Extend Meeting Past Noon
Motion 6 · Standing Committee on Policy and Strategic Priorities, May 6, 2026
Summary
- Councillor Orr proposed an amendment directing staff to work with P&E to attempt to keep the Hastings Park skateboard facility open during the FIFA closure period.
- The amendment was defeated; council members noted all options had been exhausted and FIFA security perimeter requirements were non-negotiable at this stage.
Vote
Public comments
Read all 5 statements
Transcript
50 segments
Okay, welcome back everybody. So we, prior to the lunch break, we finished hearing from speakers. So now we're going to move into discussion. And just a reminder, this is on motion three, which is supporting community stewardship for eco corridors and green spaces and have Councillor Dominato on the queue.
Oh, thanks, Chair. Yes, so I've circulated an amendment to council prior to the break.
Yeah. Thanks. Just to start, I want to acknowledge I really appreciate this motion because I think it has a lot of merit. And I see some of our speakers are coming back into council chambers. And I appreciate hearing. from all the speakers as well who are doing some fantastic work in our city and i had the opportunity i think it was last year to go out and meet with nigel peck with nature nature vancouver and to look at the work they're doing down at new brighton park it's fantastic And when I looked at this motion and I was thinking, and I also had a chance to talk with Grace as well, but when I was hearing some of the barriers and then I reviewed the motion, I was thinking about, it reminded me a lot of what we do in the city in terms of the microcleaning program is that we have grants for not-for-profits that do microcleaning that our city engineering teams don't cover in terms of streets. And similarly, I think it was Selena who talked about that some of this eco-stewardship that's happening in different sites throughout the city is unique to these organizations. Park board staff and city staff are not doing this work. They're doing other important work. And so these organizations, I think, are filling a gap. And so what I'm proposing is a slightly different path forward than Councillor Fry, but it is actually to direct our staff to review and revise our eligibility criteria for the city's existing grant programs because that seemed to be one of the barriers. And so there is a focus on, and I've left this intact in the motion around eco corridors, waterways, shorelines, community-led stewardship activities, indigenous-led stewardship. And so to have that and to have some recommendations come back in advance of the 2027 budget preparation. So that we could see greater eligibility and access to grants. And Grace and I talked briefly in the hallway about this as well. And so that's the thrust of the amendments. Because, again, looking at this, I'm a bit of a pragmatic person. LEADER AND I SEE THERE'S THERE IS A GAP BEING FILLED AND IT'S ON CITY LANDS WHEN I LOOK BACK AT SOME OF THE GRANTS THAT WE HAVE PROVIDED OVER THE YEARS THROUGH OUR GRANT PROGRAMS THERE ARE SOME THAT GO TOWARDS PROVINCIAL BODIES THAT DON'T ACTUALLY DO A LOT OF SERVICE IN THE CITY BUT THEY HAPPEN TO HAVE THEIR OFFICES BASED IN VANCOUVER WHEREAS WHAT I'M SEEING HERE IS SHORELINE PROTECTION AND STEWARDSHIP happening directly on city lands and city spaces and um and and across the city in different areas so um i would like to see us find a way uh to support uh all the organizations many of you spoke today um so i'll leave it there um and and council yeah thank you uh we'll need a seconder amendment this is counselor joe thank you uh counselor or yeah thanks um
Just a little question to the chair, to the mover of the amendment around that review and seek to revise the eligibility criteria of the city's existing grants. So is it the intention specifically that you don't want to create a new grant? So I see create a new is crossed out and you want to look at ways that the existing grants can fund this work and some of the other work that you've listed?
Yes, because we have community grants, arts and culture grants. We have a whole range of grants. But council does have the purview to set the strategic direction about how we want those grants to be used and towards what they should support. And so I'd like staff to look at that and revise the eligibility criteria within the funding envelope, to be clear. I think we have to be realistic at this time. But I think that's the intent here. Okay. So not creating a new grant stream, but expanding, revising the eligibility so organizations would be eligible and not increasing the envelope at this time.
Not increasing the envelope. So I think, yeah, I think that's the concern for me in terms of what we've heard from... in the media and from many different groups in terms of that envelope already being very strained and very small and that the pool of that grand stream is being added to consistently so that there's a lot of competition for that money in that very small envelope. So that's a bit of a concern for me. But I'll let the mover of the original motion speak more to that. Thanks.
