[1:53] Hello and welcome to the regular

[1:54] business meeting for the District of

[1:55] Squamish for Tuesday, March 17th.

[1:58] Holland squalan Squamish. As always,

[2:02] we're gathered to do our work today on

[2:03] the traditional unseated territory of

[2:04] the Squamish nation. Please be advised

[2:07] this council meeting is being

[2:08] livereamed, recorded, and will be

[2:10] available to the public to view on the

[2:11] District of Squamish website following

[2:13] the meeting. If you have concerns,

[2:15] please notify the corporate officer

[2:16] present at the meeting. In this case,

[2:18] that would be Miss Vlon Budau. Um, could

[2:21] I have someone move adoption of the

[2:23] agenda, please? Moved by councelor

[2:25] French, second by councelor Stoner. All

[2:27] in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries.

[2:30] Thank you. So, our first order of

[2:32] business uh is item 31. uh the BC

[2:36] Epilepsy Society. Um

[2:40] and I believe we have we'll be receiving

[2:42] our presentation. Roly. Oh, there you

[2:44] are. Hello. Thank you for joining us.

[2:47] >> Hello.

[2:48] » Hello.

[2:48] Good evening, council. I am with the I'm

[2:52] the administrative coordinator with the

[2:54] BC Epilepsy Society. Unfortunately, our

[2:58] executive director, Dietra, was unable

[3:00] to speak today with illness. So, I'm

[3:03] still grateful for the opportunity to be

[3:05] here to rep represent our organization.

[3:09] Um, and I just like to thank you guys

[3:11] again for the opportunity to speak and

[3:14] for the support of epilepsy awareness in

[3:17] our community. We truly appreciate the

[3:20] leadership and the com commitment to

[3:22] help build a more informed and

[3:24] supportive um community in Squamish.

[3:27] Epilepsy is one of the most common

[3:29] neurological conditions affecting

[3:31] approximately one in a 100 people. This

[3:34] means that here in Squamish, many

[3:35] individuals and family are living with

[3:37] epilepsy and contribute contributing to

[3:41] the strength and diversity of this

[3:43] community every day. with greater

[3:45] awareness and understanding. Um we're

[3:48] hoping we can create um an environment

[3:51] where people living with epilepsy feel

[3:53] supported and empowered and simple

[3:55] actions like learning about epilepsy and

[3:58] recognizing the uh epilepsy awareness

[4:02] day on March 26th will help encourage

[4:05] more open conversations making a

[4:08] meaningful and lasting impact. Your

[4:10] support helps us to build that community

[4:13] where people feel confident and safe.

[4:15] We're grateful for the partnership and

[4:17] the role to help us bring awareness.

[4:20] Thank you again for your time and

[4:22] support. If anyone has any questions,

[4:25] please let me know.

[4:29] >> Thank you very much for the

[4:30] » Thank you very much for the

[4:30] presentation. Council, do we have any

[4:33] questions for our guests? We also have

[4:34] the proclamation request as it appears

[4:37] in the agenda. Um, if we're ready for if

[4:40] there's no questions, I'd entertain a

[4:42] motion.

[4:44] Are you moving uh the recommendation?

[4:45] Councelor Pettingill. A second by

[4:47] Councelor French. Would you like to

[4:48] speak to it, Council Pettingill?

[4:50] >> Um, just to say uh thank you for coming

[4:53] » Um, just to say uh thank you for coming

[4:53] and presenting uh and reminding us about

[4:56] this. I think it's always good to keep

[4:59] um these things top of mind and uh it's

[5:02] a a simple and small gesture we can do

[5:05] to help with that. Thank you.

[5:08] Thank you. Any other comments on this?

[5:11] Um, happy to support this um this uh

[5:15] proclamation. I I do think it's as

[5:17] councilor Pending said, it's really

[5:19] important that we uh even through a

[5:22] small gesture like this um uh

[5:26] ensure that these these types of things

[5:29] uh and particularly EP epilepsy here

[5:32] receives the recognition um that it that

[5:35] it deserves. there are people living in

[5:36] our community and uh with that uh that

[5:40] have epilepsy and we may not unless we

[5:43] exp are nearby and we experience then

[5:45] they experience an an episode it's it's

[5:47] unlikely that we would necessarily be

[5:49] aware of that. So this is an opportunity

[5:51] for us to um uh to show our our support.

