Standing Committee on Policy and Strategic Priorities — February 25, 2026 — Transcript
← Standing Committee on Policy and Strategic Priorities February 25, 2026
Okay, good morning everyone and welcome to standing committee on policy and strategic priorities for Wednesday February 25th 2026. This meeting is being held in person and by electronic means Council members and the public may participate by either method any members joining electronically are reminded to enable video to confirm quorum the meeting is being live streamed on the city's website and YouTube and the meeting progress will be updated regularly and on X at Van City Clerk. Councillor Meisner has to step away for a short period at the beginning of the meeting. So as vice chair, I am sitting in and I at the at the will of council, if that's okay, if there are no objections to me chairing the meeting, then we will be able to continue. Okay, so moving on in case of emergency requiring evacuation, there are two exits located, the glass doors and to the left. If glass doors are blocked, please use one of the four additional exits within the chamber. Do not use the elevator, use the stairs instead. If you require assistance, remain where you are and security will guide you to a safe location. A defibrillator is available at the end of the hallway outside the council chamber. We acknowledge that we are on the unseeded homelands of the Musqueam, Squamish, and Swayla tooth people. And we thank them for having cared for this land and I look forward to working with them in partnership as we continue to build this great city together. Also recognize the immense contributions of the city of Vancouver's team members who work hard every day to help make our city an incredible place to live, work, and play. Clerk, may we have the roll call.
Councillor Classen in the chair, Mayor Sim.
Present. Councillor Dominado.
not here. Oh, sorry. She'll be on a leave of absence for civic business from 1230 p.m. to 630 p.m. President?
Councillor Bly. President? Counselor Frye. Counselor Montague. Not here. Councillor Meisner.
Present.
Councillor Joel.
Present.
Councilor Malone. Councilor Orr. You have quorum, Chair Classen.
Thanks. Thanks very much. Today we recognize and celebrate International Women's Day. On March 8th, we honor the leadership, creativity, resilience, and compassion shown every day by women and girls across our city. From indigenous matriarchs and knowledgekeepers to entrepreneurs, educators, artists, caregivers, advocates and young leaders, women help shape Vancouver into the inclusive and vibrant city. We are proud to call home. This occasion is also an important reminder that work of advancing gender equity continues year-round. The city of Vancouver reaffirms its commitment to creating a city where all women can live with safety, opportunity, and dignity. International Women's Day is not only to celebrate achievements, but to strengthen our resolve to build a more just inequitable Vancouver for everyone. Following the reading of the proclamation, Alita Ogema Thomas and Ellie Lawson, co-chairs of the Women's Advisory Committee, will offer remarks. So I'm going to invite our council members to join us at the podium to read the proclamation. Okay, there we go. Okay, so we have a proclamation today for International Women's Day. So we'll start down at the end of the line.
here with Councillor Maloney. Proclamation for International Women's Day. Whereas International Women's Day is a global celebration recognizing social, economic, cultural and political achievements of women worldwide. It is a time to reflect on progress made to call for change and to honor acts of courage and determination by ordinary women who have played an extraordinary role in the city, in the history of their cities, countries and communities.
And whereas international, Women's Day is celebrated worldwide by those who champion gender equity and strive to improve the lives of cis and trans women and girls throughout through cultural, legal, economic, and social progress. And whereas colonization, the racialized violence, and are strictly connected to the compound gender inequities, this proportionally experienced by indigenous women, black women, and women of color. And whereas, people have marginalized. genders experience many intersecting forms of oppression that impact their ability to thrive and to access safety, employment, justice, health care, housing, education, and full realization of their reproductive rights. And whereas International Women's Day is a time to honor support and celebrate the progress made toward gender equity while reaffirming our collective commitment to driving continued change. And whereas the theme for International Women's Day, 26, give to gain, encourages a mindset of generosity and collaboration, emphasizing the power of reciprocity and unified support. When individuals, organizations, and communities give generously through time, resources, advocacy, gender equity, focused fundraising, opportunities expand, barriers are reduced, and meaningful support for women and girls is strengthened. And whereas the city of Vancouver is actively implicated. implementing its 10-year women's equity strategy approved in 2018 to break down barriers faced by women, girls, two-spirit, trans, non-binary, and gender diverse people in the city of Vancouver. This strategy includes multiple or multi-year initiatives across safe and affordable housing, employment equity, gender safety, and access to affordable childcare, designed to create equitable opportunities for those communities to fully participate in Vancouver's political, economic, cultural and social life.
Now, therefore, I can assume the mayor of the city of Vancouver on behalf of all of our elected officials and everyone who chooses to work at the city of Vancouver throughout all of our departments every single day. Do you hereby proclaim very happily March the 8th, 2020 as the 115th international women's date
in the city of Vancouver.
Awesome. Thank you, Mayor Sim and council. I'm speaking today. My name is Lydia Liguma Thomas. speaking you today in my capacity as one of the co-chairs of the Women's Advisory Committee alongside my fellow co-chair, Ellie Lawson. We're grateful to be invited here this morning. International Women's Day is a single day on the calendar every year, but lasting and systemic change is needed. Celebrations and proclamations are welcomed and appreciated, but a recognition of the disproportionate harms and barriers faced by women, girls, and gender diverse individuals must fuel lasting change in policy, planning, and funding for all days of the year and for years to come. The ultimate goal of International Women's Day, after all, is a world and a city where we have equity, dignity, and equality for all. We are still a long way from that goal. The Women's Advisory Committee affirms the stated commitment to advancing the women's equity strategy, and we recognize there is still work to be done, to make Vancouver a city where all women can thrive in safety and equity. funding for all the pillars of the women's equity strategy, including housing, employment, gender safety, affordable child care, and intersectionality must be and remain priorities for this council and any iteration of the city of Vancouver City Council to come. We specifically celebrate and reaffirm our support for this council's unanimous support for the development of a Vancouver-specific gender-based violence prevention strategy and the formation of a formation of a gender-based violence prevention task force. This work must move forward with urgency and dedication. We would also specifically and wholeheartedly state our continued support for $10 a day, universal and publicly funded child care spaces in the city of Vancouver and ask counselors to vote to support the motion before you later today in this regard. Furthermore, recognizing the specific and disproportional needs of supportive housing for women and gender diverse individuals, many seeking safety from instances of harm. So we ask you to vote in support of lifting the ban on supportive housing today. All women deserve a safe, supportive, and affordable place to live in the city of Vancouver. Additionally, while the Women's Advisory Committee is proud to contribute to advancing gender equity in Vancouver in our capacity as a citizen advisory committee, we would like to uplift and give honor to many frontline, community-based, and community-serving organizations in this city who continue to contribute to women's health and success, such as the battered women support services, the downtown east side women's women center, women transforming cities, the Vancouver Council of Women, with Vancouver Women's Health Collective, the Pacific Association of First Nation Women, Dress for Success Vancouver, Rise Women's Legal Center, the YWCA of Vancouver, Mothers Matter Canada. These are just a few of many phenomenal community organizations in this city, and we honor their ongoing contributions. We would also like to take time to recognize and honor the brilliant and dedicated Vancouver City staff, specifically in ACCS, working to protect and advance the rights of women, girls, and gender diverse individuals across portfolios related to sex worker safety, housing, homelessness services, gender safety, intimate partner violence, child care and the Equity Roundtable. These are some of the most crucial and most valued roles in the city as an organization. And we uplift and celebrate them every day for their ongoing work and expertise. Lastly, we want to continue to recognize the lives lost to gender-based violence and intimate partner violence in the city of Vancouver and honor the resilience of survivors. Victims and survivors diverve more than empty words. And we continue to call them, on this council to declare gender-based violence and epidemic and a public health and public safety emergency and to respond with conviction, urgency, and proactive care for all women and girls in Vancouver. Thank you. Okay, thanks very much, everyone. A great way to start the day.
The plan for today is to break at noon for lunch, return at 1 p.m. to continue to deal with the remainder of the agenda. If needed, we will recess at 5 p.m. for a dinner break and reconvene at 6 p.m. to complete the agenda. The committee will now consider matters adopted on consent. We have one item on the consent agenda for the committee's consideration. The committee may adopt the recommendations for a report one on consent. Does any member want to hold report one for debate and questions to team members? Seeing no one. Before we consider the consent agenda, if anyone believes they have a conflict of interest, now is the time to declare it. Does anyone have a conflict to disclose. Okay, so we have report one. Contract award for provision of city fleet electric vehicle charging infrastructure for consent approval. Was somebody like to move adoption? Councillor Domenado and seconded by. Councillor Joe, thanks very much. Okay, all those in favor say yay. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Okay, the following has been approved on consent. contract award for the provision of city fleet electric vehicle charging infrastructure. Okay. That completes the report one. Okay. We will now move on to council member motions. The first item is motion one, ice out of the beautiful game and Vancouver's World Cup was co-submitted by Councillor Frye and Councillor Orr and is to be moved and introduced by Councillor Frye.
Thanks, Chair. So first half, I'd like to acknowledge, actually acknowledge the U.S. Council General is here this morning. I also want to acknowledge the recent statement from the mayor, stating quite clearly, I think, and succinctly that ice enforcement would not be welcome here. And I think just to address sort of some of the speculation around this that, in fact, there has been no definitive asked to deploy ice enforcement in the of Vancouver for the FIFA World Cup games. Of course, that's not really the point. The point here is to be preemptive because what we do know is that in the Italian Winter Olympics, the relatively sudden announcement that ICE enforcement would be present for those games did result in significant protests and disruption. And fundamentally, as the city of Vancouver will be responsible for security around the FIFA World Cup games in just a matter of months, it felt prudent and proactive to issue a very compelling and succinct statement that would suggest ICE enforcement would not be welcome in the city of Vancouver and that we affirm our commitments to the values that are put out in the World Cup, including respect for play sportsmanship and global unity. And I do want to acknowledge the mayor's statement last week that further articulated support for access without fear. regardless of migrant status in the city of Vancouver, all will be welcome here for the games and ongoing as a testament to our values as a city. I won't get into the further commentary on ICE operations as we've understood them in the United States and some of the controversies surrounding it because I think most are well-versed and, of course, it's articulated in the motion. But thank you for your consideration. And of course, there is enactments within this motion that have not been addressed by the mayor's letter. So I think that. in case anybody's wondering, this motion is still pertinent and on the floor. Thank you.
Okay, thanks very much. And Councilor Orr will second the motion. So if we have no further... Chair, I would like to call a point of order.
Just a moment. Counsel, under section... Put you on the queue here.
Thank you.
Under section 8.7A and 8.7F. The premise of the motion is based on what I would consider misleading information. It states that there has yet to be any reported deployment in Vancouver for FIFA-related security purposes, but then ask counsel to request a rejection of additional deployment of U.S. law enforcement agency. The lead police agency responsible for FIFA security is referred to in the motion, and they actually provided a statement that went to counsel and referred to the motion as amounting to fearmongering. U.S. agencies have zero jurisdiction, zero authority to conduct law enforcement in Canada. The premise of the motion that U.S. enforcement will show up and be deployed is fundamentally incorrect and inaccurate. The staff response to the motion was quite clear. The agencies that compromise the ISSU is headed by the VPD and 18 other agencies. U.S. immigration and customs enforcement is not one of those agencies. Council also received a memo that I mentioned from the Vancouver Police laid out the FIFA framework. The BC Police Act around external police agencies needing permissions and agreements stated that U.S. Immigrations and Customs Informant is not being deployed. They have not been invited. There has been no request made and no permission granted. The U.S. consulate, as well as the BCRCMP, have confirmed that ICE is not part of the FIFO operations. And I would like the chair to consider the statement from, of course, the mayor that Councilor Fry mentioned. Information counsel received from the VPD, the U.S. Consulate, the BCRCMP and staff and rule under Section 8.7 of the procedure by-law that this motion is incorrect and therefore out of order. We move on with the rest of our agenda. Okay. One moment. So I'm going to ask for a recess. You're going to take a five-minute recess to try and discuss this with staff. So I'm here to respond to Ms. Monsor-Montagu's point that this motion is to be ruled
out of order based upon 8.7F of the procedure bylaw, which states that the chair may refuse to open a motion for debate if the chair decides the motion is out of order because it has a dilatory, incorrect, frivolous nature. And in this case, I will be ruling that this motion is out of order based on the fact. The fact that it is incorrect. In the resolution, it supposes that there will be deployment. And it asks that we also contact senior levels of government regarding any additional deployment. What has been made clear from correspondence that council has received in recent days is that there will not be any presence of those entities within the city regarding FIFA or otherwise. So with that, I am going to rule this motion out of order. And just one moment. The item will not be considered in this meeting. So one moment. Councillor Fry, I'm just going to turn your microphone on.
Sure. Thank you. Yeah. So I am going to challenge the chair on this ruling. The language was very carefully considered, not the deployment of ICE, but any deployment of ICE. I'm going to just reiterate the decision to deploy ICE agents to the Italian Winter Olympics was made by DHS, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on January 14th, 2026. And that memo was issued as a matter of public record. The Olympics started three weeks later on February 6th. So the fact of the matter is, is that despite any assurances from local policing authorities or otherwise, there is the potential that there may yet be a request from the Department of Homeland Security. We don't know. We certainly, I don't have a crystal ball, which is why preemptively, suggesting that any deployment, not the deployment, very specific wording, any deployment. It is contemplating a possible future or not. And that is why I think the chair has erred in his ruling. So I would like to challenge the chair on this. I think the ruling is incorrect.
Okay. Thank you, Councillor. Is there a seconder for the challenge? Is there any debate on the motion to appeal the chair? All right. We will now vote for the appeal of the ruling of the chair, as stated. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Councillor, one moment. Councillor Orr?
Yeah, thanks. Just, yeah, going over the wording here in the procedure bylaw. Thanks to Councillor Montague for sending that over. And I do think that the language here is very important. As Councillor Fry mentioned, any additional deployment is very different. And Chair, with due respect, you said that there will be additional deployment. The motion does not say that there will be additional deployment. It just says if in the instance there is any additional deployment. So that's where you're incorrect. It does not say that there will be additional deployment, just that if there is, we request to preempt that by asking the federal government to do the right thing. And that's good governance. Thank you. Thanks very much.
Councillor Montague. Yeah, I'll just say that. I think actually, Councillor Fry and Councillor Orr
are contradicting themselves. Councillor Orr just said that the wording talks about any deployment. But it clearly says additional deployment. And we have assurances from the U.S. consulate that there is no deployment. So I think the chair, your ruling is correct. And I would hope that council supports that ruling.
Thank you. Yeah, I would like to support the overturning of the chair's decision. I would like to be able to give the many public speakers who feel strongly about this the opportunity to express their views. I think there's a lot of fear that a last minute decision might be made and I think it's worth giving the many residents of Vancouver who would like to express their strong opposition to any involvement of ICE in FIFA, their opportunity to have their say today.
Yeah, I'd just say that in response to Councillor Maloney, any fear that may be out there is created by this motion.
Thank you. Councillor Orr? Yeah, I would like to note that the chair is entitled to offer a version of the motion
that would be in order, not required to, but entitled, at least in Robert's Rules of Order. So if the word additional is the problem, I would move to submit a strike of that particular word. Thank you. Councillor Dominato.
Thank you, Chair. I have a point of parliamentary procedure through you to the clerks. If they could clarify, in terms of — I understand that. the ruling of the chair has been challenged. And if the clerks could address how voting takes place in terms of a challenge of the chair and upholding the chair versus not upholding the chair, could you just speak to that? Because in the past, my experience in council, that has been a bit confusing. So could they speak to that?
Yes. Two-thirds of those present must vote in favour of the appeal for it to pass. And two-thirds present with 11 here is eight votes in favour. The appeal to pass.
Yes, for the challenge to pass.
Then the ruling of the chair would be upheld. Two-thirds of those council members present must vote in favour of the challenge for the challenge to pass. If less than two-thirds vote in favour, then the chair's ruling would stand.
Yeah, I just want to challenge Councillor Montague's statement that any fear of ICE being in Vancouver is the result of this motion. I think that's wildly untrue and that Vancouverites have a well-founded fear of disruption of FIFA as a result of the events involving ICE broadly over a very long period and in relation to the Winter Olympics. And I think that is what has stoked fear about ICE involving themselves in FIFA and not this motion, which is simply responding to existing fear. Thank you.
Yeah, I just want to address the comments where I think Councillor Montague is hung up on the word additional. And just to reference, and I'm going to work off the assumption that maybe everybody hasn't read the entirety of this motion, and whereas clause number six, which references the current capacity of ICE presence in the city of Vancouver, who operate out of the consulate general, and the intention of additional was to not necessarily reflect the word trying to get rid of the established operational side of ICE that does immigration control currently at the U.S. Consulate General Office on Pender Street. Rather, this is any additional. That is the point of this motion. It is an additional enforcement consideration, not the current administrative function of ICE in the city of Vancouver. That is why additional. So if that is the substance to call this out of order, then indeed, this ruling is incorrect and frivolous.
Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to reflect in the context of the motion that was brought forward and appreciating where it's coming from because I think many of us as Canadians have been in much shock as to what has been taking place south of the border. And I appreciate concerns. I think that the challenge with the motion is it has been. it has contributed to some misinformation in the public realm. And I have heard this directly from residents who have spoken to me. And then when they've seen the facts laid out in terms of the information from VPD and from FIFA and others, that has been, I think, welcomed because I think it has created a bit of, and again, not, I don't think necessarily intentionally, but I do think some individuals I've spoken with were very confused. by the role of ICE in the city within the embassy. And so I just want to, I'm not going to make any comments right now on the challenge of the chair, but I just want to say there are some legitimate concerns about confusion that this motion has generated. And I think that anything passed by this council needs to be accurate and state the facts and reflect what we have heard from the different authorities, as was stated by Councillor, Oh, geez. Montague. Thank you. It's been a day. It's been a day. But I think that that is, anything that we pass here has to represent what is reality and what is factual.
Chair, I'm sorry to interrupt Councillor Dominato, but I have a point of procedure. And it seems that council is getting into substantive debate. And I think that we just have to speak to whether or not we're upholding the ruling of the chair or not. And then I think these comments are important ones, but should be part of the dialogue, if the motion proceeds or not.
Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Dominato, you've finished. Mayor Sim. Great. Thank you. Along those lines, I do want to preface my comments with super proud Canadian, our way of life, the freedoms we enjoy, and the fact that we have diversity, diversity is celebrated. I'm living proof of it. My family's living proof. FIFA, and this is the place that we called home and it's incredibly safe. I'll also agree with Councillor Dominato's comments. Like, we have to be very clear. Now, as a matter of process, you know, I think we do have to separate these two issues. There's process and then there's, you know, what happens out in the media and what have you. And I hope that we do not co-opt a process for political gains, confusion and what have you. And for that reason, I do believe that this motion is out of order and I will be voting in opposition to the challenge. Thanks, Mayor. Councillor Kirby-Yung. Okay. So with that, no other speakers, we will now vote on the appeal. And of course, the ruling was that the motion would not move forward based on procedure bylaw 8.7F. So we will now call the vote. It was, it's actually, to my understanding, Leslie, correct me, this is a vote on the challenge. Or is it a vote to uphold the decision?
