youth and we see it firsthand I know every single person in this room probably has a story either personally affected you know through their own kids or their families or you have a colleague or a friend that's dealing with it and Like pretty much everyone here, we have a lot of friends that are dealing with significant challenges with mental health issues. And it's challenging and it's incredibly devastating for families. And the reason I share that with you is... We are so thankful that we have individuals like yourself in the community that really care and that are making a difference in the lives of so many people. And you touch so many people, so thank you. And so with that, I'm actually going to pass it off to one of my teammates, Councillor Lisa Domenato, to share a couple of words.

Thank you, Ken. And thanks, everyone, for being here. Just before we read the proclamation, and then we'll be inviting a few people to come up and speak, I just wanted to give a little bit of context for this. It was members of our Child, Youth, and Families Advisory Committee who are here today, a number of the youth, who really pushed for the city to initiate this proclamation, but also to help raise awareness about child and youth mental health, and particularly the resources available. You'll see in the proclamation we recognize May 7th, which is now National Child and Youth Mental Health Day, started by Family Spartan. You'll be hearing from Jan more on that soon. But like Ken, I also want to acknowledge that every family is touched by mental health. We know one in five Canadians struggle with mental illness or mental health issues. there's no difference. We see it in children and youth as well, my family as well, we've struggled with it. And so there's not only the clinical aspect of ensuring that we get early supports and interventions to young people and their families, but also recognizing there's also still stigma and addressing stigma associated with mental health. And so it's really, we're here in a positioned today to really engage you. And I want to just acknowledge all the groups that are here. And if I miss anyone, certainly let me know after. But we do have the Crisis Centre of BC represented, First Nations Health Authority, Vancouver Coastal Health, BC Children's Kelty Mental Health Resource Centre, Covenant House. the Landing Youth Centre, Family Services of Greater Vancouver, Red Fox Society, Melieu, Kettle Society, Coast Mental Health, Klee Community Services, as well as, as I noted, members of Child and Youth Family Advisory Committee. But with that, we're going to read the proclamation, and then we're going to invite our five speakers to come up and say a few brief words. And so we'll start with the proclamation.

And whereas families, including parents and caregivers, play a vital role in supporting the mental health and well-being of children and youth and should be recognized as key partners.

And whereas the City of Vancouver is committed to working with community partners to support children and youth to feel seen, heard, and valued in Vancouver.

And whereas the City of Vancouver has committed through the Healthy City Strategy and the Youth Safety and Violence Prevention Strategy to address factors which influence and promote mental health for young people, such as safe practices, community participation, social connection, and play.

And whereas the City advances this commitment through community-based programs and grants, including the Building Safer Communities program, partnerships with Vancouver Coastal Health on mental health and substance use initiatives, and support for youth-serving community organizations like neighborhood houses and family places.

Math worked. Okay.

Incredible. 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, do very humbly and happily proclaim... May the 7th, 2026 as Child and Youth Mental Health Day in the City of Vancouver.

Thanks, Ken. And so now I'm going to invite our speakers up. So we have Jan Damry with Family Smart, who's going to come up. And you can come up all together, I think. Dr. Mark Lissishen from Vancouver Coastal Health. And then Kaylee, Freddie, and Alicia from our Child and Youth Families Advisory Committee. So come on up here. And I think we're going to start, Jan, with you and then go to Mark.

Hi, my name's Alicia Lee, a grade nine student from Lord Bing Secondary School.

Thank you all for those remarks. And I think now we're going to invite everyone up to do a photo. We will do two stages of photo. I'll let Connor take control of this part.

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Policy and Strategic Priorities meeting for Wednesday, May 6, 2026. This meeting is being held in person and by electronic means, and council members and the public may participate by either method. Any council members joining electronically are reminded to enable their 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 xAdvanced 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 chamber. Do not use the elevator, and please use the stairs. If you require assistance, remain where you are, and security staff will guide you to a safe location. A defibrillator is available at the end of the hallway outside of the council chamber. I'd also like to note that there will be a provincial emergency alert test between 1.55 and 2 p.m. That will be sent through all compatible mobile devices, so please don't be alarmed. I'd also like to acknowledge that we're on the unceded homelands of the Musqueam, the Squamish, and the TTsleil-Waututh people, and we thank them for having cared for this land, and we 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, please?

Present.

Okay. Thank you so much So the plan for today, we're going to break at noon for lunch, followed by the in-camera meeting. We will return at 1.30 to continue to deal with the rest of the agenda. And if needed, we'll recess at 5 p.m. for a dinner break and reconvene at 6 p.m. to complete the agenda. So the committee will now consider matters adopted on consent. We have report number one on the consent agenda for the committee's consideration. The committee may adopt the recommendations for report one on consent. Does any member wish to hold report one for debate? or questions to team members.

If so, add yourself to the queue.

Councillor Maloney, you'd like to hold report one? Yes, please.

Okay, so we will hold Report 1 for questions. I believe that is the only report that's on the consent agenda. Anyways, so, okay, let's go to the reports. So Report 1 is non-enforcement resolution regarding operation of horse racing at, pardon me, horse racing to enable slot machines at 2901 East Hastings Street, Vancouver. Before we begin this agenda item, if anyone believes they have a conflict of interest, now is the time to declare it. Does anyone have a conflict to disclose? So this item does not have a presentation. Committee members, you have up to five minutes to ask questions of team members. And Councillor Maloney, you held this, so please go ahead.

Thank you. Just a quick question. I just wanted to confirm that this doesn't involve any extension or expansion of slots.

Great. That's all I have.

Okay. Thanks, Councillor. Okay, would someone like to move a motion? Sorry, was that Councillor Zhou? Seconded by Councillor Klassen. Is there any discussion?

Okay, I'm not sure if we have any councillors online on video. Do we, clerks?

Okay, thank you. So I'm now going to 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.

and that completes report number one okay before we begin motion number one I I need to relinquish pardon me the chair to vice-chair Domonato but I note that vice

chair dominato is not present okay yeah if I could relinquish the chair please to for me one moment here to a deputy mayor Kirby young duration of this item yeah thanks councillor might you to please go ahead and introduce your motion okay Thank you so much. So this is a motion that I'm bringing forward, and it's really to help support our partners across the city in the BIA. So those are the business improvement associations that represent neighborhoods across our city. So you might be familiar with some of them. You know, downtown Vancouver BIA being the largest, but also Mount Pleasant BIA, Yaletown BIA, West End BIA, Marple, West Forth. These are the organizations that advocate for businesses and also residents in those neighborhoods. They really steward those neighborhoods. They do things like supporting small business. They have street cleaning programs. They deal with graffiti. And one of the things that Mount Pleasant BIA has been having a lot of success with is piloting a shared web-based data collection platform called SmartBid. And that's really allowing them to crowdsource information in their neighborhood around graffiti, around public realm issues, around safety, and tackle those issues quickly. So really this motion is to allocate funding, $50,000, which is a very small amount, in one-time funding to the Vancouver BIA partnership to administer a pilot expansion of the SmartBid platform to up to nine additional BIA areas. And as I mentioned, Mount Pleasant BIA has been using this tool very successfully. Neil Wiles would be here today to speak to it, but he's headed out of the country. But I really want to offer this to the other BIAs in our city who have been advocating for it at our BIA roundtables. That's the intention of the motion. It's a small amount of money, and it's really going to help them continue to do a great job stewarding their neighborhoods. Thanks.

Great. Thanks, Councillor Meiser. And I'll just ask the clerks, because I don't have a line of sight, just to keep us on time. Before we delve further into this item, I should ask if any councillor has a conflict of interest. Now is the time to disclose it.

And I'm not seeing anybody on the queue. Do we have a seconder for the motion?

Seconded by Councillor Montague. Okay, thanks. We will now hear from registered speakers for the motion. I will note that public speakers should state whether they are in support or opposition to the recommendations and may only speak once, and also ask speakers to note if you are residents of Vancouver, if that's not already noted on the speakers list. And our first speaker is Terry Smith.

Good morning, Terry. Can you hear me? Good morning. Yes, we can, Terry. Please go ahead when you're ready.

Thank you very much. Perfectly on time. Thank you, Terry. Our next speaker is Joshua Davidson.

Thank you, Joshua. Our next speaker is Christina E., also by phone.

Okay, everybody, that is the end of our speaker's list. So thank you to everybody for speaking to committee on this item. And now, committee members, is there any discussion? Okay, I see we have several. If we can advance, Councillor Orr first, please.

Yeah, thanks. Question to the chair, to the mover of the motion. Who owns the data that would be generated through SmartBid, SmarterBid? Would it be the BIAs, the vendor, or the city?

To Councillor Orr, I don't have that specific technical data management information at my fingertips, but I would imagine that staff may be able to potentially provide that information if possible.

Thank you. Through the chair, to the mover of the motion, the website uses crime as a metric, but the motion uses incidents. Is that on purpose? Is there a difference between crime and incidents?

I would imagine just based on definitions of crime and incidents that those potentially mean two different things. Incidents could be anything from things like graffiti removal, say a broken bus shelter, a business with a smashed front window, vandalism. Some of those are, well, most of those are probably crime. But I would have to get more granular in terms of the technical aspect of it.

Could be more other things, just like poor people hanging out.

But as mentioned, Mount Pleasant is using this tool already and with great success.

Has staff done any analysis on reporting bias in BIA-generated data compared to, say, 311 or police data?

Hard to say.

What safeguards, through the chair to the mover of the motion, what safeguards ensure this doesn't over-represent complaints about visible poverty or nuisance activity?

That's a very specific question, and I would you know, place my trust in the professionals that steward our BIAs to use discretion in terms of filtering those requests. But, Councillor Orr, to your previous question, I just received some information from staff that the data would be owned by the BIAs and shared with the city. And that's how it's been functioning. Okay. Owned by the BIAs.

Interesting. Okay. I'll jump back on. That's interesting. Thanks.

All right. Thanks, Councillor Orr. And can we advance Councillor Fry, please?

Thank you. And if I may, through you, Chair, to question the mover of the motion. I mean, this is unusual on a few levels. First and foremost, why wasn't this submitted for staff review?

That is something that I take responsibility for. I've been out of the country for two weeks, and I forgot that step. But I'll just note that many councillors around this chamber don't submit motions for staff review, including yourself.

Oh, I do, actually. So please don't speak for me on that note. I don't know who else doesn't, but because this is a sole source procurement, effectively, it is somewhat unusual. Is there an urgency to submit this now without staff review and any comments?

Yeah, this is a relatively small investment. It's $50,000 to expand this to nine additional BIAs. And as Councillor Fry, you've heard at the BIA roundtables, I know you attend regularly, BIAs have been advocating for this tool. And as I mentioned, Neil Wiles from Mount Pleasant BIA has been using this with great success in order to improve response times to public realm incidents in their neighbourhoods. So I think, you know, we have a great test case. We have data and, you know, small investment. Let's move forward.

I mean, it is a small investment, but it is a sole source procurement, and there's no link to this company or any information about SmarterBit. I've Googled, and I can't find them online. Are you familiar with the company and who owns the data and what?

Yeah, so as mentioned, I received some information just a few minutes ago from staff that the BIAs will own the data, and that's how it's been functioning.

And who owns the company?

I don't know the background of who owns the tech company, but I'd encourage you to go online or reach out to anyone else.

Well, I literally can't find them online, so that's why I'm asking. It is so unusual to have a sole source procurement from a member motion that wasn't reviewed by staff. Even if it is a small amount, it is sort of an unusual precedent, and I'm just hoping that you had a little bit more detail on who you're suggesting we...

Yeah, I understand the app was made specifically for the BIAs. I just don't have the background as to where their office is, for example.

Thanks, Councillor Fry. Next, Councillor Maloney.

I'm obviously concerned where the $50,000 will come from to expand this pilot. I think it should have been provided for in the 2026 budget instead of dipping into city reserves, which should generally be used in the case of genuine emergencies, unforeseen expenditure or life-saving measures. When staff reports back, I'd really appreciate examples of third-party data sources being used for city purposes, and if so, what safeguards are in place to ensure the integrity of that data. Another issue is that the VAN 311 app is, I think, very cumbersome and time-consuming to use, and I'd like to see the city invest in it. in improving VAN 311 so that all users benefit from the investment. Generally, in discussion with BIAs, I've heard that this is a good investment of a small amount of money, especially compared to a couple of overtime shifts of police, which could be an alternative expense if the services aren't provided. So I'm pleased that the service is provided by a local software developer, but like Councillor Frye, I... be interested in more information about who they are and why we're not doing an open tender process. I've heard that this feeds requests and information directly into the BIA's respective contractors and that's more efficient for them and gives them better and more service than what the city can provide through VAN 311. And I've also heard that if it is appropriate for a 3-1-1 report, they can make one.

With this program, we can get added data to feed in to the broader city statistics. And my understanding is that it's not related to enforcement or policing, that that's done differently. And I hope that that is the case. Graffiti removal, litter pickup, faeces removal, they're all important things to get done quickly for BIAs. So I understand that this is not replacing but complementing existing services. So I will vote in favour of this and I'll be very interested to get a fulsome report from council when they report back.

Staff.

Thank you. That's all, Councillor Maloney? Yeah. Great. Thank you. Councillor Zhou?

Yeah. Thanks, Chair. So I want to be very brief. I think this motion is a very practical and data-driven proposal that builds on something that's already working in our community. We all know BIA is at the front line every day, supporting safety, cleanliness, economic vitality in our neighborhoods across Vancouver. They often see the issues first. They will respond quickly. So I think what this motion does is simple but powerful actions. They help us better capture underground knowledge and turn it into actionable data. Yeah, so with this tool, we can improve how we identify trends at neighborhood level, better allocate city resource, strengthen coordination between BIAs, the community policing center, and the Vancouver Police Department, and ultimately respond faster and more effective to the emerging issue. I think what also stands out to me is the value for money. It's a very small one-time investment, but we can scale in a proven tool, improving data quality and support evidence-based decision-making. And this is exactly the kind of smart target investment we should be making. Yeah, and also, you know, this motion strengthens the collaborations. it brings together BIA's city staff and the committee partners into a more coordinated system. So I think, yeah, from my perspective, I wholeheartedly support this motion brought forward by Councillor Meiszner. Thanks.

Thanks, Councillor Zhou. Councillor Domenico?

Thanks, Deputy Mayor. I just wanted to offer a little bit of context just with respect to the ask as I see it coming from Councillor Miser and the motion on the floor. We regularly have meetings with the BIAs to hear a whole range of issues, everything from the ability to expand and support retail and commercial in our city as well as public safety concerns. And one of the things that was highlighted, and I believe it was Neil Wiles from the Mount Pleasant BIA, he actually spoke at length and in detail about this technology to help better collect incident data information and to collate that and to move away from very sort of administrative, burdensome steps that they're doing with spreadsheets. And what I heard around the table from the BIA partnership and the other members of the BIA was that they would welcome something that would help make it easier for them to do their jobs. And they do a lot that goes even beyond the scope of the role of a BIA in terms of... managing the public realm, beautification and so on, but they do deal a lot in responding to concerns over vandalism and so on. But I think just to sort of address the concerns about who is this company, we're not providing or the motion is not suggesting that we are providing and sole sourcing funds to a company. It is to the BIA partnership is the way I understand this. So it's a grant. to the BIA partnership. And what they do with that is for them to determine, we can put parameters around that. But just to be clear, this is not providing a contract to a third party. And unless I've misunderstood the motion, that is how I read the motion at this time. So I think that it really needs to be, and again, I will look to the mover of the motion and others if I have misunderstood it, but that is not what this is. This is not procurement. This is not a contract. My understanding is this is a grant to the BIA partnership. And so I think we really need to set that straight. And I think also just to remember that, and we hear this all the time, that it really takes a village. The BIAs are helping the city deliver on our priorities and And I think a lot would fall through the cracks if we didn't have the IAS frankly in the city Doing some of this work and doing some of the heavy lifting.

Thank you Thank You councillor domino council miser comments Everybody further questions and their comments so far this motion is really about listening directly to the BIAs, as Councillor Don Bonato was just outlining through the BIA partnership meetings, which are a very valuable opportunity for councillors to hear directly from BIAs on a regular basis. And this is what they're telling us they need to help their members. So Mel Pleasant, I mentioned, has been using this platform for several years now. It's actually four years, and they've had great success with it. And also recently, there was two pilots that took place in the South Granville BIA and the Hastings Crossing BIA, and they were successful pilots of this platform. This app was made specifically for the BIAs. And as Councillor Domenato also highlighted, this is not a sole source contract. This is awarding a grant of $50,000 to the Vancouver BIA Partnership in order to fund the monthly cost of this app. In my eyes, this is a good investment, a worthwhile investment. As I articulated earlier, our BIAs are really on the front line of our neighborhoods. They are addressing not just the concerns of small businesses, but also residents. They're keeping streets clean. They're removing graffiti. And in many cases, they're helping people who are vulnerable get connected to services as well. And I know that's become an even bigger part of what Downtown Vancouver BIA does. So this particular motion does require two-thirds support from council. So I really hope that all councillors will support this really important initiative for the Vancouver BIA partnership to help continue to improve their neighborhoods and the city that we share. Thank you.

Thanks, Councillor Meiszner. Councillor Orr, you're back.

Thanks. Yeah, I still have tons of questions. For example, is this company PIPEDA or FIPPA compliant? Does it store data in Canada? Does it protect that data? What kind of encryption is it using? Is it SHA-256 or higher? If these questions aren't answered, can we ensure that there's no liability for the city? I know it's a grant, but that would probably leave us on the hook for liability reasons if these aren't freedom of information compliant. Look, I'm not opposed to better data, but data isn't neutral. It matters who is collecting it for what purpose. This motion proposes to integrate incident reporting from BIAs into the city's decision-making systems. And so that may sound practical, but BIAs aren't neutral. They represent specific economic interests and the issues they tend to report reflect that. Those are real concerns, but they are selective concerns. And if we elevate that data without safeguards, we risk building a system that over-represents some problems while ignoring others. We also need to ask why we are investing in a parallel business-driven reporting system instead of strengthening our public systems like 311. And if this moves forward, I think it needs clear safeguards, strong privacy protections, transparency, equity analysis. a firm commitment that this data will inform, not drive, city responses. But I'm not getting a ton of that insurance. So I'm not sure here what to think. I'm out of time.

Yes, you are. Thanks, Councillor Orr. Councillor Fry, please go ahead.

Yes, still questions that I'm struggling with. I know that technically this isn't a sole source procurement, but the operative direction in enactment clause A does specifically articulate that that $50,000 in one-time funding to the BIA partnership is to administer a pilot expansion of this smarter bid system. And that seems, for all intents and purposes, is a sole source contract. I do worry, to Councillor Ward's point, about where the data goes, how the data lives, ultimately where the server information is stored. Is it in Canada? Is it in the United States? Is it... somewhere else? Those are important questions. The idea that this is supposed to integrate with city systems does present potentially some kind of security risk. I don't know. I'm not an IT professional. That's why we have IT professionals on our staff. And when we talk about integrating a system with our own existing city systems, that potentially presents challenges. You know, I have huge respect for Neil Wiles, but he hasn't been here to present or speak to this item. So We're getting sort of third-hand information from the move or the motion about the ED of Mount Pleasant BIA's opinion on this particular issue. information and at the long at the end of the day we have to make informed evidence-based decisions you have not presented enough evidence for me to support this in full um and now out of respect for neil and the bias who i do think have probably weighted the considerations maybe not from the perspective of um like our own it professionals who have to integrate this with our own system um I'm prepared to not vote against this, but in true form, when we're not presented with ample evidence to make an informed decision, I have no choice but to abstain because this motion, as it's been presented, is frankly, I think, quite poorly written. It hasn't given us the opportunity to vet this properly through the staff, which... Most of our motions are supposed to, and I take that some feel that that's not a rule that applies, but I think that that is the importance of vetting our motions through staff review to get that input. So I'll have to abstain on this.

Thank you, Councillor Fry. You are exactly at time. Councillor Meiszner?

Yeah. I did just send in an amendment to add two new clauses, F and G. Okay.

I'm going to ask the clerks to move us to the amendment queue before we begin, please, if you want to put yourself back on.

Thanks. Deputy Mayor Kirby Young. So I was just in conversation with the deputy city manager around the delegated authority piece on this. So this just proposes to add two pieces of language around delegated authority to delegate our authority to execute the grant agreement and the associated amount, and that no legal rights and obligations will arise or be created by council's adoption of these recommendations. So pretty straightforward. And... Hoping for council support.

Okay, moved by, we have an amendment moved by Council Miser, seconded by Councillor Klassen. Any discussion on the amendment? Councillor Frye.

Appreciate these amendments. I wouldn't say that they're necessarily straightforward. These are fairly weighty legal considerations that certainly give a little bit more confidence to the fact that we're not walking into this completely blindly and committing the city to, again, a company that hasn't even been linked in the motion. So we have no ability to kind of verify who they are, what they are, where they are. But I think this points to the importance of doing this the right way. So I do appreciate that staff have come back with some serious legal parameters around this and given a little bit more confidence. I'm still a little bit uncomfortable and would likely continue to abstain on it, but I do support these amendments for giving a little bit more clarity, a little bit more security, and a little bit more legal guardrails around a motion that hasn't been properly reviewed.

