard to survive. We've done all we can do. If anybody likes to investigate, even my car only, I live in Southdale. I always sit in my driveway, also the shopping centre. You know, drive my car, you know. How fast I move, if I’m not move fast, that means no business, right? Hour, hour, we're sitting in the car, sleeping, stress.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Ms. Dhillon for your presentation today. Thank you. Next is Mr. Iqbal Dhillon, Mr. Jaswant Deol, Mr. Peter Chopra. Mr. Dhillon.

32 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG December 13, 2017

Iqbal Dhillon: Good afternoon, Ms. Speaker, Mr. Mayor and all the City councillors, thank you very much. I driving taxi since 20 years. And I have three children, two of them going to university and third one going to school. And yesterday, they were asking me if the Uber coming and who is going to pay our expenses? So please don’t make the rush for these by-laws. Please read again properly and listen to us and take your time. If the Uber or anyone coming in Winnipeg, please everybody need to follow the same rule and regulation, camera, shield, strobe light, panic button and everything and same insurance because we are paying $11,000 every year. And they're not. So please all the rule and regulation, safety, need it for everyone because these days, in the future, the City bus, I guess going for camera and shield. School bus have a camera. And I don't know how many camera we have it here. So please safety and rule and regulation need for the same thing for everyone. So I nearly…you ask or today and we can support tomorrow for you. And we are thank you very much, Mr. Mayor, you lift the ban from the back lane or sorry, diamond lanes and the rush hour time, Garry Street, Kennedy Street, the buses only making left turn and the taxis not. So we need left turn, Kennedy, Garry and everywhere.

Madam Speaker: Mr. Dhillon, yeah, the question, you're here to make your general speech, not ask questions.

Iqbal Dhillon: So please don't make the rush for these by-laws, take your time, and give us help and we need all the rule and regulation for everyone who want to work in Winnipeg. Thank you very much.

Madam Speaker: Thank you. Mr. Deol, Jaswant Deol followed by Mr. Peter Chopra. Mr. Deol.

Jaswant Deol: Hello, Speaker, Ma'am, Mr. Mayor, and Council member. I’d like to say one question, all of you guys, what is that investment for the Uber for Winnipeg? They're not investing one cent in our community. And you never sponsor making difference rules for them to destroy the people like myself. We spend almost 20 years in this business. We pay property taxes, my kids go to school, we pay everything. We build that community, not the person hurting our community. There is no guarantee if the Uber not success in the city. They will grab the money, go to California. Who is responsible for that? Because all these people, hard-working people, we're putting them on rest. They’re helpless. They will maybe financially, they can bankrupt, they can be…their family can be displaced, my kids’ future on this. I don't know why we…our prime minister fighting with Mr. Trump. He putting too much duty on bombardier. They’re putting too much duties on lumber. I don't understand why our official working the American company to destroy our own people who built their lives, built our city. We are part of city. We always on road people discriminate me. They don't give in a rush hour, 10, 15 turn, nobody can give you turn because I’m taxi driver, they always treat me like I am criminal. Same thing we feel like now in the city. Our Provincial Government to us, people spend like $500,000. They sold back land over there. Too much for us. This is not an easy job. This is very dangerous job. People are always discriminate you, they hurt you, the cab driver, they don't pay too many times, people don't pay me, I call police, they say no, I’m not going to come. This is the way we do business. This company, big company, and then they throw them out. They're not going to succeed. New York, we are hearing too many problems, why not we heard this time? What…we don’t have…afraid how companies in. When is it my turn? Uber should be charged for license. They should be commercial. Why we putting now…don’t think we’re taxi driver. Why are we putting the City of Winnipeg's lives not insured. That's nothing. That’s unfair. Why…what are…what investing…not a dime. They're just making money. Somebody build a business in Winnipeg, he first invest tons of money, improving everything. What are Uber doing? People have to pay their own insurance, own fare, own gas, but they're just making money, they're not investing anything. I don't understand why we always are treated differently. This is Canada. This is built on the reputation, equality, people, multicultural, always. I don't understand. Our people, so many bankrupt…what…they have to us, who have two things. We elected you guys. It's your responsibility to do fair thing. We don't bring Uber, Lyft, anybody…we don't…just do the something for the people of Winnipeg. This is not right. One people same time you putting us burden 200 to 600, plus 10 cent on trip plus company paying 40,000 same thing burden, you grabbing my work and the same time you punishing me with a big tax. This is not the right thing to do. This is not right. This is not Canada.

Councillor Wyatt: I apologize for interrupting. Point of Order. What’s going on in the gallery?

Madam Speaker: I’m just trying to figure that out myself. I think someone was behind there. They’ve left. It’s quieter now. Thank you.

Jaswant Deol: Yeah, I request all member and Mayor please be seriously, this is serious matter. I know Uber, my friend will drive Uber, not put their life on risk. There is not always a private money. It’s always somebody go, oh, you go the wrong way, take me the wrong way, people drunk all the time. It's not a good thing to...why we…the outcome come forward then six months of one year, you guys say, do okay, do this stuff. Why not right now? Good safety like a should be training somebody…somebody new…he more put on accident more serious accident because you don't have education, you don't know how to drive in this snowing or in winter season. It’s always people rush, rush, go, go fast…

Madam Speaker: If you could you please wrap up, sir. COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG 33 December 13, 2017

Jaswant Deol: Thank you very much.

Madam Speaker: Thank you. Our next delegation, Mr. Peter Chopra, Mr. Anish Vij. Is Mr. Peter Chopra here? Mr. Anish Vij, Mr. Roger Vin? Okay, seeing none, we will move on. That will conclude our delegations for today. We'll now move into committee reports. First up, we have Executive Policy Committee, Mr. Mayor on the report dated November 29th.

REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE POLICY COMMITTEE DATED NOVEMBER 29, 2017

Mayor Bowman: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move…sorry, I introduce the report and move adoption of the Consent Agenda Items 1 through 4.

Madam Speaker: All in favour?

Councillor Wyatt: Madam Speaker, could you give us a minute here?

Madam Speaker: We're on the report of the Executive Policy Committee dated November 29th. November 29th. There is four items the Mayor just moved. Okay. All in favour? Contrary? Carried. Okay, Mr. Mayor on the report dated December 6th.

REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE POLICY COMMITTEE DATED DECEMBER 6, 2017

Mayor Bowman: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I introduce the report and move adoption of the Consent Agenda Items 1 through 9 and I…I obviously pull Item 5.

Madam Speaker: Okay, now we'll pull 5 as there’s an amending motion. Councillor Gillingham, 4. Councillor Wyatt?

Councillor Wyatt: 1, 2, 3, 7.

Madam Speaker: Okay, so I’ll call the question on Items 6, 8 and 9. All in favour? Contrary? Carried.

Item 1 - Studies Awarded for the Portage and Main Intersection from January 1, 2015 to October 25, 2017

Madam Speaker: Mr. Mayor to introduce Item 1 if you wish. Okay. Councillor Wyatt, I believe you stood this down.

Councillor Wyatt: That's correct.

Madam Speaker: Councillor Wyatt. I second myself, okay. Councillor Wyatt, do you wish to speak to Item 1?

Councillor Wyatt: Well, I just stood it down because I want to vote against it. I think we're spending more…good money after bad on this project which clearly does not have public support. And so in terms of Portage and Main, I think frankly the public has said loud and clear, spend our money on roads, our existing infrastructure, don't spend it on this…this plan which clearly is being pushed from one quarter or one part of the city, and as we know, from what we've been able to gather in news reports and from other informal sources that this is going to drive our cost to transit up, the opening of the intersection. It's going to drive our ability…our costs of the actual work itself to the intersection. We have no…receive no assurances from the private sector they're going to be upgrading the street level to create an ambient street level atmosphere that would attract pedestrians. That to me would be the first thing that should happen, but we're spending more and more money on more studies to study something that frankly the citizens of Winnipeg have over and over and over again said they don't feel is a priority. They're saying that to councillors and members of Council. You know, get back to what we feel are important issues that we need to deal with, such as our existing infrastructure and the state of it. So I’m going to just…I stood it down, Madam Speaker, to be able to say a few words and to say that I’ll be voting against this. I think it's incumbent that we at this point in time, remember that this was not something that all of us campaigned on. As a matter of fact, the vast majority of us never campaigned on this. And then all of a sudden, now it's 34 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG December 13, 2017

here before us as the highest priority it seems that this Council has to deal with in recent memory. I can't remember an issue that has been forced through Council in such a manner, in such a way. Thank you very much.

Madam Speaker: Any other speakers? Yes, Councillor Browaty

Councillor Browaty: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. First of all, it's kind of unfortunate that my colleagues in St. Charles required this report to access information. There was this much suspicion and everything regarding Portage and Main that he felt we needed to actually go out…put a motion on the table to get this information out in the public eye. I think what’s important here, the point I want to point out here is…we've all talked about, when it comes to opening Portage and Main, the cost associated with the physical opening of Portage and Main, plus the cost of Winnipeg Transit. Those were the numbers of all 10 or $11million. I described them at the time as the North End special of opening Portage and Main. It’s the absolute bare bones physically get it open. There is nothing to deal with accessibility as well as the rather grand vision documents that the Mayor shared at his…at his opening session for…or his introductory session of the reports when they were made public. It's important to point out there is a $70,000 study there. We’re talking about the whole vision exercise, where it showed all these really neat pedestrian environment pieces. What I’d like to know, is what is it going to cost, like what is the end goal to taxpayers of Winnipeg for opening Portage and Main? We don't know that answer. The numbers that have been out there are very, you know, they’re…I mean, they’re big and, you know, when I look at my bank account at home, but it’s only a small portion of the puzzle. It doesn’t, you know, we know that it’s going to cost Winnipeg Transit almost a million dollars a year to keep service levels at the current standard. What is the cost to Winnipeggers that are sitting there every day? What about, you know, the business and trade that slows down? What is the cost there? What is the cost for the physical improvements as part of that $70,000 envisioning document mentioned in this report? We still don't know what all the real costs are going to be to opening Portage and Main. And I don't think we should be going spending $1 more, spending any more of our staff resources or time until we have those questions answered. And openness and transparency means in my mind, knowing what we're doing before we go further on Portage and Main. So I thank Councillor Dobson for moving this motion and I’ll be voting against it with my colleague from Transcona.

Madam Speaker: Yes. Thank you. Councillor Schreyer followed by Councillor Eadie.

Councillor Schreyer: Point of information, Madam Speaker. I wanted to know if we’re voting on the recommendation, to receive as information merely or not to…or to act on this?

Madam Speaker: Voting to receive as information.

Councillor Schreyer: I yield to the other speakers. I want to hear what they have to say.

Madam Speaker: Okay, thank you. Councillor…

Councillor Schreyer: Madam Speaker, when I yield to the other speakers, may I speak later pending their insights?

Madam Speaker: Well, you haven't spoken yet, so…Councillor Eadie.

Councillor Eadie: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak to this report. The studies, well, anyway, I personally think that…

Councillor Allard: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I’m just concerned with setting a I’m calling last speaker kind of policy.

Madam Speaker: Sorry?

Councillor Allard: If Jason was in the queue, should not Jason speak otherwise, I can say, hey, I want to speak last. I want to have the last word. Is that what we want to do going forward?

Councillor Schreyer: Madam Speaker (inaudible) last word.

Madam Speaker: I don’t…

Councillor Schreyer: I’m misunderstanding in terms of the process and what we're voting on whether it was…

Councillor Allard: Well, with all due respect…

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG 35 December 13, 2017

Madam Speaker: I understood that he was getting up to ask a question or clarification or was it to be on the list?

Councillor Schreyer: Well, I wish to be on the list, but I wish to have a clarification as to what the vote is on whether it's on the recommendation to…to receive as information.

Madam Speaker: I…I did tell you already Councillor Schreyer, that it was to receive it as information. Would you like to be on the list because you'll be going next then? Yes or no?

Councillor Schreyer: Well, I wish to be on the list.

Madam Speaker: Okay.

Councillor Allard: Point of order, just for clarification. Does that mean I can call last speaker?

Madam Speaker: No, we're not doing that.

Councillor Allard: Okay.

Madam Speaker: Thank you for pointing that out.

Councillor Allard: So he's on the list and you can't call I want to be the last speaker. That’s…okay.

Madam Speaker: That's right.

Councillor Allard: Okay, thank you.

Madam Speaker: Okay, Councillor Eadie. Let’s go back to you.

Councillor Eadie: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you for dealing with that. I just…I’m rising, this is a report for information and noting…noting the visioning report that was created for $70,000, it was delivered, Madam Speaker, in September of ‘17 I believe it says. And I don't believe I actually had the opportunity to read the report that came out with, but I’m sure they were talking about a lot of nice things they could do, Madam Speaker, in terms of opening it up. But…and I’m not sure if this is the report that indicated that scramble intersection was impossible at Portage and Main which means that it wouldn't be accessible and safe for persons with disabilities, Madam Speaker. I…but in terms of this report, I noticed the…actually, I was trying to find it in the report we have on the agenda for information, but I noted that the firm that received the…received the contract to actually produce this report, Madam Speaker, I note that I looked them up on the web and they do a lot of good work it seems around North America and so on, but it seems they don't maintain offices in Winnipeg, Madam Speaker. And so when I’m considering these reports and stuff, and I know in the past, when…when bidding happens to build various things, what will happen is an architectural firm from somewhere out of North America will enter into a subcontract with firms right here in Winnipeg in order to help them assist them accomplish the reports because they…because they don't have an office in the city. They would do that, Madam Speaker. And I note that we wouldn't get that kind of information, Madame Speaker, but we know that once this report was done and it was submitted, it would’ve went through the proper channels and appropriate proper channels, Madam Speaker, as that's how the system is set up. I’m just wondering what input that had in terms of when we were debating this issue, not only what was it, a month later, we were debating that issue and it makes me wonder, because I know there was a number of professionals that were speaking, Madam Speaker, here at Council in regards to the excellent thing to do, to open up Portage and Main. And I just…makes me wonder, Madam Speaker, and so I’m going to vote against this report. I mean it's just for information, but it is interesting to note that this report, further report was done and it seems like it was done in preparation for assisting pro people to debate opening up Portage and Main. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Thank you. Councillor Schreyer followed by Councillor Gerbasi.

Councillor Schreyer: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have no intention of trying to strategically be at the back of the line, I apologize for the confusion.

Madam Speaker: Councillor Schreyer, that's fine. Could you just speak to the item now though?

Councillor Schreyer: Sure.

Madam Speaker: Thank you. 36 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG December 13, 2017

Councillor Schreyer: I don't have much to say, but since I was put in line at this point, I just wish to make the case that I thought that Winnipeggers had spoken on this, Council had spoken on this. It is what I consider to be an unusual motion put forward to us today. Rather incredulous about it, Madam Speaker, I just…questioning how we function here at City Hall. It’s not the biggest of deals, Madam Speaker. It's just interesting insight into sort of the dynamics of the Portage and Main issue. And I’ll leave it at that.

Madam Speaker: Thank you. Councillor Gerbasi

Councillor Gerbasi: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just wanted to make a few brief points on the record given some of the things that were said earlier. You know, demanding answers as Councillor Browaty has done, generally we get answers from studies. So I don't know how we get the answers of how it affects transit and all these things without doing some of these studies. But…and that's really all this report is, is identifying the studies. I also find it, the assumption that Winnipeggers don't want this, you know, it’s…we aren't here to take…you know, you can take a poll, I don't know how scientific some of those polls have been. At different times, there’s been 50-50 that want it. I think it is an issue people are divided on, but to say you know what…that people don't want this, perhaps you know that’s what some people are hearing in their wards, those are folks that are asking, you know, framing the question as a negative, so that's likely what they're going to hear as well. And yes, there…it is a divided issue. I also think this is somewhat parochial. Portage and Main is in my ward. And Councillors, I’m trying to think how much we spent in my ward than Councillor Pagtakhan’s Ward if we’re going to parochial. I think it was about $84 million…

Madam Speaker: Councillor Gerbasi, just so…

Councillor Gerbasi: Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: It’ll come through the Chair instead of directing the Council directly.

Councillor Gerbasi: Madam Speaker, yeah, I understand. About $84 million was spent on the Plessis underpass, Madam Speaker. This is small…some money for some studies for the signature intersection in Winnipeg. So I just want to put that in some context in terms of how much we're spending on this. And a lot of the money is being spent on repairing an existing intersection in the downtown. No, it is not in Councillor Browaty's ward or Councillor Wyatt's ward. I wonder how they would…you know, some members of Council would feel if Council was debating letting an intersection rot in their parochial little ward that they’re concerned about. This…and I don't like to look at it that way. I like to look at it as a big picture of our city, and I think that’s how we should be looking at it, but if we’re going to look at it that way, why did we spend $84 million on the Plessis underpass, Madam Speaker? That's a lot of taxpayers’ money. I don't think my residents voted for that, Madam Speaker. That's not how we do things because there are projects throughout the city. And…and I feel that this has been very, very politicized. The Mayor ran on this issue, and got a majority on this mandate. And that was one of the things that he ran on. And many of us have supported it for many, many years and continue to get elected. So I guess I just want to put a few comments about this because I’m getting a little tired of hearing one side of this story. So, Madam Speaker, this is an answer to a question that was asked and it's an open and transparent response saying here are the studies that were done. That's all this is. And all we're doing is receiving it as information, so maybe we could get on with some city building and the business of this Council and accept this report as information. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Councillor Gerbasi. Councillor Dobson.

Councillor Dobson: Thank you. Thank you very much. I’m a little confused with this report because what this report asked for was for all studies of 35,000 and more. It didn’t necessarily ask for just Portage and Main. So why they only listed only Portage and Main has got me completely confused. It was asking for a list of all studies from $35,000 or more between January 1st, 2015 and the present day. Why they just put down Portage and Main, the two Portage and Main studies, has me baffled. So I’m a little confused.

Madam Speaker: Okay, thank you, Councillor Dobson. Any further speakers? Mr. Mayor, do you wish to close?

Mayor Bowman: Thank you. Thank you, Madam Speaker. My understanding is the…all of the information that was requested in this motion is posted online, so my understanding is that’s why we're receiving it as information. I appreciate the comments about priorities. Let me be very clear, while this intersection and many areas of public policy are important to me and important to the citizens that we all serve, my number one priority is fixing the roads and that's why yesterday, I was very proud to have overseen and supported a budget with unprecedented and record investment in roads totaling $116 million, very proud of that. Disappointed Councillor Wyatt is trying to say my priority is anything other than fixing the roads, when he in fact voted against the budget yesterday which did address the number one priority of all Winnipeggers and myself. COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG 37 December 13, 2017

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. With that, I’ll call the question on Item 1. Call for recorded vote. All in favour, please rise.

A RECORDED VOTE was taken the result being as follows:

Yeas

His Worship Mayor Bowman, Councillors Allard, Gerbasi, Gillingham, Gilroy, Mayes, Morantz, Orlikow, Pagtakhan and Madam Speaker Councillor Sharma

Nays

Councillors Browaty, Dobson, Eadie, Lukes, Schreyer and Wyatt

City Clerk: The vote Madam Speaker, yeas 10, nays 6.

Madam Speaker: Item 1 passes. Madam Clerk, Item 2.

Item 2 – Proposal for Creation of the Winnipeg Green Energy Organization (WPG-GEO)

Madam Speaker: Mr. Mayor, do you wish to introduce the item?

Mayor Bowman: Yeah, I’ll be brief, Madam Speaker. I know a lot of folks are waiting for us to get to Item 5. I want to thank Councillor Wyatt for bringing this idea forward. I’m supporting receiving it as information at this time and support the decision of EPC. And certainly if there is continued dialogue that can happen with the councillor or anyone for that matter on the intent of what he’s trying to achieve here, I’ll be certainly open to having those discussions.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And this was stood down by yourself, Councillor Wyatt?

Councillor Wyatt: I’d like to move referral to the Innovation Committee, please.

Madam Speaker: Okay, that's referral without instructions. Okay, so we’ll vote on that. Referral to the Innovation Committee. All in favour? Contrary? Carried. Madame Clerk, Item 3.

Item 3 – Legal Opinions – Informal Meetings of Council and Committees

Madam Speaker: Mr. Mayor, do you wish to introduce? This was stood down by Councillor Wyatt. Would you like to speak to Item 3?

Councillor Wyatt: Yes. I would like to move referral…oh, this was…can I move referral to Governance, Madam Speaker? No, eh?

Madam Speaker: No, matters cannot be referred to the Governance Committee.

Councillor Wyatt: It came out of EPC. Okay, so there is no chance of moving referral on this one. Okay, all right. So I’m going to speak to it then. Would’ve been nice to have a bit more of a dialogue on this rather than it being voted down simply, that would’ve been good to have this part of the…I went to EPC actually, spoke to this item, Madam Speaker. And what I encourage the committee to do at that time was to have this sent forward to the future governance review that was taking place or going to be taking place which was subject to the budget. Indeed, I think some of the questions that have been posed in this motion do deserve us giving serious consideration because of the developments over the last year. Specifically, the decision by the Mayor to appoint Executive Policy Committee, but then also to conduct informal meetings which go on regularly adding two members of Council, what has been dubbed EPC plus two. We see…we saw that happen yesterday when we broke for lunch during the budget debate, an informal meeting took place in the Mayor’s office where members were joined. It’s…and EPC plus two, clearly the intent of the Charter if not the letter of the Charter as I said at EPC is not being followed. And I will quote the City of Winnipeg Charter which does say very clearly, and I think the intent is very clear, whereas the City of Winnipeg Charter Act is very clear, specifies, “That EPC shall be made up of less than 50% of the members of the Council, namely size of the Executive Policy Committee, Section 61(2). The Mayor shall determine the number of members of the Executive Policy Committee of Council, but the members of the…but the number of members must be less than 50% of the total number of members of Council.” Madam Speaker, There’s no doubt in my mind that if you are now involving Council, members of Council plus two, you 38 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG December 13, 2017

are creating an informal Council meeting that is taking place where reports are being shared and de facto decisions, even if they are informal are being made, where reports are potentially be implemented or altered I should say and amended and where direction is being given back directly to public servants at that table, Winnipeg public servants…of the Public Service, at that table, at that time. It does…you know, yesterday's discussion on the debate of the budget, I think was a bit of a turning point in the fact that it was even confirmed by one of the members of the Executive Committee plus two, that these meetings have been going on. I see it by her on the floor for the first time that occurred. And that was a turning point because we had never heard that formally stated before in that way and that direct. And though members of the Executive Committee councillors and the two, who joined them, Allard and Gerbasi, may feel that they have a bit of an inside hand to be able to have direct influence on the budget and that will be definitely the case as was seen in the budget deliberations themselves and some of the results. And they may argue that they're doing the best they can for the constituents and that's their job and I understand where they're coming from, but the reverse is also true, Madam Speaker. And that is, I think to quote your words, that there is a better process, Madam Speaker, that there definitely can be a budget process that involves all of Council. And I think you said it quite well in your speech, Madam Speaker, yesterday. That in fact, though you may have two-thirds of Council at the table, putting together the budget actively, you literally have one-third not at the able and it has nothing to do with the individuals. You're going to have that system no matter what as long as you maintain this system. What it actually does is it disenfranchises every resident of those wards, of the one-third that are not at the table, whoever they may be. Because the reality is…the reality is as long as you build a system that is as acrimonious as this one, we are the only city in English Canada has a system where the Executive Committee does not report…report back to the board. We are a board of directors, Madam Speaker. We are a corporation set out as a corporation under the City of Winnipeg Act which is now the City of Winnipeg Charter. Any other board that I’ve been a member of, the executive is accountable to that board, reports to that board, is dutifully elected of that board. We're the one board of directors that I…where the executive literally can operate de facto not accountable to the board of directors. And this is causing all sorts of trouble, and all sorts of problems and I would argue this that it's causing the system itself as we know it, amongst issue after issue that we’re seeing now before us, whether it be the south Wilkes issue or other issues, lawsuits, where we are the arm's length and the ability for the professional public service to be able to do their job is being stymied and actually directly controlled by the political arm, which without them being able to get their professional advice and implement policy the de facto Mayor is in effect the CAO and CAO in effect is Deputy CAO. And that’s how the system seems to be operating and it's not productive. It’s great for crisis management, but in terms of a long term strategic decision making, it's not there. I believe the Charter was written for a reason, Madam Speaker, and it had those rules in place and it's very clear that this was not the vision of the authors of the Charter at the time. I’ll go even further, Madam Speaker, to say this, the Charter calls for all meetings to be open and I mean, the Council meetings that are taking place, Madam Speaker, including the informal Council meeting that happens prior to the appointments in November. Section 78.5(1), “Subject to Subsection 76, all meetings of Council and committees of Council and their subcommittees must be open to the public. And no individual may be excluded except for disorderly or disruptive conduct.” All meetings of Council and committees of Council. I think that, yes, there is no doubt that we are probably one of the most open levels of government as it stands right now, but clearly what we're doing now with the informal meetings that have been taking place is undermining that original vision. There is no doubt that public policy debated, publicly, openly, is challenging and it takes time. But maybe, Madam Speaker, that's one of the reasons why we're having such a hard time dealing with the biggest issues facing our city because we're not having those frank and open discussions about the challenges facing our city. It even goes on, Madam Speaker, to say that the in-camera consideration, by-laws and meetings, what the rules are around going behind closed doors and allowing for matters to be discussed in-camera. So what that tells me is that the authors of the Charter and of the original City of Winnipeg Act did see times where Council…Council as a whole or committees of Council, had the ability and the right to go in-camera. But they were specific. But now it is happening as a matter of fact always for everything. And I would argue, Madam Speaker, that these informal meetings are causing a rot on the system of government municipally as we know it. The sooner that we can bring back a true governance of a council, the whole concept of a council came out of England a long time ago, that we can sit as peers and debate and discuss policy and solve problems together, including important issues such as our budget. Yes, we're always going to have politics, we’re always going to have debate, we’re always going to have disagreements.

Madam Speaker: Councillor Schreyer moves extension. All in favour? Contrary? Carried.

Councillor Wyatt: But now a lot of those debates and disagreements and discussions are not happening where folks can see it happen, where arguments are being put forward, we don't even know half the debate that’s taking place. The Mayor has stood over and over again, saying, we…not…making a case publicly about Portage and Main, but not really making the case, we haven’t really heard the strong case of a why Portage and Main must happen for example, that’s what I’m going to use as an example. That has…it reminds of the public…I still get calls from people saying, tell me the pros and cons, like what’s going on here, why is it so important? I believe one of the reasons why there’s a lot of confusion out there or anger about Portage and Main is because we have not had that dialogue and open discussion publicly about the public policy idea, the concept of opening Portage and Main, because the discussions have happened up over there. And I’m pointing to the Mayor's offices or across the way where we haven't been able to be part of those COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG 39 December 13, 2017

discussions, when I say we, I mean the councillors who are not part of EPC plus two. And you know what, Madam Speaker, I’ve seen the system operate. I’ve been on the other side and that's why I guess I can say I’m a reformed EPC member. I’ve seen the system of how it has worked, and it is not exactly ideal, Madam Speaker. It is not ideal. Well, you know what, you could say that Councillor Gerbasi, but you know, the crisis is and the problem we had in the last term, we're repeating them all over again. They're just different types and crisis’ and problems, but they’re still…they’re still crisis…and then…and we’re and the distrust that existed then, exists just as much today. And you know it's really unnecessary. We could pull together. We could set our priorities, like every other council in the country sets its priorities out at the beginning of its term with strategic planning, working together. Yes, and everybody has to put a little bit of water in their wine, but I never hesitated to try to work with other members of Council to be able to do that in the past, Madam Speaker. But I can tell you this much, it’s definitely…that spirit is not there today. Thank you very much on behalf of this Council.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Councillor Wyatt. Councillor Mayes.

