Okay, great. Good morning, everyone.

Good morning. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Policy and Strategic Priorities for Wednesday, April 1st, 2026. Okay, everyone, we're going to get started here. Counselors, we're going to get started.

Counselor Klassen, please take your seat. Thank you.

Okay, everybody, good morning.

Welcome to the Standing Committee on Policy and Strategic Priorities for April 1st, 2026. Okay, this meeting is being held by electronic means and in person, and council members may participate by either method.

Don't make me use the gavel. Okay, any council members participating electronically are reminded to enable video to confirm quorum. This meeting is being live streamed on the city's website and YouTube and meeting progress will be updated regularly on X at Van City Clerk. In case of an emergency requiring evacuation, there are two exits located beyond the glass doors and to the left. If the glass doors are blocked, please use one of the four additional exits within the council chamber and do not use the elevator, use the stairs instead. If you require assistance, remain where you are as security staff will guide you to a safe location. A defibrillator is available and located at the end of the hallway outside of the council chamber. I'd like to acknowledge that we are on the unceded homelands of the Musqueam, Squamish, and TTsleil-Waututh people. We thank them for having cared for this land and look forward to working with them in partnership as we continue to build this great city together. I would also like to 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. City Clerk, may we have the roll call?

Present. Thank you. Councillor Domonato. Present. Councillor Bligh.

Not here at the moment. Councillor Fry.

Present.

Present.

Thanks very much. So I will now give the floor to Mayor Sim to say a few words about the recent passing of a member of the Sikh community, Mr. Tind.

Good morning, everyone.

I say this with a very, very heavy heart on behalf of all of the elected officials here in Council and everyone who chooses to work at the City of Vancouver through our various departments. We do want to take a moment to... to honour Mr. Kuldeep Singh Tundi, who recently passed at the young age of 80 after a long battle with cancer. And so Mr. Tundi was a deeply respected leader in the Vancouver Sikh community and someone who gave a great deal of his time and energy to others. And on a very personal note, I had the fortunate honour of getting to know Mr. Tundi over the last... seven or eight years now, and I can tell you he was just such an incredible person. And I would put him up there with the greatest nation builders in this country. And anyone who knew him, anyone who saw what he did in the community, how he... supported the community, and not just the Sikh community, but the community at large. You know exactly what I'm talking about. And through his years of work with the Khalsa Dewan Society, where he served as both president and treasurer, Mr. Tundi established himself as an organizer. He brought people together and provided countless families with support and guidance. His generosity and commitment to service made a real difference. in the lives of so many people across this city. And once again, he made a big difference in my life. And I looked to him for leadership. I looked to him as a mentor. And I can tell you a lot of people would say the same thing, and I know their lives are enriched. because of their interactions with Mr. Tunde. So on behalf of Vancouver, we extend our condolences to Mr. Tunde's family who's here today, friends as well, and every single person who knew him. May he rest in peace.

Thank you, Mayor. We will now move to our proclamation. April is Sick Heritage Month, a time to recognize and celebrate the many contributions of sick communities here in Vancouver, across BC, and throughout Canada. Oh, actually, the mayor, you're supposed to read this portion. I apologize. If you don't mind. Sorry about that.

Great.

On a happier note, April is Sick Heritage Month, the time to recognize and celebrate the many contributions of sick communities here in Vancouver, across BC, and throughout Canada. Vancouver is proudly diverse, and the Sikh community is an important part of what makes our city so vibrant and strong. Last year, Council officially added Sikh Heritage Month to the city's list of celebrations and observances. This recognition reflects a long and meaningful history. Sikh Canadians have been part of this country since 1904, contributing in countless ways. And I know the Sikh community has been here... well before 1904 contributing to our nation here. The core values of Sikhism, equality, compassion, service, and unity are deeply reflected in our communities and shared by so many across our city. April is also when many celebrate Vaisakhi, a joyful and significant time marking the founding of the Khalsa. Sikh communities have helped shape Vancouver in so many ways and continue to strengthen our city every single day. This month is an opportunity to celebrate that legacy and all of that represents. And so on that, I'd love to invite our council teammates here to read a proclamation about Sick Heritage Month.

And whereas Sikh Heritage Month is a month-long celebration in April, recognizing the significant contribution that Sikh communities have made to Canada, Sikh Heritage Month was formalized with Sikh Heritage Month Act in 2019, recognizing the significant contribution of Sikh Canadians who first arrived in Canada in 1904 and have been making incredible contributions to our country, province, and the city ever since.

And whereas in April, Sikh communities celebrate Vaisakhi, which commemorates the founding of the Khalsa and honors the spiritual legacy of the 10 Sikh Gurus.

Now, therefore, I, Ken Sim, 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 every single day, do hereby very proudly proclaim the month of April 2026 as Sick Heritage Month in the City of Vancouver. Thank you.

Did someone want to say a few words?

and members of council.

We begin Sikh Heritage Month today.

This is on. Is it on? This is for speaker, not for keep.

Thank you.

Good morning, all.

I'm now going to go over the plan for today. Plan for today is to break at noon for lunch, return at one to continue to deal with the rest of the agenda. And if needed, we'll recess at 5pm for dinner break and reconvene at 6pm to complete the agenda. So the committee will now consider matters adopted on consent. We have reports one to four on the consent agenda for the committee's consideration. and the committee may adopt the recommendations for report one to four on consent. Does any member wish to hold any of the items for debate or questions to team members?

Okay, I'm not seeing anybody. So before we consider the consent agenda, if anyone believes they have a conflict of interest, now's the time to declare it. Does anyone have a conflict to disclose?

Okay, we have reports one through four on the consent agenda. Would someone like to move adoption of the recommendations? Moved by Councillor Kirby Young.

Yeah, and I'm not set up, but I would like to hold number one.

Okay, Councillor Frye would like to hold report number one.

It wasn't seconded yet. Anyone else? Okay, so we'll hold report one, and we'll move reports two, three, and four on the consent agenda. Could I get a mover, please? Okay. Moved by Councillor Domenato, seconded by Councillor Klassen. All those in favor say yay. Any opposed say nay.

And sorry, I was just delayed in getting my computer up and running. I'm curious where, I'm looking at the VOCRA grant and to the motion that was passed with a great deal of support from council back in April of 2025, looking for more regularized funding for street cat management. And the number reflected in this grant doesn't nearly cover what the shortfalling for the Vancouver Orphan Kitten Rescue Association. So I'm curious. can shed any light if there's additional funding forthcoming for this or is there where we at with the funding for field feline control services in Vancouver

Okay, and so there is conversation with Vocru about their funding challenges? Yes. I think the cost of cat control in the city of Vancouver is closer to $80,000, I think they were looking for.

Okay, so that'll come through some kind of different regularized funding rather than animal grants?

Okay. And secondarily to this, on the rabbit control file as well, because I understand that that is still a pressing issue and that we're dealing with a lot of feral stray rabbits in Jericho Park and attendant damage to the fields there. Is that going to be covered through these grants or is that also a separate work plan potentially?

Okay.

Okay, thank you, Councillor Fry. Okay, would someone like to move a motion? Okay, Councillor Kerr-Beyond, seconded by Councillor Dominato. Committee members, is there any discussion?

Okay, not seeing any. So I'll now call the vote. Clerk, if you could please take us to the voting screen, and committee, if you could please register your vote on the voting panel.

Okay, that passes unanimously.

Maybe we can take a recess for three minutes, a couple minutes.

today sorry if you can just give me 30 seconds of course let's start about that everyone okay um i'm excited to introduce this motion in support of the 2026 vancouver fisaki parade and festival for generations fisaki has marked a time of renewal gratitude and community especially every year here in vancouver organized by historic uh the historic causa de juan society the vancouver fisaki parade is one of the largest festivals in the country, welcoming up to 250,000 people every single year. The Vaisakhi Parade is free, inclusive, and embodies the Sikh tradition of Langar where everyone, regardless of background, is welcome and fed. We know that hosting an event of this magnitude has its challenges, and the costs associated with public safety, security, and traffic management have risen significantly in recent years. Unfortunately, despite cost reduction measures, the organizers are still facing a shortfall of approximately $45,000 this year. This motion proposes a one-time extraordinary grant to bridge that gap and ensure the continued success of this important community event under the appropriate governance standards necessary for any grant. This motion is about supporting a long-standing cultural tradition and reinforcing Vancouver's identity as an inclusive and welcoming city. And I do encourage council and I hope council will support this motion. Thank you very much.

I saw Paul a few minutes ago. It might just be in the other room. Yeah. We can, using the restroom. I've seen him in the hallway, but we can come back to him.

We'll come back to Paul. Speaker number two, Preeti Freeko. Good morning.

Actually, sorry, the other one.

And you can raise it. It's fine. There's just some buttons there.

The timer's still going. Should I wait for it to be reset? Sure. Please go ahead.

Sorry.

Okay.

Speaker 3, Gulzar Nanda.

Speaker for JEGS, Sangira.

Not on the line. We'll come back to them. Speaker five, Taj Singh Johal.

Speaker number six, Jeff Tioli. Morning.

There's urgency.

If we only show up when something is about to fail, it is not support, it is neglect.

Let's do better. Hey, thanks, Jeff.

Just checking. No.

I don't see them in the chamber.

Councillor Klassen.

continue to seek ways to make sure that we are be able to support uh by sake festival and the community uh in in years to come thanks very much thank you counselor counselor bligh uh thanks very much happy to speak in support um of uh of the motion itself and um you know i think that uh based on of course our last speakers um

appropriate and salient points around long-term sustainability of our festivals, we're going to need to have a conversation about making sure that we've got the funding in place that is appropriate to current day financial pressures that these festivals face in the year leading up to planning for Basaki or any of these festivals. And I think in doing so, we set up the organizers for success. We can join, of course, as good partners with the community, particularly here for Vaisakhi. But that goes beyond. We saw a similar one-time ask for Lunar New Year Festival. And I know there are other festivals. We had a one-time ask for Car Free Days. So we... one-time ask to save fireworks for one night. Clearly we have a problem here. And so we don't want... to be reactive. And I certainly think the festivals are not as concerned as we may be in election years. They're concerned with putting on great festivals every single year. And so I support this ask, but what I really support is the last speaker's comments around bringing together what we've been doing iteratively over a number of years to make sure our festivals remain strong and well-funded. And there's a lot more work for us to do there. And that's really where I am going to be focusing my attention. So thank you very much to Mersim. for bringing this forward. We need to do more. Thank you.

Yeah, thanks, Chair. So also want to, you know, express my strong support of this motion to provide this much-needed funding to support 2026 Wasaki Parade in the City of Vancouver. I'll keep my remark brief. So, you know, I attended many Vaisakhi parades in the past. I think it's more than just a celebration. It is a deeply meaningful cultural and spiritual occasion that reflects the value of renewal, generosity, and community services. And here in Vancouver, it has grown into one of the largest and one of the most inclusive festivals in our city, welcoming hundreds of thousands of residents and visitors each year. We all know at the heart of this celebration is the Casa de Van Society, which has served the Sikh community and the broader Vancouver community for well over a century. Their leadership in organizing this event year after year speaks to an extraordinary commitment to volunteerism, cultural preservation, and civic pride. One of the most remarkable traditions of Wazaki is, I'm very impressed by that, is the sharing the free food, free food, free drink with anyone and everyone. It's a powerful expression of equality, humility, and service. In many ways, it reflects the very best of what Vancouver strives to be, inclusive, welcoming, and compassionate. The motion proposed this much-needed grant to help bridge the gap. I want to emphasize that it's about responding to a unique set of circumstances to ensure the continued success of this event and bring so much value and fun to our city. Supporting Vaisakhi is about supporting the community. It's about recognizing the contribution of Sikh Canadians and ensuring that this cherished tradition can continue to thrive for future generations. So with this, wholeheartedly support this motion and I look forward to seeing everyone at the parade. Thank you.

Thanks. The Vaisakhi Parade is an important celebration of sea culture and community and for South Vancouver itself, and I'm very supportive of this motion. I want to take a moment to acknowledge that South Vancouver is a neighbourhood that's historically received less investment than other parts of the city, which makes community festivals like this all the more important. And I'm really glad that it sounds as though this project This event will go ahead this year and I hope it signals a broader commitment to showing up for South Vancouver. And I'm also grateful for the comments of the last speaker and to Councillor Fry for the upcoming motion to explore more permanent solutions to sustainable festival funding, especially given the increasing costs of running them safely and the return on investment, both financial as well as social and cultural contributions that festivals make.

Councillor Fry. And I'll keep it brief. I want to thank the mayor and Councillor Klassen for recognizing this funding shortfall and the need to step in and support what is one of my favorite... absolute favorite festivals. I'm very much looking forward to some good weather, some good food, and good company as we walk through South Vancouver from D1 Society and up to Punjabi Market and enjoy all the fun and festivities. And I just want to... with gratitude that we are stepping in and we're going to be able to support this and ensure that it goes off. But I also want to recognize the leadership of, in particular, Paul Beasley and his work in the logistics side of things and recognizing that, you know, in light of the tragic events of April 26th, to pivot with a safety plan that is responsive to... some of the new reality and ensuring that our participants and everybody enjoying Vaisakhi can be sure that they're being utmost safety and consideration of their safety. And I really appreciate that level of leadership that came through from Paldisa and the Khalsa Diwan Society and super looking forward to it. I'll see you guys on April 11th. Thanks.

