Jewish Heritage Month is a time to celebrate Jewish history, culture, faith, resilience, the contributions that our community has made to this city. And in Vancouver, that history does go back a long way. We can speak about people like David Oppenheimer, one of Vancouver's early mayors, who really helped shape the city.

All right, is anyone else cold in here? Because I definitely am. But good morning, everyone. Good morning, council members and our mayor. My name is Samaya Adam. I am a black Muslim woman, and I'm grateful to be here with you all today. I'm a community builder. However, I am here on behalf of Foundation for a Path Forward. So on foundation, I serve as their board member. And, you know, sometimes you got to do dutiful, do the full things and come and support your community. So that's why I'm here today. However, the foundation's work is really focused on strengthening communities and advancing anti-racism work across local, national, and global contexts. It is in partnership with Resilience BC under the Attorney General's office. Our work is really grounded in collaboration and practical community-led solutions to build stronger, safer, and healthier communities. And so with that, we are here today for a proclamation recognizing Eid al-Hadha. Eid al-Hadha, also known as the Festival of Sacrifice, which you also graciously shared, it is one of the most significant holidays and celebrations in the Muslim faith. It is rooted in generosity and sacrifice, and it is deeply connected to the values our community cares. So our community really values community care. It is rooted in service. and support. And so when we think about sacrifice, there has to be this willingness to do that. And so at the same time, we cannot ignore the sober context of next month. So this June actually marks five years since the devastating attacks on the Afzal family in London, Ontario, where three generations of Muslim families were taken from us in an act of Islamophobic violence. Even today, we continue to see that rise in Islamophobia. However, moments like today should remind us that while Muslim communities are celebrating, many of us are also navigating anxiety and grief from our day-to-day experiences. So while today is a very symbolic day and a recognition that is so needed, it is an opportunity to deepen our understanding of one another, as well as to build solidarity. And so, thank you for... convening us today because the importance of coming together across differences is what really builds healthier, stronger communities. And so I'm really grateful for the city of Vancouver for creating the space for its residents, opening seats at the table, and really instilling a sense of dignity, shared responsibility through power, shifts, dynamics, all of that. And so this is a place we all call home. And so again, I'm just going to say thank you for giving us the space.

Good morning. I'm Carrie Hughes, and I'm the Director of Facilities Management and Operational Excellence within our Real Estate Environment and Facilities Management Department. I've got a number of my team colleagues here.

Didn't know it was They're not talking before.

Oh Okay. Well, thank you chair and members of council The the history of the can be bridge is the long history I

I remember being at the opening of the third Cambie Bridge on December 8, 1985. Well, it was my birthday and also happy belated birthday to Chancellor Rohr. He had his birthday on Monday.

Mayor Mike Harcourt was at the opening ceremony for the new bridge. and our best mayor in the last 50 years, and the only second pro-transit premier in the history of BC. Harcourt was born in Edmonton, one of the few Canadian cities where the majority of city Councillors take transit regularly, not just once in a while, but regularly. And that's been going on for many, many years in Edmonton. Fast forward to the mid-2010s, I was attending a newest minister courthouse to hear the two-day discussion about the safety of the Canby Bridge. A citizen who was involved in an accident on the bridge was suing the city for building an unsafe bridge. The main point was the bad median that was on the bridge. The old bad median has been replaced after the court case. But the point is that there's many design features that has to be improved on the Cambie Bridge. And by approving this contract without the details and how the bridge going to look five or 10 years from now, We are making a big mistake. I mean, everybody's laughing at the city of Vancouver having three northbound lane and only two southbound lanes for vehicles and buses and no bus-only lanes. So we are a laughingstock. And unless you table this and look at all the options and everything else or request a proper report from the staff who... did not build the bridge, of course, because all that stuff from the 1980s retired, then, you know, nothing much will happen. Thank you very much.

Hello. I oppose the fee changes. I can speak to what Constable Orr just spoke about as I was the one he was referring to. There's an overarching issue which the towing fees are just a small part of, and the overarching issue... has to do with the bylaw ticketing practices of the city, which are ticketing vehicles not subject to the large vehicles bylaw per the correct and intended interpretation that go back to the 1999 administrative reports. I don't have time to get into that all right now, but I have given you those packages. All the speakers should have them. I have also sent them to every councillor on December 11th, emails. about the whole practice, it's articulating it all. I've received no response to that email and I followed up on January 15th, 2026 and no response to that either. I've left urgent voicemails and urgent emails, no response. So I'm feeling quite betrayed about that. But to get to the issue of the towing, is that because it's intertwined with the ticketing practices of the city, when Busters Towing is committing corrupt practices, that reflects badly on the city because the city then is seen as complicit in that. And Busters, because my vehicle has been towed, my small vehicle has been towed numerous times, I've had a lot of repetitive experience with Busters. Their towing fees are all over the map. when I go to pick up my vehicle, and they're towed from outside my residence from the same location every time, and yet the fees to pick it up could be $204 one day, $316, $515, $444. They're all over the map. And when I have attempted to get some kind of explanation and rectification of these fees, the fleet manager, Justin Shrump, who's part owner of the company... He has been rude. He has ignored my emails, lied to my face when I've gone in to see him, hung up on me on the phone. So these correct practices continue without rectification. They go well outside the fee guide as it is. The charges, they deem my vehicle larger than it actually is as far as the tow rate group. They have these surcharges. uh fuel surcharges that they attach to the tow rate group to the other bogus charges of load and secure that sometimes are are applied and sometimes aren't uh the storage rates are also which i understand go to the city are over charges i put that in my report as well they um are Sorry, this is blinking. If the vehicle is in four minutes before midnight, they can charge you a daily rate. Sometimes it goes up to as much as $149 for four minutes before midnight, and then when it crosses midnight, another daily rate. You can pick up your vehicle 10 minutes after it's been dropped.

So, yes.

Thank you. Good morning, Mayor and Council. My name is Duane Bryan from Teamsters Local 31 in Delta. I'm a business representative. We hold a certification for busters towing. the unionized drivers of Buster's Towing. And on behalf of the unionized tow truck drivers of Buster's Towing, Teamsters Local 31 opposes the amendment to the impounding vehicle for hire bylaws, specifically the one that would reduce the fuel surcharge from 27% to 22%. Financial impact to the owner-operators is the fuel surcharge is not a windfall. It's an important mechanism that helps offset operating costs to remain competitive and continue providing towing services to the City of Vancouver. Reducing it at this time would place added financial pressure on the drivers who perform this work. Fuel costs remain exceptionally high and are driven by factors outside the control of the owner-operators. Drivers may wait two to three hours between dispatches during a 10-hour workday, and in some cases, a vehicle is no longer present when they arrive at the tow. A 5% reduction in the surcharge would come directly out of the pockets of the tow truck owner-operators themselves. These pressures are compounded by the need to renew an aging fleet, Buster's tow is in the process of updating its equipment. Many owner-operators are facing the costs of purchasing replacement trucks. That dollar amount can go from $100,000 to $300,000. That is a business cost. They do assess for that, but at the same time, the reduction of the surcharge will impact what their options are to maintain that truck. Instead of reducing the surcharge by 5%, Teamsters Local 31 recommends increasing it by at least that 5%, at least 32%, and or adopting a fuel surcharge that takes into consideration the fluctuation of the diesel fuel costs for commercial vehicles monthly. The proposed 3% increase to the per-kilometer trip rate does not offset the impact of the 5% reduction in the fuel surcharge. These two amendments are the only changes that directly affect the tow truck owner-operator, and the net effect would be to worsen the financial strain on those providing the service to the City of Vancouver. Thank you.

Yes, I am. Bob Clemas, I am not a resident of Vancouver. Thank you. Please go ahead. Okay, thank you. I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to speak. Vehicles are towed from private property because the property owner is denied use of their own space, whether it's a restaurant on Kingsway or a resident in the West End. When a driver parks on private property without consent, They are deemed to have authorized towing under the Motor Vehicle Act. The city has two responsibilities here. One, to protect the public from excessive charges, and two, to ensure property owners can use their stalls when needed. Next slide, please. ICBC is being used as the benchmark. That's the wrong instrument. The ICBC province-wide rate is used for towing from collisions. The first tow is from an accident to the impound yard, the later tow to a shop, repair shop. The second tow is scheduled off hours, no cancellations. The administration invoicing are all done online during business hours. Private impounds are completely different. 45% of the calls are gone on arrival, the vehicle has left, and the tow truck has wasted time, money, fuel, and opportunity. Vehicles locked, half the jobs are in underground parkades, and abandoned vehicles result in unpaid storage and towing fees. Next slide, please. Even if you were to stick with ICBC rates, they've not been adjusted for inflation. There is a precedent for adjusting in 2007 and again in 2016 when ICBC hadn't adjusted the rate for nine years. More appropriate comparisons are Burnaby and Richmond, who follow the Motor Vehicle Act, which by now, in fact, is the ICBC rate adjusted. Our request is very straightforward. This amendment cannot be permitted to pass. Regardless of what is done about the fuel surcharge, the problems this could create are not good. We recommend revising the Schedule C to private impound rates that are adjusted with inflation annually. This would protect customers and property owners. Alternatively, adopt the Motor Vehicle Act. Like Burnaby and Richmond, rates are comparable to ICBC, and you don't have to deal with this again. Yes, I guess the only... Oh, next slide, please. Yeah, these are the comparison rates. And unfortunately, you can see that Vancouver does have the distinction of being the most affordable city, major city, in terms of parking illegally. Next slide, please. These are the net benefits, which are, as you can see, not what we're hoping for.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

No, I am not.

Yes, I am.

Thank you.

Sorry? Yes.

Thank you. Good morning, Mayor and Councillors. My name is Laura Holt, and I represent Drake Towing, one of two frontline major towing operators serving Vancouver's private property impound needs. I'm here today to oppose the proposed Vehicles for Hire By-law changes as drafted. because in their current form they are not financially sustainable and not aligned with provincial standards and metrics. Private property impound towing represents 27% of our business. That is not a relatively small share of our overall towing activities, as stated in your proposed amendment notes. That revenue supports staffing, equipment, compliance, and our ability to... keep trucks available to respond to the public needs in Vancouver. Firstly, the proposed amendment reduces the fuel surcharge from 27% to 22%. That forces us to pay current diesel prices while receiving compensation based on outdated data. Arguably, a precedent has been set. In July 2022, Council increased fuel surcharges after recognizing fuel as, and I quote, a significant, substantial, and volatile overhead expense for tow truck companies, and that updating the bylaw was vital to support local industry sustainability.

That volatility is equally severe today, and for reference, other trucking industries have been adjusting monthly as prices rise much more than in 2022. Request number one, do not reduce the fuel surcharge below 27%, and direct staff to use current transparent methodologies for the future adjustments. so the bylaw tracks real conditions. Secondly, the bigger issue is that the city continues to anchor towing compensation to ICBC schedules, which are not designed for enforcement impounds. Deloitte... completed a third-party study in March 2024 for RoadSafeBC, including that ICBC pricing reflects volume discount data intended for bulk accident insurance claims, and that is not an appropriate benchmark for enforcement towing. RoadSafeBC moved away from ICBC metrics and aligned with the provincial impound framework under the Motor Vehicle Act and related lean regulations structure. practical point is simple ICBC is the wrong anchor if Vancouver sets regulated fees significantly below the real cost of providing compliant impound service you do not get consumer protection you get reduced service capacity delays and instability in a service that property owners operators and occupiers rely on Request number two, fully decouple the towing fee bylaw from ICBC and align baseline tow and storage rates with the provincial MVA framework other cities have already embraced. These include 110 flat fee tow, $3.32 per kilometer beyond six kilometers, $40 doll fee, and $40 daily storage. And then adjust accordingly for the reality of doing business in Vancouver. Importantly, the bylaw should include a clear, fair schedule for release fees when a vehicle is released before leaving the property and after being fully loaded, to be fairly paid for the work already performed, and to reduce high-risk interactions on-site. We also request for a formal dispute fee of $25 based off the City's own model to deter fraudulent disputes and give a true framework to this process. Clearly, we agree with the council's addition of administration fees, research fees aligned with the Commercial Liens Act, which we already follow. The proposal, as drafted, only captures a narrow slice of the true administrative workload. An impound file includes document handling, release, processing, compliance steps, and coordination. The provincial MVA framework recognizes that processing an impound requires real administrative work.

Request number three, keep the proposed CLA search fee and also include an MVA administrative fee of $55.05 to reflect the real cost of impound processing and align municipal rules with the provincial approach. Include a release fee based on true work performed, not the current half of impound, and include a dispute fee of $20.25. Mayor and Councillors, these amendments do not balance consumer production and industry sustainability. They significantly underfund the service, and consumers pay for it through less capacity. longer waits, and instability. Consumers are not just the violators. The consumers are the ones whose parking spaces are being violated. Thank you for your time.

Yeah, hi. Thanks, Mayor and Council.

Yeah, well, thank you. On a personal note, you know, my name is Tom Digby. I'm the chair of the Vancouver Park Board and I am a resident of Vancouver and my position on this is other. On a personal note, you know, I'm a bit disappointed. In fact, I'm a lot disappointed that we are negotiating this very important point of children assuming the lessons in a public meeting in front and spending all this council time and staff time debating this in a public forum. The mayor can just give me a call as the chair of the park board. I would love to discuss what can we do for children in the city. for 136 years. You know, Mayor's been calling up chairs of the park board and saying, hey, look, we should do something for children of the city. And they worked together to get this solution. So Mayor, send my phone number again, 604-365-0338.

You're welcome to call me anytime and we'll see what we can do for kids. In fact, I want to, you know, maybe escalate this a bit. We could make the swimming pools in Vancouver free. Free for all residents at the way they do in Port Coquitlam and I know in Halifax swimming is free in the summertime. So you know there's a lot of things we could do, but it does require your ABC commissioners at the park board to reopen the fee schedule that we passed back in November and so long they you could invite them to do that. We'd be able to fix these fees and also we'd be able to lower the price at Spanish banks parking. which is excessive this year. Unfortunately, staff has jacked it up too high, but we can't intervene to lower it. Now, regarding the other parts of the motion, C to F, please, we do not need a report back in 2027 regarding pool priorities. We know what those are. To fund the kids' pool, it needs $40 million to stabilize it for another 15 years. If you want to do more than that, there's a $90 million option. And a $300 million option, full replacement. Please give me a call. Happy to chat about it. The Keresdale pool has been out of service for 10 months. My guess is it'll cost about $15 million to put in a new tank there. So that pool needs to go. And as you know, the city has been begging for a 50-meter pool, a new one. This could cost us up to $275 million. uh dollars at hastings center or at kensington community center so i encourage you to uh to call me and we'll talk about where that pool should go and if there's any federal money i'd love to put it there uh finally regarding kit's pool uh you know we did have a full hour-long discussion of this at the park board on march the 30th the issue was settled there were zero public speakers at that meeting so i assume that matter is settled Thank you for your time today, and I'll let you finish your considerations on the motion. Thank you, Tom.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. My name is Linnea Grace, and I'm the Executive Director of the Life Saving Society, BC and Yukon Branch. I'm here to speak in favor of today's motion. As mentioned, drowning is the leading cause of accidental deaths of children under the age of five in Canada. There is no better way to prevent than to intervene early with lessons. The Life Saving Society is a charitable organization dedicated to preventing drowning through swim lessons, training programs, water smart education, aquatic safety services, and life-saving sport. We're recognized as Canada's life-guarding expert and one of the five leading agencies in providing first aid. And annually across the country, over 1.7 million Canadians participate in our swimming, life-saving, life-guarding, first aid, and leadership programs. So we are so proud that the City of Vancouver and the Vancouver Park Board staff are an active affiliate delivering Swim for Life swim instruction. We're thrilled to see this proposal come forward, and we welcome city leaders as allies in education and safety. We also welcomed recent support on the restoration of lifeguard services at local beaches, a critical piece of the puzzle, with special thanks to Councillor Frey and other colleagues for shining a light on this issue. We've long advocated for all British Columbians and all Vancouverites to have access to essential skills to survive an unexpected fall into water and avoid drowning. We've supported potential policy solutions like making swim lessons and swim to survive mandatory in school curriculum, swim outreach programs, to bring instruction to underserved areas of BC and training more qualified lifeguards. Providing the first few levels of swim instruction for free presents a creative solution and moves us further towards everyone in Vancouver having essential life skills. As a coastal city, the natural risks of living and playing by or in the water are greater, making it even more important to have basic swim abilities. Program fees, limited availability of lessons that are in high demand, scheduling challenges, and other issues can prevent people from learning to swim, making it difficult for many to access these opportunities. This is especially challenging with those who statistically have reduced swim skills and access, including newcomers to Canada, low-income residents, and families with young children. Should this motion be approved, the Life Saving Society is available to collaborate. with the City of Vancouver, Vancouver Park Board, as desired. We remain ready to provide expert advice, and we want to help your team determine the most successful methods to deliver free swim instruction going forward as they form their recommendations, if staff are directed to do so, and if funding allows. Together, we can prevent drowning and reduce water-related injury. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon. Hi.

Thank you very much. My name is Jody Vance. I'm a Vancouverite, a swimmer, a community advocate, and a mother. And I'm here this afternoon in support of the motion being passed because Kitzpool, one of the most iconic public amenities in this entire country, is still being run like it's March 2020. The pandemic is over. The restrictions at Kitzpool are not. We're talking about Vancouver's largest outdoor saltwater pool. It's a landmark, a place that has served this city's families, seniors, athletes, and newcomers for generations. And right now, it is sitting empty when it should have opened this past weekend. For six years, Kitspool has been operating at a fraction of its capacity with multiple 30-minute crossover closures for cleaning and an entirely unnecessary advanced online reservation system that functionally locks out anyone without a smartphone, a laptop, or the luxury of planning a spontaneous swim days in advance. Let me be very direct about who that hurts most. It hurts families, families who want to teach their kids to swim by spending a summer day at the pool, but don't have the devices or the data plans to navigate a reservation portal. I know these families, they've stopped trying. That is an equity failure and it belongs to the Vancouver Parks Board. Swimming is a life skill. The current system hurts low income kids and teenagers, an entire generation being denied the simple spontaneous joy of showing up at a public pool on a hot day. Kids don't plan group swims a week ahead, they just go. or they used to. It hurts seniors, it hurts newcomers, it hurts everyone who believed that a public pool meant public access. We've been told this is about capacity management, about lineups, about a lifeguard shortage. I want to address that directly. There is no lifeguard shortage. What there is, is an administration that doesn't understand the fundamental difference between outdoor seasonal guards and indoor pool guards. and has arbitrarily restructured their scheduling in ways that put frontline workers in an impossible position and the public in a longer queue. And if lineups are the concern, get creative. A QR code at the gate, a text notification when space opens up. There are a dozen low friction solutions that don't require turning Vancouver's most beloved public pool into a reservation only private club. Reservations are for restaurants. Kit's pool is a public good. The ask this afternoon is simple and it is reasonable. Restore full capacity and the reservation system and the crossover closures extend the season. Our shoulder seasons now feel very much summer-like. Think April to October and let this pool be what it was built to be. Open, accessible, at the point of entry for every single person in this city and our visitors. Life lessons for kids, free lessons for kids, life skills for kids, 12 and under is a great idea, but the pool needs to be open. Vancouver built Kids Pool for its people, all of them, not just the ones with laptops and flexible schedules. Open the pool. And by the way, the baby in that photo is my son, and he's now 18. He learned to swim at Kids Pool. Thank you.

Yes, good afternoon, Chair, Mayor, Council. My name is John Irwin. I'm speaking for myself. I want to speak in support of the intent of the motion. I think the motion has good intent. I want to question the jurisdictional boundaries, so I think it's better to leave this for the Park Board. But on the intent, I think there are three blood sports in Vancouver. Housing, childcare, and swim lessons. Like many other residents, and I'm speaking on behalf of my children as well, I would get on the system. I have all the gear. I've had that for a while because I've been in academia. And you really had to work hard to get a slot. So often we go to a private provider to get the swim lessons because we do a lot of water sports, and it's essential, as you said. I agree with that. And so I think we can do this, and we need to do it, but I'd argue it should be park board-led because it's a jurisdictional issue, really. The park board is there. It needs to be honored as an institution. I'd also like to say that, you know, kids' pool is a great pool. It needs to be rebuilt, but it's in a very difficult spot in terms of the logs and the climate change and the king tides and the storms that happen. So that's tricky, but I understand people like it, especially my partner who likes to swim for miles, unlike me, who I don't swim for miles. You know, so I think it's valid as well. I also think if you're going to support this and, you know, kind of copy something I said in the past, I can't remember if it was here or not, about Joe Fortes and thinking back to Joe Fortes, it's important to remember he taught people how to swim, kids how to swim in the ocean. And the ocean is almost like an unlimited beachside resource that we have in our city. When the weather's hot, especially, we could run programs. Apparently, there was one. One lifeguard told me this during the discussion around the lifeguards. And we could hire enough lifeguards to teach people, especially kids, with this free swim lesson idea, which I really like. I think it's wonderful. But we need to work together in collaboration with each institution. Yeah, I'd also like to say that basically the lifeguards, one person thanked you folks for the lifeguards. I'd just like to point out that the park board trimmed its budget in other areas to put the funding in to keep the lifeguards, right? Because lifeguarding is essential. Swimming is essential. The death by drowning, after death by automobile, by the way, being struck by automobiles, getting injured in automobiles, bicycles sometimes hitting people, but more rarely is the number two cause of death for children over one in Canada. That's a StatsCan statistic. Yeah, so I like the intent. Let's do it. But pony up. Show me the money. Do it now. Because we're, you know, this can't be an election strategy. This has to be something we do. And we do it now for the safety of our children. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon.

Please go ahead. Thank you. I'm a Vancouver resident, and I'm speaking on behalf of the Vancouver Society for Promotion of Outdoor Pools and the Mount Pleasant Community Centre Association. We support the many goals of this motion while also sharing some important concerns. We strongly support improving equitable access to public aquatic facilities across Vancouver and making swimming lessons accessible to all ages and the younger they can start learning, the better. We appreciate the recognition that we have a stark and growing pool deficit and the urgent need to resolve this. More aquatic capacity will help address the lifeguard shortage by creating long-term employment opportunities. If we build the facilities, people will train for those jobs. We do, however, caution...

and delay projects that are already urgently needed and already well advanced through public planning and consultation. We especially want to stress that outdoor pools must explicitly be included in aquatic strategies. Outdoor public pools are essential infrastructure for our resilience. They provide essential skill building, recreation, cooling, and accessible public space during extreme heat events, especially for residents without other options. They can also be delivered at a much lower cost than large indoor destination pools, which may have certain efficiencies, but are ultimately far more costly to build, maintain, and operate. We need to expand both our indoor and outdoor aquatics. Outdoor pools are not less valuable because they're seasonal. Many facilities and activities are seasonal, and outdoor pools are one of the most accessible and popular ways people are introduced to water and swimming. Currently, access is not equitable across the city. We also cannot assume that our beaches can replace outdoor pools. We no longer have two or four days at English Bay teaching people to swim, and learning in open water can be intimidating and unsafe. As contamination, sea level rise, and erosion increasingly affect our beaches, outdoor pools are becoming even more needed. Anticipated Stage 3 water restrictions will mean that private backyard pools cannot be filled, so the importance of public facilities is greater than ever. Park Board is already requesting $250 million for aquatic infrastructure in the capital plan. Council should consider supporting and potentially increasing that investment while ensuring planning processes do not slow urgently needed delivery. Unless we build more pools now, many of the beneficial goals in this motion will not be possible. Finally, I want to highlight Mount Pleasant, where residents have been waiting since 2009 for progress on a pool facility that is already prioritized. There is no reason for further delay as our other facilities deteriorate. It is positioned to be a quick start project that can begin to address our pool deficit in the near term. Whether through this motion, the capital plan, or the park board's aquatics request, Vancouver needs more aquatic capacity and faster delivery. So thank you for your time.

Hi. So my name is Laura Christensen. I'm speaking as a park board commissioner, but on my own behalf. And I'm speaking, I guess other would be my category. I do just want to say I appreciate the Council's interest in investing in aquatic infrastructure. I think this is a good move towards that. I do want to flag, for one, questioning why some of the ABC Park Board commissioners didn't bring this to the board, seeing as a significant portion of this is within Park Board jurisdiction. There's two things I want to address. This is primarily around items C and G. So on the topic of C, which is setting targets, this is actually already set in Van Splash. If you look at page 55 of Van Splash, the target that they use is a unit of swims per capita. So they have a 25-year vision of hitting 5.0 swims per capita. And this is sort of, you know, large pools can provide more swims per capita versus small pools. And that's how they're setting the targets for aquatic infrastructure. So let's not reinvent the wheel. We can just use this criteria we've already developed. I don't think we need to set staff on another mission when we already have this developed with advanced splash already. I do also want to address item G, which is the Kitsilano pool. uh reservation system um you know on march 30th the park board did was received a report from staff that provided significant data in support of the reservation system and including a lege poll and this staff report was considered and approved by the board um you know in a previous meeting about lifeguards uh city councillor you know called out the park board's not coming to speak at the city city council uh so i'd like to call out city council for not coming to speak at our meeting on this If this is something that council wanted, they could have come and spoke at our meeting when we considered this. However, we had no one from city council come speak to us. We only received four letters in support of the reservation system, none opposed. We had one speaker that night which was classified as other. I think both the report that we received and the public feedback that we received at that time. I think indicates the support for the reservation system. People appreciate the ability to reserve and know that they have a spot. And the information provided by staff showed that there was only two times the entire last summer where people were turned away. And I think it was, you know, a very small handful of people in two different sessions over the entire summer that drop-ins were turned away. So this shows that the reservation system is working. And the board has already on March 30th considered and approved maintaining So I think the request to Park Board likely won't be received because we've already considered this, and it'll be out of order for us to reconsider that item again already. So again, I just want to flag, you know, if these are investments in our aquatic infrastructure, it would be great if Park Board could be included in this. I believe the chair, Tom Digby, already spoke to this.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm wearing my glasses today because I actually made some notes. I'm glad that Commissioner Christensen referenced the Kitsilano report. Actually, it's a very good report. I would encourage all of the councillors to go through it. And I think she covered it off well in terms of the public response to not only Kitsilano, but all of our public outdoor pools and the booking system. So let me back up. My name is Aaron Jasper, former park board commissioner and former chair. Served on the board from 2008 to 14. I'm also a member of the Save Our Park Board Coalition, which is comprised of over 30 previous park board commissioners across the political spectrum, community center associations, and citizens and residents across our city. I part down against this motion, and I wanted to qualify that. If this motion had been worded in a way that encouraged Park Board to explore free lesson options with a promise of funding that, then I would have been the first person to sign up to support it. I see this motion, however, as an empty, hollow motion. I do also want to touch on something that's been mentioned by my friend John Irwin in terms of jurisdiction. And I brought a copy. I'm happy to leave it with any of the council members. The Vancouver Charter section, as it pertains to the park board, and I would reiterate the comments made earlier that this is not council jurisdiction. This is park board jurisdiction in terms of how they are going to put on their programming and all the operations. It's worth noting... I've watched council for the last three years. I haven't really seen any overstep when it comes to the Vancouver Police Department or fire and rescue. No directions or any ways of dictating how they run their operations. In fact, you're very supportive. This council is very supportive with respect to staffing, funding, equipment. But when it comes to park board, this council seems to not be able to swim in their own lane. I think it's important to respect our jurisdiction or the park board's jurisdiction. While no one would disagree with that swimming is a fundamental life skill, again, I find it hard to believe that the purpose of this motion is to get us to improving that skill level amongst our youth. You can't say that you support world-class parks and rec when you underfund park board operations by $11 million, and that's a fact. Contrast to that with the funding you give to the Vancouver Police Department. Furthermore, given that this motion directs staff to report back to council in 2027, in my opinion, what we're looking at here is nothing more than a bullet point in an election platform for ABC.