Councillor Mayes: Well, I'll try to be brief and may well fail at that, Madam Speaker. Two things; the trouble with these ideas that oh, you can't meet because it's secret meetings, I know this argument, I’ve lived through this argument, because I was a school trustee and the assistant superintendent came up to me during one of our budgets or first budget and said, now, you can't talk to any of the other trustees because that constitutes an informal meeting. You can only talk at the table. And we the administration will give you the budget and then you can just, you know, deal with it there in a couple of hours. So I said, so, you're saying to me I can talk to any of the other 40,000 people in Brandon about the budget, anyone except the eight other people that actually have to vote on it. That’s what’s you’re saying. Oh, yeah, yeah, no, you can’t. It's an informal meeting. Well of course, we ignored that, to our credit, used to meet in my law firm’s boardroom actually, most of the trustees, and that's how we got things done and that’s how we frankly put forth some of our priorities instead of simply taking what the administration gave us and rubber stamping it. So, I thought we did some…some good work there as trustees and I think we’ve done some good work here now. So the idea that, no, no, you can only all meet as a group or otherwise it’s somehow disqualified I think is actually a wonderful recipe if you want to hand power over to the unelected people rather than to the elected people. So that's why I don't…so that’s why I’m supporting the move to simply receive this as information. The other comment and I may only have ten months left, I don’t know, but I’m going to go out emphasizing a couple of points if I am going out. And one is, you know, the idea that the budget simply favours the EPC members or the EPC plus two members, I’m just going to rely on facts the rest of the way. I represent two regional parks, there are if you look at different lists, 11 regional parks, some say 12, Mr. Domke is working on this, but inarguably I have two; Maple Grove, St. Vital Park. There has been nothing in the budget for Maple Grove Park. There was 6 million for Kilcona Park, which is flanked by both Councillor Browaty and Councillor Wyatt’s wards. There was 6 million last year. There’s 4 million this year because the Province reduced funding to the City and that is what our projection is. So my park’s getting zero. The park at Kilcona is getting 4 million and that's a sign that somehow we wired it all so that the EPC members would get all of the money, all of the gravy in their wards. Well, no sale here, I don't buy that. If you want further evidence, look at the work we’ve done in the last couple of years for the parks that have no councillor at all. There are four City parks outside of the Council boundaries. Councillor Lukes has gone to bat to her credit for La Barriere, we put money into there. I’ve gone to bat along with you, Madam Speaker, for Little Mountain, it's not in my ward, it’s not in yours, not in anyone's ward. It's in the budget. It’s in the budget with gas tax money funded building next year. So we are doing projects. We’re taking initiatives for wards that are not represented by EPC members and I’m pretty darn sure the eastern bus corridors and coming down to St. Vital. I certainly prefer BRT if I could lobby if I could write the budget for the benefit for my ward, I’d have that thing coming down to St. Vital and going through Councillor Allard's ward in a minute, but it isn't, the study is for an eastern corridor, though it’ll primarily go through Councillor Schreyer and Councillor Wyatt’s wards. So easy to throw around these accusations that we’re all feathering our own nest, but if you look at the facts, I don’t think that’s the case. And we’ve heard Councillor Wyatt, you know, if you look at the Fermor project that we approved yesterday had started, I actually voted against the budget where it started. Councillor Fielding had it in. Councillor Wyatt had it in. Councilor Morantz had it in. Councillor Gillingham set it in. In six different budgets I have…wasn’t on EPC for all of that period, so I think various different councillors have put forward various different items that are not at the benefit of EPC councillors. And lastly, I’d like to thank Councillor Wyatt for the support he showed when he was on EPC for St. Vital Park, another regional park. When I wasn’t on EPC, by god, we got a million dollars approved for the pavilion and we got money, $300,000 approved, so I want to thank Councillor Wyatt for his support. We were out there, I remember, with then Mayor Katz doing that announcement when I was not an EPC member in early January of 2013. So, you know, I think the all of the Finance chairs that I’ve had the pleasure to work with have tried their best, as have both mayors to put some projects in that are for EPC member wards and some projects that are for other wards.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Councillor Mayes. Councillor Eadie.

Councillor Eadie: Yes, thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak and I understand that the citizens who are sitting in our audience are busy and they have things to do, but you know, Madam Speaker, this particular motion and 40 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG December 13, 2017

what’s…what EPC’s recommendation is, which is just to receive it as information, I think, Madam Speaker, really is important. It depicts how I think that the current council and leadership on Council in terms of Executive Policy Committee consider how things should be operating. I’m not going to accuse anybody, you know, if there’s any deals or anything, Madam Speaker, or what have you. It's clear in this constitution…or constitution, it's clear…it’s clear in the City of Winnipeg's Charter, a number of things. Now, it does say all meetings should be in the public, but there are other provisions within the Charter to provide and allow for things like, we don't have human resource meetings in public. Those are in-camera rightly so, Madam Speaker. Those kind of things…you just can’t operate appropriately without that. So that's understood and the Charter provides that. But generally, when we as Council are working towards making decisions, Madam Speaker, and I would agree with Councillor Wyatt about…we don't have to have an informal org meeting. I mean there’s nothing secret about it. What we do is we sit around and at that point, that's when we're actually deciding who is going to serve on which committees, Madam Speaker. And to me, I don't know why it has to be informal, private. I mean it would be a meeting that takes a little longer, but I believe it could be accomplished just right here in the chamber at any time. And if there has to be a vote for somebody to be on whatever standing committee, the public should know who we believe is the best or not the best, okay Madam Speaker. So in the Charter, I had some real concerns. I never really noticed…I read various sections once in a while, but I have to say this whole need for even having to ask to get a legal opinion about a charter, this charter was created and the previous City of Winnipeg acts, they were created and structured things in a certain way to try to prevent various political anomalies that can cause problems. It caused problems for the City of Winnipeg since its inception actually Madam Speaker, okay. Governance is something to always be considered. We do quibble and quabble, Madam Speaker, about whether somebody got something for somewhere, whatever. I mean Portage and Main is Winnipeg, Madam Speaker. It's all Winnipeggers, Madam Speaker, especially Portage and Main. I mean, really? Like wow. So but just so everybody knows, Portage and Main neighbourhood is in actually Councillor Pagtakhan’s ward so that’s…no, you're on the edge, you're not in there, neither. You should look at the map. Anyway, so the actual streets…okay, yeah, anyway, Madam Speaker, I digress. Sorry, I just want to go back to…so in there, there’s also provisions and…you know, I don't know why this Council chooses to ignore the intent of law, Madam Speaker. It happened with the Police Board when the appointment of the current chairperson was made. We changed that by-law. It's clear now. But I have to say, Madam Speaker, I’m really concerned because also in here, Madam Speaker, this Council, through the Mayor's direction and leadership, we've decided to ignore in the Charter that the Deputy Speaker shouldn't be serving as if on EPC which the Deputy Speaker did admit yesterday is doing so.

Councillor Gerbasi: Point of order, Madam Speaker.

Councillor Eadie: So I have to say if look in here, Madam Speaker.

Councillor Gerbasi: I did not…not on EPC.

Councillor Eadie: It says it is a conflict.

Councillor Gerbasi: Point of order.

Councillor Eadie: That somebody…Deputy Speaker…EPC…

Madam Speaker: What is your…what is your point of order, Councillor Gerbasi?

Councillor Gerbasi: I have a point of order, and I’d like to be recognized by the Speaker. I believe that’s our procedure by-law.

Madam Speaker: Yeah, I’m getting to that.

Councillor Eadie: I know. It’s in the Charter. Please read.

Madam Speaker: Councillor Eadie, I’d like to hear the point of order.

Councillor Gerbasi: It’s called the point of order.

Councillor Eadie: Well, there you go.

Madam Speaker: Would you sit down, please?

Councillor Eadie: There’s a good reason why we should have a legal look at it because, Madam Speaker…

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG 41 December 13, 2017

Madam Speaker: Councillor Eadie, Thank you. We’ll hear Councillor Gerbasi’s point of order.

Councillor Gerbasi: That’s one point. I’m sorry, points of order, you’re allowed to make a point of order.

Councillor Eadie: Councillor Gerbasi knows the Charter. I’ll stand by. Thank you.

Councillor Gerbasi: I would just like to say that the…it’s been repeatedly stated that I’ve said that I’m a member of EPC. I am not a member of EPC and I’d like that corrected on the record. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Councillor Gerbasi. Point noted. Councillor…

Councillor Eadie: Madam Speaker…

Madam Speaker: Yes.

Councillor Eadie: Let me continue then. Actually, the reference in the Charter is in reference to who’s the Deputy Mayor. If you look at who has what roles and responsibilities, Madam Speaker, it is clear that the Deputy Mayor has the same responsibility and power. When our mayor who’s currently sitting in the Chamber is not able to be here, the Deputy Mayor, serves as the mayor. So does the Assistant Deputy Mayor when either one of them are unable. That is the provisions within the Charter. And then the further provisions are…so if you have the power of the Mayor, the Mayor is not a speaker or a deputy speaker. And that…not that any mayor would really want to be, but all is I’m saying is, Madam Speaker, if you look at the Charter and you read it, and it talks about Deputy Mayors and Assistant Deputy Mayors, they are…they pick up for the Mayor if they can't make it, they can’t do it. So and then if you further read on about speakers and deputy speakers, you would find out. And so I leave it at that, and that's why this should’ve been referred for a legal opinion, Madam Speaker. Because I don't know why we're ignoring provisions that, I don't know, again, I’m not a lawyer, I studied some contractual law, did quite well, but Madam Speaker, I mean, I’m educated, I can read. I’m looking at this. Somebody has to provide us a decision who’s unbiased and have a look at this, Madam Speaker, because it’s concerning. It’s very concerning. Honestly, the Charter was created for a certain kind of governance. Councillor Wyatt and I think it's wrong, needs to be changed. Our current mayor has agreed. We need to have a governance review and look at that and that's only one component, Madam Speaker. And so when the governance is done and things are worked out and we figure out how to move ahead, that would be a good thing, but to ignore this request to have somebody look at this, I think it's sincere. I’m not accusing anybody of anything. I’m just reading the Charter and what it's saying, simple as that. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Thank you Councillor Eadie. Councillor Schreyer.

Councillor Schreyer: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I guess just a few things. I truly appreciate that Councillor Mayes' speech, truly did. But since he bothered to mention my ward of Elmwood-East Kildonan as well as our area, northeast area, a regional park of Kilcona, I just wanted to make a couple of points of clarification, seeing that he was referring to that. Also in reference to the fact that Councillor Wyatt mentioned he's a reformed EPCer. I do want to make a….make the observation that rather impressed by the humility of the fact that if you look in the last term of the three City councillors for the out east…East Kildonan-Transona Community Committee for northeast Winnipeg. Councillor Steen who had a 100 percent voting pattern with the mayor at the time and Councillors Browaty and Wyatt who are on EPC for most or some of that time, even giving that that time, I’m kind of…in a way I’m impressed that Kilcona Park wasn’t over…over-prioritized. Nonetheless, there’s always work to be done and we know that in this term. I do want to make the point that if you look at previous budget forecasts at the beginning of this term before this budget, Kilcona Park was scheduled to have notably greater amount of money, it was cut down, Councillor Mayes correctly said 4 million. I just want to make the clarification that it was cut down to 4 million. Also, wish to make the point that despite the fact that the play structure was burnt, the City takes credit for the insurance money. Well, when I look at insurance money, that's insurance money. It's separate from…from other sources of revenue. When it came to the previous east…East Elmwood Community Centre which also burned down, it was actually the Provincial Government at the time that was the largest contributor to the replacement of the East Elmwood Community Centre at its new location. The City did very well. But it's only when you add the insurance money we say that the City gave more than the Province. But I do take umbrage with that. I mention that, Madam Speaker, regarding the burnt play structure at Kilcona Park. I mentioned the idea that, you know, if we can come to a compromise that…I’d be willing through the LDR budget from my ward that we can come to a compromise if the City were to put in a little bit more money that we could fix the structure. It's only because of that, that there was an agreement and we’re actually putting money through our LDRs to fix the structure that I would’ve assumed would’ve been done otherwise, and not to include the insurance money as the contribution from the City. So I wish to make that points as well. Councillor Mayes did state that the forecasted, the one that’s in planning and consideration right now for the eastern corridor to Transcona from downtown would go through Elmwood East-Kildonan and I did make a point that is to be determined. I only wish clarification on Councillor Mayes’ good words because it is yet to be 42 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG December 13, 2017

determined, my understanding is we still are having looked at what the City is considering and those options that were offered at the public consultation at Chalmers Community Centre last week, which Councillor Mayes allowed me to go to during the break of his Standing Committee of Water and Waste and Riverbank Management and Environment. And I could see that we are still looking at options south of the Mission rail line, which means it would be in St. Boniface in this case, in Councillor Allard's ward. Whether that is the case after the next election, given the boundary redistribution, I’m not sure how that affects the northern part of the ward. I still think it would be all in St. Boniface, so that consideration is still there. Having said that, Madam Speaker, I’m still not exactly sure of the net benefit to the ward, should it be on the north side of the rail line as well. I offer that as just some clarification or enhancement to Councillor Mayes' words. In terms of what I consider to be a gray area, an issue for consternation, for concern, we do have the unique situation with Councillor Gerbasi. It is unusual that you would have someone that who is the Deputy Mayor, the Deputy Speaker, the Dean of Council, happens to be as well the President of the Federation Canadian Municipalities, those little bit of municipal politics as well as works well with the Mayor. It's true. That’s not wrong. I’m just saying in the whole dynamic of what we're dealing with and what this is about and the concerns raised by Councillor Eadie and Wyatt, well, these things I guess are in record noted and we have to watch is all I’m saying. Thank you very much.

Madam Speaker: Thank you. Councillor Orlikow.

Councillor Orlikow: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I’d just like to actually talk about the motion. Innuendos and suspicions aside, they're easy to say, but the motion itself is problematic. So this pretty well says when I read it, that Council and all its committees including EPC, immediately cease all informal meetings, all informal meetings. The Oak Room 6, that's the opposition councillors that meet at the Oak to discuss ideas. That’s just me. I’m not sure if that actually means I could actually go to an office with Councillor Lukes beside me and talk to her, either. That's an informal meeting of Council, Councillors, am I Council, Councillors. So again, that's just by that…it's very, very problematic. I am happy to hear that Councillor Wyatt has decided that he's a reformed EPC member. I wish I believed it. In regards that last time, I recall going to strategic planning session, finding out at the strategic planning session, that EPC members went off for the weekend to put it all together first and then tell us, put no notice to Council at all. Okay. And he all…he’s decided he’s reformed from that, realized his error, I felt that incredibly disrespectful. Again, and third, we have to be really clear here. We’re talking about some…we're talking about something here that has been ruled on. And so the Council, the Clerk’s Office has ruled on it. We’ve had Legal look at it. Some people just don't like the decision and the ruling, and that's fine, that's your choice, but again, that it has been. So there’s some…maybe some, no one mentioned it on the other side, that hey, you know what, I just don't really believe in the Clerk’s and I don’t believe in our Legal Department. They didn't say that, but there has been a ruling on this. We have looked at it, okay. So again, I just want that to be clear for the record. It has been looked at. But we didn't like the answer, so we want to go for more legal opinions. Again, that’s what they say. We can't meet until that happens. And thirdly, we don't really have any idea how much it will cost to get us a legal opinion, because there’s no price in here or any funding options to come back. It's just going to go to the Governance Committee. Again, we're doing the governance review. You know, I think that is important. I do believe on both sides or in every side, you know there’s motions coming forward where I’ve always tried to keep my door open and by all means, come by and I’ll try to help out and see if we can as an EPC member or not and all councillors should do that. But again, we get…you'll see the motion coming forward, they don't consist a lot of…let's say, both sides coming together. So it's easy to sit here and scream and make all these accusations, but there is reality on the table. Again, I do support the governance review. I believe it is important. I do believe that there are some misinformation that flies around out in here for whatever reasons. But again, the idea that decision-making does happen in the public, it does happen. When we meet together as a Council, this is Council. EPC is not later on makes the final decision. EPC makes recommendations to Council. Again, Council can decide to support it or not. That is the board decision. The same thing we have in the Executive Policy Group, they bring recommendations forward to their boards and the board decides if it gets to go forward or not. So again, yes, we all do work for Winnipeg, all of Winnipeg. If it's a project downtown, if it's a project on Plessis, if it's a pool in Transcona, if it’s…whatever it is. We have to move away from the parochial and positional attitudes that we have here so we can work together. And again, I just want to say, we have ruled on this. But that said, we are within our charter, we have ruled that it's okay…it is good…it’s okay to meet informally at Oak Room 6 or as individual councillors, but try to meet together. I agree. And I’m just saying I’m more than happy to meet with any councillor at any time.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Councillor Orlikow. Councillor Browaty.

Councillor Browaty: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I wasn't planning to speak to this today, but I’ll just put a couple of comments here on the record. I think one of the great things about municipal government is the majority of the issues that we deal with here are not philosophical. They're not about, you know, left or right or republican or democrat or any of these things. They're about, you know, good playgrounds, good, you know, basic municipal services that are, you know, rather motherhood and apple pie in nature. You know, I can work with, you know, Councillor Gerbasi on many files or you know, good old Harvey Smith back in the day, even though our views of the world and the way things should be done were very different. But I still respect them as elected officials to represent the areas that they come from. I COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG 43 December 13, 2017

think they are good representatives of the constituents they represent, even though I may disagree with some of their views of the world. My first full term on Council, I was not on EPC. There were members of EPC that…and issues that would arise at times where the mayor would realize, you know what, it really would hurt, you know, one member of EPC to support this, you know. They're not a conservative. They're not a new democrat. You know, we want to do something that’s…perhaps a little controversial. So that required the mayor to go out and, you know, actually talk policy to members who weren't on EPC to see where they were coming from, to see what was their opinion, like where are they coming from on these issues? Today, you know, and even with, you know, just EPC plus the Mayor, you’ve got seven out of 16, that's still not a majority. I think that’s what the original intention of the way the Charter was written up was, that you know even though the Mayor is very strong, they go in and in a lot of cases with seven, they still have to go out and work with other members of Council to broker, to discuss, to have dialogue. Today, I mean, we’ve got EPC plus two. I’ve heard different…different acronyms, but EPC plus two is the common one, and I mean for good reason. I mean if something should happen to the Mayor today, you need to have a deputy ready to…I mean, heaven forbid, but if something should happen, you need to have a plan in place for backup. And if the Deputy Mayor is not at the table knowing what’s going on behind the scenes, that's a serious problem. So up until a little over a year ago, the Deputy Mayor and Acting Deputy Mayor were always on EPC. That way all the, you know, internal briefings before they were made public, the Deputy Mayor, the Acting Deputy Mayor were prepared and ready with all the current internal information, should something happen to the Mayor. Now, the two members of Council are not on EPC. There is a good argument that they should be kept in the loop. But again, I think that's defeating the whole purpose of the original charter of the six members of Council plus the mayor being the Executive Policy Committee. So again, I think asking a lawyer to look into this to get another outside external opinion is not a bad idea. And if it's not, you know, in terms of the idea of openness and transparency including all of Council, I think it's good sound public policy to in fact keep EPC at 6 plus one and not have the plus two, having nine votes with you almost all the time, just my thoughts on the matter.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Councillor Browaty. Any further speakers? Okay, Mr. Mayor, do you wish to close?

Mayor Bowman: I wasn't planning on speaking. Looking forward to getting to Item 5 as I’m sure many people are. A couple of things, maybe just in response to some of the comments that have been made on this topic, there was a comment made by Councillor Wyatt that EPC is to report to Council, that's what we're doing right now. This is a report from EPC to Council. It's actually called the report, an EPC report to this Council and we're debating it on the floor right now in an open and transparent way and a way that’s being broadcast to televisions, reporters who are up in the press box, and it’s being Livestreamed for anybody around the world that wants to see these proceedings and judge our actions and our votes. This idea Councillor Orlikow said it very well, one of the problems with the way that this motion was drafted is it says that there should be no informal meetings, well that means that you know when Councillor Eadie and another member of Council are outside having a smoke, they can't talk. It means if I bump into somebody at the…you know, in the bathroom downstairs on a break, I’m not supposed to talk to them. I presume that Councillor Wyatt and Councillor Lukes discussed the motion they were putting forward for us to consider. I don't think there’s anything inappropriate with that. In fact, I think more dialogue that happens with members of Council, the better. Regardless of what the positions are and how the votes may ultimately carry themselves. But having that level of dialogue and having more dialogue is something we should be continually looking for, and I continue to make efforts to work with Council colleagues whether they're on EPC or not. I appreciate what Councillor Browaty was just saying, with regards to, you know, our Deputy Mayor and Acting Deputy Mayor. I hope they don't have to be engaged in carrying out acts on my behalf in the manner that was discussed, but I’m very proud that Councillor Gerbasi is our Deputy Mayor and very proud that Councillor Allard is our Acting Deputy Mayor. They do a lot of work on behalf of citizens. They attend a lot of events on my behalf. And they serve the citizens within many different wards when they're out acting in their capacities. And it is entirely appropriate for dialogue with them and with members of Council, all members of Council, on matters that pertain to either their ward or the city. And I’m going to continue to reach out to all members of Council, as best I can. I’ve done that recently at a great expense in some cases. You know, I reached out to Councillor Dobson on a matter recently, which he then held a press conference the next day when I was trying to collaborate with him and of course that was in my effort to help find long-term treatment facility for those affected by addictions. You know, I’m very pleased to hear Councillor Wyatt discussed being a reformed EPC member. You know, recently he was trying to become an EPC member and I hope that this is a new turning of the page, collaboration which I would invite all members who are speaking about that right now to do their best going forward to practice that in the days and in the weeks that we have remaining as a Council over the coming years while we're still serving during this term. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. With that, I’ll call the question. All in favour? Call for recorded vote on favour of Item 3. Item 3, please rise.

44 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG December 13, 2017

A RECORDED VOTE was taken the result being as follows:

Yeas

His Worship, Mayor Bowman, Councillors Allard, Gerbasi, Gillingham, Gilroy, Mayes, Morantz, Orlikow, Pagtakhan and Madam Speaker Councillor Sharma

Nays

Councillors Browaty, Dobson, Eadie, Lukes, Schreyer and Wyatt

City Clerk: The vote Madam Speaker, yeas 10, nays 6.

Madam Speaker: Item 3 passes. Item 4, Madam Clerk.

Item 4 – Citizen Member Appointments – Committees, Boards and Commissions

Madam Speaker: Mr. Mayor, do you wish to introduce?

Mayor Bowman: I’ll be very…I’ll be…sorry, Madam Speaker, I’ll be very brief. I just want to thank all those citizens who have agreed to serve. These are volunteer positions and they are time consuming, thankless efforts that many of our citizens have agreed to lend their energies and their time away from their families in order to help us on various boards and I just want to thank…thank all those that have been…allowed their names to be put forward for consideration today.

Madam Speaker: Thank you. Councillor Gillingham, you stood this item down.

Councillor Gillingham: Yes, thank you Madam Speaker. My comments are really in the vein that the Mayor just expressed. I think it's important that we…many, many important items on this agenda today and we're discussing…there’s a lot of good discussion, rigorous discussion about all these matters, but I just didn't want this agenda item to go without being discussed and just to…just to pull it and express appreciation to all of the women and men, the great women and men across our city, from every corner of our city, who give their time and energy, volunteering their talents as well to serve on commissions, and boards and committees throughout our city. And when you take a look at the list of the committees, they're important committees, whether it's the Access Advisory, Assiniboine Park, Board of Revision, you can just go through them, Citizen Equity Committee. I know in my own ward, the Grant’s Old Mill is a favourite of many, many visitors every year. Well, that's run like so many other museums and organizations by really good men and women who come home at the end of a long work day, and have a quick bite to eat and then head out the door for yet another meeting, all because they care about our community and we see that happening across the city of Winnipeg in all of our respective wards, represented around this room today. So we have not and there’s…agreed on everything we voted on so far, there’s a few other items coming up that we won't all agree on, but I believe…I’m pretty confident that on this one, that it will be unanimous appreciation for the efforts that the men and women that are before us today have put in and will continue to put in to making our city a great city, so thank you.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Councillor Gillingham. Councillor Schreyer.

Councillor Schreyer: Thank you. I didn't intend to speak on this, but looking through the appointments, I see the following citizens being pointed for the Citizen Equity Committee. As the new Chair of the Citizen Equity Committee, working with previous Chair, Councillor Cindy Gilroy, I’m glad to see that we have appointed for a two year term expiring December 31st, 2019, Antonio Buccini, Jaron Hart, Manoj Nowrang, Idris Elbakri and Julie C. Holland Javier, to sit on the committee. Thank you.

Madam Speaker: Thank you. Any further speakers? Mr. Mayor, do you wish to close? Okay, I’ll call the question, all in favour of Item 4? Contrary? Carried. Madam Clerk.

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG 45 December 13, 2017

Item 5 – Transition of the Regulation of Vehicles for Hire from the Province of Manitoba to the City of Winnipeg

Madam Speaker: Just one moment. Okay, Mr. Mayor to introduce the item, and also you have an Amending Motion No. 2. Following that, we'll hear from Councillor Eadie who has an also a referral Motion No. 6 that is debatable because it's a motion with written instructions. Mr. Mayor.

Motion No. 2 Moved by His Worship Mayor Bowman, Seconded by Councillor Mayes,

WHEREAS on November 9, 2017 The Province of Manitoba passed Bill 30-The Local Vehicle for Hire Act, which will dissolve the existing Taxi Cab Board, the Taxicab Act and associated regulations, and transition oversight and regulation of the vehicle for hire industry to the City of Winnipeg, effective February 28, 2017.

AND WHEREAS in order to assume responsibility for the vehicle for hire industry, the City of Winnipeg must have a new vehicle for hire by law in place no later than February 28, 2018.

AND WHEREAS after the public release of a draft by-law and administrative report on vehicles for hire the City of Winnipeg has received feedback from industry stakeholders on potential amendments to strengthen the by law.

AND WHEREAS one of the primary objectives of the Vehicles for Hire By-law is to ensure Winnipeg is a leader in Canada in the enforcement of safety standards for passengers and drivers in the vehicle for hire industry.

AND WHEREAS the current requirements in the Vehicles for Hire By law require all drivers to undergo an annual criminal record check, vulnerable person sector search and child abuse registry check.

AND WHEREAS having two of three record checks is an industry leading step towards safety and both the Taxi industry and Personal Transportation Providers would be respectively taking on a third record check, providing a grace period on the third record check maintains safety and equalizes the industry.

AND WHEREAS the aforementioned background screening process will make Winnipeg a leader in Canada in the safe vetting of drivers in the vehicle for hire industry.

AND WHEREAS another key objective of the new Vehicles for Hire By law is to support the current vehicle for hire industry while allowing for new entrants into this industry in order to increase competition and improve consumer choice.

AND WHEREAS upon further review the draft by law included certain information requirements from Personal Transportation Providers that are inconsistent with other jurisdictions.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:

1. That Section 43 (1) of the Vehicle for Hire By Law be amended to eliminate the 20 year period to transfer taxicab licenses thereby allowing transferable taxicab licenses to be transferred for an indefinite time period;

2. That Council approve the issuance of 60 year round taxicab licenses effective March 1, 2018 with another 60 year round taxicab licenses effective December 1, 2018 all to be allocated through a lottery.

3. That Council authorize licenced taxis to travel in diamond lanes effective March 1, 2018 on a one year trial period.

4. That a driver safety surcharge of $.03 per trip be applied to Personal Transportation Providers with all revenue raised from this surcharge used to support a program to promote safety and security in the vehicle for hire industry;

5. That the Public Service report back in 120 days with recommendations on a program to support safety and security in the vehicle for hire industry to be developed in consultation with stakeholders from this industry;

6. That Sections 33, and 34 of the Vehicle for Hire By-Law be amended to enable PTP drivers that have undergone a criminal record and vulnerable person sector search to begin driving in the vehicle for hire industry pending the outcome of a Child Abuse Registry Check.

