Think Free Swim Amendment (Items B and C)
Motion 11 · Park Board Meeting, June 1, 2026
Summary
- Amendment to the Think Free Swim motion, replacing a directive to implement free lessons immediately with a direction for staff to report back including full cost analysis, capacity implications, and potential effects on other aquatic programs such as swim clubs and lane swimming.
- Also removed a sub-item on reverting pool booking to pre-COVID walk-in access, which the chair ruled out of order as it would revisit a decision made at the March 30, 2026 meeting.
- Mover noted that the Vancouver City Council motion on free swim lessons itself only directed a staff report back in early 2027 and did not allocate funding, making the premise of a "done deal" inaccurate.
- Opponents argued the amendment delays action on a child safety issue and risks losing momentum on a priority that Surrey had already implemented without a comparable review process.
Vote
Transcript
59 segments
You have five minutes.
Joe Fortes needs no official introduction. He was the first official lifeguard in Vancouver, and this motion is a tribute to his legacy. Swimming is constrained by user fees and limited pool access. Expenses add up. And drowning is one of the leading cause of preventable deaths. So this is a major safety issue. Swimming is a life-saving skill. and it should be treated as a core public safety issue. It also allows for physical activity and social connection. And in this motion, the city will cover the entire cost of the swimming lessons from ages three to 12 in the first three levels, and they will continue to cover the cost going forward. We've seen this happen successfully in Surrey. Just recently Mayor Brenda Locke moved a motion and it was passed. And so Surrey will be seeing free swimming lessons for the same first three levels of swimming.
The second part of this motion is, can we move to the second part?
Like keep all the way to the resolution.
Well, I guess the second part was removed because I was told it was deemed out of order. Oh, no, it's there. Okay. So I personally want to see the reservation system go back to pre-COVID levels. Sorry, the pre-COVID system. Just for spontaneity, for people visiting, for children that want to hang out at the pool and have fun throughout the day and not be limited by a time limit. So I want to go back to a flexible structure of the reservation system. So that was the second part of the motion. And that's it. Okay. So I'm going to, because it's out of order, but I have a question, if I can ask through the staff.
Sorry, you can ask the chair about what's your question.
So the motion that was, because you said it's similar to a certain report back, that was specific to Kitts Pool. This is the reservation system abroad.
So it was the reservation system that's noted in there as well. So just how the procedure works would be that someone who voted in favour of that motion needs to bring forward a motion to reconsider that decision. But you weren't at that meeting, so you did not vote in the affirmative of that decision. So you cannot bring that forward again. It has to be someone... That voted in the affirmative of that report that can bring that back So this D and the further that needs to come out of this motion right now.
Yeah, that's for sure. We'll take that off right now, and then you guys can continue your discussion Thank you Yeah, and I would just like to clarify for the public that the motion was heard on March the 30th and only four of the commissioners were attending that meeting. So the three commissioners who weren't here may not be familiar that that motion was fully debated on that day. Thank you. Please continue with the rest of the motion.
So just to sum up, swimming is a life-saving skill that every child should know. It's a core public safety issue, and the city is willing to fund it 100%, and going forward as well. I do realize that there are constraints in our system, and one of them is financial burden. So this motion deals with that part. The second part is the lack of swimming infrastructure in the city. But from what I hear and what I know, there are some pools coming up in the future capital plan. So let's address the financial barriers, and then we'll add more facilities in the future.
Thank you, Commissioner. Are there questions for the mover?
I have a question for the mover.
Approximately how many basic swimming lessons were given to this range of children in previous years?
Sorry, can you turn your mic on?
There you go. So from the city's numbers, it was 6,498 participants, and the revenues generated from that was approximately $420,590. Thank you.
And do you know how many, approximately how many children are on the waiting list for swimming lessons in Vancouver?
Yeah, so to address that fact, like I said before, new pools are coming in the future capital plan.
What's the number?
I asked for a number was my question.
I'm explaining the answer. So like I said, the financial burden will be taken care of by this motion. And when there's more space available through future infrastructure coming, such as the Sunset Pool and the Marple Pool, the City Council is going to pay for...