I could get into the particulars. Van Splash already has done all the work, the analysis, and the plan. the work has already been done. And so if mayor and council are really genuine in their desire to support free swimming, I think we need to have a discussion first about funding park board operations and working collaboratively. So thank you for your time.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. My name is Phil Skinder, and I'm the director and the head coach of the Pacific Swim Academy and the Pacific Life Saving Club. I'm a resident, parent, swimmer, certified lifeguard, and my children are too. We teach swimming, life saving, and instruction skills in Vancouver at four to five pools, as well as Jericho Sailing Centre. I sincerely congratulate you on this motion. It is very well written. And in complete document, it's important significantly because it recognizes something fundamental. Finally, publicly, that swimming skills save lives. They improve public health, build confidence, strengthen communities, and give children healthy environments to grow in. Even if the lessons became free tomorrow, where would the pools, instructors, and funding come from? Well, surprisingly, the reality is we have much of the infrastructure we need, and we don't need money to provide immediate relief. We already have pools, beaches, and bodies of water that could be used more effectively. We already have certified instructors ready to teach what's missing is the pathway. And creating the pathway is mainly within your jurisdiction and your power. You can modernize policies, home-based business bylaws, and operating procedures that currently restrict access to both public and private pools. as well as other aquatic spaces. You can incentivize strata, residential and privately owned pools to invite access through measures like property tax reductions. City Council and the Parks Board can work collaboratively to allow certified organizations like ours teach life-saving courses at beaches through wading pools for novice instruction and expand existing low-cost community programming immediately. By making changes today, not spending any more money... you can decide to immediately reduce pressure on the system. And yes, in the immediate future, expand partnerships with schools. We've already written out a pools and schools proposal. Learn from what Burnaby did well and what they learned they did not do well. create pilot projects on unused public and private land, and allow private instructors and community organizations to help deliver lessons safely and professionally. For years, we've advocated for community-based swimming education integrated directly into neighborhoods and schools. Our polling verifies it. Parents want pools in schools. I'll tell you what, most can already afford it. We already have the leisure access program available to identify those who can't. But what no one can afford is driving across the city to attend lessons, and waiting hours online for swim school lottery. Seriously, the current cohort of children I'm asking you to consider today does not have the luxury of time. This is a solvable problem that you can solve here, right now. The infrastructure exists, the instructors exist, the demand certainly exists. What's needed now is the willingness to modernize policy so we can get kids safely into the water quickly and at scale. I see this motion pointing to all these solutions and I smile. Let's do it now. The children and families in our great aquatic city deserve our best efforts to do so. Thank you very much.

It was raised by several of the speakers.

That's what you're asking.

Yeah, thanks. Certainly a laudable motion in theory. And I'll spare regaling Council on... how I learned to swim. But I do have a point of information, maybe through the chair to staff. By my calculations, this program pulls in around $420,000 a year by delivering around 1,113 swimming lessons. Would that be accurate? You have the exact number, but that's what I came up with around there.

Okay, so that's a big chunk of money. I guess my question is, you know, considering that, you know, we've asked the park board to, you know, find $15 million in savings due to the zero means zero budget. Where will we find the money for this, essentially, similar to some of the speakers that we're asking? I guess this is a question through the chair to the mover of the motion. Where will we find the money for this if we continue to not raise taxes?

Okay, so there's potential for, you know, sponsorship naming for swimming lessons like, you know, Speedo, Brands, you know.

Thank you very much. I am in support, and I'm a proud resident of Vancouver. Hello, mayor and council. Well, the mayor is not here, but you all know me. My name is Melissa DiGenova, and I'm the president of the Italian Day Festival Society. I'm here today on behalf of our board in support of Councillor Dominato's motion for this urgent one-time funding request for $60,000. And I want to sincerely thank Councillor Dominato for bringing the motion forward. Italian Day is the largest event during Italian Heritage Month and a celebration of the people, culture, businesses, and community that helped to build the city. It showcases Vancouver's Little Italy, something I was proud to bring forward with the help of Randy Rinaldo, who's here also for official recognition when I served as a Vancouver City Councillor. For generations, Commercial Drive has been a place where immigrant families built businesses, raised children, and created community. Italian Day honors that legacy and welcomes hundreds of thousands of people each year. In a city that has become increasingly expensive, free, family-friendly, cultural events like this matter more than ever. And this festival supports local businesses and tourism. Italian Day isn't the only festival facing extraordinary pressures, as you know, from your commitment to one-time funding for Car Free Days. The financial climate has made sponsorship more difficult, with festival costs continuing to rise. Italian Day was not recommended for a city cultural grant this year, a loss of approximately $10,000 in funding we long received. Two years ago, the province canceled the grant program that supported cultural festivals and shifted towards a tourism-focused model. Since then, Italian Day has not received provincial funding. FIFA-related pressures are also creating operational impacts for festivals across the city. We do support FIFA. I want to be very clear about that. However, these impacts are our reality. For example, capacity pressures affect our ability to secure traffic authority personnel at lower rates, and equipment costs have skyrocketed due to supply and demand. Like many festival organizations and organizations, we are finding current funding models increasingly difficult to sustain. Costs continue to rise while the FestShare grant remains unchanged in the same amount each year. Italian Day must move forward. We have made commitments to the community, local merchants, sponsors, and attendees. However, without your support, there's a real risk that the festival will need to be significantly scaled back. despite overwhelming public support and attendance. On behalf of our board sponsors and those who look forward to attending Italian Day every year, thank you for your consideration. I hope this is one motion that you will all unanimously support, and we look forward to welcoming you all to Commercial Drive on June 14th for Italian Day on the Drive, where we invite you all to be Italian, at least for the day.

My name is Randy Rinaldo, and I am the president of Il Centro Italian Cultural Center. I'm here today in support of Counselor Lisa Dominato's motion to provide one-time extraordinary support for Italian Day on the Drive. For decades, many of us in the Italian-Canadian community worked hard to preserve and celebrate Little Italy on Commercial Drive. I personally spent years advocating for the recognition and promotion of Little Italy on Commercial Drive to celebrate the culture and heritage of our community. We wanted future generations to understand the contributions Italian Canadians made to this city and to create a place where culture, food, family, music, and community could continue to thrive and to promote Vancouver as a fun city. Something we got to work hard on. We've done very well in the last few years, but we're going to keep pushing on that. Italian Day has become one of the most visible and successful expressions of that vision. Today, it is one of Vancouver's largest cultural festivals. It also showcases Vancouver as a vibrant, welcoming, multicultural city. What is important for Council to understand is that the financial challenges facing Italian Day this year are unique and outside of the organization's control. We appreciate the consideration for a one-time grant, but as Melissa has said, to keep this festival alive, we need to consider how we can work together to sustaining rising costs. And let me tell you, every single year, the water is right here, and we always think maybe this is our last year. We may not be able to go the next year because it is getting up there. This is not simply funding in an event. It is supporting culture, tourism, small business, and community connection in Vancouver. Events like this matter to our city. They bring life to our streets, support local economies, and strengthen community during a time when many organizations are struggling with rising costs. I want to thank Councillor Domenato for bringing this motion forward for consideration. On behalf of Villecentro and many members of the Italian-Canadian community, I respectfully ask Council's support.

Thank you, Randy.

Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for having us here. My name is Benalla Gaudio, and I'm the executive director for Italian Day on the Drive. And I thank you for this opportunity to come and speak today in support of the motion Councillor Lisa Dominato has put forth for the extraordinary grant of $60,000 to assist with Italian Day's 2026 shortfall. I have been with the Italian Day Festival Society since 2011 and have seen costs rise from an initial $80,000 cost to now close to $600,000, which would be even higher if it wasn't for the additional in-kind support from our partners and sponsors. Close to 60% of our expenses incurred represent base costs just to shut down the street and ensure public safety, along with sanitation, insurance, traffic management, security, production, and equipment. Since we returned in 2023, after three years of not having the 14-block festival due to the pandemic, costs have almost tripled in many cases. As an example, in 2019, before Festshare was to come into effect in 2020, our gross costs on city services provided for the festival were just under $40,000. In 2023, when the festival returned and the FestShare grant was applied for the first time, the gross costs were close to $100,000, almost triple what was in 2019. Today, gross costs before applying FestShare grant are closer to $140,000 and rising each year. This is just one example demonstrating the degree of cost increases we face, which is becoming impossible to maintain. The $75,000 FestShare grant, although helpful, today remains what it was when it first passed and in a few short years does not consider the dramatic rise in costs leaving us and many festivals at risk. This is something Mayor and Council should consider for future as a longer term solution to help resolve the variance between what costs were when FestShare was first passed and what they are now. A challenging economic climate has also seen sponsor revenue streams shrink, resulting in lower funding amounts and more challenges to obtain sponsorships. In addition, valuable grants have disappeared or have become virtually impossible to obtain because of the competitive nature for these grants. It has been two years since we received any provincial funding, which in 2023 and 2024 amounted to $100,000 combined from the BCFFE grant. The grant was discontinued in 2025 and replaced with a DEP program, which has more of a tourism focus. This year has been an exceptionally difficult year. Although we are one of the only festivals approved by FIFA to move forward with the event during the game window, the competitive nature of obtaining funds from sponsors with the World Cup in play has had us drop in historic funding significantly. Add to that the removal of one of the key benefits which draws sponsors to support, this being the street banners on the drive announcing the festival and its sponsors, now have been taken by FIFA. Further opportunities were lost to obtain funding. We have worked hard to make up the difference in revenue loss as well as additional revenue needed to address anticipated cost increases, but there remains a $60,000... Rene, I'm sorry if that's your time.

Yeah. I just wanted to say Italian Day is one of the most anticipated festivals of the year, embracing all ages and cultures together in a unifying and uplifting way. Sorry, that's your time.

Hello, Chair and members. Yes, I'm on the phone. Yeah, please go ahead, Nathan. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Yeah. Thank you, Chair and members of the committee. Yeah, my name is Nathan Davinovich, and I support the Italian Days and all the other festivals in the city, and I hope that the BC government will fund them properly. The problem arise is when the streets are closed and people are left stranded in their home, like they are prisoners in their own home. They bought the monthly pass to use transit, but then there is no transit for at least 12 hours on commercial drive. If you go on Beach Avenue, I don't know how many days throughout the summer. There is no bus service. So why would somebody buy a pass and he can't use it? Just said, yeah, you're leaving seniors and disabled people, prisoners in their own home. They can't go out anywhere because there's no bus service. Now, there is a solution. And other cities have done that. And Hansling doesn't want to do it, which is the golf cart. 12-passenger golf cart that can fit in. Chair, can you remind the speaker to stay on topic?

The people around commercial drive on Italian Day are going, left prisoners on their own home because TransLink does not want to provide alternate service to the bus service they are taking away. And it's up to council to request TransLink to provide alternate service. And, you know, it's just, I mean, it's a long way for people to walk, you know, and either to cloud drive or on a nine-way street, it's even farther away from commercial drive. It's almost one kilometer because the transit doesn't want to put a bus service on Victoria Drive. So we have all kinds of challenges, and I don't know what... You said council can't really do anything, but I can recommend things to TransLink and ask the city manager to discuss better ways to serve the public without street closures. Thank you very much for your help. All right. Thanks, Nathan.

I'm super happy to support, and I had a...

Sandra Singh, Deputy City Manager. It's possible that we've heard that, but I don't have that information with me now. I'd have to consult with staff. I have not heard anything.

I can't speak right now to the commercial arrangements, but what I can say is that there has been extensive effort from the special events team to enable the full range of community events to happen this year. So they've been working really hard on that.

I think it was just a matter of the volume of applications relative to the application process is my record.

Yes, for now, although I don't know how much longer that will last. Okay, that's okay.

All right, so good afternoon, Mayor and Council. I support Councillor Fry's motion, and I'm just going to try to keep it quick. Those entities that Councillor Fry's motion brought up, are indeed having a hard time competing with the land speculation. So I do support the city undertaking a study, although if you guys didn't unanimously rubber stamp the facilitation of the land speculation, this motion may not even be needed in the first place. That's all I'll say. Thank you.

Thank you. Hello. Good afternoon, Council Chair. Mayor is not here, but hello. I know he was here earlier. I am speaking in support of this. I am a Vancouver resident. I was diagnosed with cancer, stage 3B, in 2011. After I completed chemotherapy, I was really trying to figure out who I was again. Cancer has a way of just stripping down your life to the essentials. And I needed to find myself and reconnect with the things that made me me. I was lucky enough to be cast in a production of Hamlet at this little theater space on East 2nd. It wasn't fancy. It was just below ground. Upstairs, there was a whole bunch of rehearsal rooms where local bands would have this.

Pardon me?

Everything okay?

Thank you very much. So there is upstairs, there is the local bands of practice. It was one of those really weird, wonderful places that felt like a hub for artists and just this creative energy. Now, during that production, something really remarkable happened. I rediscovered my love of theater. I met my now husband. And I met two people who became very close friends of mine, local directors Sam and Kaylee Spear. That small theater space literally changed the course of my life. And today that building is a Mountain Equipment Co-op.

What it is about is asking what gets lost when spaces disappear, when development happens. Because on paper, redevelopment can look like this fantastic success story. But we have a new building, new investments, different uses for space. But what doesn't show up on paper is the things that were happening on the inside of those buildings. the friendships, the mentorship, the collaboration, the art, the sense of belonging. And I think sometimes we here are very good at counting units and square footage, but we become less good at measuring the things that make neighborhoods in Vancouver feel alive. Don't get me wrong, we need housing. We desperately need housing, but we need to build it smartly. We shouldn't have a choice between housing and community. We need both because the city is more than buildings. It's relationships, it's culture, it's places where people discover or rediscover who they are. And how do we add homes that people desperately need while protecting the ecosystem? that makes Vancouver feel like Vancouver. That's what we should ask. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Hello, Mayor and Council. My name is Lindsay, and I'm speaking as one of the co-founders of Big Baby Film Rental Studio in Strathcona, and I am a Vancouver resident as well. I'm here in support of this motion because the pressures described in it are not theoretical to us, but it's actually our reality. Big Baby Studios was built during a period of real instability post-COVID during the film strike and in a city where creative businesses operate under constant pressure from rising costs, uncertain tendency, redevelopment pressure, and shifting industry conditions. Now, despite that, we, two mothers who work in film, built something that actively supports the city's cultural and economic life. Big Baby Studios is both a prop rental house and a working film studio. We specialize in cleared and licensed production props used in film, photography, and media work. Now, this structure is important because it allows us to subsidize our film studio space, and we keep it more accessible for more independent filmmakers, artists, and small production teams. The prop house isn't separate from the studio. It's what makes the studio possible. And because of that, since we've opened, we've been able to support emerging creatives working on short films, documentaries, music, festival submissions. student films, and even open our doors to Eastside Culture Crawl, which is an impactful annual event that draws in thousands of visitors to Strathcona and creates real economic and cultural momentum for local artists and other businesses in the neighborhood. We are often one of the first spaces where people are able to move an idea from concept into actual production. Now, this sounds insignificant, but these opportunities really matter because they are often the beginning of careers, collaborations, and creative momentum. This is what cultural infrastructure looks like. Not symbolic space, but real working space where real people are actively able to create. And once these spaces are gone, they are incredibly difficult to rebuild. Right now, rising rents, redevelopment pressure, and zoning uncertainty are putting cultural infrastructure under strain in neighborhoods like Strathcona, and this reflects a much broader pattern happening across Vancouver. What gets lost is not only physical space, it's accessibility, it's community, it's the ability for emerging creatives to find a foothold in this already very expensive city. Because creative careers rarely begin in major institutions, they begin in the smaller independent spaces that give people a chance before anyone knows who they are. That's your time, Lindsay.

Just but I will be I will be listening, but I'm I'm frozen.

Hello, Council. Thank you for hearing me today. My name is Kit Rothschild. I'm a non-binary queer and a multiple disabled sex worker with over 20 years in the industry. I am speaking in support of this motion. From 2017 to 2025, I was engaged with Pace Society, a peer-led sex worker support and education and advocacy organization based in the downtown Eastside since 1994. I am speaking to you today as both a former representative of Pace, as well as a concerned taxpaying citizen and community member. As you all know, this city's history has been inexorably altered by the sex workers who have lived, worked, and died here since its colonial inception. In Forsaken, the report of the Missing Women's Commission of Inquiry in Recommendation 5.5 called for the creation of not one but two sex work-focused social planning positions at the City of Vancouver, a recommendation the city followed with pride, leading the way at the time in North America for sex worker safety and civic inclusion. Eliminating one of these positions erodes hard-won gains that generations of sex workers and community advocates fought tirelessly to achieve. It is deeply unsettling and disrespectful to a community that has endured profound violence, criminalization, and loss, including the disappearances and deaths of countless sex workers harmed by serial predators, systemic neglect, and immeasurable police violence, and the struggle for even the most basic protections and recognitions of our rights, including the creation of these positions. The sex work social planners undertake complex, vital, and sometimes heartbreaking work in liaison with the city, police, sex work serving organizations, and business associations to try to improve the living and working conditions for this historically neglected community, navigating bylaws, the impacts of colonization, and societal whorephobia. This was never meant to be a singular role. There were meant to be two people in this position who could support each other in the difficult and sometimes grim nature of their work. Amongst so many other cuts to city staff, cutting this position in particular during a time when sex worker serving organizations have been forced due to lack of funding to cut or reduce their services and when FIFA is right around the corner, a time when sex workers will need even more support due to the influx of rowdy, intoxicated tourists and a massive presence of out-of-town police. resulting in dangerous conditions, loss of income, and available working spaces, as well as increased surveillance, harassment, violence, and criminalization is nothing short of cruel. It cannot be overstated that those who will suffer most under the new temporary FIFA bylaws are those members of our community already the most impacted by the harms associated with the stigmatization and criminalization of sex work, specifically Indigenous, Black, Brown, Trans, and disabled people, temporary residents of Canada, and those surviving poverty and homelessness. I encourage council to pass this motion to reinstate this position with haste and to reprioritize meaningful investment in sex worker safety and civic inclusion.

I'm not.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. My name is Angela Wu, and I am the Executive Director of Swan Vancouver, an organization that supports the rights, health, and safety of immigrant and migrant and gender diverse, women and gender diverse people engaged in sex work. I'm speaking today in strong support of this motion. swan supports an extremely marginalized community that experiences multi-layered criminalization discrimination and stigma they face many barriers to accessing support that most people can easily access including city-run services and law enforcement they are also at greater risk of experiencing violence and exploitation at the hands of predators who target them knowing they are unlikely to call the police Since 2012, the city's two sex work safety positions have provided invaluable support for our community. They have provided opportunities for sex workers' voices to be heard and to ensure their needs are represented in city policies and initiatives. They have provided critical emergency support and resources and have spent years building relationships and meaningful trust within our community. SWAN has regularly utilized these liaison positions as we navigate precarious access to services, healthcare, safety, and justice. The elimination of this position does not align with what we know are the city's values and is contradictory to its past efforts to prioritize sex worker safety. For years, the City of Vancouver has been a leader in this area, locally, provincially, and even internationally. The city's response to the Forsaken report has been regarded as best practices for sex worker safety. But to do this work effectively requires both subject matter expertise and deep connection in the community. Integration across departments does not replace the expertise and the trusted relationships that were built through these roles. over nearly 15 years. Unfortunately, as history has shown, sex workers cannot rely on broader gender safety strategies that may not address the urgent and unique realities that they are facing right now. Furthermore, the scope and weight of this work is far too much for one person to carry alone, especially as violence continues to increase. I urge the council to remember the tragic context in which these two roles were created, but I also cannot overstate just how crucial both of these positions are to the safety of sex workers here and now. In the past year, there have been multiple deaths after many years without similar reported incidents. Violence against sex workers is increasing at a time when the commitment of the government at all levels to sex worker safety is diminishing. But this is an opportunity for the city to change course. We know that you care about sex workers and their safety. I urge the city, do not repeat the mistakes of the past. Listen to sex workers now and reaffirm your commitment to the safety and well-being of sex workers by maintaining dedicated capacity at a level consistent with previous commitments as well as current realities. Thank you.

I'd like to begin by thanking Mayor and Council for the opportunity to speak before you this afternoon on the matter of sex worker safety. My name is Melody Wise. I am a resident of Vancouver, and I'm a public health researcher affiliated with the Ayesha Project. This is a longitudinal study which operated for 14 years, housed within UBC's Faculty of Medicine. Over the course of the Ayesha project, our team collected thousands of hours of qualitative and quantitative interview data with over 900 street-based and indoor sex workers across Metro Vancouver. My intention today is to draw upon this work and offer an evidence-based public health perspective that can support our discussion on the current motion, which I'm here to express my strongest possible support for. As others have already articulated, our city is facing a conjuncture that requires continued leadership and action for sex worker safety. It is well established in the literature and among public health experts that relative to the general population, sex workers experience substantially greater unmet health needs and face significant structural barriers to key determinants of health. Our current moment is also one marked by a provincially declared epidemic of gender-based violence with documented and disproportionate impacts on marginalized sex workers, especially those who are street-based, indigenous, racialized, or gender minorities. Within the context of these significant and persistent health disparities, community interventions play an incredibly important role in mitigating harm. Previous public health research has demonstrated that such interventions, whether that be sex worker-led services, outreach, peer models, all of these are strongly supported and associated with HIV, STI, and violence prevention globally. Importantly, the success of these interventions requires support from all levels of government, including municipalities. Vancouver, in particular, has been one of the first cities in North America to take a proactive approach in improving the health and safety of sex workers, including through the creation of two dedicated planning positions specializing in sex worker safety. I cannot overstate my support for an assessment of workload service impacts and risks associated with reduced staffing levels at present for these roles. I want to conclude by highlighting that the current motion also asks that council reaffirm its commitment to the findings and intent of Forsaken, which was motivated by the disappearance of 68 women from Vancouver's downtown Eastside between 1978 and 2001. Although these women are gone, they are not forgotten. Sex worker organizations, some of whom you've already heard from today and many of whom you will continue to hear from, have worked tirelessly to build their legacy of safety together. And much of this work has also been made possible through the leadership of our city. It is my hope that today, Mayor and Council will continue this important work, both in keeping with public health evidence, but more importantly, in honor of the missing and murdered women who are remembered and missed and whose spirits live within us. Thank you.

My name is Kelly Go. Yep.

Yep. My name is Kelly Goh. I'm the program manager at Swan Vancouver. I'm a Vancouver resident, and I'm speaking in support of the motion. For the past 10 years, I worked directly with immigrant and migrant sex workers through frontline support, outreach, and case management. Today, I want to speak specifically about the experiences of the community. Most are people of color working in conditions where they're heavily isolated from protection and support. They face racism, criminalization, language barrier, fear of immigration consequences, and a deep distrust of institutions that have historically surveyed and harmed them, rather than protected them or treated them as an integral part of our community. When violence happens, many do not feel safe reporting it. Some are afraid of attracting police attention, fear of losing income. Many worry that information sharing between systems could impact their immigration status, their families, or future opportunities. Some have also experienced being dismissed, stereotyped, or treated as disposable because of their work. Race, gender, migration status, and criminalization compound one another to create systemic vulnerabilities to violence. In my 10 years of work with this community, this has been one of the most violent periods I've witnessed. Over the past year, there have been multiple deaths in the sex-working community that we know of. And these are not isolated tragedies, but warning signs of systems failing people who are already marginalized. One of the clearest indicators we're seeing is the rise in abuser alerts. Swan's Abuser Alert is a community safety alert system. Workers contact us after experiencing various forms of violence, and these alerts are shared within the community to help prevent further harm. Swan is often the first organization immigrant and migrant sex workers call after experiencing violence, and we hear stories that rarely make it into the public discourse. One community member shared, people only care when we die. Before that, we're invisible. The sex worker safety planner position was not just administrative. It was a critical bridge between frontline organizations and the city in coordinating responses to violence, improving communication, supporting prevention efforts to ensure sex workers were not completely excluded from public safety planning. This will also help create accountability around institutional responses, including interactions with law enforcement and bylaw officers. Ultimately, this is a conversation and decision to be made about equity. Treating everybody the same does not address the reality that some communities face significantly greater barriers to safety, protection, and access to support. Migrant and immigrant sex workers experience overlapping forms of marginalization tied to race, gender, immigration status, language barriers, and criminalization. If the city truly values an intersectional approach to safety, equity, and gender-based violence, an equitable response means recognizing those realities and ensuring that there are dedicated resources and expertise to address them. Removing one of the very few positions specifically focused on sex worker safety moves us further away from that goal. Thank you.

