Expressway Implementation Committee
March 24/04 Report
2 pm. Meeting started at 2:10 pm.

Present:

• Dave Braden (acting chair)
• Phil Bruckler
• Maria Pearson
• Brian McHattie
• Chad Collins (15 minutes late because of Agostino death)
• Dave Mitchell (late because of conflicting committee meeting which he chairs)
• Tom Jackson (arrived near end of meeting, during other business)

Absent: Sam Merulla

Also present: Chris Murray and Jennifer DiDomenico of Expressway project office

An Agenda sheet was circulated at the beginning of the meeting with the following items:

1. Review of minutes
2. Committee mandate and structure
3. Project update
4. Six Nations
5. Other business

Braden indicated that he would act as chair if the other committee members agreed. He indicated the proposed agenda and noted "Chris [Murray] has just told me that in the past at one of the meetings that I didn't get to that the general public was in some instances provided the opportunity to speak, but at the last one because the meeting had gone on a long time - again I wasn't there - it was inappropriate or going too late. We need to deal that toward the end of the agenda toward the end. There are four of us [Braden, Bruckler, McHattie and Pearson] and we can decide how we are going to deal with that, but toward the end of the meeting."

Minutes of the February 24 meeting were moved by Maria Pearson. She noted to Braden that "I appreciate you taking in the position as the filler chair. Chris suggested that because of your former experience on it, and I appreciate that." Carried. Note that minutes of the committee are eventually posted to the City website at
http://www.hamilton.ca/public-works/capital-planning/
red-hill-valley-program/Red-Hill-Valley-Project/
direct-links.asp#Project%20Updates.

Committee mandate and structure: Report presented by Jennifer DiDomenico. Braden asked her to start by introducing herself. "I'm the information and business consultant on the Red Hill Project. .like to revisit the committee mandate and structure. At the previous meeting all members were provided a copy of the original terms of reference . Some of the items that we wish to revisit are most importantly of course the matter of electing a chair and an alternate for the committee, and a couple of other logistical matters. And for the chair and alternate, as I understand it, it would be preferred by the committee that all members of the committee be present to vote on that election. So given the circumstances today I would interpret that we would hold off til another meeting for that election. Some of the administrative items . change to eight members of council to sit on this committee. The other matter is the meetings of the committee. It was set out in the original terms of reference that the committee should meet no less than four times per year." Up to the committee to decide.

Pearson: "We've run into the same problem we had here last month in having a meeting of the expressway committee - as Jennifer mentioned there's supposed to be eight members and there are eight members of council on this committee. I don't know whether it's something we should review whether there should be a requirement of eight because obviously we're not going to meet quorum as it is. I'm wondering if something could be circulated around to the members that are supposed to be here. Maybe we can make a decision before the next meeting and I would support holding off on reviewing the structure and the elections of the chair and vicechair until the next meeting."

McHattie: ".question of how often these meetings are held. . I would think that with the amount of construction that's planned this year, we're right into the main part of the project, that we might want to meet every two months. I could say monthly, but there are also lots of other meetings. I would suggest meeting every two months. I would move that if necessary." Bruckler seconded it.

Bruckler: Agrees with every two months "and then we can see later on in the year if we might want to stretch that out again."

Pearson: "I don't disagree with that, but I certainly again it is frustrating when you don't have all of the committee members and they're not aware of that.. . Maybe we can make some firm decisions at the next meeting." . "Hoping that staff could email everyone, possibly advising of the next meeting and the problems we've had with getting quorum."

Collins: "I will support the motion but I would add that the meetings be bi-monthly or at the call of the chair. In some instances we've had some issues with this project that are very time sensitive, whether it's for staff coming forward with a report, or community concerns in regards to an issue that come up all of a sudden. . don't set schedule in stone" Accepted as friendly amendment. Carried.

McHattie: "Just on the issue of chair of the committee, I think at this point that even though we don't have all the members here today, I think we should appoint an acting chair so if there is a need to call a meeting at the call of the chair, we don't have a chair in the next little while." Suggests Braden by Acting Chair "until such time as we either sanction Councillor Braden to carry on or follow some other direction. But in the meantime, I think it's important to have one of the councillors playing a role that's a leadership role so staff has someone to talk to and interact with."

Braden: "I'll open it for discussion but don't feel hesitant to talk about an alternative just because I'm in the chair."

Collins: Supports Braden as acting chair. Apologizes for being late and notes passing of Dominic Agostino. Also points out mayor is away and councillor Merulla is involved with arrangements for Agostino. "In addition to that we've had our budget meetings that are throwing every single subcommittee sort of out the window." "I think you should sit in that chair at least for this afternoon and longer and if it's appropriate we can have the discussion at our next meeting."

Pearson: "I agree." Braden: asks for motion. Moved by McHattie, seconded by Bruckler carried.

Braden: "That's about a first for me. Appreciate the vote of confidence." DiDomenico will circulate the info by email to the councillors. Braden asks for project update from Chris Murray.

Murray: "Last month we spoke about two large contracts that will be going out. They have been advertised and we expect they will run a period of about four weeks, and then within two weeks following that which will be roughly early May, an award will be made subject of course to the budget being approved and everything. And so that's unfolding. There is a report coming through Public Works to council regarding an issue that was raised some time ago with respect to tolling. That's coming through and there's some work taking place out in the field. Specifically, we know Hydro One is establishing some footings for tower relocation work up in the Mud Street area. And there may be some work undertaken, I think, down in Confederation Park as well. Other than that there really isn't much more to report on with respect to kinda of the overall project update."