Okay, you're not answering my question, so I'll move on. What do you think will happen if those 6,000... if another 6,500 children get free lessons? What do you think that's going to do to the waiting list, which, for your information, was over 8,000? Do you think the waiting list will go up to 20,000 or maybe 25,000 angry parents who want their free lessons too with no increased capacity?
So currently... It's the same wait list, and it's going to be the same wait list whether it's free or not. But that will be addressed in the future capital plan with the two new pools coming in, one pool for Marple and one pool for Sunset, so that will increase capacity. And City Council has... committed to funding these swimming lessons.
Well, I still have time. Do you know how much it actually costs us to provide the 6,500 swimming lessons and training students? Do you know approximately how much of that is subsidized by the park board?
So I just want to repeat, the city will take care of all the funding necessary, and I've committed to fund this fully. Is there city funding included in your motion? Yes, I speak to it.
You're speaking to it, but we haven't seen it. Thank you. I'll move on. Commissioner Christensen.
Can you just clarify how new outdoor pools are going to increase our swim lesson capacity? My understanding is that the majority of lessons, if not all lessons, occur in indoor pools.
Yeah, so if you visited Richmond, there are swimming lessons in outdoor pools. My two children go to Richmond in an outdoor pool, and they have swimming lessons there.
So there's an outdoor pool. I'm not going to ask that question. It's not relevant. We'll keep moving.
How much money is the city going to be providing for this?
I don't know the actual dollar figure, but it will cover the full extent and park board will not be on the hook for any of the money. It will be fully covered by the city of Vancouver.
And what assurances does the park board have for that type of promise?
Other municipalities are moving in this direction. Surrey has already adopted this and it's already passed. The difference is they have a city council. We have a city council and a park board. So essentially we have two barriers to getting this done. And it's about the children getting free lessons. And if we want to be the park board that opposes free lessons for children, I don't think that's a good look.
I'm going to reclaim my time. I appreciate that. Would it surprise you that Council has said that, and I quote, management will prioritize what its elected body of park board directs, and that they have not, in my opinion, done that in this case. They sort of simply took the easy way to go to mom and dad and ask for more funding.
That's from a city councillor. Vancouver City Councillor who looks at funding requests and just dismisses them because...
So would it surprise you that a city councillor, a sitting city councillor would say that about a motion that requests money from the city?
I heard a sitting city councillor say that they will fully fund free swimming lessons to children. That's what I heard.
But this quote, I know the quote I'm referencing is in regards to lifeguarding, which again, this motion famously is named after. Sorry, a question again? Well, I'm going to get to the question. So why would you think that a city council that denied funding for...
necessary lifeguarding would fund... That's not relevant to... We're talking about swimming lessons.
We're not talking about... Why would you think they would be able to fund this?
Okay, so we're getting redundant now in our question, but thank you, Commissioner Jensen. The point was made and answered.
Yeah, and the point of order is that's speculative. That's talking about a different topic. So the topic is swimming lessons and how they can be funded by the City of Vancouver.
Excellent.
Moving on. Are there further commissioner questions?
I have a I do have a second round if we're just doing another second round quickly. So did you consider what Port Coquitlam is doing, which is providing free swimming altogether for their pool system? Have you considered that? I told you I was just in Halifax. Halifax has free swimming in the entire swimming pool system. Have you considered that? And would that not be a more affordable option for residents of Vancouver?
So I think that's a great idea, but I think we've got to start somewhere. And until we build that facilities, those two new pools coming in will help. But until we fill... build that infrastructure out I think we need to start somewhere and this is a great start because teaching swimming lessons when you're young is a prime time to learn swimming and it's a life-saving skill for the rest of your life.
Would you think we could get more swimming lessons in if we had a 50 meter indoor pool complex built at maybe Kensington Community Centre? Great, yeah.
Okay. Thank you, Commissioner. We're pool happy. Any further comments, questions to the mover of the motion before we move on to comments? Seeing no further questions, then we'll move on to comments as we move towards a vote. Commissioner Christensen, do you have a comment?
I have an amendment to make, please. It's been submitted in writing. I believe it's already gone up.