Thanks, Councillor Frey. Councillor Meiszner, go ahead.

Yeah, thank you. I know there's been a couple comments about motions not always being submitted for staff feedback. I think this is the first time that I missed that step. But I will add that Neil Wiles from Mount Pleasant BIA, who again is on a plane overseas right now, otherwise he would be here. We had a fulsome conversation yesterday about his experience with this app and the benefits of this for his BIA. And I'll just remind councillors, and I think pretty much all the councillors were at the Vancouver BIA partnership meeting where this was mentioned, where Neil was advocating for expanding funding for this app or allocating funding for this app to additional nine BIAs and all the benefits that they've had with it. So I'm not going to stand in the way of providing more support to our BIAs. Again, these organizations are on the ground level, on the front lines of our neighborhoods, advocating for small businesses, for residents, for cleaning the sidewalks, for cleaning up graffiti, for picking up garbage, all things that we want to see happen in our cities. So this is a small investment. I think it's reasonable. We have a proven test case, and let's move forward with it, and let's continue to uplift neighborhoods across Vancouver.

Okay. Thanks, Councillor Miser. Councillor Orr, to the amendment.

Yeah, thanks. I agree with Councillor Frye. This is pretty complex. I wish this had been baked into the motion. I appreciate the effort. I still have so many questions around privacy rights. I don't know if this actually gets around that, if this actually protects the city, if it protects BIAs. But I do appreciate the amendment. I just wish it had been in the motion. I still don't know if I support the original intent of the motion, however. But I appreciate this motion. I'll support the amendment.

Okay. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Maloney to the amendment specifically.

Thanks. I just wanted to take the opportunity to ask a question of staff through the chair if that's all right. I'm interested to know if the mover of the motion or staff can tell me how detailed the information is that is collected. I mean, my understanding of it is that it's incidents asking for help rather than the identity of individual people For example, if there was a report of a crime to police, descriptions of assailants or whatever it might be.

And would we typically include as grant conditions requirements of protecting the privacy of people or any other safeguards for members of the public?

And BIAs are actually statutory creations, aren't they? So I'm assuming...

Yeah. But they're created by legislation, regulations.

I can't, I'm not familiar with... Yeah, I'm just speculating as to whether there is any... there are any restrictions or conditions of their existence in terms of how they use, how they behave.

Thanks very much.

Thanks, Councillor Maloney. Councillor Klassen, go ahead.

I'll be very brief. Good discussion here today. I think it's fair to say that— Councillor Klassen, can I just guide you to speak to the amendment specifically? Yeah, again, I think that I'm supportive of the amendment. I realize that it's—but we're getting close to the end here, so I wanted to be able to just generally say that I'm very supportive of the— of the thrust of this. And so having the additional clauses, if it gives some additional assurance that we know that our BIAs have been integral to really uplifting our city, especially over the last several years. I think our interactions with the BIAs, our regular quarterly meetings that we established, have found their way of helping us work together closely. And for having a tool like this that has been tried and tested by the Mount Pleasant BIA to expand it more broadly, to try and deal with all the many issues that they deal with in terms of making sure that they support local small business in our communities. This is a complete no-brainer for me. So I think it's something that we continue to support and the BIAs, and I think that this additional opportunity is a good one that will probably make the work even stronger. Thanks very much.

Thank you. I'll just remind councillors that we are still on the amendment. So if we're going to make comments on the main motion, we will be going back to the queue and have a chance to do that before we vote on the amended motion if this passes. So, Councillor Fry, you have the floor to the amendment.

Yeah, thank you. And a question through you to the city manager or deputy city manager. This new language, so I think one of the salient issues here is around the data integration and and what it means for our systems and working with a new third party that we haven't vetted at all and integrating it with our existing information technology systems, which is my interpretation of this motion. Does this new amendment specifically, I guess, Clause G around legal rights and obligations, does that indemnify our IT folk to, if they think that this is a security risk or that there's some information technology or freedom of information issues that are baked into this,

Okay, so I guess what I'm asking then is does this give our IT professionals the flexibility to say, you know what, we've got to back out of this because it's a data breach issue potentially or a privacy issue?

Hey, thanks, Council. Right. We're going to call the vote on the amendment now, please.

No, this is. Yes. Sorry, Mayor Simeon.

This is Councillor Miser's amendment to add the two clauses.

OK, that passes with none in opposition. We'll go back to the main queue now.

I think I was on that.

I am. Okay. I just wanted to let other folks have a chance to have the conversation since I'm sharing this portion. But here's my perspective on this one. I think that we do want to foster innovation.

Okay, well, I think it's fine to participate and to make comments. I think that's, do you want to cede it? Okay, go ahead, Councillor Domenato. Yeah, I do think that what we want to be doing is fostering innovation and supporting that in our city in terms of smart implementation strategies and allocation of resources and outcome-based efforts. The BIAs are really important partners to the City of Vancouver. I think that there is a lot of sort of framing in this motion and guardrails around evaluating, looking at opportunities to integrate data. There's phrases in here about exploring the opportunities to enhance coordination, to look at, quote, the feasibility of integrating third-party data sources, et cetera. It doesn't suggest that that shall happen. It says that we should look at the opportunity to do that. And I think that that is quite worthy. I think we have a number of different third-party data systems in the city of Vancouver. If I think of things like Easy Park, for example, when you look at those, they have six parking apps. It's been widely reported on the news lately. We want to look at that kind of data. How are parking stalls turning over? Are there issues with that? Those kinds of things. Vancouver Public Library uses different systems. Do we have different libraries that are fuller or less? We have third-party systems in our community centers for recreation. in terms of registration. We've actually just moved and spent, council just provided a fairly significant award to upgrading that and we want to look at again, what does swimming data look like? How long are people waiting for those kinds of services? Things like litter collection. While the City of Vancouver manages it, we have third parties. I know that we'll be discussing waste later today, where, for example, multifamily buildings use third-party data. Those are all, I think, the sorts of data that we want to try to get a lens on and look at opportunities to bring in. And I think that's the intention for VanStat. is to foster better integration so that we can look fulsomely at what is actually happening in our city. So if we subscribe to that and we want, for example, to look at are we effective with waste collection or are we seeing, for example, lower usage of certain community centers or facilities, why is that? Is it because the facilities are not updated? Although, is it because the populations are changing that area? What are the barriers to that? I think we want to have all that kind of data. So it doesn't say thou shalt do. It says please explore the opportunities to look at that integration. I think that the BIAs are pretty lean and nimble. I think that they've worked on developing this system together. It's a fun name that they've attached to it, Smarter Bid. I thought that was a nice framing around it. But I do think that the amount of data and insight and collaboration, I think, in terms of how we execute, we provide things like graffiti grants. to the BIAs and we also do to other small neighborhoods and areas. This would enable council to get a line of sight into how are they using the graffiti grants? How many incidents and calls are they receiving for the graffiti? So I also see this as a transparency commitment from the BIAs that they're very willing to share their data and information and provide that to us so that we can also look at things like are the graffiti grants effective and working? What type of ones are they receiving? For example, I remember that it became an issue with not just street level graffiti, but larger, the taller top of buildings where folks were scaling them and we had to adapt there. in the strategy in terms of how do you actually support business owners in getting up closer to rooftop. So I think we sort of can't distinguish between the desire to integrate data from one third-party source versus another. What we can do is put – there's a lot of good questions raised here today around – integrity of that data and evaluating it and looking at appropriate safeguards for how it's utilized. But getting a fulsome picture across all of our partners, I think makes a lot of sense. So from that perspective, I'm happy to support it because that is exactly what we're trying to do is get towards a smarter city, whether it's through this or through other partnerships and other data that we have access to. Thank you.

Oh, I'll take the chair back. Do you want to continue? I think we're pretty much, we're almost there. Is that okay? Councillor Fry, final comments?

Yeah, just to reiterate, I definitely support the work of our BIAs. I think they do really amazing work, and I appreciate the opportunity to meet with them and talk with them on the regular. I will be abstaining on this vote fundamentally because an abstention is where we don't have enough information. This is as exciting an idea it may seem to be. The fact that it has not gone through the proper kind of screening channel through staff, and we're dealing with a lot of last minute additions to this to tighten it up legally, suggests to me that this could have used a bit more of a thorough review. It is quite unusual to take this route with a single source, even if it is at arm's length through the BIA and a grant to the BIA that we are asking. This specific contractor, again, that's not linked in the document or really articulated beyond a casual mention that we heard at a BIA partnership from one of the proponents that uses this service. And that's not to suggest anything inopportune, but we do have a responsibility as councillors, as delegators, as stewards of the public purse to at least do the due diligence. And that is a fairly consistent position of mine when it comes to these decisions that we make. We need to walk in with eyes wide open. And so without suggesting anything wrong with this approach or who this operator is and working with the BIAs, there remain unanswered questions for me, including what this may ultimately look like from a privatization kind of perspective if this is a larger-scale maneuver, moving to integrating third-party operators in our data management. And even when it comes to things like parking apps, we do vet those through our IT professionals. We don't introduce those through member motions. And if we were, it would be hopefully, I would hope, vetted through our IT professionals and our city management and our professional administrators that we rely on to vet these kind of things. So on that... supportive of supporting the BIAs. I hope this is a successful pilot, but I don't have enough information to vote with confidence in the affirmative. I will be abstaining, which does count as an affirmative.

Thanks, Councillor Fry. Final comments? Councillor Meiszner, please.

Yeah, thanks. Just lots been said on this. Just to close. This is really a small investment that will pay big dividends for BIAs and for our neighborhoods. And as I mentioned, and as counselors are aware, this has been used by Mount Pleasant BIA for four years now and also piloted by two other BIAs in the city with great success. And they've been advocating at our BIA partnerships for this small investment in order to expand the use of this tool to nine more BIAs. So, you know, I think that the case is clear why this is a good investment. So BIAs can continue to do the important work. And this is going to help them do it more effectively. So I'm not going to stand in the way of this. I'm not going to pick it apart. I'm not going to abstain. I'm going to support this motion today. Thanks.

Okay, thanks. We'll now call the vote. Clerk, can you please take us to the voting screen?

And I will note that the motion requires eight affirmative votes pursuant to Section 206J of the Charter.

Okay, that passes with Councillor Frye, oh no, I'm sorry, Councillor Orr in opposition. And that completes item one. I'll return the chair to Councillor Meiszner.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor Kirby-Young. So the next motion is motion two, sound investment reinstating the Vancouver Music Fund and is to be moved and introduced by Councillor Orr. Before we begin this item, if anyone believes they have a conflict of interest, now is the time to declare it. Does anyone have a conflict to disclose? So, Councillor Orr, you have up to two minutes to introduce your motion.

Thank you very much. Having been a musician in the city, I know what it costs to make a record. I know what it feels like to scrape together enough to book studio time, to weigh that against rent, to decide whether the thing you made actually gets to exist in the world. And I know that calculation gets made every day by people here, people making the music that gives Vancouver its identity. It's reason to say. The Vancouver Music Fund wasn't a big program, but these grants gave the kind of money that changes what's possible. Things like making sure that a record gets made and helps turn a musician into someone who can keep doing this here instead of leaving. We all know that arts and culture matter to the city's economy and its soul. The Vancouver Music Strategy and Culture Shift were both adopted, so evidently the arts do matter to this council. Cutting this fund would be a grave error, and this motion is a chance to show how arts and culture matter with a budget line. Staff have told us that 2026 is complicated, so the motion is instead asking for us to make that a reality in 2027. So I would appreciate the support from my colleagues on this one. Thanks.

Okay. Thanks, Councillor Orr. Seconded by Councillor Kirby-Young. We will now hear from registered speakers for this motion. Public speakers should state whether they're in support or opposition to the recommendations, and they may only speak once. I will also ask our speakers if they're residents of Vancouver, if it's not noted on the speakers list. So our first public speaker on this is Joseph Martin.

Thanks, Joseph. Our next speaker is Chloe Leslie.

Go ahead.

Okay, thank you. Next speaker, Matthew Hay.

Okay, thanks, Matthew.

Just checking.

Speaker 5, Nate Stanley.

Hey, thank you, Nate. Speaker 6, John Comstock.

Hi, John. Go ahead.

Thanks, John. Okay, that's the end of our speakers list, but we did have one speaker that wasn't available, so we'll just go back one more time to see if they're there. Speaker 4, Angela Liu.

Okay, thank you, clerks. Committee members, is there any discussion? Councillor Klassen.

Thanks very much, Chair, and always excited to talk about music in our city. Music has been a cornerstone of what Vancouver is, and I think that we often are really... not doing as good a job as we could be in terms of talking about how important music has been to our identity as a city, as a global center of the creation, and live music performance is a big part of that. I've had a chance to meet and speak to several key figures in the music and culture sector here in Vancouver and, you know, ask them and have been talking to them about what's their seat. see as some of the challenges that we face. And part of it is just making sure that our city is aligned with the tools and the approaches that will actually help that industry sector thrive. I know that when I was younger, and Councillor Fry likes to talk about it a lot as well, we used to go to so many great venues and so many different shows that took place in And clubs that no longer exist, that only exist as memories to a lot of us, on memories. So I have sent in an amendment to this motion, so I'm hoping that we can go to you.

I'll move you to the amendment queue, Councillor Klassen. Just one moment here. Please continue.

So first of all, I just want to thank all the speakers, some great poignant stories there, and I completely agree. We need to do everything that we can, and there has been so many different initiatives that I've tried to support to make sure that artists feel supported within our city here. In this particular motion here, I'll be introducing a strike and replace that I think sort of addresses some of the kind of key points that are being put forward in the motion, but it strengthens some of the objectives here. I just want to, again, be very clear that we really strongly support Vancouver's music sector, our artists, venues, producers, festivals, and many people who contribute to cultural life and economic vitality in our city. And there's no question that grants can play an important role. Organizations like Factor, Music BC, and Creative BC already provide significant support for artists, recording, touring, and production. But what I continue to hear from people working directly in the industry is that many of the biggest challenges facing Vancouver's music ecosystem are structural, not simply financial. People are concerned about the difficulty of opening and sustaining venues, navigating permitting and licensing processes, and accessing rehearsal and production space, and operating live events in an increasingly difficult economic environment. In fact, previous correspondents from MusicBC warned that simply distributing funding risk becoming, quote, a distraction to the overall goal of the Music City strategy, end quote, and instead emphasizes the importance of local music infrastructure, long-term planning, and stronger municipal support systems. And we're already seeing some of that constructive work underway in this direction. Recently, City staff... After a few of us met with key venue operators in the city, have started working directly with arts event licensees and venue operators through a collaborative working group approach aimed at improving communication. and addressing operational challenges. And that's the kind of practical work I believe that we should continue building on. This is also about supporting Vancouver's nighttime economy more broadly. Live music venues, comedy clubs, festivals, and cultural events create jobs, attract visitors, animate neighborhoods, and continue to be a safer and more vibrant... create a safer and more vibrant downtown and entertainment district. So the city's role should not just be asked whether we can fund a small number of projects. We should ask whether our policies are helping or hindering the broader music economy. If someone wants to open the next live music venue, rehearsal space, or comedy club... or local festival in Vancouver, are we making that easier or are we making it harder? And that's what this amendment seeks to address. It builds on existing work already undertaken through the Vancouver Music Strategy, Music Ecosystem Study, and keeps the scope focused within existing resources, aligns with staff advice regarding the 2027 budget process. and ask staff to identify practical options around permitting, licensing venues, rehearsal spaces, and the nighttime accounting alongside any future consideration of grant programs. And I believe this is a more sustainable and economically responsible approach that supports the entire ecosystem over the long term. Thank you.

Okay, thanks, Councillor Klassen. Councillor Maloney.

Just a point of procedure. Is this the debate on the amendment?

Yes.

And will we have any, if this is voted by the majority in favour, will we have further opportunity or is this the last opportunity we have?

I believe this would, this is strike and replace, so this would be the last opportunity. I'm just realising we need a seconder for the amendment as well. So can I get a seconder?

Also, my time is at 3.23 and this is the first time I've spoken to this motion.

Thank you. I appreciate Councillor Orr moving this motion and I was, the motion that's pretty funny talking about music, isn't it? I was planning to vote in favour of the original motion. I support all the aspects of this amendment other than the way it removes additional funding for music. Because, you know, we've seen in my time on council arts and culture folks come along and tell us that what they really need is more funding. And that's what Councillor Orr's motion asks for and that's what this amendment removes. So it's got all sorts of good... actions that we should be doing to support music within the city, but we also need to pay for it. We need to invest in it. So I can't support this Strike and Replace amendment. I think that music in our city is so important at this time more than any other, and we had such great input from our public speakers this morning. I think the importance of it at this time is no small part because Canadian culture is such an important alternative to the culture of our southern neighbours. And so we do need to invest in our own culture. I know I've travelled around different cities and one of the most significant memories I have...

very tired again, excuse me, is the music of each country that I've lived in. And I learnt Spanish through the music of Chile. I think that it's just such a missed opportunity to spend a small amount of our city's resources, financial resources, investing in the music of Vancouverites. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Orr.

Yeah, thanks. This is a completely different motion. I appreciate addressing these issues. I think that... If you wanted to do this, you should bring up your own motion. This is totally different, completely changes the spirit of the motion. My motion was very simple. It was asking for a funding strategy to bring back the Vancouver Music Fund. Very, very simple. I suspect, I don't want to impugn modus, but you didn't want to vote against reinstating the Vancouver Music Fund, so you've done this. That completely changes the spirit of the motion. It was another last second amendment, which is really unfortunate. We'd love to have had a conversation with the mover of the amendment before this if this is something that was concerned. My original motion actually was much more prescriptive in terms of looking at a hotel tax. No, I said, no, I really want this to pass. I'm going to not be so prescriptive. And I'm going to be very gentle because I think that council is going to support the Vancouver Music Fund. I also changed it from this budget cycle to next budget cycle on the advice of staff. And... This just obliterates that, obliterates all that work. I think it's good. I think some of this stuff is good. I think we should be doing this. Absolutely. We've seen this in the news. We've seen this come up. A lot of venues are struggling. A lot of venues have been shut down that have concerns, and they don't. They don't have the information to have that integrated, you know, with licensing and permitting. Improve clarity and coordination. That's great. Do that. Do that on your own. This is a motion for a music fund, and now this is gone.

Okay, thanks. Councillor Kirby Young.

Yeah, thanks, Chair. I think I just want to sort of recognize that I think there's really important and critical components for the success and sustained viability and health of our music sector and arts and culture generally included in here. No argument whatsoever with the need to continue working on permitting and licensing processes, the importance of infrastructure I think we're doing, Council's been doing a lot of that work. We have the making space for arts and culture. We've been securing and working hard to secure some cultural amenity spaces through development, for example, that can be utilized to support and providing sort of security of tenure for different groups and space. We've recently advanced grants, for example, to Eastside Culture, and the Dance Center help them secure their homes and provide those places and spaces for artists to be and to create. I do think that there is, and that's really important, and I think that work needs to be prioritized wholeheartedly in support of that. I do think there's a bit of a distinction between that and this motion as it's written, which is looking to support the artists specifically with respects to creation. And so I think for me, this is very valid and very important work, but I think it's distinct and different from the main motion, which really is about supporting the artists. We need to have the great spaces there, but we also can't have spaces and have artists not... be able to sustain themselves in the city or create and produce and then they're not we've got spaces but no one to perform in them and to showcase their music so for me I think that I'll just observe that I think there's a bit of a distinction here I think what I'm seeing is a lot of alignment from council around supporting the music sector and the importance of continuing to do that And I think we have a lot of direction in place to support and pursue that work. And I think we need to continue to put our shoulders to the wheel and do that. And I'm looking forward to doing that, those pieces alongside colleagues. But I do think there's a distinction between this piece here and the motion itself. Thanks.

Thanks, Councillor. Councillor Fry.

Yeah, I'll start by just commiserating with Councillor Klassen about back in the day. back in the when i ran a print and promo shop and did graphic design for literally hundreds of of bands and ravers and djs and rappers and true story actually i've i've fired nickelback as clients because i thought they'd never go anywhere beyond being a studebaker's bar band and uh i guess obviously i didn't figure that one out but uh yeah no um and so with that said uh I also recognized that a lot of the groups that I worked with back in those days and the venues that I was working with were underground venues. And Vancouver had a rich ecosystem of alternative spaces that operated in the sort of gray twilight areas, as it were, alongside the licensed legal nightclubs. So... Where I appreciate Councillor Klassen's amendment, although it does digress quite significantly from, I think, the intention of this motion from Councillor Orr, which was to fundamentally reinstate the Vancouver Music Fund in a somewhat agnostic way that would have recognized putting musicians first. I do worry that the outcome of Councillor Klassen's amendment, especially in light of recent conversations and revelations around targeted enforcement on underground venues and unlicensed in the traditional sense I do worry that this perhaps this particular amendment opens up through identifying options for improving clarity and coordination of existing permitting and licensing processes for live music and events given what we know of some of the sort of direction that came from members of this council to our licensing department, I do worry that this might be wielded as some kind of tool to unfortunately enforce on the myriad of alternative venues, many of which are providing very vital spaces for underrepresented groups and indeed the music that is part of that. That being said, I recognize that the outcome of Councillor Klassen's amendment will be effectively a report back from staff. So it's not so binding that it would necessarily lead to some kind of additional enforcement on underground venues or raids on queer spaces like we've been led to understand has been kind of the direction from members of this council. So I will support the amendment. I do think it's unfortunate that we've lost the intention of Councillor Orr's original motion because I think it is actually a very important consideration in supporting a music fund that is agnostic from venues and licensing, that is agnostic from big money, that really just reflects on the artists and the opportunities and how we can support musicians and music in our city. So thank you to Councillor Orr. Thank you to Councillor Klassen, and I hope the outcome of this is positive and supports that vibrant ecosystem with a wicked soundtrack.