Yeah. This is an interesting amendment in that it adopts a lot of stuff that's really outside of the scope of... the original motion, specifically by incorporating things like neighborhood garbage cleanup and snow angels and stewardship of BIA co-managed plazas, that kind of thing. I'm wondering, Chair, if you might rule if this is in order under 8.7F, where this might be otherwise considered sort of frivolous for moving so far away from the intent of the original motion around ecological... Stewardship.
So point of order around 8.7 F. I'll just need a few minutes to talk to staff. So we can take a recess to 158.
What's going on?
Okay, thanks, everyone, for your patience. I've conferred with staff, and I rule that the point by the member is not in order, and the amendment is in order. The amendment under 8.7F, it's not dilatory, it's not incorrect, it's not frivolous, and it's not rude. So the amendment is in order in my view as chair, so we can continue. Councillor Friar, anything else to add?
Well, I mean, I would say that it... I would respectfully disagree with the chair's ruling on that because it is substantially different and this is introducing an entirely different concept. But moving on from challenging the chair, well, apparently the powers that be might agree with me.
Yeah, I mean, I do... Appreciate that this moves things forward as far as at least considering and acknowledging the work of environmental stewardship and the unpaid labor and the volunteer efforts that do deserve to be supported and celebrated. Concerned that we are not necessarily honoring it with new funding, modest as it may be, and putting it into a bucket of a larger, more competitive funding environment, but recognizing that it's likely the direction that this will go, regardless of my protestations.
I will reluctantly have to support... If this amendment goes through the motion as amended, if it does proceed. I guess my clock's still going.
Yeah, sorry. I think you still have more time if there was additional comments.
I think it was running while we were maybe stepped away for a moment. Councillor Maloney.
Thank you. So I'm commenting on the amendment to the motion, right? Okay. I think that ecological stewardship does warrant its own funding stream. I like the idea of having a designated grant program specifically for ecological stewardship. And looking at the inspiration for this motion came from the ecological corridors planned in Vancouver's official development plan. This motion doesn't specify the amount of funding, just that this subject deserves its own focus and criteria and that it might make it easier and less time consuming and less resource intensive for non-profit community organisations such as the ones we've heard from today to secure ongoing funding for their important work. We've heard that we do need dedicated funding to ensure that this work continues and it's so important because Funding for ecological stewardship has just so many intrinsic benefits, but for me, one of the most persuasive from a purely financial point of view is the incredible return on investment from such a grant stream because one non-profit staff member can harness the work of dozens, if not hundreds, of community volunteers to contribute to the maintenance and improvement of public open spaces that benefit the whole community. And... I mean, I've got such respect for people, community members that look after, for free, as a voluntary thing, Vancouver's public open spaces and it's really very special and unique to our city. I know that I have... lots of international visitors and they marvel at our community-stewarded street gardens in the West End, for example, and that is something very precious about Vancouver. And I just think we should make it as easy as possible for these fantastic non-profit organisations to harness the extreme goodwill of Vancouver's community to contribute to our public open spaces.
Thank you, Chair. I just thought it would be helpful to elaborate and expand on just... because particularly for those of you who are joining us in gallery and trying to read all of that fine print up there, just with respect to the point of order that was raised, the amendments do not substantially change the motion with respect to the rest of it. The reference to neighborhood cleanup programs, the adopt a big catch basins, no angels. are just examples of shared stewardship of public spaces that we have in the city and actually was noted and identified by staff when they reviewed the motion. So it was not trying to change the scope of the motion and to move it away from the focus on environmental stewardship. It was just citing some examples where indeed we do recognize that in many cases we have community involvement, resident involvement in helping steward spaces in our city And I would agree with Councillor Maloney that there is good return on investment in supporting these organizations and the work they're doing because indeed city staff are not doing it right now. And it would cost far more for us to do it through a unionized workforce as well. And what this does is it, does direct staff directly to look at expanding the eligibility criteria so there is greater access and opportunity to support this great work. And so I just want to give those, make that, offer that clarification as well.
Thank you.