[5:54] I'm happy to do so. So thank you very

[5:56] much and with that I'll call the

[5:57] question. All in favor? Motion carries

[6:00] unanimously. Thank you so much. Enjoy

[6:02] the rest of your evening.

[6:04] >> Thank you for your time.

[6:06] » Thank you for your time.

[6:06] Thank you. So, next we have the uh

[6:09] unscheduled public attendance. This is

[6:11] if anyone has a matter they'd like to uh

[6:14] have considered by council prior to our

[6:16] next meeting. Uh this would be

[6:18] opportunity to

[6:20] put that forward.

[6:22] No takers this evening. So, we'll move

[6:25] on. Um we do not have any um public

[6:29] hearings, so we're on to the consent

[6:31] agenda. Would anyone like to pull

[6:33] anything that is in the consent agenda

[6:37] or move the consent agenda is the

[6:39] alternative? Councelor Stoner,

[6:41] >> I'm going to pull items D1 and two,

[6:43] » I'm going to pull items D1 and two,

[6:44] please.

[6:45] >> Okay. Um, so we'll deal with those at

[6:48] » Okay. Um, so we'll deal with those at

[6:48] the appropriate time. Um, is there

[6:52] anyone that would like to remove the

[6:54] remainder of the consent agenda? There's

[6:56] not much left for those that aren't

[6:57] reading the moving council French second

[7:00] by councelor Hamilton. All in favor?

[7:02] Motion carries. And we'll deal with

[7:04] those at the appropriate time later in

[7:06] the uh in our agenda. Uh so now we have

[7:10] uh consideration of first, second, and

[7:11] third reading for the District of

[7:12] Squamish in indemnification bylaw number

[7:16] 3224 2026. And we have our corporate

[7:20] officer or director of corporate

[7:22] administration uh to present to us.

[7:52] Okay. Um, happy to take a quick timeout

[7:55] if or a medium length time out if that's

[7:58] what's needed. It's coming. Okay.

[8:11] So just to buy some time without taking

[8:12] a timeout, I'm going to propose we move

[8:14] forward to we have a couple adoptions on

[8:16] the on the agenda. Uh so that's 7B1 and

[8:20] two. Um and as is our common practice,

[8:23] we don't have presentation on these.

[8:24] These are just these are ready to be

[8:25] adopted. All the uh tees have been

[8:27] crossed and eyes have been dotted. So um

[8:30] could I So the first one is District of

[8:33] Squamish zoning bylaw number 22 or 2200

[8:37] 2011 amendment bylaw and this is uh

[8:39] regarding local and liquor primary

[8:41] commercial. Moved by councelor French

[8:44] second by councelor Hamilton. All in

[8:45] favor? Motion carries. Thank you. And

[8:49] the the next is District of Commerce

[8:52] zoning bylaw number 2200 2011 amendment

[8:54] bylaw regarding indoor recreation.

[8:58] Moved by councelor Ster. Second by

[8:59] councelor Hamilton. All in favor. Any

[9:01] opposed? Motion carries.

[9:04] I hope that we may have bought at least

[9:07] some time. We'll come back to There we

[9:09] go. Look at that.

[9:15] The floor is yours when you're ready.

[9:21] Uh good evening council. My name is

[9:22] Melissa Bambbleo. I'm the director of

[9:24] corporate administration. Uh today I am

[9:27] presenting on District of Squamish

[9:29] indemnification bylaw number 3224

[9:33] 2026.

[9:35] Uh there were changes made to the bylaw

[9:37] this morning, including the correction

[9:39] of two typos, including a reference to

[9:42] the a specific section in the local

[9:44] government act and replacing guilty with

[9:48] uh convicted in section 5.1G of the

[9:52] bylaw to more to align more closely with

[9:55] the local government act language. Uh

[9:58] the bylaw has been replaced online and

[10:00] is and the current copy is in blue in

[10:03] front of council this evening.