McHattie to Murray: "There is a report provided to us on email concerning the community facilitator's work in your office, and there are a number of issues that have been raised by community members. And there's not really any information here with regards to what's being done with those issues. So if you could speak to some of these, where you've seen a response or a direction back to the person who asked the question. . the second part was the Red Hill Valley newsletter to be distributed in April . Can members of this committee receive a copy of that newsletter?"

Murray: "Jennifer can speak to that report. It was forwarded by Nicole [Swerhun] who is unfortunately away this week, but Jen can speak to the specific point."

DiDomenico: "Nicole's report was forwarded to each member of the expressway committee last Friday, March 19. In it, as councillor McHattie has pointed out, there are a number of issues raised and a summary of those issues. I'll start at the top.

Regarding construction impacts and .will be posted on the website . the construction impacts were some issues raised regarding noise created by contractors and some dirt being tracked out by construction vehicles and that type of matter. Those actual incidents were investigated by our senior project manager, Marco Oddi, and he spoke to the contractors and visited the sites and the matters were resolved. They were not attributable to the work that our contractor was doing at the time, but we haven't heard any further issues or concerns on those matters since that time.

And . there's a concern here that not enough care being taken to salvageable tree species. And just on that matter we do have the tree preservation protocol and have an arborists actually inventoring all the trees prior to any clearing and documenting and marking them for preservation - those that are salvageable material - and we have those plans documented for each of the areas that have been cleared to date. And that is our standard procedure, going on any contracts.

The next item regarding property damage, value and compensation. There have been concerns raised generally in regards to property values, and the way in which they may be impacted as a result of expressway construction. And to date we have consulted with both real estate realtors as well as our real estate department, and the information that we've been provided is that there is no clear causal relationship between the expressway construction and property values. And the information that we've been provided is that they have no clear indication if property values will increase or decrease as a result of the road and the related works going in that area. The concern that was raised in regards to property damage and compensation available - the contractors that were out working last year and this year. Before they go into to do their work, part of what they do is a pre-construction survey. And what they do is they go to the adjacent homes and ask the owners for entry to basically do a survey and inventory of the status quo prior to their activity in the area. So when claims are made, they can basically compare whether it's attributable to some of the work, or not so. That is being addressed in standard protocol. If there are claims to be made in the future, then there should be a mechanism in place that the risk department would be able to assess each of these on an individual basis.

With respect to noise impacts, the properties adjacent to the valley, we are arranging currently, and have notified. We sent out information letters to those owners along the valley and are arranging for noise wall meetings in the neighbourhoods, basically along the valley there that are impacted by noise. And possibly where noise attentuation is warranted, we will have discussions with all of those property owners. And those are being scheduled as we speak, and as people are responding for requests for information, they are also being addressed on an individual basis. . Fact sheets being more widely distributed as well as being available for people along the valley.

The Rennie Street landfill - we are continuing to work with the Rennie Street CLC [Community Liaison Committee] in terms of any concerns and working through the application that the City has made to the Ministry of the Environment for the amendment to the Cetificate of Approval.

The dead-ending of Mt. Albion Road. We are currently in the process. There was a concern that there may not be enough information out there that the general community is aware that Mt. Albion will be closed at the end of construction. We're just speaking with the roads and traffic department to see if there's any advance notification that we can attach at this point in time just to advise people that starting at a certain point of time the road will be deadended, so addressing that currently.

About the decision making process and facilitation is something that councillor Braden has brought up this morning as well. Just to have the end of the meeting today to have that matter around public input and questions at the implementation committee meetings. So that's something that is going to be discussed later.

And the last item there about alternative routes not under consideration. It was discussed at the last EIC meeting and it was determined at that point that it was contrary to the course and purpose of this committee..

McHattie : "The Rennie Street Landfill site, the amendment to the landfill CofA [Certificate of Approval]. I don't get the opportunity to attend the Rennie Street CLC meetings. I wish I had the time, but I don't. If you could give us an update on where that's at and the nature of - we see the concerns here by the residents - maybe just a quick summary of response on that too, would be beneficial." Murray: "I've been actually attending the meetings for some time. Just to give you a little bit of context. The CLC was formed to assist with the works that our waste division has undertaken, specifically the construction of a leachate collection system. And I provided at those early meetings, which lasted a few years, just some technical background information regarding Red Hill. What's happened at this point, is that these CLC meetings are now being chaired by ourselves because our project is continuing on and the leachate collection program has wound down effectively. In terms of what we're doing. A copy of the submission which was made to MOE regarding amendement to the CofA was provided to them. We are also, as with the previous work that the waste division has undertaken, we are supporting a consultant that is working for them to review that material and to ask questions, that we then answer obviously, regarding details that are contained in the amendment submission to MOE. So we're working through the process right now. The expectation is, I believe some time in April, there will be a public meeting hosted by the CLC regarding the works that will affect the Rennie Street landfill. It's not clear at this point what exactly the City role will be in that, except that we're going to support them in the way of locating a place to hold the meeting, and paying for it, and things of that nature. But we'll see whether or not they feel it's necessary to have staff there, or our consultants to answer any questions. I would hope that would happen. So we're continuing to work through whatever questions that remain with respect to the amendment with the CLC and the consultant. And we're looking forward to also having an opportunity to sit down with them and discuss end use of the Rennie Street Brampton Street area. As you know it's a public works yard in its current setting. And there had been a decision, I think, made some time ago about the yard maybe being used for another purpose which is what we want to focus in on. What would that purpose be? Whether it's an active or passive recreation facility remains to be seen. It's something we want to discuss with the neighbourhood. I know councillor Merulla in fact talked to me yesterday about that and certainly is very interested in that activity. So it's something that this project is going to pay for,and that is the creation of a plan for that site, which we would then take through the normal planning process here with the city. So in short, that's basically where we are at at this point in time."