Yeah, thanks, Chair, and echoing the thanks to the Mayor and Councillor Claassen for bringing forward the motion. I think with the upcoming Vaisakhi, it'll be my ninth Vaisakhi parade and festival, and it always brings great joy. But what I've experienced over the years is it has deepened my understanding and knowledge and awareness of the Sikh community and principles and practices that guide And I think that is something that's not only a benefit to me as an elected councillor, but also to the broader community at large. And that was spoken to earlier when we were doing the Heritage Month proclamation. My younger daughter has attended Vaisakhi with a number of her friends. And so for me, I find that to be one of the offshoot benefits is the deepened knowledge and understanding that I take away and engagement with the community. And so I thank all the organizers. I appreciate Councillor Fry's acknowledgement of Paul Beazley's work behind the scenes, but for all community members involved in putting it on, and I'm incredibly excited to be joining you in a couple weeks' time. So thank you.

Yeah, thanks very much, Chair. I will echo my gratitude and appreciation. It's a nice morning of synergy, having the opportunity to proclaim Sikh Heritage Month and have the community here and share that together, and then discussing a festival that is of such importance to the community. Like others, I have attended many times. It is a joyful... a wonderful celebration. The spirit of SEVA is very apparent. I think one of the things I look forward to the most is the snacks along the way that are so generously handed out by community members and I know that you get to sort of know where those fun favorite spots are on the route and I know the route's going to change a bit this year. So I really look forward to supporting it. I want to make a couple of reflections and observations and I think that all of city council is committed to a vibrant Vancouver that has very much been, I think, part of the DNA of this council. And in fact, I think it's part of the DNA of the city and who we are as, sorry, who we are as a collective group of a diverse and welcoming city. And it is through our festivals that we have the opportunity to come together, to gather, to share culture, food, experiences, and learn about each other. And I think that that is an excellent thing. I think this council has been fully supported. It was referenced that there's been a number of ongoing changes over the years, such as establishing fest share and seeking to reduce things like public safety costs, all of that ahead of Lapu-Lapu. I just want to level set us a little bit around where we are at this moment in time right now. Lapu-Lapu was just a year ago. And I think the staff have been working. We have myself brought a motion for it in 2022, I believe, about making it easier to host outdoor festivals and events and recognizing that the city needed to do the best that it could. And that resulted in the creation of a festival advisory group as to how can we better look for leveraging commonalities in terms of costs, et cetera. Since then, we've had extraordinary times, as I mentioned, Lapu-Lapu new requirements. And we have seen a... perfect confluence of challenges in terms of increasing costs, reduction in corporate sponsorship, the federal and provincial governments pulling out from their support. The city has stayed the course. And now we're at a moment where we have to respond and think, what more can we do? Can we do things differently, better, et cetera? and how we can support. And I think council's aligned on that. And so I'm very happy to support the motion. I think that it would do a disservice to the alignment that council has had around supporting the vibrancy of events when I hear comments from my colleagues around, is it political or an election year? When again, Lapu-Lapu was just last year, all of these things that we're seeing now about, for example, some problems that's coming out has happened. for this year in the year. And so I'm struck a bit by the irony of a reference by one of my colleagues that it's political when we have a political candidate wearing a political button in council chambers. And I think we all know that it is our practice to not have signage slogans and political branding in the chamber. So if it wasn't political, I don't think we'd have a candidate wearing a political button. So I hope that we can all rise above that and actually support our festivals and events sector. collectively and as a council and as a whole because it makes our city richer and I think we are better when we are divided and speaking in one voice on this for the right reasons that respond to our community who are saying this is when we need you to stand up and help and we are here to do that and here to help and I'm proud to support the motion. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Chair. I'm bringing forward this motion because at its core, it speaks to something very simple. Trust. Trust in our institutions. Trust in our process. Trust that decisions are made at this table that are grounded in fairness, transparency, and accountability. The Elect Respect campaign emerged as a response to increasingly toxic, polarized, and at times personal attacks in our civic discourse. The idea was simple but important, that even in disagreement, there are standards of honesty, of accountability, and of respect. That should guide how we engage with one another and with the public. Over the past while, We've seen how quickly that trust can be strained. Recent tensions have put a spotlight on why this motion matters right now. This motion is about ensuring that we are setting clear expectations, that we are acting consistently, and that we are giving the public confidence that the rules apply the same way to everyone. And it's important. It's about... And more importantly, it's about recognizing that the credibility of this council doesn't come from any one decision. It comes from the cumulative effect of how we conduct ourselves, how we treat each other, and how we demonstrate accountability to the people we serve. So I hope colleagues will see that this is not a political exercise, but a constructive step, a step towards reinforcing the integrity of our processes and toward rebuilding and maintaining the public trust that all of us, regardless of affiliation, rely on. Thank you.

Yeah, thanks very much. I just also want to note that it still shows Motion 1 that we're speaking to, so it's for folks following along online.

Yeah, no worries. Yeah, I mean, I really just want to say thank you to the mover of the motion, Council Orr, and our speaker. I am familiar with Halton Region very well through my role with FCM. And it's a big conversation at the FCM table among board members and membership in terms of the ongoing harassment, particularly since COVID, that elected officials face. I think it's been highlighted in the speaker's comments that there's a natural... naturally that there is a certain amount of scrutiny, let's say, that politicians are held to a high standard and ought to in terms of how they conduct themselves and that we should be debating policy. That's part of what we do. But I think that... with social media and the invisibility of some of those tactics, it does increase the level of harassment and betrayal that is targeted towards elected officials, but then also creates a really negative cycle back to the public. And so there is something really concerning, I think, about the decline in the decorum between elected officials and the public going back and forth. And we see that playing out on X. We see that playing out on other social media platforms. And The concern that I face, having been elected now for eight years, the concern I have is that it's being normalized, and it's not normal. Going back to the days where there was no online anything and we'd be writing letters and talking face-to-face, I think the system was set up for that kind of debate and that kind of discussion. The system's not set up for what we have now. And so the piece that I feel important to raise, and as somebody who, through the work, the national body work, has actively engaged in increasing women's participation in local government. I look at the elect respect campaign, and I appreciate bringing that to our attention through this motion to join. that effort right across the country. And that I think we should sign on to that. And when I look at Marianne Ward, who was the mayor of, or is the mayor of Burlington and comments on not leaving politics because somebody's bullied her out of this profession, but leaving on her own terms, I relate to that. And then also, you know, that it's far more prevalent amongst women and those who are a much higher level. And I'll note that there was a, in the last round of municipal elections with Quebec, 800 members elected to municipal government resigned before their term was up. That's a stunning number. And it just shows that we need to create an environment where good people and people from diverse backgrounds see themselves as somebody who could run for council and represent their communities. And also we have to create an environment, this isn't just about the electeds, but where the public feel like their input is valid and valued. And so it becomes an agreement, like an unspoken agreement between the public and the elected that we commit to a level of decorum and workability. that we put down guards and we open up our ears and listen to one another. And so that's what I see happening through this campaign. So we're in a Vancouver bubble in this conversation, but it extends far beyond that. And so I'll sign on and I'll support the motion.

Thanks. Thank you to Councillor Orr for moving this motion and I think it's a good complement to our Code of Ethics and Oath of Office. I think the most important aspect of it for me is that the treatment of politicians between each other and also bullying and harassment that can occur of sitting politicians can dissuade people from running for office and especially those from more diverse backgrounds that we need to see represented in positions of power making decisions on behalf of our entire community. Thanks.

Thanks very much, and thank you, Councillor, for bringing this forward. Lest anybody got the impression from sort of the comments, the dialogue, or the thrust of this motion, I want to just maybe through you, Chair, ask the question of the mover. I'm just sort of speaking between you and me, having been colleagues in this chamber now for approximately a year. Has our experience working together been generally a very positive one?

I would say so, yes.

And when you first came into the chamber, of course, you were probably greeted, I think, probably in a way, but perhaps you can describe it yourself in terms of making sure that you were welcomed in this environment with working with us.

Yeah, I would say it was a welcoming environment, for sure.

And even in terms of... like working together collaboratively. You've seen that. I think the headlights motion that passed successfully, unanimously, involved some collaboration with council members here on our side, if you want to call it that.

Yeah, what was the question?

Acknowledging that the collaboration does go on here. I just don't want anybody outside of the chamber to sort of get the impression that that the sort of level of toxicity that is really the target of some of this is actually something that goes on on political lines in any way, that's all. I do think this is an important dialogue and conversation. I have been, you know, obviously in my time as an early adopter of social media, I've watched how conversations have become quite dark. And while we have very little control over the people, the public who support us, certainly I think we have to comport ourselves in a way that we would expect that in return that we would be able to have sort of positive and productive dialogue about how to advance the public good in this city as well. So I realize that this doesn't necessarily extend social media and I know that I think certainly since since the by-election I haven't felt any particular direct personal attacks from any any member of the chamber but I also know that out in the community it it's it's sometimes extraordinarily hostile and I would just I hope that by supporting work like this that we can maybe convey out to the broader community as well how important it is that that level of civility is is shared by those of us who are very active and interested in in again the future of the work we do here City Hall but thanks very much thanks counselor counselor fry

Yeah, you know, I appreciate Councillor Klassen's level setting on some of this. I do think that, you know, and I certainly don't want to get into an item that's before the courts, but certainly there has been issues that probably would transcend what we would consider respectful under this context. And I think that it's helpful to just level set with this sort of a pledge and recognize that that we can do better. And I say that for myself, too, because I'm often taking shots at colleagues in the... in the social media arena or what have you. And as we enter silly season, of course, we do see more of that kind of thing. But I also, you know, I have a different recollection of when Councillor Orr first got elected and in a press conference that was held that was, you know, very not welcoming to Councillor Orr and perhaps misrepresented some of his comments online. So again, I think that just to be, you know, kind of broader in thinking about this. it's always good if we can kind of, like, just think back and think forward and do take that kind of pledge to respect. I think this is helpful, and certainly I don't want to relitigate the past or what's even before the courts now, but I do think that it is a good reminder that we can always do better. And I thank Councillor Orr for bringing it forward, and I thank everybody for being open to this concept.

Yeah, thanks. I was going to bring up the same thing. While generally the environment was very welcoming, and I do appreciate that, there was a time where I didn't want to come to work instantly, before I was even sworn in. I felt terrified to step into this building. I was getting death threats before I was even sworn in because of this press conference that Councillor Fry mentioned.

And I'll echo the same words as Councillor Fry. I can do better. And I think I have. I think I have stepped up in my dialogue, you know, online.

And I'm saying this as a very privileged white man that can take a lot of this. I can dish it out. I can take it. But this is what we're talking about. This dissuades people from ever wanting to sign up. Indigenous people, people of color, queer people, right? And that's what this is about. This isn't about a tit-for-tat. This wasn't directed at how I was welcomed in. This is just we can all do better across the country.

Yeah, thank you.

Okay. Yeah, I appreciate having – I appreciate this conversation. It's an important one, and I appreciate us having an open dialogue around it. I think that this is my second term on council, and I will say personally I have never gotten political against individuals. I just don't. It's not my style. Issues, I think, are absolutely fair to debate, and I think it's fair to have strong – opinions, and I think it's fair to hold each other to account and debate the issues. That is our job, right? And that should happen in the public forum, in the council chamber, and it happens in other forums around community, online, social media, etc. I always find it deeply regretful when there are personal attacks and commentaries and characterization, and Councillor Orr and I may have been characterized for very different reasons, but I have lived it. I remember last term there was a certain motion related to funding of the police that was debated, and I think there was about, I don't know, 350, 400 letters that came in that suggested that I was, what was the commentary? I think my mind blocked it out. It was a little bit of a sort of a defense mechanism, but that I was racist, which I thought was an interesting one. There's many things that you can take me up on that might not be the one to choose. My last name is my name is Y-U-N-G. So I thought that was an interesting choice. I was it alluded to the fact that I was married to a killer cop. I should divorce my word. I cannot repeat in the council chamber. very unfortunate, and I should watch my back. I had to deal with corporate security. I was asked to vary my routine and think about where I went and coffee shops, and I thought, this is wrong. At what point did we become a city like this where we can't have a debate? A very passionate topic, obviously, and an issue, but all to say that this has been going on for some time, and it's not for the faint of heart. And I was, I have to say, grateful at the time that I didn't have to necessarily, perhaps because of my background and being more keenly aware of security, have to go through some of the learnings of a new counselor of having things like an unlisted phone number, an unlisted home address, different things that you, different cautions that you take. So I'm fully supportive of creating an environment. I think that it probably is helpful to note that we are heading into an election year, and I think we can all There's going to be a lot of politics in that. I think it was referenced silly season or we can dish it out. I don't think we should be dishing it out. I think we should be debating ideas and dialogue. I don't think that we should be dishing it out, quote, unquote, on each other. And I'm not sort of picking on that. I'm just using that in terms of offering a perspective. So, yeah, I mean, let's hold each other to account. Let's debate the issues and the ideas. But it would be really great coming up. It's April 1st today. We've got a few more months left in this chamber to the end of July. If we could refrain from... a lot of the political commentary and innuendos, if motions are political or not, and just bring your A-game and debate motions on content and their merits or their non-merits, and be substantive in researching the arguments. And I would suggest that that is the opportunity that this council has ahead of us in the next few months. to do that so i'm happily will support the pledge um i've experienced it as a woman i don't need to share all the different uh examples of things that others have i shared one that was quite personal to me but um there you go um those are my thoughts thank you very much and i appreciate the discussion this morning i think it's important thank you counselor maloney

I just wanted to very briefly express my support for Councillor, who's been just an incredible colleague and always has the interests of the broader community, especially the most vulnerable members of our community, in his heart and with all the work that he does and has had to deal with a great deal of stress and very stressful situations.

that have been amplified by his high profile position and his electative position.