I'd like to turn the chair to Councillor Domino to ask a question. Through you, Chair, to the City Manager, I just want to follow up on a comment I just heard from Councillor Frye. around council direction around raids on queer spaces. Is the deputy city manager aware of any council direction around such an approach? I'm not aware of any.

I'm not aware.

I'll take the chair back. Councillor Frye.

Oh, sorry, I'm not sure if there was a question you wanted to pose of me. I'm responding to reporting from the Vancouver Lookout that alleges not this council, but individual councillors.

Okay, let's, if people want to. Please feel free to do so, but we're just not going to have a debate across the chamber. So let's follow the procedure.

Councillor Orr. We did receive a memo from the city manager at the time that said council direction. I can't find it right now. I don't have time, but there, and I did ask. A follow-up question about what that council direction was. And it was either from the city manager's office that said there was council direction. I can look. If you want to take a recess, I can find it to answer your question. It definitely says council direction as an answer from the city manager's office.

I'll just know we're not debating the motion anymore. We need to stay on topic. And we heard from the deputy city manager that there has been no council direction around Councillor Fry's allegation.

Okay, that passes with Councillor Kirby-Young in opposition, Councillor Bligh in opposition, Councillor Orr in opposition, and Councillor Maloney in opposition. So we'll now go back. I guess that's the end of that motion, actually. Pardon me, because it was a strike and replace. So that completes this not.

Okay, still need to dispose of the original motion. So we do need to vote on the motion as amended.

Yeah, thanks, Chair. Just listening to this debate intently, and I just want to state for the record that I'll support this motion, but I shared the thoughts of my colleague in the move of the motion, Councillor Orr, that this does not reflect the intent of the original motion that I supported. I've heard from people who served on the committee that supported the work. It's a position within our city that was once funded and is no longer. I think what it says is we're deprioritizing the importance of the music industry in our arts and culture space. You know, I just don't think it's a time for us to do that in our city. These are supports. This is access that people rely upon from a mental health perspective, from an income perspective. We have incredible talent here in our city. And so while I still do not support... The amendments that were put forward is a strike and replace that removes the intent of the original motion. I think it's it's better to keep this work going than not at all. And so it's a begrudgingly in favor. vote that I intend to cast, but I wanted just to make very clear for the record where I stand on the actual issue of funding this work, which this amendment by Councillor Claston has essentially deleted. So I will vote to support, but I would have preferred to support Councillor Orr's original motion.

Okay, thanks. Councillor Maloney.

Like Councillor Bligh, I am extremely disappointed that this strike and replace motion amendment has successfully deleted the original motion.

So I am also begrudgingly going to vote in favour of this to keep the work going, but I really feel like we need to invest in music and musicians in the City of Vancouver. Thank you.

Councillor Kirby-Young.

Yeah, thanks, Chair. Not a surprise to a lot of folks that the arts and culture sector is one that's been consistently important to me during my time on council. When I think about the type of city that we're trying to build, it looks very bleak if we don't have a vibrant and robust and healthy and thriving arts and culture sector, and that is both the artists as well as the ecosystem and the spaces that they get to perform and participate entertain and create and connect all of us in and so I think that there's a lot of good here in this amendment a lot of this work is well underway so I think putting an exclamation point on it is never a bad thing but I think that it's very clearly articulated that the city has been committed to these goals and I referenced earlier through the making space for arts and culture and around trying to support that access to performance rehearsal and production spaces. And, you know, I referenced some of the recent opportunities to provide security of tenure to the dance center where people can both create, but people can also go and see performances. So it has creation spaces and it has performance spaces that people can participate in and view the art. Similarly, something like the East Side is more focused on supporting artists in the production space, and we helped them secure their new home. I think it's a great discussion. Anytime that we can shine a spotlight on the need to continuing to support arts and culture. I think it's been a good debate and a good conversation today. And I think our city would be pretty bleak if we didn't have this here. This is the city that we're fighting for. It's an expensive place to live in. Affordability is a real challenge. But people live here because it is spectacularly beautiful. It's culturally diverse. And through all of that, we have an incredible backdrop for arts and culture. And so much of it is thriving that oftentimes a lot of folks say it's hidden, but you just have to kind of look and pay attention and peel back the layers a little bit. And you find so many different organizations that are creating incredible experiences that we all get to participate in. So I'm happy to support this. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Kirby. Councillor Claassen.

Thanks. I really appreciate the discussion. Again, once again, very appreciative of our speakers. And also this, for me, is one of the core reasons that I feel my job is to try and make sure that we can continue to create a very vibrant music economy in our city. And that's why I've spent time with the sector and had lots of conversations on how we can better support it. I'll just sort of draw people's attention to Clause D on this. updated motion that any consideration of reinstating creating grant-based programs be evaluated along these options which include also reviewing additional funding sources but the idea that we actually start put a stronger lens on making sure that we actually have stronger policies and again as counselor Kirby young says there's been significant work that's happened so far, but we're still seeing gaps and we're still having challenges in the experience of last December when there was some uproar around inspections. The very first meetings that I held the day after I returned from the Christmas break were with the fire chief and her team and the general manager of our permits and licenses. I met that Monday morning and I got to the bottom of what was going on here and A couple weeks later, we were able to bring together a group of about over a dozen stakeholders, people who run important parts of our nightlife economy, nighttime economy, and varied venues. Councillor Fry also attended that meeting. We had, I thought, a very open and honest discussion, and I'm extremely pleased now that a group representing that part of our nighttime economy are now meeting on a regular basis with our city staff, which is, again, with the sub-bullet for A, improving clarity and coordination of existing permitting and licensing processes, live music and events. That was the thing that I discovered when I met with that sector is that there was a lot of misunderstanding and a lot of trepidation in dealing with the city. But I could tell from talking to our staff that they were very, very supportive of trying to make sure that we have a strong nighttime economy and we're able to support these venue operators. But they have rules that they need to apply in terms of making sure that... that licenses are properly in order and that alcohol is not being served illegally and what have you. And so they have to abide the provincial laws around that. So this is really about helping and uplifting this and making sure that That it's not just me and Councillor Fry or Councillor Orr or anyone thinking back to the old days when there were more places where you can go see a show, but that we actually start seeing more of that coming back in a stronger way in the years to come. So, again, it sort of takes the advice of city staff to look at the 2027 budget process, and so that's clear in this motion. So I hope that the intent here is really clear, that we are going to address the structural challenges, not just the economic ones. Thanks.

Okay, thanks, Councillor Klassen. Seeing no one else in the queue, we'll take it to a vote. Oh, Councillor Maloney.

And that completes motion two. Thank you. Okay, the next item is motion three, supporting community stewardship for eco corridors and neighborhood green spaces and is to be moved and introduced by Councillor Frye.

an excited group outside that are really looking forward to speaking to us about, about their work in ecological corridors and ecosystem stewardship. I think, you know, we all are very familiar and we all appreciate the extent and network of, of ecological areas and many kind of wilded areas, feral areas, if you will, that are, are stewarded and maintained by, by volunteers from around our city. And that work takes effort. It takes resources. It takes things like shovels and gloves and volunteers like Councillor Zhou over here who get out there and pull invasive species and getting out and doing the work to make these spaces alive and thrive. And everywhere from Champlain Heights to the shores of Falls Creek and the waterways there, these ecosystems define who we are and make our city more livable. And I think it's telling that, in fact, ecosystems were highlighted in our official development plan and the importance of protecting our waterways, our land-based cultural practices, making space for nature, protecting habitat, and ensuring healthy, thriving ecosystems. And in that ODP, it specifically identified those ecological attributes and corridors for restoring connectivity as envisioned in the ecological network vision map. We get great value for no money right now in the volunteer efforts of folks who are keeping all these marvelous ecosystems thriving and alive. And the request here in this motion is to recognize that we lost a lot of funding streams for those groups with the shift from the Greenest City Action Plan grants and that these groups are struggling and could use our support. And to keep those ecosystems thriving, We need to find new grant streams to support those groups. This is a modest task.

Second. Hey, thanks, Councillor Frye. Seconded by Councillor Zhou. So 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 they may only speak once. I will also ask our speakers if they're residents of Vancouver, if it's not noted on the speakers list. And our first public speaker is Grace Nombrato. Good morning.

Oh, sorry, Grace. We have two podiums now. You're welcome.

Thanks, Grace.

You do. You have 50 seconds.

Very over time now, but appreciate that additional information. Thank you for sharing that. Thanks for being here. Speaker two, Robert Baxter.

Thanks, Robert. Next speaker, Adrian Avendano.

Thanks, Adrian. Next speaker, speaker four, Janine Kenmure.

Thank you. Speaker 5, Sharon Callas.

Thanks, Sharon. Thank you. Thank you for calling in. Next speaker is Speaker 6, Tom Digby, Commissioner, Park Board.

We'll come back to Adam as well. Speaker 8, Selina Starnes. Hi. Yeah? Okay, great. Good morning. Starnes. Oh, it's Starnes. Okay, there we go.

Thank you for speaking to council. Speaker number nine, Teresa Gagné.

Thank you. Speaker 12, Chloe Lee Fraser.

Thank you. I'm just noting Councillor Domonato on the queue. Please go ahead.

Thanks, Chair. I'm wanting to suggest, given the time that we extend past noon to complete speakers and this item, because there's only a handful of speakers left, so I'd like to... move that.

Okay.

Speakers and debate on the motion.

I just want to check with the clerks first that there would be sufficient time for a break for staff.

Or just speakers if that's easier or works better.

Yeah, what your preference would be. Just speakers.

Just speakers? Okay, so the motion would be to extend past noon to complete speakers.

Okay, and come back after in camera to finish debate and decision. Okay, seconder please. Councillor Klassen. Okay, all in favor say aye.

Okay, any opposed say nay. Okay, that passes. Thank you. So we'll continue with the speakers list and then we'll break for lunch.

I'm a Vancouver resident and I am here in support of this motion.

Sorry, Annette, you're over time. Thanks so much. Speaker 14, Marissa Stableford.

Sorry, Marissa. I have to cut you off.

It's only three minutes. I know it goes by fast. Apologies. Thank you. Thanks for calling.

Thanks, Joe.

Okay, thanks, Sarah.

Thank you, Khalid.

Thank you. Thank you, David. Appreciate that. Okay, so that's the end of the speakers list, but we did miss a few speakers that weren't available. So let's go back to speaker six and see if Commissioner Tom Digby is on the line.

Okay. Speaker seven, Adam Hawk.

Adam, is that you?

Adam, you're live in City Council and on YouTube. Hi, how's it going?

Thanks, Adam. Speaker number nine, Teresa Gagné.

Hi, Teresa. Go ahead.

wasn't available previously, Lorianne Bird.

Please go ahead.

Thanks, Lorianne. Okay, that is the end of our speakers list. And as I mentioned earlier, we're going to break for lunch now. We're going to go in camera at one o'clock. We're going to come back from in camera at 1.30, resume with debate and decision on this item. So thanks, everybody. We're back at 1.30 from in camera. That's what I've been advised by the clerks.

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.

Take us to the amendment queue. Please continue.

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.

Thanks, Councillor. Councillor Frye.

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.

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.

Under 8.7F, I'm not of the opinion that it is.

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.

Thanks, Councillor Maloney. Councillor Dominato.

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.

Great. Thank you. Councillor Kirby Young.

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.

Thank you. Councillor Fry.

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.

Thank you. Councillor Bligh.

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?

Thank you.

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.

Okay. Councillor Frye.

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.

Yeah, thanks, Chair.

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, Councillor. Councillor Maloney.

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.

Thank you. Councillor Dominato.

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.

Thank you, Councillor.

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

Thanks for being here. We'll go to motion four, encouraging compact community-serving options to boost zero waste, which is to be moved and introduced by Councillor Fry. Before we begin this agenda item, if anyone believes they have a conflict of interest, now is the time to declare it. Does anyone have a conflict to disclose?

Okay. Councillor Fry, you have up to two minutes to introduce your motion.

Yeah. Thanks, Chair. And in the last term, Before many of you were elected, I served on Metro's Zero Waste Committee and did a lot of work with National Zero Waste. And in this term, Councillor Kirby Young has taken up that mantle. And I think we all pride ourselves as a city on being a progressive environmental city and being thoughtful around waste reduction and, indeed, just even talking about stewardship in communities and how we manage waste in the context of stewardship, I think speaks to our intention as a community to reduce waste. But despite those best intentions, our region, Metro, has lagged in our... in our zero waste and our waste diversion and our recycling and composting. The rates in Metro are about 64%. And it's even worse in multi-unit residential buildings, especially in older neighborhoods, like the West End, for instance, and other neighborhoods where there's not access to... built-in waste management facilities that can accommodate a lot of the new streams for recycling that we're introducing. Many will know that we're introducing pink bin recycling for soft film plastics. And so what we see in other jurisdictions around the world... is that innovative solutions involve compact community-serving facilities that can enable better activation of waste stream diversion by making it convenient. Because at the end of the day, zero waste and waste stream diversion really relies, I hate to say it, but not so much on attention as on convenience. And if we can make it convenient for folks, we can do a lot better to... Recycle and divert waste from the stream. So the motion here before you is really to have staff Take a look at what we can do to further Expand on on community waste. I'm out of time.

Okay. Thanks council fry seconder, please Seconded by councillor domnado. Thank you. So we'll now hear from registered speakers for the motion Public speakers should state whether they're in support or opposition to the recommendations, and they 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 all speakers have up to three minutes. So our first speaker is Annette Riley.

Okay. Thank you. Next speaker, Speaker 2, Sean Miles.

Sorry to interrupt you, Sean. You are quite a bit over time. Apologies to interrupt you. My apologies. That's fine. Thanks for calling. We'll go to Speaker 3, Adam Hawk.

Yes, please go ahead.

Thank you.

Councillor Montague, are you on the queue for something?

Okay, great. Speaker Five, Kinsale Philip. Good afternoon.

Thank you for speaking to Council. Speaker 6, Louise Swartz.

Yes, please go ahead.

I'm really sorry I had to cut you off. I know you're so passionate, but we are out of time.

Thank you. Thanks for calling. That's the end of our speaker's list. And council members, any discussion? Councillor Montague.

Yeah, thanks, Chair. I've circulated an amendment if you want to post to an amendment queue.

Okay, I'll take us to an amendment queue. Councillor Montague, please continue.

Thanks. So the amendment reflects what we received, what all council received in the staff feedback about this motion. And one of the things that I noted was that staff mentioned that there are many measures that are contemplated in the motion that are already in place for existing requirements and programs. Partnerships, and that includes recent bylaw changes that were suggested by staff around zero waste. So the city also supports returnant depots, including on both... private and city property so my amendment adds it generally keeps the same framework I don't think it actually changes a whole lot but it adds to the affirmation of the original motion acknowledges the existing measures that are in place and requests a memo from staff outlining these measures and it refers back to staff more information on clauses C to F, specifically what's already possible in the city's existing programs. So these report backs that were requested in the original motion appear to me to be, would take a significant amount of staff work. And I would like to see more information rather than report backs, more information regarding what is already possible. before we ask staff to come back with a bunch of recommendations and policy options and pilot projects.

Thanks, Councillor Montague. Seconder? Any seconder? Seconded by Councillor Kirby-Young. Thank you. Councillor Frye.

Yeah, I don't really support this amendment. I think where it really misses, I mean... With all due respect to the city property for the Express and Go on Arbutus Street, that's not a neighborhood that was explicitly mentioned in this... in this resolution as one of the neighborhoods that's actually struggling with access to recycling material. And with all due respect to the great pop-up events that we run at the city of Vancouver every few months or a couple of times a year in various neighborhoods around the city, it doesn't work for folks who live in small apartments. And that's who I hear from on the regular. And I'm sure Councillor Kirby Young must hear from them quite often as well through their role in Zero Waste. The reality is that there are not appropriate recycling facilities for lots of folks who live in older, dense neighborhoods like the West End, like the Downtown Eastside, like Commercial Drive, myriad of neighborhoods, older apartment buildings where there isn't the access. What's interesting to note that hasn't really been acknowledged in the staff comments or in Councillor Montague's amendment is that we actually calculate without, you know, as a general rule, we calculate waste space in the gross floor area of construction. So we're not even exempting There are ample opportunities to incentivize waste reduction, waste diversion, and fundamentally taking the opportunity to look at existing right-of-ways and opportunities that we have to create community waste spaces so that people don't have to leave recyclables in their 500-square-foot apartment waiting for the day that there might be a pop-up that they can make it to. that's frankly kind of not how reality works. Nobody's going to leave recyclables sitting around their 500-square-foot apartment waiting for a pop-up to dispose of it appropriately. They're going to throw it in the dumpster. That's the way reality works. So I don't think this is a helpful amendment, and I think it misses some of the point here, so I don't support it.

Okay. Thanks, Councillor Frye. Councillor Bligh?

Yeah, thanks very much. I felt compelled to come on because I actually live, I walk most evenings on the Greenway right by that Expresco. And it's quite interesting that this has even been identified because the other day after many, many months of walking that Greenway in the evening when people would typically walk, I noted one person that I've never seen anyone actually in front of that express recycling, and that's Arbutus and 16th. So it's not, while we have one there, I just don't think it's the neighborhood that needs it. And so it doesn't hold a lot of weight for me that we have one available when it's in a neighborhood that is where it's not really being used because it's not needed as much. So there's that point. And so I think, I appreciate that the city has made effort, but maybe that express and go facility could be better utilized elsewhere. I'm sure there's a few people that use it, but I also think there's precedent. When the hotel policy, there was an amendment that was moved forward and passed related to excluding, I think it was kitchen and administration area from the FSR. in terms of what is essentially billable square footage for the developer in terms of floor space ratio. And so I think there is precedent to recognize that we could look at this as a policy that would encourage just an accessible and well-used, well-designed area for recycling and waste disposal within new buildings. So I think we, again, I'm choosing my words carefully to not upset anybody, but that requesting a memo really does... really shelve this, in my opinion. It doesn't actually take any affirmative action. And so I think we've got to consider all the options on the table. And I think also it's an interesting conversation to actually get some data back on what the issues are with where the underserved communities and the older multi-unit residential buildings are one thing. New construction, new multi-unit residential buildings I personally haven't found a sort of, what am I trying to say? I have always found facilities to be very available in terms of recycling options, in terms of green bin organics, in terms of garbage, in terms of cardboard recycling. So I think there's precedent there. If we feel like we're moving away from that for some particular reason, I think it's worth looking at. But I just wanted to add those comments. I'm not supportive of the amendment because I think anytime there's a memo, it's basically shelving the work. So yeah, I'll leave it there.

Thanks. Councillor Maloney.

Thank you. I can't support this amendment. It really resonates with me. Councillor Fry's words about small apartments and that's the reality for a lot of families in Vancouver because we know that housing is expensive and especially on the downtown peninsula in the West End that I'm familiar with, lots of families are living in older buildings with one to two bedroom apartments, which is what they can afford with absolutely no spare space. And when people get something new, they have to get rid of the old thing straight away. And especially in the West End, I know that we had pop-up waste collection, very limited waste collection categories, you know, once every six months to a year. And the zero waste facilities in South Vancouver, and that's just... A lot of people don't even have cars, so getting to that facility is not super easy. So I'm lucky enough now to live in a strata that has generous spaces for recycling and green waste, and I would like to see more apartment dwellers have that access. because it makes it convenient and it makes you more likely to be able to appropriately dispose of or recycle waste.

Thanks. Okay, thank you. Councillor Kirby-Young.