It's a vote on the challenge. This would be a vote on the challenge.
So if you support the chair, then it's, I'm getting confused now myself. If we support the chair, we vote opposed, correct?
In support would be supporting the challenge; in opposition would not be supporting it.
Yes. A vote in opposition upholds the chair's ruling.
Right. Okay. Thank you. Right. With that now, we will go to the voting queue, Councillor Kirby-Yung. Okay. So, Leslie, you can tell me when the threshold is met.
Clerk. has stated that the vote did not meet the two-thirds threshold to allow the challenge to be overturned. Or the, I'm sorry, to allow the challenge to pass. Can you just clarify it was missed by one vote? Correct. With 11 members here, it would have needed eight votes. And it got seven votes.
Correct. Thank you. Okay. Right. So the ruling bend stance. So we now move on to motion number two. Okay. So motion number two is a strengthening public safety infrastructure and it is being moved and introduced by Councilor Monagyu. And before we begin this agenda item, if anyone believes they have a conflict of interest, now is the time to declare it. Does anyone have a conflict of interest to disclose? All right. Councillor Monaghan, Thank you. I'm sorry going to put you in the queue here and advance you. You have two minutes to introduce your moment.
Thanks, Chair. The motion is asking council to provide funding for two items from the generalization reserve. First is VPD's District 5. And this is an operational decision by the VPD to have a focused police enforcement in and around the downtown east side. And it builds off the success of task force barrage, which demonstrated some very positive and visible, the positive impacts of visible and sustained policing to reduce social disorder and increase public safety. The VPD have advised that the policing efforts in the area will be able to move from the current overtime model to a permanent structure under the new district. And the funding from this motion will ensure that the development of District 5 is done effectively and efficiently. And it will also ensure that the public safety initiatives in other areas of the city aren't going to be compromised, reduced, The second is for a temporary VPD training academy. The current, as we all know from from the news, the current training academy at the GIBC is insufficient to meet the needs of police agencies across BC, not just Vancouver. And it's led to staffing shortages. The constraint on VPD to put recruits through the training at the GIBC leads to significant overtime costs and reduces service levels. The province back in October invited proposals from municipalities to train their recruits and Vancouver has the ability to quickly begin this process and has stepped up to the plate. A VPD training academy has the ability to reduce training costs, reduce staffing shortages and overtime, support officer wellness, increased training capacity, run classes in line with budget cycles. And cities like Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, they all have provincial's training standards like the VPD and like the province of BC, but they each have their own academy to train their officers. Vancouver has the trainers, already has, they supplement the GIBC with two weeks of training prior and six to eight weeks of additional training after graduation. And they're more than capable to train not only to the provincial standards, but up to an increased standard that the VPD has because of the unique policing requirements here. Thank you. Sorry, I'm a little over time.
Do we have a seconder? So we do, so, um, Councillor Domino second. Uh, Councillor Frye.
Yeah, under 8.7A, not compatible with the purposes of, uh, good rule in government. Um, it becomes apparent that, that, uh, the in-camera decision, according to the police board minutes was made on, uh, February 12th. Yet, Councillor Montague called notice on this motion first on January 20th and then again on on February 3rd was suggesting. that this work has been incompatible with the substance of the police act. And alarmingly would suggest in adherence with the rules of good government. That will, so I'll have her with our staff to on this ruling out of order.
So we'll take a five-minute recess, please. Okay, counsel, we will resume the meeting. So, uh, Councillor Frye asked that this motion be ruled out of order based on 8.7a, um, that it did not, um, meet the, uh, purposes and objects of the Vancouver charter with regards to good rule in government. Um, I will, uh, going to rule that this motion is in order. And my decision is based on the fact that, uh, we know that, um, when, uh, motions are, uh, uh, notice a motion is called, uh, that there is significant work that goes into motions that follows in the weeks after, um, usually from stakeholder feedback, um, staff feedback. I think there's even motions on the, on the docket today that have, have undergone some significant changes through that process. So, uh, I don't see this as really any different than that. Uh, this is a case of a motion, uh, notice was given. Um, and then the final motion was, um, submitted to staff and circulated to council and, uh, and, uh, posted publicly through the usual, uh, timing and process. So with that, um, we will now, um, it's just going to before we go, Councilor, Fry, do you have any other, start the timer again?
Um, um, Councilor Orr? Yeah, I'd like to move that this motion is out of order based on 8.7F incorrect information.
an article out that says, uh, from, uh, quotes the Justice Institute of BC, saying that, uh, this motion has incorrect information. It's actually in the title of the article. Um, um, it talks about, uh, the motion states a number of recruit training seats available annually at the JIBC is insufficient to meet combined demand of independent municipal police services across the province, creating a structural training bottleneck that limits the ability of departments to offset retirement, attrition and approved staffing growth. April Van Erd, EVP, the external relations with the JIBC says the organization's concern at the motion Montague has put forward is based on incorrect information about the capacity, the Justice Institute's capacity to meet BC's police recruit training needs.
Yeah, I don't know if this is debatable, but, um, uh, I would just respond to that by saying that I guess I'll respond later.
Okay. Um, uh, I do, I think that, um, uh, okay, then I will recess again to, to make a ruling on this, on this, uh, point of order. So I will rule that this motion is in order. Uh, and we will proceed with the discussion. Uh, and my stated reasons are the fact that, um, this, um, a new story only presents one portion of the entire story. And I think there are probably some other details that in a more fulsome overview of this one would make it clear that this is not the case of this being incorrect. It's a case of arguments from one stakeholder. So with that, With that, we will move on to any other debate and discussion. Um, uh, Councilor Monaghan, I'm sorry, Council Moneg, would you like to, uh, continue?
Uh, one sorry, I'll put you, there you go. Yeah, no, I don't think so with the chair's ruling. I think we just should move on to hear some speakers. Um, sure thing. Uh, just a point of a clarification, I'm, I'll advance myself.
I guess I'm chairing the meeting so I can, I'll have to, um, I see the chair to, uh, to Councilor Meisner. Okay. Um, just a, through you, Chair, uh, just a question for
Councillor Monagyu. Um, the story that was raised, uh, by CTB news, I guess it was published yesterday. Uh, were you contacted, um, or, to your knowledge, anybody from the city contacted for a response, um, to the statements by the Justice Institute. And I'll, uh, turn to my count here for.
Sorry, can I just ask?
a point of order just so, or point of order, sorry, is this a point of order from Councillor Classen or, because it's very unusual to be asking questions of the move of the motion until we've heard from speakers. This is not following procedure. Okay. Well, I'd be happy to answer at. I'm, I'm happy to
answer that later on. Very good. Thanks very much. Speakers. Okay, we will now hear from speakers.
Uh, and our first speaker is, uh, counselor done that. Okay, speaker number one has withdrawn. Uh, our first speaker is Matthew Hey. And Matthew, can you come to the podium there on the right? Uh, no, on to your left. That one, please.
May I start?
Yeah, go right ahead. You have, uh, three minutes.
Uh, good morning, Mayor and Council. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Matthew. I'm a Vancouver resident and I'm speaking in opposition to Councilor Montague's motion. I have to say, I'm not particularly surprised that yet again, we're having to speak out against giving even more of our tax dollars to the VPD. While the moral choice on this motion is incredibly clear, I'm not particularly hopeful, given the council majority's history that they will choose the correct path. Nevertheless, I'd like to expand on why this is a poorly thought out idea and frankly a motion for which the implications, if passed, are racist. Maybe I'll sway some hearts and minds. This motion effectively has two prongs, establishing a VPD Trading Academy right in the heart of the downtown east side and ghettoizing the downtown east side even further by establishing its boundaries as a separate and distinct district to be policed. Here are some of my main concerns. Firstly, when neighborhoods are overpoliced and more police are present on the beat, what you end up with is inevitably more arrests. Is this inherently a bad thing? No, not necessarily. But the point is, as has been seen across the globe, particularly in NYC during the 70s through 90s, is that this creates a vicious cycle. Or more crime is reported in poorer or more marginalized communities, which justifies further police presence. which means more crime is reported, and so on, and so on. What ends up happening is that you can create an infinite justification for increasing policing in a neighborhood. You would see the same effect if you decided to create a district six just for Shaughnessy. Secondly, yesterday evening, the CTV reported directly from the JIBC's press release that the motion Councillor Montague has put forward is based on incorrect information about the JIBC's capacity to meet B.C's police recruit training needs. They also noted regarding this expansion, quote, creating a parallel system would duplicate costs, fragment oversight, and introduce unnecessary risks in an attempt to solve a problem that no longer exists. So on the face of it, the stipulated reasons for establishing a trading academy in the Woodward's building are directly contradicted by the JABC, which this motion claims to want to support. They are saying they don't need this help and that your information is false. Lastly, both of these actions are directly hostile to the right. residents of the downtown east side and the predominantly racialized and indigenous people who reside in this neighborhood. Coming from a party that claimed to want to uplift the downtown east side and expressed care and compassion for the significant systemic challenges faced by these people, this is spitting directly in the face of all of those residents you heard from. You are saying, we care about you. We are going to create a special ghetto just for you so we can manage you properly. If you choose to pass this motion, I hope you're able to sleep tonight.
Thank you. Thank you for coming in. Our next speaker is Sophia Henry and is Sophia on the phone. Speaker 3 is not on the line. Very good. Speaker 4 is Leah Pennefather. Hi, I'm here. Go ahead. You've got three minutes. Leah, go right ahead.
Yeah, I'm here. Can you hear me?
Go right ahead, thanks.
Yeah. Hi, I'm Leah. I'm a Vancouver resident. and I don't think the Vancouver police need more facilities and resources. I'm sure the dozens of callers after me will have eloquent explanations for you. So I'm going to take this time to tell you about a few of the many people who have been harmed by the VPD. Or actually, sorry, harmed isn't the right word. They were murdered. On August 22nd, 2022, Chris Amiot was 42 years old. The police were called after she was named.
I'm sorry, Chair. I'd just like to call a point of order.
Just pausing the speaker's timer.
Oh, sorry.
First of all, I don't know of any VPD officer that's been charged with murder while in the course of their duties. And the person that she's, the in-custody death that she's currently referring to, it was actually made pretty clear that the death involved. I believe it was a combination of bear spray, obesity, drug toxicity, and had. had absolutely nothing to do with the officer's engagement that the officer's conduct did not involve their death. And that's straight from the corner.
Thanks, Counselor. Speaker, if you don't mind, I'm just going to get your timer started again. I'll give you a couple minutes. If you don't mind, you can just refrain from allegations.
Refrained from allegations. Yes. Well, what about, okay, so I'm going to talk about, people who died shortly after altercations with the police, such as Miles Gray. In 2015, August 13th, Miles Gray was 33 years old. He was unarmed when the police arrived at an address in the city, and they were there to investigate that a man was spraying a woman with a garden house. The autopsy showed that Gray suffered multiple broken bones. a dislocated jaw and hemorrhagic injury to one testicle in the struggle. The coroner wasn't able to determine an exact cause of death. And also, in 2014, November 22nd, his name is Fongna, Tony Doo. He was waving a two by four piece of lumber, and police fired a beanbag at him, and then fired shots at him, killing him. This is all. that I have time for, but I'm sure there are more. I don't think that we need more VPD funding to shoot at...
I again, once again, I appreciate it if you would speak to the motion itself. And whether you are supporting or not, clearly, probably not. So with that...
Oh, I oppose.
Thanks very much. Okay, thank you for calling. All right. Our fifth speaker is Tanya Webbe, King. Tanya on the line? Yeah, I'm here. Hi, Tanya. Go right ahead. You got three minutes.
Thank you. Yeah. I'm here to oppose Councillor Montague's motion. You know, I know some people have mentioned the Justice Institute, but they have been operating since 1978. They've been meeting the training needs for the province, injustice, and public safety for this entire time, almost 50 years. This isn't necessary, particularly.
as the JIBC just increased seats by 50% in October of last year. At that time, Nina Crager, the Minister of Public Safety and the Solicitor General, had this to say. By growing the Academy's capacity, our government is taking action to ensure that local police departments have the resources they need to keep families and businesses safe in our province. October 10th, 2025. This is just another election gimmick to appear, Tafong crime. The residents of this area are over 30% indigenous, and of our unsheltered indigenous people in this neighborhood, 60% of them have been affected by the residential school system. This is direct use of colonial intimidation. As a long time, indigenous outreach worker in the downtown east side and a 60-scoup survivor, I have witnessed this intimidation first hand since the 1990s, and it has never and worse. In fact, people have been commenting about this issue on social media, and I've seen a lot of comments on political posts where Vancouver rights are speculating that an increased police presence in this area is going to push unhoused people into their neighborhoods. And I'd have to say that this is a likely outcome, because who's going to stick around for that? Not to mention that we'll likely be paying the recruits a salary while they're in training. This is commonplace. Will they be getting a livable wage? This while you're executing funding cuts, program cuts, and axing entire programs. This is fiscally irresponsible when ABC has already approved a property tax preys, and we're looking at serious fee increases for the average worker. VPD already take half a billion dollars of our city budget. Now you want four million more. Is there no ceiling? The Quebec National Police School pays for its crude training through a 1% levy on the total payroll of all policing across Quebec. Now that's how good governance shares the responsibility appropriately. And finally, I'd like to know whether or not our host nations, the Musquium, the Squamish, and the Slewatev nations were consulted. Did they approve this? If so, you need to release those documents to the public. We owe them a great deal for being stewards for these beautiful lands since time immemorial. All my relations, Hichka, Masichot, hi, hi, hi. Thanks for calling in Tonya.
Our next speaker is Brian Davy. Brian, are you on the line?
I am Brian Davy, the president of the Gas Sound Residence Association. Although we would have preferred that conditions were such that London drugs could remain in the Woodward's location, the GRA now supports the proposal to use that space as a Vancouver Police Department training facility. We believe that leaving that large anchor unit empty is detrimental to our neighborhood. And are doubtful that large retail could be successful in that space under current conditions. We're hopeful that a police training academy will bring back daily activity, improve the sense of security in the Woodward's atrium, and help stabilize the area so that new retail and community uses can be successful in the future. And so just as we supported the creation of District 5 to help stabilize our neighborhood, the GRA is fully supportive of Councilor Montague's motion. Let's get the lights back on in that space as soon as possible. Thank you.
All right. Thank you for calling in. Our next speaker seven is Secure Sulman. Secure, are you there? Speaker, are you there? Speaker, just you have the floor. Are you there? Secure Sulman? Speaker 7?
So, this is a city moderator. The speaker is on the line, but it's not answering at the moment. Speaker, if you're not there, we're not there, we're, we're not there. We'll have to move on to the next caller.
So we'll now go on to Speaker 8. Landon Hoyt. Landon, are you there? Hi, Landon. Are you there?
Yes, can you hear me?
You betcha. Go ahead. You got three minutes.
Thank you. Good morning, Mayor and Council. My name is Landon Hoyt, and I'm here on behalf of the Hastings Crossing Business Improvement Association, representing more than 800 businesses and commercial property owners in the downtown East side. Hating's Crossing is taking a neutral position on this motion this morning. We support the goal of strengthening public safety infrastructure, and we want to offer a few considerations as you deliberate. First, we are supportive of the establishment of District 5 in our neighborhood, because we believe this creates an opportunity for more relationship-based policing, consistent officers who know the community, know the businesses, and understand the local context. From our experience, consistency, and trust on the ground when it comes to policing matters, especially for our local businesses. Second, we want to do that. to be very clear, Hastings Crossing is not opposed to policing and we are not opposed to a police training center in principle. However, our concern is about the proposed location, specifically the former London drug space in the Woodward's building, and whether this is the right land use decision for the neighborhood. That space is a prime public facing retail location. Army, after Army Navy closed, London drugs became one of the last remaining anchor retailers providing everyday essentials and steady foot traffic. It's loss of the loss has already impacted business confidence and street activity. Repurposing that space for an inward facing institutional use would permanently remove one of the downtown east sides most important retail anchor opportunities. Over the past several years, Hastings Crossing has conducted extensive research and member engagement. The findings are consistent. Anchor retail matters. Anchor businesses create stability, draw daily foot traffic, and give smaller businesses the confidence to invest and stay. This is not just our opinion. it aligns with economic development best practices. While a training center would provide a presence in the space and the space would not sit vacant, it would still not be adequate for growing the local economy and bringing confidence to the neighborhood. We do not believe enough effort has been put into recruiting a new tenant to the space and offering the wraparon supports that a tenant could use to fit into the neighborhood beyond just policing. Finally, we are concerned that alternative locations for this training center do not appear to have been fully explored. There is ample, vacant office and institutional space within close proximity to Woodward's, including spaces already built for educational use, such as the former Vancouver Film School site at Homer and Hastings, only one block from Woodwards. It's available at a significantly lower lease rate and would require much less, if any, capital improvements. From both the land use and fiscal perspective, those options were in serious consideration before permanently removing prime retail space in the neighborhood. In closing, We support improved public safety. We support effective relationship-based policing. But we urge council to carefully weigh the long-term economic development implications of this location decision, particularly when viable alternatives exist. Thank you for the opportunity to speak, and we welcome further dialogue.
Thanks for calling in. Speaker number nine is Bradley Watson. Bradley there? Yeah, hello. Hi, Bradley, go ahead. You got three minutes.
All right, thank you. Hi, my name is Bradley Watson. I am a resident of Gastown and live in the W-43 building attached to the Woodward complex, and I oppose this motion. The Woodward atrium is one of the few covered indoor spaces that people in the community are able to gather in. For many, it's a place to seek shelter from rain or snow in the winter and in the summer a place to cool down. The loss of London drugs in this space is unfortunate. However, what is more unfortunate is what this motion is trying to replace with. Gas Town on the downtown east side has a heavy police. and security presence, and I do not think increasing this presence with the police training academy is a good use of prime real estate attached to a community space. The addition of the police academy will deter people in the community from using the atrium, as they will now be entering a police facility. If the city is determined to build a police academy, they should seek to do so on property that the city already owns. The current approach of policing and gentrifying to end poverty in the downtown side is not working. You cannot continue to sweep the city. these problems under the rug and hope they will go away. So as an alternative, here is a list of more suitable tenants that would benefit the community. A $10 day daycare. Walk-in clinic. Urgent care center. Paramedic station. 100 mental health nurse post. Indoor rec center. Community grocery store. Another pharmacy. A food court. A community theater. Small business incubator. Expanded SFU Arts Base. Firefighter Academy. Paramedic Academy. Rainforest Cafe. Anything. Thank you for your time today.