But I certainly have appreciated very much his support on council since we were elected.

I'm now going to call the vote.

Thanks, everybody. And that completes motion two.

Okay, the next item is motion three, reversing the costly ban on supportive housing, which is to be moved and introduced by Councillor Bligh. Before I 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 two minutes to introduce your motion.

Thanks very much, Chair. So this motion is coming one year after a previous motion was brought forward that temporarily put a pause on any net new supportive housing. As a reminder, through that process... There were various user groups that were hived out of that motion that has created a lot of confusion in terms of how the public interpreted that pause. And more concerning to me is how the region, the province, and the country have interpreted that motion. I'm trying to think of, like, what's the analogy? This is what I'm seeing. This is what I'm hearing in terms of the importance of providing purpose-built... supportive housing. There are buildings in Kitsilano. There are buildings in Dunbar. There are buildings in East Vancouver. There are buildings in South Vancouver that are very well-functioning buildings that provide housing with supports, health care, food programs, including mental health, embedded counseling, accessible services within these buildings for folks who need it. And what I'm concerned with is we have put in the window that we are temporarily pausing building supportive housing and that the fine print may... say, well, we will build it for certain groups, but not for others. But nobody's looking at that. And what it's also done is sent, I think, a ripple effect through the region where we see projects being canceled and the pressure of those elected officials having Vancouver set a tone that we're not helping folks that need housing. And that's happening in Burnaby. It's happening in Richmond. It's happening in surrounding communities. So I think it's time to show leadership on this, reverse that ban, and start addressing the homelessness crisis we have before us today.

Thank you. Do we have a seconder? Seconded by Councillor Maloney. Okay, we'll now hear from registered speakers for the motion. Public speakers should state whether they are in support or opposition to the recommendations and may only speak once. And I will also ask our speakers if they're residents of Vancouver, if it's not on the speakers list. And our first public speaker is Ali Wang.

Yes, we can. Please go ahead.

Okay. Thank you, Ally. Speaker number two, Jolie Trost.

Sorry, speaker. I'm very sorry, but you're over time, and we have to go to the next speaker. I apologize.

Thank you. Speaker three, Jason Chi.

Speaker 5, Cynthia Shi.

Yes, please go ahead.

Sorry, you're over time, but thank you for calling and thank you for your comments.

Appreciate it. Just to remind all speakers, all speakers get up to three minutes to address counsel. So I will have to move on to the next speaker just due to time constraints. But we'll go to speaker six, Jackie Zhang.

We just have a bit of trouble hearing you.

It's better. Yep.

Thank you for calling. Speaker 8, Vicky Wei.

Yes, please go ahead.

Thank you for calling.

Sorry, Wallace.

Wallace, apologies, you're over time. All right. I gave you a few extra seconds. Thank you. Appreciate it. We'll now go to speaker number 10. Apologies, speaker number 10 is withdrawn. Speaker 11, Lisa Liu.

Speaker 12, Bonnie Wong.

Hi, Bonnie.

Thank you, Bonnie, for calling. Speaker number 13, David Ray. Hi.

Hi, I'm David Ray, a Vancouver resident, and I'm here to speak in support of Councillor Bligh's motion to reverse the ban on new supportive housing in Vancouver. I would assume we are all well aware that Vancouver is in a housing crisis. It's getting harder for people to afford a place to live, as Councillor Bligh stated, whether we earn $200,000 a year or $20,000 a year. And at the very bottom of that crisis are people who have no place to live at all. Homelessness is rising across the region, with the most recent count showing a 9% increase since 2003 and a staggering 26% increase in unsheltered homelessness here in Vancouver. Those are our neighbors. They're not just numbers. Those are the people sleeping in parks, in doorways, and in tents across the city. Supportive housing is one of the most proven tools we have to address that reality. It provides not only housing, but access to the services people need to stabilize their lives. including health care, mental health support, and addiction services. Supportive housing works. That's why it's so concerning that Vancouver currently has this policy that prevents new supportive housing investments, a decision that effectively blocks provincial and federal funding from being used here in our own city. At a time when governments are prepared to fund hundreds of supportive homes across BC, while we are in need of thousands, Vancouver, who faces some of the most visible impacts of the housing crisis, has chosen to step aside. That doesn't make any sense. If we are serious about addressing homelessness, if we are serious about improving safety and stability in our communities, then we must be willing to use every tool that's available to us. Supportive housing is about something very basic. The belief that everyone deserves a home. Not just people who are already doing well. Not just people who can compete in an increasingly unaffordable housing market. It's for everyone. Because housing isn't just a commodity or an investment. Housing is a foundation for dignity, for stability, and for community. This motion offers Council an opportunity to correct that course and allow Vancouver to once again partner with provincial and federal governments to build the supportive housing our city urgently needs. Council, Mayor, I urge you to support this motion. Vancouver is strongest when we take care of each other. Thank you again for your time.

Okay, thanks, David. Speaker 14, Natasha Waheed.

Thank you.

Sorry, Dan, it's really hard to hear you.

Unfortunately, we can't hear you. Apologies. We'll come back to that speaker. Next speaker, Jean Swanson.

Yes, we can. Please go ahead.

Speaker 19, Tommy Sun.

Hi, Tommy. I have to ask if you're a resident of Vancouver. Are you a resident? Okay.

Thank you. Please go ahead.

Okay. I may end the council. My name is Tom Xin. I'm here today to voice my strong opposition to the motion seeking to reverse the ban on new supportive housing. I support maintaining the present because the current model is fundamentally flawed. It does not solve the crisis. It is a dependent divide in our society. The biggest mistake is It's a one-size-fits-all grouping. We are forcing vulnerable women, children, and seniors into the same building as individuals with mental health issues and heart drug addiction. And this kind of low-barrier housing usually allows that kind of person to use a heart drug inside freely. This is not a sport. It's a social warehouse. And council member, let's be honest, the drug addiction clusters in our city are not something Vancouver is proud of, especially as we host FIFA 2026 World Cup. We can see a repeated interesting pattern. Whenever a major international event arrived here, The city's first response is to clear up and hide the problem. If this model were truly a success, we would be showcasing it to the world, not rushing to hide it from international visitors. If we have to hide it, it is the third model. For those suffering from illness, medical care first. is the only helmet solution. A house is not a hospital. Placing individuals in community housing without a 24-hour clinical intervention only allows drug trafficking and violence to fester in our neighborhood. Vancouver needs real healing, not more buildings filled with conflict. Supporting the present is not about a lack of empath. It is about the to fund a dangerous and infective system. I urge you to vote against this motion. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker is Ann Yang. Good morning. Hi. I understand you're a representative speaker? Do you have three people with you? Yeah, over there. Okay. Do we need their names, clerk?

Thank you. So you have up to five minutes.

Apologies. Point of order, Councillor.

He said the mover of the motion should learn English 12. I believe that's disparaging. Well, I think you should wait.

Speaker, I'm just going to caution you against comments like that against counsel.

Yes, we can.

Thank you for calling.

Speaker 25, Jenny Chu.

Thank you, Jenny. Sorry, we'll have to leave it there. You are over time, but appreciate the call.

I say, I'm just noticing the time. I think we probably have time for two more calls or two more speakers. So we'll go to speaker 26, Wei Fan.

And I think our last speaker, just given the time and the need to break for lunch, will be Erin Seeley.

Thank you. Thank you for calling, Erin. So we're going to break for lunch, and we'll return with the speakers. Continue the speakers list at 1 p.m.

I can hear you.

Welcome back, everybody. We'll now reconvene in our standing committee. We are currently on member motion number three, reversing the costly ban on supportive housing as titled. We will continue on with speakers. And our next speaker is Speaker 30, Emily Chen.

Yes, we can. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Emily, for speaking to council.

Hi. Hi. Sorry, we just want to make sure we can hear you, and we cut out the beginning, so I'm just going to invite you to start now, if you can start again. Thank you.

Thank you, Eileen. Speaker 32 is Xinming Tan. Also by phone. Hi. Hi. Please go ahead. You have three minutes.

My name is Stephen Tan, and I'm a resident of Vancouver living in Marple. I'm here to speak in opposition to motion three. So first of all, we must ask, is the current model working? Despite the rapid expansion of supportive housing, many of us feel less safe in our own neighborhoods. We see an increase in homelessness on our street and a rise in street-level crime. If we are to invest millions of taxpayer dollars into high costs, supportive housing, there must be a transparent data-driven proof that this project actually reduced homelessness and improved public safety. Without such evidence, doubling down on the failing strategy is not a compassion. It's a policy failure. Second of all, we must address the issue of regional equity. Vancouver accounts for only about 25% of the metro Vancouver population. Yet, we currently shoulder the burden of approximately 77% of the region's supportive housing. This is an absolute imbalance. Homelessness is a regional crisis, not just a Vancouver crisis. This concentration creates a magnetic effect that overwhelms our local community emergency services and community resources. A post is not a ban on helping people. It's a necessary demand for fairness. We need a regional fair share model where every city in Metro Vancouver contributes according to its population. Vancouver has already done more than its fair share.

Thank you for speaking. Next is speaker 33, David Sun.

My name is Sean. I'm a resident of Vancouver. I'm here today to speak in strong opposition to Motion 3 submitted by Councillor Bligh. First, I must address the misleading logic in the motion's first preamble. The motion claims that housing is unaffordable whether one earns $200,000 or $20,000. According to the latest official data from Statist Canada, The median after-tax household income in the city of Vancouver was $82,000. Recent tax statistics for 2024 indicate that the median for Metro Vancouver sits between $95,000 and $100,000, which places Vancouver's current median at approximately $90,000. The $200,000 income group mentioned by Councillor Bligh represents the top tier of owners in the city. Linking the home ownership barriers of the wealthy to the homelessness crisis of those earning $20,000 is not only statistically dishonest, it is a gross distortion of urgency required for supportive housing. We should not be conflating middle-class real estates. as LT with a literal survivor crisis. Second, we must address the manipulative use of the word ban. The Mooner repeatedly labors the current policy of ban. This is fundamentally misleading. The motion passed on February 26, 2025 was explicitly a temporary pause intended to promote regional equity. A pause is a tool for better planning and accountability, not a permanent rejection. The call for a reversal before we have seen any progress on regional balance is extremely reckless. Finally, I have a series... procedural concerns regarding the timing of this motion. The February motion directed staff to provide detailed reports on regional distribution trends and the progress of SRO replacements. As of today, those scientific report facts have not been fully evaluated by this Council. So my request is simple.

into a hasty policy reversal, we must wait for the data-driven staff report before making decisions that impact our most vulnerable residents and the long-term equity for our region.

Speaker number 36 is Mona Sun.

Yes, we can. You have three minutes. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Mona. Thank you for speaking. That is your time, but thank you for speaking to council. Okay. Thank you very much. Speaker 37 has withdrawn.

On the line. Speaker 40 has withdrawn. Speaker 41 is Robert Bita.

We can hear you, but you're very faint. I don't know if you have a way of turning out your volume or speaking closer to your device.

That is much better. Thank you. Go ahead when you're ready.

Yeah. My name is Robert Bita. I'm a resident of Vancouver, and I'm... speaking in support of motion three to rescind the cap on assisted housing. I mean, in my political analysis, i tend to start from the premise that human needs are human rights uh everybody needs food everybody needs clean water everybody needs a safe bed to sleep in at night and that includes all of our neighbors and i mean all of our neighbors in the city we call home i have heard a lot of complaints from people opposed to the motion at the meeting so far that seem to object that assistive housing is insufficient to solve the problems of homelessness and mental illness and drug addiction that plague our community. I agree. But insufficiency does not mean that assistive housing is not necessary. for that reason i challenge the council and my fellow residents to demonstrate to me that assisted housing is not necessary i think it is i think in fact uh that it is essential for the accessibility by the most vulnerable members of our community, some of the most vulnerable members of our community, to the health care and related services that they so desperately need. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Speaker number 42 is Zi Zhang.

not currently okay 43 has withdrawn and speaker 44 is dr. Yan bin ma okay thank you very much speaker 45 Maggie thank you speaker 46 Angela Dawson

Okay, I see somebody approaching the podium in person.

Angela, before you begin, can I ask you that you can go to that podium to your left there? If you move to that podium, the desk to your left there, your left. Right there, yeah, and you can get yourself settled and speak there. Hi. Go ahead when you're ready. Hi, good morning. I'm all for supportive housing, and I ran for mayor in year 2018. And it seems like people are being treated like a toy, like a yo-yo. And mental health in downtown Eastside needs to be corrected. And we have to stop cutting the budgets and assets for people that really need it. And I'm going to be running for city council in 2026. And I'm all in favor for Pete Fry. To be mayor, I'm just, I'm here for a short period of time. We all are. I'm very nervous right now. I'm just a little, I'm sweating under my underarms right now, just trying to show compassion. And I think city council should have more compassion if they're going to run for city council and pour more empathy for people instead of stomping on people. And de-housing people in camps and tents? Come on. Speaker, can I ask you to direct your comments specifically on this motion? I know that you have a lot of... Yeah, I have a lot of compassion and just... Just...

I'm just in favor for housing. We all need housing. And even when people are granted billions or millions of dollars for housing, it doesn't really go for people that really need it. I think the structure of what we're going on right now, we're all being treated like a yo-yo, and it's unfair. balance everything else we have to have emotions we have to have respect for other people if we don't it's not going to change and and I'm here to just speak for everybody and I'm just here to say hey we need to change we need to change the structure we need to have to have compassion for people who are going through mental health and drug use and I never did any of that And, you know, as a single woman, and I fight for human rights, I've been treated like a yo-yo, okay, because I am different. Everybody is different. We have all equal rights. Human rights is housing. Without the necessity for housing, how can we deal with our own mental health, our own well-being? Thank you for listening. Thank you, Angela. Thank you, Angela, for speaking. Speaker 47 is Ningling Zhu.