46 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG December 13, 2017

7. That the Vehicles for Hire By-law be amended to make it clear that Taxi drivers with valid licenses on February 28, 2018 may continue driving until their licenses expire, at which point they will require Vulnerable Sector Searches as part of their Criminal Record Check in order to renew their licenses.

8. That section 32 be amended to remove the following from the information required to be provided by Personal Transportation Providers dispatchers to passengers: A. The dispatcher’s contact information;

B. The minimum number of seats provided in a PTP vehicle;

C. the PTP vehicle’s provincial licence plate number;

D. a process to keep a record of the acceptance or refusal of the transportation service and information concerning that process.

Mayor Bowman: Thank you, Madam Speaker. And thank you for…thank you to everyone who has waited today. I know we started our meeting this morning at 9:30, it's about 20 after 3:00. I know it's been a long day for everyone who took the time to watch this, to be here in the gallery. So I do thank everyone regardless of your position on this vote for taking the time to be here today. Madam Speaker, my vision for the city is a city that is growing, a city that’s thriving and a city that is building to one million people strong. We are building Winnipeg for the future. And we as a council worked diligently since we were elected during this term to do just that. This Council should be extremely proud of the positive change that it has been leading on, that it has been effecting and I think all members of this Council should be very proud of their efforts to date. Our job is to keep this city and our citizens moving. And also to continually look for ways to demonstrate that positive change is in fact possible here at City Hall and in our city. In terms of building a city for the future and building a city for a million people, you need to keep people moving, you need to make sure that we're doing our best to ensure that our citizens can get to work or school quickly in the morning and then home safely to their families in the evening. And they do that through a variety of ways. Three primary modes of transportation, of course, are driving, public transportation and active transportation. I’m going to speak briefly as they relate to the question that we are considering here today. This Council has put tremendous energy into fixing our roads. Yesterday, historic funding for roads, which taxis, buses, active transportation, and of course for most people, their own vehicles will benefit from having a smoother drive. We've created new asset management roles. Councillor Pagtakhan has been doing great job as Council Liaison for Project Management. We have created Winnipeg’s first ever Transportation Management Centre now powering the new and free Waze app which I expect there are many taxi drivers and hopefully, personal transportation providers that will be able to use to move them around efficiently in our city. We've created a Municipal Infrastructure Research Chair at the University of Manitoba Faculty of Engineering to make sure that the historic funding that we're putting into fixing roads is being spent with the greatest value for those dollars as possible. And hopefully with the support of the Province of Manitoba and ultimately the Federal Government, we want to access federal funds for an accelerated regional roads program. On roads, this Council has led and we are building that city for the future, a city of one million people strong. In terms of transit, yesterday's budget, which I’m very pleased this Council approved, we invested an additional $10 million for $65 million approximately for public transportation. There was new money for buses. We've created a new Transit Advisory Committee which Councillor Marty Morantz has been helping oversee, more money and processes for safety on transit buses. Also, of course, an operational review, we're looking at a high frequency network. And of course we are building, not talking about it, but we are building the second phase of rapid transit. Key investments in public transportation and like roads our work continues. In terms of active transportation, one of the toughest political battles that I ever faced in this new job, if I can say new job still, as a member of this Council, was fighting for the pedestrian cycling strategies. I had attack ads being launched, taxpayer money by some members of Council. I fought very, very hard for that because I believe that we need to continue to make investments to catch up to other cities in terms of our active transportation infrastructure. Each year, including today, we will be voting on an action plan that as promised is going through Council in a very public, open and transparent way. Yesterday’s budget increased the active transportation budget by 31 percent compared to last year. Last year’s was over 40 percent. I think it was 46 percent. In terms of active transportation, we are investing heavily in creating those linkages and the challenge for us and the challenge for future councils will be to continue to ensure that we are making those investments in roads, public transportation and active transportation to keep the city moving and to allow people the choices to move around in a way that they so choose. Moving more specifically to the question at hand, I’ve been very public that I support innovation. That I believe in choice in the market place. And I think that citizens are well served when government allows them to make choices for themselves. I don't think that we should be dictating to our citizens that they must commute in a certain particular manner. If they want to use active transportation, let's continue to make investments to make sure that we're building that infrastructure. They want to drive? Let's make sure we're fixing the roads which also public transportation benefits from as well. As you know, the personal transportation providers and the ride-sharing legislation, the vehicle-for-hire legislation recently passed in the Manitoba Legislature. We are required under that law to have in place by-laws by the end of February. That is in 76 days from now. The vote we will be doing today will then, provided it COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG 47 December 13, 2017

passes, will then compel the public service to do a lot of work in the next 76 days and the industry, both the new and existing industry in terms of the taxi industry, will have a lot of work to do within a very compressed timeframe to meet the Provincial legislation. We owe it to them. We owe it to our public service to make a decision today so that there is ample time to be ready for when that legislative requirement is in fact in place. Winnipeg isn’t the first city to consider ride-sharing. Many cities around the world and across Canada have take…

Councillor Schreyer: We're talking about cars for hire, not ride-sharing. That is the motion.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Councillor Schreyer. I believe the words have been used interchangeably throughout the day.

Councillor Schreyer: Madam Speaker, we have regulations and by-laws regarding that if you want to talk in terms of the context of that, that's fine with me, but we're not.

Madam Speaker: I don't believe you have a point. Thank you, Mr. Schreyer…Councillor Schreyer.

Councillor Schreyer: We're not talking about ride-share, Madam Speaker.

Mayor Bowman: I’ll continue, thank you. So as I was saying, I’ll try to refer to personal transportation providers if that adds for clarity for the councillor. As I was trying to say, Winnipeg isn’t the first city to be considering this. Cities around the world and cities across Canada have taken the step that I’m hoping we’ll take today to allow for more choice. And I don't believe that Winnipeg can remain an island forever. Our public service should be commended for diligent work in a very tight timeframe given the constraints that were imposed by the Provincial legislation. And efforts that happened in the legislature, let's also be clear, there were efforts to delay its passage until the fall. Once it's passed, of course, there’ve been extensive consultations, numerous meetings with many industry stakeholders as well as the taxi industry, and I want to thank the Public Service for their efforts and I also want to thank the taxi industry as well as other industry stakeholders for their engagement and their dialogue. I think that it has helped make improvements to what we're considering here today. I believe this is an industry ripe for change. I believe this industry has needed change for some time and I certainly don't begrudge industry participants that they have been operating within a legal framework that is imposed upon them. We heard that today that there are certain rules that were imposed under the previous regime, the Provincial regime, we have an opportunity to make some improvements and to continue to make improvements for the benefit of current industry participants as well as new industry participants. What’s important to note, I know there’s a lot of talk about Uber today and a lot of different views on whether Uber is an organization that should or should not be welcomed here. I don't expect should this pass, that Councillor Eadie will be taking Uber, that's his choice. I also don't expect…I do expect Councillor Morantz will take Uber and that will be his choice. The market place will be able to decide and the idea of giving people a choice so that they can decide if people do want to continue to use taxis as I hope they will, they will have that opportunity and that choice. What I’d like to do is to provide them with that choice rather than to tell them that we are going to make a decision here at City Council to take the choice away from them, a choice I might add that that is available to them in other modern large cities in Canada. The rules are not specific for a company and in terms of referencing Uber, we heard from Lyft today but it's my hope that there will be local companies that will be able to operate within the framework contemplated today. I believe there is a niche market for many different sectors that will be given the rules in which they can operate and grow their businesses right here in Winnipeg, right now something that would be illegal for them to compete against some of the existing taxi companies. I think competition will be good. I think it will increase…

Madam Speaker: Councillor Schreyer moves extension. All in favour? Contrary? Carried.

Mayor Bowman: I believe that…I believe that the competition will help improve the customer service both for customers of taxi industry as well as for other personal transportation providers. Government as I mentioned should not be dictating. Government should be regulating, should be providing the infrastructure, and should be providing our citizens with choice. I can't think of another debate that we have had, I’ll just add on a personal note, where I have been subjected and I know members of Council have been subjected to such aggressive lobbying, intimidation and threats. And I don't take lightly to that and I know members of Council don't as well. Members of Council, regardless of how they vote are elected by the citizens and all citizens not just one particular industry or group and it's incumbent upon all of us to think about the best interests of the citizens that we serve as a whole. I would urge my Council colleagues to support it. I would urge my Council colleagues to obviously support the amendments. And I will speak to some of those amendments in more detail in my closing once I’ve had an opportunity to hear from Council colleagues, but one of the issues I will talk to that has attracted some discussion in recent days is the issue of diamond lanes. This is a longstanding request of the industry. The amendment that we have before us was a collaborative exercise which resulted from input from the industry and input from my Council colleagues and I want to thank everybody for that input. The diamond lanes, I had the opportunity last night to speak with the mayor of Edmonton, also was in communication 48 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG December 13, 2017

with the mayor of Vancouver. Both of those cities have for some time allowed taxi drivers, buses and bikes to use their diamond lanes during rush hour traffic and I can say…

Madam Speaker: Councillor Allard moves suspension. We’ll need two thirds for two more minutes. All in favour? Contrary? Carried.

Mayor Bowman: I will not yell democracy denied. I’ll keep talking. I’ll wrap up in two minutes, Madam Speaker. I thank my Council colleagues for the extra time. What I will say is the conversation I had last night with Mayor Don Iveson, he agreed that I could share today. He’s…they have had in place for many, many years, the ability for taxi drivers, for active transportation and for buses to use their diamond lanes and he said, it has worked very, very well. Now, Winnipeg like Edmonton had been making major infrastructure investments in active transportation and we need to continue down that path, but I certainly appreciated the fact they’ve made it permanent and it's been permanent well before the introduction of personal transportation providers. My understanding is Vancouver is in the same situation, the timing of when they introduced that is obviously different. But again, in that market, it's worked very well. I am not prepared today to certainly make it permanent. I think having a pilot is a good idea so that we could try to see how it works. There are other amendments that I think are all worthy of support and I would urge my Council colleagues to support them. Like I said, let's give people the choice. Winnipeggers want this. Winnipeggers want to see improved service within the industry and I think the industry will respond and the taxi industry I’m speaking about. I think they're ready for modernization and I believe that we owe it to them and to, of course, our citizens to do what we can to lead and of course, to modernize as we're required to under Provincial legislation. And I also believe that providing Winnipeggers with choice in terms of personal transportation providers is something that is widely supported and called upon for this Council to act. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We now have another amendment, a referral motion from Councillor Eadie, if you could please speak to Motion 6?

Motion No. 6 Moved by Councillor Eadie, Seconded by Councillor Lukes,

THAT Item No. 5 of the Report of the Executive Policy Committee dated December 6, 2017, entitled Transition of the Regulation of Vehicles for Hire from the Province of Manitoba to the City of Winnipeg, along with any amending motions, be referred back to Executive Policy Committee, with the request that it be referred to the Stakeholder Working Group for due consideration as to the effects of the amendments and how any other changes to the by-law can be more effective, and that the report come back to Council on or before February, 2018.

Councillor Eadie: Yes. Am I speaking to this and the…

Madam Speaker: Yes.

Councillor Eadie: And the whole report itself?

Madam Speaker: That's right.

Councillor Eadie: Okay.

Councillor Wyatt: A referral will take precedence over any other motion. You have to deal with the motion to refer then we can deal with the clause. We have to debate…it can't be debated at the same time.

Madam Speaker: I just want to get clarification on that. Mr. Clerk, could you come here?

City Clerk: In accordance with Section 22(3), the motion at hand is accorded the same treatment as any others motions that’s seconded and as is the practice of this Council, it is debated with the clause and any other motion.

Madam Speaker: Yes, it is. And we're voting after the full debate, Mr. Clerk? In reverse order, correct? Councillor Eadie, so you’ll speak to the…

Councillor Eadie: And just for final clarification just to make sure, yesterday I introduced a motion to on the budget, which could be different I’m not sure, but I got to introduce the motion and then I also got to speak to the main report?

Madam Speaker: Right. Yeah, Councillor Gerbasi did point that out yesterday, so we could follow suit. COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG 49 December 13, 2017

Councillor Wyatt: Point of order, Madam Speaker. Could…may the Clerk quote the clause and the Procedure By-Law that states that?

City Clerk: Section 22(3), I can read it out.

Madam Speaker: This is the section about the referral motion?

City Clerk: A motion to refer question with instructions is deemed to be a substantive motion which will be in accordance with rule number 19. Rule number 19 pertains to motions written and seconded and how to deal with them and such motions are subject to limits of speaking time described in rule 42. And has been the practice of this Council, it is not accorded a treatment by voting on or speaking to only that motion.

Councillor Wyatt: That's not…Madam Speaker, that’s not been my recollection. Clearly, there’s nothing…I hadn't heard anything quoted from the Procedure By-Law that states that the motion would be discussed at the same time. Motions and referral always take precedent over any other motions.

Madam Speaker: So you're saying the motion to refer takes precedence in what way, debate it and vote on it?

Councillor Wyatt: Debate it now and you vote on it and you deal with the clause. You’re debating? The motion of referral takes precedent which means the motion of referral is debated and discussed in full and then voted up or down by the members of this Council and then the matter is then debated in terms of whether or not you proceed or not.

Madam Speaker: Councillor Wyatt. Mr. Clerk, is it possible that the motion with no written instructions, just a verbal referral is treated differently?

City Clerk: Correct. A motion without instruction is treated differently. And has been the practice of this Council, a motion with instructions is treated the same as any other motion that comes forward and debated at the same time. And I’ll find you the precedent for that, but I doubt that I’d find a precedent where this Council has ever treated a motion with instructions as separate and distinct from a debate on any other matter.

Madam Speaker: Okay, so what you're…

City Clerk: What you’re arguing about here is saying that there’d be perhaps two debates on the same issue. That hasn’t happened. And then…so you go through a referral, everyone would speak and if a referral is lost and everyone gets to speak again. I doubt that's ever happened in my time.

Madam Speaker: But a referral without instructions is different. Clear? Councillor Eadie, on to you. So you can speak to Motion 6, introduce it and later you can speak to the main item if you wish. Are you speaking to your motion at this time?

Councillor Eadie: I’m going to speak…I’m going to speak specifically to this motion to…

Madam Speaker: Refer.

Councillor Eadie: To refer with instructions.

Madam Speaker: Okay.

Councillor Eadie: And introduce it because the debate about it is somewhat different than the debate about the main report. So just in introducing this motion, you know, Madam Speaker, it's very clear that many of us, and including myself, really don't have an idea about what the implications are as this moves forward. I understand that the Province has this act that with specific instructions in it as to when we're supposed to implement. They didn't wait until we could be ready to…but you know that's their fault if they made a mistake and thought that we could get the legislation in place would’ve been okay. In referring this back, I also want to point out, Madam Speaker, that you know, there was a decline, a refusal for…and I don't know if it was with the guidance of the Mayor or who it was, while the Province hadn't passed its legislation, Madam Speaker, it was very clear it was to be passed and it was very clear they were really open to any amendments. That's the way it's been since ever they introduced the idea that they were going to pass that legislation, Madam Speaker. And so, we're at this point, where there is a lot of difficulty and yes, there’s a lot of frustration and anxiety and stress. But you know, it's partly because of the way this thing is rolling out, we're rolling it out the wrong way, Madam Speaker. And yes, if we do refer, this will be referred, there’s implications here. You talk about choice, implications. It sounds like the Mayor doesn’t even understand that if I don't have a credit card, I don't even have a 50 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG December 13, 2017

choice to use Lyft or where is the consumer choice there, Madam Speaker? That's one example of how people don't seem to understand what this all is and what the implications are, Madam Speaker. Another point that nobody really understands is, you know, when I’m running my personal vehicle I know that I can make the most amount of money that I can, to go on a stay-cation or vacation or whatever have you, well the reality, Madam Speaker, is that they're going to be out on the road at peak times when the prices are a bit higher, yeah, there will be some trips we'll pick up from people who are used to…were taking the bus, but you know, those people who are taking the bus, they obviously have a credit card. The people who are riding the bus, who have no choice to ride the bus because they can't afford a car, many of them don't have credit cards either. So I don't know why they would be having choice. So the point is, again, there is no understanding and just you know one…some things people don't understand, I pointed out the number, 4 million trips I believe it was in ‘16, 4 million trips, there were 500 complaints, some of them really serious, but a lot of those complaints were not of the serious nature where women may have been put in harm or anything like that out of 4 million trips. But what the 3 cents estimate and I don't know if you all understand this and this is why it needs to be referred again. You'll note that…you’ll note that at 3 cents, if you're saying it's 45,000, they're saying it’s 43 or whatever, but at 45,000, that 3 cents means that’s 1.5 million trips a year that’s estimated for the personal vehicles-for-hire, not ride-share. Ride-share is equay. I don’t know why we're going to regulate equay. I think that's a real problem. And I don't think people understand that either. So but when you look at those 1.5 million, yeah, 5 million or 500,000 might be new trips, but the reality in Edmonton is 20% of their business was lost, 20% of their business was lost. So that means that Uber and Lyft are picking up all those trips. So they might create some new trips that never existed, but so 1 million out of the 4 million. Does anybody even understand…why are you adding more licenses to the metered vehicles? Like if I was getting a business, I wouldn't even want one. Why even add one when you're taking away 20% of that part of the industry's trips? So nobody really understands. I think it's important that we get this back in here. We look at this, the amendments. You know, so there’s an amendment at 60-60. Why even add those licenses? Again, Uber and Lyft are going to steal trips away at peak hours. Peak hours are when these families, that's when they actual make their money, they average one trip per hour a day, 24/7. But you know when they’re getting most of their trips, they’re getting them at peak hours. And that’s what’s going to happen. You…like I want to see a real perspective. Somebody doing it a proper analysis here so this is why I move this motion to have it referred with instructions. We need to work all this out. You need to understand before any of us vote on this, we really need to understand. What do the amendments mean? What does all this mean? Really. I’m really not sure. And actually, I don't even know. I haven't finished being able to evaluate, but it seems to me that people with disabilities, while we have provisions in here, the provisions also mean probably that there is no equality for people with disabilities who use wheelchairs because ultimately, they're going to have to pay the higher base fee of $12 a trip because there’s not enough provisions in here to put a $15,000 extra vehicle on the road and provide a service. So it’s going to be costing more. There is no equality, no equality. So anyway, I’ll leave it at that. I hope you’ll all seriously consider this referral. I think it’s really important. And I would say it is a shame that there had be such stressful lobbying and seriousness here, but you know I listen to…I listen to one of the family members present to us today, and this will have a financial effect. This…you know, this is like, really, come on, let's be conscientious of people who don't have credit cards and so on and so forth, let's be conscientious of everybody here. This needs to be a real approach. We can't just, you know, take a stab at it. So thanks.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Councillor Eadie.

Councillor Lukes: I have a question. I don't know if it's possible because of the item we’re discussing. It's a time sensitive question and I’m wondering if he would be available to answer it.

Madam Speaker: We'll call the CAO up. Mr. Doug McNeil, and it's because this is a time sensitive matter before Council.

Councillor Lukes: (Inaudible) twice past three years has recommended not allowing vehicles in the diamond lanes because we don't have freeways like Calgary and Vancouver. They've recommended not putting vehicles in the diamond lanes because it slows down transit service and it creates a hazardous condition for cyclists. The question is, does the Public Service…is the Public Service now supportive of putting vehicles in diamond lanes?

Doug McNeil: As a trial, yes, as a pilot project.

Councillor Lukes: And will the Public Service be providing an open and transparent system on how you'll be monitoring it and what your measurables will be and what will be determined successful or not?

Doug McNeil: Yes, we will because of the concerns that we expressed previously.

Councillor Lukes: Thank you.

Madam Speaker: Next speaker on this item? COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG 51 December 13, 2017

Councillor Mayes: Is this just the referral motion or is this the debate?

Madam Speaker: No, you can speak to…the whole enchilada…the whole item and of course the two amendments before us, the referral motion and your amendment that you seconded. Councillor Gillingham.

Councillor Gillingham: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise, I will be supporting the Mayor's motion, I will not be supporting Councillor Eadie's motion to refer. Over the last several, certainly not just today, not several hours, but several weeks, we've heard much and I do appreciate hearing from everyone that I’ve heard from, whether it's folks from the taxi industry or people from that would be representing the personal transportation providers. Heard a lot from I think a lot of us have received many, many e-mails, from members of the public on both sides of the issue. One e-mail that I received and actually from a constituent, I just wanted to highlight that today and he's here today, Mr. Hebert, I appreciate him being here and let me just kind of share…and this is indicative I think of certainly one side of the argument, the discussion that I’ve heard and heard often and I just wanted to kind of cite a couple of highlights from his comments because as I said, they are indicative of many, many others. The reason he would support and is supportive of introducing the personal transportation providers, is in his view a large majority of people share the belief that he uses the term, ride sharing is safe, safer. He believes it's more transparent, signing up for an app with name, address, credit card information and using GPS is easier to track than not…than that which is anonymous. He appreciates the driver customer rating system as compared to not being able to specifically rate individual taxi cab drivers. However, he does say that he takes cabs on a very regular basis as well. And his e-mail goes on. I just, again, I want to express appreciation to all that we’ve heard from including a gentleman like Mr. Hebert. As I’ve been part of, you know, listening to and working with groups on both sides and trying to be attentive and trying to work with all involved, I think what’s important is that what we have before us is, I would say, a significant amendment, set of amendments from the original by-law that was tabled. They are before us. And I believe that we've heard from some of the concerns from the taxi industry. We tried to respond. We have met with, I have met with and I’m certainly willing to continue to meet with as the months unfold, both the taxi industry and whether it’s representatives from Uber, Lyft or some other entity that would come…endeavour to come into the market should this pass. I think what’s important to remember too is that for the City of Winnipeg, these are…these are really early days. This is really the first…we're looking at the first iteration of a new regime…a new to us, regime. And I do note that one of the recommendations that were put…that’s being put forward is that the Public Service be required to report back every 12 months for the first five years and that's, you know, an amendment, the Mayor, immediately championed in response to what we've heard from the industry, the taxi industry. That the Public Service be reporting back every 12 months for the first five years with an update on vehicle-for-hire industry under the new by-law and to request approval for any by-law revisions deemed necessary. I think that's important to keep in mind that this will be an ongoing conversation that that should this pass today, that the work will continue and amendments may need to take place, changes and tweaks may well need to be part of the process, through the coming months as we continue to revisit this matter. But at its core, I believe the customers should have a choice in the market place. Our economy is built on competition. And I think what’s important for, you know, as I’ve listened to the arguments as well is that not only the taxi industry, but to open this up beyond the taxi industry in the vehicle-for-hire regime, to open it up to others gives others the opportunity to earn income. Low-income providers may be able to come into the market and make a little bit of money and a little bit of income that would assist them with putting bread on their table and paying their rent. It could be a student that instead of taking out debt, can offset their income so that they have money to get…make their way through school. These are all part of the realities that this vehicle-for-hire regime that we’re proposing today could lead to, and I think that’s important is that this could also offer opportunity for others who at this present moment don't have an opportunity for this kind of employment. I think that's important to bear in mind as well. Ultimately, when the market is given the opportunity to decide, the market often dictates what…and really determines what it requires. And what it desires. And so I think it's important to bear in mind as we're making this decision today. And again, I want to thank everyone for their participation and I do know that in the coming days, this is not the end of this discussion. In fact, in many ways, it's just the beginning and changes will be made in the coming years I’m sure. What we're really trying to do ultimately is ensure that for the citizens of Winnipeg, vehicles-for-hire are available for them at the times that they need it in the ways they desire, and so I will be supporting the Mayor's motion today, will not be supporting Councillor Eadie's motion to refer. Thank you.

Madam Speaker: Thank you. Next speaker, Councillor Schreyer.

Councillor Schreyer: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just put my hand up because I don’t need to be at the back of the line. I’ll just take my place. I think I know what we’re talking about here. We did deal with the points of order and the points of information, so we know what we're doing, Madam Speaker, except, Madam Speaker, the thing is I don't think we do know what we're doing, that's part of the problem. I understand that our safety mechanisms for admitting that is that the administration will report back every 12 months. That's good. But that's not how we should start in terms of saying, well whatever imperfections we start with in terms of devastating an industry and families, that have built their lives around this career and their families around this. That's a great way to start. Madam Speaker, it's a terrible way to 52 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG December 13, 2017

start. So let's deal with that first. Madam Speaker, when I was first elected, I heard that we were going to bring in Uber, that's fine with me. I didn't campaign against Uber. Why would a councillor, any councillor think here think that they're more apt to take Uber than I am? One day, I might drive for Uber. I don't know. That's fine with me that Uber’s here. But the idea that we're not going to do it based on Canadian civilized tenets of competition, I’m truly surprised by. Our economy thrives by competition, Madam Speaker. This takes away the competition in the industry. That's a fact. By definition of how we’re structuring this, it takes away competition in the industry. In other words, Madam Speaker, it's an unfair playing field, lack of competition in the industry, and that is devastating. And you know, the Mayor, I certainly sympathize, I empathize, he's talked about how he's been treated on this one. Well, you know, how do you think it was for my father when he brought in Autopac, Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation? How do you think it was for us for our family getting phone calls because the phone was listed in the phone book. We only had one phone. So I took the calls, Madam Speaker, six, seven, what years old whatever, Madam Speaker, I truly empathize. Now, it’s sort of…I look back and it's funny, but it wasn't funny at the time, Madam Speaker. It's kind of scary. I don't wish that on people, but Madam Speaker, I can tell you something, when we brought in MPI, we needed a level playing field for all of the private deliverers of insurance that existed in the province. They were all allowed to stay in. It was a level playing field when we made a major swap in terms of changing the industry. Madam Speaker, do you think it was easy for Tommy Douglas when he initiated in the CCF in Saskatchewan, when they initiated public health care? No. They took a lot of abuse for that, Madam Speaker, but it was the level playing field. The doctors didn't declare a reduction in income because it was fair. Madam Speaker, this is not what this is. Let's start right. Madam Speaker, I believe in a growing, thriving city. I believe in building Winnipeg for the future. And I continually look for ways to positively change our society, our city, and working together with Council. I admit, Madam Speaker, I’m using the words of His Worship in his speech. He also said we need to do our best. Madam Speaker, this isn't our best. I asked questions this morning that I didn't get answers to. We were…not one person today, Madam Speaker, mentioned how it is…how it exists, the ride-sharing legislation and regulations and by-laws within the City and Province. It hasn't been discussed once and yet that term, as you say, Madam Speaker, was used interchangeably. Well, that's misleading.