My name is Sarah Resendez. I sit on the board of directors at Pace Society, a peer-led organization that has been supporting, empowering, and advocating alongside sex workers since 1994. I'm here speaking in support of the motion. Pace believes the removal of the sex work social planner position will erode the relationships sex work organizations have worked tirelessly to establish with city officials. As mentioned, the sex work social planner positions were created in direct response to the recommendations from the Forsaken report. And of the 63 recommendations, only two were directed at the City of Vancouver, including a recommendation that the City create and fund two community-based liaison positions. Thankfully, the city responded, and two dedicated sex work social planners were hired to collaboratively identify and address issues impacting sex worker health and safety. As outlined in the report, sex workers have many reasons to distrust government and law enforcement. Their needs and concerns have been historically ignored and disregarded by government services, so they prefer to take care of one another because sex workers have been reminded time and time again that the only community they can rely on is their own. However, the two sex work social planner positions helped change this dynamic by meaningfully engaging and coordinating with sex worker organizations. They have helped ensure our voices and perspectives are included in city policies and programs. They have also been critical in providing operational and system navigation support. For instance, PACE faced unexpected back payment fees associated with rent at our drop-in space, and we nearly faced closure, which would have put a sudden halt to the life-saving services vital to our members. The sex work social planners were able to assist us in quickly renegotiating with the city operated space to reduce the fees and ensure we remained operational. It is impossible for a single person to adequately support Vancouver's sex work community and engage directly with the city, VPD, neighborhood associations, and businesses. These positions enable the city to better understand how programs actually function on the ground the various sex workers are experiencing and facilitate the co-creation of meaningful solutions. Under the community charter, counselors must consider the health and well-being of their constituents. By setting the strategic and subsequently financial direction of municipal operations, City Council plays a fundamental role in shaping the health and well-being of sex workers. Eliminating this position leaves critical gaps in the City's ability to plan and respond to sex workers' rights, health, and safety concerns. In 2023, the landmark Bias for Us report was released, which surveyed over 200 sex workers to identify how sex workers' needs could be met and risks minimized. Participants called for sex worker organizations to collaborate with the city officials on approaches to sex worker safety and enforcement. expressing the highest level of support for funding sex work-specific social planner roles. With that said, PACE is calling on the City of Vancouver to reaffirm its commitment to sex worker safety by immediately reinstating this critical position.

Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Cara Gillis. I am a resident of Vancouver, and I am speaking in support of this motion. I am here in my capacity as the Executive Director of Wish Drop-in Centre Society. For over 40 years, Wish has been a refuge and community space for street-based sex workers in the downtown Eastside. 80% of Wish participants experience homelessness, more than half are Indigenous, and all live in extreme poverty. Wish knew many of the women who were murdered by the serial killer, who operated unencumbered in the city while institutions looked away. The Forsaken report was born from that failure, including the recommendation that the City of Vancouver have two dedicated community-based liaison positions or social planners. Now, one of those positions has been eliminated, and we are told that the remaining work will be absorbed into broader gender-based violence and community safety portfolios. I am here to say that this is insufficient to meet the city's commitment to protecting sex workers' lives. There is a real specificity to sex worker contexts and by extension to sex worker safety. And this is just as profound and real today as it was a decade ago. Criminalization, stigma, colonization, and poverty. all persist to undermine our safety, while the toxic drug and housing crises are now, as we know, significantly worse. It is vital that social planners doing this work have meaningful and nuanced understandings of these intersecting factors, as well as foundational knowledge of sex work, of sex work sectors, structures, and dynamics. Further, the social planners have spent years fostering deep and trusting relationships where, frankly, there was previously distrust and even fear. This work is fundamentally relational, and as such, it goes beyond the basic trainings, policy statements, and mechanisms that more generic initiatives typically entail. I want to stress that the social planner positions are a necessary but not isolated component of the city's broader sex work safety framework, which commits to ensuring fair and unbiased treatment towards sex workers and the promotion of sex worker safety, dignity, and well-being. Wish is requesting that the city formally recommit to the sex work safety framework and start by reinstating the sex work social planner position. Thank you so much for your time today.

Good afternoon, councillors. My name is Susan Davis. I'm the executive director of the BC Coalition of Experiential Communities. I am a sex worker. I want to take time to acknowledge the three great nations whose land this is, the Musqueam, Squamish, and TTsleil-Waututh people. So grateful to be a guest on these lands. I'm here today in support of this motion. As someone who survived the criminal responsible in the case of the missing women, what matters to me the most is whether the response to that disaster is sufficient to address the risk we know exists. This work isn't new. In 2011, council adopted a comprehensive approach and action plan on sex work and sexual exploitation, a plan that created a citywide task force and set out a coordinated long-term framework for sex worker safety. I took part of that work. That process took years of staff time, coordination, consultation, research, community engagement. It involved social planning, Vancouver Coastal Health, Vancouver Police Department, researchers, frontline organizations, and sex workers ourselves. It wasn't symbolic. It was a coordinated, evidence-informed response to one of the largest institutional failures in Vancouver and indeed in this country's history. 12 of my friends are dead. In 2013, following Forsaken, council reaffirmed and expanded that work and including creation of the dedicated sex work social planning positions. These planning positions were created because the city recognized that this work requires ongoing coordination, engagement, and capacity over time. So the question is, why build this framework only to now reduce the capacity required to carry it forward. Today, the capacity has been reduced from three positions to one. It seems like there was two committed to, but there were three people working in that section. Now there's one. So it's not a neutral adjustment. It's a reduction in safety capacity. We're told this work is happening across other departments. I have to ask, what work? Who's doing that work? Where are sex workers named in it? To date, I have not been shown any information to support that assertion that work is happening elsewhere. At the same time, violence is increasing, and we all know where that road goes. I presented to the police board last June about human trafficking panic related to FIFA. We shared the findings from a report that was contracted between the VPD and sex worker organizations that shows that this never materializes. We were completely ignored. Now the whole thing is unfolding again, and we're seeing the same sort of harms reemerge. Sex workers are not a line item. We are people who live with families and then work in this city. Between 5,000 and 8,000 sex workers work here every day. So... Question is today, will council restore no fewer than two fully resourced, full-time, dedicated sex worker social planning positions? Please do not let the lessons of Forsaken be forgotten. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Alison Clancy. I'm the former executive director of Swan Vancouver, a sex work organization, and a former community developer with Living in Community, an organization that brought diverse stakeholders together to address the systemic failures that contributed to the violence against and serial murders of so many sex workers in Vancouver. I support this motion. My familiarity with the sex work social planner position dates back to 2012 when I served on the city task force on sex trade and prevention of sexual exploitation which created the position. For over a decade, I worked closely with all four sex work social planners who have held the position on issues ranging from training city staff to consultations on new condo developments that displace street-based sex workers and increase their systemic vulnerability to liaising with the BPD, reviewing bylaws, and advocating for life-saving supports for sex workers in Vancouver. Nationally, I was frequently contacted by people seeking information about the City's progressive work in this area. I also had the opportunity to highlight the City's work at international conferences and to bring attention to the leadership the City of Vancouver had shown in this area. Over time, however, I observed that these two sex work social planner positions became increasingly stretched and diluted. Meanwhile, violence against sex workers has not decreased in any way that would justify weakening, let alone discontinuing one of these positions. Imagine my shock given how many times I had witnessed the sex work social planners positively affect sex workers' lives across a multitude of policy and practice contexts for over a decade. I cannot overstate how critical and life-saving this position is for enabling the city to uphold its responsibilities to marginalized populations. And the scope and mandate are more than one position can handle. Given the city's history of failing to protect the safety and lives of sex workers, it is inconceivable that this decision has been made. This is simply not a matter of historical reparations. Sex workers continue to experience unacceptable levels of violence in this city today. In summary, I urge the City of Vancouver to remain a progressive leader in sex worker safety, both in Canada and globally. The risks of stepping away from this leadership through the discontinuation of this position are wholly unacceptable, given Vancouver's history, the current safety needs of sex workers in the city, and the important progress made by the four sex work social planners in the aftermath of the serial murders. This is progress we cannot afford to take for granted or risk reversing by recreating the very systemic vulnerabilities that contributed to such harms in the first place.

Hi there, can you hear me?

No, I'm not.

Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Helena Seiferling. I'm calling in support of this motion for Council to reaffirm its support for the findings and intent of the Forsaken Report and specifically to reinstate the second sex worker social safety plan or position, which was recently cut and which is a breach of the Forsaken Report recommendations and best practices that the city has had in place for the past few decades. So I'm speaking to you today as an individual private citizen, but I've previously met some of you before as Executive Director of Living in Community. a provincial nonprofit and charity based in Vancouver that advocates for sex worker safety and needs across the province. As with the City of Vancouver's work on sex worker safety, Living in Community was developed in the early 2000s as a response to the serial killer and the obvious lack of safety and support for sex workers in the city that had been present and known for decades. Living and community personnel were involved in the city's sex worker safety task force 15 years ago. We've given many recommendations to the city and worked alongside the city on safety initiatives for decades. And we also convened the Safe and Cedar Cottage project, which brought together sex workers, frontline organizations, and both of the city's sex worker safety social planners in the Kingsway community. So the reason I am no longer speaking as the ED of Living and Community is because Living and Community had to lay off all the staff and pause all operations at the end of 2025. due to a broad lack of funding and support for this kind of advocacy work. And this is unfortunately not unique. As Council knows, PACE Society also had to close its operations in 2025, and Wish Drop-in Center Society also had to reduce programming in 2025 due to the same lack of funding broadly for this kind of work. So too often, there's a predictable and very scary cycle that happens after a horrible event. The bad thing happens, again, often when authorities knew and were warned for years, and then action occurs. Promises are made, funding is found, and that continues for a while. But over time, the memory of that awful thing begins to fade away. It seems less important. The problem seems to be getting better. And bit by bit, funding and support is reduced or removed entirely. But the reason it seems to be getting better is because what was in place was beginning to work. All of that work behind the scenes, all of those investments into community was preventing violence, was connecting vulnerable workers to resources, and was creating a stronger safety net for all while maintaining privacy and dignity. It's been incredibly disappointing to see the City of Vancouver engage in the same cycle of forgetting and cutting. For over 15 years, the city was a municipal leader in the right approach to ensuring workers' safety, and now it is letting that status crumble, but more importantly, knowing we create a more risky environment for workers in your community who are already stigmatized and criminalized. You're choosing to make these folks less safe. So in light of the closures to sex worker support services in Vancouver and the upcoming FIFA games, which will create a whole host of problems for sex workers, as advocates have raised with the city for over a year now, it is frankly the absolute least the city can do to simply maintain your historic and recommended level of staffing support for sex worker safety, most notably by ensuring there's two sex worker safety social planner positions and to support their critical work. I personally worked with those staff members for six years, and I know they are incredibly skilled, compassionate, and effective.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. My name is Crystal. I'm a Vancouver resident and I'm speaking in support of the motion. I work at Swan Vancouver, an organization that supports immigrant and migrant women and gender diverse people engaged in sex work. And I'm speaking to you at a time when it feels like the walls are coming crashing down around us. In my time at SWAN, I have never seen more violence than in the past year. For a community that's criminalized by both sex work laws and immigration rules, it means they're often targeted because they rarely call the police when they're a victim of a crime out of fear they can be arrested and deported themselves. So what does this look like in real life? It looks like a woman hiding in an apartment stairwell after being assaulted with a weapon during a robbery. It looks like running injured to a friend's house away from an abusive partner instead of running to an emergency room. It looks like being sexually assaulted, then having the perpetrator threaten to call the police or immigration officials on the victim because she does sex work. Things have gotten so bad that our staff have prepared emergency response kits and are scheduling wound care training for sex workers and some service users are becoming increasingly involved in community outreach during a crisis. As sex workers across Vancouver report increasing violence, organizations that support them are seeing initiatives, resources, and policies at the municipal, provincial, and federal level being quietly withdrawn, without notice, without consultation, or even an afterthought of the evidence, experiences, the devastating losses, and the advocacy that's led to those policies. The current landscape is changing. The violence will only get worse, and we need the sex work safety social planner more than ever. The social planner is an essential part of several safety initiatives that are now disappearing. As sex worker support organizations lose resources, their work often steers almost entirely to frontline services and crises. Many of us barely have the capacity to do advocacy like speak here today, so we cling on to the few remaining resources we have. I know you weren't aware of the many cases of violence being noted here today because of stigma and criminalization. Victims' identities and experiences are often never shared publicly. In due time, you will learn about the true gravity of the situation, details about the severity of violence that Swan's community and others have experienced recently. But I'm asking you not to wait to learn more before you take action. When the time comes, I do not want this council to be in a position where they're asking themselves, did we do everything we could?

Hi, good afternoon, Council. My name is Natasha Hendrickson. I'm a resident of Vancouver and here to speak in support of Councillor Fry's motion. I understand you have a long day ahead of you, so I thank you for your focused attention in spite of the temperature of the room. I'm speaking today as a concerned citizen who was very disappointed to learn one of the two sex work social planner roles were cut, a role which acts as an important facilitator between sex workers and the city. Research from advocacy groups indicate that there has been a sharp increase in rates of violence against Vancouver-based sex workers, with those being only the reported figures. Additionally, while there is no credible evidence for an increase in sex trafficking due to FIFA, there is credible evidence for an increased risk of harm to sex workers. With this evidence in mind, I'm sure you can understand how counterproductive it is to cut a role intended to increase the safety of sex workers in the city. Sex workers are richly diverse and resilient people with an intimate understanding of care. They not only need to navigate callous laws, over-policing, moral panic, bad faith clients, healthcare barriers, infrastructure failures, assault, stalking, and fetishization, but underlining all this, stigma, which can mean judgment from the ones you love, and often stigma means judgment directed towards oneself. Simply put, it is a job. Some folks do it because they enjoy it, and some folks do it to survive. Like many jobs, the general public enjoy what they offer, but do not give a second thought to their working conditions. The city of Vancouver, on the other hand, recognizes workers face an increased level of violence. It also knows that sex workers are a part of the Vancouver community, and they deserve protection and safety at work. Vancouver has demonstrated this in the past, a commitment to supporting sex worker safety. Sex work is an incredibly nuanced profession, and they understand their work better than any authority or well-intentioned individual. This is why having a direct link between the city and the sex work community is essential to mitigating harm. The council must protect the well-being of all our communities, and I hope this council reflects on the words of my fellow speakers. And finally, I urge the council to support this motion. Thank you.

My name is Chloe Hines. I am a resident of Vancouver and a former city staff member. I worked as a planning analyst in social policy and projects, and I left the city at the end of March as part of the voluntary departure program. During my time at the city, I worked primarily with the community and gender safety team. and the sex worker safety planners. I was excited to work for the city because my master's research project was on sex work policy at the municipal level. It is a specialized, complex, and understudied area. It is highly stigmatized and prone to moral panics and misinformation. And it is a subject not typically covered in a general policy education. However, Vancouver has historically been a leader in sex work policy. During my time at the city, multiple other municipalities reached out for advice from the sex worker safety planners. I witnessed firsthand the value of these positions. They built connections across multiple departments to identify and propose solutions to problems that other city staff were not able to recognize. A large part of their work is educating staff on how policy impacts sex workers. They have been able to build trust with community and act as a link between sex workers and institutions that have historically harmed them. I first started working with the team to help analyze engagement data to create recommendations for the sex worker safety framework. My colleagues informed me that in the year between conducting engagement and analyzing the data, that multiple community members that had participated in engagement had tragically passed away. That was two years ago. It makes me very sad to think about the number of community members that may have died in those two years waiting for the sex worker safety framework. With the elimination of one of the sex worker safety planner positions and my departure at the end of March, I am deeply concerned about the city's ability to meet its commitments around gender safety and sex worker safety. To my knowledge, the community and gender safety team is comprised of a single staff member who is responsible for the sex worker safety framework, the 2STGD plus safety and inclusion plan, women's equity strategy, UN Safe Cities, and any gender-based violence prevention in the lead-up to FIFA. Many of these projects have recommendations that are interwoven with the city's response to MMIWG2S and UNDRIP. I'm very disappointed in the decision of senior city staff to eliminate this position, and I urge city council to pass this motion and adequately resource sex worker safety and gender safety. Thank you so much for listening.

Speaker 14 is not on the line.

Hello, my name is Skyla Barahona. I've lived in so-called Vancouver my whole life and I've been in sex work advocacy spaces for eight years in the city. I've seen the need for and the ways that city social planners specialized in sex work do immensely important work. I'm pleased to see that members of council are working to reinstate this position. My assumption to this mistake is that the city may have overlooked the importance of two positions. When reviewing the COV sex work response guidelines, I noticed building positive relationships between sex workers, residents, businesses, neighborhoods, and COV staff is the primary focus of COV sex work city planners. I ask council, how do each of you expect just one person specializing in sex work city planning supposed to care for workers, residences, businesses, neighborhoods, staff, and the sex workers who fit into every one of those categories? From our collective knowledge and expertise in this field, these city planners have supported in different but utterly important ways. We need someone to work on the ground directly liaising with sex workers and someone to do the systemic change work. We cannot expect more city staff to do this job. We cannot ask city staff to put more items on their plate because that is when sex workers will fall through the cracks. We need city planners on the job. and looking at the bigger picture, not only from an operational perspective, but to maintain the relationships and historical knowledge of sex work in Vancouver. This does not just benefit sex workers. It benefits every constituent of the city. I commend the city for starting this work, and I also warn the city that this is a greater theme of deprioritization of sex workers in Vancouver. I urge the city to reaffirm its responsibility to community and take these meaningful steps to repair the harm that has been caused. The removal of the one of the sex work city planner position sends troubling messages. Sex workers in Vancouver have cited recently that they've felt unimportant, forgotten, and left out. In the consultations I've led for Pace Society, without the physical location of Pace, Members emphasize sex workers will die in losing this space. We would not have had the space if not for the City of Vancouver Sex Work Social Planner. Another member warned us by asking, please do not let any more of us die. City planner jobs are to address these concerns. Please remember, Council, this position is an essential service to the Downtown Eastside and sex workers of Vancouver. This decision is not in isolation. This is for everyone we've lost. Thank you.

My name is Andrea Kruse. I'm an assistant professor in the School of Criminology at SFU and a co-principal investigator of the Aisha Project, which is a longitudinal study that followed over 900 sex workers in Metro Vancouver for over a decade. I'm also a resident of Strathcona in Vancouver. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of Councillor Fry's motion today. The past year has been marked by a string of closures and service reductions at the organizations serving sex workers in Vancouver, including program suspensions at PACE and Living in Community, both longstanding sex worker-led organizations that provide occupational health and safety supports. sex workers. Similarly, Kingsway Community Station, an important sex worker support service in the Kingsway corridor, is facing uncertainty both in terms of funding and location. These closures and service reductions are happening in the midst of a provincially declared epidemic of gender-based violence. An extensive body of empirical research, both globally and locally, highlights that sex workers face a disproportionate burden of gender-based violence due to the ongoing criminalization, stigmatization, and the lack of labor rights. All levels of government have a responsibility to ensure sex worker safety. Municipal governments are well positioned to support the health and safety and well-being of sex workers. This is underlined in the Forsaken report, which in response to systemic failures to support sex workers, prompted the implementation of the two city sex work safety planner positions. Peer-reviewed research by our team shows that only 26% of violent events in the context of sex work are reported to police. The reason sex workers do not report violence to police is due to lack of trust in police and the criminal legal system. As a result of this, sex workers mostly rely on community-led organizations to maintain their health and safety and share important safety information. In the context of this distrust, we need all levels of government to step in. At the municipal level, the sex worker city planners are essential in building trust, facilitating safety through city programming, ensuring city bylaws support the safety of sex workers, and supporting sex worker... support organizations in finding space to operate in. Our research highlights the importance of sex worker support organizations in supporting the health and safety of sex workers. The city sex work planners are an essential conduit between the city and the sex worker community. I urge the City Council to reaffirm their commitment to the findings and recommendations of the Forsaken Report and instruct the City Manager to reinstate the second Sex Worker City Planner position to ensure adequate support for the health, safety, and labor rights of sex workers in Vancouver. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. My name is Philip Palenda. I'm a resident of Vancouver and the program manager of the Vancouver Sex Work Community Alliance. The Alliance does outreach for SDBBIs for sex workers, in addition to training for health care workers around stigma and barriers. I want to speak today in favor of this motion. I think it's really important to focus on how these decisions are experienced in community. I also want to acknowledge that this staffing change is happening in the context of a broader closure in the city. We've lost services from both pace and living in community. At the same time, the sex work social planner will carry the unique responsibility when it comes to safety. Sex work in Vancouver is not one thing. It includes street based indoor and online work, and people navigating are facing increasing economic pressures, housing instability and gaps in services. And all these conditions shape risk. We're seeing ongoing violence and rising safety concerns. Organizations are having increased calls related to safety and the impact of these are very real. The findings of Forsaken made it clear that violence experienced in Vancouver was not random. It's the result of systemic gaps and lack of coordinated response to known risks. In response, the city made commitments to ensure there was a community-connected capacity to support sex worker safety, and that's what this role is all about. Also, from a gender perspective, we know that men are less likely to reach out for support, particularly around vulnerability and mental health. When services are difficult to access or when stigma is high, people are even less likely to engage. That's where risk increases, not because the need isn't there, but because connection to support and services are lost. This role is not just administrative. It's about relationships, trust, and the ability to respond to a complex and evolving safety concerns within the community. Reducing capacity does not reduce demand. It reduces the system's ability to respond. And ultimately, it's about the city's role in maintaining conditions that support safety. The lessons from Forsaken is not about what went wrong. It's about what's required to do better. Consistent, sustained, community-based support that people can trust and access. This motion is about maintaining that capacity and ensuring the city can continue to respond more effectively to issues of safety and harm. Today there's been a lot of discussion about making Vancouver a fun and enjoyable city, and I would encourage Council to remember that a true, healthy and livable city also requires investment in safety, dignity and the support of vulnerable communities. I would like to encourage Council to consider the importance of this role in that context. Thank you for your time.

Hello, can you hear me?

No, I am not.

Thank you. My name is Emily Baker, and I'm the executive director of the Pacific Association of First Nations Women Plus. I'm calling in today from the Grandview Woodland neighborhood of Vancouver. where our office is situated, and I'm speaking in support of this motion. As mentioned by several speakers today, the sex work social planner roles were intentionally created as a meaningful response to the public inquiry into missing women, girls, and two-spirit peoples, which specifically recommended the City of Vancouver create and fund two community-based liaison positions. At the Pacific Association of First Nations Women Plus, we stand alongside the families of missing and murdered women, girls, and Two-Spirit peoples in their rally for this support to be re-evaluated. We stand firmly in solidarity with sex worker-led organizations, many of which are present today, and with sex workers of all backgrounds living and working in the City of Vancouver. The City of Vancouver was designated a City of Reconciliation in 2014 in part for their commitment to urban Indigenous communities, and this designation stands today. It is a designation we have a duty to uphold.

Eliminating a role expressly created to protect sex workers on these territories directly contradicts your commitment to protect urban Indigenous women, girls, and Two-Spirit communities. At the Pacific Association of First Nations Women Plus, we are asking the Mayor and City Council to reinstate this life-altering, life-saving, life-changing role and to fulfill their commitment to stand by, for, and with sex workers. Thank you.

Hi there. My name is Aja. Can you hear me?

My name is Asia Lamhart Lee, and I am the operations manager at Wish Drop-In Center Society, Vancouver's largest and oldest sex worker serving organization. I'm here in support of the motion. You've heard previous speakers describe the extreme conditions sex workers in Vancouver face, conditions serious enough that these dedicated planner positions were created in the first place. The need for that dedicated expertise has not decreased. Sex workers continue to face violence daily in our community, and the organizations serving them need a city partner who understands the nuance and urgency that work requires. I have relied on the sex work social planners throughout my time at WISH, and what distinguishes them is not just their knowledge, but also their speed and their judgment. In my monthly check-ins, I have consistently been offered immediate, practical, and appropriate solutions that showed a deep understanding of what sex worker safety actually looks like on the ground. Here are two concrete examples. In 2023, the MAP van, which is Outreach Van, broke down beyond repair. While we waited for a replacement, we had no way to reach the hundreds of sex workers who relied on that van for naloxone and harm reduction supplies, for a way to report bad days, for a check-in from someone who knew their name. Without intervention, our MAP program would have been suspended for close to six months. The planners acted immediately. They arranged for a vehicle from the city's fleet to be donated to us and secured a grant to outfit it for outreach. That solution required someone who understood both the city's system and the stakes of a gap in this service. More recently, as FIFA preparations ramped up, so did our concerns for the folks we serve. It was the sex work social planners who proactively reached out to bring WISH to the table. They understood that sex workers would face increased surveillance and displacement during the tournament, and that this in turn would push sex workers into less visible, more dangerous situations. They connected us to additional funding so we would be able to respond with increased services. We were not an afterthought. We were included because the planners knew to include us. These solutions would not have been found by planners who were not solely dedicated to sex work. This work requires specialized knowledge, trusted relationships, and consistent presence. One planner cannot do the work of two, nor can this work be shifted onto planners without the expertise who are already stretched too thin. I urge you to vote yes to reinstate this position and recommit to sex worker safety.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. My name is Layla and I'm a 38-year-old woman currently residing in Vancouver. I'm speaking in support of Motion 4. I've been working as an entrepreneur, a.k.a. sex worker, here in Vancouver for the past eight years. I wanted to speak today to show Council another cross-section of the sex worker community who are also being alienated due to only having one sex work social city planner as opposed to the previous two before the budget was cut. The stigmatized, outdated view of who a sex worker is causes more alienation and discrimination to the whole community of marginalized workers. I got into this work because Vancouver was getting progressively unaffordable, and I could no longer live off minimum wage. I was filled with depression, anxiety, and a worsening alcohol abuse disorder due to the hopeless feeling I had of living in the city. I was working two restaurant jobs and one bartending job. I was barely able to afford rent, bills, grocery, and some extra money to enjoy my free time. Tackling student loan was definitely out of the question. I wound up entering into the sex work industry in order to get my basic human needs met. This job took me from survival work and showed me the promise of a brighter future. Over the past eight years, I have developed a real business working for myself. I was able to buy a home, something that my single mother wasn't able to do while raising my brother and I in Vancouver. This job also is the main reason why I was able to get sober. I've been sober for three years now because I finally have hope and dreams that I have a future in this city. This job comes with a lot of danger, unfortunately. What makes this job dangerous isn't just the job itself, but rather the lack of workers' rights, our semi-criminalized policy approach that prevents us from creating community and seeking safety and general societal alienation. I, too, have been in danger numerous times. A few years ago, for example, I had a client who was exhibiting behaviors of criminal harassment. I was terrified, and the Steckbroker police liaison was too busy with other cases, and she had to blow me off. I had to beg the officer at the non-emergency line to connect me with the police officer about the stalking and harassment I was experiencing. I was brought to tears before they would send over two police officers to my residence to take my story and evidence. Cutting back on a job position that helps thousands of us here in Vancouver is not wise. The stigma around this job causes very biased view of who the city is ignoring when they remove job positions like the sex work social city planner. As long as the city continues to be unaffordable, the sex worker community will grow. Making this job, making the city job position all the more important. Ignoring us will not make us go away. Eliminating this position leaves a critical gap in the city's ability to plan for and respond to sex workers' rights, health, and safety concerns. Combined with the closure of many sex workers' serving spaces, losing this role creates conditions for further strategies to take place. Thank you.