Hi. Hi. Is that Xiao? I'm here.

Okay. I just want to confirm. What is your name?

Great. Thank you. Please go ahead. You have three minutes.

Thank you for speaking to counsel. Speaker 52 is May Wickham.

Thank you for speaking. Speaker 53 is Dickens Chung.

Thank you very much. Right on time. Speaker 54, Sandra Ho.

Great. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mayor and Council. I know you guys are probably tired, so I'm just going to keep it short, maybe even within the three minutes. While I appreciate, while I'm sympathetic to Councillor Bligh's motion and a lot of homeless folks who are drug users, like need a lot of housing, I do oppose to this motion. This is one of the things where I do actually agree with the crypto mayor on other cities needing to pull their weight, even though I don't know whether that's the best way to leverage the carrots and sticks. Also, I think this motion tackles a lot of things that aren't within the city's scope in terms of... in terms of funding from senior levels of government to just a plain math problem in terms of businesses being tapped out. Also residents are already being tapped out in terms of shouldering additional taxes to deal with this.

So therefore, I do not agree with this motion. And I would hope the city council votes that way. The city's debt broke. We can't handle any more costs that's outside of the scope. Thank you.

Thank you, Stanley. And I'll just remind all speakers to just focus on the motion and not characterize individual members of council. I'm now, that's the end of the speaker's list. I'm now going to go back through to give our missed speakers a chance. So I'm going to go back starting with speaker number three, Jason Z.

Thank you very much.

Hi, Christina. You have three minutes. Please go ahead.

Thank you very much, Christina. That's your time. We appreciate you speaking. Okay. Speaker number 50 is Emma Sun.

Please go ahead.

Thank you for speaking. Okay, Council, that concludes our speakers' list. That's the end of the speakers, including the missed speakers. So at this point, Council, is there any discussion on the motion?

Yeah, thanks. Kind of difficult to listen to some of this, but this motion, I think, comes at a time where the conversation around supportive housing in Vancouver has become increasingly polarized. and increasingly disconnected from evidence.

This pause was introduced to- Sorry, Councillor Orrick, can I pause you just for a moment? And I could just let the gentleman- Are you, sir, if you're signed up to speak to an item, I don't think I have you on the list for this one. Our staff can help you with that one. I think it's on a future item, sir. Our staff will come over and help you. It's not on this item, it's on the next one. We'll get staff to come and help you.

Yeah, staff are going to help you, sir. Okay. Sorry, council. Let's reset. Councillor Orr, can I... Sorry about that. Can I ask you to just start again so that you can get your flow back, and I'll just reset your timer.

Sorry. I will reset your timer if... There we go. Okay. Sorry, Councillor. Please go ahead.

Thanks. Yeah, this motion comes at a time when the conversation around supportive housing in Vancouver has become increasingly polarized and increasingly disconnected from the evidence. This pause was introduced in spite of overwhelming public opposition and warnings that doing so would worsen homelessness and instability. And we were warned that this would have the reverse effect of spurring other jurisdictions to take action. And we were right. And we've seen something else take hold here. Misinformation. It's very disappointing that this misinformation has yet to be retracted on certain platforms. It's disappointing to hear today from speakers, some of whom appear to be connected to anti-vax, anti-LGBTQ, anti-choice views. There's a perception that we've built loads of supportive housing, and yet things have gotten worse. This just isn't true. So let's be clear about what supportive housing actually is. It is not simply housing people and walking away. It is housing with supports, mental health care, addiction services, and stability designed specifically for people who would otherwise be cycling through shelters, hospitals, and the street. And the evidence is not ambiguous. Supportive housing improves health outcomes, reduces emergency service use, and helps people stay housed long term. It is consistently shown to be more cost effective than leaving people in crisis systems. Just as importantly, many of the fears we hear about crime, neighborhood decline, or following property values are not supported by research. Studies have found no link between supportive housing and increased crime or reduced property values. In many cases, residents contribute positively to their communities. And yet those fears still persist. They show up in public hearings. They show up in campaigns. They show up in the narratives that suggest supportive housing is the cause of disorder. rather than one of the few proven tools we have to address it. Because the alternative to supportive housing is not status quo stability. The alternative is more people on the street, more pressure on emergency rooms, more strain on policing, and more human suffering. As former city councillor Gene Swanson said, a lot of speakers have spoken about the evils of drug use. Yes, it's hard to get off drugs. The question is, will it help get folks off drugs if they don't have housing? If you can't get housing, your choice of getting off drugs is very low. People on the street have told me that they turn to drugs to cope without being homeless, not the other way around. So even provincial leadership has been clear, supportive housing is a vital and successful way to help people move indoors and access the support they need. And locally, our own staff have made it clear that this need is growing and it cannot fall on Vancouver alone to meet it. So yes, we need a regional approach, even though two-thirds of all new supportive housing in the past seven years have been built outside of Vancouver. And to address a comment by one of the speakers, yes, I would support supportive housing 150 meters from my house. In fact, there's three. We need accountability. We need to ensure supportive housing is done well. I understand that. But none of that is an argument to retreat from the model altogether. And this motion is about regrounding our decision in evidence and in compassion. It's about saying that we will not let fear or misinformation dictate... how we respond to homelessness, mental health, and addiction. And it's about recognizing that supportive housing, while not a silver bullet, remains one of the most effective tools we have. And I will be supporting this motion. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm just going to remind everybody to just focus on the substance of the debate if we can. Marison, you have the floor.

Yeah, thank you. I think it's important. I didn't want to interrupt the counselor during his discussion. And this is a comment for all of us. I don't think it's helpful if we attack the character of people that come into the office, labeling people anti-vaxxers or whatever, as an example. So, anyways... I think there's a bylaw, a procedure bylaw somewhere that does say that we shouldn't be seeing that. Anyways, I want to encourage an environment where people can have diverse views and come into this chamber and, you know, not feel attacked. Okay, what I did want to do here is level set a little bit here because I feel like not all the most accurate information is out there on this motion. So I do want to be clear that the City of Vancouver is still... eligible for federal and provincial housing funding. Just yesterday, we met with Anna Bailao, the CEO of Canada or Build Canada Homes, to talk through active applications we currently have before the federal government. And so I just want to reiterate, Vancouver is at the table. And we do have projects that are under consideration. Our focus should be simple. Keep advancing the work in front of us to create self-contained, dignified and livable homes for our most vulnerable. So thank you.

Thank you, Mayor. Next, Councillor Maloney, please go ahead.

Thank you. Thank you very much to Councillor Bligh for moving this forward. this motion and for the speakers that came to speak to it. I was very moved by the presentations of speakers who related stories of loved ones who've died of fentanyl poisoning. They and many other residents are justifiably worried about kids dying of fentanyl overdoses. I hear the concerns raised in relation to feelings of personal security threats, visible drug use, street disorder. These concerns are valid and living downtown with two teenage children of my own, I'm very sympathetic. However, over the last few months, a lot of misinformation has been spread about what supportive housing is. Supportive housing has been characterised as being drug dens instead of what they truly are, which are affordable housing with on-site essential services to help people experiencing homelessness. violence, trauma and mental health problems. When the motion to have a temporary ban on net new supportive housing projects was passed, the rationale given was that other municipalities needed to step up and build more supportive housing, but we know that hasn't been the case. Instead, other municipalities have pointed to Vancouver and said, look, Vancouver is not building it, so why should we? So given that this ban has not worked as... explicitly planned and intended, I think it's responsible to reverse it.

We know more affordable housing boosts public safety. Studies show that affordable housing cuts substance use and enhances mental health. So to improve public safety in our city, we must reduce the number of people who are forced to live on the streets. We also know that homelessness costs taxpayers more than providing housing. According to a 2024 study, annual healthcare costs for people experiencing homelessness in Canada are six times higher than those of unhoused people. Furthermore, people who are experiencing homelessness often end up in hospital because of the health issues they face as a result of being homeless and danger of violence, which is highest for homeless people. This causes a lot of stress on our medical system and makes it harder for other people to receive medical attention. We need to make sure that no one is left behind and that our communities are truly safe and affordable for everyone. Supportive housing gets people indoors and gives them a chance of overcoming mental health and addiction issues. It's nearly impossible to recover from addiction without housing, to recover from mental health crises without housing. Being exposed to the elements, sleep deprived, hungry, thirsty and feeling disconnected and unwanted is no way to recover from addiction and abstain from drug use. It contributes to mental health and addiction challenges, doesn't cause them. I heard a speaker talk about supportive housing with wraparound supports as warehousing. But when you have housing and resources, it's easy to think that some forms of housing are not good enough. However, for the people that don't have any housing available to them or housing that doesn't provide them with safety and security and the ability to keep their belongings safe and to have pets and to have the freedoms other people enjoy, they might have a different perspective on that. I think we need to be doing something to get organisations that run supportive housing to put more resources into it so we can point to success stories. in gaining more support for supportive housing in more neighbourhoods. There are models that work. It's a matter of planning it and resourcing it, not pausing it. When supportive housing buildings are so-called poorly run, it's generally due to the lack of financial support to have more staff on site or retrofit the units to sustain wear and tear more or have safer self-contained units. Supportive housing works in tandem with addiction and mental health treatment. It's not one or the other. We need to have both. And it's about prevention rather than reaction. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Fry, you're up next.

Yeah, thanks. And I did listen to the speakers and I did... take the moment to look up the Let's Vote Canada. And I do appreciate a number of the founders of Let's Vote were here today. And I similarly, without getting too into the platform, I don't agree with a lot of the positions. And I think that reflecting that, I don't agree with some of the assertions around supportive housing that we've heard today. The reality is, and I do support Councillor Bligh's motion because fundamentally, We're not building the supportive housing that we actually need in this city right now. We know that there are thousands of homeless people in Metro Vancouver across the region, but in the city of Vancouver, we have easily close to 2,000. Maybe not all unsheltered, but definitely close to 2,000 homeless folks. And that number has grown consistently since COVID, and it is not abating. You know, at the same time, our own housing targets that we've long established since before this council have planned targets for, I think it's 1,500 supportive housing units, at least 150 units a year. And we're not keeping pace with that. We're not keeping pace with the current need or the future growth. And yes, the province has an important role to play here, that the province has not necessarily stepped up in the way that we need to. And Vancouver does carry a disproportionate amount of the housing with supports in the region. But we also have the most homeless in the region. And we also have a lot of the challenges. separate from the rest of the region, that are unique to Vancouver, and in no small part because we're the big city. We're the big smoke. We have all the stuff.

But the reality is that we're not coming online fast enough with the projects that we need to support folks who need the supports. And what that means in practice and in reality is that when we don't build enough housing with supports, those problems don't disappear. They get magnified. We see it show up in encampments, in street homelessness, in emergency rooms, in shelters, in public street disorder. And one of the interesting things, and I will say, I think it was Wallace Pong maybe that was talking about who lives within 150 meters. And I think Councillor Orr brought it up as well. I live within 150 meters of lots of housing with supports. And I have lived in a neighborhood with a lot of supportive housing, perhaps the most supportive housing in the city of Vancouver for close to 40 years. And there's lots of them that are not run well. Absolutely. But there are lots that are run well, and those are the ones we don't really hear about because they're doing the job. And by all means, let's all come together and let's lean in and fix housing with supports that is not being run well and figure out how we make it work better. But saying no to housing with supports for people who need it the most is not going to be a solution. It's not going to make things better. It will make things worse. And as the big smoke, we're the ones who will be left holding the bag. Not Richmond. not the other cities, not the tri-cities. It'll end up in Vancouver. We're the ones who have to carry this. So we have a responsibility to lead on it as well and to lean in and show the commitment to equity and to housing for everybody. You know, as I've realized in my time, you know, living in Strathcona and around the downtown east side, the most astonishing thing that I've discovered is people who end up, you know, there's this misconception that folks who end up unhoused, are often, you know, they're unhoused because they were addicted to drugs and they got thrown out of their housing. When in reality, and I think Councillor Swanson, former Councillor Swanson, touched on this, is that a lot of folks who are unhoused turn to drugs because that is the only way they can survive. That is the only way they can get through the daily misery of being cold, wet, unhoused, unemployed, struggling to get by. It is a despair, it is a malaise that is actually, ironically, uplifted through housing, through housing with supports. We know that housing with supports is one of the few interventions that consistently does actually work. And yes, it can be done better. But housing with support stabilizes people. It reduces the long-term costs on our systems. It makes public safe spaces safer because people have somewhere else to go, but only if it's built at scale and without interruption. And so we're serious about compassion, about public safety, about public order, about fiscal responsibility. The answer is clear that we need more housing with supports. We need more supportive housing. And we need it faster, not later. And we need it alongside full regional and provincial responsibility. But we can't abdicate our responsibility. We need to step up and do the right thing here. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Frye. I'm going to advance just first-time speakers first.