Yeah, thanks so much to talk about on this topic. I've learned more about waste than I ever thought I would, and I still am, and I actually find it quite enjoyable. And so for those who don't know, I have the opportunity to share the Zero Waste Committee at Metro Vancouver. I will note in there, just maybe adding a layer of information here, is that the committee has, just as its big piece of work for the term, completed the provincially required... 10-year update to the solid waste management plan and it identifies a lot of sort of similar goals that are in here and I think that there's a lot of work we can do in partnership with Metro Vancouver I know we heard from Louise Schwartz who has been as you could tell she ran out of time because she is a wealth of knowledge on this topic That has been a great contributor. And it does identify the fact that we've got about a 65% recycling rate in the region. We're trying to strive to push that to 80%, 82%. We're actually doing really well in Canada and North America, one of the leaders. But there is room to grow in the multifamily sector. It's not simply around availability. That's part of it. But it's also about education. So we've identified that there's gaps, for example, within cultural communities, et cetera. And that's why Metro has embedded in its plan where we can work together, the importance of outreach and education sessions to cultural communities, things of that nature. I do think that it would be helpful to get the information from staff on exactly what is being done and what the gaps are so we could zero in the work when time is precious into what is still has yet to be addressed and is missing that can augment our strategy. For example, I think that the new buildings are fairly well covered because we have requirements around those. I'm often in friends' buildings in Olympic Village, other areas. where they're required within the building code and well serviced in terms of providing multiple options. You often see not just recycling, but third party, many, many, many property management companies have third parties such as clothing donations and other things, the ability to separate your bottles, your soft plastics. your paper, all of those things. I think maybe what the amendment doesn't do, or maybe what people are zeroing in on, is I think that things like the Arbutus reference are supposed to be examples. That's not an exhaustive list. For example, there's the return at Express Yaletown at 1387 Richard Street, which is a very small footprint in a city facility or city building, I believe. Again, part of a reference of some of the efforts the city is making. I think in recognition of this gap, that's a very well-used thing. facility you can go in and you can you know through an app simply sort of tap in and return your your bottles right there it's very easy and very convenient and it's meant to be in neighborhoods and there's been past motions as well from this council around i think it was councillor dominato and councillor classon if i recall around advancing some of those locations and making it easier and different motions Also perhaps back to last term around relaxing some of our regulations so it's easier to have these facilities and pop-ups and things like parking lots, et cetera, and looking at those when there are life safety concerns. For example, if people are putting things in bins and having smaller ones, So I think there's a number of things to build on here. Let's get the information, see how we've progressed in expanding some of those locations, what's working and what isn't from some of those efforts, and then zero in on moving it forward so we can up the ante. I don't think we want to duplicate the work that's doing. I don't think we want to misstate the issue. I don't think new buildings are the actual problem, and I think it is the older ones. And as I said, I think there's a number of ways to get there, some of which are articulated here. But let's try to give staff some to kind of laser focus in on the direction and say these are the pieces that we think we can really, we can zero in on and really move forward on. I know that there's, I can start listing some of the other locations. I used the L-Town one as an example, but there are others as well. and they are starting to grow. We've also installed a number at different metro sites in the region. I know those aren't Vancouver, but the reason I share that is that the technology is growing, and so partners like ReturnIt are actually looking themselves to roll out a number of those different locations, because you can roll up with your phone and your app, and I've tried them, and you just simply put in your code, put in your, drop your stuff or your bottles or whatever it might be, and you get your rebate right away. So I think that we can build on some of that work. We've got a good relationship with them. We've also installed those at the P&E, for example. So we've looked at levering different City of Vancouver partnerships to have those facilities. So let's just kind of get a little bit more laser focused on the lay of the land, and then we can focus on the strategies that will up those numbers, I think, particularly in the

older um multi-family buildings okay that's it for me right now thanks thank you uh counselor fry all this talk of laser focus really left me scratching my head because i think that was the the intent of the the motion and it gets watered down from laser focus to a memo uh through this amendment um You know, it's curious because, you know, all this talk of pop-up locations, but no articulation. I haven't heard from the mover of the amendment if he knows whether, when, where pop-up locations exist. But I will note that that particular descriptor was pulled from the staff notes, which actually begin with staff acknowledge that challenges persist in areas with older and space-constrained buildings. which is one of the considerations used to identify locations for pop-up events. But there is no metric to suggest how we're supporting those areas with older and space-constrained buildings with pop-up events. There's no number of pop-up events, locations of pop-up events. It's kind of a throwaway. And I think that, in essence, this is an abdication of any responsibility to address this in a meaningful way. Laser focus would be have staff report back, take the considerations that are applied here, which aren't binding. They're asking us to do the work, look at the partnerships. The Returned Express partnership in Yaletown is in a private building, is part of a CAC. It's not city-owned land. There are ample opportunities with city right-of-ways that we can incorporate to do things like many cities around the world are doing. It's not new. It's not rocket science. It's maybe not done here in Metro. It's maybe not done here in Vancouver, but it's certainly an opportunity that we could Do well to explore if we are serious about waste diversion and recycling.

Thanks, Councillor Frye. Seeing no one else on the queue to speak to the amendment, I'll now call the vote.

Chair, can I please get a vote assist in favor of?

Thank you.

Okay, that passes with Councillor Bligh in opposition, Councillor Frye in opposition, Councillor Orr in opposition, and Councillor Maloney in opposition. So now I'll go back to the main motion as amended. Councillor Frye, anything to add?

Thank you to the speakers who took the time to speak to this and thanks for folks who do take waste diversion seriously and all the Vancouverites who take the time to recycle and dispose of their wastes in appropriate manners.

Hoping that someday soon we'll be able to make it more convenient for folks, especially folks who live in older apartments and we get rid of this ridiculous expectation that you'll store your recyclables and your non-existent space in your 500 square foot apartment for some day when we might do a pop-up we can do better yes okay thank you counselor or

Thanks. Yeah. As somebody who lives in an apartment that was built in 2001, it doesn't have the capacity. We only have a room for bottles and paper. And so all these new bins, we have nowhere to put them.

We don't have organics. We probably are getting fined every day. I don't know how we were allowed to even get away with it. I started my own compost system on the roof. Not everybody has access to that or can do that, but this is how much I care about zero waste. And again, we could be leading the world here. We could be an example here. Other places around the world do this model, this Neighborhood Recycling Hub model. Singapore... Almost all of Europe does it. I think we're just fiddling with knobs. I just think we're not being bold. Yeah, not laser focused. I just don't know what we're doing here. A memo, I just don't think really cuts it. I really did support the original motion here. And it's unfortunate that we couldn't really be strong on this. So thanks.

Thank you. Okay. We'll now go to voting on the motion as amended. Please.

Chair, can I please get a vote assist in favor, please?

Yes, you can.

Excellent. Okay, so that passes with Councillor Bligh in opposition.

Yeah, I'm losing my voice from talking too much. So we all were here for the Metro Vancouver point-in-time homeless count just a month ago, which saw a 12% increase in folks... unhoused, unsheltered. 40% of those folks are unsheltered living outdoors. Last term and in the past, we had advocated for tiny rapid shelter solutions as an opportunity. This goes back to my own visit where I actually went to Dignity Village in Portland, Oregon and saw this firsthand. And many of you will have heard this story from me before. But the difference that a locking door and a roof over one's head makes is profound. And when we recognize from our recent homeless count that so many of these folks are ending up homeless, not because of any kind of stigmatizing reasons that folks might think. It's mostly because of economic reasons and housing unaffordability. And we know that these are solutions that can be deployed rapidly. And what we're seeing in Seattle with the pressures they have on unhoused population is that they are deploying hundreds of tiny shelters in an effort to manage their encampment situation, but also to meet their FIFA obligations. And this is a moment in time where we could make a difference. You know, when I first presented this and council in the last term approved this idea, I brought in some speakers from Pallet Shelters out of Everett, Washington, who construct these portable Ikea-style shelters that can be built in about half an hour, cost under $15,000, fiberglass and aluminum, durable. They're a roof over their heads. They've got egress. They've got windows. They've got locking doors. They've got full-down cots. They provide a level of dignity and shelter that... are far superior to SROs. We're living on the streets. And I think that's the intention here.

Thanks, Chair, and thank you to the speakers. I want to just quickly reflect on some of the staff comments, which very explicitly do not recommend this motion, and talk about how we first approved this motion back in 2020. Indeed, in 2020, we approved this as an urgent approach. yet it's 2026, and we're still waiting on a report back for the pilot that we approved back in 2020, six years later. So what's happened between 2020 and now? Well, the unhoused, the homeless count was 2,223 back then. As per our recent update, it's now at 2,715. So that's 500 new homeless Vancouverites, and here we are. And to reiterate, from that point in time, housing analysis or unhoused analysis, those are the majority Vancouverites. These are people who are becoming unhoused in our city. So what else has changed other than this growing unhoused? Well, we have a more fragmented and dysfunctional shelter system. We have the emergence of even worse drugs, more debilitating drugs, more toxic drugs. We have more pressure on unhoused folks. We have a ban on new supportive housing. But you know what else has changed? Just last month, the feds introduced $125 million in new funding through the Unsheltered Homeless and Encampments Initiative. There's money. There's money to do this, folks. It's not just, you know, our money. We could actually do something different here. Now, I recognize that there may be a political imperative at this council to ban new supportive housing. But the good news is this isn't supportive housing. It's a shelter. There's no plumbing. There's no foundation. You can pick it up and go. Other jurisdictions have dropped these tiny shelters and parking lots. So when the earlier caller, the dog crate condo guy, called in and asked where we could put these, let's look. We've got the Hastings Racecourse parking lot. We just approved it this morning. We've got the city-owned easy parking lot at Main and Terminal where the mayor is hoping to build for-profit housing but hasn't broken ground yet. Apparently, there's a lot right next to the Canby Bridge here where the mayor is pitching that we could locate a new Major League Baseball stadium for some future use. Now, none of these spaces have been activated yet, and these are, by definition, temporary uses, these tiny shelter villages. Effie mentioned it, the speaker earlier, locking doors. That's the big difference, folks. A locking door is a game changer for folks. I mean, if anybody here has spent 24 hours on the street unsheltered, there's a reason we call it sleeping rough. It is rough. It is scary. It is no wonder that people turn to drugs for solace and comfort. In fact, our homeless point in time... Analysis showed just that, that people become more addicted when they're unhoused, on the street, vulnerable, unsheltered, living rough, sleeping rough. Yesterday, this council made a big deal about the need for recovery beds. I got to tell you, if we want to talk about recovery, congregate shelters where you got to line up at night to go get a cot and sleep overnight and then they kick you out and you walk around the streets again for the next rest of the day and then you go back to the shelter at night, those congregate shelters aren't going to cut it for sobering up. It's just not going to happen. So this is an opportunity, this is a point in time. This is a point in time where we can put aside some of the political ideology and say, you know what, this is actually something that could work and could be deployed very quickly and could actually achieve some objectives that I think we collectively share. And that is fundamentally keeping people from getting into deeper, deeper crisis while they languish unhoused on the streets of our city in an ever-growing cohort of misery and vulnerability.

Thanks, Councillor Frye. Councillor Orr.

Thank you. Thanks for that update on what's been happening since and the lack of report back. I will note, however, I disagree with Councillor Fry. This council did unanimously agree to recognize housing with supports in an amendment to their homelessness count. um which is great so good to be on the same page there but like you said 2700 2715 people the highest number ever recorded uh 40 of them sleeping outside right now tonight you you did say if you've ever mentioned if you've ever slept uh on the streets or ever Spent a night on the streets. I have. It's not fun. And I've been saying for a long time that the status quo isn't neutral. Leaving people unsheltered isn't a passive choice. It's an active one. And it comes with costs. Human costs that don't show up in a budget line will compound every single night someone spends outside. the health deterioration, the trauma, the lack of sleep, the narrowing of what's possible for that person, and financial costs too. Sanitation, emergency response, park remediation, policing. We are spending money on the consequences of homelessness while chronically underfunding the solutions. Dignity Village in Portland has been running since 2000. Duncan did it. Kelowna did it. And their mayor just told us 83% of residents moved on to better outcomes. Victoria did it. These aren't experiments anymore. We know this works. We know tiny shelter villages have higher utilization rates than congregate shelters, better exits to permanent housing, lower costs per successful outcome. The data is not ambiguous. What's been ambiguous is our willingness to move fast enough for it to matter. Our own tiny shelter pilot took years to open. Years. and that's the part that has to change. The motion asks us to streamline, to identify sites, to stop treating every development like it needs to be solved from scratch. There's new federal money, as Councillor Fry said, on the table right now. BC Housing has programs we haven't fully tapped. Seattle is moving faster than us, and they're doing it because FIFA gave them a deadline. We shouldn't need a soccer tournament to act with urgency on this. A locked door and a bed, that's what we're talking about. I'm supporting this motion, and I ask every councillor at this table to do the same. Thanks.

Yeah, thanks very much. Appreciate the discussion. And I'm going to approach this from a human perspective, not a political or an ideologically driven perspective, but I think a human one and a practical one. As was noted, we considered a motion very substantively similar, I believe, from Councillor Fry last term in 2020. Staff did a lot of work on it. I think that the current conditions are deplorable and I think council's job is to push for better because people deserve more and that means yes saying no more SROs. That means yes saying we want truly supportive housing with quality supports and I think that means that yet pushing for funding that actually maximizes the constrained amount of sites that the city of Vancouver has to deliver as many homes as possible on these and getting people into quality homes that they can stabilize in and stay longer term. The pilot that has happening on Terminal Avenue with the 10 units, I think we've all toured them and looked at them and been inside them, was very difficult to... actually land into sight for a number of reasons because when staff went through looking at options, all of the considerations with respects to things like security for individuals that are there, et cetera, the cost of operating things like plumbing, running water, access to bathrooms and or kitchen space, meals, et cetera, that one was only enabled because of the adjacent nonprofit operator in the temporary housing. and it was very challenging and difficult to find a site. And at the end of the day, I think that we, I've often talked a lot about this in terms of how long do we tie sites up for with temporary housing for 10, 20 years of what we're being asked to do. For example, even when we did TMH, which has been successful in providing better quality housing, but if you do that on a site for 20 years, say for 20 people, You could house so many more people if we just actually put all of our effort into getting a building built that could house dozens or potentially hundreds of people and get that moving. There's limited access to funding across the country and with the province, and what I want to do is get people into better quality housing. I think that a lot of these examples, we had a very fulsome debate, if I recall, the last time that council did this go around. A lot of individuals come that spoke to some of the examples that were raised, like Dignity Village in Portland, and provided a very different picture that things were not rosy there at all in terms of the success. And the other challenge, too, it's not just that you build it and you leave it. It requires pretty significant ongoing operating support. which typically comes from province BC housing other folks who have really and they're having their own tough times and again if we're gonna get I don't say blood all the proverbial stone but you know perhaps pick a nicer analogy I want to get it to get people into really good quality housing that they actually deserve I don't think that this is the best and the highest use of housing that we can be advocating for or the best and highest use of our land Some of the speakers mentioned things like shelters, et cetera. I agree. I don't think that's something we want to be pushing. What we want to be pushing is getting people actually into homes that they can stay in. Thank you.

Thanks. Yeah, I will be supporting this. I know that this council unanimously declared housing to be a human right. I think the situation is desperate. I also prefer temporary modular housing to the idea of tiny homes, but I think we've got to use every tool in our toolkit to deal with this situation. And, you know, I appreciated... or talking about some of the consequences of homelessness. And recently Councillor Klassen and I went to visit Fire Hall No. 2 and, you know, we often talk about how much we appreciate our frontline workers, but the people that work in Fire Hall No. 2 and in the ambulance service are being pushed to their limits by the results, the damage that's caused by escalating homelessness crisis. You know, one of the things that people talk about with temporary modular housing is that there are self-contained units so residents can lock their door and they don't need to share bathrooms, which is safer for residents not to have to leave their unit to use a shared bathroom. But a locked door is, as we've heard, critical no matter what. You know, I think ideally we would have, of course, a lot more shelter rate housing and supportive housing being built to house all the SRO residents and all the homeless folks. But that's $7, $8, $10 billion. And so I think that it's important that we try and keep people alive long enough that those longer-term solutions are possible for them. So, yeah, I'll be supporting this because we should be doing everything possible.

Yeah, thanks very much. I am listening to this debate and...

I'm struggling to understand the difference between sort of stable housing that people can live in. That was described by a fellow counselor here in support of housing. I cannot for the life of me figure out what the difference is in that version of rationale. And I think that's what I continue to believe, housing with supports. we should be prioritizing on city-owned land.

We have sites available. We don't have the political will currently. My concern, and I look at the Heart and Hearth program that is currently funding new temporary modular housing in Squamish and in Whistler, creating housing that is, for folks, about this number, 40 to 65. My concern is, If we go down this path, we're going to not deliver the scale that we need. 15 units, 20 units will take up a lot of land that could have two stories of temporary modular housing and have 40 to 65 units on it. And I do think that the operating that goes with tiny villages, however we want to frame it, is... is not the best use of our funding. But what I have heard in this debate, which confuses me, is a desire for something more substantive than tiny villages, but yet still those same folks vote against supportive housing. And... in which case homelessness gets worse. So I really feel frustrated, I think, at this point with this particular council on this debate that we're, it's like a race to the bottom, that we're not going to build the housing that we really need. So now we're going to do a stopgap of 20, and I get it, locked doors. We have SROs. under our standards of maintenance bylaws now that do not have locked doors in buildings, and we do nothing to enforce them. There are buildings that have 100 units. There's one building that has 108 units, and 52 of those doors don't lock right now today, and we do nothing to enforce it. So I actually agree. Dignity is a locked door. But we're not even doing that as a city for folks that we would consider housed now, but they don't have a locked door. So I struggle with this because probably because in eight years, I've been through also three encampments that have caused enormous... strain and pain on people as well as systems, and we haven't gotten any further ahead. And so I'm starting to lose faith that it's the right thing to do. I think what the right thing is to do is to build housing at the scale of the crisis we face. And that's what we should be focused on. That's what the money is there for provincially. That's what the money is there for federally. We should be getting more temporary modular housing at the scale that a city like Vancouver with homelessness surpassing 2,000 people sleeping outdoors every single night requires. So I'm going to abstain. I can't even remember the last time I abstained, if ever. I am going to abstain on this because I'm not comfortable voting against it, but I want to make it very clear that what I support is actual proper housing with supports, with dignified self-contained units, and we should stay focused to deliver that and not spend money on things that will not provide that long-term stable housing for people.

Councillor Frye. Yeah, just given some of the conversation around housing, I just want to be clear why this motion was entitled small rapid shelter systems. It's not housing, folks. It's not housing. It doesn't have a kitchen. It doesn't have a toilet. It doesn't have plumbing. It doesn't have running water. It's a shelter system that has a locking door and windows and looks like a little house. It's built with self-leveling feet. You can pick it up and you can move it. You can put it in a parking lot. They are designed to be temporary. This is exactly what Victoria did with theirs. This is what Duncan has done. This is what New Westminster is in the process of doing. These are temporary shelters in nature. It is not a replacement for... temporary modular housing or supportive housing. These are all laudable goals that we would love to see senior levels of government step up and fund. But folks, I'm here to say it's not happening. It's not happening at the scale or the pace that we need to see it. And in the meantime, folks are living rough. Folks are struggling on our streets. And frankly, folks are turning for the worse. We know, we see it. And we know that this is an intervention that actually... can and does make a difference. I've been to Dignity Village, and I appreciate that Councillor Kirby-Young may have spoken to somebody who was there, but I've been there, I've talked to the residents, I've visited the physical place, and I know that that has been a success, and it's been a success that's been replicated around North America, up and down the coast, for that very reason.

Look at that, five minutes exactly.

which is to be moved and introduced by Councillor Klassen. Before we begin this agenda item, if anyone believes they have a conflict of interest, now is the time to declare it. Does anyone have a conflict to disclose? Councillor Klassen, you have two minutes to introduce your motion.

Please go ahead. Thanks very much, Chair. So, community members, this motion is really about recognizing and supporting a vibrant community that contributes enormously to Vancouver's identity, culture, and public life. The Hastings Park Skateboard Facility is not just a recreational amenity. It's one of the most important public skateboarding spaces in our region. On any given day, you'll see young people learning their first tricks alongside experienced skaters and even athletes training at a very high level. And importantly, it's a truly public and accessible space. Skateboarding has always had strong grassroots culture. People don't need expensive equipment, memberships, or organized leagues to participate. They just need a safe, welcoming place to skate, connect, and build community. During the FIFA World Cup period, this facility will be temporarily closed due to operational requirements at the P&E in Hastings Park. As the chair of the P&E board, I understand why that operational reality exists. But I also believe that we have a responsibility to acknowledge the impact that closure will have on the skateboarding community and respond constructively. And that's what this motion seeks to do. This is not about branding something as a FIFA legacy project. It's about ensuring that a community being asked to accommodate a major global event also sees a meaningful reinvestment in a facility that they deeply value. The park itself is due for renewal. and life cycle upgrades. This motion asks staff to prioritize that work through the next capital plan and to engage directly with users, including the Vancouver Skateboard Coalition, youth, local skaters, and high-performance athletes to help shape the future of the facility. Skateboarding is a part of Vancouver's culture. It's creative, inclusive, entrepreneurial, and community-driven. Supporting spaces like Hastings Park means supporting young people, public recreation, and a city that makes room for diverse forms of sport and expression. So I hope my full committee members will support this. Thanks.

Thanks, Councillor. Seconded by Councillor Orr. 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 they 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 is Oliver Tennant, and a representative speaker, I believe.

Hi, Oliver. Yes, we can. I just want to confirm you're a representative speaker. Do you have, I believe it's three other people with you, and are you able to identify them?

Okay, and they're with you currently? Yeah.

Okay, I understand. So you have up to eight minutes. Go ahead. Sorry, five minutes.

Thank you. That five minutes flew by. There you go. Thank you for calling. Speaker number two, Zoe Zollinger. Or Zoe.

Thanks, Zoe, for calling in today. I know you wrote Mayor and Council about Hastings Park and the skate park being open during FIFA, and also congratulations on all your accomplishments in representing us so well. Our next speaker is speaker number three, Adam Hawkins. Adam should be on the line.

Adam, that's your time. I'm just flagging for you.

just have to wrap up.

Thanks so much for calling in today. Our next speaker is John Irwin in person. Good to see you, John. You have three minutes to address council.

SO MUCH FOR COMING IN TODAY. SO MUCH FOR COMING IN TODAY.