(Inaudible speaking in the background)

Councillor Schreyer: Yes, properly this time, for the first time, Madam Speaker, I’m glad it was pointed out, I believe I’m the first councillor to actually use the term, ride-sharing in context of saying that it should be introduced and discussed in context of its own regulations and by-laws because it exists in Manitoba, Madam Speaker. It is something else, and we're not discussing that and every time we discuss…we’ve used the term ride-sharing today, no one talked about that. Why is that, Madam Speaker? Is that not misleading? So I ask the question again, Madam Speaker. Is that not misleading? Of course it is. Now, of course, it’s been said that there were inflammatory remarks made this morning, filibustering, I don't know, I’m surely glad that we had the 15 minute extension. Many councillors and His Worship used that extension to the benefit of us all by asking questions. So I surely didn't see any filibustering. In terms of inflammatory remarks, well I didn't hear any. I know that Councillor Eadie got emotional because he asked the question, is it unfair to poor people? Was that inflammatory, Madam Speaker? Well, it's a good question, isn't it? Is it unfair to poor people if they can’t…if they don't have a credit card, so they can't use Uber. What kind of choice is that? So what does that do to the industry, Madam Speaker? We’ve got what’s called in certain industries, creaming, because you can take that segment of the demographic, that segment of the industry or the consumer market. What does that do to the rest of the industry, Madam Speaker? Is it good for the industry? No. Does it actually provide choice in those circumstances? No, Madam Speaker. So let's deal with what we're dealing with, Madam Speaker. Was that an inflammatory question? Was his presumption that it was unfair inflammatory? I’m not sure what else could’ve been considered inflammatory. He did seem a little inflamed because he's concerned. Madam Speaker, let's face it, we've developed an industry in the city and this province based on who we are, based on what our city is. We're not a desert. We're an oasis in terms of what we've done for ourselves in terms of the evolution of this…of the industry in our city. Madam Speaker, we have within…I was mentioning yesterday in budget, the poorest federal riding of any city in Canada. Now, I thought they were going to refer to Winnipeg North Centre, but boundaries changing she said Winnipeg Centre, but also I’d say half of Winnipeg North Centre. Madam Speaker, I live one block officially from Winnipeg North Centre, I live, well, half a block. That's my community. So I’m very aware of the realities of this. So we're not offering choice to the disempowered. We're not offering that choice, that option. A lot of people don't have credit cards, Madam Speaker. And by the way, Uber and Lyft, they don't need credit cards. They don't have to offer that merely as their option for payment. It doesn't have to be that way. There’s other countries where they operate without the need for credit card. So let's put that out of the window and talk about a level playing field. Madam Speaker, we have the highest crime rate, murder rate in Canada, basically around sort of this blocks from where I live. We've developed in this city, in this province, safety regulations, for the benefit of everybody, Madam Speaker. To make it fair and safe and so our choices are fair and safe, and Madam Speaker…

Madam Speaker: Councillor Orlikow moves extension.

Councillor Schreyer: Thank you. COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG 53 December 13, 2017

Madam Speaker: All in favour? Contrary? Carried.

Councillor Schreyer: So, we did something a number of years ago when we brought in the shield. We're not the only city in the world with shields. My goodness, in a safe…one of the safest cities in the world, Tokyo, they've got…they’ve got driver shields. I was amazed to see it, but there it is. So Madam Speaker, it's not a ridiculous idea of shield. Other cities do it. One of the safest cities in the world has it, but we're going to take it away from us in the beginning, on the onset of changing this industry? Madam Speaker, that’s more than rash. So I’ve never seen in…I’ve never seen…I’ve never been witnessed to…I don’t know, such a change in the industry with complete disregard for why we've developed the industry for what it is. People want change, that’s great. Bring in Uber, bring in competition and let’s face it, Madam Speaker, one of the great indications of a solid, a viable free market socially oriented society is a competitive and accountable free market. Let's never forget that. I was raised on that, Madam Speaker. And this is not it. So Madam Speaker, instead of waiting 12 months or 24 months, waiting for families to be devastated by this, let's do it right in the beginning, a level and fair and competitive and accountable playing field for the safety of Winnipeggers and I think we can provide our choices within that context. There is a lot to say about this. But my time is up. I’ll leave it at that. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Councillor Schreyer. Councillor Wyatt.

Councillor Wyatt: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think Councillor Schreyer made a lot of excellent points, and well said. The community that…the business community that came here today, Madam Speaker, that are in the gallery, many listening, are individuals and families that have contributed over the course of the last generation or so to our city. They're engaged, it's a business community that has engaged politically in a very positive way, in a way that many Canadians who have been here for generations have not been engaged. They're involved in all our various institutions whether it be in our schools or community clubs and they give back. There’s no doubt that the proposal put forward by the ride-sharing companies is a unique one. But what was clear today in the Q&A with them, when they came here and spoke is that they have a business model and they fully expect our system, our regulations to conform to their business model come what may. Yet our collective experiences as a society and a city, we're new to this file, but the experiences of the other level of government who had to regulate this industry for all those years, was one where they needed and they provided for safety provisions that were based on the experience of that industry. I don't think any of that has changed Madam Speaker. Yes, we can talk about how sexy and fancy this is and the app and how cool it is to be able to click and get a ride, but at the same time, Madam Speaker, when something happens, the community, and I mean now the general community, the citizens of a whole will be expecting us to ensure safety standards are in place. And when something does happen, they’ll be pointing to this Council and saying, why were safety provisions not provided? Especially since the precedent was set for this industry previously by the other level of government. It was stated that the Premier fully expected the City, fully expected the City to live up to safety provisions that they had provided for when they were regulating the industry which somewhat calls into question why he would’ve devolved all of this to the City without insuring those bare minimum safety provisions were in place which of course the Provincial Government would’ve had full power to do so and they chose not to. So I believe that we're here today largely because of actions taken at the provincial level which I think were negligent in terms of the provisions of safety that the experience of this industry clearly demonstrates are needed and are required. I believe in free enterprise just as many as…as many others at the table here, but I also believe in a level playing field, Madam Speaker, and in terms of ensuring the rules that are in place, can be applied equally to everyone and it's clear that right now that level of playing field is not there. You know, to be able to provide a safety shield, I think it was…I think it was…I listened to the comments made by Councillor Mayes in the last meeting of EPC a week ago when he said disruptive change, well why can't we have our own disruptive change here, he said. In terms of saying to Uber, no, you know, you will be required to send your drivers out to get safety shields in, we're just…we’re putting them in buses, but we can’t put them in all these cars. It doesn't make any sense. You know, I think there is a rush to do this for political reasons. Yeah, it may be popular, it may be popular but that doesn't necessarily mean it's right. We're here to do what is right, and to ensure the…that we establish a new…whole new regiment of regulations that are in place of an industry that we’ve never had to regulate before. What is also clear to me too is and it’s a real concern is that we I think attempted, some of us attempted to get the…this industry, the existing taxi industry, engaged in this process. We did move a motion to create a stakeholders’ group, to a working group. And it's clear that that was just simply accepted…it was accepted by the Mayor and EPC, but the Mayor and EPC clearly used it as window dressing to make it look like they were doing something when they actually weren't because we heard it from the industry. They had one meeting, and they were able to speak 20 minutes and that was the end of the dialogue. There was really no working group as a working group with…would be known as which is to work through issues and to come forward with some sort of consensus or at least having the ability to have input into the final recommendations that are coming for us today. There is no doubt EPC, the Mayor and EPC have the power to push this matter through Council, which they shall now do. But if they do so, on the backs of a community and a business…a small business community that have been in our city for years, that have worked hard, who worked hours, did work that others wouldn't do, working vacations or holidays that others wouldn't work, and sometimes for 12 hour shifts, if not longer, back to 54 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG December 13, 2017

back, when others wouldn't do that, sacrificing for their families, making it possible for their kids to go to school. Yeah, I understand competition. I understand the right of businesses to be able to compete with each other. Nobody is saying that we shouldn't have that, what we're saying is that there should be a level playing field which clearly is not exist…not going to exist with this by-law before us today. What exists instead is a message that we're sending EPC and the Mayor is sending to this business community that they really don't matter. They've been in our city, thanks for your service and goodbye. Because this industry…because of the way it's set up right now, Uber or whatever ride-sharing companies will have a direct impact on these existing taxis who will not…who have to follow the rules that they've been following. The insurance rules right now in place, we're not even sure what that might mean. We're waiting to hear back from the Province on MPI. You know, Madam Speaker, I think in the motion put forward by Councillor Eadie to refer the matter and Councillor Eadie has more than any other councillor on this Council has been engaged in this file as a member of the Taxicab Board representative for this Council over the years. And knows this issue and has heard the issues and I think has a passion for the challenges that this industry faces. And I believe his motion to refer is sincere to actually allow this business community, the existing taxi industry to be able to have input into the final by-law. I don't think that's much to ask. I know the agenda of the Mayor and EPC is just to push this through no matter what, but you know, Madam Speaker, to allow them to have more input to see if we can do a better job, to see what we can do in terms of ensuring that the regulations come forward are fair or safer, what harm would come from that, Madam Speaker, to allow that to happen? I don't think any. So I would hope that we could endorse and support the Eadie-Lukes’ motion to refer and then allow us to bring this back in January or February so that we can go forward from there. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Councillor Mayes. Oh, I am so sorry. Councillor Sharma

Councillor Sharma: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise here today to not support the Vehicle-for-Hire By-law in front of Council. I’m not opposed to personal transportation providers, but I’m opposed to a decision that would be directly financially detrimental to so many currently employed in the industry and their families as we’ve heard here today. While I recognize that offloading by the Provincial Government put this matter in front of us, I am not happy with the process as it has unfolded and the process that will be followed if this matter is proceeded with. I’m not convinced that we have done a good job of consultation and I am not convinced that we have listened to those who have presented their issues. The process before us has been flawed and rushed for all parties the public, stakeholders, and City Council. I have many unanswered questions pertaining to how this new model would work and I’m aware that other cities have faced numerous issues with this as well. These issues include safety to riders, as well as operational issues overall. I’m uncertain of this strategic vision that we are attempting to install here today. At our briefing with the Public Service, our administration shared they felt we were not going to get this right out of the gate and hoped to make improvements in the near future. That is an understatement. There is still time in my opinion to slow down and get through this process in a more fair and just manner. What I see today is a decision that will have an adverse effect on the industry and affect individuals and families who pay taxes and who are contributing members of our society in so many ways. The amendments in my opinion do not go far enough. Access to the diamond lanes came out of left field. We recently discussed this very issue at the Public Works Committee on several occasions and the recommendations from the Public Service were very different. I don't think we should be appeasing the taxi industry, what should be happening is treating all parties fairly and clearly I feel we fall short on that today. Once again, I cannot in good faith support this initiative and agree with the statements made by the delegations in opposition this morning and this afternoon and do stand with them. In terms of the motions, I will be supporting the referral motion today. And I also have a request for the amending motion by Mayor Bowman. If you look at it on your desks here, on the back page, Item 2, if you would consider striking that and delaying any additional taxis to enter the market at least till December 1st and then we can have a look at the effects of the personal transportation vehicles, Madam Deputy Speaker, and look at the effect and…back later in the year around December, maybe come up with a better number that would work for all involved, so again, a friendly amendment to strike or amend Item No. 2 on the back page. And I know we are at, Madame Deputy Speaker, I know we're about to close on this debate very shortly, but anything is possible and there’s always time to do things like this. And this has been a request I believe that was made by the industry and I think I’ve been heard loud and clear on that.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Madam…Madam Speaker, I’ve been advised by the Clerk that that would be an amendment which is not before us, so it's not…in order to…

Councillor Sharma: We have…

Madam Deputy Speaker: It’s not a friendly amendment. I’ve been advised by the Clerk.

Councillor Sharma: Over the last seven years, I’ve heard many Council members talk about friendly amendments and things do get retyped in the matter of a few minutes around here.

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG 55 December 13, 2017

Councillor Browaty: Point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Ruling, maybe if someone would like to challenge that, that’s fine. There’s a process for that. Councillor Browaty.

Councillor Browaty: Would we have the ability to vote on the amendments clause by clause?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Do so if there was a majority vote, I believe? I’m just going to confer with the Clerk for a moment if you can just. Just a moment, please.

Councillor Sharma: And Madam Deputy Speaker, just to clarify the friendly amendment, I’m suggesting that the Mayor or his seconder make that amendment. I’m not suggesting the wording in my speech here today. Okay?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Okay. The problem is that if the Clerk has advised me that it's not a friendly amendment, it's an amendment so.

Councillor Sharma: Okay, well I put that out there and I think it…I’ve been heard. Thank you.

Councillor Schreyer: Madam Speaker, they’re not to be mover whether it’s a friendly amendment or not?

Councillor Sharma: That’s right.

Madam Deputy Speaker: No, it’s not. I believe it's up to the Clerk, you know, it’s up to the Clerk and the Chair…Chair rules if somebody wishes to challenge the ruling, they may do so. Yes, we can, Councillor Browaty, yes we can vote clause by clause according to the rules by the Clerk, okay? Next, we have Councillor Mayes.

Councillor Mayes: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is the first motion…I have not moved something that the Mayor has seconded in three years. He has not moved something that I have seconded until this and that is because this represents I think a compromise of a lot of different views and ideologies and approaches on a particular item. I would say I don't support this with any joy at all. It's been a very difficult, emotional experience hearing people from the community come forward and speak. That said, this is something the Province has thrust upon us, Councillor Wyatt talked about that. If indeed, the Province made certain guarantees to people from the taxi community, the Province had every ability to write that into the legislation, they do have the largest majority in the history of the Province, they could’ve put in any number of protections, but to somehow say, well we’re going to fob this off on the City, where I’m sure they’ll give you everything they want…you want and if they don't, it's their fault, I think is really an abdication of responsibilities by the Province. You know, if somebody, a former Conservative Cabinet Minister said to me recently, maybe there should be some form of compensation. Well, that’s easily said. If you actually put a dollar a ride on every ride, it would account for 1.5 million, if indeed you could do that and that we have people here saying they've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars for their licenses. So if people expected compensation, the Province, which has been the regulator for decades, certainly was the place to make that happen. So we've been handed this from by the Province and must then try and come up with a regulatory framework in a very short period of time because February 28th is the date that we must implement. So the idea that if we just wait a month, it will all be easier, and we won’t all have to compromise I think I think is false. I will also say in passing, some interesting comments from the Liberal Party of Manitoba and Federal Liberal Party, the great champions of free trade, great opponents of protectionism in the U.S. telling us that we should do whatever we can to make sure the San Francisco based Uber and Lyft don't come into a local market, certainly I’ll be playing my friend who runs the Alliance for American Manufacturing know about that interesting exception to the philosophy. Free trade is fine as long as it doesn't cost anybody on our side anything seems to be the philosophy. So interesting points from the Provincial and Federal Liberals but I think given their position in favour, robustly these days, not like 1988, but robust favouring of free trade, it's a little much to say in this case, however, will rely on the City to be protectionist. I want to thank the Mayor for some of the work on this over the weekend, trying to bring together some compromise. As I say, I certainly will be supporting this with no enthusiasm or no great joy, but it is…it is a responsibility the Province has put upon us. The issue of safety is one that has been much discussed, obviously, you've spoke to the family in the Chicago area, so did I. We’re trying to do the research, certainly the mother of the deceased I spoke to talked about, she continues to use the ride-share services. She would like to see encouragement of the shields. Your conversation slightly different, Madam Speaker, with a different family member talking about having the shields, I think we'd all like to see something to encourage the shields at the very least. I know Councillor Pagtakhan has talked to me at some length about this. We are implementing a safety levy. This is the…we're being innovative in doing this to try to get some funds to encourage safety. What will that money be spent on? That has yet to be determined. Will MPI offer some sort of inducement to have the shields put in? We don't know. The number of insurance related questions, vehicle inspections is one of the recommendations from the coalition, all of that’s going to have to be resolved by MPI over which we don't have any control. So MPI enters the debate again, Councillor Schreyer 56 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG December 13, 2017

having made reference to it. And so we have a number of issues here, very difficult to find compromise on this. We’ve had some speakers saying, well, we should follow what the admin report said on diamond lanes, but we should however ignore the admin report that’s in front of us, I guess seems to be the sentiment. So I think if people are saying, well, you should be bound by one admin report, just not the one, I…I mean…this is very difficult and we are trying to find a way to create a level playing field, part of that is to, for a one-year pilot period accept the motion that was put forward by Councillor…well, most of motion was put forward by Councillors Eadie and Wyatt in October, hinged on a one year pilot project for taxis in diamonds lanes, this actually dates back to 2010, 2009, as the motion points out when the matter was put off before council. The motion from Councillors Eadie and Wyatt talked about the many other different cities in Canada; Vancouver, Toronto, Edmonton et cetera that have access for taxis to diamond lanes. So this is not anything really out of the norm and it is a one year pilot. I think in fact the most important amendment has been made in this entire process was the very first one that the Mayor made last week saying, you know what, we're not going to come back in two years, we're coming back in one year. I want to thank Mr. Wardrop for all of the efforts he's put in on this project. It wasn't started the day after the legislation passed. It was started some time ago. This issue has been live for some time. It's not one that I embrace with any great enthusiasm, but if you look at Mr. Moist’s article that he provided to us, Paul Moist, very well written actually, a number of the issues, it talks about the competition bureau making recommendations back in 2015, so the issue which has been set upon us a couple of years ago. The other thing that Paul Moist report talks about is the number of licenses in this city is roughly 800 something per…well, there’s one license per about 800 citizens. You'd have to increase the supply by about 50% to get up to the Canadian average. I mean, even in this report which is not favourable to Uber, even this report says there’s rising and legitimate pressure to add capacity to the current system, so rising and legitimate pressure to add capacity. We are not going to the Canadian average in one step. We are looking at adding 120 licenses. That's another amendment. That introduction was slowed down. Those 120 licenses reflect the number of seasonal licenses that are out there now. So the idea that this is flooding the market I don’t think quite adds up, but we are slowing the delivery of that down compared to the original recommendation. We've accepted the number one recommendation from the coalition which was not to have a limit of 20 years on the transferability of licenses. We've had a number of people say, well, my license will be worthless the day after you introduce this. Well, with respect, obviously there will still be markets for the taxi industry, people hailing from the street, people paying in cash, taking Councillor Eadie's number, 20% incursion by Uber in Edmonton. If you take the number that’s estimated by our staff, let’s say there are 1.5 million rides that become ride-sharing or whatever personal transportation provider. Let's say you take that figure, there’s still millions of rides out there that are going to be using the taxi system. So I think the idea that all licenses will be worthless the day after this gets passed I don’t think is well founded. Will it be a much more competitive environment? Yes, it will, but…

Madam Speaker: Councillor Gillingham moves extension. All in favour? Contrary? Carried.

Councillor Mayes: As the numbers show, there is legitimate and rising pressure to increase capacity. Can't really fault the people who have been in the industry, it's been overregulated, it hasn't been terribly well-regulated one could argue, no offence to Harvey Smith or Councillor Eadie who’ve done their duty on the Taxi Board, but we have an industry where the regulation has kept eight…the number of cabs per capita here at a much lower level than the rest of the country. So we're faced with a number of pressures, I don't think any of us are enthusiastic about the entire package, but it is a package that will allow this…the ride-sharing here that is allowed in many other jurisdictions, many other countries. There will still be many matters for who’s ever here in a year to address. I suspect the matters my end up in court. If Mr. Schafer used the term, we have thousands of employees. Ms. Ramen was a little more shrewd and perhaps said, no, we had direct contractors with Lyft or independent contractors. It's actually a fairly important legal issue, probably a slip of the tongue, but perhaps telling from Mr. Schafer and I suspect the matter may end up in the Labour Boards or the courts. Are these employees? Are these independent contractors? Are they dependent contractors? All of this will have to be played out as it has in many other cities and many other countries. So I certainly take no great pleasure in bringing this in. If we could come up with a compensation scheme, I think we would’ve. That really was Provincial responsibility that’s being…that’s being downloaded to us. So I would say in closing that it's a matter where it's been a difficult compromise, I know, for several of us, Councillor Pagtakhan and myself, many others, no one, as was said about the budget, no one likes all parts of it, but…but you do come up at some point with a compromise to move forward. So there will still be competitions, there will still be millions of taxi rides. There will be ride-sharing, but we'll be back in a year or those who replace us will be back in a year to evaluate how things have worked out and to work with our admin and to work with our community to see what changes may be necessary.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Councillor Mayes. Councillor Gerbasi.

Councillor Gerbasi: Thank you. Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thanks to everybody for their comments and thanks to the people that have been here all day and been advocating on the issue on all sides of it for your interest in civic issues. We are in the…the world is changing and this is something that’s coming to cities. It's been to most other cities. It's here and we've been legislated that it's here, so we don't really have a choice to…even if those that don't support…what am I supposed to say, personal vehicles for hire, you know, it's happening. There’s legislation that we COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG 57 December 13, 2017

need to follow, we need to bring in by-laws and we need to bring in this process and replace the Taxicab Board as we are a creature of the Province and they've made us this legislation. So whatever side you're on, that's true for all of us in this room that this is going to happen. The motion to refer is a problem given that this has to happen by February 28th. February 28th is two months away and there would have to be almost a new department within the Parking Authority setup for licensing, regulation, a whole number of administrative processes and while the City of Winnipeg may be efficient and move quickly, I don't believe we can really wait and I’m not even sure what would really change in another month. I mean there has been…this is the administrative report. It's pretty big report. There’s been a lot of work. There’s been a lot of consultation. I know not everybody is happy with the decision and its landing. I think Councillor Mayes talked very eloquently about…that what’s in front of us today really is a compromise when you listen to members of Council, you listen to the taxi industry, the private citizens, you listen to the other industries, and you come up with a package of amendments which is we have in front of us today, so this is the art of the compromise. Having said that, this is something we're doing, we're bringing this in. Now, one of the…I also want to point out that we are not the first place to be bringing this in. We're one of many other cities who’ve brought this in over a period, way ahead of us, so they've done the heavy lifting in terms of setting up the regulations for this, for vehicles-for-hire. So we are following the best practices of other cities, we’re picking up from Edmonton, Vancouver and other cities and coming up with our made in Winnipeg model, but it is based on what these other cities are done…have done. One of the issues that is on my mind as an active cyclist is the diamond lane, and I was encouraged to hear the CAO say that they were amenable to a trial for a year, which was what was decided. I would be concerned if it was permanent immediately without evidence and evaluation and that’s what is also being done. And that was also mentioned by the CAO and Councillor Lukes' questions that was clarified, that there is going to be good evaluation of the trial, which I think is important when we're talking about cycling, cyclist and pedestrian safety. I think that's always a concern to all of us. I also have a suggestion and it's not an amendment, it's just a suggestion, but I think it's an important one. I also…it relates to the amendment that adds the sur…I’m not sure I’m using the right language, the safety tax or whatever we’re calling…the surplus fee to the ride-share vehicle that’s going to go into a…surcharge, is going into a pot for safety initiatives I am assuming by MPI. So I would hope that MPI will consider and that we can work with them to ensure…and this is just my suggestion and I’m hoping that Councillor Morantz and others will take this forward, that we use some of the funding from the safety surtax to train drivers of all industries about cycling safety and pedestrian safety as they're using diamond lanes. And I think that's something that we've been wanting to see anyway when we talked about our cycling strategy over the years. We've talked about having more public education as part of that and MPI certainly well placed to do that. So this is actually a source of funding I know it's for all safety measures and it can be used for that, but I mean it could also definitely use for education because I think that the cycling community have legitimate concerns about this in the past that have come up. It's a trial, the CAO assures us it will be properly evaluated, and if we…MPI is willing to use this for education on cycling safety, I think that could be something that we could see done and hopefully that would address concerns that cyclists validly have. Having said that, the Mayor did point out earlier that he spoke with Mayor Gregor Robertson from Vancouver and Mayor Don Iveson from Edmonton and that they have had that shared use with cycling with taxis in the diamond lanes, so that gives me some comfort, although I think the real answer to cycling safety, not to get too far off topic, but the real answer to that is proper cycling infrastructure, which we are investing in this last budget. We are significantly increasing our investment in permanent cycling infrastructure which is really the answer to safety. Frankly, diamond lanes right now are fracked with cars whipping through, but for many cyclists, that's the only choice they have to get to work in some parts of the city. That's unfortunate and that's what we're trying to change with our active transportation strategy. So in close…in summary, this is a very…I also wanted to say one more thing, I’m sorry. I’m getting a little tired so I might be getting a little loopy here. I understand the…this is a very personal issue for people in the industry, it's their livelihood, it’s their life and the commitment that immigrants made when they came here and they did these difficult jobs, and I hear that and I understand people are very upset. This is a change that is happening. It's legislated, it's going to happen. We can’t…we're not going to stop it from happening. We're trying to make it as fair as possible, but when the Mayor talked about threats that he experienced, I don't know what those were and I’m not going to get into that in detail, but I don't think that's ever like okay, like we all have to be tough. And I’ve been in politics for almost 20 years, I’ve had threats, I’ve had to call the police. You know, we've had those things, and yes, it's part of the job, but I don’t think that makes it acceptable and I think that needs to be said. I don’t think the Mayor should be worrying about his safety of himself or his family should be worrying about their safety. And I hope that those kinds of threats would never ever occur and I certainly hope they would never be acted on. Regardless of how…you know, yes, they happen, that doesn't make it okay and I think that needs to be said. So I hope that’s taken to heart by anyone who is unhappy with any decisions anyone makes in this political arena that they would never actually hurt anybody or try to intimidate. It's a democratic debate and everyone has the right to their opinion, each one of us around this table. So with that, Madam Speaker, I thank you.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Councillor Gerbasi. Councillor Lukes followed by Councillor Eadie.

Councillor Lukes: Thank you, Madam Speaker. So we've all experienced first-hand how technology can completely change the playing field and we’ve been witnessed to the turmoil and challenges it can create, and the corporate and personal gains and the devastation and losses that can result. And the shifting ground is exactly what we're debating 58 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG December 13, 2017

today with what traditionally has been a tightly controlled and regulated business, the taxi industry, that is now being challenged by technology enabling vehicles-for-hire service that operate outside existing regulations. And we know Winnipeg wants…Winnipeggers want choice and the ability to choose modes of transportation because we've been heavily funding transit and active transportation to provide additional and improved choices. And I know the taxi industry is very aware that technology is going to have an impact on them in some form. So I’m not speaking against the benefits technology can bring and how it can improve our quality of life nor am I against the increasing choices and competition, but I’m speaking to what I believe has been a disingenuous consultation process with the taxi industry. And amendments that are coming forward that in my opinion really haven’t been clearly thought out. I recognize the condensed timeframe that we have to regulate within, but frankly this Council’s been in discussion with Uber since fall of 2014 when Uber met with myself and councillors and the Mayor to discuss the entry into Winnipeg. I also think it's very disingenuous to say that we’ve had no time to hold meaningful conversations, and meaningful conversations are what I think has been really lacking here. Over the weekend, in four days, new amendments were created on the fly without any consultation with the taxi industry or new entities that the amendments will impact, transit users and the cycling community. This new amendment uses diamond lanes for vehicles in my opinion is really a reckless amendment. While I’m aware in an environment where there is no fair playing field, that the taxi industry would appreciate this. And I do want to note that they didn't ask for it in the recommendations, but we've had two reports clearly and debated it clearly in the Public Works Committee not to do this in diamond lanes. And pilot or not, what we're doing is, we are delaying the transit service and we are putting cyclists at risk. And I just spoke with Mr. Callahan which was up here from the Transit Union and he was shocked it was even being considered because emergency vehicles use the diamond lanes to access situations in a more rapid manner. So you know, and then there’s funding required to change all the diamond lanes for a year. I just really question this amendment. We're moving mass numbers of people and now we're going to slow down transit, and what of the cyclists? You know, a year pilot, there’s a lot can happen in a year with cyclists using diamond lanes. This really concerns me. And really, this is sort of transportation on the fly. Yesterday, we were bemoaning the cost and poor service of transit and the lack of funding for transit. And why aren't we seeing fee per ride placed on Uber to apply to transit? If we're going to innovative, why aren't we even looking at that or discussing that? In our briefing, it was confirmed with the Public Service that we could do that. I really don't believe that we're doing to the best of our abilities to protect Winnipeggers on a variety of fronts if we pass the item today, Item 5 today. And I think the recent amendments that came out reinforce this. I really would like to recommend to Council that we vote no to the motion and we ask the Public Service to hold sincere meaningful conversations with the Taxi Coalition over the next five days, just to sit down. I mean we saw what happened over a weekend. If people could just sit down and work through this. The commitment the taxi industry has provided to Winnipeggers for all these years deserves this respect. Winnipeggers expect us to enable thought out legislation and to provide them with regulations for safety, not just for cabs, for drivers in vehicles, but for transit and for cyclists. We can do better. And I encourage everyone to not support the report today and have further conversation. I won't be supporting this motion.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Councillor Lukes. Councillor Eadie followed by Councillor Browaty.