Thanks for calling in. Okay. Our next speaker is in person. F.E. Demeter.
Hi, Mary. Can you hear this? I'm tall. Yeah. Yeah, please.
I'm... There you go.
Thank you. I'm here today in opposition of this motion. London drugs was there for 10 years. And I've sympathized with why they didn't want to renew that lease, but switching that out for a police academy is not going to make anyone happy. Like, this is not even doing right-wing politics properly. Who you're going to anger the most are probably the people that live in the Woodward's building at great expense. They're not going to want to see police when they go for their coffee every morning. Obviously, for me, I represent my organization, our downtown east side. So that's where my heart lies. And I think that the reasons that London drugs left the spot were actually fixable by the city and the province and the federal government at large. If welfare rates and disability rates were higher, people wouldn't have to steal as much. Like if you're thinking about it, they're stealing from a drug store. How sad is that? Like, if you probably look at the loss chart for London drugs, it's probably majority tampons. These are just people trying to live. They don't want to be stealing this stuff. It's not a fun matter. It's not an easy target. And also, what are we doing? teaching the officers in there. It's my understanding that the actual training of the police is up to the province. So what are we changing? If this has to go forward, what are the police officers going to do for the community? Because a better option would have been that 312 Maine next to the jail and next to all of the now police offices and the firefighters, that would be a better building for police training. and it's been turned into offices when it was supposed to be a community. The original, I was there in the early days of it when they were still constructing in 312 Maine. And there was a lot of potential to help the community. So if this is going forward, how do you do that? Because Task Force Barrage has not been a success. No one is happy. Nothing has changed. And taking up more space for police is, going to make everyone feel like they're in a police state. You already have the community policing down there. And now, like, people aren't going to want to go and get their groceries in the morning because of this. This is going to be a NIMBY problem more than an our downtown east side problem. Thank you.
Thank you very much for coming in. Okay. Our last speaker is Amanda Burroughs. Amanda, are you on the line?
Speaker number 11 is not on the line.
Okay. All right. So that reads the end of our speakers list. Thank you for everyone to come in today and for calling in to speak to our committee. Committee members? Oh, is that right? My apologies. Okay. So I did see that we did not have a secure assublement. So is Speaker 7 on the line? So speaker, number ending 336, you may speak. Speaker, are you there? So the speaker just disconnected. Disconnected. Okay. All right. Go back. Okay. Speaker 11, Amanda Burroughs, are you there? Speaker 11 is not on the line. Speaker number three, Sophia Henry is, is Henry there? Speaker number three is not on the line. Okay. All right. That is the end of our speakers list. And thanks again for everyone who did speak. All right. Committee members, is there any discussion?
Councillor Frye. Yeah. Thanks, Chair. I'm wondering if through you I could ask some questions of the move for the motion.
Yeah, go right ahead. Yeah, Councillor Madagyu. I'm curious, because there is some discrepancies around the timeline here that you did indeed first call notice on this on January's 20th.
And again, on February 3rd, yet there was no in-camera decision made at police board until February 12th. And obviously, this couldn't pass go without police board. approval, I would hope. Was there any conversation between different sources, perhaps the mayor's office and you directly with VPD outside of the board?
Good morning. Yeah, thanks for the question. So I think it's important to note that I think conversations have been going on since the province invited municipalities to put forward proposals, which was, I believe, October, mid-October sometime. So I think conversation has been going on for quite some time. Yeah, I initially put forward a motion, notice a motion. I didn't go through with it at that time. It was originally going to mean advocacy motion. There were subsequent memos. I have some of them, one of them being a memo to mayor and counsel on February the 3rd from the police board indicating their intent to ask for funding. And my motion came, my final submission came well after that.
Okay. So on the subject of your motion, Article 3 or Whereas 3 talks about the number of recruit training seats available annually at JIBBC is insufficient to meet the command demand. Were you and the police board aware of the most recent publication, in fact, from January from the GIBC talking about three cohorts of 144 to total four? 432 spots per year, effective May?
Yeah, I believe not all of those are for Vancouver.
Yeah, I don't know if I know the exact numbers. They do change from time to time, but I would say that I think my understanding is the numbers that would be for Vancouver seats was an increase of, I think, 10 seats per class. at three classes.
That being said, the current vacancies at the BPD are over 300. 100, I think it's 165 hard vacancies and another 156 soft ones.
I haven't personally spoken.
They don't have the capacity.
Okay, but they're saying otherwise. But okay, fair enough. You didn't check with them. I get it. Okay. What was the process by which this, we heard some kind of conversation around the location. What was the process for determining this particular location and this funding packet? As opposed to say the film school, as was suggested, or any city-owned?
Well, I think other locations were considered. I think even the TTC was considered at some point. But it would require significant upgrades far in excess of what the Woodward's building is.
The tactical training center on Glen Drive.
It doesn't have the capability. Granted, the VPD run training academy would use that facility because there are facilities within it that would be necessary to train officers. But other facilities, I think, were contemplated. But the Woodward's with its, with its ability to liaise. or to coordinate with the new district five, I think made sense, the VPD. You'd have to ask VPD that question.
Okay. But since it's your motion, I was going to ask you. But, okay, so can this location accommodate the kind of facilities that the JIBC currently offer? I know they have, you know, a broad wealth of, including like a driving track where you could do traffic.
The ABC does not have a driving track at their new Westminster facility. Sorry, they do not? They do not.
They do not. And they're currently bringing in portables to, for those extra officers that you're talking about that they're going to try and train, they're bringing in portables to do that. They don't have capacity within the current facility.
Okay. I'm just going to clear the queue, move to the main queue here. So I'll just re-add everyone one moment. And Mayor Sim. Okay. Councilor Bly.
Thanks very much. Chair. Mike, I mean, we're in a mo, we are debating the motions. I have a point of information through you to the mover of the motion. And I understand that this was going to be an advocacy, and then clearly an advocacy motion has switched to sort of a single source funding essentially request. I'm just curious about the mover of the motions process in terms of looking at the most current budget allocation from the budget that was passed less than two months ago with a 10% increase to the VPD budget. I'm just wondering if the counselor considered or walked discussions happened to be able to find this funding within the current operating budget.
So just to be clear, your question is, is why am I asking for it to come out of the stability reserves?
No, my question. really quickly, because I don't have a lot of time, is we just approved the VPD budget with a 10% increase. Did you talk to the VPD about finding this funding? Because this essentially is a single source funding motion. It's not an advocacy motion.
Okay. So for district five, I believe the VPD was planning on doing, funding it through the existing budget. That being said, I want to ensure that the transition to a district five and the creation of a district five, that's obviously an operation of a district five. That's obviously an operational decision by the VPD council has no control over that. But I want to make sure while that happens, it happens efficiently and effectively, and it doesn't take away from public safety initiatives and other parts of the city. But that's an operational decision of the VPD and your city counselor, very different rules.
Yeah, I don't make operational decisions of their district five is happening regardless, right? Okay, and what about the rest of it?
2. 2.8. So that's that, the two point.
is for District 5.
Oh, sorry, the 1.2. The 1.2 is funding for the temporary academy.
Yeah, I'm just wondering why that's not a lot of money.
Yeah, I don't think we should add to, it's not in the VPD budget. I guess that's what you're asking.
I'll leave it there. I don't, I'm going to cede my time and come back on.
Thanks, Councillor.
I will now cede the chair to Chair Meisner, and I'll just have a quick question to the motion to the of the motion through you, Chair. And it's just with regards to the report we saw last evening, I think it was on CTB news, and it was with regards to response from the Justice Institute. I'm not sure. Were you contacted for comment on that? I was not. And do you have a response to the assertions made by the J.I?
Yeah, I've actually had some discussions since since, some very quick discussions. I'll read some notes that I have. I think with regards to that article, and I know Councillor Orr mentioned it in his point of order, but the JABC has stated that class capacity expansions will address municipal police agency's needs, but I know there's been several reviews over the many years, not just recently, and you can look at, like the Robert Rolls and Peter German report back a number years ago. Talks about persistent gaps in governance. That's obviously an issue. The VPD's internal assessment documented systemic training limitations, and that included inconsistent skill proficiency, limited scenario through follow-through, and difficulty integrating Vancouver-specific risks. So the VPD data shows that there are better outcomes when training is delivered internally, recruits, and I think what's important to note is that the VP already trains the recruits that go to the J.I. They give two weeks of training prior to them entering the Justice Institute, and six to eight weeks post-graduation, because the training of the JIA is insufficient for Vancouver's needs. Other major cities have their own training academies because of that. And I don't know. don't want to throw shade on other departments, but policing in Vancouver is very different than policing in West Vancouver or Oak Bay or Nelson. I think that's a really important thing to note. We need training for Vancouver police officers' specific needs because we do have unique policing challenges in the city. I'll also say that I think the talked about creating parallel infrastructures and stuff. And it's not about duplicating, it's not about duplicating training. It's not, it's not, it's not, we don't have to have remedial training. We don't have to do that pre-imposed training. It's about reducing delays. It's about lowering overtime because if we can't get enough officers through the academy, we rely on overtime to fill those. those vacancies I mentioned, 165 hard vacancies and 156 soft ones that we have to fill. That's filled with overtime. If we can't push recruits through the academy, that's taxpayer money that we're not wisely spending. And of course, reducing operational risk and liability. If the GI isn't training to the standards that the VPD want, we put at an operational and liability risk. I would just say that And all of counsel got a reply from the VPD that outlines a lot of this came in your inboxes this this morning. One of the things that I think is also important is the VP note that they would still have to comply with all the provincial policing standards and curriculum. The GIBC can monitor that. The province police standards can monitor that. They can audit it if they want. All those standards will be in place. A VPD training center will actually increase those provincial standards to a VPD level.
Thanks very much for that answer. I will take the chair back and advance to Mayor Sam.
Thank you very much. If I can ask a couple of questions through you, Chair, to the mover of the motion. Just very quickly. Just building on. on what you said, 165 open positions, operational risk and liability. Can you maybe very briefly walk me through how the new VPD Training Academy could be cost neutral or even recover funds? A longer term?
Yeah. So I think there's already a ton of ongoing training that the VPD does right now, right? So there's a robust training section within the VPD does right now. They are currently housed at 2120 Camby Street. That training section can just be moved to the new temporary training academy. The GIBC charges, I believe it's $56,000 for a seat now. So Vancouver, that would run us about $5 million a year. VPD can do that training using that money. Instead of paying the GIBC to do it, we can do it in-house quite easily. The VPD can do it in-house. They have the trainers. VPD, for the most part, provides a majority of the instructors out of the GII anyway. We have the trainers. We have the field trainers. We have the training staff to do that. Can I just like, I've heard just through my site
visits that once our officers, and I'm saying this respectfully, once our officers go through GI training, you have to come back and get retrained because VPD, you obviously, you obviously, you operations are unique. Can you elaborate very briefly?
Yeah, and I sort of mentioned that earlier, that we do two weeks of pre-training and six to eight weeks of post-training to make sure that that officers have the ability, have the tools they need to go out in the road. I think what the VPD could do, too, is actually revisit the JIs three-block model because it's set up for a kind of a general standard across the province. when Vancouver's needs are very different. Their needs for Block 1 and Block 2 and Block 3 are very different than, say, New Westminster, West Vancouver, Nelson, Oak Bay.
And then just one more question. I'm going to see the rest of my time. So does Vancouver Fire and Rescue have a training facility, or do they go out to a third-party organization?
I don't know how Vancouver Fire Rescue does all their training. I can tell you that they do, there is a training component out of the JIBC, but a lot of fire rescue services, my understanding is they do do in-house, a lot of in-house training. I will also note that they do a lot of cross-training with the VPD for special events and things like Celebration of Light, that sort of thing. There's a lot of cross-training that goes on between Vancouver Fire Rescue and VPD. Thank you. I'm going to save the rest of my time for some comments. Thank you.
Yeah, thanks, Chair. I'm going to switch gears a bit and take us back into debate as opposed to firing questions and just make some observations around this. This is, I will sort of reflect and maybe level set a little bit for anybody that's been around or followed this, that there have been ongoing discussions over a number of years for some time about the training needs and capacity of the JIBC with its, to fulfill and support not just Vancouver Police, but for police departments across the province. And having sat at the UBCM table all of last term, I know that this is an ongoing conversation and other cities in the province often express dismay with the proportion of seats that the VPD was allocated as one of the larger agencies and that they couldn't get enough seats and capacity to go through. Well, at the same time, the VPD was also dissatisfied because they couldn't get enough seats. And so sort of all that adding up to the fact that the capacity wasn't there and wasn't sufficient. I think that when you look at it, the JIBC has been undergoing, I think, some systemic and structural changes. But clearly, people have been wanting more spots. To say that the recent announcement from Minister Krieger would ameliorate the capacity is like saying that we've opened, you know, two or three hundred child care spots. And therefore, we have tackled the child care issue. And we know that that's not true. So I'm drawing that parallel to say that I think the need is pretty significant and outstanding. I think it's noteworthy that it's my understanding in conversations that Vancouver Fire and Rescue would love to have a similar facility if they could do so because they also, paramedics, fire, et cetera, also have training at the JIBC. However, their current Chess Street facility is simply not sufficient and they are constrained by space. And the ability to do exercises and maneuvers, obviously, be three. think about that with respects to fire trucks, et cetera. We have an opportunity here to do that in the city of Vancouver. I want to emphasize here that the proportionate allocation of spots has not kept up with the need and has contributed to a gap with respects to vacancies in the number of officers for the city of Vancouver. And that's my primary concern. My concern is not the JIBC. My concern sitting as a councillor at the table is that we can get officers through expeditiously and with quality training to support the residents of Vancouver. I know. that council has been advised in information coming from the police board that while there are some one-time set-up fees, that the training fees that are paid, training academy fees that are paid for all of those recruits that was referenced earlier, will be repurposed to offset the ongoing expenses for the VPD's satellite police training academy that will not only be cost neutral, but it suggests would result in potential ongoing operating savings of $300,000 every year. Additionally, what's not quantified yet, is the need to rely on overtime. Overtime is expensive. It's also unsafe if you have officers that are going through. It's becoming a rule versus an exception, and they're working 11-hour shifts. You know, there's typically four shifts in terms of that operators are rotating through. And if you have an officer working an 11-hour shift in a very physically demanding role, and then they're coming back on their days off or pulling sort of a double, that is unsafe by anybody's standards. And so I think we have to be very aware from a risk management perspective as council that we need to not put officers in those situations when they need to, they are entrusted with public safety and ensuring that they are in a good frame of mind to be able to deal with very highly volatile situations and sensitive situations with the public. So do I think that it makes sense to have a training academy in the city of Vancouver at this point? I do. I know that with respects to advocacy to. to the province. There are a number of cities that are interested in having that. It's not just Vancouver that's looking to do this. Surrey has also expressed its desire to do so, as has Victoria. There is a reason why I think three, sort of the largest, the capital city or the two most populous cities in the province are wanting to do that because they have very significant demands as major urban centres with respects to the breadth of police officers that are needed and the ability to put people through more quickly. So all that to say that I think it makes sense to support a training academy in the city of Vancouver. With respects to a District 5 scenario, this is also not new. Anybody that has followed policing will remember BETT, the beat enforcement team that put beat officers on the street walking the Downtown Eastside and oftentimes to support a lot of the residents there and specific things that were happening. So I think I'm going to run out of time. But I just wanted to explain some rationales to why I think having a training centre in the city of Vancouver makes sense. Thank you.
Thanks very much. I accept that we need police to be properly trained and that we need to have enough places, of course. But I'm concerned about governance and a bit confused about why this is coming as a member motion, so soon after budget discussions late last year. You know, I've heard from a number of the councillors that this has been planned for years. The VPD's budget was discussed and submitted and approved by the majority on council. And I have ongoing concerns about the VPD asking for reimbursement of cost overruns and this. this request to be taken from reserve money that's been, that's primarily been used as emergency contingency generally for unforeseen circumstances. And, you know, it's not an insubstantial amount of money and we've got a budget that's causing $120 million worth of cuts and staff layoffs. And so, So it all seems pretty suboptimal and unusual to me. So I'm also persuaded by the arguments of businesses, as we heard, and community members that we need to spend some more time exploring a better location than the anchor retail spot. I've heard from business and community concerns about losing London Drugs and that an anchor retail organisation going back into this prime public-facing location is really important to the vibrancy of the neighbourhood and the support of other small businesses and the community. So I'm really concerned. I feel as though this needs to have more thought and it's really not great to be dipping into our emergency funds for something that if it's been... planned and needed for years should have been incorporated into the VPD budget asks. Thanks.
Thank you, Chair. And I appreciate all the questions and the dialogue and discourse around the table. And I'm not going to speak to the data that's already been shared by Councillor Montague and some of the numbers have been thrown around and really speak to my observations as somebody that I don't come from a policing background. I come from a public policy background. But I would say what I see in this is a pragmatic response to a really urgent need. And I think Councillor Montague articulated it very well. This isn't a new conversation. This did come up as Councillor Kirby-Yung also noted last term. There has been ongoing pressure. around the recruitment and training of officers. And I sometimes wonder when I hear the debate and the discussion around this, will we be having the same conversation? Would there be such angst? And I realize this is in our jurisdiction. We don't train nurses. We don't train paramedics. We have a fire department that we fund. But would we be having the same conversation? We know there's gaps in a whole bunch of sectors in terms of ensuring we have trained professionals in health care and medicine and in other areas of our province. And from my perspective, we have to consider that the city of Vancouver is unique. We have heard time and time again, we are a destination city. We have millions of people that come into our city for international events, for concerts, for community celebrations. And so it is, this is not like my uncle is a member of this. the RCMP in a small town in Manitoba, 4,000 people. I don't think he ever drew his gun in his time and service there. He was not dealing with the complex safety concerns that we see here in Vancouver. And while I'd love to see a world where we don't need to have police, it is not the world we live in. We have to strike a balance in terms of public safety and community safety. And I think that this training academy makes a lot of sense in terms of being able to ensure that officers get quality training. I actually think that at some point other municipalities are going to look to Vancouver and say, hey, could you train our officers as well? And I'm sure that the Justice Institute will still continue to be used by other municipalities. But simply said, I think this is a really pragmatic response to the demand and need. And I have... immense confidence that a really strong, robust training academy can deliver and it will benefit ultimately the citizens of Vancouver. And so I'm happy to support the motion. Thank you.