Yeah, I was just going to make one observation I don't think has been talked about yet in the debate, and that was the Vancouver Park Board and some of the work and programs they do. I remember in my time going to a number of community stewardship events, Everett Crowley Park. Jericho Beach Park out towards the endowment lands and a number of others and different groups are coming together. So we've had, there's some city initiated programs, but I think part of what's missing from the conversation is also ensuring that everybody's tying into part board programs. So they've had their version of the greatest city neighborhood grants, neighborhood matching fund, field health activation programs, some of which fall. are in parks, and sometimes those spaces are allocated to different groups. It's a range. Sometimes it's arts and culture. Sometimes it's community stewardship groups as a place to operate out of as a hub. The field houses are an asset that can be utilized in terms of meeting spaces for community groups, storage of supplies, spaces to kind of coordinate out of all those kinds of things. So I'm not going to sort of get into a number of amendments here, but I'm just saying I think that this conversation is kind of happening it seems in absence of the park board and while Some of the eco corridors don't necessarily fall within areas that are under the management of the park board. A number of them do in and around parks and green spaces. And so I think that that is also something that where there could be some good coordination to ensure that everybody has access to the different resources and programs. And some of it's the grant stream. Some of it, like I said, is access to spaces, whether it's utilization of spaces in community centers, sometimes for staging. There's all sorts of opportunities. So I just wanted to offer that perspective as well. Thanks.
Yeah, and so I'm wondering, Chair, if through you I could ask a question of the mover, because I'm still struggling with the gist of this. And is the intention, so with the inclusion, because this introduces a lot of new variables, and is the intention and outcome of adding these additional stewardship programs to directly put ecological stewardship groups seeking grants in sort of competition for grants with BIAs and placemaking and street art programs and other stewardship groups that they'd be competing for the same grant pool? Is that how I could interpret the inclusion of these?
Well, the first clause under A is simply examples of programs that we already have. And then E is simply to get more information back about some of these other stewardship programs. So it's a report back for information. But to be clear, the intent is to have staff revise the eligibility criteria so there's fewer barriers to access our grant programs and to do that within the existing funding envelope. So that's it. The others are just for information to get more information back.
So we're not suggesting to include BIA plazas within the same granting stream as ecological stewardship?
I don't know. It would be up to staff to determine through our existing grant programs how they would like it. And in council calls to set the priorities, you know next council can say We want all you know all of our grants to be focused on these five areas and actually as a council We didn't undertook an exercise early in the term around setting the high-level strategic framework for the city in terms of priorities, but this is the distinction here is that we're asking staff to revise the eligibility criteria for existing grant programs and I don't know how to explain it
Yeah, okay. I can't support this just because I think it does dilute the intention of focusing on new funding opportunities for environmental stewardship grants, specifically to support the work of sort of ecological stewards and not conflating it with other worthwhile projects like BIA plazas and street art and other kinds of placemaking.
This was an intentional focus that I think is lost in this amendment. Thanks.
Yeah, thanks very much. I'll just be brief. I mean, I appreciate the effort to bring something forward that most of council can support. I do think that from my recollection, our grants are already oversubscribed in terms of folks requesting more money than is available. So I don't understand how this works without taking away from other organizations. So it's stated multiple times in this amendment within the existing grant funding envelope many times. I think that's really what the key piece is in this amendment is there's really no intention to find the funding. In fact, it actually says modest. And if you've been down to This particular effort with Free the Fern and others that I haven't actually visited myself personally, but have with the one with actually Council Orr and Champlain Heights, you can see that it's not a $5,000 grant that's going to make the difference. But this group mobilizes like hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of hours of volunteer time to do work that our city staff would have to be paid. A whole lot more than, say, $30,000. That would be all the difference for this organization. But a drop in the bucket for us as a city and a $2.5 billion budget. So I cannot get behind this amendment. And I think if you just are not going to support it, vote against the original amendment. Don't try and bring forward an amendment to make it look like you're supporting it when really you've missed the point, really, at the end of the day. So, yeah. i'm and i thought this is the second motion i think that we have this kind of an amendment that forces the hand of those that are actually trying to get the right work done to vote in support of it um to not then look like you're voting against something that you actually champion in its true essence so yeah i can't support this thanks counselor i'm not seeing anyone else on the queue so let's go to the vote on the amendment
Sir, Chair, can I please get a bold assist in favor?