No, not on the line.

Hello Mayor and Council. My name is Iona Bonamy and my Chinese name is Tosi Wing. I am speaking on behalf of myself as a long time Vancouver resident and as a mom and as a community planner. I am speaking in favor of this motion and I'd like to thank Councillor Maloney for bringing it forward. Community centers are essential activity hubs in our neighborhoods and in disaster events they become even more important in ensuring our residents have a safe place to go to access the support they need. My family and I are fortunate that our closest community center is Trout Lake Community Center. It was rebuilt in 2012 using modern construction methods and is seismically ready. That's why in our emergency plan, our muster location is Trout Lake. I have peace of mind that if it's unsafe to be in our home, we will have somewhere close by that we can go to. But the same can't be said in other parts of the city. The majority of our community centers were built between the 1940s and 1970s. and have not been structurally upgraded to meet the city's seismic standards, even though they were supposed to support people in the event of a disaster. This makes our residents and communities incredibly vulnerable. I'm urging you to support this motion and make sure that we take on the responsibility of ensuring the community centres targeted for renewal by Council are seismically upgraded. I would also argue that many of the other community centres that have not been specified by Council to be a priority also require seismic upgrades and deserve the city's attention and investment. Thank you.

Yes, hello there. Hello, council members. My name is Suki Sohota, and I live in East Vancouver. and I'm a supporter of this motion, and I'm in strong support to prepare Vancouver's community centres for post-disaster use. This motion addresses a reality that we cannot afford to ignore. Vancouver faces a significant earthquake risk, and when, not if, that disaster occurs, our public infrastructure will determine how effectively we respond, recover, and protect residents. Community centers are more than recreational spaces. In an emergency, they become lifelines. They become gathering points for information, shelter, supplies, medical coordination, and human connection. Many are already designated disaster support hubs, but as this motion highlights, a number of these facilities may not actually remain functional after a major seismic event. That is the key issue before us today. Meeting only the minimum immediate occupancy standard may allow a building to remain standing after an earthquake, but it does not necessarily mean that the facility can operate effectively for days, weeks, or even months afterward. If we expect these centres to shelter displaced residents, coordinate emergency services, and support neighbourhood recovery, then we must ensure they are capable of doing so under real post-disaster conditions. Importantly, this motion is not asking Council to approve unlimited spending today. It asks staff to report back with detailed information, feasibility analysis, and cost estimates tied to planned renewal and capital planning decisions. This is responsible governance. It allows council and the public to make informed decisions based on evidence, priorities, and long-term resilience planning. This is also a smart financial approach. Every renewal, maintenance project, or redevelopment already presents an opportunity to integrate stronger seismic preparedness at lower incremental cost than waiting until after disaster. Preparedness is not alarmism. It is leadership. A resilient city is not measured only by how it functions during normal times, but by how well it protects people during the worst moments. Supporting this motion is an investment in public safety, community resilience, and the long-term stability of Vancouver neighborhoods. I encourage Council to support it. Thank you very much, Chair.

there good afternoon marion council my name is jillian durr i am speaking in support of councillor maloney's motion preparing community centers for post-disaster use i'm a resident of the strafcona neighborhood i hold a master's degree in geography and my research focuses on how communities respond to disaster my research has found that disaster recovery is a prolonged process that takes a significant toll on community sense of security and place These consequences often break across familiar socioeconomic lines. Those who access emergency shelter and need the longest-term support will be the Vancouverites who are already in precarious situations. We need to sober up to the reality that when the earthquake strikes, Vancouver and its region will be incapacitated. We live in one of the most physically active regions on Earth, and it's time to start acting like it by putting in place the best possible measures to ensure Vancouver has the best chance of recovery post-disaster. Councillor Maloney has identified a clear fault in Vancouver's emergency preparedness plans. Community centers are not up to the task of managing medium and long-term displacements caused by disaster. It would be absolutely irresponsible for Vancouver not to invest in functional occupancy. Recently, the CBC identified that Vancouver's drinking water infrastructure could be compromised for weeks due to an earthquake. This is much longer than the current recommended amount of 72 hours worth of water for an individual prepared this kit. This demonstrates how disaster is not something that can be weathered through individual action. We need investment at a larger community scale. to make the process of recovery as smooth as possible. Upgrading to functional occupancy will make supplying emergency aid to Vancouverites more efficient and safer. I hope you'll consider passing this motion and begin investing in functional occupancy and seismic upgrades in our community centers as soon as possible. Thank you.

Hi, good afternoon. My name is Caitlin Stockwell. I'm a Vancouver resident. I'm a frequent user of Vancouver's Aging Community Centres and my closest disaster support hub is Strathcona Community Centre. I'm speaking in support of Councillor Maloney's motion to ensure Vancouver is preparing community centres for post-disaster use. Consistent with the city's own strategic documents and to make efficient use of taxpayer dollars as the city invests in upgrades to our local community centres. I think we've all heard the expression, if you fail to plan, you plan to fail. In the context of earthquake preparedness, the stakes for Vancouverites are incredibly high. Failing to invest in community spaces that can safely and effectively operate after a disaster undermines our city's ability to coordinate emergency response efforts and support residents when they need it most. Vancouver has a significant seismic risk, and we already know many of our community centers are vulnerable in a major earthquake. Beyond just basic safety for people using our community centers, this is also a concern because, as you've heard, many of our community centers are designated disaster support hubs that residents will rely on immediately after a disaster. Supporting this motion is also consistent with city strategies. The city's own resilient Vancouver strategy has identified vulnerable civic buildings, including community centers, as a major risk to community response and recovery. the report specifically identifies seismic upgrades to civic buildings as a priority for the city's earthquake preparedness strategy as highlighted in council maloney's motion to be fully effective any seismic upgrades needs to ensure it can support the emergency response functions a community center is intended to provide Specifically, seismic upgrades need to ensure community centers don't just remain standing after an earthquake, but also that they're actually in a state to support their intended function as gathering points, emergency coordination centers, shelters, and recovery hubs for extended periods of time. Ideally, I'd like to see us investing in functional seismic upgrades for community centres across Vancouver. However, as the motion highlights, there is a specific opportunity with the five community centres that have recently been slated by a majority of this council to efficiently implement seismic upgrades. And all of these are actually identified as disaster support hubs. Aligning planned renewal work with seismic upgrades is a smart and efficient use of taxpayer dollars to deliver post-disaster functionality. In summary, I hope you will support this motion, which is consistent with city strategies and identifies an efficient pathway for investment in much needed seismic upgrades. Resilient public infrastructure is not optional. It is foundational to public safety, emergency response, and community recovery. Thank you.

Hello, Chair Zhao. Can you hear me?

okay thank you uh yes uh good afternoon again uh counselors and um mayor um and chair uh basically i speaking in support of the motion i think it's it's timely and also necessary and i want to thank uh council maloney for bringing it to the to the table um i'd like to point out that you know in our priority that we set back in 2022 at kensington renfrew hastings and strathcona and also thunderbird are the top five for renewal and i was doing some thinking while looking at at some maps because like someone who spoke before i teach geography and all these uh community centers are outside the main risk zones and they could probably provide what we need during this major event which hopefully you know never happens in our lifetimes or doesn't happen in our children's lifetimes happens hundreds of years from now but we just we just don't know um and so so i think it definitely needs to be addressed and one other thought that came to me is could we take the same approach we took with our schools where we get the province and the feds involved in this necessary uh process to rebuild some of these you know community centers that are you know aging and you know will will not take much of an earthquake at all i would i would argue from what i heard during my time on the board so so i think it's really it's essential like it's hard for us to imagine we wouldn't have left our schools in in a poor seismic state we've done a good job on that and now we need to do this because you know in combination with the schools the community centers will likely be the places where people lose their homes or their buildings will have to shelter. So I hope you'll support this motion, and thanks for your time. Take care.

Like a Las Vegas TV.

Thank you, Councillor Zhao and Chair Zhao and Mayor Sim and Councillors. And I'm here as a tired Vancouver resident. Thank you for all your time today, regardless of your positions on these issues. I'm here from the BC Coalition for Affordable Dependable Energy, which is one of the province's largest coalitions. We represent over 300,000 people who are members in business, labor, and community organizations. And the coalition strongly supports Mayor Sim's motion because it truly is about affordability and choice for homeowners and small businesses. Why? Because the three proposed key changes to existing bylaws and regulations together are adding significant extra costs to building and operating homes and businesses in Vancouver, the most expensive city in Canada and one of the most in North America. Most immediately, because the motion would repeal a Vancouver bylaw that forces all single-family and townhouse owners... Homeowners to replace natural gas heaters only with electric water heaters when new equipment is needed as of January 1st, 2027. That existing bylaw would mean substantial extra costs for homeowners and renters because the purchase and installation of electric gas water heaters with new and more efficient models, sorry, than simply replacing gas water heaters with newer and more efficient models by thousands of dollars per home. In fact, current gas water heaters are up to 98% efficient, but that's not allowed under the bylaw. It's 100% or nothing. Imposing replacement of a gas water heater with an electric model in many cases would require rewiring a home, drywall removal and replacement, repainting and possibly a whole new electrical panel, and an additional cost of $4,000 to $10,000, according to heating and plumbing experts, some of whom you'll probably hear from, on top of the equipment costs. And natural gas water heaters are significantly cheaper than electric to operate at $0.05 per kilowatt hour for natural gas versus $0.12 to $0.14 a kilowatt hour for electric. Our coalition believes in choice on energy source. Those who want to go electric should have every right to do so. But those who can't afford expensive options should also have the right to not do that. And the options that really make little or no difference to our global environment. It's wrong for any city council to impose electrification at a time of global economic turmoil and rising costs. Threats to our energy security and sovereignty and when BC and Canada have both ended the consumer carbon tax. At a time while net electricity imports from this to this province top $2 billion, much of it from the United States, not clean and green, and BC hydro rates keep rising. Unfortunately, Vancouver's own report admits the city's limited public engagement over only three weeks reached just over 120 people, while admitting that approximately 70,000 one and two family homes will be affected. Yes, water heaters last 12 to 15 years before they need replacement. That means nearly 5,000 Vancouver homeowners per year will face a very expensive cost. And if city councillors want to maintain this ban and refuse to allow choice and affordability, they should face homeowners and businesses and explain why, while BC is increasingly adding liquefied natural gas in the face of Trump tariffs. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you, Bill.

Thank you, Chair. Good evening, Mayor, councillors, and staff. My name is Calise Nanayakara. I am a Vancouver resident, and I'm here on behalf of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Canada's largest nonprofit, nonpartisan business association. CFIB represents over 103 small and independent businesses across Canada, including thousands here in Vancouver. CFIB supports the intent of this motion. For small businesses, Vancouver's building, housing, and energy rules have real consequences. They affect construction costs, commercial rents, project timelines, and whether entrepreneurs can afford to operate in the city. Small businesses are already under immense pressure. CFIB's latest business barometer shows that in BC, 68% of small businesses cite tax and regulatory costs as a major cost pressure. 59% cite occupancy costs like rent, property taxes, and upkeep, and nearly six in 10 say weak demand is limiting their growth. That is the squeeze facing small businesses. Higher costs, weak demand, and very little room to absorb more red tape. Compliance costs hit small firms especially hard. Large companies can hire lawyers, consultants, and compliance staff. Most small businesses cannot. Every new report, permit delay, retrofit rule, or Vancouver-specific standard takes time and money away from serving customers, hiring workers, and staying competitive. Vancouver is also not immune to BC's entrepreneurial drought. More businesses are closing than opening, and too many entrepreneurs are asking whether it still makes sense to grow, hire, or invest here. When government adds cost to buildings, those costs flow through the economy. They show up in rents, operating fees, consumer prices, and delayed projects. For small business tenants, that is especially frustrating because they often do not control a building's heating system, retrofit schedule, or capital plan, but they can still end up paying for it. CFIB is not asking council to weaken safety, accessibility, fire protection, or legitimate public interest standards. Where Vancouver has a clear local reason to defer from the provincial building code, that reason should be explained and backed by evidence. But Vancouver specific rules should not be kept simply because they already exist. The test should be simple. What does the rule cost? What burden does it create? And what public benefit does it clearly deliver? This motion asks those questions. It directs staff to review where Vancouver differs from provincial standards, assess the impact, consult affected industries, and justify rules that add unnecessary cost or delay. That review is long overdue. CFIB encourages council to support this motion, include small businesses in the consultation, and remove or harmonize rules that add red tape without a compelling local justification. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair and Mayor and Council. Thank you very much. And I really support my two previous colleagues that spoke tonight. I want to take a little bit slightly different tact in this and just take you back in a bit of a mental experience. And I was watching a couple of weeks ago on global TV about the spirit of Vancouver when we executed Expo 86. And the community came together. The community was one voice. They got through their problems. And I think that was the defining moment that defined Vancouver. I think Vancouver's lost its way. I think that Vancouver's lost its entrepreneurial spirit. And I credit this council and mayor for trying to revive that. And we totally support that. But in the context of this motion, on how it affects our industry. You know, we're a massive industry in British Columbia. We are 200,000 employees, 15,000 restaurants for the fourth largest supplier or employer in the province, the highest employer, first time jobs. And we're faced with an incredible amount of uncertainty. We are faced with and we've been this way really since the pandemic. We've been faced with Massive uncertainty recently in the international stage. And we are faced now with the highest bankruptcies in this industry we've ever faced. Restaurants Canada will tell you that 50% of the restaurants in British Columbia and Vancouver are either breaking even and losing money, which is surprising. You probably walk in restaurants and go, boy, these guys must be making it. We're not. So why would we as a Vancouver We own Vancouver. Why would we not collectively try to find ways to support each other? That puts away the politics of green versus business. But just to do the right thing, I am urging you to make two considerations in this motion. Can we provide maximum flexibility to businesses and, as Bill said, to homeowners? And can we make sure that we're driving the best cost alternative and alternatives for people to make that decision? We don't need to be any more imposition of red tape and bureaucracy. It costs us a lot of money. We don't have the money to upgrade systems. We are going to prevent ourselves with energy blocks in new buildings. It doesn't provide the provision for natural gas in new buildings. And you know what? I think this is from the bottom of my heart. We will see one day renewable energy coming. So why would be so short sighted? Why are we being ahead of the step code in British Columbia, which I personally believe is going to be changed. So we're shadow dancing with a bunch of stuff. And I'm never talking to council about natural gas. And when the Trump thing started to happen, I said, why would we box yourselves in to a ban on natural gas in new buildings with the uncertainty in the United States? You know what? It came to fruition. So I'm asking you, let's work together as a community. Let's consider that there's renewable gas coming. Let's do what's right for Vancouver. Let's set a trend for British Columbia. And thank you, Mayor, for bringing this forward.

Committee members, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I'm here today to speak in support of the motion. Portus BC is a regulated gas and electric utility serving about 110,000 homes and businesses with gas in the city of Vancouver. As a gas and electric utility, we see British Columbia's growing energy needs firsthand. And while we serve this growing demand, we see gas and electric systems continuing to play critical roles in supporting our energy future. For example, on the coldest days of the year, the gas system delivers more than two-thirds of the energy used to heat homes and businesses across the province. And we know that our customers are facing affordability challenges, and access to low-cost, reliable energy is important to them. That's why we're here in support of the motion as eliminating access to gas water heaters would add cost and time pressures during what is often a critical appliance change that comes when a homeowner is least expecting it. There are many aspects to the cost of replacing a gas water heater with an electric appliance option, including the cost of replacing the appliance, the installation, the wiring, the panel upgrades, as well as the availability of electricity in the home or business. On top of those challenges, this bylaw is being implemented at a time when we are also hearing from the building industry. that elevated building code requirements can create additional complexity and costs for housing projects. So for example, we've heard from UDI that the highest levels of the step code can add up to $50,000 per door. Further, in 2025, both the provincial and federal governments made a conscious choice to make life more affordable by eliminating the consumer carbon tax, which lowered costs for residents that heat their homes with gas. We believe that Vancouverites should be able to make decisions about appliances that suit their needs. The bylaw banning gas water heaters is not in line with provincial energy policy and creates additional administrative and cost burdens for Vancouver households. We support aligning with the provincial building code and creating consistency and predictability for housing delivery across the communities that we serve. And here at Forest BC, we're also continuing to focus on decarbonizing the gas system. We're blending renewable natural gas into the gas system, and we continue to grow our gas supply. We're also investing record amounts in energy efficiency and conservation measures, including dual-fuel electric and gas heating systems, which seek to lower emissions while moderating pressure on the electric system. In the past two years, we've invested over $440 million towards these initiatives, representing about 3 million gigajoules of gas saved. That's the equivalent of about 37,000 single-family homes. So in closing... We support the policy changes that reduce costs, provide choices for customers, and support provincial alignment. That's why we support this motion. Thank you again for the opportunity to speak.

Hello, Mayor and Council. My name is Brittany Hopkins. I'm a young mother of young children in Mount Pleasant. I'm calling tonight before putting my kids to bed to voice my opposition to this motion, especially item D and E. As we head into another summer that's predicted to be one of the hottest on record, my desire to protect our green building standards and our carbon emissions reporting system stems from my own lived experience with extreme weather. A few years ago, I was seven months pregnant, living in an apartment that had poor insulation and only single pane windows, and we had no cooling technology. And a heat wave, it was a really intense experience, so I'll try to get through this. A heat wave that was intensified by the heat. urban heat island effect parked over in my city. So for days and nights, I lived in an oven, and I was too weak and nauseous to leave to go to a cooling center. So I stayed at home with a fan and ice cubes and showers, and it was not enough. So my entire body swelled from my head to my toes. It was truly frightening, but I know now that I got lucky. The heat broke by the end of the week. My swelling went down, and I later learned that the swelling that I experienced was a sign that my heart, which was growing a baby, was under elevated stress and that globally miscarriages rise in the hot summer months. So now that I have a household, a rented household full of vulnerable bodies to protect, I understand the value of climate-resilient housing. I feel so much safer putting my kids down to bed in a home that has all electric appliances, including heat pump technology, because I know for a fact that I don't have methane gas emissions polluting our indoor air. And I know that our daily activities that we do at home, like washing our dishes, washing our kids, And cooking our meals do not release carbon into the atmosphere that intensifies the next round of extreme weather. So the last time my family moved here in Vancouver, which happens a lot, we got into an elementary school that was not in our community. It took nine hard months to find an all-electric, heat pump-equipped, family-sized rental. I don't have choice. I'm not a homeowner, so I don't get to pick the appliances, and I'm kind of at the mercy of the building code to dictate what is being put into these buildings. So it took nine hard months, and we had to beat out multiple other families, which felt terrible because they also had young kids. who need safe, climate-resilient housing. So I just really hope that you'll do the right thing today, protect our city's green building leadership, protect our housing quality for the long term, and find real solutions that can reduce our housing costs while protecting our health, our safety, of our residents of all ages from the climate crisis that is only intensifying.

Thank you very much for your time.

Not on the line.

Thanks, everyone, for your attention to this matter. It's really important for me to think about how all of the components of this motion are coming through, especially as we start to relinquish the ability for buildings to do reporting on their carbon emissions. I think that that's a critical part to throw that out with And the rest of the work that's happening is a real mess. That's my first point. And then the second piece is, you know, ultimately, I think, like figuring out how we subsidize the cost of these things is like a big part of what I'm hearing from people already living in Vancouver is incredibly expensive. And as a result, many people are choosing to leave, especially families like myself. And but I guess my question is. to council, not like an actual question, but for something for you to ponder is, you know, how do you balance around pulling forward into the future better affordability as gas prices due to, you know, foreign powers in the states pushing everything up? Like, we're going to see variability in gas costs. over time. And so electrification, the more that we have power over that, pun intended, is an increasingly important part of our energy security and our long-term affordability. So I think balancing off the complexity of these, unfortunately, is a piece that's in your hands. And to continue thinking about how you can balance a long-term outlook of where we're all going to be moving towards, which is electrification. And so I urge you to oppose this motion. And as you're debating this, to think about how you can at least ensure that components of this are kept in the bill if you're choosing to move forward with passing it, particularly the piece around reporting for buildings.

Speaking. Good morning, Mayor, or good afternoon, Mayor and Council. My name is Roberto, and I'm the Director of Building Decarbonization at the Zero Emissions Innovation Center. Your objective to reduce the cost of new residential developments is the right objective. Many in the building industry understand why you're doing this, although the sale value of new condos townhouses and detached homes in vancouver has dropped between three and eight percent over the last year or so mainly because of the oversupply of condos um vancouver is still a very expensive place to buy a home although rents have dropped around 19 below the 2023 peak also due to an oversupply vancouver still remains an expensive place to rent those two trends are likely to continue in the near future because more new condos and rental housing are on their way and the demand is not likely to pick up much anytime soon. This downward pressure on sales, price and rent, this improvement in housing affordability is happening even though the city has its own building code with energy efficiency requirements and emissions limits in place for many years. that's because compared to things like development cost charges skilled labor shortages seismic requirements financing and so on the development the city's current and past energy and emissions requirements for new buildings have little to no impact on development costs as documented in studies by bc housing by zebex and most recently in a report you received from your staff in november 2024 after they consulted with industry You'd be better served by directing staff to focus on streamlining, rezoning, and permitting processes or reducing DCCs or even CACs. As for the city's energy and emissions reporting requirements for large buildings, the compliance costs are nothing more than a rounding error in an annual operating budget for the majority of buildings reporting. That's in part because the software to collect and compile the information is free. Energize Vancouver's emissions limits for big commercial buildings are so light that about 90% of the buildings subject to the limits are already compliant. And for those that aren't, they can turn to a variety of supports like BOMA BC's DCARB accelerator, which is part of the BC Retrofit accelerator. And thanks to Energize Vancouver, many buildings are now able to identify high return opportunities to reduce energy costs and emissions and improve their net operating income, which isn't a bad outcome. In its current form, I recommend opposing the motion, but I'm sure City Council can correct the focus of the motion with some amendments. Thank you.

Hi there. My name is Donovan Woolard. I'm a Vancouver resident and entrepreneur and the owner of a Vancouver-based business that employs a number of other Vancouverites. I'm speaking today in opposition to Measure 8 as cynical and a waste of taxpayer money. The stated aim of this motion is to remove measures that hinder housing affordability. Housing affordability. Looking at Clause D specifically, Energize Vancouver is a framework for tracking and improving the energy efficiency and carbon performance of existing buildings, not newly constructed buildings, in the program, the vast majority of which are not housing at all. If and when this does impact housing affordability, it's generally a positive impact through mandating job-creating improvements that reduce energy and operating costs while also extending the useful life of these buildings, reducing net loss of crucial housing supply. So removing Energize Vancouver in the name of housing affordability goes in exactly the wrong direction. And as an aside, it was interesting this morning hearing the staff presentations, and the very first one out of the gate made exactly this case, that deferred and reactive maintenance is far more expensive than proactive maintenance. Again, mandating performance and maintenance is pro-affordability. Similarly with Clause B, the City of Vancouver has shown leadership in shifting the market, but the time of replacement policy for domestic hot water systems. Bylaw 14578 will create more competition and lower the install cost of heating systems that are lower carbon, lower operating costs, again, pro-affordability as well as pro-climate. In closing, this motion calls for a costly review and removal of established policies and bylaws. City staff have better things to do than undertake a lengthy review of established policies. Vancouverites who have seen their tax burden increase most years of this Council are looking for better use of their resources. So I'm asking Council to turn down this motion.

Thank you, Chair and Council. My name is Mike McNeese. I am the Director of Public Affairs for the Hearth, Patio and Barbecue Association of Canada. I'm speaking today in favor of the motion. Our members manufacture, distribute, sell and service fireplaces, wood stoves and barbecue products. Our members also operate in Vancouver and the surrounding area. I'm speaking on behalf of our members and their many customers impacted by these decisions. Thousands of jobs are at stake and many thousands of users. The motion from Mayor Ken Simms shows leadership at an important time for Vancouver residents. Affordability is top of mind for them and so it should be for all of you too. Repealing the ban on gas water heater replacement and reviewing Vancouver's housing and energy bylaws to bring them in line with provincial regulations just makes sense. When residents are concerned about affordability and therefore want choice in how they heat their home, Council should listen and support this motion. Alongside other members of BCK, we have long been calling for an end to the patchwork of regulations that exists across the province, and Vancouver has a chance to lead the way. Every municipality across B.C. having its own rules puts hurdles up and sows confusion in the market. While fireplaces are excluded from some regulations on paper, they're effectively banned when gas can't be put into homes for space and water heating. People have been clear they care about the climate, but they also care about affordability, and they want to be able to choose how to heat their homes. Our national campaign and survey found an overwhelming majority of respondents support Canadians maintaining access to increasingly efficient fireplaces and wood stoves. Reviewing and aligning municipal bylaws will make it easier for builders to build and for residents to choose affordable, safe, reliable heating options. On behalf of our members, your attention to this matter is much appreciated, and we look forward to continuing our constructive relationship with the City of Vancouver. Thank you again for the opportunity to speak to this item.

I am not a Vancouver resident.

Thank you, Chair, and I would like to thank all members of Council for allowing me to speak to you today in support of this motion. My name is Olivia Oriet, and I'm the Director of Advocacy at the Canadian Institute of Plumbing and Heating, which has served as the voice for Canada's plumbing and heating community for over 90 years. I'm not a Vancouver resident, but our membership includes Vancouver-based businesses and many Vancouver residents, and my remarks today were informed by their insights. This is a crucial motion for housing affordability and reducing costs for Vancouver's homeowners, renters, and small businesses, and it is critical that the committee pass it. Removing choice when replacing existing water heaters will cost tens of thousands of residents potentially tens of thousands of dollars per home in additional and unexpected costs due to potential need to rewire and electrify. Housing affordability in Vancouver in particular, but in British Columbia as a whole, has been recognized by the governments of Canada and British Columbia as a crisis, and that crisis is only deepening. That's why we're pleased to see this city take action before Vancouverites face thousands of dollars a year in additional costs at a time when many are struggling to make ends meet. Aligning Vancouver's regulations and policies with those of the province will reduce cost delays and duplication in construction and help lower both ongoing and due build costs for residents. We look forward to working with council to eliminate regulatory barriers and orders to create more affordable housing for Vancouverites, and I thank you for your time.