YES. YES.

Thanks, Michael. Is that all your comments?

It is publicly owned. Hastings Park and the entire is a city asset. And so, yes. So, yes.

You're very welcome. Thanks so much for calling into council today. We're going to move on to our next speaker. Speaker number six, Stefan Soroka.

Yes, go ahead.

Thanks so much for calling in today. Our last speaker on the list is Taylor Dawn. I understand Taylor may have already been part of the representative group at the beginning with Oliver Tennant. Is that correct?

I think we can, if Taylor's on the line, we can suspend the bylaws, right? Correct, clerks? Suspend our procedure bylaws to hear the speaker?

If you'd like to make a motion, Councillor Claussen? Okay, seconded by Councillor Orr. Council, the motion is to suspend the procedure by-law so we can hear Speaker Number 7, Taylor Dawn. All in favour? Aye. Thank you. That carries. Thank you. So we will proceed with Taylor Dawn, if you're on the line.

Okay. Well, that, unfortunate, but that concludes our speaker list. So, you know, the speakers, so we will move into debate and decision. I'm just, I'll advance. Councillor Orr. Go ahead, Councillor Orr.

Yeah, thanks. Thanks to the Vancouver Skateboard Coalition and everyone that called in. I remember when this kind of came forward, I was really concerned. reached out to them to talk to them about it. But I felt that maybe, you know, making these asks would go nowhere. So I'm happy, you know, as someone who grew up skating, also street side and not transition, and certainly not to this day like John Irwin here. I was proud to second this. And it's great to hear how important, Hastings Park is to those people. I want to thank Councillor Klassen here for dropping in and grinding this one out. But I don't think it goes far enough. So I'm going to do a backside 180 here and propose an amendment.

Also, I adopted a Californian accent halfway through. I don't know.

Okay, so do you have an amendment?

Yeah, I sent it forward.

If we could move us to an amendment. Thank you, Councillor. And oops, if you'll just put yourself in the queue and I will advance you. And I haven't seen it.

So yeah, this is just to try and keep the park open, do everything we can work with P&E staff, work with. with our staff, just to try and move the fence. I know they've said it's impossible. It's security reasons. But I've visited the site. I think the fence can be moved, and I think the park can stay open. We've heard it. There's nowhere else like this. You know, this is a park that's been included in Tony Hawk, right? I mean, this is a really – this is an iconic – And I don't want to see this world-class park, you know, closed just to have another world-class event. I think they can both coexist. And, yeah, hopefully everyone agrees.

Thank you, Councillor Orr. I'm going to advance Councillor Clausen. Yeah, thanks. Was that seconded? Did I get a seconder on that? It was. Okay, thank you. It's been seconded. Councillor Maloney. Go ahead, Councillor Clausen.

Sorry. I'm going to advance myself. It's showing up as Councillor Meiszner, but it's me. And so speaking to the amendment, do I have to cede the chair to anyone? Okay. To Acting Mayor? Or I think to Deputy Mayor in this case? Go ahead, Councillor Donato. Thank you. I'll offer just some brief comments on the amendment and I appreciate Counselor or you bringing this forward we find ourselves in a bit of a gnarly situation with this one on a dare there. Thanks But I do want to install seriousness when Zoe phoned in. I remember Zoe writing council and asking us if there was any way to keep the skate park open. And I contacted staff right away because I thought she made some very logical arguments and was so passionate. And when I reached out to staff in the context of all the provisions that have to be in place, including safety and security around FIFA, I understood it just wasn't possible and so I just wanted to share that That well, I Completely appreciate the spirit in which it's brought forward. I can't support me because I think at this stage. It's just not possible And and I love I'm always in trying to think in the world of possibilities, but I think in this situation. We're pretty limited So I just simply wanted to share that because I had talked to staff as well And now I'll take back the chair and I will advance counselor Kirby young

Yeah, thanks. I was going to say, I think many sessions have happened on this one. And it's really not, I don't think it's a desire of the P&E to necessarily have it where it is. We're finding we're on the homestretch for FIFA. that a lot of the folks that are running security for the games are making adjustments to different perimeters, et cetera, and in some cases actually expanding them. And it's not the individual venues or organizations or the city with respect to different public spaces. It's actually FIFA's requirements in terms of perimeters. So I do think that I appreciate the sentiment, but I also don't want to give people false hope. I think that, like I said, there's been many... Many dialogues are out this I'm not trying to shred it. I'm just trying to be realistic about it that that's kind of what it is at the moment, but I think that It's a great outcome to have an upgraded Legacy amenity for the community out of it, and I think that's that's the important thing for me in terms of the consideration of this Thank you.

I Thank You councillor Kirby young councillor Frye Well, I'm gonna start with I mean I was tempted to call a point of order because I think all y'all

Oh, I couldn't even deliver my own pun. I was going to say, all y'all are doing too many of the skate puns. Ouch. Sorry. In any event, I do think that this is a pretty modest ask, and I don't think it's really that binding. I think it – whereas it may be characterized as false hope, I think that it's fine to – if we've already done all the options and we've engaged with P&E to consider all the options, then mission accomplished. I do think that it's worth – including because I think it is important and I've yet struggled with the notion that security is so paramount and it's such a challenge to maintain the access at that point and the skate park. And as that adorable meme with the little girl says, why not both?

Okay, thank you, Councillor Fry. Councillor Maloney.

Yeah, and I don't have any skateboard puns. I am deeply uncool. And I have no idea even where to start with that. But I think that this is, I'm going to support this one because when I think of that skate park and some of the security concerns and think about the fencing that's going up in the North East False Creek car park, obviously in preparation for FIFA, you know, that skate park, Park could be fenced and there could be security screening for people that get access to it. You know, there are all sorts of things that could be done and, you know, I don't have great confidence that our staff have the ability or that it's possible to push FIFA on this stuff now. But, you know, where there's a will, there's a way, and I think it's a real shame that we didn't push harder earlier. to make sure that whatever measures were required were put in place to keep this open during FIFA. Thanks.

Thanks very much, Councillor Maloney. With that, I'll call the question on the amendment to the motion. If you can vote online. I'll take a vote, Assistant Opposition.

Hi, it's Mayor Sim. Can I please get a vote, Assistant Opposition, as well?

And, yeah, okay. And that fails with myself, Councillor Kirby Young, Councillor Montague, Councillor Klassen, Mayor Sim, and Councillor Zhou in opposition. So we'll move back to the main queue and resume the motion. Councillor Orr, do you have anything further?

No, I'm happy to support the motion anyways. Thanks.

Thank you. Councillor Maloney, go ahead. Thanks. I'll be voting enthusiastically in support of this motion. So Hastings Park is outside the park board's jurisdiction. I know we heard various people...

people mentioning the Vancouver Skateboard Amenities Strategy passed by the Park Board in June 2022. And I'm quite unnaturally proud to have been public speaker number one in support of this motion, as former Park Board Commissioner John Irwin may remember. There was a lot of public consultation and input that went into this strategy, and I really hope that this is not the only investment in skateboarding amenities that we see in the 2027 to 30 capital plan. As I said, I don't skate myself, but I've spent a lot of time at the Quilchenna Skateboard Park. And it was renewed with a lot of input and effort from the Vancouver Skateboard Coalition. And they're a really wonderful organisation that does a lot of good for the city and for the people that enjoy skateboarding. This motion, as we've also heard, does align with the prioritisation ranking of existing rinks. So Hastings... Hastings Park skateboard facility is categorised as high need for renewal and we know that China Creek has already been renewed and we also need renewals of the smaller neighbourhood skateboarding amenities and new skateboarding facilities like the one that was proposed in the West End Waterfront Plan that was passed by the Park Board. There is increasing pressure on skateboarding amenities from increasing population and the popularity of other like roller skating and trick riding. One thing that results from the China Creek Skateboarding Facility having just been renewed is that the park board team has a wealth of knowledge and experience from just having done that. So I'm just about to send around a very simple amendment that just adds to Clause C that the

Vancouver Park Board also be included in parties to be consulted with on the to inform the design and functionality of the renewed facility and let's just make the most of their knowledge and expertise in getting that done as well and effectively and efficiently as possible.

Okay I'll move us to an amendment queue and you've circulated that Councillor Maloney?

Yes I have.

I'm just going to get that up on screen. Thank you. I haven't seen it yet.

Hopefully someone will second it.

Thank you. Seconded by Councillor Fry. Any debate on this? Go ahead, Councillor Klassen.

I'm fine with supporting this, but there's already been conversations with Park Board in the lead-up to this. In fact, they were integral to supporting this. The fact is that there are some very complicated jurisdictional requirements of this. It is on the Peony land, but the actual maintenance of this site is often supported by the Park Board. But this is fairly benign. I'm happy to support it. Thanks.

Thank you, Councillor Klassen. Councillor Maloney?

Yeah, I appreciate that, and I have no doubt that there have already been discussions with the Park Board. I'm just suggesting that they do have very recent experience with a renewal, so I hope that they'll help to inform the design and functionality of the renewed facility. So thanks very much.

Thank you. And with that, I'll call the question. Maybe we can just for this get all in favour, just hands, see if we have any opposition. All in favour of the amendment? Okay. Sorry. I think that passed unanimously. Okay. And we'll move back to the main queue. And now we're dealing with the amended motion. Councillor Maloney, anything further? Councillor Claussen?

Yeah, just to kind of roll things up here. Thanks very much. You can tell from the voices of the people that called in today what an incredibly wonderful city and wonderful community that we have from the skateboard community. You know, even though I was a kid who grew up in the 1970s, a lot of my friends were skateboarders. In fact, the best man at my wedding was... a professional skateboarder at one time in his youth. And I know that he and I used to wear out copies of Dogtown and Z-Boys watching old documentaries about skateboarding, rented from probably Blockbuster at the time. And I just want to just thank John. I think we're a bit of a contemporary here, but it's so exciting to hear that you're skating with your daughter, which is so cool. I'm really glad to hear that. And then hearing from 19-year-old Zoe from Vancouver Island, it was actually, I think, her email that really sort of got me to move into action on this one. And I also was really loving the idea of adding some lights to allow sort of shorter days. Certainly we'll maybe mention that to our staff as well. a great suggestion from 12-year-old Michael. But this is an initiative that I think really serves our whole city. And again, really grateful to the community for really kind of giving something back as the city is taking on a major world event. And so this is our way of kind of giving back to a community that really asks so little. It's very much a do-it-yourself culture primarily, and they just, like as I said earlier, they don't have, you know, memberships. They can just get onto, onto the bowl and, and ride. And so just was going to give a shout out to the park board who I was able to meet early on about this one. And also the people, the P&E, the team of the P&E have been fantastic in terms of supporting this and, And I'm sure that Till will be ready to go as soon as able to get in there and refinish and restore that fantastic, beloved skate park in Hastings. Thanks.

Okay. Thank you, Councillor Klassen. We'll go to the vote. And this is then, just to be clear, the amended motion at this time. I'll take a vote. Is this in favour, clerks?

Yes, we've captured both of your votes. Okay. Great in favor, yeah. Okay, thank you, council. That passes unanimously. That concludes motion six. We'll move on to our next motion, which is implementing a robotic food delivery pilot in the city of Vancouver. It is to be moved and introduced by Councillor Claussen. Before we begin this agenda item, does anyone have a conflict of interest? Hearing none, Councillor Claussen, you have two minutes to introduce your motion.

Thanks very much. Maybe I'll just get the clock reset and the new item here.

Here we go. Thanks very much. Hi. Thanks, committee members. This motion is about responsibly exploring how emerging technology can improve the daily life in Vancouver while keeping safety, accessibility, and public confidence front and center. Vancouver has earned a reputation as one of North America's leading technology hubs. Companies from around the world are choosing to invest here because of our talent, our innovation economy, and our willingness to thoughtfully embrace new ideas. This motion proposes a measured six-month pilot program to test anonymous robotic food delivery in downtown Vancouver and Kitsilano. Importantly, this is not a permanent rollout. It is a limited pilot designed to help us gather real-world data, evaluate safety and accessibility outcomes here directly for residents and businesses, and better understand how this technology operates in an urban environment. And that is exactly why this pilot matters. The purposes here are not for Council to predetermine every operational detail before testing begins. The purpose is to allow staff, engineers, regulators, and the province to work collaboratively within an appropriate framework so we can learn from the technology in a responsible and evidence-based way. I would also like to note that this approach... has received support from organizations like the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade and the BC Business Council, both of which recognize the potential benefits for innovation, sustainability and local businesses. We know that autonomous delivery robots are already successful, successfully in cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago and many others. Vancouver now has an opportunity to learn from those experiences and apply best practices here at home. For residents, it could mean more convenient and efficient delivery options, particularly in dense neighborhoods. For local restaurants and small businesses, it could create new opportunities to reach customers while reducing reliance on vehicle trips. Hope Council will support this. Thanks.

Great. Thanks, Councillor Claston. Seconded by Councillor Kirby-Young. So we're now going to hear from registered speakers for the motion. Public speakers should state whether they're in support or opposition to the 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. So our first public speaker is Haro Yunus.

Thank you for calling. We'll now go to speaker two, Vignesh Ram.

Yes, we can. Please go ahead.

in vancouver and you know we uh uh i'll just remind all the speakers that thank you uh you have up to three minutes to address council uh just a friendly reminder i will go to us or sorry that was michelle apologies um we'll go to speaker five julie sturgeon hi julie

Okay, thank you. Next speaker is Speaker 6, Yariel Diaz.

Thank you for calling. We'll now go back to Speaker 3, Sharif Virani. Hello, can you guys hear me? Yes, we can. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Okay, that's the end of our speakers list. I just want to know the time. It's 4.45 p.m. I'm wondering if council wants to entertain a motion to not break at 5 o'clock for dinner and push through and try to complete the business.

before 630, at which point we would need to take a break if we were still conducting business for the sake of our clerks.

So just to explain, just to clarify, It would be to continue to try to complete all of today's business, but the maximum that we can go before taking a break is 6.30. The clerks have to take a break. So if we're still conducting business by 6.30, we take a break, and then we come back after. Okay? Understand? Does that make sense? It's been a long day. Sorry. So just to recap, this is a motion around continuing through the 5 o'clock dinner break, trying to complete today's business by 6.30. If we can't complete today's business by 6.30, we will take a dinner break at 6.30, and we'll come back after. It's just that clerks have to take a dinner break by 6.30. Does that make sense? That was moved by Councillor Klassen, seconded by Councillor Bligh. All those in favour, say aye. Any opposed, say nay. Two opposition, so that's three. I saw Councillor Fry, Councillor Maloney, and Councillor Orr opposed.

keep doing. So thank you for that. That's the end of the speakers list. Thank you for speaking to our committee. Committee members, any discussion? Councillor Frye.

Yeah, thanks. Through you, Chair, I have a number of questions of the mover of the motion. And I appreciated the opportunity. We both got to sit in and talk to some of the team and see some displays. Didn't get to meet the robot, although I understand the robot is here now somewhere. Yeah.

One thing that jumps out to me here in this pilot is what is a fleet? What kind of numbers are we talking about with a fleet?

I've been asked a number of times the number of units, and these are completely operational discussions that would happen between staff and the operator.

So I don't think we're going to be having more than that would be practical for a pilot.

I mean, I appreciate that answer. It seems a bit ambiguous yet for my comfort level, but that's fine. And also appreciate that we had the opportunity to meet with this particular proponent, but why this proponent and not other ones like, I know Skip the Dishes has a similar robot Canadian company.

Frankly, I mean, I think it was in good measure due to some of the advocacy by the company, but I thought the local angle was certainly that was a good part of the story here. But it was because I think this group came with a well-formed plan on how this might work. And so I appreciated that. So I thought it would be good to bring this forward for a time-limited six-month pilot. And, of course, if these kinds of services continue after a pilot and there are decisions and regulations and learnings from all of that, that's when we go to an open tender and we start looking at other delivery services.

Does this pilot anticipate working with others beyond relevant city departments, thinking like some of our advisory committees, Coastal Health, even TransLink and the like?

Again, the consultation is left open here, and certainly if there are groups. I mean, the intent here is to really kind of hear from the public, and I think that if we're able to reach out and communicate with other groups, that would be part of this six-month period.

Okay. So I don't see an explicit reference to... to hear from the public on this other than presumably we will hear from the public but That's implied in this, though.

Yeah, absolutely. The intent and the way it's been framed since the very beginning is that this is an opportunity for the public to have a chance to see this in action and respond to it. We could nuance this seven ways to Sunday to try and decide every little detail. The fact is that this is just a direction to staff to come back with a plan to try and deliver this. pilot a six-month term limited pilot to provide us with the learnings and the technology and how it would work in the city environment here.

Okay, thanks. I'll come back on.

Thanks, Councillor Frey. The clerks were just asking me to reconfirm who had seconded the motion and I just don't recall. It was Councillor Kerby-Young. Thanks. Okay. So let's continue with Councillor Moore.

Yeah, thanks. Question through you, Chair, to the mover. Has the mover consulted with any labor organizations or delivery workers before bringing this motion forward?

Again, these kinds of discussions are great ones to have once we have council direction to get things underway here. But I would imagine that once these... plans are firmed up, there will have been an opportunity to meet with several different groups and kind of hear what their expectations of this would be.

Cities like Toronto, through the chair to the mover, cities like Toronto banned sidewalk delivery robots in 2021 over safety and accessibility concerns. What evidence suggests Vancouver would avoid these same issues?

I can't say, again, my expectations is that we're going to learn a lot from this experience, but I can tell you that the the way technology moves in our world today is at the speed of light. What was happening in 2021 is probably a very pale comparison to what's going on in 2026.

What happens operationally when sidewalks are damaged, blocked, under construction, or inaccessible? Would these robots then enter bike lanes and roadways? That's to the mover through the chair.

Is that a question for me? Through the mover, yeah, through the chair. Sure. Again, I think that you're asking me to fully understand how these, I think we're going to be able to use the best practices and the learnings of other jurisdictions that have very similar need to maintain their streetscape and their sidewalks and their crosswalks. Again, but Vancouver has its own unique components to it. There are probably going to be some streets that would be preferred not to go down, and that's why the pilot is going to be a good way for us to learn about that.

Sounds good. These robots rely heavily on cameras and sensors. Where will that video and mapping data be stored?

My, again, you're testing my knowledge of these things, but I think the cameras that you describe are not cameras that are ones that photograph you, something like on your phone. What they are is they're actually kind of dull sensors that actually try to sense the environment, look for objects, look for shapes, look for obstacles. These are not ones that would be recording anything. But again, those are the kinds of questions that we can get asked during the pilot process.

Okay. Is the mover of the motion concerned that many of these autonomous delivery companies are not profitable and rely heavily on speculative financing?

I think Vancouverites have really grown to depend upon delivery services like these. And I think that this is an opportunity for us to deploy a new approach and new technology. It'll fill the gap. It's described as a last mile service. And obviously, because it's automated, it requires less manual labor. And as a result, would probably be safer in the longer run.

All right. Thanks. I'll jump back on.

Thank you.

Councillor Maloney.

Thanks, I have a referral amendment. So could I be moved to an amendment queue, please?

Yep, we can do that right now. Please go ahead.

Just to clarify, the Motor Vehicle Act does prohibit autonomous vehicles. So that's a consideration in answer to Councillor Orr's question before I begin. I don't believe there's any need to do a pilot when delivery robots have been used In other cities already, I think it would be much more appropriate for council to have directed staff to conduct a desktop study of findings for other delivery robot pilot programs. and make recommendations from there. But quite frankly, this isn't a priority and staff don't have time, thanks in no small part to budget cuts and staff reductions. Sidewalk delivery robots can congest already narrow sidewalks, forcing pedestrians, strollers and wheelchairs to move around them. Imagine delivery robots on the narrow Denman Street, which is already restricted with business sandwich boards. or commercial drive or any downtown sidewalk between 5pm and 7pm in the evening or in the morning, busy hours. They create barriers for people with impaired mobility or vision, including those using canes or guide dogs. They can block pathways and curb cuts and there have been significant near misses between robots and pedestrians in other cities, often with robots at fault. They pose risks of collision-related injuries, particularly to children who may suffer head or torso trauma. This risk increases as delivery robots become heavier, faster or automated. They can get stuck on or struggle with uneven sidewalks, cracked pavement or obstacles like overhanging trees. They're an annoyance on sidewalks with people forced to navigate around their unpredictable slow movements. They replace low barrier jobs. They They use multiple cameras for navigation and there have been complaints in other jurisdictions about this video footage being provided to enforcement and unhappiness with the invasion of privacy. And they also treat public sidewalks as commercial warehouse space rather than spaces for human interaction. pedestrian flow and community and if we have the staff time and money to throw around for this we could invest it to expanding our safe cycling network which would have the dual benefits of creating a safer workplace for food delivery workers and encouraging Vancouverites to use their own bikes or scooters to do their errands. So even if a pilot program was a good idea I'm not sure why we would direct staff to partner with one particular company rather than invite open expressions of interest. This seems like a suboptimal procurement process. We also had the Mayor recently commit $104 million over four years for road and sidewalk repairs, which is great, but it didn't include sidewalk widening or new sidewalks in places we don't already have them.