Yes, Mayor. We will do that for you.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
Okay. That passes with Councillor Bligh in opposition, Councillor Frye in opposition, Councillor Orr in opposition, and Councillor Maloney in opposition. So we'll now go back to the main motion as amended. And Councillor Domenato, you're on the queue.
No, it's a holdover. Thank you.
Yeah, well, despite my disagreement with the amendment and how that changes the focus of this, the original motion and the intent to support ecological stewardship, I am going to support the motion as amended because it at least does move the dial slightly and does acknowledge the amazing work that... that folks who are sitting in our gallery right now do to uphold and maintain these important ecological assets for our city and our city's livability. And I really want to just thank you for coming and speaking to the original motion and for the intentional work that you do. For the information you shared with me, I... I was saying earlier to Khalid, I had Googled the Rufus hummingbird, and there's an amazing Wikipedia page where it shows a Rufus hummingbird attacking an Anna's hummingbird in slow motion. It's wild. And just, even from your visit today, I've learned a lot more about our local, urban, sort of feral, natural environment, and I appreciate the work that you're all doing collectively. um there will be a future where your work will be more intentionally honored by council and and supported in a way that it should be and not sort of mashed in with with a bunch of other competing priorities and and i and i just want to honor and honor your contributions and the work that you do to make this city a better place thank you hey thank you counselor or
Yeah, thanks. Not sure I can, uh, say much more than that, but, uh, yeah, as it's been mentioned, you know, the, the incredible work that, uh, that all of you do, um, you know, I did attend that, uh, invasive plant pool and it was, it was a great day. And I, I remember, uh, Working pretty hard. It took me back to my landscaping days. It was very rewarding. Going on a tour with Falls Creek friends and Zeta. I know Zeta's in poor health, so just a shout out to all the work that Zeta's done in stewarding Falls Creek. Trying to find a single source of jurisdiction so that we can... have at least a harbormaster or, you know, maybe a vision to have a swimmable Falls Creek like they have in Copenhagen or maybe a harbor park or something like that. You know, just all these incredible ideas. You know, I remember a few years ago cleaning up Crab Park Beach myself and just going down there every day and it was just almost like a therapy thing for me just going down and and doing it, I really see, you know, the value in, in that. And, you know, it's, it's, it makes it so that, um, the world becomes so much bigger than just yourself and it's really humbling. And, and, uh, yeah, I just want to say, appreciate all the work. Um, and, um, you know, yeah, again, I wish we could have created this, this, uh, standalone grant. Um, but, uh, you know, again, happy, happy to support, uh, to move the, this forward. Thanks.
Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Zhou.
Also, thanks to the speakers for speaking to Council today. Also, thanks, Councillor Fry, for bringing forward this motion. I'm happy to support this motion. Also, the motion is amended. I think the objective is providing funding to support these amazing organizations who do the environmental stewardship. whether it is through existing funding, if we expand the eligibility criteria, or through a new grant program, grant stream, doesn't matter. So we want to support this organization. As long as they receive the support from the city, continue with this amazing work, I think we achieve what we want. What really stands out to me is it's not about creating large new programs. It's about supporting the work that is already happening across our city and doing so in a way that's both cost-effective and also community-driven. I saw countless volunteers, grassroots groups, local organizations who are already taking care of our neighborhoods, the green space, and removing the invasive spaces, planting native plants, restoring habitats, and also the organizing community events. If the city has to deliver all of this work on our own, it could be a more significant higher cost for the taxpayer and for the city. I had the opportunity to attend some of these stewardship events myself, including one event with the Free Foreign Society. What really stands out is not just the environmental impact, but the sense of community. I saw smiling faces on every volunteers, and I saw neighbors coming together, families participating, young kids and youth get involved, and people building a stronger connection to the place they live. In addition, it's also a very good opportunity for a workout. So we're always, you know, working indoor, but it's very good to enjoy the nature and do some workout, like I said, there. So I think that's the kind of community ownership, incredible, valuable. You know, especially when people feel connected to the local environment, they are more likely to take care of it. And that leads to better outcomes for everyone. And the motion, along with the amendment from Councillor D'Amato, also addressed a real gap. As funding programs have shifted towards larger, more complex climate projects, many smaller and grassroots initiatives have been left out without accessible support. So that's why it's very important to expand the criteria so that they are eligible to apply. And also those groups are very, you know, they are the groups delivering hands-on local impact to the neighborhood. The funding, after the expansion of this criteria, will make it easier for the groups to continue their work, grow their impact, and bring more people to the community. And also, I personally agree to help this organization to do some private fundraising to support these amazing organizations. So support from the community, support from the government, and support from the volunteers is the way to go. So with that, that's the motion as amended is the one I can stand behind. Happy to support this motion. Thanks.