McHattie: "What's the plan if the Ministry of the Environment decides the landfill CofA cannot be amended?" Murray : "As you would expect, we do stay in contact with the Ministry. We have been talking to them for some time. That doesn't seem to be the case, that the Ministry would refuse the amendment. Amendment was made to the original CofA and there's really nothing that we are proposing here that would represent a problem for them. In fact they've had this amendment in their hands for several months and we've raised these issues. If there's anything substantial that they think is missing or could cause us a problem, then obviously we'd want to know what that is. Our indication from them is that there isn't. So what they're hoping is that some of the specific issues that get raised or are being raised by the consultant and the CLC can be addressed to the extent that we can. But at some point we fully expect to get an approval from them."

McHattie: "Is there also a challenge through the Environmental Protection Act? I understand, and don't know the details, that if there's a change to the landfill site - in this case I understand that 70,000 cubic metres or so of landfill being removed - that may trigger part of the Environmental Protection Act. What's the status of that side of the MOE's involvement?" Murray: "This matter has been raised before. I believe you're talking about section 46 of the EPA, and we have provided information to the Ministry on this front. I'd be happy to circulate any of the letters that have gone back and forth between ourselves and the Ministry. I think the issue has to do with whether or not this is in fact a landfill that's been closed within the last 25 years. And our understanding from our consultants and certainly any discussions we've had with the Ministry is that there isn't an EPA matter here, but that we believed that at some point the CLC was going to bring forward information challenging that. This was something that's been discussed for several months, and for whatever reason they have chosen not to at this point in time. So we no reason to believe that there is an issue here specifically."

Braden asks Murray to proceed with the next agenda item which is Six Nations:

Murray: ". in meetings last year talked about relations with Six Nations. What I want to talk about here is where we are with respect to understandings with the Confederacy and the Elected Council. At our last meeting Paul Williams did attend and he made clear his position as a negotiator for the Confederacy why the agreements that are before or were before or still are before this council are important. And in terms of where we are with the understandings, there have been some issues that need to be resolved, in fact are being resolved right now between the two groups. And the issues deal with definitions of concepts. For example the term Haudenosaunee. What does it specifically mean, as it's referenced several times in the agreements. And this is a concern that was raised by the Elected Council negotiators or representatives. What is a Haudenosaunee contract mean? We've been working with the parties to make clear what these terms mean and we believe that we have come up with an answer that is quite clear that is acceptable to the people that we're talking with. I think the other thing to add here which is important too, is that the Elected Council has indicated to us in terms of the agreements, the principles that are upheld by the agreements, that they support those principles and that what we need to do is work through some of these other issues. Right now in terms of ,we're thinking ahead, obviously, and this is something I want to be able to communicate to council in the report that's coming forward, is about implementation. And so there are some specifics that are being discussed with the facilitator and the groups that we're dealing with, about implementation, making sure that everything we're doing is transparent and fair. I think that it's important to keep in mind that these agreements talk about a relationship that we want to forge between the two communities. And we want to make sure that at Six Nations it's very transparent to everyone what the opportunities mean. And I guess to that point, we understand that sometime next month, we believe with the support of and management of the Elected Council, there is going to be an information event which will give the community there an opportunity to better understand what the agreements speak to and answer any questions that people may have. So what the specific timing of that meeting is, I don't know. But the point to make at this point is that in terms of moving forward with the agreements which of course staff will be saying to council very clearly that we believe ratifying these agreements is important, that the two parties are working out implementation details. And these are discussions that have been taking place with the faciltiator that's been working on this project for some time."

McHattie: "At last meeting of this group the Expressway Implementation Committee, the clan mothers shared a letter expressing their opinion on the negotiations and the agreement, that it was - I can't quote them directly - that it was null and void or at least not something that they agree with. And in their traditional form of government they at least at one point were required to direct the chiefs, and if they didn't agree with what the chiefs were doing then they could recall particular chiefs and stop the discussions going on. With your discussions after the last meeting when they were here, has their been any update on the ramifications of the clan mothers letter, their position?"

Murray: "I believe this question was asked by Councillor Braden not so long ago. In any event there was a meeting a week ago Saturday of the Confederacy Chiefs and I understand that there were a number of individuals that were there that aren't in support of the project. And I had the chance to talk to Paul Williams the following Monday and the question that I asked Mr. Williams was in terms of the agreements: are they still supported by the Confederacy Chiefs and are we specifically moving ahead with ratification, and the answer to that was 'yes'. So my understanding is that we are still working with the parties that we were working with before and will continue to do so."

McHattie: "If for some reason, the negotiations fall apart and the agreements are not ratified by the Haudenosaunee or the Band Council, or the clan mothers have a larger role than we're aware of at the moment, how does that affect the Red Hill Expressway project?"

