Post

Chow says her motion about making agreements with the construction unions will help keep workers safe while on the job. She notes the City already has agreements with unions on Industrial & Commercial construction, so this "fills the gaps" by applying the same thing to residential construction.

"If this goes through and this results in a higher cost to deliver residential, would you accept that less housing would be built?" Holyday asks Chow. "I don't believe it would be any more expensive," says Chow, pointing out Toronto already has a fair wage policy.

Burnside asks Chow if her contention is that unionized work is better quality. She says yes. "Was it non-unionized work that did the Crosstown or was it unionized?" Burnside asks. Chow says that was Metrolinx.

Burnside asks if Chow is willing to expand her motion to include all unions, not just the ones listed. Chow says no. She says she wants to apply the same rules that already exist for the ICI sector.

A bunch of construction workers from the listed unions have come to the chamber to watch Chow introduce this motion. Nunziata has to keep reminding them they are not allowed to applaud.

Holyday asks Nunizata to rule on whether Chow's motion is in order, as the item is about a housing program, not labour issues. Nunziata quickly rules it is in order. Holyday challenges her. Chair is UPHELD, 22-4. "Huh. Now I know who my friends are," Nunziata says.

The organized labour twist to that debate was unexpected and, at risk of sounding like a rules nerd, really should have gone through the normal report and committee process, at least. Notable that Bradford supported the mayor on it, given he had "open tendering" as part of his platform in '23.

Holyday suggests the city should be charging more for rain barrels, given they were all claimed in just nine hours last time. But the item CARRIES via show of hands. More barrels coming.

1 repost10 likes

Staff say the Municipal Licensing & Standards department has "many priorities." "We continue to work on this issue, but we just didn't find an opportunity." The report on off-leash dog enforcement is still coming, they add. Now expected next year.

Fletcher and Bravo defend the city's work on dangerous dogs, pointing to a decline in appeals to the Dangerous Dog Review Tribunal as evidence of increased compliance. They say this ad campaign was effective, too.

When I started to read this my brain first interpreted it that the dogs in the poster were Fletcher and Bravo and they were defending the city's work. Had to go back and reread for the actual sense. 😅