Thanks, Councillor. Mayor Sim. Great. Thank you very much. I'll keep my comments pretty brief. Public safety is the foundation of a thriving city. Without it, nothing else works. Not economic vitality, not livability, not community well-being. Task Force Barrage that when we give our officers the tools and the support they need, Vancouver feels. And they see the results. Residents felt it, businesses felt it, and communities felt safer because they were. Today is about building on that momentum. And I do want to give a shout out to Chief Rye for establishing D5 or District 5 and fighting for a training academy. D5 and the Training Academy are not theoretical ideas. They are practical solutions to a a very real problem. Right now, the VPD has more than 300 soft and hard vacancies. Across BC, municipalities are competing for a limited number of recruit training seats. That bottleneck is slowing hiring everywhere. Quite frankly, this is no longer acceptable. Vancouver's done the work. We've identified facilities. We have the operational expertise, and we are prepared to move forward responsibly. Allowing the VPD to train its own recruits does not weaken the provincial system. It strengthens it. It creates more space at the JIBC or the Justice Institute for other municipalities while ensuring our own residents receive the level of service that they expect. This is not an expansion for expansion's sake. It's about maintaining safe staffing levels, reducing overtime costs, supporting officer wellness, and delivering value for taxpayers. The proposed academy is anticipated to be cost neutral through redeployment within existing authorized strength. That's fiscal responsibility. And the province now has an opportunity to partner with us and help us solve a province-wide challenge. Thank you very much. Thanks, Mayor. Councillor Orr.
Yeah, thank you. Just a quick question to the mover of the motion. I'm not sure if you're aware, but did you know that you said on numerous occasions you use the word "we" to refer to the VPD?
Sorry, probably just a bad habit. When I was a spokesperson for VPD, I spoke on behalf of the VPD and used the word "we". So, yeah. When I say "we", I mean the VPD. Thank you.
Do you see how that could be confusing for the public in terms of, you know, separating the two things, council?
I think it's splitting hairs, isn't it.
Okay. Okay, I'll speak generally on it. I mean, I think, you know, this council is very keen on talking about duplication of costs. We saw that in conversations around the Park Board. This does that. This council is very keen on talking about not wanting to do things that are outside of our jurisdiction. This is that. This is very confusing. I think words like the use of "critical" is confusing. This is a critical need. Crime is reported as fallen. While police budgets are going up. I just think it's kind of continually sort of reinforcing that we need to, you know, raise the budget forever on the police. I also, you know, I don't want to get into debate about, you know, policing. I mean, I think Councillor Dominato said, you know, are we talking about a world where we don't see the police? I mean, I don't think that's what's being debated. I think it's whether or not this particular motion is excessive within our jurisdiction or whether or not this is the right location. And I agree with Councillor Dominato that we are a destination city, and that's what we are. why we should do things that support public safety like reversing the pause in support of housing, but we can save that for later. I will say that, you know, as somebody who was, you know, an activist around Woodward's and actually at WoodSquat briefly, this is not the original intent of the Woodward's project. I mean, this could be, you know, for all intents and purposes, a dentist office and it's still not really meeting the intent to have community-facing retail here at the... this location. And this plaza, the covered plaza, you know, I walk through it every day, the plaza is one of the rare third spaces for community to gather during inclement weather. I just feel that this training center will, you know, make them have, you know, another place where they don't feel welcome. So I think, yeah, there's questions around, you know, you know, whether we fully coordinated with the Justice Institute. There's questions around, as one caller mentioned around UNDRIP and DRIP, if the First Nations were consulted. I think there's questions around how this benefits Westbank as a landlord. And I also think the motion's out of order. I think there's, as I raised, I think at best it has conflicting information. And it seems like the council is directing the police board ahead of them ruling on it. So I won't support it for those reasons. Thanks.
Chair, I've... submitted a motion to refer, but I do see that there's other people in the queue. And I'm wondering if we could just quickly touch on timing, because I do have a leave of absence for civic business and other arrangements. If folks don't want to speak to this, otherwise I would like to move to refer it.
So we are coming up to our noon break. So it's going to require that if we want to finish this item, then council, I would need a motion to complete this item. I'm hearing a referral, but I'm not, don't see that in my inbox yet here. Oh, here it is. Yeah. Yeah. And I certainly wouldn't want to deprive my colleagues of an ability to speak. So that, okay, so council. So move to complete this item, to extend past lunch to complete this item. To extend past lunch to complete this item. Okay. Any discussion? All those in favour? Opposed? All right, that carries. So.
Sorry?
Vice Mayor? Vote to extend to complete the item? Correct. Including the possible referral. I assume if there's a referral, that will probably be on the floor for a debate. Noting my timer's still running well.
Yeah, I'm noting that I'm going to add another minute to you, Councillor. All right. So we will. be able to continue this item. Yeah, oh, sorry. That passes with Councillors Meiszner and Kirby-Yung in opposition. Okay. Councillor Fry.
Sure, since I'm moving to refer, I'm going to jump back in the queue and let others speak. I think that's still.
Yeah, thanks. A lot has been said here on this new training center already. But just wanted to reflect. some of my experience. You know, during my first term here on council, I have been aware of ongoing and longstanding discussions regarding training for Vancouver police officers and the benefits of bringing it in-house, including some of the issues of Vancouver not being allocated sufficient seats at the Justice Institute, and the ongoing costs. And I heard from the mover of the motion, Councillor Montague, that those are approximately $56,000 per recruit that we're sending to the JIBC. And also debate around whether or not it makes more sense to bring the training in-house. I am supportive of Vancouver establishing its own VPD training center because I believe it will be more cost effective for the taxpayer, and it will lead to ongoing savings in training costs. By establishing our own training center, I believe that we will have more robust training that's tailored to Vancouver and our unique needs. And in addition, as I mentioned, the cost savings of bringing that in-house. Public safety and support for our first responders has been a priority for many councillors around this chamber, and the results are positive. With reported violent crime, seeing a steady decrease in Vancouver over the past three years, recently hitting a 23-year low. So I think we're on the right track. And as for the location, I do believe, as a former resident of Gastown, that there is a good synergy. with the recently opened community policing center at Woodward's. And given this large vacant space next door to that community policing center, I think this location is logical, and I think it'll be a benefit, not just to our members in the police department, but also to neighbours and nearby businesses, from which council regularly hears, despite efforts in the neighbourhood to improve public safety, ongoing concerns around... street disorder, crime, shoplifting, etc. So I think this makes a lot of sense and has multiple benefits. And for that reason, I'll be supporting it today.
Yeah, thanks, Chair. So I just want to ask a point of information through you, Chair, to the mover of the motion.
So I just want to ask you, how long have you been working at Vancouver Police Department?
A little over 28 years. I worked there. Only eight years.
Okay. So have you had any interaction with JIBC and what is your experience?
Yeah, obviously, I went through the JIBC. I went through two locations, though. Part of my training was done at the JIBC when it was down in Jericho in Vancouver, and part of my training was done at the new facility in New Westminster. What I can tell you is that the new JIBC out of New Westminster is not just a police academy. It's a post-secondary educational institution. They do far more than train police officers there. And I think because of that, there's a common. conflict for space. There are other natural conflicts that come into play. It's not an appropriate environment necessarily for a police academy, especially when you're stuffed to the brim. When I went through the academy, there was 12 recruits. Five of us were from Vancouver. Now we're trying to put through 60, 70, 90 recruits at a time. It's really difficult to do that. And when I say conflict with space, I also talk about I've talked about it before is that things like scenario-based training, which is a really important part of police training, the academy gets complaints at the JIBC from other students. The scenarios are too noisy. The fake plastic blue guns that are used in scenarios are too scary. It's too noisy. The fake blood being used. It's important for these scenarios to be realistic. And the fake blood is too scary. So I think going back to a model where we train our own officers in an environment that's controlled is much better.
So I'll just provide some comments very brief. So, you know, when I work in the healthcare system in the hospital, the hospital always does the training for the frontline nurses by themselves. So it's really effective. And the turnaround time is much shorter. So I think it's a more effective model for the frontline officers in the healthcare system. also for our police department. And also, I think in the long run, that would make our city safer. That would also, you know, be more cost beneficial for our city and the residents as well. Talking about using the money from the stability reserve, I think in the past three years, we increased the reserve by $144 million, you know, for about 3% at the start of this term, to almost 10% by end of last year. So that's exactly the money we should be using to invest in our public safety. And also, this motion is really to solve the bottleneck and the inefficiency of the system. I know change is always hard, but I think it is the right thing for change in the long run and for the public safety. I think also the one-size-fits-all approach is not working for the special needs for the city of Vancouver because we are so big and our public safety requirements are very different from other municipalities. So, you know, because of this unique situation in our city, you know, we need special training for our city as well. Yeah, so with that, I would like to support this motion brought forward by Councillor Montague. Thanks, Chair.
Thanks very much. So I appreciate the debate on whether or not we need a training center here or not. I find that actually a distraction from. the decision that's actually before us. And I'll just say that I'm not opposed to policing. I've supported police funding to date at every decision, in fact. And while I was troubled last year around the sequencing of the announcement of Task Force Barrage and then the budget adjustment that came 10 months later, I still voted to support it because we are dealing with escalation in crime and criminal activity. and I appreciate the public's concerns around that and the need to address many of those issues. And we've been making some headway and we should continue to make some headway. There's two points that I want to make on this issue, and I don't have a lot of time, so I'll be very brief about it, is just to say, last year we saw a single-source sort of funding allocation for Task Force Barrage of $5 million, about less than two months after the VPD budget was approved for the previous year. We're seeing the exact same thing again. This is a troubling trend. I think that we need to recognize that a separate institution like the VPD that does very good work comes with a budget request, and we go through all this process in October, November, December, and then we make the difficult decisions around what we're going to do with that. We held at 0% last year on all city operations and we increased the police budget by 10%. And it's about $435 million. It's the largest portion of our overall operations budget in the city. And now it's another single-source ask of $4 million, which over two years of out-of-budget cycle requests equals a full percent of property tax. So I just, I don't understand why we're doing this again when it could have very well been. You know, we've heard from many other ABC councillors, this has been worked on for a very long time. This has been identified as an urgent need for a very long time. Then why are we getting the budget request in February again? In fact, it was talked about in January when this notice of motion was first tabled. So I'm just, I'm not buying it, and I just have to say in my last 10 seconds, that there have been references to Westbank's preference to have a stable tenant, and I don't believe publicly funded institutions should be backstopping private developers.
Thanks. Given the very unfortunate widespread distribution of damaging misinformation about me and three other councillors by one of our councillor colleagues this week, I want to reiterate that my concerns about this motion relate to governance and the budget process and the concerns that businesses and community members have raised today about the appropriateness of the location, not whether extra training spaces are needed and especially not whether public safety is important to me, which as someone whose family lives downtown, it certainly is. So I hope that my council colleagues will not succumb to the temptation to deliberately misrepresent my opposition to this motion. Thank you.
Yeah. Thanks, Chair. And I did submit a referral motion, but before I do, I just want to address members of the gallery because there have been some malicious and unfounded rumours that were circulated on WeChat and because I won't be here later to defend myself.
No, I'm, I think if you really want to call a point of order, but I do would like to just categorically say that the malice — I do have to call a point of procedure and while I'm empathetic to Councillor Fry and his desire to — if I might, I'll call a point of procedure, Councillor Fry, just for a moment, please. I am empathetic to the councillors wanting to provide commentary on that. Our procedure rules do state that we should be discussing the substance of the motion and not other issues. And I'm sure that perhaps the councillor can find another forum or opportunity to do that. Councillor. Councillor Fry, to the motion.
Well, as I apparently won't be able to defend the accusations made against me because it won't be sure. I'll move on to, if I may, then, like to move to an amendment — I've submitted a referral. I've submitted a referral.
Right. I'll add you to the queue one moment. We'll need a seconder for the amendment.
Seconding by Councillor, thank you very much.
Yeah. So this is highly unusual to have a motion like this come as a member motion when in fact it does directly deal with items under the Police Act and would more properly be dealt with coming through a myriad of different departments, including the police board itself. So first and foremost, I believe that this referral, seeking a detailed report back and assessment from the police board, talking about their operational requirements and training demands rather than having it come from a private member. A capacity and curriculum analysis from the Justice Institute of British Columbia, we know that the mover of this motion had not consulted with JIBC, according to his own testimony. and that in fact the JIBC have just introduced three cohorts of 144 trainees a year. That's over 430 training spots at the JIBC that are on offer right now, clearly not captured in the original motion. So I think that there's a discrepancy there. Additionally, an assessment from the provincial government regarding Section 26 of the Police Act. This is really talking about how training happens. We don't have a commitment from the provincial government that the review would even authorize a made-in-Vancouver police training academy. And I think it's important before we throw good money into this. We're talking about taxpayer money, after all, that we get some sense from the province of British Columbia, if this is even a thing, that they're willing to indulge, according to the Police Act, which is the law that governs policing in this province. A review from the city's Real Estate Services Department, identifying available, viable, and costed real estate options for a purpose built or repurposed police training, including considerations of location, capital costs, operational costs, scalability, co-use potential. We've done no RFP. There's been no open bid process on this particular location. It really came out of left field. Our due diligence as governance is to actually do that proper work and identify, is this the right location. Are there better available locations? Are there more cost-effective locations? And lastly, I believe that this warrants a thoughtful legal assessment, outlining any kind of guardrails that are necessary, in the sense of good governance, recognizing that if we, in fact, are training and graduating police officers, we may, in fact, be in a conflict of interest because it is a significant investment. And part of the appeal of having an independent, JIBC-type operation is that, in fact, there is no perception of any conflict, and it's very clear. that we are not responsible for the matriculation and training and funding of police trainees. So I submit this referral amendment for council's consideration. Thank you.
Yeah, thanks. So, first of all, it's not surprising that Councillor Fry wants to refer this item. I think other than one item, He has voted against every police initiative, other than to defund the police, which he voted in favour of. So it's not surprising that this, it's a matter of fact that you voted in favour of a reduction of the police budget. It's a pure, it's a fact.
I'm referring to a police.
Yeah, I'm just saying, Chair, if you can just chair the meeting, because I know councillors are engaging in debate amongst themselves without microphones and the public can't follow. So maybe we can revert to procedure. Thanks.
Let's, I'll just continue on. Sure, that's okay. I heard two coming at me at the same time. So I don't want to, I want us to be able to sort of be able to speak to the motion.
Yeah, my point of order was that, that Councillor Montague was imputing the motives of Councillor Fry for referring this, which I think is a thought. referral based on other separate sort of votes in the past. This is, we're dealing with this now. So he's impugning his motives that he already had his mind made up or whatever.
I heard Councillor Montague talk about the voting record, not necessarily the motivation for those votes. So I don't think there's any impugning of any motives in this one, but I appreciate the raising the concern. again, please, let's speak to the amendment. Councillor Montague, we'll give you back a few seconds there. Go ahead.
Thank you. So there was a request for funding from the board. There's a memo on that from February the 3rd. And the numbers that Councillor Fry continues to throw out this massive increase of spaces at the JIBC. Again, that is not Vancouver spaces. There are more jurisdictions other than Vancouver. The JIBC services the entire. This is the entire, every municipality that has a, that doesn't, it isn't policed by the RCMP within the province. That includes Surrey's need to quickly, their need to expand because of their recruiting requirements. So you keep throwing out these numbers of, you know, 144 extra seats. We don't see 144 extra seats. That's for the entire province. And there are other jurisdictions that require, those seats as well. Our own training academy would actually free up Vancouver spots so those other jurisdictions could have space to meet their needs. I think the referral is a way to just delay this. And this referral would delay this for potentially, well, with all the asks and it would delay it for probably a year. We need capacity building now. The VPD is capable of putting probably 40 officers into a new temporary training facility in May and probably at least another 40 or 70 shortly after that. The JIBC currently cannot do that. So there is a sense of urgency here. And I will be voting in opposition of this referral. Thanks very much.
Yeah, I'll be voting in support. I think we just have to do the right thing. And I understand that there's sort of different. different opinions on capacity from what I've read and sort of different levels of urgency here. I think it's fine to sort of get this done right. So I'll be supporting. Thanks.
Yeah, thanks. Just looking at the language of the referral motion, I see several items in here that are likely, have already been completed. or underway, so I just like to ask if I may, through the chair to the mover of, or pardon me, not the mover of the, I guess I'm not able to ask a question of the mover of the original motion, am I? Not to the referral, but to the original motion to Councillor Montague. Is that permitted?
It is permitted?
Okay. Okay. Sorry about that. Just noting detailed needs assessment from the Vancouver Police Board, outlining current and projected operational requirements, training demands, etc., I would presume given the request from the Vancouver Police Board around their need for this training centre that they had done that due diligence that's outlined in the first part of this referral motion. And then on number three, a candidate evaluation of the province's willingness, commitment, and anticipated timelines to enable or support such an academy. It's my understanding that if this original motion was to be endorsed by council today, it would still need to go to the province for approval anyways. So to me that seems redundant. So as a result, I can't support the referral motion.
Yeah, I just sort of like to sort of deal and sort of level set or sort of come from a fact-based perspective. And I personally am satisfied based on hearing and being, having lots of engagement over years with respects to the fact that the capacity is simply, not sufficient. And I did mention earlier that other cities, Surrey, Victoria, and others are actively advocating to have a standalone training academy in their city for the very same reasons that Vancouver is because the capacity is not there. They can have better control over training. They can get folks through. The province is actually considering those requests. And while the Vancouver Police Board has taken the steps in the measure to endorse this direction, the council, but the city of Vancouver has not. Given that this is something that the province is actively considering and hopefully a decision is coming soon, I think that referring that would put the city of Vancouver at a disadvantage in being competitive, in being the recipient of that decision to locate it here in Vancouver. So I do think it's important that council take a decision on it today. I think that there has been a lot of good debate and discussion. I think a lot of information has been provided. But I think that it's important. would be important and strengthen Vancouver's chance at getting the training academy if both the Vancouver Police Board and City Council take a decision and formally indicate that they support the need and the rationale to have a training academy located in the city of Vancouver. So for that reason, I will not support the referral because I think it will compromise that opportunity. Thank you.
Councillor Fry. Just to be clear, in reference to some of Councillor Meiszner's points, we have not, as a council, received any report from the police board. Now, there may have been reports from the police board to Councillor Montague or the mayor's office, but there's been nothing to this council. And I think it's important to articulate that this is just a matter of good governance, that we need to check exactly what it is that we're being asked to invest a significant amount of capital, of taxpayer capital into, and to Councillor Kirby-Yung's point, there has been no indication that the province is even willing to amend the Police Act to support a Vancouver police training facility. Those are entirely speculative. And again, we're playing with taxpayer dollars here. So I think it is not harmful to do the work before we spend the money and to do the thoughtful work. Now, to Councillor Montague's assessment that this would take a year, that That's certainly a presupposition, but it could also be amended to have a more, a stricter timeline because these asks aren't unreasonable. And it certainly wouldn't necessarily have to take a year. That's a matter of will. Thank you.