Murray: "You're asking me to speculate on something that I don't at this point believe is happening. The opportunity to raise this particular issue certainly came as I say a week ago Saturday and again the clear direction that we have is that these agreements, it's not a question of IF they're being ratified by the Confederacy Council. The fact is that they have been. And the question that's before the Elected council is whether or not they're prepared to support them. And my understanding is that the principles of these agreements as I pointed out are supported by the representatives of the Elected Councils. So on that basis we're moving ahead. I think it's important to maybe remind ourselves of something that Paul Williams did say at the meeting. And that is about the affairs that take place at Six Nations. And as with any political landscape, it's complex. And I think that what was said to us very clearly at that meeting, and has been said many times to staff over the last 24 months, is that out of respect for them, it's important for them to resolve their own issues internally. And so that's exactly what staff have been doing. They don't want to get involved in our politics. As they said they don't think they'd be very good at it. Nor should we be involved in theirs. And so we out of respect for them have not gotten involved in any kind of appreciable way. They know what our expectations are and that is when we move forward with these important agreements that they are supported, and we believe we are well on our way to getting that support."

McHattie: "Maybe if I can rephrase my question. I wasn't clear, I guess. If for some reason the decision is reversed at the Haudenosaunee level, and the Band Council that have not yet - they're perhaps interested in the principles - but haven't yet actually ratified this agreement. I haven't ever got a clear question as to whether they need to or not. I'll leave that aside for the moment. What I'm asking you is hypothetical, I agree, but from a risk management perspective, if for some reason the agreements fall through and there's a reversal of the position at SixNations. You don't think that's going to happen, I understand that. That's not my point. If that actually happens, where does that put us in the context of moving ahead on the expressway? I ask this question from a risk management perspective. We're starting to advertise these two tenders, worth approximately $45 million as I understand it, and we want to enter into contracts in May. If we do that, if we go ahead with our current path and something blows up at Six Nations - through no fault of our own, I'm not suggesting it's anything to do with us - where is the project? To me I'm not trying to meddle in their politics. I'm just asking a question, that if that happened - you don't think it's going to, that's fair enough - but if that happened, what does that do to our project?"

Murray: "That's a question that I'd be happy to ask the parties that I'm dealing with. If you want, as I think is indicated, the information that was given to you, if you want to take that question up directly with Paul Williams, certainly I would encourage it, rather than having an intermediate speculate on what that answer may be." McHattie: "I think I need to clarify. I think it's on our end, as the proponent of the project, if we don't get agreements with Six Nations, do we just say to heck with Six Nations and we go ahead with the projects anyways? That's one option I guess. But I'm just trying to understand what our position is. I'm not interested in Paul Williams' position, or Six Nations' position. If that was to happen, what do we do? We don't really care? We move ahead with the project, build the thing anyways? Or are we in any difficulty legally, or perhaps even morally, which stops the project? And then of course I'm concerned as I've expressed conerns around this table before, about these tenders that we're working on right now. The possibility that we're in for $45 million and we don't have a project, and yet we've got contractors that have bid on it, and we've got a difficult position legally. Please ask for clarification, Chris, if you don't understand what I'm saying."

Bruckler: "I think councillor McHattie has a very legitimate question, but I don't think that question is fair to pose to staff at this point in time because I that that staff are doing what's been asked of them to do as far as the process is concerned, in trying to have these agreements ratified from council's perspective. And the people that they're negotiating with are trying to take care of it from their end. So I don't think that's a question. I think that if and when that would be an eventuality, then I think it would have to come back to this table, and council would have to seriously take a look at it, what our next steps, what our next action would be. And I don't think we should be putting staff to try to make those kinds of determination and decisions on behalf of the larger corporation. In fairness to Chris, Mr. McHattie, I recognize where you are going with this, but I think it's a question to be asked of council, not necessarily of staff who are working through at council's direction."

Collins: ". if we're at a crossroad with that issue, that's something that comes back to council. Council would give direction in our majority to Chris and our negotiators and the team working on this project at that time. I think that to try to get a hypothetical what if as this stage is very difficult, because there is so many. Even the councillor pointed out, we could go in several different directions. So I agree with Phil that this is a decision for council, not for Chris or anyone else."

McHattie: "Just clarify then. Maybe I should rephrase it again. Let's take the fisheries act approval as an example. If we're still in negotiations with DFO, and they haven't given us a permit yet, but we're thinking they're gonna, and we go ahead with the project anyways, and for some reason they decide not to give it to us later on, I think we're in trouble. That's hypothetical because I think we have the permit, right Chris? But if that was the case, legally we'd be in a problem there because there's the Fisheries Act. There's a legislative process there. So is there any legislative aspects to the discussions with Six Nations, that if for some reason it doesn't work out as we would hope, we would be in a difficult position? Or is it just a moral thing, that I agree with Councillor Collins and Bruckler, that's a council decision and that's not something for you to worry about."