Thanks, Chair. Well, I strongly and unequivocally oppose this motion to reverse the decision regarding the net new supportive housing. Also, I want to be very clear. I have no affiliation with the organization you guys are talking about. Let me be clear. Opposing this motion does not mean opposing supportive housing itself. In fact, three years ago, I voted in favor of two supportive housing projects five minutes away from my home. And I have a little kid, as you all know. Supportive housing does not equal to drug use. A well-run supportive housing with sufficient resource can minimize the potential issues in the neighborhoods. But our focus needs to be on quality, livable units with supportive service for residents. Conditions in some of the supportive housing have been to a lot of them. They are inhumane. People would rather live on the street. We need to fix and replace the illness we already have, the ones that are falling apart. That's what will make our communities safer and make those people safer in those illness. And we should be also very clear, there's no supportive housing then, as this motion indicated. There's a pause on net new supportive housing with exemptions. It's also completely false to suggest the pause prevents senior level of government from funding the supportive housing in Vancouver. Everyone deserves a safe, livable, and dignified place to call home. And for far too long, many of those buildings have been allowed to fall into complete disrepair. And we are working to improve conditions of existing facilities while continuing to replace SRO housing with dignified, self-contained units with proper wraparound services and supports. And those supports are very important too. Today, we heard a lot of concern from the community member about the community's safety. Speaker after speaker came forward today because of their deep concern, fear, frustration. This level of response does not happen by accident. It happens when community feels ignored and disrespected. It happens when a community feels decisions are being made affecting them without them. Today, I saw seniors who rarely leave their homes come to City Hall. I saw parents take time away from their families. I saw immigrants who may not speak perfect English as you do, but who spoke from their hearts. Their courage should not be dismissed. Their concern should not be ignored. For decades, our broader immigrant community kept their heads down. They worked hard, really, really hard. They paid tax. They followed the rules, never complained. They believed that if they contributed to this city, this city would respect them in return. They are not asking for privilege. They are asking for safety for their children. They are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for fairness. They are not asking for exclusion. They are asking to be heard. There's nothing wrong when parents wanting their children to grow up in a safer neighborhood. There is nothing wrong when seniors wanting to feel safe walking on the streets. There is nothing wrong when community wanting transparency, accountability, and respect. What is wrong is ignoring them, dismissing them, and making decisions that profoundly affect their life without their participation. The supportive housing units we are focusing on building will make communities safer, will make our most vulnerable populations safer. This is what Mayor's motion did and continues to do. For this reason, I cannot and will not support this motion reversing this policy. Thanks, Chair.

Thank you, Councillor. And again, I'm just going to do first-time speakers first, if that's okay. Councillor Klassen, let's make sure you have a mic. Go ahead.

First of all, thanks very much, Chair. I'd like to thank the speakers for taking time out of their day today to speak to this motion. I know each of you spoke passionately because you all care about our city. And I want to point out that we're not voting today on whether supportive housing is a good thing or necessary. Supportive housing, properly resourced and staffed, can contribute positively to our communities. I'm not supporting this motion because it's built on a false premise. So let me be clear, there is no ban on supportive housing in Vancouver. I repeat, there is no ban on supportive housing in Vancouver. What council approved was a conditional pause on net new supportive housing tied to city contributions with clear and important exemptions. describe that as a ban is simply inaccurate. It is also false to suggest that senior levels of our government are somehow prevented from funding supportive housing in Vancouver. The province continues to hold the primary responsibility for funding, operating, and supporting this housing. This motion does not change that. In fact, just yesterday, Council approved investments to improve day-to-day life in SROs through better sanitation, safer buildings, and more reliable facilities. And I'll note that just yesterday, Mayor Sim has met with the CEO of Build Canada Homes, the federal body tasked with funding new housing. So the idea that Vancouver is closed for business simply does not reflect reality. And importantly, the pause approved by Council is not a blanket approach. It explicitly allows the following. All projects already underway or funded, any health-related housing through Vancouver Coastal Health, any replacement of existing supportive housing, housing for seniors, women, families, and youth, or social housing with supports. And so what we have said clearly is that we need to fix the housing we already have before adding more of the same. Everyone deserves a safe, livable, and dignified place to call home, and too many existing buildings have been allowed to fall into unacceptable condition. More broadly, the system itself is under real strain. Frontline voices are telling us that it is overwhelmed, underfunded, and often lacking the staffing and supports needed to succeed. simply adding more units without addressing those issues, risk repeating the same outcomes. So this motion oversimplifies a much deeper issue. Our focus as a city should be on improving existing conditions, replacing outdated and in too many cases unlivable housing stock, and ensuring that supports are funded by senior levels of government that are actually there to help people succeed. That is the responsible path forward, and that's why I will be voting no. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Councillor. Seeing no one else on the queue. Oh, just under the wire. I was about to call the vote. Councillor Bligh.

Yeah, I think I'm entitled to close on the motion. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I mean, I'm appreciative of the speakers who signed up to speak for and against this motion. What I heard was commentary that... was complex, right? It's complex because there's a lot of personal feelings and concerns related to, I would suspect personal values around drug use, around risks for young people, around the growing mental health crisis that leads to drug use in young people. or vice versa, and I share those concerns. I'm a parent. I'm a parent of a 21-year-old and a 26-year-old that I am close with and closely aware of the access that they have growing up in modern-day times, not just Vancouver, just generally speaking, and to be quite honest. Online, actually. Online is where it's quite a scary place for how young people access. And in high schools, through various social media apps, are able to access drugs. And so I share those concerns, and I just really want to acknowledge... The speaker that spoke on behalf of a parent who has lost their daughter, I'm so deeply sorry to hear this and recognize the pain that that has caused. And then other speakers, of course, that don't want drugs around drug use. I think we can actually agree that that's not the best outcome and none of us are supporting that. And at the same time, not a soft on allowing drug use. This is about data. This is about evidence. It's about research. And rather than it being about... about personal feelings or about an ideological position on drug use. I recognize how delicate it can feel these days with a younger population and how important it is to talk to our kids about the risks associated. So I just really want to put a pin in that because I heard that from a number of speakers. So moving to really the topic, which is around supportive housing, we're already down a path where we have to be able to respond to the crisis that's before us. And we know that supportive housing provides the best possible pathway to healing. The numbers show that. So it's not... practical or pragmatic to suggest that supportive housing creates worsening outcomes for public safety, for homelessness, and even for recovery and treatment. What people need is housing to be able to move into or come back to should they need it as part of that healing journey. We know that people experiencing homelessness, when it comes to the cost, and I heard a lot about the cost for taxpayers, homelessness is far more expensive for taxpayers if there's a bottom line conversation, which I don't even really want to enter into. The most affordable, fiscally responsible way to deal with this is to build the purpose-built housing that we need. I'll just say that the troubling part of this debate is that SROs that were never, ever intended in terms of their physical built form to serve the vulnerable population that they do are not the definition of supportive housing that we're talking about. So we're complaining a lot of issues here. There are buildings that have issues, but there are a lot of supportive housing buildings that have created... stabilization and without them, the crisis would be worse. We know that. So all I'm saying is the pause is not the answer. The ban, the pause, take your point. It's a both and as we heard from speakers, there has been a significant chilling effect that has actually bolstered other municipalities to close their doors on much needed housing. So if the goal was to have others step up, it's actually had the opposite effect, which is only making it worse for all municipalities that are struggling. with a growing homelessness crisis, not just in Vancouver, not just Metro Vancouver, across the entire province. So I get that this may not pass. I still think it's only going to pass by a slim majority, or sorry, lose the vote by a slim majority, which says that this council is very divided on this.

Sorry, Councillor Blay, I'm sorry, that's your time. Thank you.

I actually think the chair just cut me off early just for the record.

No, it was at five. Actually, Councillor Bligh, I can affirm that it is at five minutes and you're now at 512. It actually was at, well, we're now at 517.

Councillor Bligh, we do want to stick to facts in the chamber. You hit five minutes as I gave to every other councillor. So please don't misrepresent the facts. That is correct. You can have the clerks confirm that if you like, but that is the case. Okay. Giving one other final chance, if there's nobody else that wants to speak, I will now call the vote.

Okay. Okay, everybody. Okay, Council. It looks like that motion has failed with myself, Councillor Montague, Councillor Klassen, Mayor Sim, and Councillor Zhou in opposition. And that concludes this item, which is motion number three. Thank you very much, everybody, and thanks to all the speakers. We will now move on to our next item of business, which is motion four, creating a City of Vancouver Festival Support Fund. That is to be moved and introduced. Sorry, bear with me. I'm just following along the script here. Bye.

Councillor Frye, I believe. Councillor Frye, when you are ready.

Yes, shifting gears entirely. Thank you, Chair. It's not often that I quote Joni Mitchell in any kind of council meeting, but seeing as she was recently awarded a Lifetime Achievement Award at the Junos, I feel like it's worth trotting out that classic line, don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got till it's gone? And that is the case for festivals in our city, quite really. Council are well aware of the funding challenges faced by festivals, beloved festivals in our city. That's why we just supported earlier today bridge funding for Vaisakhi, why we've supported the ad hoc emergency funding for car-free days, and funding to replace the celebration of light. Despite funding shortfalls from the federal government, funding shortfalls from the provincial government, and diminishing commitments from corporate sponsors amidst rising costs to put on festivals and keep them running smoothly and safely, Council have recognized that free festivals support our city's vibrancy and celebrate the outdoors, the fun, the multiculturalism, and the togetherness that also supports our local economy in a meaningful way. And we need to step up. I want to just share a couple of letters that we've received in support of this. From Martin Roy, the Executive Director of Festivals and Major Events Canada. And I'll just excerpt from their letter. They're based in Montreal and very familiar with the ecosystem in Montreal. While Vancouver invests approximately $2 million in arts and culture, municipal supports for festivals... just festivals in Montreal, is closer to $9 million. And similarly, where the maximum grant in Vancouver is around $75,000, major events in Montreal, such as the International Jazz Festival or Just for Laughs, can receive up to approximately $600,000. We also received a letter from Jane Talbot in the downtown Vancouver BIA. She writes, festivals and events are central to Vancouver's identity as a vibrant, inclusive, and economically dynamic city. They animate public spaces, bring communities together, and generate significant economic activity for local businesses. As outlined in the motion, many of Vancouver's free public events are facing growing financial pressures driven by rising costs... shifting sponsorship models and inconsistent funding. This motion is a practical step towards sustaining Vancouver's festival sector. A dedicated, stable, and transparent festival support fund will provide certainty for organizers, help address rising costs, and maintain access to free public events that benefit residents, visitors, and businesses. The proposed models, including multi-year funding, tiered support, and alignment with senior government contributions, reflects proven approaches... to other leading cities.

Sorry, Councillor Fry, you're over your two minutes.

Oh, you're back.

I just got back. Apologies. It was at Metro Vancouver. Ah, okay. Do we have a seconder for Councillor Fry's motion? Seconded by Councillor Kirby-Young. Okay. We'll now hear from registered speakers for the motion. Public speakers should state whether they are in support or opposition. other recommendations and 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 on this item is David Ray.

Thank you.

Thank you, Bruno, for speaking to council. 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 Kirby-Young. Please go ahead.

Yeah, thanks, Chair. Before I make comments overall on the motion, I'd like to propose what I hope is a friendly amendment, if you want to move us to an amendment queue.

Great. Yep. Okay, that amendment seconded by Councillor Fry. Please go ahead, Councillor.

Yeah, thank you, and thanks, Councillor Frey, for seconding it. And I'll just read this into the record, and it is simply augmenting what Councillor Frey has articulated in the motion about to the province asking for restoration of the BC Fairs and Festivals Fund, and I'm mirroring it with a similar clause that recognizes that the federal government has also... step back. And so the additional proposed clause is that Council requests that the Mayor, on behalf of Council, advocate to the Government of Canada, including through the Department of Canadian Heritage, the restoration and expansion of federal funding programs supporting major festivals and cultural events, recognizing their economic, cultural, and tourism impacts, and the growing financial pressures that are facing such events, not just in Vancouver and across Canada. And I think that's self-explanatory. Thanks.

Great. Thanks, Councillor. Okay, I'm not seeing anyone else on the queue to speak to the amendment.

We'll go back to the main queue. Councillor Kirby-Young, anything further?