Thank you for listening. I'm a homeowner, long-time resident, and owner of a Vancouver-based small business in the architecture and construction space. At its core, the idea here is solid. Harmonizing Vancouver with the BC Building Code, it's great. If I don't mix up what is in Part 10.2 anymore, that sounds fabulous. Facing tight budgets, plans must adapt for sure, but this motion won't only eliminate duplication, it sets the conditions for the Vancouver Building By-law, the VBBL, to be gutted. To use an AI analogy, this motion is not proposing going from Gemini to Claude. It's vague enough we might end up with Microsoft words clippy. It's far cheaper to build things right the first time, which is why the absence of any climate considerations within this motion is disappointing. Those measures have already been heavily shaped by technical experts in industry and have been written to maximize impact while minimizing cost through rewarding innovation and creativity. Since this council consolidated language from rezoning policies into the VBBL, which was a good move, by gutting the VBBL, the centerpiece of the climate emergency big move four and five effectively gets severed. That's a major change to the identity of Vancouver. Dropping those climate measures not only damages the brand and the soft power this city has, it does so just as we step into the spotlight with the World Cup. And the prime minister said earlier today at the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, that by far the biggest emission reduction prize is reducing emissions affordably through electrification. If anything, this motion will delay electrification of buildings around Vancouver and may take us out of alignment with that national vision. I'd urge you all to reject this motion or simply to amend it so that climate is not left by the wayside as a part of this review, but is kept in balance alongside life safety and other... as we pursue affordability. Thank you.

My name is Jenny Milligan. I've lived in the West End for 18 years. I have a 12-year-old son. His generation deserves real climate leadership from Vancouver City Council. I ask you to vote against this irresponsible motion which pretends to be about affordability. This motion is not about affordability. This motion seems to be about relentless lobbying by the gas industry. Gas lobbyists probably feel emboldened because our provincial and federal governments are behaving like climate deniers. They are investing in fossil fuels at a time when humanity must stop using them. BC's new LNG export industry is increasing domestic gas prices, so now is a terrible time to allow gas heating in new buildings or to allow old gas boilers to be replaced with new gas boilers rather than electric ones. These types of decisions would lock in gas use for decades to come at increasing prices. Lobbyists use the term natural gas. This gas is actually methane, a potent greenhouse gas over 80 times better at trapping heat than carbon dioxide in its first 20 years in the atmosphere. Gas appliances are known to leak, filling our homes with chemicals like benzene, a carcinogen with no safe level of exposure. This motion is not about affordability. A recent study found that a province-wide switch to electric heat pumps would save residents of B.C. $675 million a year on their energy bills, and total electricity use would fall, even with cooling expanded to every home that currently lacks it. 44% of households in B.C. lack cooling. Electric heat pumps provide cooling and save lives, while gas in homes endangers lives. Vancouver should be proud of its climate policy, and it does matter what Vancouver does. Climate change is a global problem requiring collective action. Even if global emissions decrease a little because of what we do in Vancouver, it matters. And the health benefits of improved indoor air quality matter too. Please think of your kids, grandkids, nieces and nephews and vote against this motion. Thank you.

Excellent pronunciation. Thanks. Good evening, Mayor and Council Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Levin Jogu. I'm here on behalf of Vancity, Canada's largest credit union and a financial cooperative serving more than 588,000 member owners across British Columbia. I'm here to express my concern in opposition with Motion 8. We recognize and share Council's urgency in addressing housing affordability and supply, and Vancity is a major mortgage lender and a long-standing partner in affordable housing with the city. We are actively financing new affordable homes and have been helping access homeownership here in Vancouver since 1946. At its core, this motion risks undermining long-term affordability by focusing too narrowly on upfront construction costs, while overlooking ongoing costs that households face and actually live with every day. First, on existing buildings, Motion 8 would effectively cancel Energize Vancouver and weaken requirements like higher-efficiency domestic hot water systems. These are practical, cost-efficient tools that help strata owners and residents reduce energy bills over time. Removing these policies risks locking in higher operating costs and delaying energy retrofits that would otherwise save households money. Second, on new construction, by reverting to the minimum provincial building code, the motion opens the door to lower efficiency systems, including expanded reliance on gas. That creates direct exposure for residents to volatile energy prices and rising utility costs. In contrast, Vancouver's current building bylaw has been designed to support high-efficiency electric systems that are more stable, more affordable to operate over time, and better aligned with Vancouver's current climate goals. The key point is this. Building standards are not just about emissions. They are one of the most effective tools we have to manage long-term housing costs. Modern building design, that is, efficient envelopes, heat pumps, electrification, help households save money month after month, while also improving comfort and resilience in extreme heat, smoke, and other climate-driven events. Lowering those standards today risks embedding higher costs into Vancouver's housing stock for decades to come. Vancouver has been a leader, as you know, in high-performance building tech. The province and federal governments are investing heavily into lower carbon modular construction and mass timber building technology. This is Vancouver's opportunity to lead as Canada establishes a new bi-Canadian housing industry using new technologies, many of which have been developed in our region. I urge you to consult with stakeholders, other levels of government, and share Vancouver's expertise. In closing, we urge council to maintain and strengthen policies that support energy efficiency and electrification while continuing to accelerate housing supply. We believe you can and must do both. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. My name is Sarah Harris, and I live in Vancouver. I'm speaking against this motion. I teach climate change, climate science, and climate action up at UBC. And my partner and I are moving next month. We're moving within Vancouver. We've been in our current place for about 20 years. And in our new place, the first thing we are going to do is replace the polluting methane burning gas range in the kitchen with an induction range. And this is going to save us money. It's going to remove gas burning as a source of indoor air pollution in our home. And it is so much more fun to cook on if you haven't tried it. And then the second thing we're going to do is replace the polluting methane burning gas hot water heater. And this is going to completely eliminate burning methane gas within our home. Vancouver could be a leader in affordability hand in hand with climate action. We have been a leader. And the way forward is electrification with non-fossil fuel energy. This motion perpetuates our current situation in which the many of us support the few rich people who are making oodles of money off of selling fossil fuels to us. This motion allows for lock-in of methane-burning appliances in our home for more decades to come, which is just what the gas lobby wants. This is not an affordability measure. An affordability measure would be to go full speed towards supporting the transition to the new energy system, which is fossil fuel free. And the savings we would see in health care, the savings in infrastructure costs, the reliability, the increased sovereignty that the new energy system offers are massive. The sun, as you know, is already with us, and it's going to be with us long after the fossil fuel billionaires have extracted their last dollar from us. And I think now it should be abundantly clear, especially with the political situation, just how fragile the fossil fuel system that we have relied on for so many years actually is. The people who are going to benefit financially from this motion are not the residents of Vancouver. The people who will benefit are the owners in the gas industry. That's not affordability. That's a con. You on this council represent me and the other residents of this city, and I'm sure you normally hear way more from the fossil fuel lobbyists than you hear from constituents. And I'm asking you to please vote against this motion. Thank you.

My name is Douglas Hamilton Evans. I'm a resident of Riley Park, a parent of a young child. a renter and I operate a small business. I'm speaking today with deep frustration in opposition to motion eight. I asked the council, what are we doing here? Haven't we been through this already? When a similar motion was proposed in 2024 and you heard directly from hundreds of people in opposition, let alone the thousands of letters he received. Do you not remember this? Do you not think we aren't paying attention? I wonder why we are wasting the city's resources and citizens' time and energy on relitigating this. I also ask you to remember where you were during the heat dome of 2021. Was it in an air-conditioned home, an office, or a car? What was your experience like compared with the 619 people in BC who died, with poverty being the most common thread between them? Because to recklessly pause the energy then energized Vancouver program, which reduces our carbon emissions through multifamily and commercial building retrofits to remove the ban on natural gas heating and new buildings to allow replacements of hot water boilers to hook up to gas rather than to go electric and all else in this motion all allow more fracked methane, the primary component in natural gas. which is 86 times worse than CO2 for our atmosphere, into our homes when we desperately need to both reduce our emissions and to provide more reliable ways to keep cool and warm in times of crisis, to stave off the loss and suffering of future heat dome events and other climate disasters. And to frame this as a housing affordability issue is false and manipulative. Studies from BC Housing, BC Hydro, and Clean Energy Canada all show that installing electric heating in new buildings costs the same or less than gas and can, in fact, save families on their monthly bills. And if we allow new buildings to use gas now, it will only mean more unnecessary costs in the future when they require retrofits to meet zero emission targets. Meanwhile, electric heat pumps provide heating and cooling. They filter air and control humidity, and they work in hot and cold weather. And as we see from the horrific wars on Ukraine and Iran, there is an economic volatility to gas at the same time that renewable energy like wind, solar and the batteries behind them or heat pumps are becoming cheaper and more reliable. To abandon years of work to get gas out of our buildings ignores this moment we're in and the future we deserve. And there are so many better ways to increase the supply of affordable housing in this city than this. of deregulation and I would love to see city council be more ambitious and imaginative in response to the housing crisis. I would like to thank councillors Rebecca Bly, Lisa Dominato and Brian Montague as well as Pete Fry for voting against a similar rollback in 2024. Your bravery and common sense has been recognized and I hope to see the same from you and your fellow councillors as you vote against motion eight. Thank you for your time.

Good evening, Mayor, Chair, and Council. Good to be with you tonight. My name is William Azaroff. I'm the CEO of Brightside Community Homes Foundation, a large nonprofit housing provider operating homes throughout Vancouver. I'm a resident of Vancouver, and I pose this motion. Brightside, in 2022, made a commitment to become carbon neutral by 2035. We've adjusted our own practices to align with policies like this one. And we need guardrails in place for those organizations like Brightside who are already committed to this climate future, but also for those who are still reluctant and learning and moving along their way towards good climate policies. Now, we own and operate our own buildings over the long term. In fact, most of you have been to Brightside redevelopments and or retrofits, and you can see the important and good work we do and how essential it is. So the industry needs certainty, not flip-flopping on these kinds of policies. Buildings are a major source of GHG emissions in our city, and we know that it's cheaper to build with a future in mind. Having to retrofit a relatively new building in 10 years for what is inevitably going to be needed to be done to electrify our buildings is a waste of dollars. We used to be considered a climate leader in the city and it is sad to watch our position and advances and commitments eroded. There are also very real human impacts on people's health and safety. Electrification creates a more livable home with essential cooling and it eliminates methane gas from being in people's homes. This is essential to keeping people safe. We expect 2026 to be the hottest year on record and Vancouver must do its part to protect our people from dangerous heat. So in short, we should not use one crisis, the housing crisis, as cover to erode advances we're making on another crisis, which is the climate crisis. This city is full of people who expect us to do better, who know we can do better. I urge you all to vote against this motion. Thank you.

okay uh... yeah good uh... good afternoon uh... mayor simon council my name's lucas i'm a climate organizer based uh... in vancouver and i'm speaking here today uh... to vote uh... asking you to vote against uh... motion eight uh... yeah so i want to be quite direct about why this uh... matters this is not just a technical adjustment or affordability it's just an outright rollback right um... so motion eight pauses energize vancouver completely stripped zero carbon and the energy subcode requirements for new construction. And it's reopening the door to all these super inefficient hot water gas systems in these retrofits that we can't go back to. So these are some of the most substantive climate policies that Vancouver has built over the past few years, and they're being gutted all three at once, which I find is just incredibly shameful. Yeah, the city's building sector is obviously one of our greatest sources of emissions, and these policies were created for a reason in the first place. It's because we want to stop locking in fossil fuel dependence in our building stock, and we need to do it now before the new wave of construction and retrofits comes over the next few decades and sets the baseline for what's going to be the next 30 to 50 years. uh... but could not in the same building code as the product because it's leading the way and we want to keep it that way uh... yet probably i don't think we're going to make retrofit cheaper president president uh... if anything it delay the condition it rated the long-term cost and it's just a burden onto future tenants uh... who will have to pay for higher gas bills instead of developers having to pay for these upgrades and retrofits at the time of construction. So essentially, removing the step code requirements doesn't make housing more affordable. It just makes buildings cheaper to build, but then more expensive to operate. And it has developers a short-term saving, and then at the expense of the people who will live in these buildings, for decades on end after that.

Reopening the door to these hot water systems is a huge backslide, and it locks in another decade or two of emissions. Now is not the time to give FortisBC another handout.

We do not refine all of our natural gas in Canada, and we're vulnerable to international price fluctuations. And I don't even want to mention the clear health concerns that now we know brass cookers have. EU lawmakers are saying that about 700,000 cases per year of child asthma in Europe are associated with gas stoves. And this number could even be... larger um i want to acknowledge counselors meisner and dominato for voting against this motion in the past in 2024 and i ask that you do so again this time around uh thank you so much yeah vancouver has the opportunity to hold the line and honor our reputation of being the greenest city so let's do it vote now okay speaker 32 is iona bonamis

Hello, Mayor and Council. My name is Iona Bonamy, and my Chinese name is Tosi Wing. As a longtime Vancouver resident, as a mom, and as an urban planner, I'm speaking in opposition to this motion, which seeks to bring Vancouver backwards when it comes to energy efficiency and reducing carbon emissions. This is particularly frustrating for a number of reasons. First, experts, including those in the development industry, have made it clear that building all electric is one of the easiest and most affordable options that we can take to protect our community from increasing climate disasters. The city's own data shows that it takes the same amount of time to build an all-electric home, and the cost is comparable for buyers. Heat pumps can provide energy and cost savings over time since they are far more efficient than gas furnaces. And I've experienced this firsthand myself. After installing heat pumps in my home, my energy bills have dropped dramatically since switching over to a heat pump system. Secondly, burning gas in buildings is the biggest source of climate pollution in Vancouver, accounting for nearly 60% of our carbon emissions. Transitioning over to a highly efficient electric space and water heating will dramatically reduce these emissions. Lastly, we are about to have another record-breaking year in temperatures this summer, which means our most vulnerable populations, including seniors, will be at risk of serious health issues. This pattern of increasing temperatures will not stop, and with an aging population, we need to do more to protect them, and installing heat pumps in buildings is a very tangible way to do that. We lost nearly 100 people in the city in the 2021 heat dome, many of whom were seniors or people living alone. We often talk about protecting people's safety when they're in public spaces, Well, this is a very real way to protect people's safety when they are inside their own homes. I was really proud when we were the first Canadian city to declare a climate emergency in 2019 and then to develop a climate emergency action plan. And it's really frustrating to see this motion come forward to cut Vancouver's climate policies. So I strongly urge you, I beg you to please vote this motion down so that Vancouver does not become a straggler in our region. Thank you.

I got it. Yep. Thank you for the opportunity to address the Standing Committee on Finance. My name is Judith Brooke, and I am a Metro Vancouver resident. I'm speaking in opposition to Motion 8. Let's focus on affordability. There are many reasons for high housing costs in B.C., such as rising labor costs, supply chain issues, tariffs, land costs, etc. The electrification of a building is not one of those reasons. Indeed, there would be no need for a gas permit, for a gas line installation, or for an inspection. BC Housing, BC Hydro, Clean Energy Canada, they all state that installing electric systems in new buildings typically cost the same or less than using gas. I remind you that November 2024, hundreds of people spoke to this Council in addition to a myriad of letters you received affirming the need to continue building electrification. Buildings contribute over 55% of the city's emissions and must be lowered. Dozens of other cities have acted on this, including your neighbors, Burnaby, North Vancouver, Richmond. Modern building codes are there to protect people, similar to how we no longer use asbestos and now require fire escapes. We should respect residents' health and pocketbooks. With hydro's new time of day rates, electric resistance for hot water is now not only significantly cheaper to install, it is also cheaper to operate with time of day charges. Business in Vancouver publication reports that in 2025, Fortis increased gas rates by 17.5% and in 2026 by 11.1%. BC Hydro, on the other hand, went up 3.75% in each of those years. Electricity is the more affordable option. Last month, Ford has submitted its 2026 to 2050 gas plan to BCUC with three differing price increases ranging from 3.5 to 6.9 times the cost jumps. The company plans to increase renewable natural gas component of its gas mix which has a higher cost to users. The company also plans to add hydrogen to the mix, which has a lower heating value and therefore needs more quantity. Again, adding more costs to users doesn't sound affordable. It's bad for our pocketbooks, plus still creating emissions. And bad for our health. The Energy Vancouver bylaw purpose is to reduce carbon pollution from existing buildings and must continue. As I have demonstrated, Motion 8 increases the cost to residents and increases emissions detrimental to our health, all while undermining climate policy. I urge you and beg you to vote against Motion 8. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mayor, Council, and staff.

No, I'm not. Okay, that's okay.

Yeah, but our organization is supportive of all municipalities and all residents. And my name is Paul Bonotto, and I am president and senior director of Modular BC. We're a provincial nonprofit organization dedicated to growing British Columbia's modular industry. to deliver more affordable homes and create skilled jobs in communities across our province. We strongly support this initiative to provide greater choice in energy solutions and to align municipal policy with the BC Building Code. This proposed proposed change recognizes an important reality facing communities today. People need more affordable options, greater flexibility and practical solutions that reduce the cost of housing. aligning local regulations with the provincial building code creates a more consistent and standardized framework for builders manufacturers developers and ultimately lowering costs reducing delays and improving housing affordability for residents and modular bc we're looking diligently to advance standardization module housing solutions throughout vancouver and across columbia In partnership with the National Research Council, we are helping develop a provincial standardized modular housing program. It's designed to accelerate housing delivery and improve efficiency and bring more affordable homes to residents in Vancouver and communities throughout BC. As everyone in this chamber understands, and this is important, British Columbia and Canada as a whole is facing a critical moment. Housing affordability, economic uncertainty, and rising construction costs require immediate and collaborative action. This call to action is not only for industry, it's for all municipalities. We must work together to modernize outdated policies and remove barriers that place unnecessary financial strain on families, seniors, workers, and future homeowners. We must also remove constraints and limit industry's ability to deliver practical, cost-effective, and innovative housing solutions. Did you know modular reduces building emissions by up to 43% and waste by 50% to 70%? Communities that embrace modern approaches, including modular construction, practical energy choice, and harmonized building standards will be better positioned to deliver affordability, efficiency, and housing security for their residents. Today's initiative is a meaningful step towards that future. It supports affordability, it supports housing delivery, and it supports the residents of Vancouver. For those that vote in favor, I want to congratulate Mayor and Council for demonstrating leadership and for putting affordability and practical solutions first for your community. I thank you for your time.

I'm a resident of Metro Vancouver.

I'm a resident of Metro Vancouver. I oppose motion 8. I retrofitted a heat pump into my old house in 2021, just before the heat dome. The air conditioning was fantastic. My heating bills have been lower since I put in the heat pump, substantially lower, and the retrofit was really expensive. If Motion 8 passes, many others will need to do an expensive retrofit. This will be hard on people financially. Your council has a proud history of climate leadership. You started decarbonization of new buildings in 2020. Just six years later, 32 communities in BC have adopted a high level of decarbonization. including 12 other communities in the greater Vancouver region. Motion 8 would have you turn your back on this great progress that you started. Motion 8 says decarbonization makes new housing more expensive. Many others today will tell you that that's false, both for construction and for operation. and that gas will soon rise in price. I mentioned this in the letter I sent you yesterday. I'll concentrate on Energize Vancouver. Mayor Sim wants to pause Energize Vancouver. This important program was developed in 2022 for the health and safety of the public. Energize Vancouver was possible because of your charter. This program reduces building emissions through annual reporting of energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in large buildings. Buildings owners have known about it since 2022. Energize Vancouver helps building owners electrify their buildings via funding, rebates, and technical assistance. And yes, the biggest polluters are fined because money makes people act. With buildings responsible for 55% of Vancouver's emissions, how else will we reduce this pollution? Please maintain your climate leadership. Don't keep flip-flopping, as has been mentioned. Be dependable for builders. Keep gas out of new buildings. Make good use of your charter. Continue Energize Vancouver. Please vote no on Motion 8. Thank you.

Can you hear me?

Thanks. Good evening, Mayor and Council. I'm representing the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, and I'm speaking today to urge you to reject the motion before you because it is an attack on public health and equity. This motion would lock in fossil fuel combustion in homes for decades, increasing emissions and delaying a mass rollout of heat pumps, systems that don't just heat our homes, but also filter the air during wildfire seasons and provide life-saving cooling during extreme heat events. As both wildfires and heat waves become more deadly, everyone deserves heat, cooling, and clean air. But this motion would effectively deny that to many future residents, leaving them even more vulnerable to conditions we know are already harming our communities. A few years ago, I was able to switch out the gas appliances in my own home for electric alternatives. I now save money on my utility bills every month and enjoy cooling during hot days. But more importantly, my children are no longer exposed to the increased asthma and cancer risks associated with gas in homes. I was able to do this because I'm lucky enough to own a home, just like many of you on council, I suspect. But more than half of Vancouver residents are renters, and low-income households are even more likely to rent. Renters have no say over their appliances, their ventilation, or the air their kids breathe. Gas in buildings for renters means higher utility bills, toxic exposures, and no way to change it. People in small homes face four times the pollution as those in larger spaces. This motion would lock in those inequities for decades and ensure that those who already bear the greatest health burdens continue to suffer the most. Gas hookups don't reduce housing costs either. They pass on higher bills and health expenses. Gas is the expensive and unhealthy choice. In late 2024, 150 physicians and other healthcare providers signed a letter opposing a similar motion and council listened. We're asking you to listen again. The climate crisis is worsening and the health impacts of fossil fuels are becoming impossible to ignore. The city of Vancouver must lead, not backtrack. It must protect public health and ensure that no child's future is compromised by burning gas in their homes. Please reject Motion 8 and stand with the builders, health care workers, renters, and the majority of residents who want clean air, lower bills, and a city that prioritizes health and equity over fossil fuel interest. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Claudia Cornwall. I'm a resident of Metro Vancouver. Yes, Metro Vancouver. Okay, not City of Vancouver, right?

Yes, I live in Metro Vancouver, yes.

Okay. Okay. Thank you, Mayor and Council, for your attention. The last time this topic came up, I also spoke to you. I told you that my husband and I had demolished our old bungalow and replaced it with a highly efficient all-electric house. We have a heat pump and solar panels on the roof. We use substantially less energy and less grid electricity than we used to. We draw from the grid in the winter and export to it in the summer. We currently have a net credit of $170 with BC Hydro. I haven't paid anything for utilities in the past year. The all-electric house is rapidly becoming a more affordable option than gas. I will cite two reasons why. During the 2021 heat dome, 619 people died in B.C. from the effects of high temperatures. As a result, the B.C. government changed the building code. It now requires that new buildings have at least one room that can be cooled to 26 degrees. If you install a heat pump, you can heat and cool your house. If you use a gas furnace... you need to install an additional air conditioning system, which makes this the pricier option to build. Secondly, gas prices are rising. As Judith Brooke mentioned earlier, Fortis increased its rates by 17.5% in 2025, and in 2026, another 11.1%. Electricity from BC Hydro... On the other hand, went up only 3.75% in each of these years. Over the last six years, Fortis supplied gas has gone up 46%, whereas BC Hydro supplied electricity has gone up 12.5%. These increases in gas prices took place even before the very recent geopolitical turmoil and the closing of the Straits of Hormuz. Using homegrown electricity allows us to uncouple ourselves... from the volatile global fossil fuel market. We get to enjoy lower and more stable prices for energy. One more observation. The city of Victoria shows that we can meet our climate goals and provide more housing. In 2023, Victoria mandated that new builds go all electric. Since then, Victoria has built a record amount of housing. In October 2023, the provincial government gave 10 BC cities targets. for new housing units to be completed in the next five years. Victoria was given a goal of 4,902 units. It exceeded its targets for the first two years and by November 2025 had completed 48% of its five-year goal. It is still ahead of target. I urge you not to go backwards and instead embrace the new electrified and affordable future.

Hi, my name is Laura Mackey. I'm a resident of Vancouver and I'm speaking in opposition to Motion 8. At a time when electricity from renewable sources is cheaper than ever and gas is more expensive than it's been in years, claiming that fossil fuels back into our homes will make life in Vancouver more affordable is a very brazen claim. With or without Vancouver, the world is stepping forward into an energy future that is powered by cheap and clean renewable energy. Our city's building code is a forward-thinking policy that sets us up to benefit from this changing future. Instead, Motion 8 is a huge step backward into a costly, aging fossil fuel economy. There's also been a number of comments this evening about this motion being supportive of Vancouver's entrepreneurial spirit, and I have to ask, what is entrepreneurial about falling in line behind oil lobbyists and holding onto the past? I urge City Council to empower Vancouver's place as a modern city with building policy that is clean and genuinely affordable, and vote no on Motion 8. Thank you.

Hi. I'll answer your question first, Lenny. My name is Sam Roberts. I am a card-carrying voting resident of Vancouver. I am a renter living in Fairview. I'm calling in opposition to this motion. Echoing many of the previous speakers, I want to highlight three key points. First, one of the biggest challenges for development in Vancouver is the constantly changing landscape. Development isn't slow because they can't use gas heaters. It's because of policy flip-flops like this that make developers stand back and wait for the dust to settle. I appreciate your efforts to improve affordability. I really do. But I don't support this effort at the expense of reasonable and leading climate policy. Second, speaking of leadership, I want to live in a city that others look to. I want to live in a global green city that other communities model themselves after. This would send us backwards, and I really don't agree with it. Finally, I will speak to the concept of choice. There were a lot of homeowners who have spoken about how amazing their heat pumps are, how much they love them, and I think that that's so great for them. I am a renter. I don't get that choice. There is not enough buildings in this city that have heat pumps that it is a viable choice for most renters, and I think that this policy is something that government, the whole purpose of government for me is to to create guardrails so that people can't harm other people for personal gain. And I think that this particular motion allows for people to choose the bad option that may be slightly cheaper right now for short-term savings at the expense of future occupants and existing renters. If I had a heat pump, I would be so happy. I would be really happy, but I'm too poor to buy a house, so I rent. And there's not enough for me to have the choice. i speak at council because i care about our city and my neighbors and i think it's important to contribute my voice and that um the voices of my community of peers unfortunately i'm starting to get the impression that my contribution isn't always heard and maybe it won't meaningfully impact the decisions of those of you in council chambers so if my my voice and the voice of my peers is not changing your mind know that i have 11 opportunities to use my voice again for mayor and council in october thank you so much have a great evening speaker 45 spiel pigot is bill piggott and i live in the city of vancouver i'm speaking against motion eight and i'm asking you to vote against it i live in a condominium in a new six-story passive house building there is no gas line coming into the building our suites utility bills for everything including electric heat are between 30 and 35 dollars per month Studies show that switching to heat pumps paired with electric heating would save British Columbians a collective $675 million a year on energy bills. And heat pumps provide not just heating, but cooling in the summer as well. I'm a retired elementary school teacher who taught in the Lower Mainland for well over 30 years. I've been worried about the negative effects of global warming for all of this time. And more recently, this topic has also been part of the BC elementary curriculum. Students know that burning fossil fuels is the primary driving force behind global warming and know about its catastrophic effects. Devastating forest fires, destructive spring flooding, dry, dry summers, water restrictions, heat domes, et cetera, et cetera. They worry about their future because they understand the urgency to reduce and ultimately eliminate the burning of fossil fuels. They ask why it's taking so long. As a teacher, I've seen firsthand the anxiety levels in students steadily increasing over the years. What will the world be like when they grow up? Why aren't adults fixing this? Do they care about our future? Personally, I have to ask, why is the mayor's senior advisor a director at two private natural gas companies? Why do ABC counselors spend so much time meeting with Fortis reps and lobbyists? Are fossil fuel lobbyists leading the changes in Ocean 8 in their own self-interest? Only a few short months ago, the public response to the idea of reintroducing gas to new builds was overwhelmingly negative. Why is this question now being rehashed on such short notice? At best, the proponents of this motion are disrespecting the process we have already gone through. Vancouver had shown climate leadership, by reducing emissions for the last 10 years and have also inspired other cities in BC to do the same. Let us not go backwards on this by reintroducing gas to new builds and reversing our environmental progress on water heating. Every new gas burning system we installed today means another additional expensive retrofit in the future. In summary, I ask you to please vote against motion 8. This motion is going to cost more money in the long run, is a step backwards in the face of global warming, and is being led by fossil fuel interests instead of the interests of ordinary citizens, especially our young people. Thank you for your consideration.