The other issue is that... The Canadian National Institute for the Blind strongly opposes the use of delivery robots on sidewalks due to safety concerns. And we heard that, thanks in large part to disability advocacy, Ottawa and Toronto have both banned delivery robots on public sidewalks.

So the Human Rights Tribunal has made it clear in recent decisions like COVAX and Maple Ridge that cities must accommodate people with disabilities in how they design and permit different modes on sidewalks. Proceeding with this pilot without first considering the implications for people with disabilities is not responsible and fails to uphold our shared commitment to human rights and potentially could expose the city to litigation risk. So I've sent around a referral amendment that's quite brief that council refer this motion to staff for consideration of the legal implications for denial of access to sidewalk facilities for people with disabilities under the Human Rights Code in light of the opposition of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind to sidewalk robots and recent Human Rights Tribunal decisions about sidewalk safety.

Okay, thanks, Councillor Maloney. We need a seconder for the referral motion.

Seconded by Councillor Bligh. Okay, not... Council, did you want to speak to that? Please go ahead.

Yeah, I appreciate Council Maloney raising very important concerns, and I do think that they have merit. I mean... I would like to see us, I too, and it clearly, Council Maloney's done a lot of research on this. I have too, it's a new technology to Vancouver, but not new in the sense that there are examples of pilots in other cities. What has been learned in those pilots? And I think that we can take a collaborative approach to this pilot. So I do have amendments that are pretty comprehensive that I think will start to address some of the issues that have been raised without an outright not support of the pilot. So I seconded the motion because I think it is important to recognize that some issues do exist. And I think that in a pilot that's managed well, these issues can be both learned from and addressed. And I think what I understand is the technology has evolved and has mechanisms to be able to deal with some of the concerns around accessibility. And again, as I mentioned, I haven't been able to have the chance to table. I'm on the queue to do that, but amendments that are going to hopefully address a lot of these concerns while also being able to learn from the pilot in the context it is, it would present being in Vancouver specific. So I'm going to abstain from this vote, but I certainly appreciate Council Maloney bringing it forward.

Okay, thank you. So...

Not seeing anyone else on the queue to speak. So we'll go to the vote on the referral motion.

So I'll now go back to the main motion. Councillor Maloney.

I'll come back on. Thanks.

Okay. Thank you. Councillor Bligh.

Yeah. Thanks very much. I do have an amendment. If you'd like to move us to an amendment.

Sure. Yeah. I will do that right now. Please go ahead.

Yeah, thanks very much. So I appreciate the opportunity to have this discussion. I have been interested in learning more about the robotic food delivery system. And so, of course, a week ahead of Web Summit, it's timely that we're having this conversation now.

You know, I thought that the motion was clear, but light in detail when it came to the number of pilots that have been great sources of learnings in North America in terms of what's worked and what hasn't worked. And I would hope that these amendments would be included that basically identify more specifically and explicitly what I think we've heard from the CERV robotic speakers, actually, that there are tools around mitigating for accessibility issues. and other concerns that people may have. One of the key takeaways in my research was making sure that we do not saturate the downtown and Kitsilana, which are the areas that are identified with too many robots without a chance to actually learn about how they're working and what some of the concerns and contacts are. So I appreciate Councillor Klassen may not have had this at the ready, but when asked the question from Councillor Fry, the pilot request is actually for 50 robots in downtown Vancouver and 25 in Kitsilano. And I think that for a pilot, that's really high. And one of the approaches to San Francisco's pilot, one of the outcomes was quite a permissive with strict oversight is what they call it. And they've capped, post-pilot, they've capped to nine devices citywide. And they mandate a human operator has to be within 30 feet. And that's after their pilot. So clearly there was some concerns raised there. Toronto, as was mentioned, sort of did a full-fledged pilot. And then... created and then banned any going forward at all. So clearly there's an issue there. Chicago allowed robots in 2022 and then banned any expansion beyond 2026.

Pittsburgh, I thought was interesting, collaborative pilot. So they basically have restricted the... number of robots, and in the six months, what they're emphasizing is testing in real-world conditions to understand communication challenges and accessibility impacts before wider deployment. I think that sounds like a good model for us to adapt with in Vancouver. What's interesting in some of this research that I have... looked at is actually just that there are no communication protocols between human beings and robots. We haven't established them yet. So what they found as pedestrians, if they see a robot coming, will literally just stop and sort of wait. They're not too sure. So there's an unpredictability that I think needs to be tested in a real world example. Of course, wider, less crowded sidewalks is pretty important. It was found that in high traffic areas, shopping districts, narrow residential sidewalks, that the robots frequently caused obstructions. So part of these amendments is to address that. those concerns by making sure that the deployment of a limited number of robots are in areas that aren't going to cause that and I can even think areas in the city right now like Yaletown being one of them like Olympic Village being another where there's a lot more space for pedestrians to navigate around a robot and then they went on so What was the other point I just want to quickly raise around accessibility? This was the most critical challenge associated with robots and their impact on accessibility for persons with disabilities, particularly around stopping in curb cuts and then creating a situation where someone can't get across a sidewalk. And my concern is 75 robots where that could be possible is just too many. So I'm really hoping that given these... These amendments are, while comprehensive, pretty open-ended in terms of looking out for the safety and also the openness that this new technology could be a real success in our city. So I hope they'll be supported as a way to really provide some guidance and in writing sort of parameters that we would love to work with whichever proponent we go with to make sure that this pilot can be a wild success. So I'll leave it there.

Thank you. Councillor Klassen. Oh, sorry. We need a seconder for the amendment. Yep. Thanks, Councillor Orr. Councillor Klassen. Yeah, thanks very much.

Yeah, I appreciate the intent behind the amendment, but I believe the original motion. strikes a better balance between innovation, oversight, flexibility, and evidence-based policymaking. Many of the issues that are raised here, safety, accessibility, insurance, operations, are exactly the kinds of matters staff would normally evaluate and manage through pilot implementation. The purpose of the pilot is to allow the city to gather evidence in a controlled, real-world environment. If we predetermine every operational parameter up front, we are at risk undermining the very learnings the pilot is meant to generate. The original motion directs collaboration with engineering regulators and the province. That framework provides the city with appropriate oversight while still allowing flexibility to learn and adapt. And the original motion creates guardrails, but the amendment attempts to rewrite the entire playbook before we stepped onto the field. So I think that the Vancouver... approach innovation thoughtfully, but thoughtfully does not mean being unnecessarily restrictive, so I will not be supporting this. Thanks.

Thanks, Councillor Klaassen. Councillor Orr.

Thanks, yeah. Thanks for the very well-crafted amendment, very well-researched, very comprehensive. I'd say even back to basics. It's, you know, I watched a lot of, I did a lot of research too. I watched a lot of videos of these being vandalized. There's a video of one on the train tracks where a train hits them. I mean, there's just so many questions around these devices. And... Yeah, I just think this is really smart. It doesn't abandon the idea completely. It just makes it more manageable, really. And I'll be supporting this amendment. Thanks.

Okay. Thanks, Councillor Warren. Councillor Maloney.

Thank you. I think that this is a very thoughtfully prepared amendment and well researched and I really appreciate Councillor Bligh from bringing it forward. And I feel pretty sad to be criticising this amendment for being overly detailed when we've had other equivalent amendments moved today and recently that are very prescriptive. So I don't see that that's a problem. I think that it introduces much better safeguards. I still don't, I'm not keen to have a pilot at all. I think I must say I'm questioning why we're not proposing to have a pilot somewhere other than the most busy parts of the city? You know, why wouldn't we have a pilot somewhere where the sidewalks are less full? And I think the answer to that is that not as profitable. I just simply don't believe that this is about driving innovation. I think it's about... private companies cutting costs by pushing the inconvenience and costs into the public realm. And I'm a council liaison for both the Seniors Advisory Committee and the Disabled Persons Advisory Committee, and I take issues relating to those people extremely seriously. I hope that this amendment passes. I'm going to abstain on it because I'm not keen on a pilot at all, but I think that the only way I would possibly want this to move forward is with these very thoughtful safeguards and detailed safeguards and restrictions, especially of the number of robots being used in the pilot, being in place. I mean, I went and had a look at the robot outside and I'm surprised it was much bigger than I expected it to be. And I think that it's going to be, at minimum, very annoying sharing the sidewalk with them. So I'm going to abstain on this. Thanks.

Thanks, Councillor Maloney.

Councillor Fry. I don't want to be the one to tell Councillor Maloney that the big robot is actually in the room with us right now.

And he has a name, by the way. His name is Brian.

Brian. Oh, Brian's here.

Okay. Hope he can't hear this conversation.

So just, if I may, through you, a question of the mover of the amendment. I'm curious where you got the numbers for the proposed pilot that you mentioned.

Yeah, this was in an email from, I believe it was their GR firm that emailed it to my city email. And I assumed it got shared around because there was outreach. Is that not the case?

Oh, no, no, no. I'm just, I want to ask Councillor Klassen. He didn't seem to.

Oh, so sorry. Serve Robotics BC pilot proposal prepared by one of our speakers, Dinesh Ram. Recipient, City of Vancouver, Ministry of Transportation, Transit, Ministry of Jobs and Economic Growth.

Yeah, well, I mean, I appreciate the diligence in providing that kind of context because I thought it had been missed by me and currently missed by the move of the motion. So I think these are some thoughtful amendments that don't entirely derail this as a pilot. Perhaps there's some finessing around the number of the pilot, but I think this at least satisfies the need to move this project forward and test it out, but also recognizes some real considerations that we need to be mindful of as we do have a responsibility to obviously innovate, but also we have a responsibility to... innovate in a thoughtful way and recognizing that some of the critiques that I've read online since meeting with CERV not of CERV but of just robot delivery in general are cogent and widespread and certainly pause for consideration as other jurisdictions are de-assessing robot deliveries. I think it's thoughtful to do this the right way. So I'm going to support this considerable and well-written amendment.

Thank you. Okay, thank you. Okay, we're now going to go to vote the vote on the amendment. Clerk, if you could please take us to the voting screen.

opposition of the amendment?

Yes, we'll do. And Councillor Montague, are you online?

I thought I saw him there, but he seems to have disappeared. Okay. That did not pass. The amendment with myself in opposition, Councillor Kirby Young in opposition, Councillor Dominato in opposition, Councillor Klassen in opposition, Mayor Sim in opposition, and Councillor Zhou in opposition. So now I'll go back to the main queue. Councillor Bligh.

Oh, I can... Well, I mean, I'm happy to speak. I'm disappointed by that. You know, I appreciate... I appreciate the open-endedness of Councillor Klassen's sort of view on how these things should proceed, but the fact that the initial proposal says 75 robots and then it's been reported that maybe it's 12, I think we have a responsibility to just be clear to the public what we're... endorsing here. And even in the various proposals and media reporting on it, it isn't clear. So I don't know why that wouldn't be an interest of counselors around this chamber to show leadership and guide that in the best interest of everybody in the city, both those that can access this as a service that's been highlighted by the speakers, but also those that will be impacted by needing to adapt how they move around communities. So Yeah, I'm going to listen to the rest of the debate, but my support was pretty, not that it's needed, quite frankly, I'm sure. It's not needed, which is maybe why they didn't get supported. But yeah, so I think I'll just hold off and listen to the debate. And one thing that I am interested in is, and I guess we won't have a chance, obviously, to ask more questions, is around the jobs. I mean, from an economic development perspective, My understanding is that while there are a couple of roles here locally, that a lot of the opportunities to build this out, should it happen in remote, are only available to U.S. contractors and U.S. remote workers. And my hope is that while I appreciate there are... roots in Vancouver for the founder, which is very impressive and great to hear and bringing it back home and what have you. My wish is that that would also translate into the new jobs that would be created here locally in Vancouver as a result and not be relying on employment in the U.S., which I believe is the case right now. So I'll leave it there. I'll listen to the debate and come to my determination then.

Thank you. Councillor Zhou.

Yeah, okay, thanks. Thanks, Chair. Yeah, so just want to provide some closing remarks for this motion. So I would like to support this motion. I think this pilot approach makes sense. You know, I think this is about innovation. Many cities have been doing this already, and I know some cities in China, they are even doing even further using drone to do the delivery. And more importantly, it's about child testing before scaling up. Vancouver is already a hub for technology and talent. We should continue to create space for new ideas. With those new ideas, I hope we can be open-minded so we can attract more innovation and technology to the city, but not blocking them. We have a responsibility to ensure that new technology works for our city, residents, and, of course, the public space. So that's really why I think this time limit pilot is the right approach. From a cost perspective, it's relatively low risk for the city. We are not committing to a permanent program. We're gathering data, understanding the impacts, evaluating whether this already delivers the value or not. And it's also our responsible use of the public resource to do that. We also need to be very clear about the challenge. Understand from the question from my council colleagues, our sidewalks are shared space. They need to remain safe and accessible for everyone, especially for seniors, people with disabilities, and families. And also the weather condition we need to consider. Traffic impact. And maybe other, you know, so many operational questions my council colleagues asked. So that's exactly why we're doing this pilot. Let's do the pilot, answer those questions, and then collect all this information. So we move forward with accessibility, safety, and also clear rules of the road. And that must become the first priority. This motion is about learning. It gives us the opportunity to evaluate real-world performance, hearing from the residents, make evidence-based decisions before considering anything permanent. If it works, great. We will position Vancouver as the forefront of innovation. If it doesn't, we will limit our risks and learn the value lessons to enhance it. So I think that's exactly we should be using, you know, approaching our new technology using this pilot approach. So with that, I want to support this motion.

Thanks, Councillor. I'd like to make some comments. So if I could pass the chair to Deputy Mayor Kirby Young. Thank you. I'm really excited about this opportunity and bringing this technology to Vancouver. I first saw it in West Hollywood a couple of years ago. I don't know if it's your firm, but I saw the robot. It wasn't Brian, maybe somebody else. navigating the sidewalks of the neighborhood, which obviously is a busy area. And I thought it worked well. I saw it stop for traffic. I saw it trying to avoid interacting with people. It was really impressive, the technology and how smart it is. And I was just blown away by it. And I think that there's a lot of benefits to this. obviously you've had a lot of success in different jurisdictions. I was looking at your website. I didn't realize this is such a big tech firm. I mean, you have tons of, you're hiring 65 people right now. I mean, this is like a Vancouver success story that we should be celebrating. And I think it's a shame that we don't have this in our city. There's so many benefits to it. It's environmentally friendly. It's electric. It's taking cars off the road. You know, we have food delivery driver. I live downtown. We've got food delivery drivers parking in the no parking zone outside my building all the time. So there's a lot of benefits to this, and I'd really like to see if we can do a pilot in Vancouver. And, you know, all of the speakers, many of whom are associated with the firm, you seem very thoughtful, and I get the impression that you're wanting to work through any issues that might arise. So... You know, let's do this. Like, you know, I think back to ride hailing and, you know, trying to tell friends visiting, like, oh, yeah, we don't have Uber. And they were like, what? Like, how does Vancouver not have Uber? Then it was the e-scooters. So I am like a Lime monthly user of those e-scooters. I have a pass. I pay less for the 30-minute rides because I use it to get to my boyfriend's place, like, several times a week. It's amazing. And we just got that. And other cities have had e-scooters for five to ten years. So I don't want to make the same mistake again with another technology that I think is really going to improve people's lives and improve our city. So I'm enthusiastically in support of this. I think the original motion is really well written. I think there's guardrails. And let's move forward. I'm not going to stand in the way of making our city better and offering new options for people. So thanks very much. And I'll take the chair back and I'll pass it over to my e-scooter advocate, Councillor Kirby Young, who helped make that happen.

Yeah, thanks, Chair. Yeah, I think technology discussions are always interesting ones, and typically cities are slow to adapt, right, in terms of government entities, and technology always moves faster than regulations. I think what's really interesting about trialing something is it allows alerting and data to be gathered that would inform, for example, what the parameters would be. if the city were to move forward, and that's an if. The city might decide that after this, it doesn't make sense, or they might decide that it does, but there will be a very, I think, informed framing around what the city would be looking for in a future RFP. It's interesting, I've been getting messages from people. I know that, I believe, this company's completed over 50,000 deliveries, including in West Hollywood, LA, Miami. I've gotten notes from people that said they were recently in LA, and I've seen a number of them there. I do think that as cities we're grappling with how we utilize our public space. So we do have a number of deliveries. We're changing, for example, parking regulations with sort of drop-off areas, right, so that food delivery drivers can do that. I've lived through in my now two terms on council the whole bringing on of ride hailing and e-scooters, and I can tell you it was not smooth. It was long. It did feel like Vancouver was really behind. It was a bit refreshing to travel to a different city in North America and be able to take a ride, share, and use an app if you were too tired to walk after doing a lot of walking, which usually happens when you're traveling and exploring all day. And so I think even then, sometimes we try to... with the best of intentions, over-anticipate every scenario when sometimes we just want to create space for innovation and learning that can decide if this is something that we're going to want in our city and that's going to be a fit. I think that both of my experiences with ride hailing was where it was over-regulation. I think it was the sole vote last council around trying to implement Vancouver going it alone and having its own... ride-hailing license fee and you know there's gonna have its own and then all the other cities are gonna pile on I'm like nobody's gonna take one it's gonna be so expensive and nor nobody's gonna want to cross take people home across borders for example like in the GED when transit is not there late at night and people want to get home to a different neighboring municipality and lo and behold that was the case and we went with very shortly after there's a lot of pushback and we went with one regional license and same thing with e-scooters we have taken quite a long time in bringing those on board and those are readily available in other areas and I think that when we do get to more formal procurement processes we put really important criteria in for our city but For me, this is about the opportunity to reduce congestion, to support restaurants and sort of economic development. And it also is about having a city that says we are a tech hub. We welcome innovation. Web Summit is happening next week. There's going to be lots of tech and other demonstrations, and I think that we want to be welcoming them. It has been a case that Vancouver has kind of been the city that doesn't do these things or doesn't try them. And all we're asking for is to try and then get some good information and be guided accordingly. So I'm very confident that our staff would work with. They are very aligned, I think, with council and the public around this. safety and other considerations, and I think that those will be thoughtful considerations that will inform the implementation. I think our high-level job as council is to open up opportunities, but is not to, you know, sort of set the table to decide what the color of the napkins is, but is to just suggest that we want to have it set and then let people go and bring their various expertise to bear and make that happen. So I'm happy to support it. Thank you.

Thank you. Councillor Orr.

Yeah, thanks. I have to say I'm struggling to understand why this is a priority for Vancouver right now. People are asking for safer sidewalks, smoother sidewalks, more accessible sidewalks. And our response is, what if we filled them with little delivery robots? Toronto already banned these devices because of concerns around accessibility and pedestrian safety. And those concerns are real. Our sidewalks are already crowded and uneven in many places. For seniors, for people using wheelchairs, mobility aids, parents with strollers, public space is not some frictionless tech campus. It's shared infrastructure. And then there's the labor issue. We're talking about introducing technology specifically designed to replace human delivery work in a city already facing affordability and precarious employment crisis. I don't think the future of Vancouver should be based on eliminating workers one app at a time. We also have questions around privacy, liability, vandalism, maintenance costs, and what happens when one of these things breaks down in the middle of an intersection or a sidewalk. I know people see these as innovation, but not every tech gimmick improves city life. Sometimes disrupting things means just making public space more annoying while venture capital firms... look for their next subsidy. So at the risk of firing the first salvo in a butlerian G-head, I'd rather side with humans than robots. Thanks.

Okay, thanks. Councillor Frye.

Yeah, I do want to acknowledge, and I appreciate... Councillor Bligh highlighting that CERV had sent us this pretty thoughtful and comprehensive letter and proposal, and I've been reading through it in this last bit, and I appreciate that there's so much more detail that wasn't in this motion that is in your letter. And I think that's the fundamental issue here is that the motion as presented skips over a lot of the detail and leaves a lot of ambiguities. That's why I was pleased with Councillor Bligh's sort of thoughtful amendment that gave us a little bit more scoping around the importance of our job as regulators. And we have a responsibility to the people of Vancouver, all the people of Vancouver, and the businesses that want to do business in the city of Vancouver. And I commend, serve for the innovation and really a thoughtful presentation. And I appreciated the Q&A that Councillor Klassen and I had with you over here recently. And so I don't want to like dissuade you and I don't want to make sort of broader critiques on the future of robotics and automation and, like, innovation and stuff like that. But the way this process has been delivered to us is not the right way, and that's no fault of yours. I'm going to abstain on it because I don't want to send a totally negative signal, but at the same time, this is not, you know, I think Councillor Bligh had the right approach to doing this in a thoughtful way that is responsive and responsible and respects the job that we have to do. And that's at the end of the day. Like, we have to sign off on these kind of things, and it has to be a thoughtful decision. It has to be putting the well-being of the city and all the opportunities that it presents us at the top of mind. And as the motion's presented, it's a little scant on details. The fact that it didn't offer as much detail as what you've presented is sort of a problem for me, so I'm... The definition of an abstention is basically when we don't have enough information, we can't make a decision, yay or nay. It does count as an affirmative vote, so there's that. But I feel that the motion as presented really did not give us the information that would qualify really fulsomely supporting a pilot of this nature. So I'll be abstaining. Thank you.

Thanks. Councillor Maloney.

