Think Free Swim Aquatic Safety Policy

Sure, I'll make some comments. I did speak at the council meeting where this was, but there was a few things I didn't have a chance to say to council that I'll just highlight here. And I think it came up a lot in that meeting, which is really that the issue is not cost. You know, I was very lucky to get my youngest daughter into swim lessons in the city because it's a midday, weekday lesson. And they are very affordable already. It's barely more expensive than just a drop-in cost of going to swim. I don't think that cost is necessarily... Well, I think free is great. I think really the issue is capacity in our system in terms of this. We do have leisure access pass that can also reduce costs. But the issue is fundamentally capacity, and I think we do need to address that. And, you know, while this is nice, I think it's a promise that's maybe moving in the wrong direction. If our goal is to get swimming lessons for everyone, I think we should be providing capacity. But this is, you know, a nice gesture, but I don't think it addresses the core issue of a lack of capacity of swim infrastructure.

I disagree. I think swimming, recreational activities, when they all add up, it gets expensive and it's difficult for some people to afford. I hope you can support the future pools coming at Marpole and Sunset that would increase capacity. And I hope you could support this, which would increase accessibility due to barriers such as cost. This is essentially going to slow things down. This is a report back. I was asking for us to get this done. We could have followed Suri. We should have actually been ahead of Suri on this one. But we have an additional step and an additional barrier. They passed it, and it's exactly what we were trying to do. The age groups and the levels exactly the same, and they're going ahead with it. Unfortunately, in Vancouver, this is going to get slowed down, and it's turned into a report back. I thought this was a great initiative because swimming is a core safety issue. And if you don't know how to swim, drowning is a serious risk. So I really want to get as many children as we can in these classes. And I don't want cost to be a barrier. And I don't want the lack of facilities to be a barrier.

Commissioner here I'm not gonna say too much. I just I'm a little disappointed with the changes. I think I understand why Some of us might be wanting a report back, but I think changing the culture of of Vancouver and changing... How can I say this? It's not about the money anymore. We live next to an ocean, and our children, no matter what your social status is, no matter how much money you're making, whether you're rich or poor, everyone should know this is a vital skill. It's like walking. You need to also know how to swim, and it should be free. It should be free. And I know the concerns about where is this money going to come from? Do we have capacity? Because I know there's already concerns about wait lists and whatever not. But I think sometimes when you make a bold decision, like, you know what? Children here in Vancouver deserve free swim lessons because it's a vital skill and they need to know how to swim. Put that first and we'll solve the problems later. It's just a shift in culture, so I can't support this the way it is. I want us to take a bold stance and say that our children deserve to know how to swim here in Vancouver, and we'll figure everything else later. That's what I was hoping for, so I will not be supporting this the way it is.

Thank you so much. I do like the clarity on this much more. Unfortunately, I can't trust that funding is going to be coming from the city. We requested funding for lifeguards, and that was denied. And now we're looking at providing free... swim lessons on the backs of a group of people that could not find the funding for lifeguards. What that potentially means to this board is that we might, if we approve this, might have to find savings somewhere else. We might have to do cuts somewhere else like we did to ensure, like that was necessary to ensure that lifeguards could be at our beaches. You know, Commissioner Hare said it twice tonight that we live next to an ocean and how important it is that people can be safe when they're at our beaches. And so now that this motion addresses that, we will know the costs. Before this is moved, I think it's super important because, again, we have to be able to filter through what potentially maybe campaign promises and what is actual city business. And so until I see that number, which is what I need to see, I can't trust that this is anything more than just a political stunt. And so I like this motion as it is, and I'll be supporting it.

I challenge the ruling of the chair.

Thank you, Commissioner, for allowing me to speak again. I just wanted to pull up a report which took a little bit of time. This is the minutes of the motion that was approved by Council. I just wanted to address this concept.

Okay, can you pause my time?

Okay, thank you.

I just want to address this concept that city councils is a done deal from city council. They've approved it. It's funded. That is not true. The council motion said that staff report back in early 2027 on a phased implementation plan, pilot locations, capacity. financial analysis, opportunities for funding. So this is not a done deal. This is actually going to come back to city council in 2027 for approval, and they actually then need to fund it still. So this is not a funded done deal. It's already coming back as a report back to city council. So I don't think it's unreasonable for us to request a report back as well. So I just wanted to clarify that for commissioners, since it seems that commissioners seem to think that this is a done deal from city council when it is not. And it specifically asked for a report back in early 2027 from city council. So it is not a done deal, and city council needs to consider this as well.