I'll just go through sort of each item, sort of two main thrusts here. There's the B and the C. So for item B, just asking the board to direct staff to report back to us, seeing as this is within our jurisdiction as our programming. So having to report back to us, including the cost capacity and the service. that could be provided, so the program, what it would look like. And specifically in the further that, indicating if there would be service reductions elsewhere in the system, either due to budget requirements or specifically due to the impact on pool capacity. If we're providing free lessons, are we going to have less pool capacity for swim clubs, for example, or open swims, lane swimming? Is there going to be an impact on those other aquatic programs that we have. And then moving to Part C, if you read Van Splash, we do have all of these things are already within Van Splash. I don't think we need... Van Splash is not that old. It's less than 10 years old. I don't think the items asked for here are required to be updated. And I just want to reaffirm that we do have these... per capita infrastructure targets are called swims per capita. This takes into account the fact that, you know, I think pools per 100,000 residents isn't an accurate metric because pools are different sizes. Outdoor pools have significantly less capacity for swims since they're only open for a few months of the year. So it's measured in swims per capita, recognizing that different pools have different capacities. If you've ever been to the Kensington pool, it's a very different beast than, for example, Hillcrest. So those have different capacities. So the capacity is measured in swims per capita, and we do have a target within Vansplash, which is five swims per capita for aquatic infrastructure. So let's not reinvent the wheel. We have Vansplash already. Let's not make more work for staff. when Van Splash is a great document that we've already produced.
Thank you. Commissioner, is there a seconder for that motion? I see Commissioner Jensen seconds the amendment. And now we'll move to questions to the mover. Commissioners have questions for the mover.
My question would be, in Part B there, you've amended it. You're asking staff for a variety of options, service-level options, that could be provided. Are you suggesting that there might be different ways that we could deliver a lower cost, bigger capacity, get more kids trained and to learn to swim?
Well, it says, you know, priority access for 3 to 12. There are swim lessons for under 3. Are we going to provide that or not? So maybe staff are going to come back with options for, you know, all children up to 12. Maybe it's going to be a subset of that. So I think there'll be some options that staff maybe can develop for different costing depending on, you know, how much budget is available when this comes back next year. We can make all the promises we want about funding at this point, but when the... you know, we come actually asking for the money, that might be a very different discussion next year. So I think having some options for the board to consider in terms of costs would be helpful.
Thank you. Other Commissioner questions on the amendment? The question is to the mover, Commissioner Hare.
I appreciate that you're trying to look at different... different scenarios of what might be coming and where the money's coming from. My concern is for the children of Vancouver, swimming lessons or knowing how to swim, especially since we live next to an ocean. And my concern is having three children. Some people, some children do not... have the opportunity to swim or have swim lessons. And I'm worried that making so many changes to the original motion, it might just take away from what we're trying to achieve, which is... free lessons for children here in Vancouver.
I can assure you that this amendment does not change the fundamental aspect that we are aiming to provide free swimming lessons. All it's changing is that rather than staff going off and doing something, we're actually as a board going to see it come back to us with what the actual cost is going to be. So I think we need to understand what the cost is when this comes back next year.
So what you're trying to say is let's look at the cost before we move forward. Is that correct?
Yes, and not just the cost, but also what's the impact on the rest of the system. Let's not make a blind decision. Let's have it come back to us and see what the actual impact is on cost and also on swim clubs.
You don't think this is going to stall?
No, it would come back anyways. I think this just provides direction that it's going to come back.
You don't think it's going to stall free swimming lessons, which could put children at risk?
You're welcome to confirm with staff, but I don't think this direction would slow anything.
Okay.
Questions asked and answered. Any other questions to the mover of the amendment? Then we'll move to a vote and we'll ask people first for comments on the amendment. If commissioners would like to comment before the amendment. Looking around, do I see comments? I don't see any comments on it. We'll go straight to a vote. All those in favor of the amendment as written, please raise your hand. I see Commissioner Jensen, Commissioner Christensen, Commissioner Bastavansky, Commissioner Digby. All those opposed to the amendment, please raise your hand. I see Commissioner Howard, Commissioner Hare, and Commissioner Verity. The amendment passes, and we'll now move to the main motion as amended. And we'll continue with comments on the main motion as amended. And Commissioner Christensen made a comment. Do other commissioners have comments they'd like to make before voting on this amended motion?
So Commissioner Christensen, you could go ahead.