Hi, good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Chad Payton, the owner of Payton Plumbing Works, Inc. I do not live in the City of Vancouver, but I've been working in the City of Vancouver since 1998, and I've ran my own business since 2008 in the plumbing, heating, and construction industry. I'm also the inaugural president of the BC Plumbing and HVAC Association, which currently includes 60 companies and growing across BC. I appreciate the opportunity today to speak on housing affordabilities and the impact of the heating and hot water electrification policies. We are in favor of this motion. I see the need to reduce emissions and improve efficiencies. However, from the perspective of contractors, tradespeople, and homeowners that work directly in these buildings every day, there are serious costs and practical concerns that need to be considered. the transition to electric heating and hot water systems is significantly increasing construction renovation costs in particular projects many of these require expensive electrical upgrades large service capacities additional infrastructure specialized equipment that both contractors and consumers are still learning to install service maintain and operate effectively At this time, many homeowners currently operate old gas boilers, furnaces, and water heaters that could be replaced with ultra-high efficiency equipment. Modern gas systems can achieve efficiencies of 95% and higher for boilers and furnaces and up to 98% efficient for tankless water heaters. These are proven technologies that our industry has decades of experience installing safely and efficiently. New construction and major renovations likely represent only a small portion of Vancouver's total housing stock. The vast majority of gas equipment, especially with rebate supports, if these policies could allow more flexible upgrade options, including high-efficiency gas equipment, could improve the efficiency, reduce the emissions across a larger number of homes, and make a much larger impact at a lower overall cost to residents. We also acknowledge that the BC electrical grid is under increasing demand and pressure. Fully electrifying heat and domestic hot water across all housing types creates a long-term infrastructure capacity and reliability issue during peak winter demands, highest summer heat. The future operating costs for homeowners, the supply of BC hydro supplements already from other provinces and the U.S. to achieve what we're already consuming these days. My request is not to stop the innovation or environmental progress. It's simply to allow balanced solutions and giving homeowners, builders, and industrial professionals flexibility to allow gas systems as part of the solution alongside of electrification, dual fuel strategies, and support a transition that balances and reduces emissions equally. Thank you for your time.

Yes, hi. Thank you for this opportunity to speak. I'm a Vancouver resident and family physician. I'm also a grandma of four gorgeous grandchildren between the ages of 18 months and six years, and I'm speaking against Motion 8. In the short time I last spoke around this issue in November 2024, my grandkids have lived through two more extreme heat events, a wildfire smoke event, and a major air quality warning lasting four days. And air pollution affects kids the most because they breathe faster and take in higher doses of pollutants, which can cause permanent damage and lead to lifelong respiratory and cognitive issues. In my clinical work, I make home visits on frail elderly people who are unable to leave their homes due to advanced age and disability. Now, we know that among adults age 50 or older, extreme heat is the leading cause of illness and death in Canada. And during the 2021 heat dome, we saw a 100% increase in deaths in our province. As doctors, we've now even developed lists of medications that we need to adjust for and hold for our patients in order to prepare them for such heat events. The science tells us that these extreme weather events are caused by atmospheric warming from carbon pollution due to burning fossil fuels. We know that heating buildings generate 57% of Vancouver's carbon pollution. This allowing gas heating and hot water for new builds substantially decreases that footprint and is one of the few measures City Council is able to take to mitigate global warming. Again, I encourage you to base your decision on the science and on our collective duty of care to protect both the health of today's Vancouverites and the Vancouverites not yet born. Climate change is not a partisan issue. I urge you to vote against the motion. Thank you.

My name is Adam Hawk. I'm a longtime resident of the city of Vancouver. I rise today in strong opposition to this motion. We are living through a climate crisis in British Columbia, and we're already paying the price through record-breaking wildfires, deadly heat domes, smoke-filled summers, flooding, rising energy insecurity. Scientists warned us for decades that continued dependence on fossil fuels would lead us here. Now we know that major fossil fuel companies understood the danger since the 1950s and chose to delay disinformation over action. Today, instead of accelerating climate solutions, this motion asks Vancouver to retreat. Let's be clear about what's happening here. This is not a technical review of building codes. This motion would pause and weaken Energize Vancouver, one of the city's most important climate and emission reduction policies, and reopen the door to expanded fossil fuel infrastructure in new and existing buildings. that's the wrong direction supporters of this motion. frame climate regulation as a barrier to affordability. But climate disasters themselves are a massive affordability crisis. Wildfires destroy homes, drive up insurance costs. Extreme heat causes health emergencies and crazy utility bills. Fossil fuel dependence exposes families to volatile energy prices. Every delay in climate action pushes higher costs onto future generations, like my children and your children, Mayor Simm. This motion also creates a false choice between housing affordability and climate action. We need both. Vancouver absolutely must build more housing faster, but weakening environmental standards will not solve the housing crisis. Land costs, speculation, underinvestment in non-market housing, and slow approval processes are a much larger driver of unaffordability than climate requirements. In fact, green building standards create jobs, spur innovation, and prepare our city for the future economy. Aligning entirely with the provincial minimum standard risks returning Vancouver to a climate laggard instead of a climate leader. And we should ask, who benefits from this rollback? FortisBC, the gas fitters that have been calling in who want to keep selling furnaces for the next two, three decades? Council has a responsibility. not just to today's housing market, but the next generation. Young people in this city will inherit the consequences of the decisions we make today. They will live with the fires, the floods, the heat. This motion says that affordability is difficult. Climate leadership should be abandoned. I reject that completely. Vancouver should be building affordable, energy-efficient, climate-resistant housing, not weakening standards at the exact moment when scientists warn us we are running out of time to avoid the worst of the climate change impacts. I urge council to vote against this. Thank you.

And I do live in Vancouver, lived here since 1973. I'm a grandmother, and I'd like to hand a clean environment on to the next generation. I'm not going to repeat all the very eloquent reasons that I've heard or people have called in or spoken about why we should vote against Motion 8. I'm actually quite appalled that we're discussing it again because twice the city and the citizens have said they don't want gas in new buildings. We don't want to roll back on climate help. So anyway, I'm appalled. And you'd have to change the title of the Greenest City newsletter to what? Sort of slightly green city if you vote for this motion, so I really urge you please to vote against motion Thank you speaker 52 John Irvin Yes, thanks chairs out Yes, I'm resident Vancouver speaking against the motion Let's start with some science methane is what natural gas actually is it's a chemical name, it's 20 times more impactful than CO2 is methane. The good news is it dissipates, but it has a punch when it happens. And basically, I want to make this personal. The town I grew up in, in 2023, Edson, Alberta, had to be evacuated twice. A big major fire burning in the gas fields, by the way, south of town, which also made our air quality poor with higher asthma rates for kids in those gas fields areas. It came up to the town by about a kilometer and a half. The town was evacuated fully. This was in 2023 in the summer. Then the wind shifted. And the fire started moving the other way. Huge, massive fire, by the way. And the wind shifted again, and the town had to be evacuated a second time. Fortunately, that town didn't burn down, but in 2006, part of Slave Lake burned down, and in 2014, as we all know, part of Fort McMurray burned down in a month-and-a-half-long monster forest fire. These fires we've been facing. Basically, I was on the ski team for the Jasper... And the town there in 2024, a third of it burned down, including my nephew's house. And I have many family who live in Jasper still. And my nephew's still not back in his house. So, you know, and this is all tied to, you know, drying forests, drying fields brought on by climate change. Last summer, I spent my vacation worried, keeping my kids happy, but worried. were fires to the north east and west of us in whistler and we don't we wrote down a single track ride To Brandywine Falls, I recommend it to people. It was fun. But the forest inside the forest, where it's normally not dry, was bone dry. And, you know, this is just fires. Other people have talked about the heat dome, the loss of 100 citizens. You know, I mean, we just really need to wake up and tackle this and move to sustainability. uh there are other large-scale um affordability measures around energy like the uh sewer heat recovery which we've done successfully in southeast falls creek to create heat and also coupled with solar and uh radiative solar and also sanaka's doing that so so that's what you folks should be doing setting policy at the big scale to make the city sustainable including, you know, working with BC Hydro to increase electricity supply to us. But thank you for your time. I gather my time is up, and take care.

Mayor and council, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you tonight on this very important topic. My name's Owen Finn. I'm a resident of Vancouver for the last 48 years, Westside. And I come tonight to speak in opposition to this motion yet again. Last time around, I also spoke. I have a few degrees, including a PhD in science, an MBA, and I retired as a full partner in the accounting consulting firm of KPMG. And I speak to you tonight representing the 11,000 active members and supporters of the environmental NGO My Sea to Sky, many of whom are Fortis customers. A raison d'etre for this motion proposed by the mayor has been to allow an increasingly affordable Vancouver. I would contend that it will allow the exact opposite. Those of us who follow Fortas' moves closely will know that last month they filed a long-term gas resource plan from 2024 to 2050.

And the end result of that was that because they are going to merge hydrogen and renewable gas, both of which cost significantly more than the frac kind they regularly give us, the costs for gas service are going to increase by between 3.5 and 7%. Sorry, seven times. And added to their storage and distribution costs, which have been rising significantly over the past several years, that is going to increase the burden on Vancouver homeowners and renters and not decrease it. So the hydrogen and renewable gas that they're going to blend cost in the neighborhood of $20 to $30 per gigajoule. The fracked kind is currently costing about $2, so as you increase the blends, the cost of the supply goes up. The earlier speaker from Fortis lauded the efforts of the federal government to remove the consumer carbon tax, but failed to mention that on the same day that happened, Fortis increased its rates by the same 17%. It is a monopoly and it is a poorly regulated one. And the end result of this is that this council, if it approves this motion, is going to be responsible and be legally liable for a class action suit by all those people who will be affected by this action. I urge you not to vote for this motion. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Laurie Goldman. I am not a Vancouver resident. I am speaking for Seniors for Climate South Okanagan and also Seniors for Climate BC in Canada. I'm calling in opposition to Motion 8. I used to live in Vancouver for 16 years. I was so excited to be part of a city that was so bold in their... plans to protect the residents of the city and to protect the planet, to understand that sustainability was really important to have a green city. And so I'm very disheartened that this has come up again. People have spoken very eloquently about all the reasons that Vancouver should not be going back to the last century. There are many jobs in renewable energy and in electrifying buildings. The job of council is to pass plans and bylaws that protect the people, not that harm the people. Putting gas back into new buildings, not helping people to transition to electrical systems for heating and hot water, that harms the people, that harms the children. It's 2026. The world knows that fossil fuels have brought us to the brink. And reducing emissions from buildings is really easy. It's effective, and it reduces pollution. And actually, builders do know that building electric buildings with appliances like heat pumps, as we know, which heat and cool the people and keep us safe, and with hot water heaters. it takes less time to install and can make construction more affordable. So I'm not sure. I'm not a builder. I'm a senior. I'm a teacher. And I'm very worried about our future. And I really am very concerned that this idea of choice is having people choose to kill themselves by having gas is sort of like a... um tobacco industry telling us that people should have a choice but you know we actually made laws that protected people by not allowing people to smoke in restaurants to not allow people to smoke in hospitals and on airplanes. I mean, this is okay to say to people, we're not going to allow you to hurt yourselves. So when it comes to affordability, the city should absolutely be working with the provincial government to make things much safer, much faster, much more affordable to build better, safer, more sustainable buildings. Gas stoves and also retrofits, of course. especially for tenants and seniors. Gas stoves contribute to asthma. They release nitrogen dioxide and other harmful gases. And the gas costs are soaring. I have fossil gas in my house, and my rates have gone up so much. And even when I'm not using it in the summer, I'm paying.

Hello, Council. My name is Anjali. I'm a resident of Vancouver and I'm speaking today in opposition of Motion 8. I want to be clear, I'm not in opposition to motions on affordability, but the language of this motion fails to explain just how the city will use it to force developers towards affordable solutions. It does rather show how it will make it easier and cheaper for developers to build here. Intent does not equal impact, and lowering costs for developers does not equal lower costs for renters or buyers, unless you're also regulating who and what they are building for. Where are your affordable housing commitments? Where are rent increase restrictions? Where is the renter's office at all? This motion is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Its language attempts to hide that it is a massive backslide in our city's climate commitments, especially to our 2030 embodied emissions climate goals. It is a slap in the face to residents who have been promised climate solutions and leadership from this council, and honestly, the language of the motion feels incredibly manipulative, because ultimately the crux of it is the rollback of a decade of progress. removing step codes and walking back our commitments will lock in housing futures that make the residents of this city less safe gas in our homes is bad for physical health we know this and current practices aren't good enough to manage extreme weather events or contribute to net zero so we need to be creative And if what you're saying is that current developers can't adapt to the multifaceted needs of our community, which include climate and affordability, then they should make room for others who can. But developers have been learning how to meet the moment and develop under these policies. And the city of Vancouver is ahead of the province. So why are we rolling it back now? Our city is a leader in this regard, and the rest of the province is following us as established leaders in sustainability initiatives. We're learning, changing, and adapting to this moment. That is what needs to happen when you're in a climate emergency. Council should be supporting net zero building projects that are going to be part of the solution, not protecting the dwindling viability of the gas sector. I grew up in Southern California in extreme smog and heat. I grew up at the base of mountains that in the summer I couldn't even see. I have long-term respiratory damage as a result of this, and I do not want that for the children of this city. Affordability does not need to come at the cost of our climate or our safety, and this council seems to be very worried about safety in the city. Pushing forward this motion will make us less safe. More Vancouverites will die from climate disasters like the heat dome, and you will have been complicit. I really need you to sit with that. Extreme climate events are not happening on their own. They're happening because people like you, people with power at every level have let it happen. What is stopping our city from having affordable housing is not climate solutions. It is not the climate crisis. It is not step codes. It's you. And for your constituents who have told you time and time again that we do not want this, I implore you to listen and to vote no on this motion. Thank you.

Good evening, Council. My name is Suki Sohota. I live in East Vancouver, and I also like to voice my opposition to this motion. While I appreciate the stated concern around housing affordability, this motion risks creating a false choice between affordability, safety, and climate responsibility. Vancouver needs all three. This motion proposes pausing elements of Energize Vancouver and moving toward broad deregulation and alignment with the provincial baseline building code. But the provincial code is exactly that, a baseline. Vancouver has historically gone further because our city faces unique realities, higher density, aging infrastructure, seismic risk. climate vulnerability and ambitious emissions reduction targets. The Vancouver Building By-law has often served as a leader for the province, not a barrier to progress. Many innovations that later became standard across British Columbia were first implemented here. Weakening those standards may produce marginal short-term savings for some projects, but it risks imposing much larger long-term costs on residents through higher energy bills, retrofit expenses, and climate-related impacts. Affordability is not only about the upfront cost of construction. It is also about the ongoing cost of living. More energy-efficient buildings... lower utility costs for renters and homeowners over decades. Better performing buildings are healthier, more resilient during extreme weather, and cheaper to operate in the long run. I am also concerned by the framing in this motion that implies environmental and safety standards are somehow the primary drivers of an unfilled ability. evidence show that land values, speculation, financing costs, labor shortages, and the broader market conditions play a much larger role in housing prices than energy efficiency requirements alone. The proposal to pause enforcement of Energize Vancouver before the review is even completed sends a wrong signal to industry, residents, and investors. Regulatory certainly matters. Constant reversals and pauses create confusion, delay projects, and undermine confidence in long-term planning. Likewise, repealing restrictions on certain hot water systems may appear attractive in the short term, but it risks locking residents into fossil fuel infrastructure at a time when jurisdictions across Canada and around the world are moving towards electrification and cleaner energy systems. If Council wishes to review areas where regulation can be... Thanks for your time.

Thank you. My name is Margie Sanderson. I'm a Vancouver resident and I am calling in to oppose this motion and specifically repealing the gas ban. I think, you know, this council has heard from Vancouverites already on this topic once in the previous council when the ban was first introduced and then once already during this council period where, you know, this council majority attempted to reverse the gas ban and that was turned down and I really appreciate the councillors that voted against that and I hope that you will vote against this motion again tonight and I think you know lots of people have spoken to the science behind this so I won't repeat what's being said but I just want to express how absolutely betrayed this makes me feel as a Vancouverite to see Council considering this again when, you know, we have already sent a clear message that we do not want this, and Council has already voted on this in this term. So, you know, I think that this is a real betrayal to our city and to our city's future, and I hope that you will vote it down tonight. Thank you.

My name is Barry Penner. I don't live in Vancouver, but I'm chair of the Energy Futures Institute, which is based here. I support this motion because it raises an important and overdue question. Are city policies helping direct our limited supply of electricity to where it can produce the greatest benefit? This motion does not say Vancouver cannot exceed provincial standards where there is a clear and demonstrable local benefit. What it does say is that those differences should be justified with evidence, transparency, and an understanding of their affordability impacts. Seems reasonable. This motion also does not say that builders and residents can't install electric appliances if they choose to. But there's an issue that's been glossed over. Electricity supply. BC has a limited amount of additional power available, with growing competition for it from multiple sectors of the economy. In fact, a review of BC Hydro's plan for future electricity supply was temporarily suspended this spring by the Utilities Commission when a projected supply gap by 2030 was identified, meaning BC Hydro might not be able to meet peak demand on the coldest winter days less than four years from now. This has the BC government openly considering another, yes, another large hydroelectric dam less than a year after the $16 billion sightsee dam Site CDAM came online. BC Energy Minister Adrian Dix acknowledged this just a week ago today on CKNW Radio's Jazz Johal show at 5.11 p.m., if you want to look it up. Also last week, TELUS announced plans for $1 billion in AI data centers in BC, including Vancouver. This will require enough electricity to power the entire city of Penticton, and then some. British Columbia has loudly banned Kentucky bourbon and California wine at the liquor store, but for the past three years, the province has quietly been buying large quantities of American electricity at the substation, much of it from fossil fuel sources. Electricity is now a strategic resource, and we need to be thoughtful about where we use it. Mines, ports, hospitals, transit systems, housing, and yes, EVs, also need electricity. Should scarce power be directed towards supporting job creation and much-needed tax revenue for public services, or toward replacing a fuel source British Columbia already has in abundance, namely natural gas, when doing so increases costs and raises electricity reliability concerns? That is the broader policy question. It's not an argument against energy efficiency. It is an argument for realism, affordability, and prioritization, as well as choice. Natural gas plays a crucial role in British Columbia's economy and energy system, particularly during winter peak heating periods. For many residents, it remains a practical and affordable option. And although not mentioned in any government news release, on April 1st this year, BC Hydro rates increased 3.75%, on top of a 3.75% increase last year, with more to come. as the cost of the Site C dam get factored into our rates. Thank you very much.

Not on the line.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Elizabeth Bodineau. I am a Vancouver resident and also a consultant in the construction industry. I work closely with builders, designers, and the construction community here in Vancouver. And what I have witnessed over the years is Vancouver moving in a consistent direction, and that consistency has allowed the building community to thrive. Builders, trades, consultants, and businesses like mine have invested time, energy, and resources into understanding Vancouver's regulatory and bylaw landscape. They have adapted their businesses, trained staff, and built expertise and innovation around the direction the city established. Building codes are already extremely complicated. Reversing direction now creates confusion, delays, and additional costs. I also work on projects across BC, and I'm very familiar with how the step code is implemented. The reality is that it is already far from consistent across jurisdictions. Different municipalities interpret and apply requirements differently, with different timelines, processes, and expectations. So the argument that this motion will create consistency is simply not true, as it does not reflect what we are seeing in practice across BC. If anything, adding another major shift in direction risks creating even more uncertainty and fragmentation for the industry. This is going to be bad for business. In the troubled times that we live in, predictability is exactly what Vancouver and Canada need right now. And Motion 8 is not stability, and it is not predictability. I also do not believe this motion will improve affordability. I appreciate that Council is desperate to address a housing crisis and affordability pressures. I am deeply concerned about those issues myself. However, this motion is a revisit of decisions, policies, and industry engagement processes that have already happened over many years and are currently happening at the provincial level. The city has already spent significant time consulting with builders, engineers, consultants, manufacturers, and the broader business community on these directions. As someone who has built a career around making the Vancouver building by law practical and achievable for the building community, I am deeply concerned. I'm worried for my colleagues, for local businesses, for homeowners, and for the broader community that ultimately carries the cost of delays and uncertainty. I employ staff here, and we spend our money in Vancouver. We are part of the local economy that is trying to move projects forward and build the much-needed housing. For these reasons, I urge Council to reject this motion and instead focus efforts on reducing permitting delays and supporting housing delivery by creating more certainty for the industry rather than reopening decisions that have already been made and implemented. Thank you.

Hi, Mayor and Councillors. My name is Michael Kearns. I'm a Vancouver resident, a parent of two, and next week I'm going to graduate with a master's in architecture and landscape architecture from UBC. We plan to work on housing affordability, low-carbon construction, prefabrication, and missing middle housing here in the city. I'm speaking today to urge council to reject this motion. This motion is wrapped in the language of affordability, but it does very little to address the real causes of unaffordable housing in Vancouver. It does not seriously confront land costs, financing, parking requirements, infrastructure charges, permitting delays, or rezoning uncertainty. Instead, it is written as a predetermined retreat, a retreat from Vancouver's green building from climate action, a retreat from building innovation, and a retreat from one of the most important recent building code reforms available to this city, the single-stair construction of multi-story and multi-dwelling housing. That is not a neutral affordability review. It reads more like a rollback strategy that serves the fossil fuel status quo. And while I understand that Mayor Sim might find it frustrating to replace a hot water heater while preparing for the World Cup, one knowing appliance replacement should not become the policy basis for dismantling years of green building leadership and innovation. Even more concerning is the threat this motion poses to Vancouver's local code authority. That authority is not just red tape. It is where some of the city's most important housing innovation can and has happened. Architects, builders, code experts, housing advocates, and climate advocates have spent years pushing for better rules, rules that allow better buildings, lower carbon buildings, and more flexible housing types. Single-stair construction is a perfect example. Single-stair reform could allow small apartment buildings to be built more effectively in Vancouver lot. It can reduce wasted floor area, improve daylight and cross ventilation, support family sized units and unlock six story walk ups, courtyard housing, cohousing and other missing middle housing types. In fact, senior construction may be one of the city's most progressive steps towards affordable construction and more diverse, diverse housing types. So when this motion weakens the very local code, flexibility that makes single-stair reform possible, it is not advancing affordability. It is undermining it. That is the core problem. This motion claims to be about affordability, but its actual targets are Vancouver's climate standards and independent building code capacity. Those are not the main causes of unaffordable housing. They are tools we should be refining, not abandoning. The better direction is obvious. Standardize the pathways, not abandon our ambition. Thank you, Michael. Create pre-approved local carbon.

I'm here. Can you hear me?

Please go ahead. My name is Denzel John Asche. I'm a resident of Vancouver in the West End. I oppose the motion. While this motion is disguised as a rare opportunity to provide more affordable housing, It is, in fact, a motion to weaken protections of residents and protections of the environment. Now, the environment may seem to you like an insipid figment, but in fact its abuse is leading to temperature extremes, wildfires, and droughts, and I hope that we can all see this. These are the results of climate change due to greenhouse gas emissions. It is not nothing. It is not coincidence. It's the result of unbridled pandering to the fossil fuel industry. This motion, which will allow fracked and so-called natural gas into residences and other Vancouver buildings, is another stop to largely foreign-owned fossil fuel companies. The enormous and, indeed, incredible amount of electricity and water needed for fracking should be prohibitive in a city with water restrictions, especially in May, which is the earliest they've ever been. Even though the fracking itself is not a municipal issue, opening the city to purchasing by the city or by developers purchasing natural gas and natural gas infrastructure encourages the fracking and the diversion of the water and electricity the city itself needs. You should know better. In addition, heating and cooking with electricity is clean and safe as opposed to the risk to residents in their home... of leaks and emissions of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, potential household fires and explosions, which would be impossible without the presence of gas. Possible fuels are very 20th century for these reasons. Vancouver residents are a multitude of real human beings relying on you to ensure they are safe, even if landlords with self-interests would happily risk their safety. province and country are relying on you, yes you, to do what you can to keep rural areas and small and even large cities safe from climate change including wildfires. Do you remember Lytton? Please vote no to this proposal for everyone who relies on you to make the correct decisions. I don't understand why we're bringing this back having correctly voted against it in the past. Why are we here again?