Thanks very much to all our public speakers and to Councillor Fry for moving the original motion. I find myself once again in the position of begrudgingly voting in favour of a deeply amended motion.
I do want to... thank the public speakers especially. It was really nice hearing from very passionate people and that's one of the nice things about this job is coming into contact with people who follow their passions to do really great things for our city and it was lovely hearing about the Rufus hummingbird. I'm not sure about hearing it attacking an Anna's hummingbird. I feel some loyalty to our city bird but I did love hearing about all the stories um you know I've for a lot of time been observing Stanley Park Ecology Society volunteers pulling out blackberries from Stanley Park and the difference that they've made bit by bit um I recently did um actually go to the Still Creek uh Moon Festival and uh I judged a very memorable vegetable competition with Adrian Dix and Don Davies, and I'll definitely be back again next year. So thanks again for coming in, and, yeah, I'll be voting in favour of the motion.
Thanks, Chair. And I did comment earlier, so I won't spend a lot of time commenting. I do want to note a point of order, Section 6.1B of our procedure bylaw, which refers to a council. And I'm not asking to rule. I'm just going to make the comment. A council member must not, by words, tone, manner of speaking, or gesticulation, express any opinion or make any allegation that directly or indirectly reflects negatively upon the character of any person or group of persons. And I want to reflect that in listening to Councillor Bligh's comments with respect to my amendment, not only was there expressions of missing the boat, which questions my intelligence of understanding the material I'm dealing with, but also questioning my motivation in bringing an amendment forward. I've been very transparent in the amendments. The intent is I believe there's merit. in the work being undertaken by all of these groups that I want to support as seeing a better way for accessing funding. And I've been very transparent that at this time I don't see us creating a new funding stream or increasing the funding envelope for grants. There's nothing hidden in here. This was transparent in the amendment. But I do believe by the words and tone of my colleague that it very much was consistent with that rule of conduct. And so I'm just noting it. I'm not asking you to rule. And I will conclude my comments by saying thank you to all of you who came out to speak today. You are valued in the city. The work that you're doing is valued. I appreciate it as an enormous amount of volunteer hours. But what you're doing is you're building community. And I think there is an opportunity and a path forward with this direction to better support you. And I think it's the beginning of a conversation. And I think that's what we have to look at here is that there is a potential greater opportunity that may come from this in the years ahead. But I did want to acknowledge all of the speakers because I really did appreciate hearing the stories. And there were many great ones and some really fantastic work. And I have seen some of it myself. So thank you for coming out today.
I appreciate you raising that point of order, 6.1. I know you did not ask me to rule, but I will caution Councillor Bligh, as I would agree that her comments were questioning the motivation of why you were bringing these amendments forward. So I would just caution Councillor Bligh. Thank you. Go ahead, Councillor Bligh.