[10:13] Uh the bylaw in front of council this

[10:15] evening uh if it is adopted at a future

[10:17] meeting will repeal the current

[10:19] indemnification bylaw which was adopted

[10:21] in 1998

[10:24] uh

[10:26] and be replaced with the bylaw before

[10:28] council right now. Uh the purpose of an

[10:30] indemn in of an indemnification bylaw is

[10:34] to establish parameters for when the

[10:36] district will pay for and defend

[10:38] municipal officials, which is defined in

[10:40] the bylaw, from legal claims that may

[10:43] arise out of the performance of their

[10:45] duties or functions on behalf of the

[10:47] district. This could include paying for

[10:49] legal defense costs, settlements, or

[10:52] judgments, or certain penalties related

[10:55] to official duties. It does not allow

[10:57] for the district to pay for a fine that

[10:59] results from a conviction where the

[11:01] official was it at fault or had intent

[11:05] and examples of this may be fraud or

[11:08] knowing knowingly violating legislation.

[11:12] The bylaw will establish clear

[11:13] expectations as to when the district

[11:16] must be notified that a legal matter has

[11:18] arisen which can be found in section 4.2

[11:21] of the bylaw.

[11:23] Uh the bylaw also sets limits on when

[11:25] municipal officials will not be

[11:28] indemnified under section five of the

[11:30] bylaw which include if there is a

[11:32] conviction where there is a finding of

[11:34] negligence or willful misconduct.

[11:43] Uh next section is legislative

[11:44] alignment. The content of the bylaw has

[11:47] been drafted to align with language in

[11:49] the local government act, specifically

[11:51] sections 738 and 740.

[11:55] This includes the definition of

[11:57] indemnity. The definition of municipal

[12:00] official, limits on indemnification for

[12:03] the following. When a finding has been

[12:05] made related to dishonesty, gross

[12:08] negligence, malicious or willful

[12:10] misconduct has been made against a

[12:12] municipal official. And this is section

[12:14] 5.1A.

[12:16] Uh and and limits on on indemnification

[12:21] when a municipal official has been

[12:23] convicted of an offense that is not a

[12:25] strict or absolute liability offense.

[12:28] This is section 5.1G in the bylaw and in

[12:32] the definition of indemnity.

[12:34] There's also alignment with the

[12:36] community charter including in the

[12:37] limits of indemnification section

[12:40] including breach of confidentiality

[12:42] under section 117 and this is section

[12:45] 5.1E of the bylaw and disqualification

[12:49] from holding office under section 111

[12:52] section 1.5F of the bylaw.

[13:01] And that includes my presentation this

[13:03] evening. Thank you.

[13:06] >> Thank you very much for the

[13:07] » Thank you very much for the

[13:07] presentation. Council questions

[13:10] on this.

[13:12] >> Go ahead, Councelor Penning.

[13:14] » Go ahead, Councelor Penning.

[13:14] >> So, how does this work with insurance

[13:16] » So, how does this work with insurance

[13:16] companies who would I believe typically

[13:18] be the ultimate payers? Were there a a

[13:22] judgment against someone who is

[13:26] I I presume covered by this? uh like

[13:28] does the fact that we have this bylaw

[13:30] then obligate the insurance companies to

[13:34] provide that to anyone in our an

[13:37] organization they're insuring or is it

[13:39] still ultimately up to an insurance

[13:41] company

[13:43] how things proceed or what happens or

[13:45] can you speak to that a bit

[13:49] >> uh through the mayor u the so the

[13:52] » uh through the mayor u the so the

[13:52] district's municipal insurance company

[13:53] is the municipal insurance association

[13:56] of BC and they handle very specific

[13:58] claims for us. And when a claim is

[14:01] passed to MIABC,

[14:04] they handle every aspect of that claim.

[14:06] So, prior to accepting a claim, they

[14:09] make a determination whether it fits

[14:10] within the scope of our municipal

[14:13] coverage.