Councillor Eadie: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise and I’ll try not to be too emotional. I actually stand to speak about this by-law, and taking over the regulation from a perspective of I’m trying to ensure that everybody's concerns and needs are here and that we actually have. This is an essential industry, actually. You know, I get tied into all these debates. It is important to have the multiple different transportation modes. The reality is, Madam Speaker, we all know that the motor vehicle will exist for a long time. It's not going away, and environmentally friendly vehicles will be on the road, they're already on the road, there will be more and more. So Madam Speaker, when we look at this, I’m looking at the system, the industry as a whole for my perspective because I have been, I guess you could call me a regulator having sat on the Manitoba Taxicab Board, but ultimately, that was for the whole industry as it stood. And yes, change is going to come and I think everybody in the industry who exists in the industry now, Madam Speaker, they all understand that these other vehicle for hire options are coming and they will come in. But Madam Speaker, that doesn't mean we have to proceed in a way that really is creating only two…it's creating two separate industries, two separate cities is really what it’s creating. Actually, our decision on funding busing and going with bus fares, that's a decision that’s creating two cities, Madam Speaker, two cities. There is a city for those who have credit cards, that have decent jobs and can be able to pay for those and then there’s a city for those who can't do so. And that's the overall perspective I think we should be considering. You know we're not doing that. Let's be clear. Everybody who’s in this industry is out there to make money and make a living. Ultimately, Uber and Lyft have shareholders and they want to report lots of profits. So they're doing the things that they need to do to ensure that their people see profits and make money. So it's all vehicles-for-hire, everybody is trying make a living and it's nice, you know, to make it sound like my son who has a car, is going to be able to go out and do a little bit of Uber driving. He can actually go and work part time and probably make more money at McDonald's frankly Madam Speaker, because you know, I hear complaints from cities around that have Uber drivers, they don't make a lot of money. So yeah, it's good for that person who has a vehicle and they'll make a few dollars, they're not worried about making X number of dollars an hour, they already bought their car though. You know, they didn't go out and buy that car special. So that’s as we drill down, but if you look at the whole industry ride and I don't have time, Madam Speaker, to speak about some of the issues that will arise as the regulations are here. And it's COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG 59 December 13, 2017

my understanding and again I will say our administration put a lot of time into this, but they should’ve been working on this, Madam Speaker, a long time ago as Councillor Lukes appropriately pointed out. I didn't even know members of EPC at the time and stuff had had meetings with Uber and talking about coming in. Yeah, they're going to come in. Well, we have to consider the whole industry, Madam Speaker. And really what this by-law does is it creates one industry called metres and another called personal vehicles-for-hire. Different regulations, I hear arguments about, oh, the market will decide. Well, you know what, the market’s going to decide based on one that’s regulated way more and has to pay more money to put their vehicles on the road, and a less regulated, hardly regulated, one that can just throw as many vehicles on as they want it any time. There’s no limitation on that side. And just so you understand what the per capita number of business license is, Vancouver does not have Uber and they have a much higher ratio of taxis to the population, Madam Speaker. And I would agree with that. That's a good thing to do. But when we were talking about and MMP was talking about how many licenses we need, they were looking at the whole need of an essential industry to a city. And they said we needed X more licenses added, well, Madam Speaker, Madam Speaker, this by-law, unlimited number of vehicles for Lyft and Uber, unlimited number. They're going to be out there, you know, an estimate of 1.5 million trips. Madam Speaker, that's way out of whack. There’s only…there’s a potential maybe for 5 million trips in this city, 4 million as I mentioned in the year that was studied. There was 500 complaints, some of those serious, but lots of them were complaints about other issues. That's a tiny, you know, I wish the City of Winnipeg services got such a good rating of not being upset with how we were delivering our services. That means that this industry, the people that are still here, and we heard Uber even admit it, hard-working, well-meaning people who’re trying to make a living. And so when I look at this, it's not balanced. You know, if you want to move ahead and make amendments, well, that's fine, but you know what I don't think we just all of a sudden pop up on a Friday afternoon, and say we're going to amend this and somehow that's going to make it right, because it's not, Madam Speaker. It’s not. There are some essential problems. And you know what, just because the Province wants to be irresponsible, doesn't want to be responsible and dump it on us, that doesn't mean that we as a city, a City Council, who have some really good brains around, I think really good brains around the table, Madam Speaker. We are more intelligent. We should be looking at this to say that, oh, it's got to be in February 28th. Well, I want to be responsible. I want to be diligent. I’m voting no against this main report, absolutely. Because you know what, there’s…there’s human rights issues in here. I noticed the people who are backing Uber when they were coming in here, people who represent human rights. You know, this…this by-law…I’m sorry, I’m going to get really emotional here. This set of regulations here, there’s a violation of certain people's human rights in here. And, yeah, we talked about certain kinds of human rights in our Canadian Charter, but there is also a right of people who came here and invested lots of money, Madam Speaker, to ensure that they are able to continue and, yeah, they won't lose total value of their licenses. But I’m telling you right now, you want to measure what you're going to do in a year, Edmonton has only been in for almost a full year, 20% is lost. It's going to get worse, Madam Speaker, because as Uber and Lyft build and build and build and get more vehicles on there, it's taking away. The only trips they're not going to take away, Madam Speaker, that second city that I talked about, the second city that includes bus users who have no other choice who have to pay the higher fares, who can't take taxis, Madam Speaker, have to live with that system. If it declines, it gets worse and worse, there’s a problem. There will be…if you're moving this forward, there will be a…

Madam Speaker: Councillor Gillingham moves extension. All in favour? Contrary? Carried.

Councillor Eadie: Madam Speaker, there will be a decline. There will be a decline in the city of where…like the people working in this industry, Madam Speaker, they're not…they’re not getting rich. They’re not getting rich, Madam Speaker. They're not wealthy. They're going to be part of this second city that we relegated to, creating a second city. That's what we're doing. Think of the big picture, people. The big picture just because the Province of Manitoba is not responsible, doesn't want to care about the people of Manitoba and Winnipeg, that doesn't mean we have to go with it. Madam Speaker, vote no. You don't have to or refer it and get some proper amendments because I’m telling you all that adding licenses is whacky when you allow somebody to come into the same industry with a different model and put as many vehicles on the road as they want. There’s no need to add licenses. If I was at…going to get in the taxi industry, why would I get a business license where I’ve got to pay way more money to put a vehicle on the road, and I’m going to get less and less trips as the future goes along, Madam Speaker. It's ridiculous. Who’s the economist who looked at this? Analyze what is going to happen. Who? Cite me an economist that you can see in a report here, that did a study to see what would actually happen to people. Vote no. Thank you.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Councillor Eadie. Councillor Browaty.

Councillor Browaty: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. The taxi industry has served our community very well for many decades. I can't ever…I’ve never been stranded out in public or somewhere not been able to flag a cab at some point. Sure, you know, I’ve ordered a taxi and it says it's coming and you know what, somebody else was in front of Earl’s or something first and they took my cab. Oh, well. Order another one, it will come shortly thereafter. It's not the end of the world. I’ll flag one down really on side of the street. Fares in Winnipeg compared to a lot of other jurisdictions, also fairly reasonable. I mean, some places, the difference between a cab and a personal transportation provider, huge 60 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG December 13, 2017

delta. I’m guessing when they launch Winnipeg, there will be savings, but probably not a massive one. The reality is technology is changing, public expectations are changing, for tourism, things like personal transportation providers are important to have in our cities. You show up in a random city, you want to get to from A to B, you can just fire up one of two apps, Uber or Lyft, you can get from A to B. Yes, services are improving with the Uber…with Unicity and Duffy’s. They have to. The apps work reasonably well. Sure, I’ve ordered a taxi and somebody else has taken it away from me, not the end of the world. Or they said the taxi is coming and the order is cancelled, not the end of the world. With Uber and Lyft, if my ride doesn't find me, I get to rate them poorly. Same thing the other way, if I don't show up, they get rate me poorly, I become a bad customer or they become a bad driver or both. That said, we do need to take care of the owners who have vested interest in our community. I’ve been in your temples. I mean I’ve…you're getting into all sorts of other things in our communities and it's wonderful. So I want to thank the Mayor for listening to my suggestion from EPC, that being specifically not to have the 20 year sunset clause on existing licenses. We understand that the industry is changing and things are not going to be the same, but going from a value and having it go to one point and then having continue to go down for 20 years, isn't fair. This way, you know, the new lower value is maintained. I think that's a positive change and I thank Mayor Bowman for bringing in that change. The other thing that I suggested and I heard Councillor Sharma bring it up during her speech is I really didn't think it was fair to wait to see how the whole market adjusts to having personal transportation providers out there. There is going to be a very important niche served by traditional taxis going forward. Taxi stands at the airport, you don't have a phone, you don’t have anything, you show up at the airport, the train station, the bus depot. Taxis are…provide very important service. I was at the Good Neighbours Active Living Centre this week and we were talking taxis and Uber. The majority of the seniors there don't have smart phones, but they have medical appointments, they sometimes need to take a taxi that still serves a very important market. They're not affluent, but they're not poor. So again, there will still be a very important role for taxis to play in our city going forward. Yeah, the other thing that I did not yeah, so again, I don't think 120 taxis should be brought on this year, I don't think 60 taxis should be brought on day one. I would like to leave it for at least a year, through the whole holiday season next year and then next to say, March 1st, do a re-evaluation. That would be my recommendation. I’m not moving an amendment, but that would be my suggestion if there’s any way that could still be considered today, I would be quite happy. I do support the notion of doing a trial of taxis and diamond lanes. If you’ve listened to my commentary and my comments at the Standing Policy Committee on Infrastructure Renewal and Public Works, I think this is a reasonable thing to be done. It’s done in many other Canadian cities. I’ve spoken at FCM to councillors from other large cities like Edmonton, and members who are very pro-transit and pro-buses and friends of mine…my friend Councillor Gerbasi, they’ve suggested that you know that they have…they allow bikes, oh sorry, they allow buses, they share them with bikes in some of these diamond lanes and it hasn't been an issue. So let's try it out here. Let's see how it works and if it doesn't work, we can still revisit that, sharing with taxis, yes. We are not the first jurisdiction to introduce personal transportation providers, ride-sharing, whatever you want to call it. When it comes to the safety and security issues, I do believe there is a lot more safety inherent in the idea that you're not picking up people on the side of the street and that you’re not dealing in cash. When you register on Uber or Lyft, you have to give out your credit card number, you give out your address, there is checks I believe involved to make sure your address matches your billing information on your credit card. So there is a relationship between the passenger and the provider and then there’s also, of course, a relationship between the provider and the driver. So again, I do feel for the dramatic changes that are happening to this industry for the existing taxicab owners. But again, this is change and it's not always easy, thank you.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Councillor Browaty. Councillor Orlikow.

Councillor Orlikow: Thank you, Madam Chair. This decision today, it’s actually one of the more brutal ones that we've had to do around here. Back in ‘95, I was one of the recycling companies that the City wiped out, completely wiped out, which is kind ironic considering some people who…the comments were made by a specific MP. What we did there, it’s…they promised us, they promised the whole industry, these are people who mill around in garbage every day, pull and separate recycling out from the garbage, use their own vehicles, developed a whole market, worked day in, day out, including Christmas because garbage or sorry, resources don't sleep. And then at the end of the day, we are prosed by the Council of the day that we would have a quadrant each of the city. That was the promise that we were made. So off I went, naively so, and spent…I think I’m not sure how old I was…maybe in my mid 20s’ish…spent $100,000 on buying bins so I could collect all this recycling for my quadrant. My dad gave me a loan. I had mortgage pretty well. I had a house at the time, mortgaged part of that again off, did everything I possibly could. I remember that phone call in the morning. No consultation at all, no outreach to us at all, but they just decided to do a complete 180. And they said, you know what, we decided, again to our colleagues who say we must keep it local, we decided to go with BFI instead for the whole city. I remember that morning and I know that’s how these people feel and I respect that. It’s a horrible feeling that you just…all of a sudden feel that you just got completely wiped out. That’s not what is happening here today, but again, the sentiment I understand. I understand that. We do know this PTPs, they're throughout the…they’re throughout the country, the taxi industry has not disappeared in those other cities. Okay, so we know that. But again, there is an impact. We believe and these amendments that are here, I went through them, I could say about six of the eight amendments are actually to try to help the industry transition from where they are now, which was a unique situation that was very locked in for quite a long time, to a new model. And so these amendments in here are to help that industry, COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG 61 December 13, 2017

help it move from where they have been into where they need to go. There’s some in here that I was not pleased about. Some of the amendments I was concerned about. We talked about how do we help the taxi industry to balance this off to bail to weather the storm. So I’ve…that is actually why I do support the diamond lanes. It's worth it for one year. That will give the industry an advantage over other carriers so they can move faster throughout the city. Again, I concur with the safety issues and that's why they'll be addressed, but that's what that was there for. It was a help. So we’re talking about a balanced playing field, well, that’s not what’s happened, because the diamond lanes are going to affect our…almost there to help. We’re not charging the three cent safety thing to taxi drivers. No, we shouldn’t. I agree. They have the shields on, but again, that's only going to one industry. So again, what we are trying to do, what I’m trying to do, which was never done for me before, is trying find a way that this is coming, this transformation is coming. The Province has told us, you shall do this by February. So again, the idea of delaying it, is actually, you can't. We can't be unregulated by February. If you think somehow the administration can, you know, wave a magic wand to get this all in place and do all the licensing, everything in three weeks or four weeks, again, we appreciate your belief in our administration, but there are realities in place. So again, I won't be supporting the idea of delaying this over. I think we have a number of amendments in here that we…in very difficult decisions, but with very strong, passionate debate, we try to come to some middle ground. It's not perfect for the industry. They didn't get everything they want. Again, I didn't hear a lot of support this morning from the industry saying thank you. Again, I don't believe they can right now because many people are so vested and so emotional on this and rightfully so, and I understand that so I don't begrudge. But again, I just want to make sure that the public and the public at large, we did try and we have tried to accommodate the issues that we heard. So again, ride-sharing is coming or PTP, sorry. It is coming to Winnipeg. They talked about the rushness of…rushness of the whole…the whole by-law, well, again, we are lucky, sometimes we're lucky at Winnipeg going last where we can actually just reach out to our colleagues around Canada and look at their amendments. We’re not…we didn't have to create it from scratch. This is being tested throughout Canada, so we took the best we could throughout all the other cities to come forward to this. So we do respect this industry. Whoever they may be, doesn't matter, this is an industry that is going through massive transformation. This is something that we'll be seeing going forward in our futures from day…for…for change is coming faster and faster and faster. We know that. Technology in general has made our whole world change faster. They said use…you know, life used to change in about 20 years and it got down to 10 years, and now we're having systemic changes in five years. I won’t even go into climate change. So again, I do respect the industry…the taxi industry specifically, but I’ve also had…because again, polls and lobbying and all that stuff and setting this information is interesting and all, but I did reach out to my constituents about this. It's just a very general question. Overwhelming majority of my residents in River Heights-Fort Garry want this to happen and that is who I serve as well as all Winnipeggers. So with these amendments, we're trying to go forward in a way that provides some protection for the industry. They're going to have to adapt, but again, we're trying to find some balance in there and I believe these amendments have done that. I don’t particularly wish we had to do them all, but I believe it’s only fair for the industry to try. And we have to balance that off with what Winnipeggers also want, not just one industry wants. So again, I think we've found that balance, so I will be supporting the motion, the by-law.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Councillor Orlikow. Councillor Pagtakhan.

Councillor Pagtakhan: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Councillor Orlikow brought up really good points. And you know, all across this nation of Canada, change is occurring. Change is occurring in the industry with personal transportation providers moving into various municipalities across Canada and the taxi industry is changing. Winnipeg is a multi-modal city. We’re continuing to grow year after year. We grow about by 8 to 10,000 people every single month. We’re approaching almost 800,000 people by the end of 2019. Madam Speaker, we'll be at nearly…we’ll be over 800,000 people within the city. That's pretty…that’s pretty amazing. Over the last 30 days, Madam Speaker, I’ve been pretty much living, breathing this whole file. I’ve had an opportunity to meet with drivers, shareholders, shareholder drivers, people who own small cab companies. I’ve spoken to many constituents and many groups that I volunteer within the community. And there’s a variety of issues, Madam Speaker. At the same time, a lot of people that I talk to do want to see personal transportation providers coming to the city. They specifically talked about Uber. They talked about Lyft and others. And at the same time, I’ve also had folks that drive cab tell me that they're very interested in this. Come the end of February, we can't have an unregulated industry where we have unregulated taxi industry, unregulated personal transportation provider industry, Madam Speaker. The Province has handed us a file. We're acting on the file. I think that’s, you know, and every single one of us here, has been…it’s always on…it’s been on our minds extensively, Madam Speaker. And no day goes by without us thinking about…I can talk about myself, constantly thinking about this and I’m very sympathetic with the folks who have spoken last week, today and earlier, received lots and lots of calls from the few folks back. I’m still getting some calls, getting calls from the kids of some of the owners who drive…who own the taxi companies. So you know, I…the issue is still alive and well. But Madam Speaker, you know, we heard…I hear…received some calls and talked to some folks and they wanted to see the 20 year cap lifted. They wanted to make sure that there was some safety…safety provisions. We're building that in in this amendment, Madam Speaker. We've taken off the 20 year cap so that transferrable licenses will be transferrable for an indefinite period of time. We're putting a safety surcharge with three cents per trip, Madam Speaker, and that's for the personal transportation providers. That's just for them. And as Councillor Gerbasi intimated, this is something that we can utilize to help folks, you know, be 62 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG December 13, 2017

educated up on safety for the drivers, for the passengers, even for the diamond lanes with the cyclists. Previously, the taxi industry has come forward requesting the use of diamond lanes and Mayor Bowman talked about how he’s had conversations with the mayor of Edmonton and Vancouver I recall, and it's working well there. So I mean, we're putting that as a trial period, Madam Speaker, with into this by-law. So while I don't think we'll ever have a perfect bill, we are making strides. And I want to thank Councillor Mayes for the work that he did over the weekend and discussions he's had with several people to build in some of these safety provisions and, you know, the diamond lanes. These are all important things the good thing here, Madam Speaker, is that after a year, we're going to review this. So it's sort of a living and breathing by-law. We want to be sensitive to…to our consumers. We want to make sure they have choice. They’re asking for choice. They're asking for competition and they’re asking for better service. So I think on balance, Madam Speaker, we've landed in a good place. And so I will be supporting the main clause. I’ll also be supporting the amendment.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Councillor Pagtakhan. Any further speakers? Okay, seeing none, we'll close on the motions. Councillor Eadie.

Councillor Eadie: Oh, is that mine? Thank you.

Madam Speaker: Close first, Motion 6.

Councillor Eadie: I’ll try to be as quick as possible. Just to close, I think we should refer it because it's clear that people don't even understand the diamond lane usage. The motion that Ross Eadie and Councillor Wyatt moved talked about allowing them to drive in it, not pick up and drop off customers okay, so everybody is all confused here, like it just blows my mind. They just want to be able to transport people a little more quicker through rush hour because their customers demand it and convenience is ultimately, Madam Speaker, what customers are looking for. So you know, and I do support the pilot, but remember the pilot is not for them, like the fire hydrant thing, where they can pick up and drop off people by fire hydrants, this is a…they just want to use the diamond lanes so that they can move their customers quicker to where they’ve got to go or get quicker back to the airport to pick up more customers, okay. Anyway, Madam Speaker, I think it's really important that it does get referred. It would put a lot of pressure on our administration, but I have to say, I think it is the best thing because maybe the amendment, like I don't even know why we're adding more licenses as I explained, Madam Speaker. Those were calculated based on only metered taxi serving the whole industry, but you’ve got…it’s just…anyway, that's why, you know, I’m…anyway, I’ll be voting for the referral but if you don't refer it, there is no way that I think you should be voting for it because you don't even know what it's going to do. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Councillor Eadie. Mr. Mayor, do you wish to close?

Mayor Bowman: Yes, thank you, Madam Speaker. First, I just want to say some very thoughtful comments by each member of Council in this discussion. I want to acknowledge and I want to thank each member for their thoughts on this issue including your own, Madam Speaker. A couple of comments, there has been dialogue this afternoon, it is still this afternoon, on the 120 new licenses. If members of Council and public review the administrative report, you'll see the 120 was cited to acknowledge the reality right now that there is approximately 120 seasonal licenses that are given out every year. If we were to not include new seasonal licenses over the course of this next year and if personal transportation provider companies did not materialize immediately over the course of this year, then effectively over the year, you would have a reduction in the number of taxi cabs that are available than present right now. So the recommendation from the Public Service was to include 120 effective immediately I believe right at March 1st. Based on the feedback that we received from members of Council including yourself Madam Speaker, I know you've been advocating on this issue and others as well as the industry of course, the amendment was to phase it in over the course of the year, 60 effective immediately and then wait until December for the additional 60 licenses which would be roughly equivalent to what occurs now during the busy holiday period. Again, that was done as a sign of good faith and collaboration with the industry to try to address the change that is contemplated as a result of legislation at the Province as well as what’s contemplated in this by-law. So that is why…I mean, I would not support reducing the number of licenses just because there are no guarantees that we will see entrance to the personal transportation provider industry immediately. I’m hoping that will be the case, but that’s certainly the recommendation that was coming forward from…I believe it was informed by the Meyers Norris Penny report the Province had commissioned, but certainly it's…it’s definitely something that comes out of the administrative report. What I think is helpful on a go forward basis though is the fact that we will with adoption hopefully of this by-law is the number of taxicab licenses that are available in the marketplace would be based on our population growth as was commented. I think Councillor Pagtakhan commented on it, as our population grows, so too do the number of entrance of taxicab licenses as well. I think some excellent…excellent points, Councillor Browaty and Councillor Orlikow among others I think made excellent comments in acknowledging that the current taxicab industry will play…still play an important role in keeping Winnipeg and Winnipeggers moving and I think that’s an excellent point to make. What we are trying to do here certainly, my intention is to support our current industry players COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG 63 December 13, 2017

while allowing for new entrants and allow Winnipeggers with choice and hopefully improved service all around. I will not be supporting delay simply because we have a limited number of days left to meet the Provincial legislative requirements. Delay will mean greater difficulty for not just our public service, but for the industry to be able to provide the service that we expect of them for our citizens that we serve. I also obviously will urge support for each of the amendments. These were done in a thoughtful way in which we're trying to address the concerns that were raised by not just members of Council, but by the industry in an effort to take a reasonable and balanced approach to some pretty big changes in the industry. My request obviously of councillors is to support this, let’s demonstrate that we can effect a positive change and we can collaborate to get the job done for Winnipeggers who overwhelmingly support this. But let's also be very clear with the current industry players as well as potential new entrants that we want to work with you. And that's why the…why I moved an amendment to allow for annual review rather than waiting two years. I think two years is too long with the amount of change and the speed at which…the speed at which some of these changes are happening in the industry. I think annual…an annual review is something that will allow us to continue to refine and improve the framework going forward and will continue that dialogue certainly that I’ve been having with other mayors and other cities who have offered valuable lessons for us. This model is based largely on Edmonton and Hamilton. And we do have the benefit of seeing what worked there. So there is no significant departure from what we see in those cities. I think the most…I actually think the one exception to that, that I would point out is of course the three cent per fare fee for safety, which from what I understand, is a first of its kind in Canada. And I want to thank Councillor Mayes and I want to thank all members of Council who have been raising issues of safety throughout this discussion and debate including many of our delegates that we heard from today on both sides of this issue that safety is paramount. This is something that is new. It’s something that will only be charged to personal transportation providers, not from within the taxi industry, given their different models and there are different safety requirements in taxi cabs right now. And I think there’s some real good that we can do with those funds that would be raised. I know Councillor Gerbasi mentioned the possibility of using some of the funds for education to help with safety relating to active transportation and I think that's a very thoughtful suggestion and something worthy of consideration. The balancing act that we have as a council is to look at many different industry players, many different forms of transportation, whether they be simply roads, active transportation or public transportation and to be open to innovation and to do the difficult work of collaboration to move this city forward through what we’re considering today. I’m very excited about…as exhausting as this debate has been, and as difficult as the issues that we are asked to consider and deliberate on, I am excited with the prospect of being able to effect positive change, change that many of our citizens have been asking for. And I just want to say thank you to everybody involved for the debate, regardless of how folks are going to vote, regardless of how our citizens feel, regardless of how industry players may feel, I do want to acknowledge and thank them for meaningful dialogue on it. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We'll now vote in reverse order on the motion and then the main item. So we’ll vote on the referral motion first. Call for recorded vote. All in favour of referring this item to Executive Policy Committee, Motion 6, please rise.

A RECORDED VOTE was taken the result being as follows:

Yeas

Councillors Dobson, Eadie, Lukes, Schreyer, Wyatt and Madam Speaker Councillor Sharma

Nays

His Worship Mayor Bowman, Councillors Allard, Browaty, Gerbasi, Gillingham, Gilroy, Mayes, Morantz, Orlikow and Pagtakhan

City Clerk: The vote Madam Speaker, Yeas 6, Nays 10.

Madam Speaker: Okay, Motion 6 is lost. Voting now on Motion 2, the amendments moved forward by Mayor Bowman. All in favour? Contrary? Carried. We'll now move on the…vote on the main item as amended. All in favour? Call for recorded vote. All in favour of the main item, as amended, please rise.

A RECORDED VOTE was taken the result being as follows:

Yeas

His Worship Mayor Bowman, Councillors Allard, Browaty, Gerbasi, Gillingham, Gilroy, Mayes, Morantz, Orlikow and Pagtakhan

64 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG December 13, 2017

Nays

Councillors Dobson, Eadie, Lukes, Schreyer, Wyatt and Madam Speaker Councillor Sharma

City Clerk: The vote Madam Speaker, Yeas 10, Nays 6.

Madam Speaker: Vehicle for Hire By-law passes. Now moving on, Madam Clerk, to Item 7. Councillor Wyatt: Madam Speaker, 15 minute break possible?

Madam Speaker: All in favour? Contrary? Carried.

Reconvened meeting of Winnipeg City Council of December 13, 2017, at 5:44 p.m.

Madam Speaker: Reconvene the Council meeting of December 13th, 2017. We’re on the reports under the Executive Policy Committee dated December 6th, 2017. Madam Clerk, I believe we’re on Item 7.

Item 7 – Audit Plan 2018 Update

Madam Speaker: Mr. Mayor, do you wish to introduce the item? Okay, this was stood down by Councillor Wyatt, Item 7.

Councillor Wyatt: No.

Madam Speaker: Did you want to speak to it? No. Okay, any further speakers? Mr. Mayor? Call the question on Item 7. All in favour? Contrary? Carried. Okay. We have a notice of motion, notice of motion on our agenda from the November Council meeting. It’s regarding transit funding. It’s a notice of motion from Councillor Wyatt. Councillor Wyatt to introduce the motion.

EXECUTIVE POLICY COMMITTEE NOTICE OF MOTION

Moved by Councillor Wyatt, Seconded by Councillor Eadie,

WHEREAS the Province of Manitoba has recently made a unprecedented cut to Winnipeg Transit Funding at the exact same time as they announced their commitment to greenhouse gas reductions and the importance of ‘A Made in Manitoba Climate and Green Plan’;

AND WHEREAS the decision to reduce operating funding support for Winnipeg Transit runs contrary to their stated goals in their new climate and green plan, and the implication for Winnipeg Transit is not positive, as outlined in the Over-Expenditure Authorization for the Transit Department’s 2017 Operating Budget Report to the Finance Committee on September 15, 2017, as was then sent to Council on September 27, 2017, namely:

“Provincial Operating Grant The City and the Province of Manitoba have historically had a Transit Funding Agreement in which the Province of Manitoba funded 50% of the eligible net operating costs of the Transit System. The 2017 operating budget for Transit was prepared in this manner with the total budgeted operating grant estimated at $48.246 million.

During 2017, the Province announced that City funding would be held at the 2016 level and the 50/50 funding partnership for Transit no longer applied. Transit’s 2016 operating grant claim to the Province of Manitoba was $40.1 million. Therefore, the amount of the grant available to Transit for 2017 from the City basket of provincial funding has been set at $40.1 million, leaving a deficit of $8.146 million for this revenue source.