Murray: "I believe section 7 of the general agreement speaks to the whole ratification. And I may be quoting the wrong section but I can find it specifically and point out that these documents are not admissable in court. So is there a specific piece of federal or provincial legislation that's governing these agreements? I think that from having worked with Paul Williams and Brian Doolittle for some time now, they have a very specific view of federal and provincial government and related laws. So it was never governed, it was never developed under particular federal or provincial law. In fact, just the opposite. These documents really speak to something that we've been working on since 1997, and that is to find ways to mitigate the consequences of this project. And so what we've done is that we've looked at every aspect of the project that we can modify in some way to try and lessen its consequence on the broadly defined term environment, which includes as you know through environmental assessment, natural, socio-economic and cultural. We've been dealing with a cultural concern that's been raised for the last couple of years. What we have found is that through these agreements we're able to address a number of important cultural issues. So I see this as a logical step in a process that we've been undertaking for some time now. And what we've done is not driven by and federal or provincial legislation at all. It's been driven on the need for two communities to come to a reasonable answer to a complicated problem."

Braden: ". I actually went down to the Confederacy Chiefs meeting. I was interested in finding out for myself what the position of the Confederacy was. And if you go down there, it's a bit of a challenge. Ninety percent of it is not in my language, so that's problematic. But I had heard that there was a disagreement, and I wanted to know, so that I could in fact come back and report at least what I'd found out. I haven't got much to report other than try to explain how they do government which is very interesting. Because of my connections there, I'm not nearly so confident as Mr. Murray is in terms of thinking that things are still somewhat in favour. And I'm just sharing this. I'm not being political. I want to go there and find out. And I am looking for signatures or something that is a record of the position of the Confederacy people. . So I just share in that. If you hear from someone else that I was there. Absolutely was I there. Was I given a chance to speak or did I go down to speak? No I did not, and I did not get an opportunity."

Braden moves to last item on agenda which is hearing from the public. Murray: ". usually there was time in the meeting for anyone from the public who had questions, then we would entertain the questions and whoever was appropriate would answer them. So that's how it was done previously." Braden: "Does anyone want to give an opinion on that approach?"

Collins: "I'm not averse to hearing from people in the public in regards to questions that they may have in regards to implementation. And I think the process that Chris outlined worked fairly well in the last term of council. But I would ask that just as we do in our committees that people who attend these meetings have detailed questions that they'd like answered, the best way to do it, I think, would be to submit them to the committee and have them reported on at the next meeting, to give staff - unless they're very basic ones that can be answered at the time. That's not going to hurt anyone. But those that are of a technical nature or very detailed that may require even a written response. . give time for our staff to prepare for those."

Braden: "Technical or long questions would be submitted in writing for either written response or an oral response at the following meeting, if a simple answer couldn't be provided at the same time? Other ideas?" Collins: ".a five minute rule. We could be here for days on end if we have don't have some parameters put in place." Braden: "Shall we ask our staff to put down in writing some of those principles?" Bruckler: ". something they could include and bring back for the next meeting." Braden welcomes Tom Jackson who has just arrived. Asks if they want to do questions at this meeting. Pearson: no problem with asking the public for questions. Five people indicate they are interested in asking questions. Braden: "ask those that want to ask questions to try to make them as much as possible questions rather than comments" and asks for names to be given.

Glen Atwell: "I am a person with native ancestry. I live in the city of Hamilton. My question is: during the construction or possible construction phase of the project, will we natives have access to the areas where the construction is taking place in order to identify our gravesites? I would like to remind the council that front page news lately has been the desecration of gravestones in Toronto, and I would ask you to remember how natives identify their grave areas - with mounds. And we would like to protect our gravesites just the same. But in order to do that we have to identify what is a site and what is not, and the only way to really determine that with heavy equipment driving around is to be present during the phases of construction. And we need access to do that, and unfortunately with the court injunction in place, we're not able to go there. I have just made the purchase of some high-tech equipment, ground-penetrating radar, and I'm waiting for it to arrive. We have an agreement with some people in the United States who have some high-tech equipment. The same sorts that were used to identify lost villages in the desert from space. And they are willing to give us a hand to identify what we believe are possible sites using newer and more modern techniques of archaeology than what has been used to date. And we'd like to have the opportunity to have access to these sites in order to preserve our culture. Can I have an answer to that?"

Murray: "I don't know if Mr. Atwell has had a chance to actually review the archeological and burials agreement which I think speaks to obviously those two topics. And so this specific issue, as you know, has come up. There was concerns expressed a few months ago about mounds in the valley which we did investigate. I think it's worth noting that the archeological work that we've been undertaking since I believe the fall of 2002 and spring of 2003 has involved Six Nation monitoring. Meaning specifically that at our sites where we undertake archaeology there is a monitor present from Six Nations that reports back to them. This is something that we support, as well as an advisor for Six Nations, who happens to be Dr. Gary Warwick who teaches archaeology at a local university. And so we certainly have endorsed having Six Nations directly involved in our investigations. I would encourage Mr. Atwell to look at the agreement. We have, based on what has been identified to us, and we have not concluded that there are burials in the mounds that have been identified to us. Now this is something, I think, where we have crafted an agreement with Six Nations, that we work with those parties. If this is something that is reasonable and should be done then that should be taken up with the groups that we've been talking to. We'll certainly relay the point to them and we'll seek their advice on it." Braden : "Can I suggest that Glen introduce yourself to Chris. He can make available those agreements, right? And you can get them from the website. Whatever way is practical, that you can contact him. And if that's not satisfactory, if you can." Atwell: "I think the key point of what you said is those sites that have been identified to you. We did not identify all those sites to you. Although it was offered, we spent four hours and never walked more than half a mile. The length of the Red Hill Valley is six kilometres? We've walked three. So you are only aware of all of the sites. Some of the sites have never been excavated. There's no shovel marks, no indication that they've ever been looked at, the grass is still growing on them. So we need to look at a lot more sites than what we have presently looked at. And how do we do that?" Murray: "The archaeological investigations have been going on in Red Hill for two decades and undertaken by more than one firm. Work that we have been doing over the last half dozen years or so have identified settlement activities, certainly in Red Hill Valley. So we have taken a very deliberate, very thorough look but again I think our tendency is to be practical and cautious. So again I would encourage that the agreement be read and we will make a note of this and take it forward to the parties that we're speaking to and helping us move forward with the agreement. I think it's important to follow the process in place." Braden : "I'm encouraging the questioner to get the information that's on the website or share it with you, and if there is a problem with that I think you can come back to the committee or you can call. The emphasis here, if I'm chair, is that we intend to share information, so that the feeling is that what our views are on the project are immaterial, but that there is a readiness to share information. So that's the kind of commitment that I will try to work with you on.