So again, I like how we use the same tricks every time and it's a great show. It's a great way to get out of things. But let's not hide behind the fluff.

Let's not hide behind the fluff. The children are the ones that get affected by this. They're the ones that aren't going to get the free lessons. And that's what this motion is about. It's about reaffirming what the city already affirmed. And it's about supporting that that gesture of giving children free lessons. If city council says they're going to do it, if park board says we're going to do it, we're going to do it. Let's not be that park board that opposes such a great motion, such a great initiative. Surrey already got this done. They're moving forward with it. Why are we always constantly battling with the city to oppose things? There's a pool that's supposed to be built at Marple. There's a pool that's supposed to be built at Sunset, and City Council is supporting those. There's supposed to be free swimming lessons for children 3 to 12 years old for the first three levels. Why aren't we supporting it? These are such great initiatives, and it would improve access, and it would reduce barriers such as cost. But we want to be that board that... that claims not to play political games, but I think this is electioneering. I think we should support the motion, we should get more pools built, and we should invest in the safety of our children, because this is a real core safety issue. Children should know how to swim.

Yes, I want to thank Commissioner Christensen for clarifying the truth of this. So basically, the original motion I was never going to support because it was an empty, hollow, unfunded promise. It was a set of good intentions in an election year. And then the way it was presented here was inaccurate. And it was shameful that we had to go and fact check a park board meeting. There was no funding. What the other communities, like Richmond, did is they put money behind it. They put capacity behind it. They didn't just make a promise a few months out from an election. What they did was they actually put dollars behind it. They put a plan behind it. They let the department that looks after their parks run it, not the mayor's office. So, you know what, I'm going to support this motion the way it's amended to get a report back. And I want to reaffirm... that the original hollow promise of that motion has now been at least clarified that it was never going to deliver anything. Not a single child was ever going to get a lesson out of that motion because there's no funding and no space, and it didn't address any of it. And this report back is going to show that. And it's going to come back and it's going to say, look at Van Splash because we need pools. And here's a strategy that lays out how we can add capacity to the system that's already in place. And you know what we need is funding. We don't need empty promises. And so I'm going to support this. Thank you.

Well, yes. I wanted to mention that I'm utterly disappointed that we're not moving ahead with the original motion that was ensuring that all kids had access to swimming lessons. I think Commissioner Verdi is really making his plan based on the fact that we're adding capacity to the pools in Vancouver at a pretty fast rate in the last few months. I find it interesting that Commissioner Christensen has decided that whatever she's paying for her kids' lessons is the right amount of money that people should be spending on the kids' lessons. I don't know how much that is, but I'm sure it's too much for many families anyway. And also in the current states, it's just not necessarily available. She was very lucky to get lessons for her child. I just find interesting that Because there's an election coming up, we just want to make sure that nothing gets approved before July so that it can be delayed until next year. It's a pretty pathetic way of going. This is my comment.

All around too, so I'm going to have to say something, I guess.

A couple weeks ago, I had the privilege of TTOCing. I'm a teacher as well. And I was at a school that's an inner city school. It was last minute, something I picked up very early in the morning, and I drove out to go substitute at the school. The children were grade fives. And funny enough, instead of being in a classroom, I had the privilege of walking over to a nearby recreation center where the children were getting swimming lessons. Through the school, by the way. Not through the city at the time, but through the school. And I spoke to some of the teachers and also the lifeguards there. and the teachers that were actually teaching the swimming lessons. And to my surprise, there were children there that had never, ever even swam before. And I was surprised. And the recreation center was literally 10 minutes away from the school. And I teared up. I was like, wow. The things that we take for granted. I mean, my children, I've kept them outside. I typically don't try not to keep them inside since we're little children. And I could not believe that 50% of the kids there did not know how to swim. And that's why they were getting free lessons. My concern, yes, we do need money for free swim lessons. We do need a better system. We do need a better booking system. And it really is terrible that people have to wait there's a wait time to get lessons even. But I think it's up to our board also to take a stance and say, you know what, the priority is free swimming lessons, and yes, afterwards we'll figure it out. And my concern with this amendment is that we're going to be slowing things down. And we might not have an opportunity later on to provide the lessons that the Vancouver children need. And again, I'm going to emphasize, it doesn't matter what... social status you're at or whether you can afford it or not. I think it's an absolute must that the people, the children, that we create a culture here in Vancouver that all kids should know how to swim. It's just like walking. It's just like speaking, eating food. All kids need to know how to swim, and that's what we need to, that's the precedence we should be setting. So this amendment, I'm worried it's going to be slowing things down, and I'm not going to be supporting this. No.