Great. Thank you for having me. So my name is Liz McDowell. I'm a longtime East Vancouver resident. I'm a parent, and I'm the Senior Campaigns Director with local advocacy organization Stand.Earth. I'm here to speak in opposition to Motion 8. I truly wish we didn't have to be here tonight reopening a conversation that was settled back in November of 2024, in particular because the main things that have changed between then and now are that, first of all, geopolitical events have made gas far more volatile and expensive as a fuel, very risky. And housing costs in the city have actually come down between November 2024 and now. However, since we're here, I really want to take a minute to bring the voices of people into this room who spoke out back in November 2024 and whose opinions on the matter have not changed. This includes 220 Vancouver business leaders who signed an open letter to mayor and council urging you to maintain the city's flagship green building policies. Their letter says, I just want to read a little bit from it. It says the sudden reversal. undermines decades of effort to build a sustainable, resilient economy and a strong reputation as a globally recognized climate-leading city. These business leaders recognized how Vancouver's leading green policies have helped them recruit qualified staff and grow their businesses. At the same time, more than 40 building industry representatives, 100 healthcare workers also spoke out against the proposed rollbacks. along with thousands of ordinary residents across the city who all want safe, modern homes with efficient appliances, cooling, and healthy indoor air. At STAND, since we let our Vancouver community know about this last-minute attempt to reopen the conversation just a few days ago when we found out about it, I know that more than 1,500 of them have sent individual letters into mayor and council urging you to maintain Vancouver's current building policies. And that was 1,500 people at very short notice over a long weekend. People care deeply, and they want you to know that gutting Vancouver's climate policies for buildings is deeply unpopular with this city's residents. The justification of this motion is to improve affordability, but city staff have been clear that these policies don't materially add to cost. If you want to improve affordability, speed up permitting instead. There are many other measures you could take. Mayor Sim, you mentioned harmonizing with provincial building codes, but the provincial housing minister herself said in a letter yesterday that Vancouver's green building policies have led to new investment in jobs and that they're no longer cutting edge but are actually in lockstep with all neighboring municipalities. She also notes that any sudden changes to Vancouver's approach could introduce confusion, costs, and delay for builders. At the end of the day, what we know is that Vancouver's policies are working.

Yeah, hi. Dear Mayor and Council, I'm a Vancouver resident and owner of SES Consulting, an energy efficiency engineering firm located in Gastown that employs 18 staff serving the building retrofit market. While I commend your efforts to prioritize affordability, I feel the comprehensive review of the Vancouver Building By-law, Energize Vancouver, and Energy Step Code is not a valuable use of staff time. I interact with these policies daily and have found that these regulations do not impact construction costs, contrary to what I've heard from other speakers. These policies drive innovative best practices in our industry, resulting in changes to building stock that improve efficiency and increase longevity. Efficiency lowers operating costs for owners and tenants. Decades of work have gone into the specific details of these policy tools. Prepared with industry feedback and detailed cost analysis, these tools verify that higher efficiency levels can be achieved at no premium when planned thoughtfully. Based on my experience designing and retrofitting domestic water and space heating systems in buildings, as well as overseeing the construction of these retrofits, this review will not identify improvements in affordability and is therefore a waste of staff resources. As they stand, these regulations increase the efficiency of building systems. Finally, I note that BC Hydro's new PowerSmart 2.0 released yesterday invests $1 billion over three years in new offers, rebates, and rewards to help homes and businesses across BC reduce and shift energy use and lower costs. We are fully invested in efficiency, and you need to continue that path. It is BC's plan for a more affordable and resilient energy future. The City of Vancouver needs to embrace this vision to help residents lower their costs. Motion 8 directly conflicts with the goal of improving affordability, wasting staff time and taxpayer dollars. I urge you to vote no for this motion.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Stuart Muir. I'm a Vancouver resident. And although I'm speaking today as a private citizen, let me add that I'm also the head of a Canadian public interest advocacy group, Resource Works, encoded right here in the city of Vancouver. I support motion eight because it asks a question that should have been asked before it was ever passed. Does the cost through homeowners justify the result. I have watched Vancouver depart from provincial standards to restrict what I and other homeowners can install in our own homes. I was told this would make my city greater. What it has done is make Vancouver more expensive and I don't see the evidence that it's any greener. Now this week as referenced earlier, BC Hydro launched Power Smart 2.0 largest ever conservation program. Billion dollar initiative to get BC residents to use less electricity, not more. They're handing out free thermostats and cash for cutting consumption. And the program is built on the admission. The grid cannot keep up with demand. As a result, BC continues to be a net importer of electricity. And this is the system that this city's bylaws are forcing homeowners onto. As a resident, I find it difficult to understand why this city is mandating more load onto such a system right now. Now, natural gas technology has not stood still while this city was trying to ban it. Modern condensing furnaces, they run 95% to 98% fuel efficient. That's $0.95 to $0.98 of every dollar of gas gets turned into heat, very efficient. Old units ran far less, maybe 80%. And that problem was solved by industry innovating, which is what it should continue to do. Now, the city of Vancouver decided I can't choose a natural gas water heater for my own home, even though it fits my budget, even though it works with the infrastructure that's in my walls. When I put in an electric heat pump, the city judges the appliance, but ignores the fact that the electricity powering it comes from a grid that is overstretched and increasingly relied, by the way, on imports. I see a double standard in this, it just puzzles me whenever I think about it. One solution gets a pass on its source, the other gets penalized for it. That's not really a policy, it's a thumb on the scale. We have heard as well from, I've heard from numerous home builders and developers that costs and bottlenecks associated with electrification have caused them to shell projects. We never see a headline from that because it just goes away. It never happens. We're seeing a lot of it. We're seeing developers simply not moving ahead. Now in 2026, the provincial carbon tax is gone. The economic context when this measure was adopted no longer exists. And so this motion raises the right question about the use of choice in our fuel system. I think that quantification of the benefits of this policy, if it's to be sustained, should be quantified. Show us the evidence. If the evidence isn't there, give Vancouver residents back the right to choose. I support lower emissions. I support more efficient appliances, more affordable homes, and I support heat pumps. I also support passing motion eight, and I urge the council to do so. Thank you.

Oh, thank you, Acting Mayor. Good evening, councillors, and your worship. My name is Rohan Wang. I'm a Vancouver resident, and I'm calling in tonight to oppose this measure. Look, I get it. A lot of housing policy is controversial. Relaxing below-market rental requirements to ward off a collapse in new apartment supply was controversial, but necessary. Allowing desperately needed new apartments to move ahead without a public hearing was controversial, but necessary. Permitting homes to replace an empty Safeway parking lot was, somehow, controversial, but necessary. So I get it. Sometimes housing policy requires council to make tough votes. But this isn't housing policy. Let's be charitable for a moment and concede for the sake of argument that jettisoning Vancouver's climate leadership will result in modest but tangible relief for a few pro formas. That seems plausible enough to me. But any such relief would be transitory in light of the strict zoning, high DCCs, and wider market conditions. It also discounts the fact that blowing up the VBBL will create regulatory uncertainty that will itself hurt housing in the short term. And as countless speakers have pointed out, these modest affordability benefits entirely discount the immense cost of locking future residents of these homes into decades of fossil fuel supply fluctuations and price shock, just as we stand on the cusp of an electrical revolution. In effect, you are bailing out for this and a few already troubled projects on the backs of future renters and homeowners by tying them indefinitely to the increasingly uncompetitive rates of an obsolescent industry. Even today, that's bad value. In 10 years from now, you'll look like the guys who bought the typewriter factory after the invention of the personal computer. You know how else I know this is a sham housing measure? Because I read the agenda for today's council meeting. And the very next measure that your worship's colleagues and the majority introduced on tonight's agenda is a backdoor program to retreat from the city's multiplex program on the basis that, and I quote, residents in some neighborhoods have raised concerns related to building mapping, height, lot coverage. You're either pro-housing or you're not. You can't be pro-housing on natural gas and anti-housing two hours later because a mansion owner in Point Grey doesn't want to walk up next door. Keeping gas out of homes is fiscally responsible and an ecological imperative. I hope that this council will not be misled into making the wrong decision for an entirely pretextual reason that makes no sense and has no basis in reality. Thank you so much.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. I'm a local resident and the principal of Prayapta, a Vancouver-based consulting firm in the building industry, and I also founded the Carbon Leadership Forum British Columbia. I'm speaking today to oppose this motion. I understand... Housing is too expensive. Construction costs are high. Regulations should be reviewed when they add costs and delay and unnecessary complexity. But I question whether this is the best use of city staff. These policies have already been developed, have been developed over years with significant technical work and industry consultation. However, the rest of the motion goes even further.

It creates the presumption that aligning with the provincial code is the right answer. It asks staff to move toward alignment as soon as possible, and it appears to pause or repeal parts of the climate-related policy before that review is even complete. To me, that feels like you're starting with the answer before doing the analysis. The question should not simply be whether Vancouver differs from the provincial building code. The question should be whether a requirement helps us build better housing, and what is the real impact on cost affordability. In my work, I've seen that affordability and climate action do not have to be in conflict. Some of the best embodied carbon strategies are also material efficiency strategies like optimizing the structure or reducing unnecessary concrete usage. That can help teams find cost-saving and cost-neutral ways to reduce emissions. I'm also concerned about the timing of this motion. The B.C. housing minister has told council that the province is already reviewing the costs and impact of the energy and zero carbon step codes. And that review will include industry input. And it is expected this fall. And she also asked the council to consider delaying this decision until that work is complete. And I think that's the right approach. Making local changes before that review is finished could create more uncertainty for the industry, not less. This also followed some sudden shifts from the council on climate policy over the past few years. The previous natural gas debate brought over 140 registered speakers. More recently, there was proposed budget cuts, which among many things affected the planning and sustainability capacity, brought out over 600 residents, most of which were opposed. This kind of public response matters, and the decisions like this need care, not to be rushed. So my request is simple. Postpone this motion until the provincial review is complete. And if the council does move ahead with a review, make sure that is an actual genuine review. Remove the presumption in favor of alignment. Do not pause or repeal climate-related programs before the evidence is complete. And assess affordability more broadly, including not just upfront construction costs, but also operating costs, retrofit risks, housing delivery, emissions, and public benefit.

not a rushed rollback.

All right. Hello, and thank you for taking the time to listen to the public. My name is Greg Hachet, and I'm here to speak against Motion 8, so in opposition. When I first moved to Vancouver 13 years ago to work in our tech sector, I was inspired by the city's forward-thinking and futuristic energy. Vancouver was a clear leader in BC and in Canada on technology, culture, and climate. Unfortunately, I feel Motion 8 feels like part of a wider pattern of Vancouver turning away from that spirit of innovation. By reversing the electrification of new builds, undermining the build-out of heat pump infrastructure, and even pausing basic data collection on retrofitting, we're regressing while other cities leave us behind. Many of the largest cities in Metrovan will have gas bans in place by 2027, while Vancouver will be stuck with a ban on forward thinking. We've given up on leadership. Climate backpedaling will not solve the affordability crisis, which hits Vancouver hardest. because working Vancouverites and our incomes compete for local housing stock with a global market of non-resident and corporate investors and landlords. Climate adaptation, in contrast, is a capital investment to lower long-term costs and increase our resilience. The municipal government has been unwilling to crack down on the financialization of housing, which undermines credibility that this motion is grounded in affordability concerns. Climate measures also support local businesses, which we heard from just a few speakers ago, and jobs in retrofitting, and they encourage people in communities to adapt. As a tech worker, I've seen how constraint breeds innovation and growth, while deregulation and laissez-faire breeds complacency and inefficiency. The argument of choice is also a distraction. We don't allow residents to choose cheaper asbestos or lead plumbing. Gas belongs on that list as well. I understand change is off-putting, especially when it comes from the outside, but I've learned that pretending change isn't needed just wastes time and leads to even more pain when the need for change becomes unavoidable. We know fossil fuel use has long-term consequences for our health, our safety, and our social resilience. Vancouver was once a proud leader in adopting new ways to tackle that challenge. I'd like to see the city regain and rebuild its ambitious, forward-looking spirit and tackle the affordability crisis in fundamental ways, not with puppet theater. Thank you.

No, not on the line.

Okay, thank you. My name is Maura Brown. I'm a resident of Vancouver, a concerned citizen, a mother, and a physician. Thank you, Mayor and Councillor, for the opportunity to speak today. I signed up to speak to express my strong opposition to this motion. As a health care provider, I'm deeply concerned about the health implications for our community, that the outcome of this motion would support decades of ongoing air pollution and cardiorespiratory health harms. This motion, while framed around affordability, risks undermining Vancouver's crucial progress towards net zero emissions and will undoubtedly have detrimental impacts on public health, which I believe have not been adequately considered. I'll build on much of what others have said. As I mentioned, as a health care provider, my primary concern is the direct impact of air quality on the well-being of Vancouver residents. Weakening regulations that promote clean energy sources, such as those encouraging electric hot water heaters, will lead to increased reliance on fossil fuels like natural gas. We know that burning natural gas for residential use contributes to both outdoor and indoor air pollution. This pollution contains harmful particulate matter and nitrogen oxides, which are known to exacerbate respiratory conditions like asthma and COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. It increases cardiovascular disease risk, and it negatively impacts the health of our children. For example, living in a home with a gas stove increases the risk of asthma by over 40%. There are peer-reviewed environmental studies from California documenting that in areas with reduced air pollution from increased uptake of electrical vehicles, there were reduced emergency room visits for asthma. Everyone here will be aware of the stress on our health care system, and adding to that by voting for this motion that supports ongoing air pollution is a poor choice for the citizens of Vancouver. The health harms disproportionately land on vulnerable groups, which include seniors, children, pregnant women, and renters, renters who have no control over appliances and indoor air pollution, as was well described by a previous speaker. sacrificing clean energy options for the possibility of short-term cost savings which we don't even know exists in construction will eventually lead to higher health care costs and a reduced quality of life for from air pollution illnesses as i mentioned above the removal of carbon taxes mentioned in the motion does not eliminate the environmental impact of fossil fuels It simply shifts the financial burden elsewhere, often onto the public health systems and onto vulnerable residents. We also know from current geopolitical events that dependence on fossil fuels is a security and a prosperity risk. Many countries are building out renewables at record pace to reduce this risk. We have a choice. We either fall victim to fossil fuel rhetoric... where we choose economic and environmental security by supporting the move away from fossil fuel dependence. Thank you very much for your time, and I hope you...

Yes, that's me. I'm not a resident of Vancouver, but I am a major builder in the region for the last 20 years in Metro Vancouver with over 6,000 units that we have built. A couple of points. I've listened to a lot of people and a lot of motion on this debate on either side. I want to be practical. There is a very good point that was brought up. Fifteen years ago, I started on a panel in regards to electrification of BC. And we started going through all the data in regards to converting everything to electricity. And with the grid that we currently have, it is completely impossible. So we need to have... alternate sources of energy natural gas being one of them to carry some of that load a caller earlier expressed this fact in regards by 2030 bc hydro has admitted they will be out of uh resource and so the newer resources that they're bringing on are wind farms and they're not reliable and that almost brought alberta's grid down last year in the winter So I applaud the council and I support the motion 8 in regards to this. It's a complicated issue, but we need to have energy choice for the stability of our province. And in regards to cost, I have built 6,000 units across the Lower Mainland. It is absolutely more expensive to build... Step code four, then step code three. And I'll give you an example. A single family home is $18,000 to $20,000 more expensive to build. Step code four compared to step code three. What does that mean in energy savings? Yes, your energy goes down, but at current cost, it takes 117 years to get cost recovery of that extra expense. Townhomes around $11,000, condos around $9,000. So I believe in energy efficiency to a point where it makes sense. And then the extra costs you spend are way too high compared to the reduction that you get. And then those resources actually could be moved to other things that would be far better. So I applaud the council in taking this. I know it's hard to stand up and to say let's be practical, but this makes a lot of sense. In regards to people wanting to make a choice for natural gas, we give a choice to all our customers if they want an electric stove or a gas stove when they buy a unit from us. 98% of our customers want to buy a dual fuel gas range with an electric oven. So there is a huge demand and desire by the general population to want a gas stove. In regards to air conditioning, the building code is mandating air conditioning in all the units going forward, at least one room. And if people want to have a choice of having air conditioning, they can.

Okay, thank you. Thank you.

Perfect. Hi, everyone. My name is Lisa. I'm a resident of Vancouver. I'm calling today to oppose Motion 8. I'll be brief as I add my voice to the many others who've called in hopes that City Council will actually listen to Vancouverites, what we want, prioritize, and care about. I work as a community health nurse on the east side of the city. Since the heat dome in 2021, I have worked on the ground to provide support for isolated seniors to stay safe in extreme heat. As our summers get hotter, it's absolutely essential that we have systemic solutions to keep our community and most vulnerable populations safe. Forward-thinking policies like installation of electric heat pumps, which not only heat but also cool living spaces effectively, are so important for the health of our community. I believe that reintroducing natural gas furnaces is a step backwards from a health perspective, not to mention a climate perspective. I hope that those of you on council who are on the fence will listen to Vancouverites. who care deeply about our city and communities and will make forward-thinking, sustainable choices for the health of our communities and climate, which, as we know, are deeply and inextricably intertwined. Thank you so much for your time.

Can you hear me?

Thank you. My name is Jeffrey Blair and I appreciate the chair members of our City Council affording me this opportunity to speak in opposition to this motion number eight. I'm a longtime resident of Vancouver and my wife and I have raised three children here and now we are blessed with grandchildren. I spent decades working as a doctor at BC Children's Hospital caring for the health of children in BC and thus I am very focused on what sort of future our children and their children will have. Not acting now to limit the intemperate burning of fossil fuels will ensure a sad, unhealthy environment for the future citizens, our children and grandchildren of Vancouver. Whereas the motion calls for, quote, a clear explanation of the public benefit which would be achieved by a divergence from the BC Building Code, it seems to me that here's the clear explanation. It's the real and now present danger of climate change. Our city's Energize Vancouver bylaw supports the justifiable transition to low carbon buildings in Vancouver and helps advance Vancouver's carbon pollution reduction targets. This motion, if passed, would pause that beneficial Energize Vancouver bylaw. October 17th, the date of our next municipal election, is not far away. Voters are watching. We need innovation. not abnegation of our duty to our children. So on behalf of the children and the future children of our community, I urge members of this council to vote no on this motion. Thank you.

Hello, can you hear me?

Okay, awesome. My name is Sheila. I'm a third-year medical student at UBC. I come before you today not just as a resident of Vancouver, but as someone training to protect the health of the city's future patients. I think it's disappointing that we're here discussing this topic again when hundreds of community members have expressed their opinion just last year. I want to name what this motion actually does. Despite its type of regulatory alignment, the resolutions D and E are not reviewed. They allow for immediate action. This allows for the reintroduction of natural gases into new buildings, just in the language of affordability. And mainly the affordability argument is the motion's central justification, and it doesn't hold up. In November 2024, the city's own staff told us that the natural gas would not improve affordability for builders. or homeowners compared to electricity. Councillor Donato said it plainly. The affordability argument doesn't pencil out. Heat pumps provide both heating and cooling, saving hundreds of dollars for households per year compared to gas. The carbon tax, which this motion cites to have changed economic creation, has been removed. But that actually makes electricity comparatively cheaper, not gas comparatively cheaper. The affordability argument for gas was weak before, and it's weaker now. What this motion doesn't mention is the direction that BC is heading in. The province introduced the zero carbon step code into BC's billing code in 2023. And by 2020-30, full zero carbon performance is expected to be mandatory province-wide. So if this council passes motions and builders and cell gas infrastructure today, the systems risk being noncompliant within years, and the cost of retrofitting will fall on the homeowners that the motion claims to protect. And let me speak as someone who's training to become a physician in this health system. Natural gas is not clean nor a temporary fuel. The research on fracking and gas infrastructure is unambiguous. It's associated with childhood leukemia, asthma, heart disease, and poor pregnancy outcomes. These are not abstract risks. These are conditions that will affect the very residents of the homes that we're trying to build. I understand that this council faces real pressure on housing, and that pressure is legitimate. But the choice before you today is not between climate and affordability. The evidence shows that electrified high-performance buildings are cost-competitive to build and cheaper to operate. The choice is between short-term political concession to the gas industry and long-term commitment to the residents who live in these homes for decades. Vancouver has led the country in this, and don't let this motion undo the leadership through the backdoor of a review that takes place before the review even begins. I urge you to vote no. Thank you.

Thank you. My name is Jason Helmerson. I am a renter and a resident of Vancouver. I'm a climate organizer with the Wilderness Committee and a registered environmental charity. I'm speaking against the motion today. I'm against motion eight because this motion will result in the continued use of outdated fossil fuel technology, leading to more greenhouse gas emissions and continued failure to meet our climate targets. Environment Canada has already issued an extreme heat warning for this summer. 119 Vancouverites lost their lives during the heat dome in 2021. We must continue to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to preserve a livable environment for future generations. Burning gas in homes for heating and hot water makes up 60% of Vancouver's greenhouse gas emissions. burning so-called banning so-called natural gas which is really toxic fracked methane gas in new homes is the most effective thing that we can do to reduce greenhouse gas pollution in Vancouver and this motion seeks to undo this progress and take us in the wrong direction Despite what the motion supporters have said, it is not clear that this motion will reduce anyone's cost of living. Just the opposite, FortisBC increased its rates 11% this year, approximately $130 per customer, and future increases are expected next year as liquefied natural gas export facilities continue to expand. Increases in LNG exports resulted in home heating bills skyrocketing for people in Australia. Gas costs went from $3 to $5 per gigajoule in 2015 to $13 to $15 per gigajoule today. When the international market is willing to pay more for gas, the domestic residential price will face increasing pressure. I haven't seen anything at all to suggest that Vancouver won't experience something similar. My point is that we should all be very suspicious of claims that allowing fracked gas back into new homes will improve affordability for anyone. What happened in Australia strongly suggests the opposite is true. I urge City Council to listen to the Minister of Housing when she asks you not to do this and to vote against this motion. Thank you.

My name is Chris Barden. I am a longtime resident of the City of Vancouver and have been involved in building homes for the last 25 years. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in favor of this motion. As a builder of homes, I support this motion. It is important to allow home builders the option to use electric or gas for heating and cooking purposes in homes. In certain circumstances, electric heating is a more expensive option which can cause builders to choose not to proceed with residential projects for this reason a choice of energy options is important small residential multi-family projects in the city of vancouver today require transformers which require space on their sites and increase costs significantly electrical capacity in bc is finite There are increasing claims on the capacity available. It's well known that electricity generated by the Site C dam has been or will be quickly taken up. The electrical engineering consultants we work with observed that with electric cars increasing in number year by year, together with a significant increase in electric heating for homes, there will not be enough electricity to go around. It is not a question of building more dams for clean electrical power the opportunities for hydropower have been substantially built out the speakers opposing this motion this evening seem to assume that endless supplies of clean electricity are available increasingly new electricity generation opportunities will not be clean ones other speakers have spoken about the prospect of non-electrical equipment embedding higher costs into housing for decades to come On the contrary, as claims on the electrical grid increase, so will the cost of electricity. If homeowners do not have options in this circumstance, it will be the tie to the electrical grid as the sole source of heat and power that embeds higher costs for homeowners. The option of heating by way of electricity is not going away. It can be chosen by those who prefer it or where it is the most economical option or both. allowing builders the option to install gas heating and cooking. Appliances can remove financial and physical impediments to building homes, allowing more to be built, more projects to proceed where otherwise might not be the case. In short, support for this proposal will see homes built. I encourage council to vote in favor of this motion. Thank you.

Hi, I want to thank everybody that has spoken against this motion. I'm joining them in asking council and mayor to vote against this motion. Several analysis, including from BC Hydro, BC Housing, and also Clean Energy Canada, say that installing electric heating systems like heat pumps and new buildings typically cost the same or less as using baths. And just I want to voice my utter disappointment that this is the second time that Mayor Sim and his allies have tried to repeal Vancouver's rules, which were first introduced in 2020, that restrict the use of natural gas for heating buildings and water. So this doesn't have to do with stove tops. You know, why are you bringing this forward, Mayor Simms? It really is clear that you're listening to not your constituents, but the fossil fuel lobbyists' friends that you have, and they didn't get the way that they wanted the first time, and they're trying to have a return, a rerun of this vote.

Yes, correct, yes. My name is Margarita DeVogel.

Thank you so much. So I'm a resident and a renter in the city of Vancouver, and I'm here speaking as an individual, but I actually also sit on the city's renter's advisory committee, and I'm the immediate job managing director of Resource Work Society, and there I actually focus on energy policy. I'm speaking in favor of this motion. I listen to speaker after speaker assure you that Vancouver's energy requirements are efficient, that they save household money, that they're simply the smart choice. Good, and if that's true, you've just made a case for repealing. because we need to consider what a mandate is for. If a heat pump really is the cheapest, best option for a home, the owner picks it without being told. You don't have to order people into the decision they'd make on their own. In fact, you order them into the one they wouldn't make. So either these rules change nothing and removing them costs the city nothing, or they force people onto a costlier path and removing them puts money back into their pockets. So nothing about repeal prohibits choice in either direction. British Columbia's electrification ambitions are also very vast, and we need to keep that in mind. Fully electrifying this province means building the equivalent of many new safety dams, and we are nowhere close to that right now. So when a city mandates electric only at the meter, it's basically writing a check to the grid that hasn't been built cash, and it asks individual homeowners to prepay for it. And who carries that cost? It's the resident, always the resident. The builder absorbs the cost of the mandate, it lands in the purchase price, and if applicable, then insurance the rent. Energy costs and housing costs really here are not two separate files. They are one file. And I think it's really laudable that the city is actually treating it in this way, with this motion. Vancouver is ranked among the least affordable cities on earth to live in. So a few percentage points of construction of cost savings are actually quite significant. That could, for many people, be the difference between a family staying and a family actually being placed out of the place that they call home. And Vancouver is also the only municipality in this province that's running its own building code. So, you know, where that protects genuine life safety, fire, you know, keep it. But independence as a reflex paid for by renters who never voted for it is a luxury we cannot defend right now. Let's align with the province. Let's give people back choice over how they keep their homes. And let's protect consumer choice and affordability so the city can be more livable. and a better place for people not only to live in, but to also stay in. Thank you so much.

Yeah, hello, I'm on the line.

Hi, my name is Summer. I'm a resident of Vancouver. I live on Cambie Street. I've been here for the last five years. I studied marketing, sustainability, and social impact at UBC, and I'm currently a community engagement coordinator with Rhythmos Climaticos, a climate justice youth-led nonprofit group. I'm speaking here today because I know the importance of building emissions as a part of Vancouver's climate plans. Vancouver has been a leader in sustainability and presents itself as a leader, but keeps acting in the exact opposite way. And we've been through the story multiple times. We've tried to phase out fossil fuels from buildings, but council keeps opposing it for reasons that are beyond our comprehension, as we know that sustainability is actually... brings um affordable results in the long run especially in terms of savings when it comes to energy efficiency and we have seen this there are builders that agree that involving higher levels of step codes actually brings better results in terms of cost efficiency We've also seen a public and renters and homeowners want to have these energy efficient systems installed as well. And this is not just a climate issue. It's also a public health issue. As we know, in 2021, 619 people died from a heat dome in 2021 because our buildings were not efficient enough to deal with the extreme heat waves. And if we had better heat pumps installed in buildings and more energy-efficient systems, then those people would not have died. If you reverse this ban and if you continue to stall the phase out of fossil fuels from buildings like these and continue to reverse the good work that we have done in the past, then this number 619 will continue to multiply and multiply. And you will have those people's blood on your hands if you do not vote and oppose this motion. It really is that deep of a decision. This is not something to meddle with. This is not something to take lightly. Please, please reconsider this motion and please oppose it. As a young person specifically, I know that this matters even more for my future. And this matters for your future as much as it does for this, because the effects of climate are not linear. They will continue to accelerate. And we do not know the destruction that it is capable of having. So please reconsider this motion. Please put the lives of the many over just your lives instead of getting a payout from... Thank you, Samar.