Stewart Jackson: Raises concerns about effect of the blasting on the pipeline running through the valley that carries jet fuel. Also says that "when you built the wall at Albright, kids that live in Rosedale going to school, they are walking across that railroad bridge that's active and it's a very dangerous thing and numerous times CPR have fined them for crossing the bridge. . the area of that wall should be opened up to allow the kids to safely walk through to school without having to walk over a dangerous bridge or have to take a bus and go all the way downtown and get on the Bayfront and go all the way back to school. It could take them two hours to get to school." Braden notes there are two questions. Murray says owner of pipeline will be relocating the line in two locations and they had to get permission from the National Energy Board "and just the concern that you are raising here is obviously one that they would be concerned about so provisions have to be made so you don't have the kind of incident you're talking about where there is an explosion. The work that's occurring up at Mud Street with respect to Trans Northern Pipeline is that before we start blasting and moving anything around that we relocate that line so that we can undertake the word safely. So again, I think your concern is understood and has been thought about and built into our construction program. With respect to the second point, I'm not clear on that exactly." Braden refers to S. Jackson who says he's seen kids walking across the railway bridge on their way to school at Albright. Notes that its an active railline and kids could be killed by a train. "And they are saying that you put the wall at Albright. We can't get to school. We live in Rosedale." Murray: "I think I can appreciate your concern. They would be walking across, I expect, the TH&B line [now CPR], which of course they shouldn't be. But whereas there's construction taking place at the Greenhill location, that certainly limits your ability to access the school if you wanted to go through that construction site, which is going to be made more difficult when the balance of the project is under construction, which for health and safety reasons we're not going to be allowing people to roam around the construction area, and it will be delineated. (sighs) I don't know what the simple answer to your question is. I don't know if I have one. Technically." S. Jackson : "A walk bridge over the construction down the other side" Murray: "I can tell you that hasn't been part of our plans. We would expect that, and it may be unreasonable to expect kids to follow along the designated pathways, but we have no provision for that. And I think we share the same concern about not wanting anyone to walk across a railway right of way because of the very reasons that you're pointing out. So if there's an easy answer to this, I'd be interested, but I don't think there is." Braden's comments inaudible.

Wilamina McGrimmond: Asks about air pollution from the expressway and its effect on the school children. She works in the school system as a cleaner "Why do we have to endanger all other students, their lives, just because everybody wants roads. I work beside a main roadway, and my staff this week, because the teachers have been opening the windows, have been complaining about how dirty the windowsills are already, how black they are from the vehicles. Why do we have to endanger more children's lives when it's our duty to look after our children and not kill our future children." Murray starts to answer, and is interrupted by Collins: "I think we would need specific, I mean I understand the speaker's points, but I don't know if we're debating the merits of the project or we're debating the implementation of the project. I think we need to make that clear. If Chris has something to offer in response, I think that's great, but in regards to debating whether this project happens, it is not what we're here for today. So I just want to make that clear." Braden comments inaudible. Murray: "My only point is that it's an issue that this city took very seriously and in fact we had commissioned a study first to model what the air emissions of the project would be and secondly to look at the health effects of those emissions. So we spent a considerable amount of effort, in fact if you look at road projects in Ontario I believe we are one of the first to produce the health effects study for a road project that is being built. I guess my point is, Wilamina, is that that the report is certainly available in all of our resources centres and libraries and on our website. And we do have a fact sheet that does speak to the health effects related to the road, so the information is there. I don't know if we necessarily follow, or would conclude that the impact quite the same way that you would. But I think nonetheless the evidence is there. The information is in the public domain and I would encourage you to look at it and ask whatever questions that you have." McGrimmond says she has looked at and she sees the effects of pollution on children everyday. "There's three schools in that area, and me as a mother, me as a native woman, it is our job to look after our children." Notes expected end of Drive Clean program. Braden intervenes and says Murray will provide info. She responds. Braden explains the question needs to be directed to the politicians not the staff. Councillor Mitchell arrives from Development Charges committee and Braden asks that minutes be circulated to members of committee who have participated in the EIC meeting.