[14:15] If a situation was to arise where there

[14:18] may be a conflict with our bylaw, I'm

[14:20] sure they would be flagging that in

[14:22] advance of accepting the um accepting

[14:26] the claim or uh representing the

[14:28] district. Uh but I have not seen a

[14:31] specific example like the one you've

[14:32] referenced.

[14:36] » Thank you. You have a followup. Yeah,

[14:38] just sort of big picture wine because I

[14:40] I had been I had the impression that as

[14:43] elected officials we in particular had

[14:44] very little protection against even our

[14:46] own mistakes. Um uh this implies there's

[14:51] something more. Uh, am I correct though

[14:54] in thinking that um this doesn't really

[15:01] I I guess maybe can you just speak a

[15:03] little more to sort of where there is

[15:06] some protection available if if some

[15:08] like it's clear if you do something

[15:09] willfully wrong you're not protected but

[15:13] if you're sort of doing things with the

[15:14] best intent best of intentions on what

[15:16] are the still the limitations in this

[15:22] » uh through the mayor, I actually brought

[15:23] a couple of examples that I can speak to

[15:26] and hopefully that will help frame it a

[15:28] little bit because it to be honest, the

[15:30] language in the legislation isn't always

[15:32] clear and it is confusing and I had to

[15:34] do a fair bit of research to wrap my

[15:35] head around this. So, uh if you'll be

[15:37] patient with me, I'll find a few

[15:39] examples here and read them out.

[15:43] Uh the first example is a municipal

[15:46] official is convicted of knowingly

[15:48] falsifying records. So in this situation

[15:52] uh this is a is uh the municipality

[15:56] cannot pay the fine. So if they were

[15:58] convicted and there was a fine issued

[16:00] the municipality could not pay the fine.

[16:02] However,

[16:04] it could the council does or council and

[16:06] the district does have discretion to pay

[16:08] some of the legal fees that may be

[16:10] associated in the determination of

[16:13] whether there was a conviction.

[16:16] Does that makes some clarity? Okay, I'll

[16:19] go into the next one. Uh, a counselor is

[16:21] fined under an environmental statute for

[16:24] an inadvertent regulatory breach despite

[16:28] acting responsibly. So, there's another

[16:30] fine issued in this case. Uh, there was

[16:34] uh there wasn't intent, so the

[16:37] municipality may pay the fine.

[16:41] Does that provide some clarity? Is it

[16:42] more confusing?

[16:45] >> Like any good example, it may have

[16:47] » Like any good example, it may have

[16:47] triggered a few questions. So we'll I'll

[16:48] go back to councelor Pettingill.

[16:50] >> Yeah, that one is a little confusing in

[16:52] » Yeah, that one is a little confusing in

[16:52] that we have no individual ability to do

[16:56] an environmental action or whatever

[16:58] direct one. So the the word a counselor

[17:01] like is implicit and this is actually

[17:03] the council and their majority vote and

[17:05] and it's the the group that's protected

[17:07] or is there some case where an

[17:09] individual is is somehow

[17:12] which seems like an impossible

[17:13] situation? You could replace counselor

[17:16] with municipal official as defined by

[17:18] the bylaw,

[17:20] >> but you're right. No individual

[17:21] » but you're right. No individual

[17:21] counselor has a specific authority to

[17:24] take an individual action. So that would

[17:26] likely be the counselors in that would

[17:30] likely be a multiple. I share your

[17:32] assessment with that. Um

[17:36] I was curious I thank you for the

[17:39] examples. Those were help. Yeah. Well, I

[17:42] know I know it's a it's it is a

[17:45] challenging

[17:47] topic. I think it's just got a lot of

[17:48] new a lot of whatifs is to it. But I was

[17:51] wondering you sorry in your presentation

[17:53] it spoke to how it relates to community

[17:55] charter and and legislation broadly. Um

[17:59] how does where does the code of conduct

[18:01] sit in this? Like I understand there's

[18:04] these, you know, if there's a fine paid

[18:07] or a guilty or someone, you know, in

[18:09] other jurisdictions, but was there a

[18:12] lens to do we rely on those

[18:15] uh mechanisms for this or does the code

[18:17] of conduct bump into it feels like we're

[18:19] starting to that there's some overlap

[18:22] potentially? How are we thinking about

[18:24] that or or can you add some can you

[18:27] orient me on that?