Okay. Thank you very much. So I... Yeah, I mean, I don't... I think it's important we actually land on... what work has already been done. And I can appreciate for some counselors, this is the beginning of a conversation. What I see is five years actually of work that's already happened. It's not the beginning. It's at a point where in order for it to continue, there needs support. So that's, I'm not making any, I'm not impugning any misunderstanding of what we're talking about here for sake of another conversation. point of order so I'm being cautious with my words but the reality is this organization has been unfunded and fully functioning and making a difference for five years and my concern is it won't be able to sustain much longer. It has revived a dying forest that our city staff would not have been able to achieve the amount of work that has been done at a fraction of the cost that I think really is what I believe to be needed and so I appreciate and I thank the speakers for coming too but I don't think the speakers came for thanks for speaking I think they came for something different they came for real tangible support And the day that Sean and I were there, Councillor Orr and I were there, actually city engineering had come and dropped off a pile of dirt in an effort to contribute to the work that Free the Fern was doing. And Councillor Orr actually loaded that dirt into a wheelbarrow and pushed it up a hill while I was pulling the ferns out. And we were there for two and a half hours. And as someone that lives in a condo, in Vancouver in a dense urban setting and doesn't get a lot of time to pull weeds and be in the dirt and not be on my phone and be able to just be in connection to nature. I just felt like this is an incredible opportunity for our shrinking 4% of an urban forest that we have left that needs protecting. So the easiest thing that we can do as a council, the most important thing that we can do as a council is empower and support volunteerism. in the city in every way. And our grants are a way to do that. So what I see here is, and I'll support it, but it's taking a pie that's already sliced into too many pieces and asking us to slice it into even more pieces, which means less for organizations. So as long as we're clear on really what the outcome is. That being said, I have hope that the Free the Fern and the other volunteer ecology conservation groups that are working around the city that inspire others to get involved will prevail and will persist and in time will get the support that they need in order to sustain the work that has to be done in our city collectively and community. So I'll leave it there.
thank you um okay see no one else on the queue uh so we're voting on the motion as amended um perks if you could please take us to the voting screen and council please register your vote and chair can i please get a vote in uh in uh support please yes mayor thank you okay that passes unanimously thank you everybody that completes motion three
Statement Watch
Council. Chair. I'm Annette Riley. I am speaking in support of this. And I am indeed a resident of Vancouver. I think Councillor Fry just stated it pretty clearly. It's about convenience. I just wanted to give a little personal anecdote here. I'm a film worker. I'm an assistant director in the Directors Guild of Canada primarily. And as far as my film work, that means I have done days upon days upon days of production assistant work, which means I was in charge of the garbage bins. That's right. It's a tough job. Somebody's got to do it. Now, here's the thing. I don't know if any of you have been on film sets, but they are go, go, go, go, go. Everybody's running around like crazy. You've got technicians carrying heavy things, tools flying everywhere. We are doing our best to just get our days done. And what ends up happening on shows that do not have a sustainability plan is there will be one garbage bin. And people will want to throw something into that bin. And they'll stand there holding a pop can and won't know where to put it. You can see they have the intention that they want to do the right thing. They want to put it in the recycling. They want to participate. But if all you have is a garbage bin, then it goes in the garbage bin. So when we as film crew are able to supply our trio, our compost, our garbage bin, our organics bin, people do it. It's effortless. They know where to put it. So I think what we're getting at here and what I love about this motion is that it's building a system to make it easier for those who don't have the access. to do the right thing, which will then in turn only reflect positively on our system as a whole. Again, I don't think these people in these multi-unit buildings or those with disabilities that might not allow them to get to the certain recycling spaces, I don't think that's the issue. I don't think that's why they're not doing it. I think it's the convenience. So why not make it easy for people and just design the system to work. This motion here, it gets us closer to that. It's practical. It's equitable. And I'd say let's just build the system. Thank you.