Wayne Morrisal (government name): "Chris spoke earlier on about having a conversation with Paul Williams, and Paul Williams gave him the okay to go ahead with the destruction of Red Hill Valley, that the chiefs were still in agreement and the council of Six Nations Confederacy. Is there any kind of documentation that Chris has to confirm that the okay has been given to you to continue with the destruction of Red Hill Valley." Murray: "Not quite in those words, Wayne, but certainly we have written correspondence from Paul Williams indicating that the Confederacy Chiefs have ratified the agreements. We have that from Paul." Morrisol : "Can these documents be made available for the public with the names of the Confederacy Chiefs on the agreement?" Murray: "I'll raise this with Paul, seeing if he doesn't have any objection with me providing that document, making that document public. It doesn't specifically identify the chiefs. The letter that I have from him, which was faxed to me, indicates that the chiefs did ratify the agreement and that it's identifed as a letter being sent to me by Paul Williams. So we can make that known. I'll just make sure that he's aware of it." Morrisol: "I wouldn't want to have a morality argument here, but shouldn't there be any kind of document with all the signatures of the chiefs if such an agreement on the Red Hill Valley with that magnitude? Should there not be a contract or anything with the signatures of all the chiefs on such a paper?" Murray: "Section 7 of the general agreement speaks to the whole ratification process and that the steps in the ratification process begin with the Confederacy and the City of Hamilton council ratifying the agreements which would then be followed by a signing ceremony. That's what specifically is laid out in the agreement. That's the expectation that we have will transpire. In terms of who specifically will sign at that ceremony, I'm not aware of that at this point in time, but certainly that's the process that's laid out in that agreement."

Braden: "Chris, does ratification mean, in this context, do you believe any kind of signing? Do you believe ratification as you just talked about now will involve the signing of a chief or some chiefs, or do you think ratification is a different process than you and I are used to?" Murray: "Again I would encourage reading specifically section 7, but the understanding is that once the parties have had a chance to review the meaning of the documents and have come to basically one mind that they are worth pursing, then the next step to move them forward to implementation would be that there would in fact be a signing ceremony. So it's seen in my mind, and I believe as well in Paul's, kinda of a two step process. So that's what specifically laid out in section 7 of the general agreement."

Don McLean: Asks for clairification on earlier discussion "about the issue of potential damage to people's foundations in buildings and so on. Can you tell me, I'm just not clear on this, who does the inspection and who is responsible if something goes wrong? Is this the city or is this the contractor?" Murray: "I think the specifics of this I may have to refer to Jen or someone with risk assessment. . My understanding, Don, is that first of all it relates to areas where there's a belief that there is a potential for damage. In other words if there's areas where blasting is taking place, that within a certain distance of that area an inspection would be undertaken. Now what party does that, and what the financial ramifications should anything actually occur, is something I don't want to speculate on. I want to give you specific answers, so unless Jen has better information than me on that, I can't answer it in full." DiDomenico: "The way the process works is that the contractor does the pre-construction survey on behalf as agent in that area, and any claims subsequent were filed with the risk management department of the city itself. And I can check on the actual procedure and get that information back to you in terms of who handles it at that point, but it is risk management who does any subsequent inquires regarding property damage claims as a result of city work out there." McLean: "Perhaps if you can give me a little bit more on that. I'm a little concerned of the sort of crossover of the contractor's role and the City's liability. If the contractor is the one that's doing the inspection, then it would seem to me that it is the contractor is the one who should be taking the liabiltiy. If the city's taking the liability, then I'm surprised the city isn't doing the inspection so that we know there's some accuracy. I'm not sure what the effect for the contractor. So if the contractor does the initial review and then there's a problem, does that come down on the contractor in any way or is that entirely on the city? Does the city, for example, go back on the contractor and say ' you messed up here'? This is an issue that I believe is already there, because I've already been informed by one family that they have foundation problems that have arisen as a result, not of any blasting because no blasting has taken place that I'm aware of, but of the movement of heavy equipment." DiDomenico: "Instead of speculating, I'd like to get the details and provide you with the details of that matter, so we have the right information from the start."

McLean: "That's fine. The second question is quite different. And that's with regards to the agreements that have been discussed here already and Mr. Murray made comments about. I understand, it's been presented that these agreements are not legal agreements. And I'm wondering if the intent of the City is to take some step once it has agreements, if in fact it does succeed in getting these agreements, to give them some legal form in the sense of the responsibility of the City? If we've got an agreement that doesn't have a . we're working in a grey area here, an area that I'm not very familiar with how we'd do these things, and I understand that there may be a reason for them not to be legal agreements. But if at the end of the day agreements are made, is it the City's intention to pass those agreements as things which they then take responsibilty for and which a citizen, or others, can hold the city accountable for living up to its commitments under those agreements?" Murray: "Clearly I don't think we would enter into a series of agreements without believing that we're going to live up to them, especially in light of this context. And we took the whole process quite seriously, and the material that's contained in each agreement we take seriously. Now, your point though I think, Don, is that's fine to say but the proof is always in the action, how you follow up in that action. If I'm appearing cautious here, it's only that we're dealing with a legal matter which I don't have someone here to advise me as to whether or not, because as you know there's pending court case that I'm not in a position to speak too much on. So if I'm sounding cautious, I am being cautious because I don't have guidance here. All I can say is that in the event that council ratifies these agreements and we move forward and have them signed and we implmenet them, certainly the parties that were at the table negotiating believe that and will work to see that they do get implemented. These are public documents, clearly, and it wouldn't be that hard to determine if we are living up to the spirit of them. So I don't know, Don, if that answers your question. But that certainly our motivation from the beginning was to craft something that was respectful of the two communities interests and to fulfill those interests once it gets signed and implemented."