[18:30] >> That's a good question. Um the

[18:32] » That's a good question. Um the

[18:32] indemnification bylaw is specifically if

[18:34] there's a legal claim against the

[18:36] district. So it's moved past the point

[18:39] where

[18:41] uh council in the district is dealing

[18:43] with um a breach of

[18:48] conduct in house and it's moved into the

[18:50] legal fear sphere. So it there is a

[18:53] fairly clear line between them I would

[18:57] say.

[18:59] >> Okay. Thank you. That's helpful.

[19:01] » Okay. Thank you. That's helpful.

[19:01] Um, councelor Hamilton. Yeah, go ahead.

[19:04] >> Yeah, thanks very much. It's interesting

[19:07] » Yeah, thanks very much. It's interesting

[19:07] that the the this bylaw has an

[19:10] interesting combination of council that

[19:12] the municipal officer includes council

[19:15] and employees of the municipality.

[19:18] Um and in terms of municipal employees,

[19:24] uh I can certainly I see the logic uh

[19:28] for in part three

[19:32] um

[19:33] the determination of payment of the

[19:37] indemnification amounts

[19:39] um is determined by the chief

[19:41] administrative officer, the CIO um and

[19:44] the CIO being the head of the district.

[19:48] That makes sense in terms of the

[19:49] municipal officers. Does that make sense

[19:53] as well in terms of council?

[19:57] Does that is there um

[20:02] are there other instances where the CAO

[20:06] has determination

[20:08] over council? When I think of the code

[20:10] of conduct bylaw, for example, council

[20:13] regulates, council's

[20:15] um within that bylaw, council makes

[20:18] decisions. So I guess the question is

[20:22] within other indemnification

[20:25] bylaws,

[20:27] is it common practice to have the CEO uh

[20:32] be a deciding uh uh determinated

[20:36] determinating body on damages, awards,

[20:40] fines, penalties, and what reasonable

[20:42] costs will be paid um for council.

[20:50] Many of the other bylaws that we looked

[20:52] at when we were doing the research for

[20:54] this left that more open-ended. It ended

[20:57] at as uh out of pockets out of pocket

[21:01] costs and uh

[21:04] some included

[21:07] the word reasonable. However, there we

[21:09] didn't find any that specified a

[21:12] specific individual that would determine

[21:13] that. I will say though that we do have

[21:17] in the code of conduct bylaw, the CEO is

[21:21] the person that makes determinations

[21:22] about um legal fees. If council needs to

[21:26] uh seek legal advice, it needs to go

[21:28] through the CEO. So, we do have a little

[21:30] bit of a precedent there for that.

[21:42] Okay.

[21:44] So what role

[21:47] um

[21:48] what role does council play if any in

[21:53] determining

[21:56] whether council

[21:58] pursues or

[22:01] um determines the level of

[22:04] indemnification

[22:06] that another counselor will be

[22:11] um awarded and awarded isn't the right

[22:14] word here, but what determining that

[22:17] reasonable level of cost because at some

[22:19] point in time somebody might get into a

[22:21] legal dispute and

[22:25] more and more money might need to go

[22:27] down that road.

[22:29] Does council play any role in that or

[22:31] does that sit purely with the CEO?

[22:40] uh can if there is a legal claim that

[22:43] fits the parameters of the bylaw if it

[22:46] is adopted uh all the costs associated

[22:50] with that in within reason would be

[22:53] covered because of the indemnification

[22:55] bylaw. So there isn't a

[22:58] threshold for when a legal claim needs

[23:02] to come to council for approval. I will

[23:05] say that if a legal claim doesn't fit

[23:08] the parameters of this bylaw,

[23:12] council has the discretion through the

[23:14] local government act to um direct direct

[23:18] that the legal claim is indemnified

[23:20] through council resolution.