Yeah, I just want to lend my support to the referral. I think that, you know, if taking any bias off of the initial motion, or another pragmatically and then, you know, as was stated with good governance, I certainly have questions. If this motion really is about sole-source funding, we should know what we're funding, and we don't. And we don't have the police here to ask any questions because it's a member motion. I have no, I have, I found out about this through sort of rumours and some reporting in the media. So I certainly don't have information that it sounds like other councillors have in order to support this. And I'd like to support it. I mean, you know, at the end of the day, I think that we can think big picture as a council. And I think that we can get aligned with a clear vision, with clear outcomes. None of that has been provided. And so we're wrestling with politics, really, instead of a decision that we can defend to taxpayers, because this is taxpayer money. And so, you know, the questions that I have really, and I would love to be asking the chief about this or the police board chair is around the actual agreements with, as it relates to occupying a retail space, is there any zoning changes? As an educational facility, are we able to leverage any provincial grant funding? Are we able to leverage any tax breaks, who's paying the property tax on the site? What does that look like? Like, there's just lots of really fundamental questions that could be asked if we were able to have a report back, because what it does is it basically creates a conversation that we can be asking staff. We can be analyzing real evidence and data. And we can be asking directly to the Police Board Chair, Finance Committee, and the police chief himself. all of whom are not included in this process. I haven't heard anything yet that reasonably defends that this decision has to happen today without any of that information. And I feel quite confident that a good majority of this council has all that information, and some of us don't. And that's probably how the vote will fall.
Thanks very much. Okay, seeing no other council members in the queue, we will now call the vote on the amendment.
So that fails with, Councillor Classen, Kirby Young, Dominato, Monague, Mayor Sim, Councillor Meister, and Councillor Joe in opposition. All right. So we'll go back to Main Q,
Thank you. I, sure. I won't say much because I think. it's been debated to death here in chambers. But I think one of the things that we can all agree on is we would love to have had London drugs stay in this space. But the reality is the environment doesn't allow them to. And the other reality is this space will sit empty for a very, very long time. With regards to, I think, some comments, I believe it was Council from Maloney that made some comments around how these have been ongoing discussions and why wasn't it part of the police budget. Yes, has the discussion of a VPD training their own members been a discussion for a very long time? Absolutely. For as long as I can remember. But it wasn't until the province, just a couple months ago, opened the door to allow it to happen that we find ourselves here. We need the provincial ability to do that. And they haven't been willing up until recently. So there was no way to put it in a budget. Just simply couldn't happen. But the provinces put out that invitation to municipalities to do this. Vancouver has the ability to do it. They have the resources to do it. They have the skills to do it. They essentially are already training their own officers to some extent. So let's stop this issue with capacity. and allow them to train their officers so that we can get our members back up to strength so that we're not paying the GAI $56,000 a seat, over $5 million a year potentially, and that we're reducing overtime costs. Because that overtime is very difficult on the officers as well. They don't want to work six or seven days a week because of vacancies. And nor should they. So I have a feeling I know how this vote's going to go, but I would urge them. Council to vote unanimously for it. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor.
Mr. Maloney. I have a question for the mover of the motion through the chair, please.
Go right ahead. I'm just curious as to whether the province designated this location, particularly as a prerequisite for their support. Not that I'm aware of. My understanding
is this is an invitation went out for municipalities to. Thank you. But no specific location.
I'm attempting to turn my microphone.
Okay. That passes with Councilors Bly, Frye, or and Maloney in opposition.
Okay, so we will. Chair, before we stop, could I just please rise on a point of order?
As the, that item is completed, we are. are going to go to a lunch, noting that the next motion up is reversing the costly ban of supported housing. I just would like to let the council know that in light of the ABC Council, Glenyshire, We Chat, Misinformation Campaign, I will be withdrawing my motion from today's council agenda. This issue and the broader concerns about misinformation and divisive tactics at City Hall deserve a focused, constructive debate, rushing this discussion in a polar environment does not serve the public interest. Many speakers, over seven or eight hours of speakers have signed up based on misinformation that was spread. In Vancouver residents deserve facts, transparency, and informed decision-making. So I will bring this motion back next month and ensure it receives the full attention and thoughtful deliberation our community expects and deserves. And I just want to thank speakers who have signed up to speak to the actual content of the motion, because there are many on the list. And I ask they consider signing up when the motion comes back in the spring. It is very important that we hold up our integrity and democracy in this chamber, and so I have no choice but to withdraw the motion based on the actions of another
counselor in this chamber. Thank you. Okay, so that is that a point of procedure from you? Mr. Bly? Okay. Just one moment. All right. We have completed motion one. So with motion two was drawn, we will, one moment. I'm sorry, I've got it here. Complete motion two. My apologies. Got it. Okay. So that completes motion two. Motion three has been withdrawn. We will resume the meeting at quarter past one. Meeting at 115. Thanks very much.
Code followed by the number sign.
Yes, Sonia, can you hear me? Julie, can you hear me? I can. Thank you. Perfect. I'm back in the chair, but I wanted to thank Councillor Classen for taking on the chair duties this morning while I had to attend to a virtual medical appointment. So much appreciated. And we are going to pick up on motion four. This is entitled, walking the talk, aligning the city, staff, and council's remote work policy, and is to be moved and introduced by Councillor Maloney. Before we begin this agenda item, if anyone believes they have a conflict of interest, now is the time to declare it? Does anyone have a conflict to disclose? Okay. Councillor Maloney, you have a question. have two minutes to introduce your motion. Please go ahead. Thank you. I want to be clear about something from the outset. I strongly believe that every worker deserves to have flexible working conditions, be it for accessibility, equity, or to reduce our environmental footprint. And to that end, the first draft of this motion was simply to restore staff's previous flexibility to work remotely. Whether it was intended or not, the reality is that with the decision to restrict staff's flexibility to work remotely. Some city of Vancouver staff were unable to balance their commitments and were forced to resign. We've seen talented, dedicated people walk out the door. That decision to restrict staff's flexibility happened around the same time as the zero means zero budget and $120 million in cuts. However, I took the important advice and feedback on my draft motion that it is appropriate that council does not directly manage HR policy. Under the charter and our governance model, those decisions sit with the city manager. It is not our role to directly intervene in setting staff working conditions, but we do control our own expectations. If we are going to require staff to be physically present, if flexibility is no longer extended to them as it has been before, then we should hold ourselves to the same or similar standard. Leadership is not. not about carving out exceptions for ourselves. It's about solidarity. It's about demonstrating that we stand with the people who make this city run. This motion contains the same exemptions that staff enjoys, but it's about walking the talk, and that's what this motion seeks to do. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Do you have a seconder? Seconded by Councilororor. Okay, we're going to now hear from registered speakers for the motion. Public speakers should state whether they are in support or opposition in the recommendations and may only speak once. I will also ask speakers if they are residents of Vancouver if it's not noted on the speakers list. And our first public speaker is Nathan David, Davidovich. Nathan, it's actually the podium. Nathan, it's the podium in front of there. Please go ahead. Thank you, members of council. My name is Nathan Davidovich, and I'm speaking in support of Councillor Lucy Maloney motion. When COVID started in 2020, the BC Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General issued a directive that allow municipalities and other agencies to conduct their business virtually by Zoom. However, when COVID was over around 23 or so, no directive was issued to return to the pre-COVID arrangements. Once again, the BC government failed us. Many municipalities adopted a hybrid meeting of both in-person and virtual, but most city councils return to in-person meetings for all members of council, but continue to offer a virtual meeting or in-person meeting to the public that wanted to speak. We need to upgrade Vancouver. meetings on YouTube and the city website to include closed captions. The city is right now contravening the BC Accessibility Act and could be fined if the government operates properly. But the problem we have is that other agencies like Transling Board of Directors, keep conducting their business. virtually. And that's a big problem because out of 50 meetings that they conduct a year, only four meetings are open to the public. And so you should ask the BC government to amend the rules and make it uniform for all municipalities. I don't know where the UBCM is and why they're not doing anything, but that's a UBCM is. But that's the way it should be. It should be uniform rules on many other things for municipalities as well, because we are spending millions of dollars on bylaws and things that are almost identical in other municipalities. And here the city has to waste money, hiring lawyers and so forth to draft bylaws. You know, so these are my comments. And thank you very much. for listening to me. Thank you, thank you. Speaker number two, Stefan Von Schakowski. Yeah, thank you. Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. My name is Stefan Von Zichoski. I'm the President of the Vancouver and District Labor Council, which represents approximately 90 affiliated local unions
and 60,000 union members in Vancouver and surrounding area. Of course, I'm here to say a few words in support of motion for walking the talk, to talk, aligning city staff and council's remote work policy. And, you know, I'll admit it feels a little odd to do so because, of course, let me be clear, we do support the ability of workers to do remote work, where the nature of their job allows for that. And there are many benefits to that, as we all, I think, know, benefits to quality of life, to affordability, to emissions reduction, and in many cases, even productivity. And nobody wants to be sitting in traffic for hours without. need, nobody benefits from anyone having to do that. It exacerbates traffic congestion, reduces the time we all need for rest, household duties, family and friends, and so forth. Many of our affiliates are bargaining and campaigning to ensure that remote work provisions that work for their members and the places they work in are in place. But unfortunately, the city of Vancouver has implemented a policy requiring its workers to return to the office. We're not aware of any sort of demonstrable reason for. this. The city has operated with remote work in place now for many years, and the sky has not fallen and the job has gotten done. So, you know, why now? And also, why not everyone? Because the question at the root of this motion is really, why is city council making a decision to force a return to the office if they aren't prepared to do so themselves? If Vancouver residents are expected to believe that it's necessary for workers to be in office, to do their jobs, then certainly it follows that the same is true of the important work of governing this city. We don't support ending remote work as a general rule, but we do believe there should be equitable practice in terms of this policy. Our encouragement would be for the city to make a fair and to have a policy that extends across departments and extends to city council. And I think, you know, that policy ought to be to continue to allow where it makes sense, where it's feasible for remote work options. But if that's not possible, not going to be the case, then an equitable policy should apply to all. Thank you. Okay, thank you for calling. Speaker 3 is Fabian Contreras. I can hear me? Yes, we can. Please go ahead. So, yeah, I'm here to speak in support of the CAF counsel in the motion. So let me just be candid. The city has made in-person work, the default for out of scope, or I think maybe they're called exempt staff. And that decision has had real consequences. Reduced flexibility has meant that some employees have had to make some difficult choices. And in some cases, choices around resignation. And so that's not a theoretical. That's people restructuring their lives or deciding they can't make it work. And so when a policy carries that kind of impact, leadership matters even more. Get it. It wasn't those around this council table that made the decision for staff to return to the office. You may disagree with that directive, but you absolutely control your own conduct. And in that, and if that expectation for staff is that presence matters, then presence should matter here too in council chambers. And you should show leadership and solidarity. Otherwise, what the message, you know, what's the message that gets sent? It's that flexibility is a privilege reserved for those at the top and that the burden of adjustment falls down. and not upward. So residents show up in person, staff show up in person. The chamber you sit in side is where public debates are held, decisions are made, and it should feel serious, it should feel grounded. And so certainly there should be reasonable exceptions, illness, special business. And you know, we know from organizations like equal voice that childcare can be important to women's participation politics. So I'm glad to see that in the motion. So no one is arguing for rigidity without compassion. and the motion, I think, provides some consideration for those kinds of circumstances. So if you can debate zoning for six hours straight, if you have every confidence that you can sort of make the commute to City Hall. So I would encourage you to support this motion. If, in fact, you can't go back to what the previous policy was, I hope that you would stand with the staff and in terms of what the direction has been set for them. Thanks. Okay, thank you. Okay, that is the end of our speaker's list. Thanks, everyone for speaking to our. committee members is there any discussion? Thank you. Yeah, I'm just going to move to the main queue. Sorry about that. I think Councilor Kerb Young was up first. Oh, Council Kirby Young, please go ahead. Yeah, thanks. It's just emailing an amendment. I actually will just preface this if you want to move us to an amendment queue, chair. Sure. Yeah. I'd like to propose an amendment and provide some. Please go ahead. Okay. Sorry, is there an issue? Is there an issue? I've got the amendment in my email. Please go ahead, Council Corby Young. Can we restart my clock? Thanks. Please? Yeah, clerks. Can you please restart Council Kirby Young's clock? Okay. Are we good to go now? Please go ahead. Great. I actually appreciate this sentiment in the spirit of this motion, and I do agree with the principal with respect to the fact that council should lead by example. I have had the experience of sitting on two council terms, one when the only option was to be in person and we were not statutes statutorily, allowed to meet virtually. And so all meetings were in person regardless of whether or not you started 930 in the morning, finished a public hearing at 10 o'clock. It was extended until midnight, whatever the case, if you had child care, pickups, daycare, medical, all the things that we have in life just like others do. But that wasn't an option. Then we had the pandemic. Then the government changed the option so that government could continue on during those extraordinary times. And then that was left in place as an option, which provides the ability for government to continue. Having said that, I do think that as elected leaders, it is important that we do the work and we be seen to be doing the work. And I do agree with the principle of in-person attendance as a default expectation. Having said that, I think a couple of points that are helpful to clarify and provide some context here is that we are not employees. We report to the citizenry of Vancouver, not to. the city clerk. And for that perspective, we don't get benefits. We can pay for them. We don't receive them. We don't receive time in lieu. Our work hours are not capped. And the expectations on a counselor are high, and rightly so. Our workplace is not just the council chamber. It is being out in community. It is at work and construction sites visiting them. It is at venues. It is being in other offices. It is meeting with people that may not necessarily be comfortable coming to City Hall. It is attending community events, oftentimes on evenings and weekends, seven days a week. morning, daytime, and nighttime. All of that said, I'm very happy to support the principle of the motion. What I would propose in the amendment here, and there's two components to it, is that we strike as determined by the city clerk, just recognizing practically that, I think, said, the expectation is important. It's very clear. There's laid out in terms of what guidelines are for not being in person. If you have conflicting civic business, somebody has to attend an event, or perhaps give remarks. on behalf of the mayor. It could be a number of different scenarios or situations. It could be, illness could be other circumstances. And I think that is well covered. I don't think that counselors need to seek permission. I don't think the city clerk needs to adjudicate that. I think we are the leadership of the city. And I think that we have the ability to do an act with that. So it strikes the language in B4 as determined by the city clerk and consequently law see for that same reason. It is my personal kind of practice to be. here in person as much as I possibly can. I think I stayed home for public hearing. Maybe it was last week, trying to remember, because I broke my toe and several bones in my foot. And it was a long day to try to just physically traveling back and forth and being here and counsel, then being here again until another 10 hours at midnight. So I think that counsel can judge that appropriately. And at the end of the day, as I mentioned, we are responsible to the citizenry of Vancouver. And they determine if they are satisfied with our job performance or not every four years. but I'm happy to set the expectation and that is the spirit behind this amendment. Thank you. Okay, thanks, Councillor Kerbi-Young. Can I get a seconder for the amendment, please? Seconded by Councillor Joe. Okay, thank you. Councillor Maloney. Yeah, I'm happy to vote in favor of this amendment. Okay, great. Not seeing anyone else on the queue to speak to the amendment. So I'll take us to a vote, please. Okay, that passes unanimously. And we'll now go back to the main queue. Councilor Kirby, any additional comments? I would just consider. include by saying again, I think the council does lead by example. And with respect to the comments around remote work, I think that there is a recognition, there's value in having people back to work.
And this is, I think, a sort of recalibration that we're seeing that is not specific to the city Vancouver. We're seeing the federal government, other senior governments that are
making these moves. I think that we always need to provide flexibility for specific circumstances so that people can attend to life demands, and that's important. But I also think we need to recognize that many of our workers are our community and our social service workers. We have outreach workers. We have sanitation. We have road crews. We have community center staff, library frontline staff, streets and engineering that are required to be out there and never firefighters that never have an option to do flexible and remote work. And so I think that we do need to recognize that we have a significant and broad workforce. And there is value, I think, in recognizing that as a public body, we have a particular unique role to serve the public, and that also includes accessing staff. I know we've heard a lot of feedback that that has been challenging sometimes with remote work, and we've tried to open up. I know our DBL team's been doing a great job about trying to reestablish connections to help people walk through complex regulations that sometimes was difficult when people were entirely remote. So these things may recalibrate a bit further over time, but I think that the pendulum went one way, and I think it's starting to swing back, and I think inevitably we'll see some massaging of that. I'm sure that our city staff will be very attuned and sensitive to that, and are also looking at the environment in which other folks are working in the civil service and ensuring that the city is not, is comparable, right, in terms of how staff are treated as well. But that, I know that's not the subject to this motion. This is really about council, so I'll leave it at that. Thanks. Great. Thanks, Councillor Kirbyong. Councilor Joe. Yeah, thanks, sure. Just want to ask a point of information through you to the city manager. Okay, I'm reading this motion, the aware as number three. In late 2025, the city manager issued a directive requiring City of Vancouver staff to return to regularly in office attendance. My understanding that is only applied to the exam staff. Can you confirm? Sandra Singh, Deputy City Manager, thanks for the question.
Yes, it was for exempt staff, as previously. noted we have a vast and varied workforce, many of whom are required to be at their work locations in person all the time. Okay. So yeah. So non-exam staff, they still have a capability to work for. So our unionized office-based staff are on a three-day, three-day and two-day.
How many exam staff we have, and how many total staff we have in that? From a current number of employees' point of view, we're at about just, we're at about 15%. So I don't have the exact number, but it's about 15% of our workforce are exempt.
Yeah, approximately. That it varies with vacancies, but yeah.
Okay, so the number three there is actually not accurate seeing that city of Vancouver staff return back to work. That only applied to 15% of the staff. To the exempt, yes. Yeah, thank you. Okay.
Another question, so I'm going to ask the city clerk. So the question here is my understanding from procedure bylaw, if the whereas is not accurate, the whole motion is out of order. Can you confirm if that's right or not? I'm not going to call out of order, but just want to confirm. Do we need to take a short recess to confirm? How many, how much time do you think you need? Sure. We're going to take a five-minute recess and come back with the information on that. Thanks. this is going to take more time to look into. And, Councillor Zhou, because you did not call a point of order, and you stated that you weren't planning on calling the motion out of order, I think it's best if we just keep moving. Sure, we can get an update to you via email later on. Yeah, but I think in the interest of time, let's resume the meeting unless you're prepared to call a point of order. Did you have any other questions, Councillor Zhou, or comments?
Yep, go ahead. Let me just turn that on for you. Sorry, one second. Not working. Okay, thank you.