Thanks. And I just want to make a very brief, I have no problem with being completely negative about this, but I appreciate the sentiment. One of the comments that we've heard amongst speakers employed by the company and by some members of council is that it takes, this will take congestion off the roads. Well, this will take congestion off the roads and put it onto the sidewalks. So it isn't a reduction of congestion. It's just changing the location of that congestion. And I think that it's just a reflection of how we don't value our sidewalk spaces, that we think that it's somehow neutral to jam up sidewalks with delivery vehicles. So I will be voting unequivocally against this.

Thank you. Councillor Bligh.

Yes, thanks very much. Yeah, I just wanted to highlight one additional thing that we haven't really touched on, and I think it is pretty important in the Bill 23. And my understanding of this motion, having talked to some, I think, associates with CERV, which has been helpful, again, not clear in this motion, is really this is an advocacy motion to the province to make sure that they're clear that Vancouver endorses this kind of a program or pilot so that they move ahead on Bill 23. And I think I have that right. So again, it's a motion that's sort of crafted as if we can go ahead and launch a pilot, but really it's the final, it's Recommendation C that is asking for that. You know, I think what I'm going to do is actually ask that we sever this motion because I would like to support recommendation C outright.

So you'd like to just vote on C separately?

Yeah. But I think, you know, I'm going to provide my thoughts and analysis to staff, and it didn't pass as a motion, but they can... that for what it is and also I trust that council Maloney could provide opportunities for the persons with disability advisory committee to be briefed in on today's decision and so that they can proactively weigh in as well you know I don't think we should shut the doors on innovation innovation and technological advancements will always cause disruption in what we've been used to up until now. But as Councillor Fry pointed out, we are responsible to a much broader set of people in Vancouver. And so we have to say that we've done our due diligence and we've... delivered thoughtful debate and made sure that we can defend any decision we make in this chamber. And this motion, I think anyone would argue, is so incredibly light in detail based on the actual information that's available out there that it's not really met the threshold, I think, in terms of providing adequate information. so that all councillors, whether they had a chance to meet with CERV Robotics or not, can make an informed decision. So I'll be abstaining, but I'm happy to support C. So again, ask for the sever. Thanks.

Will do. Councillor Klassen.

Thanks very much, and thank you for a good discussion this afternoon. Everyone, this motion to me is ultimately about whether Vancouver is willing to thoughtfully test new ideas and emerging technologies in a responsible way. And so what's before us today is a limited six-month pilot, not a permanent rollout, and I believe the original motion strikes the right balance between innovation, oversight, safety, and public accountability. I also note that the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade expressed support for this pilot in a letter that was sent to Council. recognizing its potential benefits for local businesses, sustainability, and economic competitiveness, while also acknowledging the importance of testing and evaluation before any rollout. And I think it's fitting that we're having this conversation during the 40th anniversary of Expo 86, a global event that helped transform Vancouver and was centered around transportation and the future of urban mobility. I'm excited that Vancouver continues to carry forward that spirit of innovation and openness to new

ideas. Cities around the world are already exploring these technologies. Vancouver now has an opportunity to learn, gather evidence, and determine what works best for our own communities, and that's what responsible policymaking looks like, and I hope Council will support the motion. Thank you. Thanks, Councillor Klassen. Okay, I'm not seeing anyone on the queue remaining to speak to this, so we're going to vote on it, and we're going to sever C and vote on that separately. So we'll vote on A and B first, and we'll just get that up on the screen highlighted. So if we could please go to the voting panel, and this is voting on A and B of the motion.

I take the vote assist in favour, please. Yes, Councillor Domenato.

Yes, Councillor Montague. And Mayor Sim, vote assist in favour as well, please. Thank you, Mayor Sim.

Okay, that passes with Councillor Orr in opposition and Councillor Maloney in opposition and abstentions from Councillor Bligh and Fry. Councillors, that is. So now we'll vote on C separately.

I'll also take a vote assist in favour, please.

And a vote assist in favour, please.

Before we begin this agenda item, if anyone believes they have a conflict of interest, now is the time to declare it. Does anyone have a conflict to disclose?

So, Councillor Maloney, you have two minutes to introduce your motion. Please go ahead.

Thank you. We know that summers are getting hotter and Environment and Climate Change Canada projects that 2026 will be one of the hottest years on record, and that means higher risk of prolonged heat exposure. Indoor temperature in Vancouver's older buildings regularly exceed Health Authority's safe indoor guidelines as early as June and consistently exceed outdoor temperatures even overnight. The situation is especially bad in buildings like SROs. Health risks are increased by the lack of access to night-time cooling and prolonged heat exposure. Current measures are focused on emergency heat relief during extreme heat alerts. There is less focus and funding for preventative heat relief measures such as cooling kit distribution program cuts. Research has shown that the risks could be reduced by extended hours for cooling centres from June to August, the provision of cooling transit, better outreach and sustained funding for cool kits. This motion approves funding for extending the hours of cooling centres and operating them beyond declared extreme heat events. More staff training, sustained funding for cool kits for people who can't reach community cooling spaces. Cool kits typically include things like a spray bottle, cooling towel, reusable water bottle, gel packs and an indoor thermometer and other items. It looks at the feasibility of repurposing existing city vehicles as mobile cooling centres to improve access to heat relief for vulnerable and unhoused residents during declared extreme heat periods. It looks at pursuing partnerships to expand the number of cooling centres, improving tree canopy coverage and collecting better data. It also pushes for advocacy to TransLink to deploy air-conditioned buses throughout the summer months. to help vulnerable residents access cooling centres and explore fare-free transit during declared extreme heat events. Thank you.

Thanks, Councillor Maloney. Seconded by Councillor Fry. So we'll now hear from registered speakers for the motion. Public speakers should state whether they're in support or opposition to the recommendations 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 is Liv Yoon. And just a reminder to all speakers, you have up to three minutes to address council.

You are out of time. Apologies. Okay. I know it goes fast. Thanks for calling. We'll now go to Speaker 2, Bharat Gupta.

Hi. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Speaker 3, John Irwin.

Thanks, John. Next speaker is Suki Sahota.

Thank you. Next speaker is Speaker 6, Dawn Lessoway.

Thank you. Speaker 7, Kevin Martin.

We'll come back to them. Speaker 8, Kathleen Winchester.

How about Speaker 9, Stanley Lee. Yes.

Yes, please go ahead.

Okay, thanks, Stanley. Speaker number 10, Fiona York. Okay, I think Stanley's still on the line. I can hear the audio. I don't know if that's audio from a caller. Sounds like my white noise machine at home. Okay, thank you.

Hi, Catherine. Please go ahead.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SPEAKER 12, CLAIRE ADAMS.

Thank you. So that's the end of our speakers list, but we'll go back to speakers that weren't available when we called on them. Do we have Kevin Martin? No. No? Okay. How about Kathleen Winchester?

And Fiona York?

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

Yeah, thanks.

I wanted to thank Councillor Maloney for bringing this forward. When I heard that we had paused the funding for the cooling kits, I wanted to do an emergency motion, but then I actually read Councillor Maloney's motion, and it's in there. So I'm so grateful for that, because I think that's... Much needed, as the speakers talked about, with expected record temperatures. And many people mentioned the 619 people that died in BC in one week. I saw one of them outside of the Dr. Sun Yat Sen Gardens, trying to find shade, propped up against the wall. And he had a sheet over him, and he was deceased. Most of the people were alone. Most of them were in their homes. Most of them were elderly. Most of them were in buildings where the indoor temperatures exceeded what's considered survivable, not during the peak of the day, but overnight. I can attest to this. In my brick apartment, it was brutal, but I had the privilege and luxury of being able to take an Evo out and take a dip in Lynn Creek. and cool down, but not everyone has that. We said never again, and we kind of went back to the same reactive model. Cooling centers that open when an alert is declared, cool kits that depend on available funding, transit that isn't air conditioning. We made people's survival contingent on bureaucratic thresholds being met. Councillor Maloney's motion is asking us to get ahead of it this year, be proactive, not after the first alert, not after the first death, before June. The research is clear that it's prolonged exposure that kills. Nights at SROs where temperature stays above safe limits even after the sun goes down. Buildings that absorb heat all day and release it into rooms where people have no choice but to stay. The people most at risk are the same people who always bear the cost of our inaction. Renters in older buildings, people on fixed incomes, unhoused residents, people who can't get to a cooling center because the bus itself... is a heat trap. The ask here is straightforward. Fund the cooling centers before the crisis, keep them open longer, get cool kits to people who can't travel, and fix the transit problem by writing to TransLink today. These are not complicated interventions. They are just ones that require us to decide that prevention is worth paying for. So I support this motion without hesitation. Thanks.

Thanks, Councillor. Councillor Zhou.

Thanks, Chair. So I just want to ask a point of information through you to the Deputy City Manager, perhaps. Yeah, so we constantly receive a memo in July last year, 2025, list all the proactive actions we have taken in preparation for the summer, including the indoor, outdoor, community center, all those kind of things. Is Council going to receive a similar memo this year?

Okay, thanks. Since the 2021 heat storms, what city has done differently in preparation for some extreme conditions?

Also, I remember every year before the summer, council always receive a briefing about our preparedness and readiness, right? Are we going to do the same thing this year?

Okay, thanks. Another question is why we don't do this cooling kit anymore? What are the reasons? I saw there's a question from the Global Mail today. Yeah, so in our media summary today. So can you elaborate the reasons?

Okay, so in other words, Citi will provide some funding support to support nonprofit organizations.

Okay. And also, is there a provincial guideline right now regarding this extreme heat?

Okay, thanks. Okay, so with that, Chair, I'd like to move an amendment. So if you want to move.

Amendment Q, Councillor Zhou. Please go ahead.

All right. So I just circulated the amendment to everyone. So I really appreciate the intention for this motion. I think my amendment reflects the feedback we received directly from staff. In last year, July 2025, staff circulated a six-page memo about extreme heat plans in preparation for the summer 2025. Clearly listed all the plans and the measurements in preparing for the summer last year. including access to indoor cooling, library, community center, outdoor cooling, and hydration. And also there's communication strategy, partnership program, air quality, and much more. It's a very comprehensive memo. I think we can confidently see that we already have an effective and established extreme heat response. which is activated when a declared extreme heat event occurs. I also want to acknowledge the significant work have already underway by city staff. The city already operates an extensive network of community centers, libraries, coordinated cooling spaces. These are real accessible assets that serve residents every day, not just during the emergency. And Citi works in coordination with a number of external partners to provide cooling spaces and support services when they are needed the most. My amendment also focuses on a critical gap here, which is public awareness. I think that's something we really need. We can build all the cooling capacity we want, but if residents, they don't even know where to go, how to get there, and what are the services available. When the services are activated, we fail to our residents. So that's why this amendment directs a vigorous and urgent public information campaign ahead of this summer. Staff also recommended that we adhere to the provincial activation guidelines, ensuring our response remains aligned, coordinated, and evidence-based. Also, staff assessed that city's response to extreme heat is currently reasonable and within the context of city's jurisdiction and resource. And I don't want to see the city downloading additional costs from the senior governments outside of our jurisdiction. Staff also point out the key work is already underway, including ongoing tree canopy analysis through the Vancouver Park Board, which will help inform long-term urban cooling strategy. So what is in this amendment is very straightforward. It acknowledges extensive measures already in place. and ask staff to bring back a clear memo to council outlining these measures within cities' jurisdiction so that we have a full and transparent understanding of what is being delivered. And also, just as importantly, direct staff to implement an urgent and robust public information campaign because even with the best system, it only works when people know about them. We are heading into the summer months. We need to make sure that residents, especially those most vulnerable residents, know where to go, what services are available, and how to access these services. It's about focusing on what works, strengthening awareness, ensuring our response is effective, coordinated, and grounded in reality.

Yeah, quick question to the chair, to the mover of the motion. If people die this summer, will you be satisfied that we struck this motion to provide a memo?

Councillor Wu, I can't answer this hypothetical question. No one wants to see people die. No one. And the city staff, they don't want to see people die either. So that's why they have a very good, robust, comprehensive plan.

You don't want to answer the question if people die that you feel satisfied that we did all we could by asking staff to make a memo?

As I said, Councillor Orr, the city has prepared all the comprehensive plans for the summer.

Okay. That's all my questions.

I just want to caution, Councillors, nobody wants to see anyone die.

I didn't say that.

Okay. But you're asking Councillor Zhou if he wants to see, you know, if he's okay with seeing people die this summer.

I didn't.

Okay. I just want us to be respectful in the chamber for language, especially about something so sensitive. So we'll move on to Councillor Frye. I mean, I think that that is the elephant in the room when we're talking about decisions that are life or death.

We saw this council make a life or death decision yesterday. I think that it's fair to ask those kind of questions. I find this amendment to be dangerously misinformed. You know, I was on council, gosh, it was five years ago now when we had the heat dome. Over 100 people in our city died. We dealt with firefighters who could not get transportation for folks who were struggling, couldn't get them to cooling centers. They were looking for Ubers to take folks to cooling centers because we didn't have the resources. I was privileged as the liaison to the Vancouver City Planning Commission to work with Gabrielle Peters and Amina Yassin, who... authored the heat dome response report that came from the Vancouver City Planning Commission, came to our city council of the day, which we approved and recognized that we were underprepared in the event of heat emergencies. The recommendations that they created, these were an advisory committee that worked in community and looked at the most vulnerable people, the people who died in that heat dome. And they came back with recommendations that not only informed our city's approach, but also informed provincial response and really had wide-ranging implications. The idea that, you know, I think Councillor Maloney, the elephant in the room here, that Councillor Maloney is responding to what experts are saying will be likely one of the hottest summers on record. Think about that. We're about to experience the hottest summer on record, possibly. And we're not properly funding cooling kits. The ask to set aside funding that otherwise, I mean, we seem to have no qualms about setting aside $2 million for a fireworks show, yet we can't find money to... I'm a little incredulous we're even at this point where this is being basically referred to Nowheresville to get a report back and miss the potential for very real urgency. It will be five years next month that over 100 people died in our city because we weren't prepared for climate change and the impacts of extreme heats on our residents. I'm frankly appalled that this amendment is so cavalierly suggesting that this isn't important enough to be prepared. Very disappointing. And I do have to wonder, what is the human death toll? Potential where it does become an important budget item do we have to wait for people to die before it becomes actually something that we consider Worth spending proactive money on very disappointed by this amendment actually really disappointed Okay council Maloney Thank you.

Yeah, I want to be very clear that this amendment by Councillor Zhou is saying that we're already doing enough We're not doing enough This motion of mine was drafted after extensive research.

So I think that's not right.

Point of order, you do need to state the section at which the point of order is that you're calling. I would need a section.

Okay, section 6.7, I believe. So council cannot speculate in other council's intention. Impugn their motives? Yes, that's the one.

Okay, I would just caution members, just be mindful of your comments. Continue, Councillor Maloney.

Let me be clear that this amendment by Councillor Zhou has the effect of saying that we are already doing enough. We're not doing enough. This motion was drafted after extensive research and consultation with UBC researchers and non-profit organisations that respond to the vulnerable residents that would benefit from the measures in my motion. I understand that information about city cooling resources, including cooling centre hours, was actually included in the cooling kits. Now, the answer to Councillor Zhou's question was, from the deputy city managers, was that we look at our available resources. So the feedback from staff was that they're doing what they can do within their resources, not that they have sufficient resources to do what's necessary. Grants to non-profits to... handball the responsibility to them to look after this instead of having a city program, I don't consider it to be adequate.

We've heard a lot about the zero means zero budget which has resulted in broad funding and staff cuts.

But every round of council meetings, we're getting motions from the majority councillors that dip into city reserves for things that should have been included in the 2026 budget and that I consider to be less crucial than life-saving measures to protect against sustained high temperatures, even outside emergency areas. response periods. And we've seen cuts to prevention programs like the cut to the city's non-market housing climate resilient retrofit program that Councillor Zhou moved himself. So this is consistent, I guess, with that. We know that retrofitting needs to be done at a building level. It's more efficient and stops tenants from being displaced. Last week at the Lower Mainland Local Government Conference, I was talking to the Executive Director of the Zero Emissions Innovation Centre, who told me that a lot of older buildings in Vancouver have air intakes that have heating coils that operate all year round and need to be retrofitted with heat pumps to allow summer cooling as well as winter heating, and that's possibly something that could have benefited from the cut grant program. I... I cannot possibly agree that this amendment is something that councillors should vote in favour of. It says we're doing enough and it says that inaction is fine in preparation for this summer. But the research shows that what we're doing at the moment isn't enough and that this summer is forecast to be the hottest on record. So I am deeply afraid that this is... going to get amended and we will just shrug our shoulders and take no extra steps.

Okay. Thanks, Councillor.

Okay, recorded.

Yes, you may.

So that passes with Councillor Bligh in opposition, Councillor Fry in opposition, Councillor Orr in opposition, and Councillor Maloney in opposition. So that's the amendment, and we'll now go back to the main motion as amended. Councillor Zhou, anything to add?

I'm good, thanks.

Councillor Fry?

Just only to express my tremendous disappointment, I appreciate Councillor Maloney putting the effort in and naming this clear danger to our residents, the people that we are charged with the responsibility to protect. You know, probably could have gone a little deeper into the costs, the costs to our actual operational side. You know, talk to some firefighters who were on duty during the heat dome and they can tell you, what kind of a scramble it was, how desperate it was for them to try and keep people alive without the resources, and that we would just so cavalierly dismiss a reasonable request to fund cooling kits at a time when we're expecting a record heat. It's just, it's incredibly disappointing and it speaks to, I think, what are incredibly misplaced priorities. And it does behoove me to acknowledge that in the context of yesterday's decision to unilaterally ban an overdose prevention site without even taking the time to speak to our respective health experts, the Vancouver Coastal Health operators, even first responders and police, this speaks to a cavalier attitude from this council majority that prioritizes politics over principles in human life. And I'm...

Chair, I'd like to call a point of order, please.

Yes.

Section 6-1B, council member must not by word, tone, manner of speaking or gesticulation express any opinion and make allegations indirectly and negatively reflects upon the character of any person or group of persons. That includes the council.

Okay, and I apologize. I was speaking with the clerk about the time in terms of extending the meeting, so I unfortunately did not hear the comments from Councillor Fry. Councillor Klassen, could you... I can repeat them if you'd like. I don't think we have to. I think we just made it clear. Continue, Councillor Fry.

Yeah, I will only impugn my own motives and say that I prioritize life over politics.

Okay. And, Chair, this is imputing and suggesting that other members of the council do not have the values that... care for the safety and health of the people of this city. I have worked in the seniors care sector. I was a person who wrote a press release. Is that a point of order or are you just taking the mic?

I've got your point of order. Councillor Klassen, I agree. It did sound to me that Councillor Fry was saying that you care more about politics than people's health and that's obviously not true.

I thought I was talking about myself, my own priorities.

Let's just keep moving with the debate so Councillor Fry can continue.

Yeah, okay. Well, I'll just leave it with my deep disappointment and my appreciation for Councillor Maloney bringing this forward and naming this.

Okay, thanks. Councillor Bligh.

Actually, before we go to Councillor Bligh, just noting the time, it's 626. We had said we would go until 6.30. We have only two speakers for the next item. I'd like to continue. The clerks have agreed to that. So we need a vote to extend to complete the business of the day.

Okay, so we're going to vote on whether we're going to extend to complete the business for the day. So if council, you could please register your vote. And if you need a vote assist, please let me know.

Okay, so we've got six. We're going to continue. Councillor Orr and Councillor Maloney opposed. Back to the business. Councillor Bligh, sorry for the interruption. I'll restart your timer. Please go ahead.

Yeah, thanks. Yeah, I appreciate the... I'm going to turn off my video, Chair, because I don't have great bandwidth right now. Is that all right?

Of course. We'll just need on for the vote, but you can turn it off.

Thanks. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, listen, I really can hear the level of emotion and frustration, particularly for those of us. Sorry, Councillor Fai spoke very well to that who were on council during the last heat dome. And it was gut wrenching to know. the exposure of risk residents of our city were experienced and then subsequent loss of life. And so all I can hear in my thinking right now is when you know better, you must do better. And that taught us what we were lacking. And as I'm listening to this debate, I start to think about how much exposure we have now to not approve this motion that clearly articulates the gaps that were experienced in the last heat dome. And that by not supporting this motion in its entirety exposes us to legal risk. Should we experience what is being predicted as a reoccurrence of could be a reoccurrence of that level of heat and heat exposure, and particularly for vulnerable people across our city. And so we have seen jurisdictions across the province respond with, I think, a much more comprehensive, focused, and to be quite honest, less political action. And the idea that anybody may be overlooked or disregarded because they don't happen to be right in front of us in this chamber right now, Our job is to make decisions that protect the greatest amount of people possible. Our job is to respond as local governments, nonpartisan. Our job is to provide services to people who need them. And so I come back to, we learned a lot from that heat dome. And when we know better, we must do better. So I don't want to be seen as not supporting, proactively protecting residents from dangerous heat. But I unequivocally think that The motion moved by Councillor Zhou has 100% exposed us to risk as a city, and we ought to be held accountable to that should it come to that. And I therefore cannot support this motion as amended.

Thank you. Councillor Maloney.