[23:26] » Okay. Thanks. I didn't realize that

[23:28] overarching piece of the local

[23:31] government act. That's good to know. And

[23:34] yeah, the my my question my my point

[23:38] here is that discussion of what's

[23:40] reasonable and the determination of what

[23:44] is reasonable when the C when a CEO and

[23:47] this is not about our CEO. This is about

[23:51] power dynamics that get set up within

[23:54] councils and between the CEO because the

[23:57] CEO can be um

[24:01] either um they can be put in a position

[24:06] where

[24:08] they are undermined by their council and

[24:10] a CIO can undermine their council. That

[24:13] power dynamic can happen. Um, and I'm

[24:18] reflecting here on whether this can

[24:21] contribute to that power dynamic in a

[24:23] potential sticky sticky situation. Um,

[24:25] but I don't think I have a better

[24:27] solution. Um, and with the coverage of

[24:30] the local government act that the

[24:33] council can step in and indemnify, I'm

[24:35] comfortable with the CIO being in this

[24:37] role here.

[24:39] >> Would you like to comment on that, Miss

[24:41] » Would you like to comment on that, Miss

[24:41] Gundy or?

[24:44] >> Sure. Yeah. And just before we do that,

[24:46] » Sure. Yeah. And just before we do that,

[24:46] we'll take a there's been a an ask for a

[24:48] quick timeout. I just um in that section

[24:52] where it does say reasonable. I I've

[24:56] always ch I know the language is there

[24:58] to provide some flexibility and I just

[25:01] but for

[25:03] all the for all the reasons I I just

[25:06] wondered about the use of reasonable

[25:08] because it doesn't imply that everyone

[25:10] involved in it is is that. So, I'm just

[25:13] curious on if that's the best the best

[25:17] um language for that. Although, I

[25:19] understand why you'd want to put some

[25:22] reasonable limits on it. It's just hard

[25:24] to see it framed that way. So, um I'll

[25:26] wait for a reply till after after this,

[25:29] but maybe I'll just flush council, see

[25:30] if there's any other questions just to

[25:32] make sure that we're um we don't require

[25:34] another timeout on this matter. Go

[25:36] ahead, councelor Penning. Yeah, just

[25:38] sort of thinking of um I guess my

[25:42] understanding of conflict of interest is

[25:43] it's on us individually to decide and

[25:45] declare if we have a conflict. If we're

[25:47] unsure, it's on us to individually seek

[25:51] and and pay for legal counsel to get

[25:54] that advice if we feel we're we're

[25:56] unsure. Um, and whether we do or not,

[26:01] uh, if we proceed in good faith and

[26:04] believing we're doing the right thing,

[26:05] but then it turns out we were actually

[26:07] offside. I had previously understood, we

[26:11] would bear all the consequences

[26:12] individually of that. When I see this,

[26:15] this makes it seems like, you know, you

[26:18] could sort of, well, I'm doing the best

[26:20] I can. I don't have money to to have a

[26:22] lawyer, and I'll be indemnified at the

[26:24] end of the day if it doesn't work out. I

[26:26] don't think that's what this is trying

[26:28] to say, but that's what it seems to say.

[26:29] I'm just I'm looking for a way to

[26:33] understand why that case would be

[26:35] excluded from indemnification if you

[26:38] were acting in the best, you know, with

[26:42] the best of intents, but it went south.

[26:45] Why would this like I don't in the

[26:47] exclusions, it's not clear or the limits

[26:49] why that would not be covered.