Yeah, yeah, I just want to support this motion. Yeah, I think the idea is, it makes sense. I think also, you know, we should try our best to be here in person. I think I have the best attendance on record. So, you know, I 100% support this motion. Yeah, thanks.
Thanks. Thanks. I'd just like to draw council's attention to the word restricting in whereas clause three, and I've just, I won't, I'll just convey my brief discussion with staff. The reason why I chose the word restricting is because although exempt staff are able to, are required to be in-person five days a week, non-exempt staff, so unionised workers, had a change to their working conditions, whereby they were restricted from working from home or working remotely more days a week than their current allowance, which is three days a week. So that's why their ability to do remote work was restricted. And so the motion is accurate, and I'm at pains to point that out to council so that we avoid any more misinformation being spread about my work. Thank you.
Hey, Councillor Maloney.
Thank you.
Okay, and I see no one else in the queue for this motion as amended. I'm now going to call the vote. Clerks, if you could please take us to the voting screen and council, if you could please register your vote on the voting panel.
Yes, it was amended. We passed an amendment. That's my recollection. Is that correct? Yeah, okay, great. Lord, Chair, just so.
This is the motion as amended.
Thank you.
Okay, that passes unanimously. Thanks, everyone. That completes motion four. Okay, we're now. I'm going to move on to motion five entitled Meeting the Moment, FIFA Public Safety and Local Readiness Working Group, which is co-submitted by Councillor Bligh and Councillor and is to be moved and introduced by Councillor Bligh. Before we begin this agenda item, if anyone believes they have a conflict of interest, now is the time to declare it. Does anyone have a conflict to disclose? Okay, Councillor Bligh, you have up to two minutes to introduce your motion.
Thanks very much. And good afternoon, colleagues and those listening online, I'm very pleased to introduce this motion at a time when Vancouver is preparing to host the FIFA World Cup. And we are facing an unprecedented opportunity with this event and also a significant responsibility. Let me just state for the record, I'm excited about FIFA. I'm supportive of this tournament coming and the benefits that it will bring to our surrounding communities, businesses. And as Vancouver has always been on that global world stage for event hosting. That said, major global events of this scale bring, along with it, this energy and excitement that I'm expressing, but they also bring real pressures on public safety systems, transportation networks, our neighborhoods, and frontline staff. So meeting the moment, as this motion is titled, is about ensuring that we are ready in a way that reflects our values and keeps residents at the center of our planning. This motion proposes a public safety and local readiness working group to coordinate the work that is already underway across multiple departments, agencies, and partners. This is not about creating new layers of bureaucracy. It is about alignment. And alignment that I'm hearing does not exist. Ensuring that Vancouver Police, Fire Rescue, Engineering, Emergency Management, Vancouver Coastal Health, BIAs, frontline services, hospitality serving organizations, and community stakeholders are working from the same plan with clear communication and shared accountability. Cities around the world have shown that readiness must be proactive, not reactive. We cannot wait until the pressures are at our doorstep. We still have time. So a coordinated table now means fewer crises later, and it ensures that residents, local businesses, and frontline workers have a clear understanding of what to expect as FIFA 2026 approaches. Hosting FIFA is a privilege, but our first obligation is always to the people who live and work here. And this motion is set to make sure that we are good hosts to this global event.
Okay, thanks, Councillor Bligh. Councillor has seconded the motion as it is co-submitted. So we'll now hear from registered speakers for the motion. Public speakers should state whether they're in support or opposition to the recommendations. You may only speak once. I will also ask our speakers if they're residents of Vancouver, if it's not noted on the speakers list. And our first public speaker is Irwin Ostenny.
Good afternoon. I was hoping there was going to be a timer on here, but there's some lights on the podium on the right side. I'll try to pack this in. My name is Irwin Ostenny, the director of War Urban Labs and an urban planner. I'm also coordinating and managing the FIFA Impacts Lab, which is an interdisciplinary lab that looks at research and policy development to support FIFA in Vancouver. As well, we're producing the FIFA Impacts Conference at SFU on April the 29th. We are all welcome to attend, co-presented by six different university departments. Just as a point of background, I support, I worked for Judy Rogers back in 2002 when we were doing the IOC bid and helped work on the IOC statement, which was the first time in Olympic Games history that there had been an impacts statement and looking at inclusive benefits for the neighborhood and the downside. Historic work that the city contributed to back for the 2010 Olympics, also noting that, that that was 2002, so eight years before the Olympics happened. So a lot of time in development and getting it right. I'm also a Whitecaps season ticket holder and also helped the city write a CBA for the Whitecaps Stadium. That probably wisely didn't go ahead on the train tracks next to Crab Park. But have a lot of experience in this space. I support the motion because I do recognize that the model that the city's embarked upon for FIFA is a little bit different than. the time when we had the Vancouver Agreement and the kind of ability to leverage different levels of government to come to the table and also to actually think about it as a legacy strategy, a development strategy to ensure that we maximize that investment of $650 million. Specifically, I'm noticing when I look at the human rights draft report, there are gaps. There's gaps both in recommended solutions. There's also gaps in what is considered sort of within the purview of that. strategy, specifically thinking about the people who were consulted compared to perhaps the best practices or more interdisciplinary approach — many subject experts weren't in or have not been included in the city's consultation work that probably should be, as well, in terms of the kind of way that we make good decisions — sometimes complex systems like hosting a mega event does require interdisciplinary methods and I think what was what is happening. I've spoken to a few people who were consulted briefly — 45-minute meeting, not a lot of depth in terms of the kind of input around policy development. And I think about things like, you know, the risk of Australian, New Zealand, Swiss football fans, you know, dying from a poisoned drug supply in a hotel room that they're not aware of, or thinking about benefits for First Nations, thinking about the way we think about the impacts on housing such as Airbnb regulation. So there's lots of solutions that we could bring to bear if we actually had more time and space and have a more robust opportunity to, you know, bring the best of Vancouver to bear on these decisions. So I think it's a great solution to do more work and have this table. Sorry, I ran over time. Thanks very much.
Thanks for speaking to council today. We'll now go to speaker, pardon me, speaker two, Nathan Davidovich. Thank you, Mayor and Members of Council. My name is Nathan Davidovich. And I
support motion 5 by Councillor Bligh and Councillor Orr. The working group for FIFA already exists, but it's only for staff and, you know, the public is not not allowed. Yes, the P&E is holding a virtual Zoom meeting on FIFA tonight, you know. We just talked about not having virtual meetings, you know, and why can the P&E not hold a proper in-person meeting? That's beyond me. But there is an actual in-person meeting tomorrow night at Carnegie at 5:30. I don't know how many of you have got the flyer from Carnegie that's entitled FIFA 2026 Community Concerns and Demands. And so in 2026, the TransLink budget for FIFA is $25 million. I ask for detail, but as usual, for it's TransLink. You don't get any details. TransLink's budget is more than the city budget, but they only have about 60 pages on a $2 billion budget. So look at your own experience, what happened on Sunday. Probably none of you took transit to the Chinatown Spring Festival. Because if you have taken transit there, you would have found out how bad it was, how come the buses were all rerouted all around, and the real harm. and the real harm that many transit riders, especially seniors, disabled, and young families, suffered. Well, similar bad detours of bus routes will occur during FIFA and games, and possibly for up to, who knows, five weeks maybe of disruption for many bus riders. And unless we have a proper committee that looks at the impact, and tries to mitigate some, it won't happen. If you just let it, leave it for staff, that's exactly what happened in the spring festival. They let the staff do it. The staff are not experts in transit or they don't have all the information, and that's the problem. So thank you very much for listening to me.
Thanks, Nathan. Speaker number three, Chantel Spicer on the phone.
I'm on the phone. Yes, can you hear me?
Yes, I can, Chantel. I just need to ask if you're a resident of Vancouver.
I am not.
Thank you. Please go ahead.
My name is Chantel Spicer, and I am speaking here today in my role for the BC Poverty Reduction Coalition, which represents over 80 organizations and community collectives that come together to advocate for public policy solutions to end poverty. And though I'm not a resident of Vancouver, I do work in Vancouver and our office is located right at the corner of Main and Hastings. I'm here today. speaking in favor of this motion, which speaks to the many concerns that we have heard expressed by organizations, collectives, and individuals who work and rely on public spaces in the Downtown Eastside when it comes to World Cup 2026. These concerns exist because of the honestly poor job the city and host city committee has done to inform and engage with people who are most at risk of enforcement, displacement, and violence during FIFA due to their reliance on public spaces to live and work. To give you an example, of the current engagement process, our Downtown Eastside informal coalition offered to meet with the committee beginning in June of 2024 to contribute to the human rights action plan that FIFA requires the city to have. We had and have much to share in terms of our perspectives, concerns, and potential solutions, but were routinely rebuffed. Instead, the committee indicated that its human rights framework would rely primarily on existing City of Vancouver policies and bylaws, as well as provincial and federal legislation. We had a meeting with staff in the host city committee last Friday, nearly two years from the original offer to be engaged with. Now with only about 13 weeks until FIFA officially coming to the city and with the release of the human rights action plan, it is clear that there are ways that earlier consultation and engagement with those most likely to be impacted by FIFA could have led to reduced harm, such as the loss of vital sex worker programs and daytime action and safe places for those who rely on public space. In reviewing who was consulted with in the creation of the human rights action plan, it is obvious that there are on-the-ground groups and organizations who were not engaged with,
including drug user groups, housing advocacy groups and civil rights groups, and a key sex worker group who's listed as engaged with, but was not actually met with until January of this year just before the release of the plan and much too late. However, the potential to reduce harm is not lost. The proposed working group offers some opportunity to redress the lack of real community engagement in this moment, as well as offers a structure that could be useful for any future large events in the city. In terms of the proposed scope of the working group, we would also add that the integrated readiness strategy should address the poison drug supply and public health education. And further, any work done on gender-based violence and response should include sex workers' rights to a safe workplace, as well as non-police responses to gender-based violence. Although we recognize the short time frame for such a working group to do work, we hope to do this. Thank you for calling.
Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. Just remind you for all speakers that you have three minutes to address council. We'll go to speaker for Hajar Masood.
Hi, I'm sorry, can you hear me?
Yes, we can. Please go ahead.
Thank you so much. My name is Hajar Masood, and I'm the Chief Strategy Officer at Atara Women's Resource Society. I'm not a resident of Vancouver, but I work daily alongside women and communities across this city, and I strongly support this motion. Globally, major sporting events are associated with increases in gender-based violence, harassment, public intoxication, and strain on community services. This is not speculation. It's a pattern seen in host cities around the world. Other cities are acknowledging this. In Toronto, officials have publicly anticipated increased risks of intimate partner violence and gender-based violence during the World Cup and are expanding venue-based safety initiatives and cross-sector coordination. Vancouver has the opportunity to go further, and in fact, you already started. Last week, the city published version 1 of the Vancouver host city Human Rights Action Plan. In that document, the city identifies preventing gender-based violence, protecting the welfare of people experiencing homelessness, rights, respecting security protocols and accessible grievance mechanisms as priority areas. This motion does not create something new. It operationalizes what the city has already committed to, just last week, in the action plan. The human rights action plan sets the values. This working group provides the structure to deliver them. From a frontline perspective, three things matter. First, prevention: clear expectations for venues and businesses, neighborhood ambassador programs, coordinated public messaging, and survivor-centered response pathways, reduce harm before it escalates. Second, system readiness. Our shelters, outreach teams, peer workers already operate at capacity. Even a modest surge in incidents during a global event can ripple across the system. Advance coordination protects visitors, residents, and particularly those communities who already carry the greatest burden of harm. Third, legacy. The World Cup will last weeks, but the systems we build now, including this working group and systems around gender-based violence prevention, neighborhood coordination, community partnership can strengthen Vancouver long after the final match. Major events test cities — they reveal whether safety was designed in or added on later, so don't make this a situation of we are just adding it on later. This motion chooses to design it in. So support this working group and ensure that frontline organizations are meaningfully included in shaping Vancouver's readiness. Thank you so much.
Thank you. Speaker 5, Landon Hoyt. Yes, we can, Landon. Go ahead. Thank you. Good afternoon,
Mayor and Council again. My name is Landon Hoyt. I'm the Executive Director of the Hastings Crossing Business Improvement Association, representing more than 800 businesses and commercial property owners in the Downtown Eastside. I'm here today in strong support of this motion. With matches taking place at BC Place as part of the FIFA World Cup 2026, Vancouver will soon welcome the world. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity, but it's also a major operational test for our city and for the neighborhoods surrounding the stadium. Hastings Crossing sits within close proximity to BC Place and key transit corridors. Our members will be directly impacted by increased foot traffic, global media attention, and heightened public safety demands. Our businesses are preparing. They are investing in staffing, extended hours and planning activations and we want this to succeed both economically, culturally, and reputationally. But success depends on coordinated readiness. We are publicly supportive of this motion because it recognizes that public safety must be integrated and cross-departmental. Policing alone is not a plan. We need alignment across sanitation, outreach, traffic management, emergency response, and business communications. We need clear, consistent messaging for visitors, and for local residents about where to go, how to move around the city, and what safety supports are available in the community. And we need to ensure that neighborhoods adjacent to event venues are supported, not strained during the tournament. While there have been periodic meetings between BIAs and the host committee, there has not yet been adequate coordination across departments, and many questions that we have in those meetings are going unanswered. Key questions about safety resources, community communication strategies, and direct support for local businesses remain unanswered. This working group is the right mechanism to fix that, proactively, not reactively. In Hastings Crossing and the Downtown Eastside, we understand that large-scale events require careful planning. We are a complex and resilient community. If planning is not coordinated, the impacts are felt immediately on our streets and by our small businesses. The cleanliness and the care we demonstrate toward vulnerable populations and local entrepreneurs will determine whether FIFA delivers lasting economic benefit or whether it becomes a short-term spike with long-term strain. Visitors must feel welcome and informed and local businesses must feel supported and resourced. And residents must feel their neighborhood is being stewarded responsibly. This is not just about what happens inside the stadium, but also about how the city functions outside. We stand ready to participate actively. We can share on-the-ground intelligence, help amplify official messaging, and serve as a direct conduit to hundreds of small businesses. Vancouver has the opportunity to demonstrate not only that we can host the world, but that we can do it with coordination, care, and community at the center. We encourage council to support this motion and move quickly to establish a transparent, action-oriented working group. Thank you for your time.
Thank you. We'll now go to Speaker 6, Elise Yerkowski. Hi, Elise, yes we can. Please go ahead.
Hi. Thank you, Mayor and Council. As mentioned, my name is Elise Yerkowski. I am Executive Director of the Gastown Business Improvement Society. We represent more than 600 businesses and property owners in one of Vancouver's most historic and most visited neighborhoods. I am calling in in support of this motion. We've been working, as Landon also mentioned previously, with the FIFA World Cup Vancouver host committee over the last year. However, these meetings have lacked just an overall depth and clarity from a neighborhood perspective. There remains a significant gap in proactive on-the-ground planning and public policy. We believe this motion directly helps fill that gap. While we are super excited to welcome everyone and our businesses have been working extremely hard in investing in showing up, we also know that our businesses and neighborhood experience public safety pressures every day, and that major international events amplify them. During FIFA, we expect higher foot traffic, longer operating hours, more late-night activity, and increased demand on our patrol teams, on our businesses, on safety and sanitation in the neighborhood, and directly on frontline businesses. To manage this responsibly, safety cannot be an afterthought. It must be coordinated early and across all partners. Over the last several months, we've been calling on the city to work more closely with key stakeholders to strengthen and expand the planning already initiated by the host committee, particularly in areas where gaps remain, including clear neighborhood-level safety plans co-developed with on-the-ground partners, ambassador and wayfinding programs to provide a visible safety presence, support disoriented visitors, and reduce pressure on our businesses. A coordinated public communication effort, ensuring that workers, residents, and visitors receive timely, consistent safety and other information before and during the tournament. And then also just ensuring that we're integrating with the existing city-led and host committee efforts so that on-the-ground safety teams, peer support groups, patrols, and response plans are working in sync, not in silos, which is what we have been seeing over the last little while. These elements aren't just operational details. They are what will determine whether neighborhoods in our city remain safe, welcoming, and able to function smoothly during one of the most significant global events Vancouver has ever hosted. The GBIS is ready to continue collaborating to ensure Vancouver shows up as a safe, well-prepared, and community-centered host city to leave a lasting positive impression on visitors and economic benefits on businesses for years to come. Thanks for your time today.
Okay, thank you. Next speaker, Speaker 7, Leah Annafather. Is that Leah? Have Leah on the line? Okay, thank you. Speaker 7 withdrawn. Speaker 8, Tanya Webking. Tanya. Hi. Yeah. Yeah, thank you so much. I appreciate that.
Yeah, Tanya here. I'm here to speak in favour of Councillor Bligh and Councillor Orr's motion. Yes, this is a motion about public safety for residents, but this is also about visitor safety. And I'd like to speak to a couple of my safety concerns and just kind of hyper-focus on those, particularly as residents are aware of many of our dangers, but many visitors will not. Back in the day, the VPD used to release monthly reports on which downtown clubs reported the most incidents of people, primarily women, getting roofied by date rape drugs. This has historically always been primarily located on the Granville Strip, and as that's where most of our visitors are going to be roaming, this is an incredibly important issue. Even the Vancouver Police Foundation has initiated a Shield Your Sip campaign to warn people about the dangers of spiked drinks. It has been a decades-long issue here in the city. And the World Cup is going to bring in a certain type of patriarchal energy when it arrives in large numbers, and it does increase the risk for gender-based violence. I ask you on the International Day of Women that you take this consideration seriously. Although global events such as FIFA are typically events for the rich, this is also an opportunity to uplift folks who aren't able to attend these events themselves. The Binners Project is an incredible environmental community project where they collect cans and bottles to recycle and collect garbage. This affords more marginalized members of our community the ability, the ability to work and contribute to our community. I've had several clients who've been part of this project, and it instills pride, independence, and it uplifts folks out of extreme poverty. I'm also aware that orgs in the Downtown Eastside have approached the city with offers of some peer-led safety plans. As we don't have a medically regulated supply, users will rely on an illicit market. Visitors will rely on what they can easily find, and the city must do all that it can to prevent serious harm. I cannot tell you how many times that I've urged my clients to get their pills tested that they've purchased outside of the medical system — manufactured fakes look identical to pharmaceutical-grade medicines. Therefore, it is absolutely critical that the city find locations to be used for easy-to-access drug testing in the downtown core. As the ABC government has collapsed all of the supervised consumption and overdose prevention sites downtown, you'll have to work quickly to secure locations, and certainly some of the city-owned land could be quite useful here. If Vancouver doesn't execute FIFA safely, this could seriously impact future events of this magnitude. Ensuring a vibrant and safe World Cup event is the outcome that we're all seeking.