I'd like to provide some comments on the overall motion. First of all, thank Councillor Fry for bringing it forward. He and I have the pleasure of serving as the Council Liaisons to the Arts and Culture Committee, and I think over two terms together on Council, have both been fully supportive of this sector, as is, I think, broadly all of Council. I think that this is happily a sector that everybody supports and that Council's aligned on. It was mentioned earlier, I think I commented that In the last year, particularly, it's never easy in the arts and culture sector. We know that. But it has been particularly difficult going into COVID, coming out of COVID. And then when the festival started to really realize the impacts and getting back, started to see that there were extraordinary latent and resulting cost pressures on things, renting things like fencing and... temporary bathrooms, and all of the things that go into providing the necessary infrastructure for festivals. We have seen corporate sponsors pulling back in very challenging, very difficult economic times. And we have seen senior governments, provincial and federal, also pulling back. And that has been... a whole confluence of factors. The city of Vancouver stayed the course and has been there, but that is cold comfort when you are a festival and trying to deliver it. I think that it is noteworthy that we have tried to continue upping the ante. There has been increased support. We took a look at trying to streamline the requirements around public safety. There's some additional, there's the FestShare program trying to offset costs. I think I myself brought a motion forward last term that was entitled Making it Easier to Host Outdoor Festivals and Events. recognizing that we wanted to strip down barriers to the best of the city's ability make the permitting streamlined and easier all of that said everything remains a challenge and I think it's always good for us to look at what else the city can do to sort of lever up and support that I think a city without art and without festivals and events is a bleak one And it's dark, and that is, as we're heading into festival season, I think what makes Vancouver such a special place to live in a vibrant city. We get to celebrate our nature. Many of these things happen outdoors. We get to celebrate our diverse cultures. We have a chance to really come together. We just had the Cherry Blossom Festival this weekend. Amazing to see people picnicking under the... Cherry Blossoms. We've got Visaki coming up. Folk Festival was able to turn a corner previously with council support. They had a tough period of time. There's some bright lights with things like VIF and others and BARD. And then there's some folks that are having genuinely a difficult time. So I'm all in for looking at what we can do. and continue to do to support um our events again i think it is part of this council's commitment that was made i believe unanimously towards supporting a vibrant vancouver and that is really a big part of living in a fun city and living in a connected city so i thank council fry for bringing it forward it's something that was very much on my mind and i'm sure that we're going to see broad support around the table i'd be surprised if we don't thanks

Thank you. Councillor Klassen. Thanks very much. And thanks, Councillor Fry, for bringing this motion forward. I know this has been a vexing challenge for a lot of people in the arts and culture sector, but particularly our festival producers. And I know that you and others in council have devoted a lot of time to meet and try to problem solve. And while I don't think any of us think that... the city is going to be the principal source to try and make up that gap. We have seen a number of different companies and government levels of government that have walked away, partly because of the difficult economic times and the belt tightening that's happening as a result of... large deficits. But I remain always optimistic that there is a pathway forward. And I know that, you know, in this term of council for myself, I remember my very first meeting with the Folk Festival when they were facing imminent ending of that festival. Luckily, by working with them and engaging with the city staff and other stakeholder partners, um, that, uh, that festival was able to continue. And I, I, I am optimistic that we'll continue to go on for years to come. Um, uh, we, uh, are blessed by fantastic outdoor street festivals and, um, uh, you know, I'm thinking the Latin Coover, uh, um, uh, festival that happens at Johnson Rogers park and, CATS ALANO AND OF COURSE ALL OF US PARTOOK IN THE SPRING FESTIVAL IN CHINATOWN LUNAR NEW YEAR PARADE THERE'S JUST SO MANY OF THESE THAT ARE INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT TO OUR CITY IN OUR COMMUNITY AND AND I KNOW THAT WE'VE BEEN Councillor KERBY YOUNG AND MYSELF ACTUALLY MET WITH A NUMBER OF LEADERS IN THE IN THE ARTS AND CULTURE AND FESTIVAL SPACE AND Last fall, putting sort of all ideas on the table, I've since then met with a leader of another major arts festival. Again, just trying to think of any potential pathway. I mean, the one thing that all of us have at Council are fantastic networks and the ability to reach out to other stakeholders. And maybe there is a corporate sector in this city. We're seeing a lot of growth in some of the rare earth minerals and the mining sector, and I sort of think that some of those companies just need to be tapped and talked to and see if they'd be willing to partner. But again, there's nothing like having... the ongoing support of the federal government and we need to I think with this amendment making those direct outreach to the ministry and to the government itself to try and make sure that we can ensure that by providing that support That'll be a net positive in terms of economic activity that will lead to a lot of sales tax and in a sense kind of pay for itself. So very happy to support this and continue to bring strong voice to continuing and growing and supporting our arts and culture festivals in this city. Thanks.

Thank you. Councillor Maloney.

Thank you.

Sorry. I strongly support this motion and thanks to Councillor Fry for moving it. We're increasingly relying on extraordinary one-off grants to support festivals rather than developing a coherent planned approach. So that really does need to change. And the arts and culture community deserves predictability and that means building stronger, more consistent support for festivals and their infrastructure. into our planning from the outset, not scrambling at the last minute. I appreciate the amendment, which I was very supportive of in terms of seeking federal government funding for something that really does contribute to Canada's national identity. It's important that we get a clearer picture of the rising costs the city itself is responsible for in supporting festivals and events to ensure we plan to meet them. And I think that it should be a more central part of what we do as a city. We are really fortunate to have so many extraordinary artists and creatives living here. And it doesn't just yield a social and cultural return on investment. It It also, we know, provides a financial return on investment. And I'm thinking about that 2024 Destination Vancouver study that shows that events throughout the year generate real economic concerns, sorry, economic returns for the city. And this is an investment worth making deliberately, not just when a crisis lands on our desk. So I'll be voting in favour. Thanks.

Thank you. Councillor Orr.

Yeah, thanks. Not much more to say that hasn't already been said. Obviously, strongly support this. And just unfortunate to sort of add to the list that is in the motion. It's the Mother's Day powwow that's... Held at Trout Lake, I believe, has been going on for 40-something years. Just had to cancel due to rising costs. Much to the chagrin of the organizers and, of course, Vancouver's urban indigenous community as well. So that just means that this motion is very timely and I look forward to supporting it. Thanks.

Thanks, Councillor Orr. I'll just hand the chair to Councillor Dominato, Vice-Chair Dominato, to make some comments. I just want to add my support for this motion and thank Councillor Fry and Councillor Kirby-Young. Our festivals, as noted and as Council's aware, are facing extraordinary and escalating cost pressures, some of which was highlighted during our discussions this morning on Vaisakhi. But the challenges around these escalating costs are really festival-wide, whether that's the Pride Festival, Car Free Days, Cherry Blossom Festival, the Folk Festival, Carnival del Sol, the list goes on. So we have been stepping in with some extraordinary one-time funding and also the ongoing support of our Festshare program. But clearly, we need updated and sustainable. funding model and that's what this motion will bring back to council so i'm looking forward to that and in addition we will continue as council and i know the mayor will to advocate to our provincial and federal government partners as mentioned earlier today the city has really stood firm and as many cases have increased our support of these important important festivals in our city the city has always been there and the city will continue to be there but we really need the province and the feds to come back to the table And in many cases, you know, reaffirm their support instead of reducing it. So we'll continue to do that advocacy and continue to put that pressure on. But I just wanted to voice my support for this motion. Thanks. And I'll take the chair back. Councillor Fry to close.

Yeah, thanks, Chair. And thanks, Councillor, for what sounds like a sound support for this. I do want to acknowledge, too, that thanks to Councillor Kirby-Young for that amendment. And also... As mentioned, Councillor Kirby-Young's leadership in the last term on the motion that is referenced in this motion, the making it easier... resolution that we passed in the last council, making it easier to host outdoor festivals and events, which certainly has eased up some of the pressure, but obviously we've seen new pressures that are mounting, and so I appreciate that everybody understands the critical importance for us, even though we see this drop in other funding sources. I do want to just reflect that the letter that we did receive from FAME, which I'll share with the rest of council, I'm not sure if everybody got it, But it does also, you know, where it encourages us to step up, it also talks about how there is a lot of advocacy that they are doing and their colleagues are doing with senior levels of government, with the province, with the feds, and increasingly with tourism destination organizations and encouraging them to step up and help to support these festivals because these festivals really are a huge benefit to all sorts of sectors in our society, not the least of which arts and culture, but also you know, small business and local economic development. And also just to one of the speaker's comments around concerns around getting this right. I do want to just reference that the motion does specifically talk about mechanisms to ensure accountability, transparency, equity, and cultural inclusion in this work from council or this direction from council to staff. and also that staff report back. So we're not giving entire direction here. We're giving the cue for staff to do the work, and hopefully we come back with something really, I think, comprehensive that can recognize the diversity of cultural festivities, recognize that this is a shift in our approach as the city, and getting it right so that we can support these festivals that support our vibrancy in our city the way they do. So thanks, everybody. Appreciate it.

Thanks, Councillor. Okay, so not seeing anyone else on the queue, I'll take us to the vote. Clerk, if you could please take us to the voting screen. And committee, if you could please register your vote on the voting panel.

Yeah, and happy to co-submit this with Councillor Maloney. As we're preparing for FIFA 2026 and the World Cup, people in our city are asking very practical questions around how is this event going to affect our city, what will happen in our public spaces, and what protections will be in place for people who are already the most vulnerable. This resolution is about assuming the worst, but it is recognizing that major international events put real strains on city, and that's why FIFA have put a human rights action plan requirement on us in the first place, And this recognizes that that plan is in draft form right now, and this is an opportunity for us to provide additional suggestions and direction. So three things to just be clear about this motion. First, it asks that human rights, including the rights of unhoused and precariously housed people, are explicitly considered and protected as part of our human rights action plan. And that... does mean clear expectations around non-displacement, dignity, and access to space and services during the event. Second, directing staff to work with community partners so that the preparations include supportive measures and not just enforcement responses. We've seen just south of the border recently, Seattle has taken great steps to pair their fee-for-human-rights action plan with outreach and massively increased shelter capacity, including harm reduction supports, and used it to leverage these opportunities rather than, say, the opposite of that. And then third, asking for transparency in reporting. Council and the public need to understand how these commitments are being implemented and that we're tracking everything, not after the fact, but in real time, and really taking this seriously, because this does have huge implications. Taking together these recommendations really about planning with care and acknowledging that we're welcoming the world, but we also need to be protective of our residents and our most vulnerable people at the same time. So this isn't really about delaying the hosting or politicizing the tournament. It's just about getting it right as we step out on the global stage that we're doing this grounded in the realities of our city and the responsibilities that we have and incorporating it into our human rights action plan. And thank you.

Thanks, Chair. I have a question, a point of information through you to the city manager or deputy city manager. Just in reviewing the motion, the staff feedback, and then the human rights action plan that we've... put together for the games. I'm just curious. I see a lot of points raised in the motion that are already covered through the action plan, everything around avoiding displacement, allowing temporary sheltering, tracking, as well as the ability to report concerns. And I'm just curious, could the city manager or deputy city manager comment further on that? Because I see it seems like much of this is already covered in our action plan.

Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that.

Yeah, happy to support this motion. I think it's just another example of just trying to get ahead of potential side effects of this vent and just not step on a rake. Yeah, we shouldn't be displacing anyone. The expanded low barrier day and night shelters is the right direction. I like the clear metrics and data tracking as well. The draft human rights action plan has been criticized for relying too much on existing systems and not enough on concrete actions or accessible remedies for people who are harmed. And that is the gap that this motion is trying to close. I will also say I've heard many concerns from marginalized communities that they aren't aware of what measures they can take if their human rights are violated. So with that, I do have an amendment that was drafted by the Urban Indigenous People's Advisory Committee. If you want to go to that queue.

Yeah, absolutely. This is, as I said, a motion drafted by the Urban Indigenous People's Advisory Committee. It's a little wordy, but it's just finding a way to communicate to people what they can do if their human rights are violated using sort of... any of the resources that the city may have within the controlled access zone. So I hope you guys can support it.

That's it for me. Thanks.

Thank you to Councillor Fry for taking the lead on this motion and inviting me to collaborate on it. And thanks very much to the public speakers who gave such thoughtful, well-researched presentations. As Councillor Fry pointed out, Seattle, who is in a very similar position to Vancouver, is taking a very different approach. So the idea that we're already doing enough is a matter of perspective, which I don't share. So like many Vancouverites, I'm looking forward to the World Cup. Vancouver being able to host the Cup is a privilege and I'm really looking forward to welcoming visitors from around the world united by a love of soccer. That's what the World Cup ought to be about, the spirit of friendly competition and the celebration of a sport that unites billions around the world. But there's the ideal, then there's the reality, and the truth is that the World Cup has often not lived up to its own high principles, especially on human rights. From the treatment of migrant workers in Qatar to the mass abductions of American citizens on the orders of FIFA's first and only Peace Prize laureate, People are understandably concerned about whether we're doing all we can to protect our communities or whether we're instead putting publicity over principle. The current Human Rights Action Plan is a good start, but it doesn't answer important questions about specificity and enforcement. A promise made without effective accountability is just words on a page and we need concrete monitoring.

To quote a famous saying, justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. We are still months away from kick-off so there's plenty of time for this motion to be implemented. Our job as a council is to give priority to important issues as they arise. The protection of our most cherished civil liberties is surely among them, especially as these principles are actively being compromised down south. As Vancouver prepares to join the ranks of FIFA host cities, we have to make sure that we're creating a positive legacy that will bring pride to our city for decades to come. So we should be standing for human rights and make sure that this World Cup is one that puts our city's values at centre field. Thank you.

Yeah, well, in the full context of context, I think this has been very misrepresented. I'm going to read the exact clause as it was written into the motion. It is a no displacement commitment prohibiting dispersion, seizure of belongings, limited access to harm reduction services and sanctioned drinking and substance use areas or other displacement practices during the World Cup. Emphasis. in the absence of providing safe, dignified alternatives. So nobody's saying keep encampments on the street. Nobody's saying keep it chaos. The operation here is to ensure that we have safe, dignified alternatives so that when we are dispersing people, we have somewhere that they can store their stuff. We have seen the defunding of the very services that provide storage for unhoused people, not through the city necessarily, through the province. And I think that we actually stepped up to help support that. But the reality is, is that we have unhoused residents who need additional supports. And if we're going to ask them to move along, we should be giving them safe alternative spaces. We do not have daytime shelter options for folks. We do not have the storage necessarily for folks who we are going to be asking to move along. That is the key consideration here. I want to remind folks that this is the draft human rights plan. This is the opportunity that we have. to enhance this and make sure that it's working the way it should. You know, the draft human rights plan, as it's written right now, talks about displacement in the context of tenancy law and assumes that people can apply to the RTB in many cases, which is, frankly, missing the entire point. And I will say that when it comes to unhoused residents, and this is word for word from the draft human rights action plan, It reads, in response to community concerns around the availability of daytime respite spaces... Sorry, let me just...

daytime respite spaces and interactions during visitor surges with people experiencing homelessness in the public realm, the city is discussing further potential actions to mitigate risks to people experiencing homelessness and housing precarity to be included as feasible in the next update of this draft action plan. That leaves the door open for this very kind of direction that is a fairly simple request that we are at least providing safe, dignified alternatives for folks who may be at risk of displacement. The idea that we may be disrupting safe consumption sites in the interest of, you know, tourists having a good time at a soccer game is pretty outrageous. And I think that we should show great intention to ensure that we are doing everything we can to provide those alternatives. bake it into this human rights action plan. It's not an especially onerous ask, and it's just asking it to be included in the final human rights action plan. And I will note, as pointed out, Seattle is going way above and beyond what we are even contemplating here with some very tangible actions. to support unhoused residents with rapid shelter deployment and all sorts of supports. And I think that it would be a mistake to just gloss over this motion as somehow some kind of getting in the way of the work that's already been done. This is really to complement the work that staff and the Human Rights Action Plan is contemplating. It's not getting in the way of it. It's just enhancing it and speaking for folks who maybe don't have a voice at this table, which I think is critically important and a major oversight.