[26:58] Sorry, I I I'm not following the

[27:00] question. Could you provide the specific

[27:02] section or

[27:05] >> Well, I guess sort of say, you know,

[27:07] » Well, I guess sort of say, you know,

[27:07] there's an issue comes up. I decided to

[27:11] vote on it or do whatever. I I thought I

[27:13] didn't have a conflict of interest, so I

[27:14] was proceeding what I thought was

[27:17] correctly. Turns out at the end of the

[27:19] day, uh someone some court or whatever

[27:21] body decides I was wrong. there's some

[27:24] liability coming to me. I had thought I

[27:27] was stuck with that liability before

[27:29] today. Um reading hearing the discussion

[27:34] like when I look at the the limits this

[27:37] seems to say I would be covered. I would

[27:39] be indemnified in that case but I don't

[27:41] think that's what this is saying. So I'm

[27:43] trying to understand why is that case

[27:46] >> Could you point to the side of this

[27:47] » Could you point to the side of this

[27:47] >> sorry could you just point to the

[27:49] » sorry could you just point to the

[27:49] section that you've is that just sort of

[27:52] a general takeaway or is there a

[27:53] specific section

[27:55] >> the limits on indemnification there's

[27:57] » the limits on indemnification there's

[27:57] nothing that says a counselor uh found

[27:59] offside on conflict of interest is not

[28:02] indemn or does not qualify for

[28:04] indemnification there's nothing along

[28:06] that sense so I'm trying to understand

[28:09] um why again it's my understanding

[28:13] this case would not be covered by this,

[28:15] but I don't.

[28:16] >> Okay. So, we have a question around

[28:18] » Okay. So, we have a question around

[28:18] conflict of interest. We can put this in

[28:19] the after timeout. I don't know if that

[28:21] or do you have a reply for the for how

[28:24] that fits or would you like to group

[28:26] that with the timeout matters?

[28:30] >> Group that with the timeout matters and

[28:31] » Group that with the timeout matters and

[28:31] I'll have a crafted answer.

[28:33] >> Okay. No, that's fine. And then I've got

[28:34] » Okay. No, that's fine. And then I've got

[28:34] Councelor Stoner and then I'd like then

[28:36] we'll we'll go to the staff timeout.

[28:38] We'll come back for another pass at

[28:40] this. Councelor Stoner, go ahead. Yeah,

[28:42] thanks to the chair. I think just I

[28:44] wanted to add some reflections on the

[28:46] word reasonable which I appreciate is

[28:48] not defined um and is really difficult

[28:50] to define especially in this context. I

[28:53] think um from a process in a procedure

[28:56] perspective I think reasonable is often

[28:58] defined when you go out and seek

[29:02] um like quotes for a legal cost for

[29:05] example. And so I think adding some

[29:07] discretion there by using the word

[29:08] reasonable I think is fine. I think in

[29:11] our procurement processes, we have ways

[29:13] to guard rail against what is

[29:15] reasonable. Um, and I just think it like

[29:18] taking out that word makes this bylaw

[29:20] really challenging to me and trying to

[29:22] define it, I think, is near impossible.

[29:23] So, I think there's other components of

[29:25] our process in our system that help

[29:27] guardrail the definition of reasonable.

[29:30] >> Thank you for that. Um, and the last one

[29:33] » Thank you for that. Um, and the last one

[29:33] of the other pieces that I have is just

[29:34] I I I do want to ask a question around

[29:36] the uh in section 5.2F to F is it says

[29:40] the provisions of this bylaw shall not

[29:42] apply to a motion of center by the

[29:44] district of Squamish Council. So I'm

[29:45] just curious on how that interplays here

[29:47] and to I was expecting that as part of

[29:49] the answer from the code of conduct

[29:51] piece maybe. So I you know because uh

[29:55] censure is something that could flow

[29:57] from the code of conduct. So that's sort

[29:59] of where I was one of the things I was

[30:01] trying to get at with that question but

[30:02] I'll leave that till after the time the

[30:04] timeout. Anything else before we go?

[30:06] Councelor Hamilton, go ahead.

[30:08] >> Maybe just confirming. So I read through

[30:10] » Maybe just confirming. So I read through

[30:10] the LGA and I think uh Miss Vonlutoo,

[30:13] the section you were referring to was

[30:15] section uh 742

[30:18] A2,

[30:20] the municipal officials ability. If you

[30:22] could just confirm that on the timeout

[30:24] and then we'll be on the same page.

[30:27] >> That's 5.3 in the uh B.

[30:33] We're going to grant the timeout and

[30:35] then we will uh we'll address that

[30:36] because there's an easy answer for that

[30:38] one. So, um I feel like five minutes is

[30:41] the minimum for for for this. Would you

[30:44] like 10?