This is about public safety. This council is concerned. Okay, Speaker 9, Wally Woggleau. Speaker 9 is not on the line. It's the end of the speakers list. We want to try Wally one more time? Okay. So I understand Wally is not available. Speaker 9. So that's the end of our speakers list. Thank you to everyone for speaking to the committee. Committee members, is there any discussion? Councillor Orr.
Yeah, I'm very proud to have worked on this with Councillor Bligh. I just think, yeah, with the number of eyes that are going to be on Vancouver during the World Cup, a readiness strategy is super important so that we can showcase Vancouver as a world-class city. Yeah, I'm proud to support this motion because public safety is not just about emergency response. It's about planning together early and inclusively so everyone can enjoy what should be a celebration for the whole city. Vancouver will be hosting seven matches, bringing thousands of visitors and a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for a city. But large events also bring foreseeable public safety challenges from crowded transit, hospitality settings to increased risk of harassment, drug-related harms, human trafficking, violence against at-risk and homeless population and gender-based violence, and we need a coordinated community-centred response to address them. This motion directs the creation of a FIFA World Cup Public Safety and Local Readiness Working Group to develop an integrated readiness strategy. That means not just law enforcement, but Neighbourhood Ambassador programs, neighbourhood-level safety plans, support for local businesses, coordinated communications, and prevention-oriented strategies that make our public spaces feel welcoming and comfortable for everyone, residents and visitors alike. Importantly, this isn't a top-down security plan put together in isolation. It's about bringing all stakeholders to the table early so that we can anticipate risks, share knowledge, and ensure public safety is enhanced through collaboration rather than reaction. When we draw on the experience of those who live and work here from health agencies addressing overdoses to BIAs helping small businesses, we not only protect people more effectively, we also build trust within our communities. Thanks.
Yeah, thanks, Chair. When I was reading the motion, I noticed that the motion wasn't sent in for staff feedback, which is optional. It doesn't have to be sent in for staff feedback. But when I was reading through it, council gets regular updates, FIFA updates from staff. We get regular memos from staff. And a lot of the things I was reading in the motion, I seem to recall staff already working on. So I sent in a question to staff asking, basically asking, what work within the motion is currently underway. And I got this response. Basically, all of council received it. It says the work proposed in the motion is underway, with much of it initiated 12 to 18 months ago. With 110 days to go until the first Vancouver match, the FIFA World Cup 26 host committee team is at the point, singularly focused on executing existing work plans to prepare for event delivery with absolutely no capacity to take on incremental new work. So I think what I would like to say is that I'm not opposed to the intent of the motion. I actually think there are some valid, but some valid issues raised within the motion. But I do think that from my own experience in the updates that council's been getting and and the memos. And one of the most recent memos was February 9th entitled Key Preparations Underway. I do think that most of this work is done. I think if this motion had been brought to us a year or two ago, I would have been happy to support. But with only 100, well, now 108 days to go. We'd be sending staff on a very pretty robust work project. that they simply just don't have the capacity or ability to do. So while, like I said, I appreciate the intent of the motion, I can't support it. And I'll be voting in opposition, not because I don't agree with it. Just I don't think staff have the capacity. Well, they've told us they don't have the capacity to work on it. And that the work in it is already being undertaken.
Yeah, I'm happy to support this. I think it's very worthwhile to make sure if we are doing some of it and not doing some of it, that we plug the gaps, as we've heard from our speakers, it is a worthwhile process. And I must say, Councillor Montague's remarks were confusing to me because they seem to be in equal parts. We're already doing it. And we don't have capacity to do it, which is inconsistent. So I'm going to say. support these things.
Yeah, thanks very much. I'm happy to close on the motion. And I just want to start by thanking Councillor Orr for working with me on this motion and also the speakers that signed up to speak and also the speakers that signed up to speak that contributed to this motion. This motion did not materialize out of nowhere. This motion has come forward. And it's been about two months of discussion, and I've had discussions with staff and specifically the city manager, to give, you know, a heads up on where this is coming from. And so, you know, we've heard from groups who have spoken and others that there are siloed conversations happening. I think all that's being asked here is can we bring these conversations together and set that vision for the city in an open and transparent way so that everybody feels like they can see themselves in the success of this event. That's just simply not what I've heard is the case. I've also, and look, I'll say our staff have worked very hard. We have a FIFA secretariat. I see our deputy city manager, Karen Levitt, who's leading the charge and has done an excellent job. But we know that with FIFA events, they're not like the Olympics. FIFA events, there are a lot of T's to cross and I's to dot in the fine print of FIFA agreements. And what I'm asking for is for us to put that work aside. And I think the time is now. given that we've sort of gone through that due diligence and dedicate some time to the residents and the businesses of our city who want to be part of this and want to understand what they're looking forward to and how is it going to work. Not to mention, you know, there is a public safety concern here related to, you know, the work we can do with Vancouver Coastal Health in terms of notifying tourists, visitors to our city that come from European countries and elsewhere where toxic drugs actually aren't even on their radar to make sure that they feel fully informed and taken care of. This is about being good hosts. And look, this is not to throw any of our good work and our staff under the bus. But I know that there are actually organizations, businesses, and associations reaching out to Toronto staff to get some ideas. They're reaching out to Toronto to ask what they're doing as a way to try and rally themselves and organize themselves. Wouldn't we as a city want to be at that table? Don't we want to be seen as the city that they should be sending in those communications and reaching out to because they know they're going to be supported? We have a business and economic development office. There's just quite literally no line of sight. We've had in-camera updates, but we really haven't had a chance to sort of collectively wrap our arms around the potential of this event such that we feel that we have set not only ourselves as a city, but everybody who is opening up their civic doors to welcoming the world for FIFA. So this is not additional work, as was outlined by the previous councillor. This is about coordination and alignment on the work that's already been done. And a resistance to do that to me feels like an unfortunate misstep and quite a question in terms of. what would be motivating that decision to not paint that picture for the public. So I'll leave that there.
Thanks, Councillor Bligh. I guess I need to pass the chair to the deputy mayor or the acting mayor to make comments. The vice chair is not present.
Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to make some comments on this. As mentioned by Councillor Montague, there was an inquiry on his behalf that did go to all of council around this motion, as the motion wasn't submitted for staff feedback, which is unfortunate, I think. The reply stated that much of the work was underway. Much of it has been initiated 12 to 18 months ago. And then council did receive a pretty comprehensive response about all the engagement that has been undertaken by the host committee and the city's business and economy office. That includes multiple sessions with BIAs, including individual sessions with some BIAs, over 150 community outreach activities, connecting with thousands of people, one-on-one meetings in person with over 500 participants, sessions with a board of trade, multiple in-person and online events with Destination Vancouver, Destination BC. I don't have time here to summarize all the activity, but it is clear to me through the seven pages of detail that there is a lot of work going on. And that's not to say that we can't improve our processes. And if there are issues with engagement and BIAs don't feel like they're getting the information that they need, I would encourage them to reach out to any member of council but it is my understanding and as detailed by staff that, again, a lot of this work is already underway, and we just have several months before the games start. So I can't support the motion. Again, staff have been working on this for close to two years now, and I am confident that the engagement that's being undertaken is quite fulsome. So thank you.
Hey, Chair, through you to Councillor Bligh. Thanks. Just, and I appreciate the the comments of colleagues. I just actually have a point of information on, through you, Chair, to staff. If there is an opportunity, this to the city manager, if there's an opportunity, as we do with sort of any major projects, to have some sort of technical briefing to introduce this memo that's being referenced, because if we are saying that it's already done, I just don't want this to sort of be the end of the discussion, which is the epitome of a peak echo chamber when the external world doesn't appear to have the same collaboration and line of sight and understanding of staff works. So let's stop talking to ourselves and start talking to the external world. Is that possible?
Certainly possible. I know Karen Levitt could share further details about other technical briefings that have occurred, but we can continue to do those and do more of them going forward as well so that everyone has access to that information outside of these chambers as well. Okay, I think I hear a
somewhat of a commitment there, so we'll follow that through if this doesn't pass. And just a note on that, I'll just pass the chair back to acting mayor Kirby-Yung. The memo referenced is public. There's no confidential information in it, so any member of council is welcome to post that memo for the public.
Okay, seeing no one else in the queue, we'll go to vote. Clerks, if you please take us to the voting panel. And council, if you could please register your vote on the voting panel. Councillor Klassen, you'll need to have your camera on to vote. Councillor Meiszner, sorry about that. Okay.
It's Councillor Meiszner. Can I get a vote assist — in favour or in opposition? Vote assist in opposition? Sure.
Okay. That, pardon me, clerks. We're good. That does not pass. With myself in opposition, Councillor Kirby-Yung in opposition, Councillor Montague in opposition, Councillor Klassen in opposition, in opposition, Mayor Sim in opposition, and Councillor Zhou in opposition. And that concludes the item. Okay, we will now move to motion six. Recommitting to $10 a day child care, which is to be moved and introduced by Councillor Orr. Before we begin this agenda item, if anyone believes they have a conflict of interest, now is the time to declare it. Does anyone have a conflict to disclose? Okay, not seeing anyone in the queue, Councillor Orr, you have two minutes to introduce your motion.
Thank you so much. With the child care gap in Vancouver reaching a critical point it has become a paramount issue for many families in the city. In a piece written in Vancouver magazine outlining the human cost of insufficient child care, dubbed the weightless generation by the article. Many of these new parents are embroiled in battles to get their children into care programs. And for many of them, this is taking a mental toll. Many are awash with guilt over taking these spaces away from other families who equally deserve these spots. In 2023, the city estimated that they were facing a shortfall of roughly 15,000 licensed child care spaces. This motion intends to close the gap in a significant way, along with aligning with the province's child care goals. Currently, the province has paused enrollment into the $10 a day child care. With this, the onus should shift towards the city to provide for families who make up the vibrant backbone of the city. While this pause is for the fiscal year, it would be remiss for the city to not get ahead of this and begin to create a framework to complement the program once it resumes enrollment. Naturally, this motion should go hand in hand with the development goals of the city. With increased development on the west side of the city and an area already facing the exodus of families due to insufficient child care options, it would be remiss to not develop affordable child care to combat this exodus to the east and south sides of the city. Thank you.
Okay, thanks, Councillor Orr. Do we have a seconder? Councillor Bligh, thank you. Okay, we'll now hear from registered speakers for the motion. Public speakers should state whether they're in support or opposition to the recommendations. It may only speak once. I will also ask speakers if they're residents of Vancouver, if it's not noted on the speakers list. And our first public speaker, our public body representative speaker, is Victoria Jung with the Vancouver School Board. I don't see her. She's on the line. We're just going to check and see if Victoria's on the line.
Representative Speaker number one is, or is not on the line.
Okay. We'll come back to them. Thank you. We'll now go to public speakers. Speaker number one, Jennifer P.
Hello. Hello. Good afternoon. Mayor and Council. My name is Jennifer. I'm a Vancouver. residents and a child care champion with the BC Center for Family Equity. I am calling in to support counselor or as motion. As we know, the province pause $10 day extension last week for the next few years, but that makes this motion even more vital. We cannot control provincial operating budgets, but we can control our civic infrastructure. Between 2023 and 2025, the city approved 131 rezoning, yet only 12, included child care. that's less than 10%. We are approving record-breaking density, but who is this housing for? If we're not building child care alongside these homes, we are only widening that child care gaps in this city, which is already one of the worst in Canada. I have a three-year-old, and at just eight weeks pregnant, went on the grueling journey of finding child care. And believe me when I tell you, securing a space isn't just a convenience. It is absolutely life-changing. Under current transit-oriented area policy, child care is treated as a discretionary amenity, something to be traded off. We saw the result of this last week with the Vanessa Clive amendments. A decade-long promise of 74 spaces in Joyce Collingwood was whittled down to zero. That isn't just a trade-off. It's a systemic failure. When we allow developers to swap promise child care for commercial lease base, we are breaking the public trust. Clause B of this motion is especially vital. It addresses that a private commercial lease is not a child care guarantee. An owner can convert that space to a more profitable use at any time. But city-owned, churnkey, non-profit spaces are permanent community assets. We need these spaces ready so that when the province re-opens the $10-day program, Vancouver is ready. If we don't secure these spaces now, then those opportunities are gone forever. So I urge you all to support this motion. Let's stop treating child care is optional and start treating it as the essential public service that it is. Thank you.
Thank you. Speaker number two, Melanie Chang. Hi, Melanie. I'm Melanie Chang. Hi. I'm a Vancouver
resident when I'm in Joyce, and I'm here today speak in favor of counsel or motion. I was scheduled to be here today in person, but I had to switch to phone due to child care. My family is one of the many families that has been waiting for over 10 years for the 104 child care seats promised to us under the Joyce calling with recent plans. We are the only community in Vancouver, which has received 0% of the child care commitments fulfilled under its neighborhood plan. We have welcomed double-in-dousing density plan for our community with no child care commitments being fulfilled. And last week at council, you had a chance to implement 37 of those 100,000. and 4 spaces, but those spaces will be moved through a text amendment. And this was despite the city's own T.O.A policy. And if I could just reference that, it was a TUA policy amendment that was passed January 1st, 2026. And at section 5.7 of that policy deals with child care. And it says the applications should minimize the loss of institutional child care. It says further at 5. 5.7.2. that if a site is found to be suitable, the developer may be asked the secure space for child care. And in addition, that staff will seek to leverage senior government funding for these types of projects. And despite that provision in the TWA policy, there was no outreach to leverage senior government funding for the Benass McLeod's project. The only counselor who raised the concern about this for Sean Orr. But sadly, the situation in Joyce Pondwood is not unique. I have found over this week that the child care commitments are not being honored in other communities in Vancouver. And that this table shows that there are targets that needs to met and significant downspotification coming in and the West End can be Grandview and Marple. And it would be really great to have a regular reporting on the, uh, the commitments that are being made to communities and the progress that is being implemented when housing densification comes. So if space is not purpose-built and secured for child care, it is general commercial lease base with no guarantees for child care at all. And while small residential scale child care centers with individual development can contribute to the supply, they need only a fraction of that overall demand. I would just like to say, from my work at the school board, I can tell you that there's a 70% increase in child care at least rates by the VSEU over the next few years. There's an increasing loss of affordability for school age child care in Vancouver as well. So here are my ask.
Sorry, Melanie, you are over time.
Apologies. Okay, thank you. Thanks for calling. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for hearing me.
Have a good day. Speaker three, Matthew Hay.
Hi, again. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Matthew. I'm a Vancouver resident, a renter, and I'm speaking in support of counselor or's motion to recommit to $10 a day child care. Like many other young Vancouverites, I would like to start a family one day. For some of us who choose this path, this will be one of the greatest joys in our lives and something understood to be the right of all human beings. The sad reality is that I. do not know if I will be able to afford to have a child, let alone more than one. One of the fundamental aspects of life itself is gate kept to me, and many of my peers due to the economic situations we all find ourselves in. And I empathize that the magnitude of this problem does not fall squarely on the shoulders of Vancouver municipal government. That being said, the responsibility to do all you can with the tools at your disposal does fall squarely. on your shoulders. While the province has paused $10 day expansion for three years, you do as the city control physical infrastructure and we have to secure space now. So when provincial funding returns, there is not a lag time to get these spaces up off the ground. As another speaker mentioned, between 2023 and 2025, there were 131 rezoning. Only 12 included child care. We are massively increasing housing density without absolutely critical social infrastructure to support. it. This motion calls for prioritizing city-owned and nonprofit facilities over private commercial lease spaces. The fragility that comes with exclusively building up private child care spaces is that they can theoretically be converted to a more profitable use at any time. So while a private commercial child care space may pop up, there are no guarantees that it will remain, potentially leaving young families in the lurch with little notice in an already strained and broken system. The advantage of city-owned turnkey nonprofit child care facilities are that they remain child care facilities for the life of the building while simultaneously meeting provincial licensing standards for $10 a day child care. I am a resident of the city would one day like to raise a family. There are young families or expectant families right now who are struggling to access sufficient and affordable child care services. If you care about supporting the future of your residents, about supporting the livability of your residents, about supporting the livability of the of this city. You should reaffirm Vancouver's commitment to $10 day child care. A city that does not support its children or the ability of his residents to raise children is a city that has signed its own death warrant. If you don't support these values, you should vote in opposition.
Thank you for your time. Hey, thanks for speaking to council. Speaker four, Leah, Petif, Pennyfather. Oh, sorry, she was true. Apologies. Uh, Speaker 5, Speaker 5, Tanya Webb-Waping. Tanya, you have three minutes to address counsel.
Speaker 5 has disconnected.
Okay, we'll come back to them. Speaker 6, Dr. Deviani Singh. Not on the line? We'll come back. Speaker 7, Gabriel Eshner. Not on the line? Speaker 8, Natalie Lindgren.
Yes, I'm here. Can you hear me?
Hi, Natalie, yes we can.
Oh, perfect. Okay. Yeah, my name is Natalie. Natalie, I do live in Southeast Vancouver, and I'm calling in support of this motion. Affordable, publicly owned child care is crucial for supporting women's rights. Working mothers face high child care costs and often have a second unpaid full-time job at home of caretaking their children. Nobody should have to sacrifice their financial freedom in order for their child to be cared for. Child care should be treated as an essential public service. That's why this motion is so important. And I would personally go further and say that child care should be free. The issue that I'm seeing here is that Vancouver is approving significant residential growth all across the city, but then not requiring or setting aside space for affordable public child care infrastructure. I'm just going to keep it really short to that, but I hope that all the counselors are looking for ways to support families and will vote to support this motion. Thank you.
Okay, thank you. Speaker 9, Lisa Marr.
Mine is not on the line.
Speaker 10, Mona Stillwell.
Hello.
Hi, is that Mona? Yeah. Hi, Mona. Please go ahead.
Okay. My name is Mona Stillwell. I'm a resident of Renfrew Collingwood and I'm a mom. And I don't know if you remember, but exactly two months ago today, on November 25th, a bunch of moms with babies staged a diaper in at City Hall. I was there. I didn't have a baby. but I was supporting. I wonder if you remember that. All those same moms are going back to work soon, and they need child care. All right. If he cared about the baby change, tables, and public spaces, then you should also care about the safe and affordable child care for those same children. When I had my twins, I was stressed out times too, about getting into the thinnest availability of daycare spots in the city. In fact, I was so. worried about it, I considered starting my own daycare. I'm not even kidding. I was thinking, oh, great, my kids will have daycare, and I would start a business. I would have a wait list from the get-go, and I'm not even kidding. Every single daycare, private or public, has an extensively long wait list. And there's like these recommendations on how you should make sure that you get to the top of the pile. Now, it's bizarre. Anyways, I didn't end up starting a daycare. It was just a bit too much for me. But maybe in the future. So anyways, there are Vancouver neighborhoods that have been waiting over 10 years for child care promises to be fulfilled by the study in Vancouver. Yet only last week, 37 city-run daycare spaces were approved to be removed from the development in my neighborhood. It is truly a big loss. I'm in support of this motion because it is bringing your attention to the fact that Vancouver's massive housing development is not being met proportionately with childcare spaces. So you're bringing all these families but not supporting those families with child care. This isn't a planning gap. It's a priority gap. Either children matter or they don't or they don't. Number two, this motion also highlights the difference between city-owned child care and private commercial lease child care. Private commercial lease spaces as child care is not a guarantee because it could be converted into another type of commercial lease business. However, city-owned turnkey nonprofit daycare spaces is a promise. It's a permanent community asset and a true commitment to families that are desperate for child care. Please support this motion and show us you prioritize children and family. Thank you so much.