McLean: "Just to clarify that, I'm not raising issues about motivation here as such, but I am concerned about how these things work in the long haul. The experience of the community, and the culture and government structure that I live in is that we make decisions and then those decisions become binding in some way and I understand that may not be the way in which our brothers in the aboriginal community, and operate in a different way and that's not unreasonable. I'm just concerned about our end of the deal and whether or not the intention is to take the steps that are necessary to make the muncipality as a corporation legally responsible to uphold its end of the bargain, even though this isn't a legal agreement with somebody else. And I'm concerned also from the angle that part of the agreements appear to countenance and include the non-aboriginal community in some roles within this, to have some rights within these agreements, and so on. So I'd like to know if that's the intention, in going through the process, understanding that you may not want to, for whatever reason, make a legal agreement with the Confederacy or the Band Council or whatever, but at the end of the day wanting some assurance that, as you say, the proof is in the pudding, and that there is some way that somebody at the end of the day can say, yes you did go through with the agreements or now you didn't and I can take some action to challenge that." Murray: "If I can understand exactly what you're saying, Don, it's a question I guess in some respects of auditing the agreements to see whether or not they are in fact being fulfilled, not simply just by the City of Hamilton, but also by the Six Nations community themselves and what our shared responsibilities are. And again I'm cautioned by our facilitator and the discussions that we've been having with the elected council representatives as well as the Confederacy representatives is that. I can go as far as to say that this is something that we are talking about, that I want to bring forward to council, so that it's clear that when we do move forward with the agreements, and we do want to implement them, we are looking very carefully to ensure that everything is being done as it was intended and the whole process, the opportunities that do accrue from these agreements, are open and transparent, not only here, but also at Six Nations. So this is a subject that we are talking about and we do want resolved."

Collins: "Just on Don's first part in regards to the property inspections, I had specifically asked last term of council for this committee to be formed to deal with those very issues that Don raised in regards to some of the areas where we might run into some conflict. And I know, having been here when Councillor Jackson and some of the mountain aldermen were thorugh the construction of the Linc, that we had run into some issues where it might have fell into a grey area, where people were looking for someone to champion their cause and if you're dealing with a contractor, we know just from dealing with some of the regular roads programs that you deal with, that often times you're left banging your head against the wall. So I'm hopeful that if we do run into instances that have been highlighted, the one in particular that Don raised, that this committee here will be the sort of arbiter of where we go with that, despite the fact that the contractor has obligations. I don't think that we should be abrogating any of ours, if in fact. This is our project, so I think the buck stops here. And just to let know, this committee was purposely put in place three years ago for those very reasons."

Braden allows one more citizen comment. Gives his name as Bob: "I won't give my name or my address . I intend to be respectful of the work that council does, and that the staff do, so it's not intended to annoy you in any way. It's a precautionary measure for myself. Jennifer, I believe you mentioned trees that are salvageable, or being stewarded as best we can. I would like to raise an issue with that. From being down there I've seen enormous piles of trees, mature hardwood trees that have been mulched, and I would just like the staff if perhaps any effort was made to log them sustainable and harvest that resource. I know there's been a lot of talk today about the budget and the difficulties the city's been having, so that I wanted to be sure that that resource was well managed. I also note that Chris said we intend to live up to the agreement we've made with the Six Nations, and in that agreement I believe there's mention of wood for lacrosse sticks. I would like to know what wood they are talking about and if any of that wood is expected to be left." Murray: "There was a preservation plan established and in fact part of the material that has been left, root wads for example will be used as part of the natural channel design. Rather than using concrete and gabions and things that are heavily engineered, we will utilize some of the natural material in the creek restoration work that we're going to do. And so those trees have been identified. I think some of them are the ones you'll see that the trunks exist a few feet off the ground. They've been specifically identified for their root potential. We enter into a contract with a party that is asked to undertake clearing as such. When they quote us that value for the contract, they do include in that the salvageable value of the material, which they are able to utilize. In the case of a lot of the wood material, there was very little salvage value. In fact, that's why you see as much chipping going on as there is. Certainly some of the more mature hardwoods are factored into the price that we get. In terms of lacrosse sticks, I think the preferred material is hickory, and mature hickory, and when we talked to Six Nations about this, there was actually hickory was of interest and snowsnakes which is something else that they're interested which is basically made I understand from ironwood, or what we might call hemlock. We have provided them with some hemlock. The hickory however, wasn't, I don't think there was, What hickory there was they would prefer it be cut down in February because I think there's some benefit from a lacrosse-making perspective. What material that we did have, they did look at, and they concluded that it wouldn't be very useful. So there is the portion of the wooded area in the Barton Street would likely not be cleared until after September, which is well before February. I don't believe there is any hickory left there, per se. But certainly we did have representatives from Six Nations went down and looked to see if there was anything there that could be salvaged for them, and the contractors would provide them. And so, we did go through that and what we also tried to do, to the extent that you can when you're building a sizeable project in a valley like this, is try to eliminate, or not eliminate but minimize the swath that does take place. As I think Jennifer pointed out and we'll be happy to provide this committee shortly with, hopefully, is an accurate count of the number of trees that in fact have been taken down. And these are trees that are 5cm in diameter and larger, as well as the species that have been taken as well of the project. I don't have an accurate count at this point in time, but my understanding is that it's less than what was anticipated. ."

Pearson: "Moved for adjournment, and leave it up to staff to advise us when the next meeting is."

Meeting adjourned approximately 3:50 pm.