So we will now move on to our next motion. Motion six, establishing a city comptroller bylaw for budget efficiency and asset management framework, which is to be moved and introduced by Councillor Frey. Before we begin this agenda item, if anyone believes they have a conflict of interest, now's the time to declare it. Does anyone have a conflict to disclose?

Okay, not seeing anyone. Councillor Frey, you have two minutes to introduce your motion.

Thank you. Okay, so the idea of a financial comptroller oversight rule is about protecting public money, taking better care of what we already own, and making sure that decisions are transparent and accountable. Our city manages over billions of dollars in public assets every year, and right now, responsibility for those assets is spread across multiple departments. That means decisions about spending, maintenance risk, long-term planning. It can all happen in silos without one single independent... voice that's overseeing and putting it all together so this motion responds to the auditor general's recent recommendations that talk about the city's asset management practices especially for major civic facilities that we need stronger structure better data and clearer long-term planning and the same thing i would say was echoed in the mayor's budget

My mic or my timing? Okay, never mind. We also know that we're facing a huge infrastructure funding gap and that we need to improve our asset management strategy, and we need to do it in real time. So the city comptroller is apolitical and independent. It is a watchdog function reporting directly to council. It's keeping an eye on major spending as it happens. It's breaking down silos between departments. And it's bringing consistent citywide oversight to how we manage assets from the planning to the maintenance to the replacement. So, again, this is really asking staff to come back with what the bylaw, which is entirely lawful, what a bylaw could look like and really complement our city processes in a way that really the independent auditor general did when it was introduced. last term and to great success, I would add, because I think that we have seen the functional improvement, even though there was some resistance at the time of deploying an auditor general. And I think that there was some resistance from management at the time. And we've now seen that it's actually become a very functional and essential piece of our civic governance. So I'm hoping that with an open mind, council will consider this as a positive step forward in our governance and accountability and oversight. Thank you.

Thank you. Do you have a seconder? Okay, Councillor Orr, thank you. So do we, or sorry, we'll now hear from registered speakers for the motion. Public speakers should state whether they're in support or opposition of the recommendations and may only speak once. And also ask speakers at their residence in Vancouver if it's not noted on the speakers list. Our first public speaker is Julie Sterelski. Good afternoon.

Thank you. Okay, that is the end of our speakers list. Thanks for speaking to our committee. Committee members, any discussion? Councillor Domenato.

Yeah, thanks, Chair, and just a couple of reflections in looking into this matter a little bit more and the motion as presented is that effectively this notion of controller or chief accountant, depending on how you look at it, is typically an internal position, management position within organizations, and So not only does the city of Vancouver have an external auditor general, which to the point being is being retroactive, as the speaker was saying, looking backwards. We have a general manager of finance supply chains, effectively the city CFO. We have an internal audit team, as well as the CFO effectively is the controller or can have an additional staff position within the city that acts as a chief accountant. But also this notion of sort of an external independent role. There were some examples cited from the U.S. I understand for the New York example that there with the strong mayor system, the controller is actually elected. They're not an independently appointed person. position, and that is to strike a balance between the strong mayor system and the U.S. model, which we're not operating under a U.S. model of governance. We have a weak mayor system here. And we've already commissioned and given direction around development of an asset management framework. And so for all of those reasons, I'm not going to be supporting this. We actually already have all of this in place. as needed. And if a member of Councillor is seeking, they should take a look at both the Board of Administration bylaw as well as the responsibilities of our general manager of finance. If they're wanting more reporting, more regular reporting, that direction can be given. And that is at the purview of council. We do get regular financial updates here at council and the opportunity to scrutinize and to give alternate direction. So with those comments, I won't be supporting the motion.

Okay, thank you. Councillor Kerby-Young.

Yeah, thanks, Chair. I will probably echo some similar sentiments to Councillor Domenato. And Councillor Domenato and I actually took the opportunity to have a conversation with our independent Auditor General, just in the spirit of doing some research and engagement. I understand the move of the motion didn't reach out to the Auditor General's office. But it was interesting to, there's a person that's very familiar with the different constructs in different cities across Canada. and the U.S. with respect to their counterparts. And it struck me that, like Councillor Domonato mentioned, in New York, it's an independent elected city official. It's a political position, and it's a very different context. I'm not sure why we keep comparing to the U.S. or trying to bring American kind of politics into Canada. I think there's good reason these days to be proud of a lot of our Canadian system. That's probably me providing a bit of a personal perspective on it. I did sit on... I believe Councillor Domino may have other councillors at the time, trying to recall who, last term on the committee that established the independent office of the Auditor General for the first time, that did the hiring and recruitment around that, very, very familiar with the mandate of the External Auditor General. as well with the city. I think that that was really important. I think that transparency and accountability is. I agree with Councillor Fry with respect to the conditions of our asset management. I think that hopefully we're going to see that concern translate into broad support for really reinvesting in our community assets and our upcoming capital plan that Council will be considering. but it was curious to me to sort of effectively duplicate and I was trying to look for I understand the problem we're trying to solve for and I think that the answer to that is really investing in the community infrastructure and I think that that is something that all of Council can and should get behind in terms of where we put our capital dollars coming up, because we know we have this infrastructure deficit. I think I was the one that moved to quantify it and bring that forward. We also know, too, I think received some feedback from staff, and it's Council's job to take that feedback and make its own independent decisions. But it certainly can help inform some of the debate, and I think it did identify that a lot of these functions are the mandated responsibility of our existing Director of Finance. Colin Knight. And so I'm trying to look for, is there a gap in our transparency and governance? I'm not sure that there is between the existing control and the independent auditor general. And in fact, arguably, you could say that this motion duplicates some of the direction that's already being given, which is to complete an asset management assessment. And in fact, council will be receiving that very soon. My understanding is from staff as part of the upcoming information and work towards developing that capital plan. So that direction was given by a council motion, I think on October 7th, to develop an asset management framework. It's part of the capital plan development, and we will be getting that information. And I think we should really turn our heads and attention to that and put and make sure that we make the investments accordingly in the next capital plan because I think reinvesting back in communities is incredibly important. So I agree with Councillor Frey that we need to manage, monitor our infrastructure. I think we have the tools to do it and I think it's Council's job to use the tools that we have to prioritize investment and quite frankly hold Our staff to account that those priorities are being fulfilled So I'm not seeing that this is going to give us something new in addition to I think a well-established framework that we have Thank you.

Thank you councillor Klassen

Thanks very much, Chair. So what I've heard so far in sort of looking into this, I sort of don't find myself convinced that this is an initiative that would add any additional benefit. In fact, I think it potentially risks, being that it is a council-facing initiative, recommendation that it risks potential politicization in the future and the fact that we have a you know a 500 million dollar infrastructure gap which we've spoken about it seems to me that we should be prioritizing delivering projects instead of adding a new administrative layer to to the city there is no clearly defined gap or issues that could be potentially Have been prevented by the appointment of a separate controller of course we do have a Director of Finance and Auditor General and so it seems to me that we would also be creating a third Position that would potentially have redundancy with both of those There is a CONCERN AROUND COST, TOO. WOULD THE COST FOR THIS OFFICE, WHICH WOULD RUN IN THE MILLIONS UNDOUBTEDLY, CREATE ANY MEASURABLE SAVINGS OR IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN JUST GENERATING MORE OVERALL FINANCIAL BURDEN FOR THE CITY? And again, we have – if we do have existing challenges, certainly it feels like that we should be working on solutions instead of actually trying to create a new role, a new body to try and address the solutions. I think that we could actually work with the tools that we have right now and the very – I think really strong leadership we have in terms of financial accountability. So I do not find myself convinced that it strikes me as being more of a fancy title than an actual measurable role that could bring any real benefit to us. Again, I do believe that we've got... lot of work that is ongoing right now and I'm I'm prepared to support the work of our current teams right now rather than just creating new ones and then leave them with the challenge of where it is the organizational decision-making get made as a result of adding yet another position with into the mix here we have a independent auditor who has the ability to look at any number of files departments and initiatives in the city and then we also have a CFO who is accountable to to the city manager and also able to and to the rest of the corporate leadership team here. So, again, I do not see how this additional role will make any significant change to how we work here in the city.

Thanks. Thanks, Councillor Claston. Councillor Fry.

Well, I certainly didn't have Comptroller as a fancy title on my bingo card for today, but, you know, I think it's not so much a fancy title as it is an actual additional layer. of oversight the auditor general is a is an excellent independent function and i'm glad folks are are happy with that and it is a relatively new construct in the city of vancouver and one that was was not uh uh met favorably by by many when when it was introduced yet has proven to be quite functional and the auditor general looks back on financial decisions and accountability comptroller is a real-time position um And I do appreciate that the CFO does an excellent job, but I think what I'm reflecting here is the asymmetrical access to information that we see. We've seen probably the leanest detailed budget, as far as I can remember, in this most recent budget document, which is... Not a lot of information, and there is an asymmetrical information flow here that others may have more access to information, but I do not as an elected council member, nor do the public. The public can't get any eyes on the details of this budget and how the zero means zero affects the various line items in the operation of the city of Vancouver. And I bring that up specifically in the context of we have somehow, despite a zero means zero budget, found significant amounts of funds for a new fireworks festival, for a new police academy, for a new policing district. And it is inconsistent with our understanding of a zero means zero budget. So, again, having that independent oversight. removes and eliminates any notion of politicization of the financial reporting because it is independent and it is reporting directly to council in a way that I'm not getting reported to right now. And I think I would assume others on council who are not of the majority party. And I think this is... At best, this is a request to look at it.

Quite a privilege, if I might, Chair. All councillors, just in terms of the suggestion that members of the majority party receive different information, all councillors receive the same information. I just want to level set that. Thank you.

I concur.

I wasn't aware, but thank you. Okay. I do believe still that there is an asymmetrical amount of information. that I'm not certainly privileged to. Because again, with the decisions to make large financial commitments like millions of dollars for fireworks, millions of dollars for a new police academy, that suggests that there's information and access to financial information that the rest of council do not have. I'll leave it at that. And this is really unfortunate that it's being sort of panned as something that's not necessary, when in fact, I think this is actually an opportunity to improve our processes as a city of Vancouver and for future councils as well. Thank you.

Okay. Thanks. Okay. Not seeing anyone else on the queue. So I'll now call the vote. Clerk, if you could please take us to the voting screen and committee, you please register your vote on the voting panel.

Okay. And that does not pass with myself in opposition. Councillor Kirby Young in opposition. Councillor Dominato in opposition.

Thanks.

This motion is about fairness and about being honest about what actually helps people. Last year's 0% property tax was framed as helping regular people, but a blanket tax freeze affects everyone equally, including those who own multiple properties and high-value assets, while doing nothing to fix the growing pressure on our city's finances. This motion takes a different approach. It protects regular homeowners while asking those with multiple properties, high-value assets, or investment portfolios to contribute a bit more to the services that make the city function. Some will say 7% is too high, but the 10-year average is already around 5.6%. And this increase is slightly higher because it directly funds a rebate that shields most homeowners from any increase at all. And frankly, we've seen much larger jumps before, including increases over 10% in a single year. Others will say this can't be done, that using MIVA is too complex, or that we already have the homeowner grant, but if we don't try and use the tools available to us, we are choosing to leave a structural problem in place and effectively letting those with the greatest means off the hook while the city faces ongoing fiscal pressure. And finally, there's concern that this will be passed on to renters, but that's not how the system works. Annual rent increases are regulated, and a change of this scale simply does not justify exceptional increases and practices landlords raise rents based on allowable limits, not marginal property tax increases. At its core, this motion says we can protect regular people and fix our finances at the same time. We don't have to choose one or the other. And I will say I wish we weren't in this position to get creative. I wish we did have property. progressive property taxes like we have progressive income tax or even land value capture taxes. But here we are, and I welcome all input that would make this motion stronger. Thanks. Thanks.

Hi. I'm Christina Chu. I am a concerned citizen of Vancouver who stands for many people of faith and faith communities and people of goodwill for the common good. I strongly support this motion. I have a friend who works as a coordinator in a community center who says that many, many of her patrons are being affected. Would you want to go to a washroom in a park that is not cleaned properly? Cuts have caused this. Costs of living has gone up greatly. The ones most affected, as we all know, are those who are working, middle class, low-income seniors, and working people and families. So, yeah, as we know, gas is up, groceries are up, transit cost is going up, rents have gone up, and we don't need any more cuts to services. We need to find a way to help all of our citizens. How do we fund these services, including supportive housing? We tax those who can afford properties more than $3 million and those who own more than one property and those who have purchased properties as investments and speculations. The reason that these people already have a home and much more, they... they can pay more of a fair share so others without food, shelter, safety can get a stable place to live with the supports that they need to survive and thrive. And for those who are using half their paycheck or most of their paycheck to pay rent and all the other expenses who are precariously going to fall into homelessness soon. If many places are already putting in place these progressive taxes, we can do that as well. Washington State recently put a new tax. Governor Bob Ferguson signed a landmark law establishing 9.9 tax on high incomes. Other places like New York City, Massachusetts Millionaire Tax, California and Michigan's proposals are all going that way. The book Taxing the Rich draws on unparalleled evidence from 20 countries over the last two centuries to provide the broadest and most in-depth history of progressive taxation to the rich. This book is by Shiv and Sheva Veg.