Thank you.

Not on the line.

I am Speaker 97, correct? Yes. I'm on the line. Jen Riley?

Great. Hi there. My name is Jen Riley. I'm the President and CEO of the BC Chamber of Commerce, and I'm representing the Chambers of Commerce and businesses across British Columbia, including many employers operating in Vancouver. I'm also a 20-year resident of Vancouver, spent five years in residential development, and I'm currently calling you from Calgary, where I'm representing British Columbia and Vancouver in the Western Executive Council and the Energy Security Council on behalf of Canada. So I'm here today in support of the motion. In 2025, the BC Chamber of Commerce established a formal policy position supporting greater alignment between municipal requirements and the provincial building code because we continue to hear growing concern about fragmented approaches to the increased cost and complexity at a time when affordability is already under pressure. So three quick points. The first is housing affordability, which of course we feel... in a big way in Vancouver. When requirements differ significantly between municipalities, costs increase. Builders, trades, and suppliers working across jurisdictions face different rules, timelines, and compliance requirements. And those costs ultimately show up in our housing prices, rents, and commercial spaces, which I can speak to firsthand from my experience. Second, energy resilience. Businesses support transition to lower emissions, but we also need practical, reliable, and flexible energy systems. to get there. Many employers have raised concerns about limiting optionality too quickly, particularly when reliability and affordability remain critical to operations. And third is the confidence and certainty. Housing gets built when we have investments, and that investment gives us that predictability. A coordinated provincial pathway gives businesses, housing providers, and investors greater certainty to plan, build, and adapt over time, while still advancing the long-term environmental goals, which, of course, we have front of mind. This motion is not stepping back from ambition. It is about making sure we have what we need to move forward in a way that is coordinated, practical, and affordable, and feels consistent across British Columbia. On behalf of the BC Chamber Network and our members, I respectfully encourage Council to support this motion. Thank you.

Hello, am I on the line?

I'm Yasin Ghordampour, a resident of Vancouver, opposing this motion. I spend over 70% of my income on rent, utilities, and groceries, and I'm privileged to be an above-median earner in the city of Vancouver. So when this motion mentions cost of living and affordability, I get it. When we talk about affordability, we're talking about a real issue faced by real people. But the affordability that Mayor Sim invokes in justifying this motion is a Trojan horse. It's a hollow excuse wrapped around measures that will benefit only oil and gas companies and not the people of Vancouver. The motion directs staff to conduct studies on a whole host of bylaws and plans that concern energy usage and sustainability. I ask, what staff? The staff of the Climate and Sustainability Department, who were laid off when that department was gutted earlier this year with the zero means zero budget? The motion says Vancouver should get its building code in line with the province, failing to mention that Vancouver has been a leader in the sustainability trends that other municipalities follow. This motion will have Vancouver vacate its role as a beacon of good policy, to then have to spend more money in the future to play catch-up with the province's escalating zero-carbon step code. Most dangerously, the motion asks to pause the enforcement of the Energize Vancouver plan immediately without any prior staff reporting. a plan that largely affects commercial buildings and non-normal residents of Vancouver. It's common sense, and plenty of the speakers have mentioned it before me, that the price of gas is volatile and renewable energy is already more viable than gas and will only get cheaper. Electric heating is better environmentally and, for most people, better financially. I ask the Councillors to consider their constituents' perspective on this decision. Will the people of Vancouver believe that the city government cares about affordable housing when just yesterday the council eliminated below-market rentals in six-story and above buildings in many zones? I ask you to consider if you want to vote alongside the councillors who have met with FortisBC and other oil and gas lobbyists, as reported by the National Observer. The voters have shown twice now that they care about this issue and they see through the hollow rhetoric of affordability that is frankly, an insult to use in this motion. Thank you for your attention.

Not on the line.

Not on the line.

Not on the line.

Not on the line.

Hello?

thank you my name is helen brown and i'm speaking in opposition to this motion i'm a vancouver resident i live in west by gray i'm also a science librarian and information specialist and i'm a parent i'm actually appalled by this motion to undermine the vancouver building bylaws and programs seemingly to end the city's work to address building emissions this work has already been done and we have already made real progress to decrease gas emissions in buildings Burning natural gas, a fossil fuel for heat and hot water in buildings, is nearly 60% of the carbon pollution generated in Vancouver. It's the largest source of emissions in the city. The city's own work shows that these measures do not include any additional cost to residents and households in Vancouver. The impact is so negligible that the same council already voted against a similar but less drastic motion. Undoing this work and installing gas in new buildings means continuing to install an outdated technology that has very real harms and no real benefits. Allowing gas heating and hot water would set Vancouver backwards. It will also set us up for a lot of unnecessary expense and work in the future when we need to retrofit even more buildings. Plus, every bit of pollution we create now costs us significantly down the line. Not building gas into our infrastructure and homes doesn't cost us anything to do now, and it saves the city and individuals a huge amount of money going forward. Even the International Energy Agency recommended bans on fossil fuel boilers by 2025. And I've noticed a few people have mentioned strains on electricity in BC, and I think it's important to note that the main strain on electricity in BC is actually due to the electricity use of the natural gas industry. Vancouver's building bylaws are one of the main mechanisms that we have to adapt to issues that are specific to Vancouver and the city's objectives. I'm not really sure if I've ever seen a motion by a city council to take away or limit the powers and mechanisms that the city uses to address local issues. Removing or restricting building bylaws is highly unusual, and it will limit what we're able to do as the largest city in BC to address the problems that we have as a community. And to be clear, any decisions, including regulations and bylaws, already involve staff studying and reporting impacts very effectively. There's a very large amount of research and consultation on this topic, and city staff have investigated it multiple times in the past and found no real impact on affordability. This is not a good use of Vancouver's staff time and resources and will not increase affordability. We have other work that we need to do. This motion also feels like an undemocratic attempt to push through an objective that is not supported by the research related to health, sustainability, economics, housing, or public need when it has already been studied, debated, and decided on multiple times already. I don't know what the motive is, but it's not affordability, and that framing reads as disingenuous and misleading to residents. Please do vote against this motion.

I am not.

okay hi my name is julianne while i'm not no longer a resident of vancouver i'm the principal architect of woorie architecture a practice based in the city i am speaking in opposition to motion eight while i support aligning the vbbl where it'll make sense to sync with the province particularly to support modular construction and housing innovation I disagree with the motion's attempt to scale back climate-related bylaws and oppose the uncertainty it risks for emerging housing typologies and city building strategies, including single-egret buildings in the village's planning program. Uncertainty kills projects. especially innovative, sustainable, and community-oriented ones that already face rising construction costs, financing challenges, and long approval timelines. Builders, designers, and owners need clarity and predictability to move forward. Vancouver has spent years developing policy frameworks tied to climate action, transit-oriented growth, and gentle density. Delays and uncertainty undermine these efforts. Each project delay means continued reliance on older, less efficient buildings and slower progress towards the city's climate goals. Let's get real here. The real barrier to housing affordability is more complex than energy regulations alone. They stem from broader issues of urban land becoming a way to grow wealth and investment money and a political culture that prioritizes short-term and financial interests over long-term social and community well-being. We also know that housing costs are also impacted by uncertain approval processes. Delays, shifting policy direction, and regulatory uncertainty increase financing and construction costs, making projects harder to deliver and ultimately less affordable. We have exactly this kind of uncertainty in policy discussions that can have a direct consequence of housing affordability. We've long been a guiding light for visionary policies around building efficiency, emissions reduction, and sustainable urban development. We have been working hard phasing out natural gas for space and water heating in new buildings as a part of the broader climate strategy to reduce carbon pollution by half by 2030. Though we're not there at our target, we have made meaningful progress as new buildings now produce about 70% less carbon than buildings constructed in the early 2000s. Let's not forget these deliberate policies and industry transformation were created because burning natural gas in buildings for space and water heating accounts for nearly 60% of the carbon pollution generated. This is not the moment to reverse course and weaken the very policies helping us move in the right direction. We should continue building on the momentum, not backtracking at its critical moment. I urge Council to oppose Motion 8 and prioritize continuing to move forward in more than 15 years of work in sustainability goals and focus on finalizing frameworks to provide clear, implementable policies that support housing delivery, climate goals, and long-term community resilience. if not for our children and future generations to come, but for our guest gray whales, CRC 2688. Thank you, Julie.

Thank you for your consideration.

My name is Colin Sadler, and I own a plumbing and heating company in Surrey, British Columbia. I'm a licensed plumber, HVAC, and natural gas contractor. with 33 years of experience installing, servicing the exact systems being discussed here tonight. Because I do not live in Vancouver, I believe I can offer an objective perspective on how this policy is being viewed outside the city. I want to be very clear. My comments tonight are specifically in respect to retrofit work in existing homes and buildings, not new construction. I also want to be very clear. I'm not against heat pumps or electric water heaters. We install them and service them regularly. They are absolutely part of the industry. My concern is not the technology, it's the lack of choice being imposed on homeowners and contractors. The people advocating for these restrictions also have not provided realistic answers for how homeowners are supposed to afford these retrofits when systems fail unexpectedly. There's often a disconnect between policy discussions and real world installed cost of these systems in retrofit situations, particularly the labor modifications and unforeseen site conditions. that impact affordability. People talk about electrification as if it's simple, a simple appliance swap out. It's not. There's also an issue of space. For years, Vancouver approved homes in very small mechanical rooms. Now heat pump water heaters are being promoted, even though they require significantly more space and air volume than conventional gas appliances. In retrofit situations, they're often not viable without cost or innovations. At a time when people are already struggling with affordability, Inflation, rising utility costs, this policy adds even more financial pressure to those people.

Another point being ignored is the efficiency of modern gas equipment. Today's condensing gas boilers, water heaters are operating at efficiencies 95% to 98%. These are not outdated systems. Just to be clear, we are not talking about burning tires in the backyard or smoke belching appliances from another era. These are highly engineered, tightly controlled combustion systems. So why are some residents being forced away from systems that are already high efficiency and reliable? Another important point often left out of this discussion is removing natural gas infrastructure also removes the ability to use renewable natural gas when it makes sense. In British Columbia, there's already developing options that can be blended into existing systems, offering a pathway to emissions reduction without forcing premature or costly full system electrification. In retrofit systems where high efficiency gas systems are already in place, the emissions reductions from forcing full electrification are often marginal compared to the cost disruption and infrastructure impact it creates. And while people push everything towards electrification, we need to ask a basic question. Where is all this power going to come from, as others have asked tonight? British Columbia is already facing rapidly increasing demand from housing growth, transportation, electrification, and industrial expansion. Demand is rising faster than supply. At the same time, electrical pricing is increasing and the system becomes constrained that is basic supply and demand economics.

Hello, Mayor and Councillors. My name is Mary Piggott, and I'm speaking today against Motion 8. I'm sitting here with a room full of friends who share my views on this motion. I'm in my early 30s, and I've lived in Vancouver my entire life. I grew up here, and like so many young people, I am still renting here because owning a home feels completely out of reach. So when I hear politicians say we should weaken climate policies in the name of affordability, I have to ask, affordable for who? My generation is already paying the price of climate change in multiple ways. We've lived through wildfire smoke that turns our skies orange. heat waves that make apartments unbearable, and floods and disasters across BC that are becoming more common every year. And we've experienced our Fortas bills rising to pay for new fracking projects. Buildings are one of Vancouver's biggest sources of emissions, especially from fracked gas heating. That's exactly why the city introduced policies to phase gas out of new buildings in the first place. And honestly, as a renter, I don't want to be locked into outdated fossil fuel systems that are raising my Fortis bills now and will cost more for taxpayers in the future. New buildings should be efficient, healthy, and built for the world we're actually living in today. We keep hearing that we have to choose between housing and climate action, but that's a false choice. Young renters like myself and really all of us need both. We need homes we can afford, and we need a city that's livable in 20 years. Vancouver likes the image of being a leader on climate, but actions matter. Walking backwards on the gas ban and other climate policies now is going in completely the wrong direction and will hurt, not help, affordability for renters and everyday people. I love this city. I want to stay here. I want to build my life and have a family here. But that future depends on leaders who are willing to invest in clean buildings and long-term solutions, not double down on fossil fuels. You can be those leaders by voting no on Motion 8 today. My friends and I here will be looking for leaders when casting our vote in the fall.

Hi, can you hear me?

Hi, good evening. My name's Emma Dole. Hi, I'm a Vancouver resident, and I'm calling in today to speak in opposition to this motion. A lot of rhetoric about affordability has been used to justify this motion, as others have pointed out, and it's also being framed as a motion that's somehow meant to serve those of us who live in this city. As a Vancouver resident, a renter, and someone who loves this city, and like so many other speakers before me, who've taken the time out of their nights, I want to push back on that idea. The people of Vancouver deserve a climate-safe city. We deserve clean air. We deserve the climate strategy that works. And we deserve a government that's invested in a sustainable future for those of us who live here. I want to live in a city where we make choices to look after each other and to look after the climate that every single one of us relies on. The Vancouver gas ban is a policy that fundamentally makes sense. It's given builders plenty of advance notice about the framework that they're expected to work within, and it lowers emissions. This motion has also been framed as an attempt to reduce delays and complexity. However, I would argue, as others have, that the repeated attempts to repeal these bylaws over the past year and a half already contribute to an environment of high policy uncertainty themselves. In contrast, our city's energy regulations are measured, sensible, predictable, and they provide a really key tool for addressing climate change, which is an issue that I and so many other speakers tonight care really deeply about. It's the job of government to not only plan for today, but to ensure that choices are being made that don't undermine our future. I hope that everyone on City Council will vote tonight with that in mind.

Hi there. Good evening. My name is Stephanie Allen. I'm a resident of Vancouver and have developed affordable housing in the city, working in non-market housing sectors. The measure of policy is in its impacts, not in the clever marketing name applied to it. This policy's more accurate name should be eliminating regulations to put more profit in the pockets of speculators and investors by removing climate protection and building standards. If affordability was a focus for council, you would not have approved removing the below market rental requirement and residential projects within the RR2 district schedule. If this council cared about affordability, it would not have let the little mountain developer off the hook of their contract requirements to replace social housing units, allowing them to prioritize 325 market strata units instead. If affordability was a priority for Council, you would have included non-market housing at the city-owned, city-led rezoning at 1405 Main and Quebec Street instead of making the decision to take on the risk of a 100% market rental project, passing the risk on to Vancouver tract payers. If this council cared about affordability, the rezoning at 1880 to 1898 Main Street and Lawrence Street would not have been permitted to remove the 20% of units offered at 20% below market. If this ABC majority council cared about affordability, the Office of the Auditor General would not have identified 16 disastrous negotiated deals that gave away multiple millions of lost revenue that could have been used for affordable housing projects. If affordability is what council was after, there wouldn't be a ban on supportive housing. You wouldn't allow condos in the downtown Eastside Oppenheimer District, which will drive land values up and displace low-income renters, nor would you have voted against the free bus pilot program. If you cared about affordability, you would have kept the renter's office, supported the exploration of a public grocery store, and the citywide social housing policy. There's no fooling the public. Unless you make a requirement on developers to pass along every nickel saved to renters or buyers, all this policy does is destroy critically important building code requirements during an ever-worsening climate crisis. I encourage Council to have the courage to either call this what it is, a scheme to deregulate for profiteers, or to else reject it outright. Thank you.

Hello. I'm on.

Great. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor, Councillors, and city staff. I'm Jim Jones, a Vancouver resident. I'm speaking in opposition to the motion this evening. The impacts of climate change are a clear, evidence-based, local reason for maintaining stronger standards in the Vancouver Building By-law and the Energize Vancouver program than the minimum requirements in the Provincial Building Code. And I mean local climate impacts. Here in Vancouver, In recent years, we've seen increased rainfall, wildfire and smoke, heat domes, stronger storms, and rising sea levels. By Election Day this October, we may well have additional experiences of these types of events. Sea level rise is especially important because it won't stop until our greenhouse gas emissions stop increasing. Every winter now, the City installs flood protection at Jericho Beach, Kitsilano Beach, and Falls Creek. Every few years, the seawall needs repairs after storm damage. Much of Vancouver's critical infrastructure is extremely vulnerable. Our port facilities sit at barely above sea level. YVR is only two and a half meters above sea level. The Falls Creek Flats rail yards and our not even yet finished hospital are about three meters above the ocean. The landscape that makes us a port, the downtown peninsula, is barely two meters high between Second Beach and Coal Harbor and between Science World and Van Term. It's hard to remain a port in a stormy world once you lose your harbor. Can Vancouver stop climate change on its own? Well, of course not. But the city does have important powers. It can regulate buildings and has repeatedly shown that it has influenced other cities, the province, and other regions of Canada and other cities worldwide. Over the past 15 years, Vancouver's green building policies have delivered buildings that are dramatically more energy efficient and lower greenhouse gas emitting. They are more comfortable and more resilient during heat zones. Over the next 25 years, existing buildings will improve too, as older heating systems are replaced at the end of their operational lifespan. These policies, unlike this resolution, weren't developed quickly or in isolation. The City has worked closely with industry for many years, precisely so that builders could succeed in the transition and deliver better, future-proof buildings. And it's exactly wrong to say that the City should harmonize with the province. Why? Because the core job of the province is to set minimum standards to define the worst possible building anyone can legally build. And yet, BC stepped up its building code requirements in 2023. Why? Because Vancouver's building bylaw led to the step code, and that led to builders right across the province adopting high-performance building techniques. Vancouver enabled the province to up its game. You can't run this process in reverse without also reversing progress on climate action. In conclusion, the Vancouver Building Bylaw has been a leader in influencing step code municipalities across BC to improve energy efficiency and emission standards at the provincial level. And that, to quote the Mayor's motion, is, quote, a clear evidence-based local rationale for Vancouver maintaining stronger standards. Thank you for your time.

My name is Ian Cullis. I am the Vice President of Sustainability at Landlord BC. Landlord BC is a non-profit industry association representing residential landlords and property managers across British Columbia, ranging from small landlords to large rental housing providers. We appreciate Council's focus on housing affordability. and the need to ensure regulatory systems are pragmatic, efficient, and workable across a diverse ownership base. At the same time, we believe it is important to distinguish between the primary drivers of housing affordability and the role of building performance policies. Energy benchmarking and reporting requirements are not a significant driver of rent levels or overall housing cost escalation. Water pressures such as financing costs, insurance, taxation, and housing supply continue to have a much larger impact on affordability. At the same time, long-term energy performance of both existing and new buildings remains important from affordability perspective. More energy-efficient buildings can help reduce operating costs over time, improve resilience, and support better long-term outcomes for both owners and tenants. From our perspective, benchmarking and reporting systems such as Energize Vancouver provide important value to owners and operators by helping them better understand building performance, identify opportunities to reduce operating costs, and make more informed capital planning decisions over time. The value of these systems is not simply compliance. The value is the information they provide and the ability to support better building management and long-term operational performance. We also recognize that implementation capacity very significantly across the sector. Largely building owners and professional operators have generally adapted to reporting requirements and integrated them into standard operations. However, smaller owners and independent operators continue to face challenges related to time, technical capacity, and access to tools and expertise. In our view, this points to the need for improved implementation support rather than the removal of benchmarking systems altogether. Across British Columbia, Landlord BC is actively working to support owners through education, coaching, practical guidance that helps translate building performance information into actionable, operational, and retrofit decisions. Motion 8 also raises broader questions regarding alignment with provincial step code direction and related building performance requirements. In these areas, policy clarity and predictability and implementation pathways are important to support investment confidence and advance more energy efficient buildings across the sector. Ultimately, Landlord BC wants and supports a pragmatic and balanced approach. one that maintains useful building performance data systems, reduces unnecessary administrative burden, strengthens support for owners, and supports long-term energy efficiency, affordability, resilience, and building performance outcomes.

Thank you for your time.

Good evening. Well, is it if I'm being gaslit by Motion 8 and the majority of this council? You know who you are. As a longtime Vancouver resident, I've had to adapt constantly. Adapt to rising grocery costs, exorbitant rent, a changing job market, hotter summers, and unpredictable winters. During the summers, I've had to sleep with frozen water bottles at night from overheated apartments with no AC. They were all I could afford. I wish I could have a heat pump. and I certainly choose that over a toxins-emitting gas stove, but I don't get a choice as a renter. I've also had to start speaking to counsel about these silly motions like motion eight. I hate doing this with my evening. I'd much rather be doing other things than tuning into this all the time. If I have to adapt at no personal benefit, then gas companies should too. I've had to adapt to obstacles caused indirectly or directly from the oil and gas industry's emissions that I have almost no control over or have a chance to benefit from. Motion 8 makes no sense. Gas is not affordable now or in the future, but renewables are. I've heard multiple times over this evening that there's not enough hydro to heat our homes. What are we even building the taxpayer-funded Site C dam for? I sure hope it's not going to LNG terminals instead of the taxpayers. But luckily, we do not have to rely solely on hydro. Wind, solar, and other alternatives are available and are much safer for us, the climate, and our health. As well, they insulate us from the increasingly volatile global oil and gas market. Backsliding on gas and climate policy only further entrenches us into a gas-dependent society and make our transition to alternative clean energy more challenging. Stop gaslighting me and the public. Motion 8 has no benefit to people other than those invested in the oil and gas sector, and it certainly won't make housing more affordable. The only reason this council would vote for Motion 8 is if they're being swayed by oil and gas lobbyists. We are watching your actions. Prove me wrong. Prove that you haven't been corrupted by the oil and gas industry. Vote against Motion 8. Thank you for your time.

We've been building and developing multifamily condos in the Lower Mainland for over about 10 years now. I want you to speak for Motion 8 from a builder and a developer's perspective. I think these changes are important because they can help reduce the cost of building housing and improve affordability for residents. Vancouver's current building and energy rules add extra complexity, delays, and costs that make housing more expensive. I think aligning Vancouver's regulations more closely with provincial standards would help speed up approvals, reduce construction costs, allow builders to use more efficient construction methods already used across BC. I think it's also very important to maintain flexibility in energy choices, access to lower carbon options like renewable gas energy. hybrid systems high efficiency natural gas technologies can provide reliable heating hot water while helping keep operational costs lower for homeowners and strata buildings i think a balanced energy approach also improves reliability during peak demand and power outages while supporting emissions reductions without making housing more expensive or limiting consumer choices i strongly urge we make these changes to better our community and make vancouver affordable to build in again

Yes, I'm here. Can you hear me?

Okay. So I'm a resident of Vancouver for over 10 years. I'm a mom. I'm also a homeowner of a property in rural D.C. And I'm an organizer with Decolonial Solidarity. And I've been listening tonight. I'm opposing Motion 8. I think there's been a lot of really great things said in opposition. I just want to emphasize a couple of things. First of all, natural gas is pollution. It's not renewable and it's not clean. And it's a gaslight to say that it's either of those things. It's also a gas light to say that our electricity supply is finite. There is actually the definition of the way that electric, wind, solar, hydro is that it's actually renewable by definition. And so while now our grid might be limited, there are actually solutions that are being implemented in... China, Asia, Europe quite rapidly because technology has actually come a long way quite quickly for solar electric distributed systems on each building. We don't need to be talking about people choosing something like smoking or drinking and driving or all of these unhealthy things, which we know LNG is, I mean, natural gas. oil and gas is unhealthy and we don't have to have that choice. We can actually create more electricity without more dams. We can put solar electric panels in collaboration with the provincial and federal governments to change course from this crazy fossil fuel you know hurtling towards our own destruction strategy that seems to be adopted and instead switch to installing solar electric panels with capacity to tie into the bc hydroelectric grid so that people could actually earn money back from selling their electricity back to the grid which could then supply more supply for businesses and other larger consumers of electricity, which would address affordability issues, it would address climate issues, it would address health issues, and we could all be part of the Green Pony Club. The projects of national interest that we want to see that the City of Vancouver could be pushing for are the Green Ponies, the renewable solar electric. Green Pony Club. Council, won't you join us at the Green Pony Club? Hey, we're going to make it with the Green Pony Club. Yeah. So you guys get it. And there are other options. We don't need to be talking about these.

I've recently moved to Burnaby. I've been a resident of Vancouver for... That's okay, but you are not right now. Currently not, no. Perfect, thank you. Please go ahead. Perfect.

Oh, that's fancy. Thank you. Thank you, Council. I'll close this off, it sounds like, for today. Who likes a reboot? I like a reboot. I think I like reboots when they stay true to the source material. Sometimes they can be great. So in November 2024, this council voted, heard from 140 experts and residents and voted against this motion. And bringing it back just gives us another chance to play the hits and vote it down again. So I'm excited for that. Thanks for giving us that opportunity. The bottom line is, and this is just common sense. I think everyone here knows this. We don't need LNG anymore. It has done some useful work for us, for the province. The technology for zero emissions economy is commercialized. It's ready to go. We're rolling it out. But the council is being asked to turn a blind eye to... This reality, this motion is asking them to ignore that fact because some folks have made a lot of money off of a volatile, increasingly volatile boom and bust economy. I don't think anyone's gone to the... gas station recently and been like, wow, gas is so cheap. I'm glad we're tied to fossil fuels.

So big gas wants to keep us hooked on this volatile system. And it just doesn't work for governments. It doesn't work for taxpayers. It has stopped working. And why doesn't it work? So it doesn't work because, of course, of the climate costs. That's the most obvious one. According to Stanford University, by 2050, the annual global cost of paying for fossil fuels and the related climate disasters will add up to $81.2 trillion. So Vancouver is going to have to be paying for our share of that. We're already paying for that in... heat-related disasters and weather-related disasters.

Locally, the Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium says that heat waves will occur 16 times more often by 2050. On that note, this is a region and a city and a province that already saw 619 residents die in a single heat event. This doesn't work because of the health costs as well. Outdoor and indoor air pollution from combustion kills 7.4 million people a year, and gas hookups in homes are significantly linked to higher rates of childhood asthma and leukemia. So we're looking at two pathways here. There is a pathway of efficient and plentiful fuels. Yes, I see it. And wind, water, solar, the benefit of it is the fuel is free. It's the sun and the water and the wind. So I would encourage people to choose the common sense path. that works for Vancouver residents and not just lining the pockets of the fossil fuel industry. Thank you.