Statement Watch
Yes. Hello. Good afternoon, Chair Meisner and Council. My name is Sean Miles. I'm speaking today on behalf of Binners Project, an organization that supports people who collect recyclable materials, often referred to as binners, across Vancouver. We strongly support this motion. For decades, binners have been quietly doing the work of a circular economy long before it became policy language. Every day, people in our community divert thousands of containers from landfill, reduce litter, and contribute to a cleaner city. They do this work without formal infrastructure, often navigating barriers that make participation in recycling far more difficult than it needs to be. This motion recognizes something we see on the ground every day, that the design of our waste systems does not reflect the realities of how many Vancouver residents actually live, especially in dense, low-income communities like the Downtown Eastside. In the Downtown Eastside, many residents live in single-room occupancy hotels, aging apartments, or supportive housing where space for sorting, recycling, or storing refundables is extremely limited or non-existent. As your motion notes, this is a structural barrier. When there is nowhere to put recycling, it ends up in the garbage. When there is nowhere to return it, it ends up on the street. And when that happens, binners step in. But here's the issue. The current system relies on binners without supporting them. Right now, there are very few accessible, dignified, and safe places for people to bring collected materials, especially for those dependent upon public transportation. Many return depots are far away and not well connected by transit, which shows the system isn't built for people moving large volumes by foot or cart. Meanwhile, residents in dense neighborhoods often don't have convenient recycling options. For example, someone living in an SRO might not have space to store refundables, and the nearest depot could be several bus stops away. Without an easy way to recycle, bottles and cans end up in the trash or piles in alleys, where they're harder to recover and more likely to contribute to litter and dumping. This is where this motion has real potential. Community recycling hubs, small, accessible, neighborhood-based facilities could transform how recycling works in Vancouver. Not only would they make it easier for residents in multi-unit housing to participate in zero waste, but they could also create safer, more efficient systems for binners to contribute their labor. We see an opportunity here to formally recognize binners as part of the solution. With the right design, these hubs could provide accessible drop-off points for refundable and non-refundable materials, reduce the distance people need to travel to recycle, reduce litter in the streetscape, and create opportunities for income generation and community stewardship. Importantly, these hubs could be designed in partnership with people who already do this work, ensuring they are functional, inclusive, and grounded in lived experience. We also want to highlight the equity dimension. The Downtown Eastside is often discussed in terms of its challenges, but it is also one of the most resourceful community-driven neighborhoods in the city. Innards are a part of that ecosystem, yet residents here have some of the least access to zero-waste infrastructure. If Vancouver is serious about its Zero Waste 2040 goals, then access must come first. You cannot expect participation without providing the means.
Statement Watch
Hello, can you hear me?
Yes, please go ahead.
Hi, my name is Adam Hawk. I'm a longtime resident of the city of Vancouver. I'm calling today to speak in favor of the motion. Vancouver has ambitious zero-waste goals, but many residents, especially those living in older apartments and dense neighborhoods, simply don't have the space or access to participate fully. When recycling rooms are cramped, inconvenient, or non-existent, even the most motivated residents face barriers. Now we see the consequences. what ends up in our landfills some of the most common and dangerous materials electronics batteries paints you know mercury containing items are all recyclable through specialized programs but for many apartment and condo residents these options are simply too complicated or inconvenient without storage space to safely hold these items or access to a car to transport them to distant depots they often end up in the garbage this creates real risk Lithium batteries and propane, like camping gas, can cause fires in collection trucks and facilities. Toxic materials can leach into the soil and water. And yet, all of this is preventable with better access and smarter design. This motion addresses that gap in a practical, forward-thinking way. By encouraging dedicated spaces for recycling and reuse in new buildings without penalizing floor area, we make these systems easier to include from the start. By supporting shared community scaled recycling facilities, we recognize that in dense neighborhoods, shared infrastructure is often the most effective solution. By piloting community recycling hubs in walkable areas, we bring safe, convenient options closer to residents, especially those in neighborhoods where current systems fall short. This is about safety, accessibility, and equity. It's about designing a system that works... for how people actually live. I urge you to support Councillor Fry's motion.