Hey, thanks for calling. We'll now go back through our speaker's list. list. Speaker 5. Do we have Speaker 5 on the line?
Hi. Am I speaker 5?
Is this Tanya? It is. Go ahead.
Okay. Thank you. Yeah. I am here to speak in favor of Councilor Orr's motion. With the provincial budget cuts that we're experiencing under the BCNDP with an unprecedented $13.3 billion deficit, Vancouver cannot expect support around $10 a day provincial support. The city needs to start creatively thinking to start working on potential sites while the city seeks alternate options for funding, such as from the Union of Municipalities or other nonprofit streams. This motion allows the city to collect and track data about how many public nonprofit daycares we've lost across the city. City staff can then also assess whether or not previous nonprofits closed down due to funding issues.
What we need to track is how many private daycares were converted and removed from our child care system. As private. daycares are considered commercial properties, owners can convert the use of their property, which has likely contributed to our high child care needs that we're facing today. I've known too many young families that have paused expanding their families, either because they couldn't find daycare or they couldn't find housing for an additional child. This city needs to start addressing the issues that are preventing growth of families in Vancouver. These are the future of our city. Strong child care infrastructure is inextricably linked to supporting women in the workplace, as child care duties often fall onto the responsibility of women. Supporting women in the workplace helps bring children out of poverty and it helps support our local economy. It's common sense that staff should be exploring city-owned properties in an effort to find viable locations for daycare, as supporting family should be a foundational priority for council. Once again, I'm asking that your words celebrating International Women's Day be moved from statements into action. As an indigenous woman, our cultural value systems and way of life is to focus our decision-making on the next seven generations. Please honour our city of reconciliation and uplift the value system of our host nations, the Squamish, the Musqueam, and the Tsleil-Waututh Nations. Please support this motion. Let's build a prosperous family life across the city. Mási cho, Hych'kä. Thank you. Thanks for calling.
Speaker six on the line, Dr. Singh?
No.
How about Speaker 7? Gabrielle Eshner?
No.
Speaker 9, Lisa Marr.
We're just checking in the back. Thank you. No, not on the line.
Okay, thank you. Okay, that is the end of our speakers list. Thanks everyone for speaking to the standing committee on policy and strategic priorities. Committee members, is there any discussion? And I see Councillor Klassen. Please go ahead.
Thanks very much, Chair. So I'll, let's start out by saying that unequivocally I support the expansion of $10 a day child care. I actually attended Sharon Gregson's recent reboot of the program and support its expansion. I support any affordable, accessible child care for Vancouver families, and I know that we've got some really strong not-for-profit partners like YMCA and YWCA that are running great facilities. But child care is primarily a provincial responsibility, especially around operating funding. And so the province, as we know, has in this recent budget, paused the new $10-a-day spaces program for up to three years. But families can't wait for three years in our city right now. And providers can't plan in uncertainty. And it's important to understand that Vancouver's child care ecosystem is not exclusively public. It includes public, not-for-profit and private providers. And many private providers are deeply community-embedded and provide high-quality care. And what families really are asking for in my conversations is spaces through an assortment of delivery models. And we should be really focused on expanding access and securing funding and really not narrowing the models that deliver the care. I think council knows that Councillor Dominato and myself have tabled motions that have received the support of council to make several measures to try and streamline so we can make creating child care spaces easier in the larger context or even in the smaller one, noting the most recent memo that council approved with regards to home-based. Home-based is a very small part of the overall paradigm. It's probably in the order of something where between 500 and 1,000 spaces at maximum here in the city, whereas other spaces create about several thousand spaces of child care. We need more of them and certainly we're seeing from downtown businesses that are really trying to promote back to work policies. When you've got a two-income household, child care is a lifeline for you to be able to really make sure that you can afford to live in this city. So I see this. This is, and our last speaker mentioned, this is a very important, an economic imperative and an important social imperative. So I have brought forward a strike and replace for Councillor Orr's motion. I want to thank him for tabling the discussion around $10 a day. And so I'd like to bring that forward as well. It really is an advocacy approach.
I'm just going to move us to the amendment. Councillor Klassen. And we'll need a seconder for the strike and replace. Is that Councillor Zhou? Okay. Thank you. Thanks very much. So the motion is to, that will come up on the
screen momentarily, is really to focus on expressing council's concern regarding the provincial government's decision to pause the expansion of $10-a-day, knowing that $10-a-day is incredibly important as part of the overall child care ecosystem in our province. And that council call upon the province of BC to reaffirm its commitment to achieving a universal $10-a-day child care system, including establishing a clear timeline for resuming expansion of new $10-a-day spaces, ensuring stable and adequate operating funding for providers, and working collaboratively with municipalities to accelerate the delivery of new licensed child care spaces. And finally, that we request the mayor to write to the Premier of British Columbia and the Minister of Education and Child Care, conveying council's support for the continued expansion of $10-a-day and urging the province to make good on its commitment to affordable, accessible child care for families. I think that the spirit of this strike and replace really focuses on the key demand, and what we hope for, is that the $10-a-day program, which has been really struggling lately — the expansion of spaces has virtually stopped. And having gone to the province and when a number of us sat down with the Minister of Education and Child Care last September for UBCM, we heard really clearly that they have to strike a balance between other local governments when they are supporting their funding. So we can advocate strongly and hard and loudly for the city of Vancouver, but we also are going to compete with other jurisdictions as well. That said, I would really love to see $10-a-day come back as part of an overall ecosystem that includes numerous types of and opportunities for child care all over the city, especially in those child care deserts in the south and east side and downtown. Thank you.
Yeah, thanks. I just wanted to contribute a couple of reflections, and hearing from some of the speakers that I think also that child care is a critical service, and I agree, it absolutely is. It enables the ability of parents to go back to work and economic sort of viability for families and contribution to our economy and social connection for kids and all of those host of benefits. So I concur with that. I think that's important to note. I also heard some of the speakers comment that the city should make space available, and I want to assure them that we are and we do. While child care is primarily a provincial responsibility, the city has definitely been doing some putting a shoulder to the wheel, if I can use that expression, and has done some heavy lifting in providing spaces. And in the sort of 10-year strategy that we've had, I think these are rough numbers, but I think it's around 400 new spaces that have opened in the city of Vancouver since 2022 with several thousand in development. I know that the need is still great. We're still short thousands of spaces, but we definitely have been doing a lot. I think the other thing that's important to note is that we need to contribute to the critical services that families need as well. And when I heard that child care is important, so are parks and playgrounds and being able to get your kid into swimming lessons and all of those other activities and those are a lot of the things that we've neglected. So I think what the city has done is try to acknowledge how can we contribute to this issue and this problem while still fulfilling our other significant responsibilities that also support families like access to affordable recreation and parks in your community, et cetera. And the provision of space, whether it's through negotiated as part of new development, or utilization or allocation of city space has been one way that we can do that without necessarily financially underwriting the daycares and still allowing us to provide all those other things that families want and should expect. So I think that really the onus here is on directly calling out the fact that there was a very significant policy announcement by the provincial government, which raised, I think, a lot of expectations. And that it was a very significant policy announcement that needs to be held to account. If you're going to have a three-year pause, that is very similar to sort of saying you're not doing it, at least at this point in time for the foreseeable future. So I think that the public deserves some clarity around that one. So I think that this kind of holds people to account where they are. I think that the city of Vancouver is still in the child care game. Our regulatory ability is one way that we really can contribute, and we have relaxed a lot of regulations. We used to have a much higher standard for child care regulation in the city of Vancouver than anywhere else in the province with respect to the amount of green and outdoor space required, something else. It actually precluded a number of how and where different child cares can be sited because it was harder to do that in Vancouver. And so we made a move, this council did, collectively to align our child care regulations with that of the provincial guidelines in an effort, again, to pull down additional barriers. It was mentioned earlier around the ability to do some home-based child care. So we're trying to use a lot of the tools in our toolkit to actually support and contribute to that. those are probably helpful things for some of the speakers to know that the city is an active partner in this work and is trying to advance it to get to more readily available spots. And I know that they're snapped up, but a lot of those efforts have been successful in generating new spaces. So I think that's important to note. Thank you.
Yeah, thanks for the robust discussion. Just a question to the chair, to the mover of the amendment. Does this now then sort of take off the table bringing this to UBCM. I'm still not quite clear on how that procedure works or is this?
Thanks very much, Councillor. This motion essentially would circumvent the UBCM part and go directly to the provincial government through an advocacy letter from the mayor, from direction from council.
Can I ask why? I'm just curious. Would it be tied up in the UBCM process? Is this more of a direct way, like a better way to do advocacy?
Well, I think that reflecting upon the work that gets put forward by UBCM, a lot of those are non-binding, they are obviously highly visible. But at the end of the day, if your goal is to try and get the province on side, this probably has a little bit more at the end of the day for being able to make it clear in our goals around $10 a day.
Okay. And then, sorry, and then you did sort of touch on private operators as well. I missed that. Can you just sort of reiterate what you meant on private operators? Like just because the motion did say had a thing in there that would sort of keep these private operators sort of for the perpetuity, sorry, for the life of the building and that they can't just be kind of converted — just to make clear rules around that. But I just missed what you said.
Yeah, and I've listened to some of the speakers, both this and when we were dealing with the Collingwood project. I do think our objective here is to try and create purpose-built spaces. And so I'm less convinced by the arguments that this will be turned over for other uses. These are usually built with the purpose of having child care in them. But again, these are, you know, some of the options that before some of our projects. But the short answer on private operators is that there are several of them. And they provide quality service that is community-based. And sometimes it's just, again, the actual funding model of a business is whether it's not-for-profit or private is, you know, I think for parents, they want to get child care spaces. That's the most important thing.
Okay. No, thanks. I appreciate. I think I appreciate the spirit of this. You know, I really, I wish some of that stuff was in there. You know, I think advocacy alone doesn't protect child care spaces. And I do appreciate what Councillor Kirby-Yung said in terms of the city is doing a lot of work. In our regulatory capacity, you know, to sort of, you know, look at some spaces and identify spaces and identify ways in which this work can be done. I do think, you know, that there are child care spaces being lost due to redevelopment and expiring leases. And once a space is gone, it's extremely difficult and expensive to replace. And, you know, I think also I struggle with this, you know, this municipal responsibility doesn't end because another level of government sort of stops funding the program or something. But, you know, I do like, I do want to get this sort of, I do want to end with a win. Let's say that. It's been an emotional day, you know, a lot of division. And I think I will support this amendment. I appreciate it. It's very thoughtful. I wish I had a bit more sort of teeth to it. But, yeah, let's sort of, let's end on a win here. Thank you.
Yeah, thanks very much. Thank you very much. Well, so my history in child care goes back a long time. Both my kids and were in full-time daycare from young ages. And the situation really hasn't changed. In 2000, my rent and my daycare costs were exactly the same, dollar for dollar. And with inflation, it's the same that it is now, and it's completely unaffordable for many families. I sat on boards of not-for-profit daycares. I chaired boards of not-for-profit daycares all in an effort to help strengthen the community and the services that the parents relied on. I've gone to collective bargaining with the unions of the staff that worked in these daycares. And so I have a lot of experience on that end of things. But as I say, while my kids are long out of child care, the need and the demand and the imperative. for levels of government to work together to deliver child care has only increased in terms of urgency. Child care is a tool to increase economic development. And economic development is an important is an important responsibility, particularly of municipal and provincial governments. So, but every level of government. And I think the piece that we do hold more so than any other level of government, is creating space and land use and goes well beyond advocacy when it comes to child care. There is a commitment to increase childcare spaces in 2022. And while we can say that child care has been included in development, we know that development is not necessarily moving forward in terms of new construction projects. So we're sort of stalled out as it seems. So I'm not supportive of the amendment. I appreciate Councillor Orr's sort of efforts to end on a high note. doesn't really help parents that are actually desperate for child care and need to know that their government understands what's it what's at stake here. And so, you know, I've gone through one by one since seeing this amendment just proposed by Councilor Klasson. And I don't understand why we can't add perhaps a letter from the mayor, but I don't know why we wouldn't support this going to UBCM to add our voice to the regional and provincial voices and other jurisdictions that are. that are advocating for $10 day child care. I don't know why we would degrade, like, devalue our position by reaffirming support, and instead, resolution A is expressing concern. I think what's beyond concern and what we heard from our speakers is it's the difference of being able to go to work or not go to work for these parents. And for that, in terms of affordability is everything. So I don't support the amendment. I support the original motion, and I think it sends the wrong. that this isn't really an issue that the council is taking seriously. So it's an issue I take seriously. I'm not going to support it.
Yeah, I'm not going to support this either just because it's a strike and replace. If it was in addition to or rewording some of the stuff that's already there, then fair enough. You know, great, let's express concern. But, you know, as an advocate before I became a... counsellor, I don't think there's any problem at all with pursuing advocacy through different avenues again and again and again and again until you achieve the result that you're looking for. And so I see no problem with going through UBCM as well. So it's not that I've got a problem with what's in the amendment. It's that there is so much more in the motion that's really good and would be incredible. useful for our advocacy like resolution clause B that counsel direct staff to monitor track and report back on the number of public and non-profit childcare spaces that have been lost, reduced or converted to private childcare spaces through rezoning development or CAC negotiations, etc. And I'm very much aware that the majority of our new childcare spaces do come from CAC. and that is certainly taking a battering at the moment because of the changed ability of developers to make projects pen, pencil, sorry, one or the other, due to the changed economic conditions that don't show any signs of changing soon. So, and on that note, I will just firmly state that I am extremely concerned that I am extremely concerned about providing child care through CACs, as I just said. And it's really unfortunate and difficult when we have to make difficult decisions between whether something is able to go ahead because of CMHC funding inflexibility and have to make decisions about whether it goes ahead with privately provided childcare or whether it simply doesn't go ahead at all. And that was a decision that was before us recently that was referred to. So there are very worthwhile inclusions in Councillor Orr's motion that I don't want to see fall by the wayside. It's a very thoughtfully drafted motion that I appreciate. And while I don't disagree with anything that's in Councillor Classen's amended. I don't want to lose the things that it doesn't cover. Thank you.
Yeah, just finishing up a little bit. I appreciate the comments and certainly the comments of speakers. And can we do better? And can we, I think there's always an opportunity to do better. And I know for my countless hours. visits to child care, speaking with operators, working with our staff, looking at ways that we can try and streamline and improve regulation, monitoring that constantly over the last two years, that is resulting in a better system that is allowing more child care to flourish in our city and putting it at the top of one of my priorities as a council counselor in this term, making sure that we see. this for what it is, which is something that will help grow our economy, allow families to thrive and to be able to live here in the end of the day. This is about trying to support Tenaday, the most affordable type of child care that is available to lucky parents in this province. And it focuses on that alone because if we do not address the funding pause and the lack of the dollars coming for the province. All debates about land use or other issues are secondary. We really do need to make sure that we are forceful in supporting advocates like Sharon Gregson to make sure that Tenaday is top of the priority list in terms of child care, including the funding of other spaces that we would like to see in our city because there's only really three different ways that we generally get child care in this in this city. One is through through, publicly through provincial support, others from in-kind contributions through developments and CACs, and then there's the smaller tranche that comes from home-based, which are also important. And I can tell you, every family for the every eight or 16 space child care in this city is packed probably with a waiting list, and every parent that it has a child in those spaces is probably counts their lucky stars every day. So I'm just hopeful. that we can speak with one voice in terms of being able to make sure that we strongly want the support of the provincial government and to not take lightly the fact that they've had deposit in order to try and deal with their budget deficit. Thanks very much. Thank you. Councillor Kirby-Young.
Yeah, I say I have the, I'm last. I'll just add one comment and I just think it's also, again, helpful context. I think these are always good discussions to talk about what the city is doing, can be doing, et cetera. I will note that we've been focused on trying to advance and deliver housing and child care clear barriers of the way as quickly as possible. And the feedback that came in from staff, Ashley, said that a lot of the components here have the potential to introduce an impact or delay on new housing and child care delivery and approval timelines. And I don't think that that's what we want here, but I do think what we want, as I said, is to continue doing our part and putting our shoulders through the wheel and push on the provincial government to continue on its program. So with that, I'll conclude. Thank you.
Okay, not seeing anyone else on the queue. So we're going to vote on the strike and replace. Okay, that passes with Councillor Bly in opposition and Councilor Maloney in opposition. Thank you. Okay, that completes the motion. The standing committee portion of this meeting is now complete. We'll now convene in council with Mayor Sim as chair to deal with recommendations and actions from today's committee meeting. Over to you, Mayor Sim.
Did you need a script?
No problem. All right. Thank you very much. We're now going to convene in council to deal with the recommendations and actions from today's standing committee on policy and strategic priorities meeting. Can we please have a roll call?
Mayor Sim in the chair, Councillor Kirby Young. Councillor Dominado is on a leave of absence for civic business.
I'm present.
Oh, you're present. Thank you. Clerk. I'm present. Thank you. Councillor Bly.
Present.
Councillor Fry's on a leave of absence for civic business from 12 p.m. onwards. Councillor Montague. Councillor Classen.
Councillor Meisner. Present.
Councillor Joe. Councillor Maloney. Councillor Orr. This meeting has quorum Mayor Sim.
Thank you very much. We need a motion to adopt the committee's recommendations for Report 1 and Council Member motions 1 through 6. Thank you, Councillor Orr. Thank you. Councillor Montague. Sorry about that. All those in favor say yay. All those opposed say nay. Great. The motion carries unanimously. Urgent business. Is there any items of urgent business that the counselors want to bring up? And I don't have a screen in front of me, so I'm going to have to rely on
all good. It's on the queue and not see.
I think it's a holdover. No one on the queue.
Okay, great. Would someone like to move a motion to adjourn this meeting? Councillor Bly, seconded by Councillor Orr. All those in favor say yay. All those to say nay. Great, though, motion carries unanimously. This meeting is adjourned.
Thanks to you. All right. That's a day in paradise.