The budgetary shortfall resulting from the change to the Provincial Operating Grant for Transit will persist in future years. As such, sustainable measures such as reductions to public transit service and additional fare increases will need to be contemplated going forward.” COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG 65 December 13, 2017

AND WHEREAS the reduction in funding between the historic level of 50/50 funding for the Transit Departments’ operating budget will only increase in time, as the funding shortall between the real costs of operating of the transit department and the provincial government’s decision to end 50/50 partnership funding will ever increase the gap between the funding levels of the City of Winnipeg and Province of Manitoba;

AND WHEREAS this funding cut by the Province of Manitoba will have a negative impact on Winnipeg Transit services at a time when a strong public transit system has never been more important for our environment;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Winnipeg City Council now call on the Province of Manitoba to immediately restore their 50/50 partnership funding of Winnipeg Transit’s operating costs.

Councillor Wyatt: I think the motion itself is self-explanatory, Madam Speaker. It’s calling on us to call on the Province to have the transit funding which we (laughter) oh, come on, come on. You know, (inaudible). I feel, I feel, absolutely of my ego. I don’t know. It’s terrible. Anyway, the 50/50 transit formula was something which was established in the last Council. I think it was probably beyond the last term and the previous term. It was…it's been in existence for some time. It's allowed us to be able to make the kind of investments that we've been able to make in transit. It's allowed us to, for the first time since the mid-1990s, expand the size of the transit fleet, which had actually been reduced in the 90s and which we were feeling real pressures on because of the fact that the city was growing and has been growing. As well, that…what we hear from residents and I just literally got an e-mail, I was reading when you started the meeting, Madam Speaker, from a resident who was e-mailing me saying, you know, Councillor Wyatt, can you please raise the issue of the packed transit buses that are, you know, the…that are just full that, you know, we can't…they're basically just busting at the seams, and that they're seeing this at the rush hour peaks that we…the frequency that we need aren't there. And so, you know, Madam Speaker, there’s no doubt in my mind that we have a city which is growing, both in terms of spatially, but we also have the density in some areas of the city that are…is increasing. And we have been enjoying that bump in terms of our new tax rolls and we're prepared as a city to fund those extra services, but the fact of the matter is the Province has been part of that. I understand the Province is…its claims or says that they're in financial…their desperate financial times and I understand that. But at the same time, I do also know, Madam Speaker, that we as a municipality unlike the Provincial Government has always had to balance our books. We always have to, but we should present balanced operating budget. And the Province doesn't have to, neither the Federal Government. And the fact that the Province now, that just in light of the fact that there is a new party in power as he decided to partially balance their operating deficit on the backs of the City of Winnipeg ratepayers, it doesn't make any sense because ultimately, at the same time, the Provincial Government, I think they might have missed this one. They just announced in the last month, their Made-in Manitoba Clean and Green, a climate change program. You announce a Made-in Manitoba Clean and Green climate change program but at the same time, you decide not to fund the transit system of the City of Winnipeg on a 50/50 funding basis which was a hallmark of the Province's ability to give support to us. I’m at a loss to think why this new government would do that. They represent seat after seat, across the City of Winnipeg. They have MLAs all over the city, and many of these MLAs now represent suburban communities, communities such as Transcona, the MLA for Radisson, the MLA of Rossmere, the MLA for Transcona who represent my area or represent the Transcona Ward area, so two and a half MLAs if you like, three MLAs, and we have a minister in northeast Winnipeg, Minister Cox, from River East. And so you know, the concept that the Province would decide on their own to discontinue the funding, really is a negative…sets a negative precedent. I’m hoping that everybody in this chamber knows that I think I’ve been pretty consistent when it comes to being…calling a spade a spade, whether it be this government or the last government. And so I would hope that those who are of more conservative ilks will still support this motion because ultimately we’re here at this table, not that table over there and this is our first and foremost priority in terms of being members of this Council and supporting the operating budget and ultimately transit’s budget. And so, I don't want to get too partisan in terms of my comments, but I do believe that the existing government underestimates the importance of a strong and healthy public transportation system that is functional, that is effective and that offers an alternative to the private automobile for many working families. And so those are my comments, Madam Speaker, I want to thank the seconder of the motion and I want to…I hope that we can pass this motion unanimously, and that the communication can then be sent as quickly as possible to the Provincial Government of the decision of this Council. Thank you very much.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Councillor Wyatt. Any further speakers? Councillor Eadie, pardon me, the Mayor will go first. I have that written down and following that, Councillor Eadie.

Mayor Bowman: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to thank Councillor Wyatt and Councillor Eadie for this. I may have chosen some the ‘whereas’ and the preamble a little bit differently but the ‘therefore be it resolved’ is very clear and something that I believe is worthy of unanimous support. The Province's unilateral decision to end the 50/50 cost sharing for transit is something that we as a Council have been dealing with as recent as yesterday in our budget deliberations. I know there is strong support for public transportation and for Winnipeg Transit around this council 66 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG December 13, 2017

chamber as well as in the community. And that’s why in my correspondence to the Finance Minister of Manitoba, Mr…Minister Cameron Friesen, I’ve asked for the restoration of the 50/50 cost sharing, but receiving unanimous support from this Council on this motion, I think would really further strengthen that argument to the Province, that this matters to this city. And I will take this opportunity to remind all those in the Province, that while we're proud Winnipeggers, we're also proud Manitobans. And you know, two-thirds of the Province lives in this city. We represent three quarters of the GDP generated. We're the economic engine of this province and for that reason and many others, I won't go into detail at this late hour, I would ask my Council colleagues to join me and Councillor Eadie and Councillor Wyatt in supporting this motion.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Councillor Eadie.

Councillor Eadie: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I’ll just start off by saying people have associated me with various governments at the provincial level, but I have to say I don’t agree with any provincial government. It doesn’t matter, Madam Speaker. When they come up with bad policy, bad idea, bad financial decisions and I have to say are so-called higher government level that created us, Madam Speaker, I’m afraid that they're not considering the needs and responsibilities that they have as a government. And that in…being where I’m going and my direction here, in that, you know, the City of Winnipeg, we made an agreement around the same time that we made an agreement for the 50/50 transit share, we made an agreement that the Province would take over what is their responsibility which is social services, Madam Speaker, because that is within the mandate of the Province, not really with the City. So, given that, and given that there is a need for a low-income pass, Madam Speaker, we have to consider really, the low-income pass is to help deal with…for people who are either on EIA, Employment Income Assistance or not because they’ve been denied, but they are still in a difficult situation in which they need the Province to step up and make sure that they are taken care of and their needs are taken care of, Madam Speaker. And so I don't know if that's why they came to a 50/50 agreement originally, but I have to say, Madam Speaker, in that vein, in that the Province does have a responsibility as I explained in the chamber yesterday, the first 50/50 agreement came before the overall transit. And there was a lot of arguing about whether or not the Province was funding Handi-Transit 50/50 or not, Madam Speaker. But ultimately, persons with disabilities and their social well-being and having transit is very much connected as we heard from Mr. Krahn yesterday, it’s very much connected to one's healthy well-being and ability to live life to the best of ability and anyway I digress a bit, but it took us a while to lobby the Province, but that government before the NDP one came in, decided that, yes, they better share in 50/50. So they shared the 50/50 agreement with Handi-Transit, Madam Speaker. And when the current government made their decisions to just split off 50/50, they actually…because it was all bundled together in terms of overall cost. It was all bundled together, Madam Speaker, and so now, we no longer have the 50/50 agreement on the net operating expenses. And some of those net operating expenses that are left over, Madam Speaker, there is probably a large portion related to Handi-Transit, because to deliver a trip for somebody utilizing Handi-Transit it's much more expensive than delivering a trip on a regular transit, although we are accommodating them in a much better, in warmer weather. Although I have to say as a frequent rider, I can tell you that while you can get wheelchairs on there and stuff, the demand for accessible spaces is not being met for sure in those good weather days when people who use wheelchairs are able to get around. So really, I think we have to put this back on them. We heard from the people that is a…all these uses of transit, it’s very concerning. And when we have to raise the kind of bus fares the way we are now, I say that the Provincial Government, no matter what parties in government, a provincial government that actually decides to shirk its responsibility and pass it down to us and we had some disagreements about how to deal with that, but ultimately, this is a motion that is essential and I’m sure everybody around the table is going to vote for it because, you know, really transit, transportation is essential for a city like Winnipeg, not even just because of it’s growing, but even at its size now. Let’s say, it never grew anymore. Transportation, the…our transit system could grow if we deal with it properly. If we can’t deal with it properly, Madam Speaker, if we don’t have a partner who has the same responsibilities as we do, not taking that so. Anyway, thank you.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Councillor Eadie. Councillor Schreyer.

Councillor Schreyer: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I didn’t intend to speak on this but, you know, given the nature of the discussion, I think…I feel obliged to mention a couple of things and the greater understanding of what we’re dealing with here. Actually, I was talking about the issue of how we, three levels of government work together over time, I guess I was considering, I was getting off track yesterday, but it’s very much prudent to what we’re talking about today as well as we did yesterday, so I’m going to repeat myself, not to say I’m redundant, Madam Speaker, over both, I’m just saying it’s really important and we’re talking about cost sharing with the Provincial Government, so I have to say it again. It’s really important, Madam Speaker. Bear in mind, I support this motion, but it’s part of a greater discussion of understanding of what’s going on. It’s not merely the Provincial Government offloading it to the Municipal Government. It’s an issue of over decades basically from the mid-80s of the Federal Government offloading as well. And so the Provincial Government has been a predicament, however, our previous Provincial Government has made a commitment that we in this Council, I believe unanimously, we’ll see, was fair and good for the city. But bear in mind, Madam Speaker, that not just the Province, but municipalities across the country, have to bear in mind, that we have a different COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG 67 December 13, 2017

equation today than we do…than we did 30 years ago in terms of the Federal Government’s involvement with the provincial and municipal governments in terms of what they contribute and it was mentioned yesterday during budget delegations that I think by former Councillor Lorentz that back 80 years ago, I guess it was Mayor Warriner had mentioned that we had a problem in dealing with other levels of government in terms of the challenges that we had to face as a municipal government here in Winnipeg. Well, Madam Speaker, Winnipeg is not alone on this. This is something that’s happening across the country on a municipal level, has been for decades, but I want to make the point, Madam Speaker, hasn’t always been like this and I made the point yesterday. I think starting during the Depression, starting I guess with Mackenzie King in this country. During World War II of course, you can always see, during a war, what we can do collectively as a society to attain our objectives when we have to, in terms of what is in our national interest. And it’s…if you analyze what we are capable of doing as a society, it gives you an indication, that continued through the great economic progress of the 1950s, the 1960s, into the 1970s and the 1970s we had certain economic dilemmas that had to do with…part of it had to do with our interdependence economically with other economic powers in the United States. We had to deal with the change in oil prices and how that affected our economy, how that affected primarily the Federal Government and their willingness or unwillingness to deal with it. The result, Madam Speaker, in the 80s, not just because of that, but what I would say is wrong economic thinking, an unfair economic thinking is the Federal Government starting in the mid late 80s, they started to merely divest itself of its responsibilities towards the country, towards specifically towards its relationship with the specific governments, the provincial governments and the municipal governments. And it did create pressures on the provincial governments across the country in terms of their ability to deal with…to make their fair share, their contribution with the municipal governments across Canada. Madam Speaker, I agree with this motion…

Councillor Lukes: Madam Speaker, could I move a motion to suspend the rules so we can continue the meeting because it's 6:00 and we have to do that at 6:00 as per procedures.

Madam Speaker: Two-thirds are required to continue after 6:00.

Councillor Lukes: Otherwise, we have to come back tomorrow.

Madam Speaker: I know you all want to come back tomorrow.

Councillor Lukes: I don’t.

Madam Speaker: It’s okay. So all in favour?

Councillor Lukes: Sorry, Councillor Schreyer.

Madam Speaker: All in favour of continuing. I could all hear you this time. Thank you.

Councillor Lukes: Sorry for interrupting.

Madam Speaker: Contrary? Carried. Councillor Schreyer.

Councillor Schreyer: Thank you, Madam Speaker, so to continue, basically that's it. Let's not ignore the fact that the provincial governments across this country have been in dilemma, especially in the last generation in terms of their ability to…to deal in a way that we feel I believe is equitable. So this is a national challenge and it is a federal challenge as well, Madam Speaker. I understand this one specifically is to deal with 50/50 sharing by the Province but let’s not ignore, Madam Speaker, that the Federal Government also has to do its fair share of responsibility, financial responsibility for the country including dealing with the provincial governments and the municipal governments, lest the provincial governments continue to feel the pressure and may feel obliged in terms of whatever mandate they feel they have in terms of fulfilling their policy and fiscal objectives. That is essentially what we're dealing with today, Madam Speaker and I’m in favour of this motion.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Councillor Schreyer. Councillor Browaty.

Councillor Browaty: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m giving myself 30 seconds. I agree that we definitely need growing revenues from the Province when it comes to our growth and when it comes to our transit services and such, but again, I’d rather to see a basket funding formula and I’d like to see that basket continuing to grow. I don't like saying that it has to be in transit, has to be for a police helicopter et cetera. I just want to…so I’ll be voting against this, but I’m not against the notion that there should be a growth formula.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Councillor Browaty. Councillor Gerbasi. 68 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG December 13, 2017

Councillor Gerbasi: I just very briefly…I was driven to stand up at the basket formula comment and to thank the movers of the motion because it's a very good…it’s very good that we have this clear motion and I agree with the resolve and the motion to call on the continuation of the 50/50 funding agreement. I just want to, you know, the challenge with the basket funding is that it's a smaller basket and I also believe that transit is traditionally something that has been funded in this way, it's operational, it's basic. And it's needed for us to be able to grow our transit system as we're building out rapid transit and as our population is growing. So I respectfully…I know it doesn't surprise anyone, Councillor Browaty and I occasionally disagree, but I believe that this mechanism of a long-term funding source that’s sustainable, is extremely important in an area like transit which is long term where you plan over many years for, and so it’s very important to have an agreement like this. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Councillor Gerbasi. Seeing no further speakers, Councillor Wyatt, do you wish to close?

Councillor Wyatt: Yeah, thank you Madam Speaker. I just want to note…I want to thank all speakers and I know Councillor Browaty’s comment…the challenge we’re going to have is, as you all know, the rapid transit corridor comes on stream in 2019, 2020. And if you look at your projections in the budget book that we just dealt with yesterday, the funding for transit, the total budgets are going from about 190…going from memory here so forgive me, but 192, 93 million to about 221 million in two years, you’re…we’re going nearly 30 million up. Where we're going to get that 30 million, I have no idea but that is a projection in the operating budget of the Transit Department. It should concern all of us and so it's absolutely crucial that we send a message to the new government or the newer government, that transit and public transportation is a partnership and indeed, with the technology the way it's moving, you know, it's amazing, I’ve had the opportunity to ride on one of the new electric Mitsubishi buses, partnership…the New Flyer Mitsubishi buses, amazing technology that’s just moving ahead where you know you ride on and it has direct drive and buses, it's not like the old diesel buses, you're flying and you're moving and, you know, the benefit to our carbon footprint or the reduction of the carbon footprint is potentially huge, and so the opportunity will be there. I really encourage the new government and urge them to reconsider what they've done and I hope we have a strong and unanimous vote on this subject. I know I’m asking a lot of those who have strong contacts over there, you know, in terms of that, but at the same time I do know and do believe that this is something which…which is a core service that they have in the past supported us with and not only that, Madam Speaker, but the benefits to our economy are direct, we have the largest bus manufacturer in North America right here in Winnipeg, based out of Winnipeg, corporate headquarters here in Winnipeg. Why would we not be wanting to support that type of industry when we know those are jobs that are here, that's industry, that’s innovation, that's technology, not to mention the service that a growing city needs at a time when we need to reduce our environmental impact on the planet. So thank you, Madam Speaker and I hope…I would like to call for a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker: Okay, with that, we'll vote on the Notice of Motion on Transit funding. All in favour, please rise.

A RECORDED VOTE was taken the result being as follows:

Yeas

His Worship Mayor Bowman, Councillors Allard, Dobson, Eadie, Gerbasi, Gillingham, Gilroy, Lukes, Mayes, Morantz, Orlikow, Pagtakhan, Schreyer, Wyatt and Madam Speaker Councillor Sharma

Nays

Councillors Browaty.

City Clerk: The vote Madam Speaker, Yeas 15, Nays 1.

Madam Speaker: Okay, notice of motion to restore Transit funding passes. Next, we have no further motions. We'll move into by-laws, Mr. Mayor.

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG 69 December 13, 2017

EXECUTIVE POLICY COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION OF BY-LAWS

Mayor Bowman: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move the by-law…sorry, I move that the following by-laws be read a first time; By-law 127/2017, By-law 128/2017, By-law 129/2017, as amended.

Madam Speaker: Okay. All in favour? Contrary?

Councillor Eadie: Please record me in opposition to the By-law/129.

Madam Speaker: I would be in opposition to that as well as per earlier. Okay, then it’ll be a recorded vote. All in favour of By-law 129/2017, as amended, please rise. A RECORDED VOTE was taken the result being as follows:

Yeas

His Worship Mayor Bowman, Councillors Allard, Browaty, Gerbasi, Gillingham, Gilroy, Mayes, Morantz, Orlikow and Pagtakhan

Nays

Councillors Dobson, Eadie, Lukes, Schreyer, Wyatt and Madam Speaker Councillor Sharma

City Clerk: The vote Madam Speaker, Yeas 10, Nays 6.

Madam Speaker: Okay. We'll be on to the second reading, Mr. Mayor.

Mayor Bowman: Thank you, Madam…

Clerk: By-law No. 127/2017, By-law No. 128/ 2017, By-law No. 129/2017, as amended.

Madam Speaker: Okay, Mr. Mayor.

Mayor Bowman: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move that the By-laws numbered 127/2017 to 129/2017, both inclusive, be read a second time.

Madam Speaker: All in favour? Contrary?

Councillor Eadie: Please record me opposed to an item on 129 by-law.

Madam Speaker: Okay, so noted for six members. I think it is.

Clerk: By-laws numbered 127/2017 to 129/2017 both inclusive.

Madam Speaker: Okay, thank you. Mr. Mayor on the suspension.

Mayor Bowman: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move the rule be suspended and By-law No. 127/2017 to 129/ 2017, both inclusive, be read a third time and that same to be passed and ordered to be signed and sealed, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Okay. Yeah.

(Inaudible speaking in the background)

Councillor Eadie: I’d like to be recorded in opposition.

Madam Speaker: Okay. So we want to record those six…well, myself…okay. So we'll just call the recorded vote on only 129/2017, on the suspension.

Councillor Gerbasi: (Inaudible) suspension of the rules.

Madam Speaker: On the suspension of the rules, yes thank you. 70 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG December 13, 2017

Councillor Eadie: Madam Speaker, help me out that…isn’t the…Madam Speaker, just a point of order, and maybe clarification, but when we vote third time we're voting for both suspending the rules and voting one more time on the by- law.

Madam Speaker: Right, the third time.

Councillor Eadie: It's not just voting on it two-thirds, okay?

Madam Speaker: It's actually two separate…is it, Mr. Clerk?

Councillor Eadie: I thought it was moved together. I thought that it was moved together? Okay. Madam Speaker: Okay. So we're separating it out, right? Okay. So all in favour of the suspension on the third reading and it's just that 129/2017, you wanted the recorded vote? Okay.

Councillor Eadie: I want to be recorded against suspending the rules as well.

Madam Speaker: We're having a recorded vote on…so all in favour of this…yes?

Councillor Gillingham: This vote is on the suspending the rules. The suspension applies to 127, 128 and 129 or just 129? Can we get clarity on that, please?

Madam Speaker: Well, 129 is the issue so why don’t we…can I call a non-recorded vote for the rest to start? Okay. So Mr. Mayor, can you move suspension on the third reading for everything but 129.

Mayor Bowman: (Inaudible) folks can suspend the rules and then vote on it tonight. So I’ll move that the rule be suspended and By-laws numbered 127 and 128, both inclusive, be read a third time and that same be passed and ordered to be signed and sealed.

Madam Speaker: All in favour? Contrary? Carried. Mr. Mayor or Madam Clerk, do you speak now? No, no, okay, no, not on a…third.

Mayor Bowman: Do it again?

Madam Speaker: Mr. Mayor, on the last one there.

Mayor Bowman: Sure. I move that the rule be suspended and By-law No. 129/2017 be read a third time and that the same be passed and ordered to be signed and sealed.

Madam Speaker: Okay. All in favour, the suspension and the third reading, all in favour, please rise.

A RECORDED VOTE was taken the result being as follows:

Yeas

His Worship Mayor Bowman, Councillors Allard, Browaty, Gerbasi, Gillingham, Gilroy, Mayes, Morantz, Orlikow, Pagtakhan, Schreyer and Madam Speaker Councillor Sharma

Nays

Councillors Dobson, Eadie, Lukes and Wyatt

City Clerk: The vote Madam Speaker, Yeas 12, Nays 4.

Madam Speaker: Suspension passes and the third reading. Okay. (Inaudible) Yep, we did. Oh, now is it just the suspension?

Mayor Bowman: So I move that…I move that the By-law 129/2017, 2017 sorry, be passed and ordered to be signed and sealed. Is that perfect?

Madam Speaker: All in favour? Contrary? COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG 71 December 13, 2017

Councillor Eadie: Please record me in opposition.

Madam Speaker: Me too, if you can. Don't worry about it. Right. Never mind. Okay. No? Well, the three of you want to be recorded. Okay. Call for a recorded vote on that. All in favour, please rise.

A RECORDED VOTE was taken the result being as follows:

Yeas

His Worship Mayor Bowman, Councillors, Allard, Browaty, Gerbasi, Gillingham, Gilroy, Mayes, Morantz, Orlikow and Pagtakhan Nays

Councillors Dobson, Eadie, Lukes, Schreyer, Wyatt and Madam Speaker Councillor Sharma

City Clerk: The vote Madam Speaker, Yeas 10, Nays 6.

Madam Speaker: Third reading passes. I would like to call on you now, Mr. Mayor. We have a walk on borrowing motion. It will be on your desks in paper copy.

EXECUTIVE POLICY COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION OF BY-LAWS – 1ST READING ONLY

Mayor Bowman: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’ll ask Councillor Gillingham to move this by-law…or this motion on your desks.

Madam Speaker: Maybe you can explain.

Councillor Gillingham: Yes, thank you, Madam Speaker. The by-law that is…that’s been distributed to my councillor colleagues is By-law 133/2017. It’s a burrowing by-law related to the 2018 budget. It was inadvertently missed off of yesterday's agenda. It's in paper form as they sit on your desk and I move that we suspend the rules to have first reading of the by-law occur so that it can be forwarded to the Minister, the Provincial Minister for Signature prior to second and third readings as per the Charter.

Madam Speaker: Okay. All in favour? Contrary? Carried.

Councillor Eadie: Nay. Please record me this vote.

Madam Speaker: There's three.

Clerk: By law No. 133/2017.

Madam Speaker: Okay, that's it. Okay. We'll now have…making sure. Question Period for the Mayor. Councillor Browaty.

EXECUTIVE POLICY COMMITTEE QUESTION PERIOD

Councillor Browaty: Thank you, Madam Speaker. At the State of the City Address earlier this year, His Worship announced the hiring of a Chief Innovation Officer. The tasks of the Chief Innovation Officer were very appropriate and visionary, I’d even argue, and the choice of the first Chief Innovation Officer I think was a very solid one. Recently, we learned that the Chief Innovation Officer is also doing some work for the Department of Justice Planning and Priority Secretariat at the Province of Manitoba. There hasn't been any formal notice as to what Mr. Legary is doing, in fact. I was wondering if the Mayor could enlighten Council as to what tasks he is doing, how the time is shared between the City and the Province, and if you could answer my mother's question, is he earning both a City and a Provincial pension?

72 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG December 13, 2017

Madam Speaker: Mr. Mayor.

Mayor Bowman: I’m sorry, could…just for clarity, I just want to make sure I’m answering the question properly. Could Councillor just repeat the question?

Madam Speaker: Could you restate please, Councillor Browaty?

Councillor Browaty: Sure. If you could just explain to us the terms of the interchange agreement that exists between the City and the Province for Mr. Legary, when that came about, what work he's doing for both jurisdictions as well as whether he's earning a City and Provincial pension.

Mayor Bowman: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the support for the creation of the new Chief Innovation Officer as well as support for Michael Legary serving in that role. Both the position and he as an individual I think are incredibly positive initiatives for the City of Winnipeg. The details of the employment in terms of any staff member should be directed to the CAO whom Michael Legary reports to. I will add that my understanding is Michael Legary actually advised Councillor Browaty of his position in this dual role back in April so it should come as no surprise to Councillor Browaty that Michael Legary is serving in this role.

Madam Speaker: Okay, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Any further questions? Councillor Eadie.

Councillor Eadie: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Earlier today, we…I heard mention about somebody leaking private information that they're not supposed to be allowed to do and so I have a "did you know" question, Madam Speaker, and I’m just wondering, Madam Speaker, if the Mayor knew that at the November 2nd public consultation at the West Kildonan Library, the presenter said that they had a mandate to restore the football field and club for the Nomads in the case that they had to take over that space.

Madam Speaker: Mr. Mayor.

Mayor Bowman: Madam Speaker, I was not at that meeting so I’m not able to provide commentary on the information that may have been or may have not been disclosed at that meeting.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Councillor Lukes.

Councillor Eadie: I have a follow up.

Madam Speaker: Councillor Eadie, second question.

Councillor Eadie: I’m wondering, Madam Speaker, if the Mayor knew that my office has put in a FIPPA request for various pieces of information related to the Old Exhibition Grounds being thought of for the North District Police Station.

Madam Speaker: Mr. Mayor.

Mayor Bowman: My understanding is FIPPA requests aren't made directly to members of Council or the Mayor's Office so I’m not aware of any FIPPA requests the Councillor has made.

Madam Speaker: Thank you. Councillor Lukes.

Councillor Lukes: Thank you. I have a question for the Mayor regarding the Wilkes/Sterling Lyon/William Clement issue that's come up, and I had the opportunity to speak to Councillor Morantz last night and to try and further understand some details around it and I would like to ask the Mayor what is going to be done to ensure that a scenario like this doesn't happen again. It's not clear to me or Councillor Morantz exactly how this happened, but there seems to be a lot of confusion around this file and it appears that construction of a roadway occurred without any planning and I’m just wondering what’s in place or what will be put in place to correct this procedure.

Madam Speaker: Thank you. Mr. Mayor.

Mayor Bowman: Well, first and foremost, I thank Councillor for the question. I plan to support the motion, first and foremost, that has been voted on by Executive Policy Committee and I want to thank Councillor Morantz for his leadership, difficult file for him and for members of Council, myself included. I'm going to continue to look for ways that we can ensure we're being accountable to the citizens we serve.

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG 73 December 13, 2017

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Any further questions? Councillor Wyatt.

Councillor Wyatt: Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I welcomed your comments in terms of the whole…

Madam Speaker: Councillor Wyatt, through the Speaker.

Councillor Wyatt: I apologize, Madam Speaker. I welcome the comments from the Mayor about the cannabis file. Of course FCM has requested funding from that as well, however, we haven't seen anything come forward yet in terms of our Zoning By-law, and the Province is issuing RFP’s right now apparently, the RFP process with regards to the dispensaries and apparently in the RFP process, they're asking the proponents to include potential locations of where those dispensaries will be located. When will we have an opportunity as a council and sooner rather than later to ensure that setbacks and provisions are provided to ensure dispensaries are located in areas that are…that are worthy of the dispensary location?

Madam Speaker: Mr. Mayor.