Statement Watch
And it's Kinsale Phillip. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor, counselors, thank you. My name is Kinsale Phillip. I'm a law student at UBC's Allard Hall. You're on my own in support of Counselor Fry's motion. Some background. I grew up in New Westminster in a condo raised by two working parents, a white settler mother and a black Trinidadian immigrant father. We lived paycheck to paycheck. And my general position today is that Programs directly addressing socioeconomic injustice matter, and doing that can be achieved through the motion's resolutions. In my experience, for instance, the biggest little garden in town, Frasercide's past New Westminster initiative that provided opportunities to families without backyards to garden at a greatly reduced financial cost mattered to my family because it targeted the disadvantage we faced and provided a means to participate. Similarly, the recycling hubs mentioned in this motion do the same thing, but in the context of waste, for renters, for condo residents, and for everyone the city was never designed around. This year's pink bins are a step in the right direction, for sure. And at its heart, I believe that this motion is about equity, inclusion, and sharing. Vancouver's recycling system was built for single-family homes with driveways. Renters and condo residents feel the difference daily. Their peers have backyard composters and curbside green bins, and conversely, they come home to buildings with hardly any room to sort. Importantly for me, growing up, reading this disparity, the message sent was that waste-related policy decisions consider condos as almost second class. This motion zoning fix is sound. Minimum waste room areas in new buildings that are excluded from gross floor area calculations so developers cannot trade them away for rentable space. Every new condo could finally have room to recycle properly. Regarding other jurisdictions, I did my undergraduate studies in Toronto, and personally, the difference is measurable. Toronto mandates green bin organics collection in every apartment condo, and co-op on its waste collection network, which is about 400,000 units. Toronto ships free in-unit organics containers to every eligible household, and Toronto cites its reuse, composting, and food rescue programs in the lowest-income neighborhoods by design. The walkable hubs in this motion would close those gaps, especially for residents without adequate in-building facilities. In Toronto, I bought groceries at Karma Co-op, a member-owned cooperative founded in 1972 with a zero-waste ethos, reduced fees for students and shifts for members in lieu of dues. These are effective means to reduce one's own carbon footprint. Vancouver had something similar for nearly 50 years, the East End Food Co-op on Commercial Drive, which closed in 2022. We cannot keep losing community infrastructure like food co-ops that are certainly advancing the climate emergency action plan strategies of waste reduction and circular economy. Last week, I walked into the public washroom at Victoria Park and was pleasantly surprised to find soap in the dispenser. That small moment of working public infrastructure made my day. Every Vancouverite, including renters, seniors, condo kids, and people without cars should feel the same quiet pleasure in having access to participate in waste diversion. Please support Councillor Frye's motion. Thanks so much.
Statement Watch
Yes, good afternoon, Mayor and Council, Chair and Council. Can you hear me?
Yes, please go ahead.
Great. Excellent. Thanks very much. I'm Louise Schwartz. I'm co-owner of Recycling Alternative and Terra Pharma Systems. I'm a resident of Vancouver, and I'm speaking in support. As many of you will know in chambers here, we've been recycling for over 30 years, a locally owned business. And as of February 2026, we're also the designated Recycle BC blue box collector for the city of Vancouver, over 2,400... multi-family buildings in the City of Vancouver, downtown, Mount Pleasant, Kitsilano and Fairview, all of those areas mentioned in this motion. And we can confirm from the front lines the significant challenges we're seeing in buildings related to lack of space for proper recycling amenities. And I'm going to share three primary trends that we're seeing that are of concern and why we think this motion should be supported. We hope some of these will be considered by Council as you look to vote. The trends are, first of all, in some of these older buildings, many of these older buildings were seeing such a lack of space that there's a resistance to have amenities for additional recycling. And so, for example, when we were delivering the pink totes all through January to these multifamilies, many of the buildings actually declined adding this stream because they simply felt they did not have the space to put them. And similarly, they don't have space for electronics, small appliances, textiles, light bulbs, batteries. And so all of those are ending up in the landfill for people who often, as residents in multifamily-dense neighborhoods, do not have cars. or the luxury of dropping these off at depots. So that's one reason to support this motion. Another relates to the work that Recycling Alternative does with numerous developers as we work with them to create their waste management plans for new development based on the guidelines of City of Vancouver garbage and recycling amenities. And again, in many cases here, because of the competition for valuable floor space that can generate revenue from parking spots or leasable residential retail, Often we see that the recycling rooms are getting downsized and downsized to just the bare essentials of recycling. And as a result, again, many materials that are banned from the landfill are actually not getting recycled, unfortunately. So we believe that these types of community hubs are going to be increasingly important as we continue to densify our neighbourhood. And lastly, one of the most concerning trends we're seeing is a trend towards buildings opting to replace and remove their source separation systems with multiple totes per stream for single streaming, meaning all recycling goes into one container. Of course, this reduces the amount of space they need, and the results are extremely poor diversion and recovery of recycling materials. plus a lot of contamination. So as we try to expand recycling streams, and it's only going to get more and more recycling that's required, and move towards Vancouver's 2040 zero-waste goals, we think we need to find solutions and options for citizens to have alternatives to divert this material. And the City of Vancouver already has an excellent program in place in multifamilies called the Zero Waste Ambassadors Program. And what we would recommend is not only...