Thank you. I'd like to thank the speakers that called in and came into City Hall to support this motion. Ms Lessaway, who spoke after school hours. You can watch this debate back during school hours by looking for the video on YouTube and I appreciate you staying after hours to contribute. The people who died in the heat dome were Vancouver's seniors, disabled people and poor people. I remember suffering through the heat dome in an uncooled apartment with my family and felt very lucky that I had options and resources available to me to survive it and I was devastated.

The report's rolling in about people dying and I never want it to happen again. This motion is not about criticising city services, it's about extending services. based on what this research says is needed to save people's lives.

The city gives access to water and misting stations. Public health literature shows access to a cooling space, especially for part of the night, is essential.

My motion is a response to the lack of services and reliable information for residents.

If cooling centres are not open all summer, there's a risk that people are unable to access life-saving cooling. The measures are very reasonable. They wouldn't be costly compared to other things we're paying for. I'm extremely frustrated that this motion has been amended to make it almost entirely useless and I will be voting against it.

Okay, I just for anyone watching online we are going to take a pause and we're going to return at 645

I fully recognize that members are extremely tired and exhausted. I would count myself among those members. We have one more motion with only two speakers, and that's why we've been moving forward. So I'd like to resume the council meeting. I'd like to get everybody home. So we are going to resume the council meeting. Councillor Zhou, you're on the queue.

Yeah, thanks, Chair. So understand the emotion here. So I actually talked to the city manager, city executive, to just circulate another motion, another amendment to everyone. So, Chair, you want?

I'll take us to an amendment queue, Councillor Zhou. Just a moment here. Please go ahead.

Yeah, so I just want to be clear. Compared to cooling kit, city has been doing much more than that. So in the last year's memo, we are actually designating the 39th civic facility as the cooling center. And we are partnered with a lot of nonprofit organizations to use their space for cooling space if we need to. And also there's a lot of effort for the outdoor cooling and hydration. including parks, the misting station, fountains, shaded space, and much more. And also there's other effort working with the Neighborhoods Association, and even there's some work with Environmental Canada regarding the welfare smoke and air quality works. Cooling kit is just a very small piece of our overall prevention strategy. So we are doing much more. I just want to be very clear of that. And also, you know, this amendment is asking city staff to contact the province to discuss the need to enable the emergency funding so we can use that. to proactively support the cooling case. So the amendment is right there. I hope to get everyone's support on that.

Thanks, Councillor Zhou. Do you have a seconder? Councillor Claussen. Thanks. Councillor Maloney.

I don't think that pointing the finger at the province is going to make up for all the very important things that were cut out of my motion. But I guess I'll vote in favour of it.

Councillor Frye.

Yeah, I'm not even sure that I'm going to vote in favor of this. It doesn't give any indication of any urgency or any timing. When is this happening? It doesn't say. It doesn't suggest that there's any urgency. It doesn't suggest that there's any alternate remedy. the province turns around and says, you know what, we're $14 billion in the hole, we're broke, there's no money for you, sorry. So it really is, I feel like it's something of a meaningless amendment. I mean, I appreciate the intention and recognize, of course, that yes, it would be great if the province funded this through the emergency social services, but the reality is even having that conversation and getting to that place in a timely manner, again, reminding it was about One month and five years ago that we had a catastrophic heat dome that led to over 100 fatalities in our city, over 600 in our region. I mean, if, you know, touch wood, were we to have another catastrophic heat event in our city in June, this isn't going to mean anything between now and then. It might be a nice after the fact kind of like, well, we should have, could have, but I don't see this as really of much utility.

Thanks, Councillor Orr.

Yeah, I'm going to have to agree. It's not even directing the province. It's directing staff to contact the province to discuss the need to enable emergency funding. To me, this just doesn't go far enough. It's just, let's maybe at some point in time get around the table and maybe talk about doing something proactively. It's... The time to act is now, and this just ain't it. I'm sorry.

Okay, Councillor Bligh.

Yeah, I just, sorry, Chair. This information may have already been shared, but I just wonder if a point of information through you to the city manager. What is the dollar figure that we would be asking the province to provide based on this amendment? What's the dollar figure of the cooling kits that we no longer fund?

Okay, but we did provide them, right? And it was the decision related to the budget that we no longer provide them.

Okay, well, that seems like a very significant and obvious missing piece of information. I appreciate staff are working real time with these amendments that are coming forward without a heads up. But it seems odd to me that we're debating something we don't even know what the number is for with this particular amendment. Is it $100,000? Is it $500,000? Like, I don't know if, Councillor Zhou, you've looked into it. Given this is your amendment, maybe that's a point of information to you, Chair, to Councillor Zhou. Yes. How much are we asking?

Yeah, so again, so I'll leave that to staff because this is a purely operational decision. And if we have a pre-budget plan for this, and we're going to have this conversation with the province. So, Sandra, anything to add?

So there is nobody else speaking. I'm sorry. I thought I was I thought the council mentioned Sandra, our deputy city manager. Yeah, I won't be supporting. I won't be supporting.

But look, maybe I'll just ask that there is a provided data point on how much money. was actually discontinued that was paid that was actually paid for the kids and if anyone knows it's a point of information to anyone there because that's really what we're talking about so um yeah i guess i'll leave it there counselor i think uh deputy city manager sanders singh had potentially some info it was okay thank you um i believe it was approximately a hundred thousand dollars okay So yeah, I'm not going to vote for this on principle. I mean, we gave $100,000 yesterday to the Board of Trade to do whatever they see fit with $100,000 to help launch a campaign that, on measure, would be great if we got in our city. But that actual $100,000 in terms of making a material difference in our efforts to gain that, compared to $100,000 to be able to continue providing cooling kits that people have come to rely upon from the city, to me, is just an absolute, we've lost our North Star. We don't even have any stars. Like, we've lost any direction. So I cannot support this. It's $100,000 on a $2.2-plus billion budget. Those that think that this is good enough need to take a moment and reflect on the job that they have to do here and get outside of what seems to be this group think Stockholm syndrome that's preventing clear analysis and critical thinking of the responsibility we have as counselors. This is just shocking to me. I won't be supporting it.

Counselor Maloney.

Thanks. I've been convinced and I won't be supporting it either. It's not specific enough. And I was also logging on to confirm that there was a 2024 motion that approved a grant of $99,800 to the downtown east side. SRO Collaborative Society for SRO heat preparedness and response program for the 2024 operating budget. Thanks.

Okay. I'm not seeing anyone else to speak to the amendments, so we'll take it to a vote, please.

Vote assistant in favour, please, Chair.

Is that Councillor Montague? Yes.

Chair, can I please get a vote of system in favour as well? Yes, Mayor. Please.

Thank you. Reported. Okay.

That passes. With Councillor Bligh in opposition, Councillor Fry in opposition, Councillor Orr in opposition, and Councillor Maloney in opposition. So now I'll go back to the motion as amended. Councillor Zhou, anything to add?

I'm good, thanks.

Not seeing anyone on the queue, so we'll take it to a vote. Oh, Councillor Maloney?

The original motion's been decimated and I'll be voting against it as amended.

Okay. Not seeing anyone on the queue, let's go to the vote on the motion as amended.

Anyone online? Yes.

Can I please get a vote of system favor?

Thank you. Councillor Montague?

Yes, vote of system favor, please, Chair.

Okay, that passes with Councillor Bligh in opposition, Councillor Fry in opposition, Councillor Orrin in opposition, and Councillor Maloney in opposition. And that completes motion eight. The next and last motion is motion nine, evaluating Vancouver's waste system, collection system rather, potential to adapt as our city grows and is to be moved and introduced by Councillor Maloney. If anyone believes they have a conflict of interest on this agenda item, now is the time to declare it. Does anyone have a conflict to disclose? Okay, Councillor Maloney, you have two minutes to introduce your motion.

Everyone Had the I'm just I'm not sure if we had a seconder councillor Maloney for your motion not yet Yes, we can do that Counselor Maloney we will reset your clock. Sorry one second. Go ahead these

Vancouver's ongoing densification is integrating higher density housing with commercial, retail and community uses, placing new demands on waste collection services. Private waste collection services handle most of Vancouver's solid waste. The city collects only a small share of garbage, primarily from single family homes and strata duplexes. The current approach results in overlapping routes with multiple private haulers often servicing the same laneways. Overlapping routes and increased frequency of garbage collection pickups result in more traffic noise, air pollution and elevated road safety risks. This is not simply a fact of urban life. The current situation directly and unacceptably impacts quality of life and equity between businesses. The city has authority to establish conditions on solid waste management collection that vary by waste class, person, property, area or service type. Many North American cities have encountered these challenges as urban density has increased and have developed a range of regulatory approaches from which Vancouver can draw. The potential is there to both tackle waste collection and the related challenge of waste diversion and harmonising Vancouver's solid waste collection system should be a priority to protect the liveability and equity of our growing city. Almost every single waste collection company operating in Vancouver has its headquarters somewhere in Metro Vancouver, but large trucks have to travel long distances from suburbs like Surrey, New West Coquitlam and North Vancouver. Reducing their trips is good for reducing traffic congestion, danger and environmental impact and potentially reduces costs and improves efficiencies. This motion directs staff to prepare an overview of the current state of waste collection in the city and identify existing challenges as well as opportunities to improve service efficiency and effectiveness and minimise negative impacts as our city grows.

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

Thank you, John. Speaker number two, Stanley Lee.

THAT COMPLETES OUR SPEAKER'S LIST.

Councillor Klassen.

THANKS, CHAIR. JUST A SECOND HERE. Again, I sort of, again, appreciate the intent of the original motion here, but I think that we've got some opportunity here to maybe achieve some of these goals with a bit more integration into the city services, and I'm speaking specifically of VanStat, and the VanStat performance review meetings are specifically designed to identify operational inefficiencies and improve service delivery across departments. So I'm just about going to give it. I think everybody might want a couple of minutes to it, but I am sending an amendment here.

We'll just move to the amendment queue in the meantime, and we'll wait for that amendment to come through. So just a moment here.

While we wait for that to come up on the screen, Councillor Claston, did you want to speak to it?

Yeah, so VanStat has been building up over the last few months, and it's led to a $104 million increase to fixing roads and also to identifying community assets that are in dire need of repair, and like our community centres, and this is a natural addition to VanStat. And the motion also proposes now this is in response to some community feedback. And again, it's subject to a review by staff, but it also proposes looking at weekly garbage collection in some parts of the city as well. So this is a in the in the motion that I've sent in here.

Do we have a seconder for the amendment? Or is it strike and replace? Councillor Zhou. Anyone who would like to speak to this, please add yourself to the queue.

I'll just also point out as well that, you know, the staff have been making adjustments to address densification in different parts of the city. And so I've asked added direction to explore returning to weekly waste just because we need to make sure that we are focused on cleanliness. and reliability and neighborhood livability. Ultimately, the amendment shifts the conversation from producing into instead of producing a report toward improving operational performance and service outcomes for residents.

Thanks, Councillor Claassen. Councillor Maloney.

I spoke at length with another member of the council majority earlier today about this proposed amendment and why it absolutely misses the point of the general high-level direction meticulously crafted for the original amendment. motion to give staff very general direction to start them on a long-term process of having a very high-level overview of waste collection, current practices in this city and potential for making it better, more effective, more efficient and improving liveability in this city. is about collecting statistics about what we currently do. My motion is about looking at what we do at the moment and trying to make it better so that there is a lower impact on the parts of our city that are densifying, like the Broadway corridor, the Canby corridor, because I've lived in the West End, I've spent a lot of time in the West End, and what happens in the West End... thanks to our current system is that we have up to five, more than five different waste companies coming around, driving around, blasting their horns, reversing, waking up shift workers and new parents and babies. and reducing the livability, and WestEnders are sick of it. And so what we not only want to do is look at how to make our waste collection system better so there is less noise pollution and other impacts, and also save the residents of the densifying areas of our city from having to suffer the same fate. That's what my thing is about, not about collecting statistics, which is what Vanstad are about. that the amendment fundamentally misunderstands what I'm trying to do and is just going to result in us failing to give staff general direction to start a long-term process that they need to do. We know that other cities handle waste collection differently, more efficiently, with less liveability impacts. Why can't we just for once not amend a motion that has been very carefully crafted to give staff the direction that they said in a meeting that they would like so that they can start this journey? I think it's just getting completely ridiculous. I'm going to hop off for now, gather my thoughts and come back on after I've heard whether this... impassioned entreaty has changed the mind of the mover of the amendment to perhaps rethink it.

Thanks Councillor Frey.

Yeah.

You know, I'm only – I have general questions about VanStat. This is introducing a kind of new data set. And counsel of the whole, I don't think, have had the same degree of access to VanStat. So I'm not familiar with how it reports publicly and where this goes as far as the original direction of the motion, which – As far as I can tell, was to report back on on in a more public sort of council reports through the through the chair, if I may, to the mover of the amendment. How do you anticipate that this becomes a report back from from going to Vanstead as it was originally contemplated?

Vanstead, sorry. VanStat is not just a work exercise. It is a place for us to gather important data for decision-making and then bring that back to council for ultimate lead direction. So what this opportunity does is it allows VanStat to incorporate the learnings from uh, these services and then, uh, bring, uh, some operational recommendations, uh, uh, that can be, uh, uh, voted on by council as well.

Okay. Cause we've yet to have a recommendation to vote on the council of the whole or for public through van stat. So is that a future feature that is contemplated through van stat?

Yeah, I think that it would be, uh, again, it's, it's about collecting the information that we need to make an appropriate decision. and let staff process that and then report back to council.

Yes. Okay. Okay. Thank you. I don't see any explicit direction to report back to council here. I just see it going to VanStat. And because I'm not a part of VanStat meetings and the public doesn't necessarily sit in on VanStat meetings, I don't see where the original direction from this motion to report back on some of these considerations is. would be fulfilled. So I think that on that basis alone, this kind of misses the intention of the motion, which is a more public-facing report back. And then also the addition of returning to weekly waste collection. I mean, that seems very directive. I would rather see an analysis of, again, and not really germane to the original intent of the motion, but I would rather see it analysis of the pros and cons of weekly versus bi-weekly and has it affected waste reduction is it a good thing is it a bad thing rather than just say let's go back to weekly because we have no idea what that costs us differently if it actually exacerbates more waste production or less waste production so again this I can't support this amendment or strike and replace I should say

I'm sorry, Chair. I just was listening to some of the comments. I just wanted to make the points I just made earlier. The advance that has the intention of informing our staff so that we can actually make evidence-based decisions as a council.

This would be the last chance because it's a strike and replace?

It is a strike and replace, yes.

All right. Yeah, questions to the chair, to the move of the motion. Who attends these meetings?

I know that there is a rotating members of our corporate leadership team as well as other members of staff. Deputy City Manager might be able to, through you, Chair, be able to respond better to that question.

Okay. You said we've already done one?

Okay, so when would you sort of think that this might come?

Okay, so it might be delayed?

Sounds like it's going to be delayed. I'll roll a point of order that this motion is dilatory.

Okay, Councillor Orr, what section was that under?

8.7...

I'm going to have to take a couple minutes break to confer with Deputy City Manager.

So I did confer with city management staff, the clerk. I do not believe the point of order is in order. The definition of dilatory is to delay or procrastinate. I would not agree that that is what is proposed here. It does mean that the information will be provided to council not within the time frame or the timeline of the motion, but it will instead be built into the info report back from the new reporting program, which is advanced at, and staff will be reporting back on that. So I would not say that that is a deliberate delay or procrastination. So I would not agree that the point of order is in order. So we can continue, Councillor Orr. That's not accurate. Your timer was running. So if you have more to say, we can... Okay. You can come back on if you like. Councillor Fry?

Yeah. I suppose maybe this is a question for the Deputy City Manager because, of course, you know, Van Stent has not been completely open to the Council of the Whole, and I'm just rereading through some of where this came from. And I understand from the motion, the original pilot motion, that A was... piloting in very specific neighborhoods, Mount Pleasant, downtown Eastside, downtown maybe. I'm not looking at that part exactly. But that it's also got a governance structure with the mayor and city manager as executive co-chairs to oversee accountability and reporting. Is that the case?

Yeah, okay. I mean, I appreciate that. I do recall that that information was not received by council of the whole. When it came to the street maintenance, it was... It went to some folks before it went to everybody, and that was part of the challenge with how that was implemented. And perhaps that's a reflection of the mayor overseeing, as executive co-chair, the reporting and accountability, which speaks to a larger issue. And I totally get that it's a new pilot program and it needs some – but it's – I'm a little uncomfortable with the idea that this isn't really accessible to council of the whole unless it is filtered through the mayor's reporting mechanism. And with that, again, this is such a distraction from the original intent of the motion that I can't support this amendment. I have broader questions about VanceNet, which I can take offline to another forum.

Okay. Thanks, Councillor Fry. Councillor Maloney.

This amendment absolutely misses the intention of the original motion. The motion contemplates one staff member in engineering doing a desktop study to look at the situation and give us some options and recommendations about maybe what data might need to be collected and recommendations as to next steps in a report. Vanstad is a pilot program. Apart from anything else, it will be a massive waste of resources for the mayor and all of the heads of departments to be talking about this instead of the one guy in engineering who can report back to us in June or July or whenever it is. I can't remember. Other cities have had successes with competitive tendering processes. staff member in engineering can have a look at our current situation in the city what data we already have available to us what we might need what we might like to report on and a timeline and options and recommendations that's what the wording of my original motion contemplates i really ask that the mover of this amendment withdraw it and please leave the amendment the motion alone, and please just let the staff member do their study, report back with options, and then we can take it from there.

Okay, thanks, Councillor. Not seeing anyone else on the queue to speak to the amendments, so we'll go to the vote. It's a strike and replace, by the way. So if we could go to the voting screen.

It fails. Apologies. That fails. Councillor Bligh in opposition. Councillor Fry in opposition. Councillor Orr in opposition. And Councillor Maloney in opposition. So the strike and replace failed. Apologies. It's been a long day. So we're back to the main motion.

Councillor Orr.

Sorry, I'll turn your mic back on. Apologies.

Yeah, thanks, Chair. So I circulated another motion, amendment. So I think that's what Councillor Maloney discussed with another council member before. So I think this is a friendly amendment. talking to staff, the original timeline, July 15th, is too aggressive. I hope that, you know, I think we're not able to make this timeline. So just by extending to quarter one, 2027. And also, I still think there's a merit to explore and report back regarding returning to weekly... with collection. It's not making decision of weekly collection. It's about collect more information. How much it will cost, we don't know. So it's just about report back and then we can make a decision when we see the report back.

You know, resolution A and B, just extending the timeline to quarter one, 2027. Very simple.

Okay. Counselor Zhou, you sent that in already?

But I'll take us to the amendment queue, Councillor Zhou. Just a moment here. Sorry, just bear with me. My email crashed.

Yeah, thanks, Chair.

I do have the amendment to your account.

Okay, you do. Okay. Thanks, Chair. So I have nothing else to say. Just already said that.

Okay.

I guess you need a seconder.

Yep, we'll need a seconder for Councillor Zhou's amendment. Councillor Klassen. Thank you. Councillor Maloney.

Thanks. I have absolutely no objections to the timeline change. That is no problem at all. C, I think, is unnecessarily specific, but let's leave it in there. I'm going to vote in favour of this. Thank you.

Okay.

Chair, can I also get a vote of assist in favor?

I know Councillor Maloney, we're just waiting for your vote as well.

I did vote.

Thank you.

I did vote. Do you need my vote again?

Yes, please. Oh, there we go. Perfect. That passes unanimously. Okay, we'll go back to the main motion as amended. Councillor Zhou, anything to add?

No, thanks.

Okay, Councillor Maloney.

Okay, thanks, Council. That completes motion nine. Oh, yeah, I voted. Sorry, that was maybe for the last vote. Sorry about that. I thought it was the same vote. Well, let's vote. We'll just get that up.

I'll also take a vote assist in favor, please.

Thanks, everybody. That completes motion nine. And, yes, standing committee portion of this meeting is now complete. We will now convene a council of Mayor Sim as chair to deal with the recommendations and actions from today's committee meeting. Mayor Sim, over to you.

Great. Thank you, Chair, and thanks for doing a great job today.

I know it was a long one, and everyone for being there.

So we will now convene in Council to deal with recommendations and actions from today's Standing Committee on Policy and Strategic Priorities. Clerk, can we please have a roll call?

Great. Thank you very much. So we need a motion to adopt the committee's recommendations for report one and council member motions one through nine.

And I can't see anyone. So moved. Thank you, Councillor Bligh. Seconder? Second. Thank you very much. All those in favour say yay.

Yay.

All those opposed say nay. Great. The motion carries unanimously. Council, are there any items of urgent business?

And I do not have access to the screen, so... Councillor Rohr is on the queue, and I've advanced him, Mayor.

Awesome, thank you. Go ahead, please. Yes, for an LOA request for May 13th from 3 p.m. onwards for civic business. Great.

And do you have a seconder?

I'll second. Second. Councillor Meiszner.

Awesome. Thank you very much. Councillors, is there any discussion?

seeing no one putting up their hands um all those in favor say yay yay yay all those opposed say nay great uh that passes uh council is there anything uh any other urgent matters move the german great uh can we have a seconder great counselor dominato thank you very much all those in favor say yay okay all those opposed say nay Great. The motion carries unanimously. This meeting is adjourned. And thank you, Council and everyone who participated today.

And thank you, clerks, for going through without a break.