Mayor Bowman: Through you, Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Councillor for the question. The issue of what steps do…does the City of Winnipeg and other municipalities in Manitoba need to take in advance of the 2018 date for legalization of cannabis, is something that we're going to be having to spend a lot of time on in the new year. The Province of Manitoba recently announced some of their decisions. The primary issue at hand for us, and I think for municipalities across Canada and across Manitoba, is how do the revenue tools assist in ensuring that municipalities have the financial tools to keep our citizens safe and to ensure the responsible…the responsible enforcement of regulation of matters pertaining to cannabis. The Province…we've certainly put in a request to the Province to have positive and constructive dialogue. I’ve had…I’ve had dialogue with the Federal Minister of Finance as recently as Saturday and welcomed his comments recently that municipalities do need to be part of the discussion. I appreciate the leadership of FCM and the President of FCM, Councillor Jenny Gerbasi, as well as the efforts of Councillor Browaty and members of AMM. We need to be at the table. All three levels of government are going to have costs and are going to have responsibilities, and all three levels of government need to be at the table working collaboratively to find the right tools. That is my primary focus right now is ensuring that the financial resources are being addressed. We, based on FCM’s recent position paper, there are 17 departments and municipalities that are likely affected, that may vary from city to city, so it's not just policing, it’s not just fire and ambulance, but they're certainly top of mind for me, and that's been my primary focus.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Councillor Wyatt.

Councillor Wyatt: Further to that, it's my understanding that apparently the Province is allowing, is going to allow municipalities or allowing municipalities to outright potentially ban the sale subject to, I believe, a plebiscite of the residents. Is that something that you feel should be ruled out at this point in time in terms of the City of Winnipeg?

Mayor Bowman: The position I’ve taken is that the Federal Government earned a mandate on this, notwithstanding my own personal lack of use of cannabis. They've earned a mandate and I think we need to work collaboratively with both Federal and Provincial governments, but that being said, we have to be at the table, we have to have clarity from other levels of government on how the anticipated costs to the City of Winnipeg can be addressed before I would be willing to put my efforts towards implementation in the City of Winnipeg. We need to have that resolved sooner than later. I respect the fact that other levels of governments are going to have associated costs and they do also need to be addressed but we need to be at the table right now and in the coming days and in the coming weeks before we discuss…well, ideally before we discuss other steps. So it remains to be seen what steps this council will choose to take in absence of that clarity and so that's why I’m emphasizing we need to get…we need to have a dialogue and we need to be at the table.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Final question, Councillor Wyatt.

Councillor Wyatt: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I know everybody is tired so I’m not going to try, but this one does require a slight preamble so I apologize, but I...it’s really…

Madam Speaker: There is no preamble.

Councillor Wyatt: It's really important, it's really important. It’s…the Zoning By-laws in the past, whenever we revised them, we went out, we did extensive consultations knowing how important zoning by-laws are knowing how involved every member of Council here is through our community committees. Could we ensure that as early as possible in the new year that there is a process in place that would not just involve members of Council but also engage the public in 74 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG December 13, 2017

terms of what the new by-law will look like because I think there's…I don't think there's a cause for concern. I just think it's important that we are able to communicate what that by-law will look like, the rationale behind it and engage or at least give information to the public, whether it be open houses or what have you, so that there's a level of confidence that, you know, from our side, we're doing our share in terms of the land-use issues and looking after those land-use issues, even though as you say rightfully so, the Federal Government has made that ruling and that's been the decision but just to ensure that, you know, we're not kind of making a…we're having a meeting here and everybody is showing up and having heard it the first time that this is the setback as with everything else. That's was my reason why I had the preamble.

Madam Speaker: Thank you. Mr. Mayor.

Mayor Bowman: I agree that there does need to be meaningful consultation with the public and also dialogue amongst Council and with the Public Service on this. There are going to be some key decisions that this council will have to make. That being said, I would not support robust efforts on our part until such time as we have a seat at the table because that could in a very real way impact the direction that this council so chooses based on what revenues we may or may not be able to tap into. So that's my focus at this time. You may want to ask me the question in a…at our next Council meeting and in between now and then I’d be more than happy to have dialogue with Councillor Wyatt, Madam Speaker or any member of the Council, who has thoughts on best way to proceed on this matter.

Madam Speaker: Okay, thank you, Mr. Mayor. That concludes our Question Period for the Mayor. We’ll now move on to the Standing Policy Committee on Protection and Community Services. Councillor Pagtakhan.

REPORT OF THE STANDING POLICY COMMITTEE ON PROTECTION, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND PARKS DATED DECEMBER 4, 2017

Councillor Pagtakhan: Sorry.

Madam Speaker: Will you move the report dated December 4th, 2017?

Councillor Pagtakhan: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I’ll move that report.

Madam Speaker: Just one item. Councillor Mayes, you’re standing it down? Councillor Wyatt…Councillor Pagtakhan, will you introduce the item or I’ll let the Clerk read it first.

Item 1 – Community Incentive Grant – University of Manitoba

Madam Speaker: Councillor Pagtakhan.

Councillor Pagtakhan: I’ll wait to hear from Councillor Mayes.

Councillor Mayes: Thanks. I stand this down, it is not the fashion here to praise former Councillor Swandel, but I think on this one, I…the man could be a handful to be blunt, but on this one I think he deserves some praise. This was one of the first votes I remember, I was about one month into being a councillor and this came up. It was a divided case administration EPC vote, which Councillor Swandel wanted to get some funding to purchase the rather large public art piece from the…then about to be demolished old Winnipeg Airport and move it to U of M. I remember Councillor Browaty got some media coverage on this from the Sun having voted in opposition. But I just want to say in the end, the U of M paid for it itself it appears, but it was an important commitment to public art as Councillor Swandel made and kind of ran against the tide and I think he carried the day with a weird coalition of people from EPC and not EPC, but I just wanted to highlight this is…seemed like a big controversy at the time, but actually it was a good initiative from former Councillor Swandel.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Councillor Mayes. Councillor Lukes.

Councillor Lukes: And I just wanted to stand up and say that this…our public art has been mounted for quite a while on I believe it is the university of extended…University of Manitoba Extended Education Building on the outer side when you're at the new bike hub, you can see it, it's beautiful. It looks very nice. And for whatever reason I guess they didn't use the funding, and I’m just cleaning up some files in the very large ward that I have. It’s about to be split so.

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG 75 December 13, 2017

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Councillor Lukes. Councillor Pagtakhan, do you wish to close?

Councillor Pagtakhan: Just the question:

Madam Speaker: Call the question on Item 1. All in favour? Contrary? Carried. We'll now have Question Period for the Chair. I just want to make sure there's no motions, no. Question period for Councillor Pagtakhan. Okay. Seeing none, we'll move into the Standing Policy Committee on Infrastructure Renewal and Public Works. Councillor Morantz, on the report dated October 31st.

REPORT OF THE STANDING POLICY COMMITTEE ON INFRASTRUCTURE RENEWAL AND PUBLIC WORKS DATED OCTOBER 31, 2017

Councillor Morantz: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to introduce the report and move adoption of the Consent Agenda on Item 5. And I do have a few…yeah, I’d like to pull it down, open up with a few comments if I may.

Madam Speaker: Sure. We'll have the Clerk read it into the record first.

Item 5 – Wilkes Avenue Alignment to William R. Clement Parkway Extension

Madam Speaker: Thank you. Councillor Morantz to introduce.

Councillor Morantz: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The motion before us comes as a result of extensive consultations, meetings and discussions with the community. I also want to thank the community for their patience while we’ve been working through this matter. Many of you are already familiar with how we got here through my prior committee statements. Individual discussions we have had with each other and discussions you have had with the community members. If I were to sum it up in a sentence, it would be that this episode has been a lesson on how not to plan. And this is where I’m going to quote Yogi Berra, I was deciding whether I should do this or not, but it seems appropriate. So here I go, the well-known Yankee baseball catcher, Yogi Berra, was perhaps better known for his wit and what some called Yogi-isms. He had many of them, but the one that seemed appropriate on this occasion to me was, “If you don't know where you're going, you’ll end up someplace else.” So well, we have indeed ended up someplace else on this file. This has been quite a journey, but I believe in the end it is a good place. The motion before us supported by the community, councillors, the administration and myself, puts the South Wilkes area back on a proper planning footing. It calls for the planning of the William Clement Parkway east/west connection project, to follow and be included in a precinct plan for the South Wilkes area. It says that the City will not approve or engage in major planning until a new precinct plan is adopted by Council. It says that the development of the precinct plan shall include the residents of South Wilkes and that it won't disrupt the quality and the character of the existing developed area. I urge you all to support it. Additionally, my colleague council, Councillor Orlikow, has introduced a separate motion which will be an automatic referral to PPD and I second that…seconded that. It will call on the CAO to…I’m permitted to just make a couple comments on that, not to debate but just to say what it's for because in part I think in whole answers Councillor Lukes' question to the Mayor earlier that it will call on the CAO to bring recommendations to the effect that prior to a project being concluded, included in the five-year capital plan, it would be required to align with OurWinnipeg planning priorities. Taken together, I believe these two motions set planning in Winnipeg on a solid footing that calls for examination of projects, not just through an engineering lens but also through a policy and planning lens and also a land-use lens, thank you.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Councillor Morantz. Councillor Eadie.

Councillor Eadie: Thanks, Madam Speaker. I don't want to take much time. Actually, Madam Speaker, just on this whole issue, found it very disconcerting about how things were proceeding and it got very…very difficult, Madam Speaker, to understand what was going on and a home is a home is a home, and where the alignment goes and I think the stakeholders are the whole general area and, Madam Speaker, and I think that if this is going to achieve a better plan for the area around there, so that everybody has some input and discussion, and of course, with precinct plans, there's the preliminary work and there will be hearings at community committee and so on which is good, Madam Speaker. My only concern was what was happening before is that it would be really be nice to know, you know, if they would have costed it out to a Class 3 level, whatever options are there, what the values are so you can make decisions. Like there was no way I can see anybody at Council making a decision so this motion sounds like it's most appropriate and I will be supporting it.

76 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG December 13, 2017

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Councillor Eadie. Seeing no further speakers, Councillor Morantz, back to you. Do you wish to close?

Councillor Morantz: No, thank you. Just call a vote, thank you.

Madam Speaker: I’ll call the question on Item 5. All in favour? Contrary? Carried. Councillor Morantz on the report dated December 1st, 2017.

REPORT OF THE STANDING POLICY COMMITTEE ON INFRASTRUCTURE RENEWAL AND PUBLIC WORKS DATED DECEMBER 1, 2017

Councillor Morantz: Thank you Madam Speaker. On that report, I will introduce the report and move adoption of Consent Agenda Item 1.

Madam Speaker: Okay, all in favour? Okay. We’ll pull it down. Madam Clerk, do you need to read it?

Item 1 – 2018 Pedestrian and Cycling Program Action Plan

Madam Speaker: Councillor Morantz, do you wish to introduce the item?

Councillor Morantz: I’ll wait to hear the comments from my colleagues. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Councillor Wyatt.

Councillor Wyatt: Yeah, you know, I want to rise and speak to this…the debate we had back in 2015, I remember it well. Also I remember a little less well publicized in September of 2015, that was in July, September 2015, a lot of the concerns I had raised…and I want to thank the former Chair of Public Works…were able to be addressed at standing committee without much fanfare or attention. So I appreciate that fact that even though there was a lot of debate in July, the very concerns that I had raised were amended and addressed in your final report that went to the committee. I want to say as well the only issue that, not issue…but something that I think we have to be cognizant of is that we have in our last budget as of yesterday, we have reduced the Department of Public Works in terms of vacancy management from…or increased them from 50 to 60, 70 bodies impacting them directly, we're impacting the delivery of road and trail construction services. The reason I say that is because the budget last year, the 2017 budget, which rolled out a lot of these projects, these numbers have now been pushed back into the following year. So what was supposed to have been started and started construction in 2017 has now been pushed into 2018. And it's not just one project, but it's a number of them across the city. So there's something going on inside the department and I’m concerned, so I’m raising it, I’m putting it out on the record and noting it that…I want the Public Service to note that we can see this and that there's these delays in the spending of these programs only jeopardize the projects themselves because as we know from previous experience that you delay a capital project, even by one year, your risk for construction inflation is direct and your construction inflation costs, your numbers may not stay the same if you have a great year in terms of your capital bids, you might be okay, but the reality is that 9 times out of 10 you're not a capital…the construction costs hit you in terms of inflation and that's a concern. So the capital program with regards to new trails and active transportation is not huge, it's not…it's bigger than it has been before, but it's not the size and the scale of an underpass or, you know, a massive…or a new expressway, it's manageable I think if it's made a priority. A lot of these issues are related as you can see, to land assembly, property acquisition, it's absolutely crucial that we do the property acquisition when we say we're going to do it and build the roads when we say we’re going…otherwise, the announcements that we made last year or in the ‘17 budget, you know, the reality is that stuff did not occur, a lot of it did not occur. So glad to see the funding stay, didn't disappear, but the fact of the matter is these projects are not being implemented on a timely manner as was announced in the ‘17 budget.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Councillor Wyatt. Next speaker. Councillor Schreyer.

Councillor Schreyer: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Just a couple points, Councillor Wyatt did mention when we have the money for these things that are just planned but suspended because you get 6%, 5% less bang for your buck for every year that you don't implement the plans. These things happen, but something that we need to be cognizant of. Also I’m pleased to hear from Councillor Wyatt going back history of this from 2015 that concerns that he had or motions that he had were dealt with afterwards. Councillor Gerbasi did say during the debate that there was that…would always COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG 77 December 13, 2017

be that process and, of course, I wasn't sure of that, but I did know at the times we had amendments that could be presented at that time…many…and I do want to state for the record that I was the only councillor that voted for the pedestrian and cycling plan that voted to hear all the amendments on that day. Nonetheless, I’m pleased to hear that the process has been functioning to some notable degree as stated by Councillor Wyatt. Thank you.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Councillor Schreyer. Any further speakers? Councillor Morantz, do you wish to close?

Councillor Morantz: Thank you. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think we could just move to the vote.

Madam Speaker: I’ll call the question. All in favour? Contrary? Carried. We'll now entertain questions for our Chair. Any questions for Councillor Morantz? Okay. Next committee is the Standing Policy Committee on Finance. Nothing to stand down, great. Councillor Gillingham will now entertain questions for our Chair. Any questions for Councillor Gillingham? Next committee, Standing Policy Committee on Water and Waste, Riverbank Management and the Environment. Councillor Mayes on the report dated November 28th.

REPORT OF THE STANDING POLICY COMMITTEE ON WATER AND WASTE, RIVERBANK MANAGEMENT AND THE ENVIRONMENT DATED NOVEMBER 28, 2017

Councillor Mayes: I’ll move the…thank you, Madam Speaker. I’ll move the report dated November 28th, 2017, there is only the one item.

Madam Speaker: Okay. All in favour? Contrary? Carried. We do have by-laws, Councillor Mayes.

STANDING POLICY COMMITTEE ON WATER AND WASTE, RIVERBANK MANAGEMENT AND THE ENVIRONMENT CONSIDERATION OF BY-LAWS

Councillor Mayes: I will move that By-law 130/2017 be read a first time.

Madam Speaker: All in favour? Contrary? Carried.

Clerk: By-law No. 130/2017.

Madam Speaker: Councillor Mayes on the second reading.

Councillor Mayes: I’ll move that By-law 130/2017 be read a second time.

Madam Speaker: All in favour? Contrary? Carried.

Clerk: By-law No. 130/2017.

Madam Speaker: Councillor Mayes on the third reading.

Councillor Mayes: Sure. I’ll move that the rule be suspended and By-law 130/2017 be read a third time and that same be passed and ordered to be signed and sealed.

Madam Speaker: All in favour? Contrary? Carried. We'll now have Question Period for Councillor Mayes. Councillor Allard.

78 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG December 13, 2017

STANDING POLICY COMMITTEE ON WATER AND WASTE, RIVERBANK MANAGEMENT AND THE ENVIRONMENT QUESTION PERIOD

Councillor Allard: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Through you to the Chair of Water and Waste, I understand there's been some developments with the combined sewer overflows and I was wondering if Councillor Mayes could give an update to Council on that issue.

Madam Speaker: Councillor Mayes.

Councillor Mayes: Thank you for the question. Yes, there has been a letter from the Province to the City a couple of weeks ago to staff that was relayed the same day to me by our very capable Director, Moira Geer. The letter talks about the Provincial response to the combined sewer overflow master plan. In short, this is a very large annual undertaking of the City of Winnipeg. If you think of the Water and Waste capital budget, there are the big three, there’s the sewer work which is about $20 million a year; there’s the water main work, $20 million a year; and there's the combined sewer overflow work which is $25 a million a year, give or take a small bid, and the utility one just rounds off to the nearest million unlike everything else we do here where we squabble over $50,000 or $100,000, the utility tends to play to a big room and have big numbers. So we have $25 million a year on the combined sewer overflow. This, of course, is in the older parts of the city, work we are progressing on every year. We know what we're doing. There isn't much risk involved so we're steadily moving forward on that. The previous Provincial Government as regulator had asked us to develop a combined sewer master plan. This will help reduce the flow of sewage into the various rivers, not just the Red but the Seine and the Assiniboine, so that position had gone forth from the City with four different options ranging from the low end being the billion dollar option and the high-end being a $4 billion complete separation. The Minister, Madam Squires, has been a very good in this role, certainly has met with me, has made some decisions, and I say “madam” because I’m used to seeing her at these francophone events and she's the Minister, as Councillor Allard will note, she’s the Minister of French Language Services, so Minister Squires, as designated to staff (indiscernible) in essence, the Province has said continue on with the billion dollar option, but do it at a faster pace, not 40 years but 27 years. That will add by my back of the envelope math, 6 to 8 million dollars a year to our annual CSO budget, hoping to get that clarified from the Province when I next meet with them. But I don’t want to say, you know, it appeared when we are battling with the Province on a number of fronts that Minister Squires has been open to consultation, to input on this, has I think taken our financial limits into…into account, but has also I think tried to move forward on the environment. Has said, no, pick up the pace, you know what you're doing, this isn't…this isn’t like the North End where there's a lot of risk involved and uncertain technologies. In essence, I think the Minister has said, you know what you're doing and we want to take action at a quicker pace on the disposition of sewage into the river systems. So we certainly had some difficulties on the ambulance and the transit and the taxi deregulation front, but on this matter I think to be fair to the Province, they are moving I think in a productive way. I would point out that someone who wrote to us earlier today, John Gerrard, had called for the full $4 billion option when he was running for the leadership. Not sure how we would have paid for that but in any event we do have the provincial position and we look forward to getting some more clarification on that and, obviously, it's never great to get a bill saying you're paying another 6 to 8 million dollars a year. On the other hand, it’s better than paying $75 million more a year which would’ve been the cost as I calculate of the full $4 billion option. Thank you. Thanks for the question.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Councillor Mayes. Any further questions? Councillor Eadie.

Councillor Eadie: Yes, thank you, Madam Speaker. As I decided not to be on Water and Waste, I was not able to be at the committee meeting when the budget was being consulted when the report or the Province’s expectations of us came in a letter form. So Madam Speaker, I’m just wondering, and would be very important, there are some, some the CSO areas that you can do various things, not total separation is good but some areas it will continue to have to separate some sewers in order to avoid whatever percentage waste it is and I just want to confirm that Water and Waste will be working and trying to coordinate with Public Works in their local street renewal programs to assist us in renewing those streets at the same time that they have to separate the sewers. Excuse me. That's the question, did you get confirmation they’re going to l continue that?

Councillor Mayes: No, but that wasn't asked and I’m sure they'll continue to try to coordinate that. This is an expenditure in the older parts of the city, not the newer parts of the city. We sometimes talk about the cost of growth and obviously, there's the cost of updating and modernizing some of the older technology in the city, but I’m sure that the staff will continue to coordinate. I know there was some work done in Councillor Gerbasi’s ward in the Calrossie area this summer. It seems like two summers, I’m not sure exactly how long it took, it probably seemed like forever to her, but some work down by the Wildwood area, so yeah, there's roadwork that has to be done, there’s sewer separation work that has to be done. It's a big annual expenditure but I’m sure that the staff are aware that they'll need to coordinate some of that work. COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG 79 December 13, 2017

Madam Speaker: Thank you, any further questions for our Chair? Okay, seeing none. Our next committee is the Standing Policy Committee on Innovation. Councillor Gilroy with the report dated November 30th.

REPORT OF THE STANDING POLICY COMMITTEE ON INNOVATION DATED NOVEMBER 30, 2017

Councillor Gilroy: (Inaudible) I just want to follow up on what Councillor Mayes said this morning and just thank Al Shane for all his work. He is retiring. So we want to thank him for all of his dedication to the City, all his years of service. I know that he's very, very passionate about our city and he's very passionate about Golf Services so I just want to thank him for that and I’d like to move Items 1 to 4 inclusive.

Madam Speaker: All in favour?

Councillor Eadie: Madam Speaker, I wanted to stand up also so I can speak to Mr. Shane’s retirement.

Madam Speaker: Sure, okay. What number is that, the No. 4? Four, okay, I’ll call the question on Items 1 through 3. All in favour? Contrary? Carried.

Councillor Eadie: Please record me in opposition to the Parking Authority one.

Madam Speaker: Noted. Thank you.

Item 4 – Winnipeg Golf Services Special Operating Agency – 2018 Business Plan

Madam Speaker: Councillor Gilroy, do you want to introduce the item?

Councillor Gilroy: No, I’ll wait to hear.

Madam Speaker: Councillor Eadie.

Councillor Eadie: Yes, I just wanted to an opportunity to thank Alan Shane for the service he's given in Winnipeg in Golf Services and, you know, we went to St. John’s High School together, Madam Speaker, and although he's a bit younger than me, he gets to retire earlier than I do, but one of the things about Mr. Shane is he loved the City of Winnipeg Golf Courses. And that, you know, playing golf and working summers over at Kildonan Golf Course, he obviously loved the service and tried to ensure that golf services in Winnipeg as delivered by the City of Winnipeg were kept viable and keeping it going and so I just want to recognize that like for the most of his life it's like Kildonan Golf Course and so on and it was also a pleasure to work with him, he had some difficulties, but I think he did a great job once he did become the operator of the City of Winnipeg's Golf Services. And I just wanted to congratulate him as he had said to me, I talked to him texted me he was retiring at about, I don't know, 2:00 o’clock in the morning or something one day, and…because we were talking about another issue, but I wish him great pleasure that now when he goes and golfs on the City of Winnipeg golf course, he doesn't have to get upset that there's something wrong with the golf course. He can enjoy himself.

Madam Speaker: Thank you for that, Councillor Eadie. Councillor Gilroy, can I call the question?

Councillor Gilroy: Yeah, call the question.

Madam Speaker: All in favour of Item 4? Contrary? Carried. Any questions for our Chair for Councillor Gilroy? Okay, seeing none, we're on to the Standing Policy Committee on Property and Development, Heritage and Downtown Development. Councillor Orlikow?

80 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG December 13, 2017

REPORT OF THE STANDING POLICY COMMITTEE ON PROPERTY AND DEVELOPMENT, HERITAGE AND DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT DATED NOVEMBER 27, 2017

Councillor Orlikow: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move these reports…I move adoption of Consent Agenda Items 1 to 16, please.

Madam Speaker: Councillor Schreyer. Okay. All in favour of Item 1 through 11, 13 through 16? Contrary? Carried. Madam Clerk.

Item 12 – Railside at the Forks Concept Plan – SP 2/2017

Madam Speaker: Thank you. Councillor Orlikow, do you wish to introduce the item?

Councillor Orlikow: No, actually, I do…if I maybe had a little more life in me right now, I would’ve set this one down myself so I’m glad to hear Councillor Schreyer's comments.

Madam Speaker: Thank you. Councillor Schreyer.

Councillor Schreyer: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have my concerns. You know, people are passionate about Portage and Main as the iconic intersection of Winnipeg. It is, but it also has a functional requirement as I see it. And it's both to me the traditional iconic intersection of Winnipeg is the Red and the Assiniboine Rivers and that is the traditional meeting place of Winnipeg. It is interesting in my lifetime to see how it's evolved and to a new type of meeting place and how we celebrate it as the original meeting place, a meeting grounds and intersection of Winnipeg as it's moved from Red and the Assiniboine to Main and Portage. Madam Speaker, part of the tradition in the modern era of Winnipeg, that being the rail era, to explain it that way, is that the Forks has been a transportation hub, it's been an intersection, if you will, for transportation via rail. And, in fact, it is where we have our grand old Via Rail station, Madam Speaker. And I just feel in the spirit of Councillor Morantz's words, if you don't know where you're going, you'll end up someplace else. In my opinion, Madam Speaker, I just feel in terms of what we're doing with rapid transit, how we're dealing or not dealing with the potential of rail transit and passenger transit in the city, I look now at this and I have my concerns about the potential for the Forks to maintain its iconic stature as the traditional meeting place for Winnipeg because that precedes and I believe transcends Portage and Main. And perhaps it's never been offered to people like that before, but my concern is now the potential is still there and it wasn't that the Forks may maintain its role for the future ongoing in a future oriented way, very much in the tradition of Winnipeg prehistorically and in terms of its future as being that iconic intersection and that meeting place that as the future potential as I would hope would mean as an intermodal hub of transportation in which all modes of transportation can meet at the Forks. It is greater than Portage and Main, Madam Speaker. And with foresight and planning, it could be. My concern is that we're losing that potential by overdevelopment and not looking at what the Forks has always been, what it is, and what it could be. And that is my concern, Madam Speaker, and that is why I’m concerned about losing the Forks as its potential to continue as the intermodal and transportation and meeting place centre of Winnipeg forever before and forever onward.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Councillor Schreyer. Councillor Pagtakhan.

Councillor Pagtakhan: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I know it's getting late in the day. I won't speak too long on this item, but you know, clearly the Forks has been a meeting place and continues to be a meeting place. It's been a meeting place for thousands and thousands of years Madam Speaker, and it's one of the premiere locations within the city of Winnipeg. I just wanted to really provide some praise to the team that's put together this document. I had a look at it. It’s a pretty incredible document that contains a lot of really good vocabulary in terms of the buildout of the…this location, how to preserve the public domains spaces on the main levels of the development of both north and south side of the rail side development and how it contemplates to do that through public…ongoing public engagement, Madam Speaker, how it capitalizes on alleyways and utilizing public art, a lot of public spaces with street edge treatment and higher levels of design. It's…it gets all throughout the whole volume of this document and, you know, it really is a good….it’s a good example and a huge testimony of the collaboration between the City of Winnipeg, the Forks Renewal Corporation and the Province of Manitoba and kudos to our staff, our planning development staff and our chief planner Mr. Braden Smith and all his staff, you know, for their work that they’ve done in constructing this concept document and just want to, you know, congratulate Councillor Orlikow for the work he's done as well to shepherd this through.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Councillor Pagtakhan. Councillor Gerbasi.

Councillor Gerbasi: I was just going to say a couple of sentences because I know everybody wants to go home. I just want to put on the record that I concur with what has just been said. This is a really significant planning document for the COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG 81 December 13, 2017

Forks which is in my ward, I think, just like I thought Portage and Main was right next to…part of my ward in many ways. But it doesn't matter about the ward, this is for the whole city, this is an amazing plan and I’m really excited about it. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Councillor Gerbasi. Councillor Wyatt.

Councillor Wyatt: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I did go to the committee actually and I spoke about this item and the only issue I guess that I expressed concern about, we are…it appears that the clause is calling for us to adopt this attach…Appendix A to this report be adopted as Council Policy. That's pretty substantial. I don't know if policy would’ve…

Madam Speaker: The clock, please. Thank you.

Councillor Wyatt: Oh, that's okay. Let me…anyway,

Madam Speaker: No, it’s dangerous when you’re speaking.