Thank you. My name is Denzil John Asche. I'm a resident of Vancouver in the West End. I am in support of this motion. I'm a disabled senior who critically relies on the programs and services of the city. I understand that the argument for not raising property taxes was that it was onerous for lower-income homeowners. Landlords are not going to pass on the savings to their tenants unless they are forced to do so, and there is nothing forcing them to do so because they are landlords because they want money. The motion to raise money from taxing those who are not lower-income homeowners solves this problem.

is no reason those who can afford it should not be contributing to the city and its finances to benefit everyone this could operate in a similar manner to the current homeowners grant which are not which is not a difficult or new procedure i urge you to support this motion to use your ability to actually help people rather than giving a tax break to those who could afford their taxes without going without the necessities of life I also want to point out that the services and programs do assist less fortunate residents with these necessities.

It is about those who need basic life versus those who just want more money. Please consider the vast majority of Vancouver residents who need help. I presumably became councillors to have a good city for real people. If you still care, you will vote in favour of this common sense motion, even if your party did not make it. Thank you for your time.

Yeah, thanks, Chair. So I read through this motion a few times to understand how exactly this works. So I just want to ask a point of information through you, Chair, to the mover of the motion.

Yeah, thanks. Councillor Wu, I completely understand the rationale of this motion. So I'm just looking forward for some clarification so I know... how to vote on this motion. So just one example. I have a friend, couple, Cindy and Lawrence, who are in their 70s. They were both retired in Vancouver from a working class type of job. They used all their money they saved for their whole life. You know, Asian family, they love saving money. And they used that money they saved for their whole life. They were able to buy a property in Vancouver that is over $3 million, but they have no other stable income after retirement. And of course, there's no pension plan for this couple. So based on this nature of this motion, do Cindy and Lawrence need to pay 7% property tax?

I believe there's options for deferral for financial hardship. I mean, seniors defer their property tax a lot. But let's be, yeah, I mean, it would be $35 probably roughly a month that they would pay, yeah. So they have to pay. If they are not eligible to defer their property taxes, they would have to pay $35 a month, yeah.

Okay, thank you. So another example, which I'm not going to release their name for this time, is the entrepreneurs who live in Vancouver in the Oceanville condos. That is over $3 million, but only one property in Vancouver. But also he owns multiple rental property in Burnaby and Richmond. He's really the ultra-rich some of the speakers were talking about. He will be qualified for this rebate, right?

I'm sorry, if the property is under $3 million?

No, the property is under $3 million. But he owns multiple properties in other municipalities.

I would assume he would be for the Vancouver portion. He would qualify, yeah.

it will be qualified for the rebate. Thank you. Yeah, so I think there's some gap result, some unfairness of this, just because of these two simple examples. So with that, I truly understand and appreciate the rationale of this motion, but I don't think it's going to work in Vancouver. So I'm not going to support this motion. Thanks.

Great, thank you. So I just want to be clear about what's being proposed here. This motion asks us to abandon the promise we made to Vancouver Heights, a promise of a 0% property tax increase, and replace it with a 7% hike dressed up as something else. And it asks us to pick winners and losers. And it does so under the guise of a rebate system that the city doesn't even have the legal authority to implement without provincial approval. So what we're debating today is not a ready-to-go solution. It's a concept, one that creates uncertainty, administrative complexity, and real risk. We passed a budget that held the line at 0% while still investing in public safety, infrastructure, and core services by making tough decisions and finding savings. And that wasn't easy, but it was responsible. The solution is to continue doing the hard work, managing costs, driving efficiencies, growing our economy, and building a city where everyone has the opportunity to succeed. So I will not support a motion that raises taxes, creates division, and moves us backwards. Vancouver deserves better than that. And so let's keep focused on unity, responsibility, and real solutions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I'm just going to briefly say that I am very committed to the principle that taxes should be progressive and that people with greater means should contribute to city revenue more, they should pay more, and generally in every level of government where taxes are implemented. And I know that this council has previously been supportive of progressive taxation. I know that in early 2022 there was a unanimously supported motion that was voted in favour of by four current council members to implement a progressive property tax system. I just want to address the remarks made by the Mayor about creating winners and losers, being responsible and not wanting to create division. But I really think that that's something that was done by keeping property taxes at zero because what it did was give it the biggest tax break to the people that own the most valuable properties. in the city. So I think that, you know, it's an oversimplification to say we certainly created winners and losers when the budget was passed. So I think that this motion represents an earnest attempt to redress some of the winners and losers that were created by the budget. So I think that it's extremely well intended. So just moving on.

So this motion does attempt to maintain the envisioned affordability that was said to be the primary focus of... of the budget while removing a tax break for people that have more properties that are worth more in the city of Vancouver. I do have concerns about how this is carried out within the motion. I mean, ideally, we would have a better funding model for municipalities, and we've heard a lot about that It'd be great to have a coordinated progressive tax approach that's implemented through a thorough considered process at all levels of government.

When I studied tax law decades ago, I can't remember many of the details of it by now, but one thing that stuck with me was that there can be unintended negative outcomes of taxes, distortions that are created. and that these need to be avoided through a very thorough considered approach and analysis. I have reservations about MEVA being an appropriate statutory tool for this. I'm also a little bit concerned that... implementing including designated rental housing in this may have the unintended consequence of having as much of the tax as possible passed on to tenants, and this is at a time when we are successfully achieving downward pressure on the cost of housing in And I think that there are probably ways of avoiding that happening, but I'm always a little bit hesitant to make conclusive judgments about taxation, which, as I said, can cause unintended consequences. So I'll leave it there because I see that there is a referral that's been sent around, and I'll let Councillor Fry talk about that.

Yeah. Taxes, taxation. There certainly are winners and losers under our curtain taxation structure. And I think we all agree with that. And I think I would hope we all agree. generally with the principles of fair taxation and recognizing that property tax in and of itself is a blunt instrument and it does bring winners and losers. I do have challenges with this motion. First and foremost, I support the principles 100%. But unlike typical motions, this has not had a review by staff at all. And there are a bunch of pieces that I'm really not even informed enough to opine on because I don't know enough about some of the details of it. And we haven't had a staff review of it. I do have concerns around the impacts on tenants, you know, notwithstanding provincial rental increases and the controls on that. We know that there are workarounds. I also have concerns around how this might inadvertently impact small businesses who are increasingly struggling to survive in our city as it is. And then under D, it also is sort of challenging directing staff to report back within 30 days. I don't think that's a realistic timeframe. I do appreciate that under the charter, council is obliged to approve the distribution of general municipal tax levy amongst the different property taxes by April 30th. That's a statutory requirement. However, I don't think that we can... we being staff can deal with the magnitude of these requests in such a short time frame with everything that's going on. And these are some pretty weighty suggestions that I don't think is fair to impose on staff with only 30 days. So I have suggested a referral that I hope will satisfy council and really move this along because I think it is a worthwhile conversation. Chair, if I may. Oh, it's already up. Yeah, okay. So I've moved to referral. And that council refer the motion funding our services with taxes on major landowners and investors to staff to report back before the 2027 budget considerations with mechanisms to support in principle and practice a fair share Vancouver property tax rebate program. to be administered by the city and available to resident homeowners in addition to residential rental properties and small businesses with an equity-centered framework and generally as outlined. So I'm hoping that buys us a little bit of an opportunity to do this right and actually report back on the merits of this. And I think it is a meritorious exploration, but I think that there's a lot to this and legally speaking as well.

Yeah, thanks. On the subject of unintended consequences, this actually, I think, raises more concern for me because while Councillor Orr's original motion did not explicitly sort of has references to residences, it didn't specifically include commercial properties and businesses. This talks about potentially looking at rebates for small business, but I don't think it contemplates at all The fact that many small businesses are going to be located in properties that are worth more than $3 million, it doesn't recognize the reality of triple net leases in our city where taxes are passed on through landlords. And the city has no compelling ability to require any rebates to be passed on by landlords to commercial tenants. We've just spent a lot of time and effort in trying to support small business and not see a tax increase. I would hate for us to undo that unintentionally. UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. I THINK Councillor MALONEY I THINK Councillor MALONEY RAISED A REALLY GOOD POINT RAISED A REALLY GOOD POINT AROUND THE CONSIDERATION AROUND THE CONSIDERATION SIMILARLY FOR COST BEING SIMILARLY FOR COST BEING PASSED ON TO RENTERS AND I DON'T PASSED ON TO RENTERS AND I DON'T SEE CARVEOUTS IN THIS THAT SEE CARVEOUTS IN THIS THAT SPEAK TO THAT. SPEAK TO THAT. I THINK Councillor FRI, I WOULD I THINK Councillor FRI, I WOULD CONCUR WITH WHAT HE SAID IS NOT CONCUR WITH WHAT HE SAID IS NOT WANTING TO SEE UNINTENDED WANTING TO SEE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES HERE BUT I THINK CONSEQUENCES HERE BUT I THINK THIS OPENS Those are the folks that we are trying to work to support that are working in our city, that are investing in our city through their own hard efforts. And I would really hate to see all the work that this council has collectively been doing backfire. So I can't support this. Thanks.

Yeah, look, I'm comfortable supporting this because it is worded that staff will report back on this. these considerations and I believe that staff are capable and are going to raise any concerns that they see which may or may not include some of the ones raised by Councillor Kirby-Young. So I'm happy to refer this to staff in order to have them explore this idea.

Great, 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?

Great, thank you very much. We need a motion to adopt the committee's recommendations for report one through four and council member motions one through seven. Great, thank you. Councillor Montague, seconded by Councillor Kirby-Young. All those in favour say yay. All those opposed say nay. Great, the motion carries unanimously. Council, are there any items of urgent business?

Councillor Frye, please go ahead.

Thanks, Chair. Thanks, Mayor. Yes, I've submitted an urgent motion earlier today to the clerks, and I hope council has had a chance to read it. This is following up on, this is urgent motion restoring lifeguard services at Vancouver beaches and this is following up on a unanimously approved item at park board last night complimentary resolution requesting council approved funding to hire and onboard lifeguards in time for beach season this year. Council Maloney and I were we're were very fortunate to attend the Royal Life Saving Society of BC and Yukon on the weekend. And there was many lifeguards present at the time. And in fact, I spoke to past president Graham Esplin, who was in fact a lifeguard at Spanish banks for many, many years. And his kids are lifeguards at Spanish banks. And he related the extent of work that lifeguards do in our beach system. It's not just... getting out on a surfboard and rescuing somebody drowning in the middle of the ocean, but it's people wiping out on skimboards, it's kids getting lost from their parents. And alarmingly, he did share that there was quite a number of people who get buried by their friends on the beach. And then when the tide comes in, the sand becomes like quicksand and they have to go and frantically dig them out. And in one case, they even had to get a snorkel for a person. I only bring up these wild stories because our lifeguards are incredibly busy at Vancouver beaches. It is an essential public safety service. And we are expecting the world with FIFA. And we know, unfortunately, a lot of the trouble that folks get into are often new Canadians, visitors, folks who don't have English as a first language and may not be strong swimmers. And we certainly don't want to see anything happen, not the least of which is we've invited the world to attend and... Enjoy the beautiful beaches and outdoor scenery that we have here in Vancouver for FIFA. So I hope this will achieve unanimous support from council because I think it is consistent.

I'm calling notice.

I understand that Councillor Kirby Young has called notice.

Would I not be allowed to complete speaking about why it's urgent?

I waited until Councillor Fry completed his time.

I hadn't completed my time, though.

It's been two minutes, I believe. Oh, okay. So Councillor Kerbiak has called notice. And as I have not presided over this situation before, I'm not sure, do we need a seconder on that or anything?

On the calling of the notice? No? Okay.

And clerks, could you just give me some guidance as to when that motion will now be heard?

And I'm actually just realizing that I'm actually not chairing this portion of the meeting, so I apologize for that. I got a little excited there.

I didn't want to say anything.

Apologies. So over to you, Mayor.

So please continue, Clerk.

Okay. So does that mean, like, we would then have a discussion amongst us whether or not this was urgent or not, or do we just vote on it? Like, vote on notice?

Can we take a three-minute recess, please?

And thank you for the new experience. I don't think this council, the newbies have seen that before. Okay. And so, Councillor Fry, thank you very much for bringing this up. After conversations with city staff and discussing the issue, I do not believe it qualifies as urgent business. We do have time to bring this up to the next standing committee meeting. You know, staff are more than, you know, free to start the process, the recruitment process now, at which time, you know, when this is discussed at the standing committee meeting, there will be, you know, they'll get further direction. So it will not impede any hiring due dates, according to staff.

Okay. So that said, procedurally, can I call notice at this point? Just looking for confirmation.

That is the case, right? You can call notice.

Okay. That's what I'm doing. Thank you.

Any other items of urgent business? I don't see anyone else in the queue. So, okay. Would someone like to move a motion to adjourn this meeting? Councillor Montague, seconded by Councillor Klassen. All those in favour, say yay. All those opposed, say nay. Great.