Councillor Wyatt: Anyway, the Council policy would be…is a bit, you know, it means a lot to have a Council policy and this being a Council policy…the biggest concern I think, first of all, I want to thank the Forks, Mr. Jordan and his team, everybody who has worked very hard on this. I did have an opportunity to speak to Mr. Jordan about this. The biggest concern I had and have with it, and I think we have to be very cognizant of this is the parking issue with regards…relation to the Forks. Parking was a commitment that was made at the time of the corporation's creation and as it developed, the parkade was quite an important aspect of that project. A second parkade was actually originally planned. The parking ratios here are…should be a concern if we apply the same rules that we’ve used for new developments around our city. The parking ratios are…the off-site parking…the Forks is basically looking at other sites outside of the downtown or sorry, outside of the Forks. The concern is that it's one thing to be able to say we're going to have parking in a parking lot or a parkade on our lands and it's going to be accommodated that way. It's another thing if the parking or the future parkade is actually being pushed to another site that is not under the care, custody, control of the developer, in this case the Forks. The proposal here is to look at a parkade on the north side of the Via station which is federal land, but nonetheless, not part of the corporation known as the Forks North Portage Renewal Corporation. Concern with that is the timing, the phasing and to ensure that there's going to be enough off-site, there’s going to be enough parking because what’s unique about this development that’s taking place is the housing development that’s being projected is not just for residential but also commercial, commercial on the main floors, so not only will you have the parking demands of the existing commercial…existing Forks site, you're going to have demands on the balance of the site as well for the new development that’s taking place. So I’m concerned and I think a lot of Winnipeggers right now do enjoy going to the Forks. They find that it's convenient to access the Forks, but I would be concerned about as this development unfolds, Madam Speaker, that we ensure that parking is available as part and parcel of their development and not just simply pushed on to somebody else's lands which is what the existing proposal is. But hopefully that could be revisited in the near future. I’m sorry, Madam Speaker, is there a commotion going on in the room?

Madam Speaker: Yeah, we just settle down over here in the corner so we can hear the speakers, thank you. Councillor Wyatt?

Councillor Wyatt: No, I’m done.

Madam Speaker: Okay, done. Thank you. Mr. Mayor, you have the floor.

Mayor Bowman: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I wasn't going to speak to this, but I…personally I fully support this. I want to thank Paul Jordan and his entire team, the board, for incredible efforts to continue to make the Forks North Portage partnership more successful each and every year. That transformation has been incredible and I just want to put on the record full support for this plan and for the direction that they’re taking the Forks and it continues to be the number one tourist destination in Manitoba for a reason. The density that Council wants to see in our city and in our downtown will be supported by this plan. I do believe they have a…they have a good plan for parking as noted by Councillor Wyatt, and I want to commend the leadership of our public service but also our committee chair and committee members for helping support this and get it to us here for consideration. I’ll also ask everybody on your cycle or drive home tonight, go by and see the Winnipeg sign which is proudly white and blue in celebration of Hanukkah tonight which is at the Forks and hopefully, you’ll be able to see that sign very, very soon.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Any further speakers? Councillor Orlikow, do you wish to close?

82 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG December 13, 2017

Councillor Orlikow: Yeah, I’ll just close quickly. The project is really going well in regards to demand, we talked about transformative things happening downtown, we have to think about not just today but tomorrow, some of us may differ about what tomorrow is, but today and tomorrow in this plan is phased in approach, and the first phase will be regarding the parking, we'll be taking that…that parking will be…is long-term parking, usually by people from the area. And that parking will mitigate…will move down into 1B which is the area beside it and then 1C, which is the largest surface parking lot in downtown which is absolutely ours. So again, the idea what they talk about previously, it's a pretty exciting opportunity kind of ties into what Councillor Schreyer was saying. I’m not sure if we want a lot of traffic going right through the area, that's not what it's designed for but the idea of using the Via Rail station and if anyone had a chance to see it recently, the Federal Government, the previous Federal Government, provided some good capital funding. The building is gorgeous, underutilized but gorgeous. The Forks has moved in there. They’ve moved their offices into that area and they are in quite close contact and conversations about doing a parkade on that site. The idea there is that people would go there, go through the Union Station and then after you do it, you will see…if you go past the…actually, you may even see the train…the Train Museum, but if you go through that and there's actually a corridor that will take you out and invite you into the space of the Forks, it's quite incredible. We've already seen them start to shrink down the road in general, they felt that there was too much traffic going too fast so they’ve done some of that work. So, again, parking is a big issue. The parking in that…but there is, unfortunately, two other huge…on the other side of the rail bridge for a long-term parking that is available. Just, you know, on the other side of the bridge over, so we believe they have addressed that but the Councillor Wyatt is correct that we are looking at the highest and best use of the land and parking will be considered a part of that. So, again, the proposal is going forward. There's interest actually…I said to Paul, how much interest you have right now. He goes if we wanted to shut down the Forks for the next six years, we could do this all. We have enough interest to do the whole thing but they know that’s impossible for many, many reasons so they’re going to start with the first phase only and then it’s…we're talking the whole place is going to be geothermal heated, it has enormous public amenities and walkways that they're putting in place. The buildings are open to the public on the main floor, all the buildings as I’ve heard. They'll be also looking at a community centre that will help to facilitate all of these new residents including the hundreds of residents that are going to pop up at the new Artis Building to have a downtown community centre so they can have a place. I’m not sure it will be a basketball court style, but it will be a place where they can gather, they can get information on what's going on and we can utilize some of the other services in the area. So again, Winnipeg is changing and we had that debate today but downtown is especially changing and I’m very proud of the work that we're all doing because a healthy downtown is a healthy city.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Councillor Orlikow with that I call the question for Item 12. Call for recorded vote. All in favour, please rise.

A RECORDED VOTE was taken the result being as follows:

Yeas

His Worship Mayor Bowman, Councillors, Allard, Browaty, Dobson, Eadie, Gerbasi, Gillingham, Gilroy, Lukes, Mayes, Morantz, Orlikow, Pagtakhan, Wyatt and Madam Speaker Councillor Sharma

Nays

Councillor Schreyer

City Clerk: The vote Madam Speaker, Yeas 15, Nays 1.

Madam Speaker: Item 12 passes. Okay, we'll now move into the Notice of Motion from our November 15th meeting regarding the North District Police Station, published on the DMIS system here for you. Councillor Eadie to introduce the motion.

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG 83 December 13, 2017

STANDING POLICY COMMITTEE ON PROPERTY AND DEVELOPMENT, HERITAGE AND DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT NOTICE OF MOTION

Moved by Councillor Eadie, Seconded by Councillor Browaty,

WHEREAS many past Manitoba provincial and Winnipeg municipal governments understood the importance of park and recreational spaces in connecting the people of the city through healthy activities (prevention land) by establishing the provisions in the City of Winnipeg Charter, Part 5, Division 5, section 205(2) (attached as City of Winnipeg charter Provisions) in regard to a 2/3 vote of all Council members to dispose of park and cemetery land, and by City Council establishing the following provision in Council policy PD-003 Property Sales:

“Council Minutes - July 18, 1979” “Report of the Committee on Finance dated June 26, 1979” “2. All sales of property designated or acquired for park purposes shall be subject to Section 144(2) of The City of Winnipeg Act ‘approval of at least two-thirds of the members Of Council.’”

AND WHEREAS the Old Exhibition Grounds, zoned PR3 Regional Park/Recreation defined in the pertinent Winnipeg Zoning By-law definitions attached, has been a North End regional park, recreation, leisure, and amusement property serving the people of the North End and Winnipeggers for over 100 years when the City of Winnipeg’s Parks Department took over the property in 1907 (a short history and legal description attached);

AND WHEREAS the current public engagement process in late summer and fall, 2017 has not consulted with the regional stakeholder neighbourhoods of the area including the traditional North End the Old Exhibition Grounds has served all these years;

AND WHEREAS the North District Police Station public engagement has been misleading the public on the issue of the City of Winnipeg’s ability to obtain privately owned land derived through statements paraphrased such as “we cannot name a private property due to the price of the land going too high, and because of that, we cannot go onto the private land to inspect it for suitability for a police station” at the Thursday, November 2, 2017 engagement session at the West Kildonan Library as heard by Councillor Eadie in a discussion between city staff and stakeholders at the library;

AND WHEREAS the ability of the City of Winnipeg to obtain land for its purposes described in the City of Winnipeg Charter, Part 5, Division 5, on powers related to property from sections 204 to 206 (attached) where it states a city employee may undertake the activities to determine if the property will meet the needs for its intended purpose in the case of expropriation;

AND WHEREAS the City of Winnipeg’s four district model requires the North district Station to serve the population far beyond the traditional North End with a need to find a minimum of five acres (East District Station 6.8 and West district 4.4) of land with access to a major road to serve the population beyond the traditional North End in District 3, requiring a 2/3 vote of Council to rezone the PR3 property to C3 as described in the attached extracts from the Winnipeg Zoning By-law;

AND WHEREAS past land deals for “protection and emergency services” facilities led to the sound advice to undertake an RFP process to find private sector land for public services as described in the attached Winnipeg Zoning By-law descriptions;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Winnipeg Public Service undertake all things necessary under the City of Winnipeg Charter, pertinent by-laws and pertinent policies to obtain and make ready a city owned or private property other than PR zoned properties for the new North District Police Station within 90 days of the passing of this motion.

Councillor Eadie: Yes, thank you, Madam…thank…excuse me, thank you, Madam Speaker. It's always hard to stand up as only one lone person. So I remember that from past. But thank you, Madam Speaker. This notice of motion essentially what can I say, I mean, there's a lot of written stuff there, there's been at least a month for people to read the ‘whereas’’. I added a little history about the Old Exhibition Grounds and how we’ve utilized it and essentially, I don't even know how we got to this point, Madam Speaker, where we were even considering putting a police station on a park and recreation land where three of our City departments, Madam Speaker, over the years have been saying we need to do better for the Old Exhibition Grounds and do better for the whole area, Madam Speaker. How we got to the point, Madam Speaker, where we, you know, in one part of the city we're fighting to find the land for recreation services which is essential to that south Winnipeg area, very essential, Madam Speaker. On the other hand, here we are as a city 84 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG December 13, 2017

researching how we can remove recreation, park recreation space. So for me, it's been very difficult to do this and being on the Police Board, I know that the Police Service require the proper facilities, Madam Speaker, to go about and do their business. I support police officers as we are all seeing there's a number of symptoms that shows how difficult of a job that is. But really what's more important than response, because that's basically all the Police Service can do is response and given its budget constraints, it's more and more only being able to deal with response, Madam Speaker. And so…but we really need…we really need to ensure that we have the space for the activities that help to keep people healthy, out of trouble and it's not just for young people, there's adults, seniors, some of you probably received letters from the William Whyte Residents Association, William Whyte C.O.P., the Dufferin Resident Association who had some concerns, not quite the same position as the William Whyte Residents Association and the thing, but they're very concerned about losing green space. We also had from the North Point Douglas Residents Association, there's a letter, very similar. So we’ve seen a number of letters and, you know, Madam Speaker, yes, there are difficulties in terms of the Nomad's and they don't have the best space to play on but, you know, it's a shame though if we have to say, well, I don't know what's going on there, alls I know is, Madam Speaker, when I attended a public meeting at the West Kildonan Library at Jefferson and Powers, there was a…it was a presentation and basically it was said that they have a mandate to help the Nomad's find another place if…if they were going to take over any of that space. Now, so then that's how the rumours started out. There’s no…I’m very concerned because I just…I don't know how we as a city and how our administration got to the point where we would even consider, given all these reports and all these people and you only heard from two people, but this has been going on for a long time and, Madam Speaker, what I wanted to do with this motion, what I’m saying is here is, like there's all kinds of processes. I don't know if they're looking at other properties, whatever, alls I know is there was reference at the West Kildonan Library, it's all in there, I mentioned it. These are public statements. I’m not dragging anything out from…I didn't learn anything new in a private meeting of the Winnipeg Police Board or anything like that, Madam Speaker. I was inspired to do it and I got in trouble for that originally, Madam Speaker, but I have to say really, I know there was no alternatives being looked at. At some point finally, hopefully, there are other sites being looked at, I’m not going to say where it should be, alls I’m saying is that it should not be…we should not be having response mechanisms taking over five, seven acres, Madam Speaker. These are compounds, these police stations. This is a district model that was decided to go to in 2003, Madam Speaker. And you know, I just…it’s very concerning and so I’m hoping that people will just help direct and this motion, if it passes, it will direct the administration to just, you know, like I don't even know why they want to continue to study and try to work on people to decide whether or not the Old Exhibition Grounds is the right place. It's an inappropriate place. It’s totally inappropriate, Madam Speaker. So I please…I urge you all to vote in favour of just directing the administration, why waste the resources and time. There are other places around in the area that they could find. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Councillor Eadie. Any further speakers? Councillor Gillingham.

Councillor Wyatt: Madam Speaker, I would like to move a referral.

Madam Speaker: Referral to?

Councillor Wyatt: To the standing committee.

Madam Speaker: Standing committee, okay. And we would vote on that because it's a referral without instructions, correct, Mr. Clerk? Okay, all in favour of referral to the standing committee? Contrary? Carried.

STANDING POLICY COMMITTEE ON PROPERTY AND DEVELOPMENT, HERITAGE AND DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT MOTIONS

Motion No. 3 Moved by Councillor Pagtakhan, Seconded by Councillor Morantz,

WHEREAS Community Gardens provide City of Winnipeg residents of all ages with an opportunity to engage in a healthy recreational activity while growing nutritious food, benefiting from social interaction by meeting neighbours, and building community ties while learning about the growing cycle and beautifying public open space;

AND WHEREAS Winnipeg City Council adopted the Community Garden Policy on June 28, 2006;

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG 85 December 13, 2017

AND WHEREAS Manitoba Hydro owns the right-of-way (ROW) in North West Winnipeg from just south of Selkirk Avenue to just north of Templeton Avenue;

AND WHEREAS there are several community gardens on this ROW, and Manitoba Hydro administers several agreements individually with several citizens for these community gardens;

AND WHEREAS Manitoba Hydro is desirous to deal with one entity in the ongoing management of the existing and future potential community gardens along this ROW;

AND WHEREAS there is a shortage of public community garden plot opportunities in North West Winnipeg;

AND WHEREAS the City operates allotment gardens at various locations throughout the City that are available for rent through the Public Works Department - Parks and Open Space Division;

AND WHEREAS the City is planning an Active Transportation Corridor along this ROW and this creates synergies with respect to creating community gardens adjacent to the Active Transportation Corridor;

AND WHEREAS Manitoba Hydro and the City are currently working on a license agreement that will span the entire length of the Active Transportation Corridor;

AND WHEREAS it is desirable that the City be the one entity dealing with Manitoba Hydro in the ongoing management of the existing and future potential community gardens along this ROW;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City enter into an agreement with Manitoba Hydro with respect to the Active Transportation Corridor that includes terms and conditions for the City to act as the one entity dealing with Manitoba Hydro in the ongoing management of community gardens along the subject ROW.

Madam Speaker: Okay. We'll now…I’ll draw your attention to Motion 3 on your desks. It’s moved by Councillor Pagtakhan and…yes?

Councillor Pagtakhan: Madam Speaker, I am rescinding that motion and…I’m rescinding…I’m rescinding No. 3, Madam Speaker, I’ve replaced it with No. 5.

Motion No. 5 Moved by Councillor Pagtakhan, Seconded by Councillor Morantz,

WHEREAS Community Gardens provide City of Winnipeg residents of all ages with an opportunity to engage in a healthy recreational activity while growing nutritious food, benefiting from social interaction by meeting neighbours, and building community ties while learning about the growing cycle and beautifying public open space;

AND WHEREAS Winnipeg City Council adopted the Community Garden Policy on June 28, 2006;

AND WHEREAS Manitoba Hydro owns the right-of-way (ROW) in North West Winnipeg from just south of Selkirk Avenue to just north of Templeton Avenue;

AND WHEREAS there are several community gardens on this ROW, and Manitoba Hydro administers several agreements individually with several citizens for these community gardens;

AND WHEREAS Manitoba Hydro is desirous to deal with one entity in the ongoing management of the existing and future potential community gardens along this ROW;

AND WHEREAS there is a shortage of public community garden plot opportunities in North West Winnipeg;

AND WHEREAS the City operates allotment gardens at various locations throughout the City that are available for rent through the Public Works Department - Parks and Open Space Division;

AND WHEREAS the City is planning an Active Transportation Corridor along this ROW and this creates synergies with respect to creating community gardens adjacent to the Active Transportation Corridor;

86 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG December 13, 2017

AND WHEREAS Manitoba Hydro and the City are currently working on a license agreement that will span the entire length of the Active Transportation Corridor;

AND WHEREAS it is desirable that the City be the one entity dealing with Manitoba Hydro in the ongoing management of the existing and future potential community gardens along this ROW;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

1. That the Public Service be authorized to negotiate the terms and conditions of a license agreement with Manitoba Hydro with respect to the Active Transportation Corridor that includes terms and conditions for the City to act as the one entity dealing with Manitoba Hydro in the ongoing management of community gardens along the subject ROW.

2. That the Public Service report back to Council at the conclusion of such negotiations to seek Council approval to enter into, execute and deliver such license agreement.

3. That the proper officers of the City do all things necessary to implement the intent of the foregoing.

Madam Speaker: Okay, so with the concurrence of Council, Councillor Pagtakhan is rescinding Motion 3 but he’s just replaced it, changed some wording, replacing it with Motion 5, and it deals with an agreement around community gardens with Manitoba Hydro, active transportation. It will be an automatic referral to the Standing Policy Committee on Property Development. Motion No. 4, moved by Councillor Orlikow and seconded by Councillor Morantz. It's to deal with Our Winnipeg. It's an automatic referral to the standing committee.

Motion No. 4 Moved by Councillor Orlikow, Seconded by Councillor Morantz,

WHEREAS “OurWinnipeg” is Council’s Development Plan that sets out long-term plans and policies respecting its purposes including: its physical, social, environmental and economic objectives; sustainable land uses and development; and measures for implementing the plan. AND WHEREAS “Complete Communities Direction Strategy, a companion document to OurWinnipeg, is based on an urban structure that provides a vision for growth and development of the city;

AND WHEREAS the “OurWinnipeg” document is presently under review and will identify areas of priority growth within the urban structure based on best use and efficient integration of land use, required transportation network, and water and waste requirements;

AND WHEREAS integrated planning recognizes existing land uses, communities and embed community consultations into land use guidelines;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the CAO be directed to report back in 90 days with a process recommendation for Council consideration that addresses the following:

A. That the OurWinnipeg, Complete Communities and the Transportation Master Plan be the tools to ensure infrastructure planning and investment aligns with land use.

B. That prior to inclusion in the five (5) year capital budget, all infrastructure development projects shall demonstrate prioritization and alignment with approved OurWinnipeg priorities.

C. That all projects in the current five (5) capital budget shall be confirmed through the lens established within the current OurWinnipeg plan.

Councillor Wyatt: On Item 4, No. 4, I’d like to call notice. Thank you.

Madam Speaker: Okay, so that means it will be on next month's, January 2018, Council meeting, this motion will appear there. Is that a majority vote, Mr. Clerk? Or we don't need…Mr. Clerk? We don't need a vote on that? It will be just appearing, correct? Yep, I thought so. Someone is still awake here. Okay. Now, we'll move under…move into by- laws, pardon me?

Councillor Orlikow: (Inaudible) a motion. I don't think that we voted because I… COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG 87 December 13, 2017

Madam Speaker: Don’t require…

Councillor Orlikow: Sorry…just clarify…

Madam Speaker: We don’t require…

Councillor Orlikow: Will this motion go to P & D or will go…will it be at P & D committee and then come back to Council or just straight to Council? So I don't approve that because we want it to go to P & D. So we wait a month to get it to P & D? I don't see any purpose of that so I would like to get it to…sorry, I’m not sure the debate…I am not sure of the process so I don't…I don’t like the idea…I like to do a notice of motion, not…

Madam Speaker: Okay, Councillor Orlikow, that…it's already been called and it’s going to appear on the January agenda. It’s part of normal procedure.

Councillor Orlikow: Did we vote on that? Who voted to…anybody?

Madam Speaker: There's no vote required when someone calls notice and the Deputy Speaker is saying the same thing.

Councillor Orlikow: (Inaudible) sooner than later. Thank you. I’m good. Thank you.

Madam Speaker: Councillor Orlikow, on the by-laws.

STANDING POLICY COMMITTEE ON PROPERTY AND DEVELOPMENT, HERITAGE AND DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATION OF BY-LAWS

Councillor Orlikow: Okay, one less. Okay, that the following by-laws be read a first time, 1114, 1115, 1116, 1117, 1118, 1119, 11…I’m sorry, 120, 121…got my glasses, 122, 123 and 124/2017.

Councillor Schreyer: Order, Madam Speaker. He didn’t mean 1119, 1118, he meant 118, 119 et cetera.

Councillor Orlikow: How about I start over? Okay, I’d like to move By-laws No. 114/2017, 115/2017, 116/2017, 117, someone must have taken their leg, 2017, 118/2017, 119/2017, 120/2017, 121/2017, 122/2017, 123/2017 and 124/ 2017.

Madam Speaker: Thank you. Okay. All in favour? Contrary? Carried.

Clerk: By-law No. 114/2017, By-law No. 115/2017, By-law No. 116/2017, By-law No. 117/2017, By-law No. 118/2017, By-law No. 119/2017, By-law No. 120/2017, By-law No. 121/2017, By-law No. 122/ 2017, By-law No. 123/2017 and By- law No. 124/2017.

Madam Speaker: Thank you. Councillor Orlikow on the second reading.

Councillor Orlikow: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d like to move that By-laws numbered 114/2017 to 124/2017, both inclusive, be read a second time.

Madam Speaker: All in favour? Contrary? Carried.

Clerk: By-laws numbered 114/2017 to 124/2017, both inclusive.

Madam Speaker: Thank you. Councillor Orlikow, on the suspension and third reading.

Councillor Orlikow: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move that the rules be suspended and By-laws No. 114/20 sorry…114/2017 to 124/2017, both inclusive, be read a third time and that same to be passed and ordered to be signed and sealed.

88 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG December 13, 2017

Madam Speaker: All in favour? Contrary? Carried. We'll now have Question Period for our Chair for Councillor Orlikow. Any questions? Okay. Seeing none. Just give me a moment here.

REPORT OF THE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL DATED NOVEMBER 30, 2017

Madam Speaker: We'll now have the Governance Committee of Council. There's one item, the 2018 Schedule of Council and Committee Meetings. There's also an amending motion, No. 1 before us, from Councillor Allard and Gilroy on your desks. Councillor Gilroy, will you move the item on my behalf?

Councillor Gilroy: So moved.

Madam Speaker: Okay, and I guess we need to stand it down since there's an amending motion. Madam Clerk.

Item 1 – 2018 Council and Committee Schedule of Meetings

Madam Speaker: Okay. Councillor Gilroy to introduce the item and the amending motion.

Motion No. 1 Moved by Councillor Allard, Seconded by Councilor Gilroy,

WHEREAS a Civic Election will be held in Winnipeg on October 24, 2018;

AND WHEREAS advance voting for the 2018 Civic Election begins on September 24, 2018; AND WHEREAS as the proposed Schedule of Council and Committee Meetings for 2018 has a Council meeting on September 27, 2018, three days after advance voting has begun;

AND WHEREAS it desirable that Council conclude its business prior to the commencement of voting;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the proposed Schedule of Council and Committee Meetings for 2018 be amended as follows:

1. That the September 27, 2018 meeting of Council be rescheduled to September 20, 2018.

2. That the September 19, 2018, meeting of Executive Policy Committee be canceled.

Madam Speaker: Councillor Gilroy to introduce the item and the amending motion.

Councillor Gilroy: Yeah, these are just…

Madam Speaker: Councillor Allard, pardon me. You’re the mover. Councillor Allard.

Councillor Allard: Yes, so thank you.

Councillor Eadie: If you can just read the motion.

Madam Speaker: I’ll have Madam Clerk, if you could read it into the record, please.

Clerk: Motion No. 1…Motion 1, moved by Councillor Allard, seconded by Councillor Gilroy, whereas a Civic Election will be held in Winnipeg on October 24, 2018; and whereas advance voting for 2018 Civic Election begins on September the 24th, 2018; and whereas as the proposed Schedule of Council and Committee Meetings for 2018 has a Council meeting on September the 27th, 2018, three days after advance voting has begun; and whereas it desirable that Council conclude its business prior to the commencement of voting; therefore be it resolved that the proposed Schedule of Council and Committee Meetings for 2018 be amended as follows: 1. That the September 27, 2018 meeting of Council be rescheduled to September 20, 2018; 2. That the September 19, 2018, meeting of Executive Policy Committee be canceled.

Madam Speaker: Okay. Councillor Allard, do you wish to introduce the item? COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINNIPEG 89 December 13, 2017

Councillor Allard: Yes, thank you very much, my Council colleagues. I think it’s mostly a housekeeping items. We want to make sure that we're not having Council meetings while votes are going on, so I would ask for my Council colleagues to approve this date change and I think that the motion itself is pretty self-explanatory other than that.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Councillor Allard. Councillor Mayes.

Councillor Mayes: I wonder if Councillor Allard would consider a friendly amendment in it, the staff have accommodated by moving the appeal hearing that was going to be after the final Council meeting which was a request of mine, but now we’ve moved the Council meeting further forward, so can we just cancel it if we’re cancelling an EPC meeting, can we cancel the Friday, September 21st Appeals Committee hearing in that we had such sorrel if I can speak to the…proposed amendment with that…I was at this meeting three and a half years ago and there is a certain unreal…everybody given their farewell speeches and then four councillors supposed to come back a day or two later and deal with appeals, and frankly could be an unfair advantage or disadvantage so I would propose simply cancelling out that September 21st Appeals meeting as well.

Madam Speaker: Thank you. We’ll have the Clerks check that just as we take other speakers because sometimes you’re scheduling issues with that meeting and duration in between those meetings, appeals need to be heard so I’ll let them look into that. Are there any other speakers at this time? Okay.

Councillor Gerbasi: Point of order, Madam Speaker, or maybe it’s just that I could speak to it because we’re still speaking to things?

Madam Speaker: Yes.

Councillor Gerbasi: Just to say Councillor Mayes has a very, very a valid point, but for simplicity and given the late hour, could we not change that Appeal meeting later? It’s a bit different changing a whole Council meeting unless it’s easily done, just as a suggestion, just to simplify.

Councillor Mayes: That’s fine. That’s good.

Madam Speaker: Yeah, sure. I’m just going to confirm with the Clerk on that. Thank you, Councillor Gerbasi. That seems to be able to work. Councillor Allard, do you wish to close? No? Councillor Gilroy, do you wish to close? Okay. I’ll call the question on the Amending Motion No. 1. All in favour? Contrary? Carried. And then the main item as amended the schedule. All in favour? Contrary? Carried. Before we move adjournment, I would just like to thank…I’d like to thank the Public Service that’s been here with us for into the…well into the evening, CAO’s Office, City Clerk’s Department, the others, also the Mayor’s Office staff, thank you very much. And also folks that are still with us in the gallery, thank you for being here. And there’s 39 people watching on Livestream till we ended a meeting, thank you to you as well. And as the Mayor said earlier, I wish each of you, a very merry Christmas, happy Hanukkah and so many other special occasions that we’re all celebrating. I hope you take some time to have some rest and recharge and I’m sure we’ll be seeing you in the next few weeks at various community events as well. So thank you very much and with that, Councillor Watt, will you move adjournment? All in favour? Contrary? Carried. Stay in your spot for roll call. Madam Clerk.

ROLL CALL

Clerk: Madam Speaker Councillor Sharma, His Worship Mayor Bowman, Councillors Allard, Browaty, Dobson, Eadie, Gerbasi, Gillingham, Gilroy, Lukes, Mayes, Morantz, Orlikow, Pagtakhan, Schreyer and Wyatt.

Council adjourned at 7:29 p.m.