[30:46] 10. Let's take 10. We'll take a

[30:47] 10-minute break and we'll reconvene at

[30:50] uh 6:42.

[40:03] All right, welcome back. We're back from

[40:04] a quick um timeout for staff. So, I will

[40:08] go to to to CEO Glendy.

[40:13] >> Thank you. through the mayor. Uh I will

[40:15] » Thank you. through the mayor. Uh I will

[40:15] answer the question about the CEO um

[40:18] being

[40:19] uh the determiner of the reasonable

[40:21] costs in section 3. Uh it's a great

[40:24] question. Um

[40:26] the purpose of that is financial

[40:28] control. And so the suggestion is to

[40:31] prevent it being a one-on-one with CEO

[40:33] and council is to include uh or amend

[40:37] this bylaw first three readings of the

[40:39] amendment to include with and CFO and

[40:42] chief financial officer and then that

[40:44] way there's the a financial control with

[40:45] a second signature or the second person

[40:48] vetting the costs that then get approved

[40:50] by MIBC or not. So that is a solution

[40:53] for that and that's the answer for that

[40:57] one and I will do the chair pass it back

[40:59] to Miss Vonto for the other answers.

[41:01] >> Okay. So just um on that one does anyone

[41:05] » Okay. So just um on that one does anyone

[41:05] have questions about that response and

[41:07] thank you for the for a suggestion that

[41:09] addresses the concern. I'll just go to

[41:10] councelor Hamilton. I think it was your

[41:12] question that sort of took us down this

[41:14] path.

[41:16] >> Yeah thanks. Um

[41:20] » Yeah thanks. Um

[41:20] I think my concern was in in many ways

[41:22] addressed by the

[41:25] clearer understanding of section uh 5.3.

[41:29] Uh but I do think that uh adding a

[41:33] signature here or adding a a partner in

[41:36] the determination uh I think makes the

[41:38] whole bylaw stronger and makes our

[41:40] policies and procedures stronger. Uh so

[41:43] yeah, I would certainly u I'll make a

[41:46] motion to add that if if needed.

[41:50] >> Okay, we'll deal with that when we we

[41:51] » Okay, we'll deal with that when we we

[41:51] get there. Um thank you for that. Um

[41:54] anyone else on this particular piece,

[41:56] Councelor Penning? So does this imply

[41:59] that as part of our budget uh that

[42:01] somewhere there's a legal envelope there

[42:05] going forward we might be a bit more

[42:06] explicit of like this is the bucket we

[42:08] have for the CFO and CIO to possibly

[42:12] address these things for the coming year

[42:13] and so council sort of uh approves an

[42:17] envelope annually and and then sort of

[42:20] within that envelope would apply this

[42:22] bylaw

[42:26] Oh yeah, whoever would like to speak to

[42:29] uh I guess how we allocate legal into

[42:32] our budgeting.

[42:34] >> Uh

[42:36] » Uh

[42:36] corporate uh administration has a

[42:39] general legal bucket that we uh set

[42:42] aside annually to cover all legal costs

[42:44] that are associated with the dis or most

[42:46] of the legal claims that are associated

[42:48] with the district. And at the moment

[42:51] we've never had an issue with uh

[42:54] overruns from that budget

[43:00] » and any expenditure even under this

[43:02] would need to be inside of the budgeted

[43:04] amount just to state the

[43:07] further that point. Um any other

[43:09] questions on on this before we go back

[43:11] for the answer on the second question

[43:13] which I'm forgetting what it was at this

[43:14] point. Oh go ahead councelor son. Uh,

[43:16] can I just seek some clarity on the

[43:18] proposed amendment and how that would

[43:19] intersect with our general procurement

[43:21] policies and so like there's a threshold

[43:24] like I don't want to make this an overly

[43:26] cumbersome process and we already

[43:28] require multiple signatures on larger

[43:31] expenses. So I'm just curious if this

[43:32] just feels like a redundancy to an

[43:34] existing parallel process that would be

[43:37] highlighted or initiated anyways out of

[43:41] this.

[43:44] the current um I'm trying to think of

[43:47] the bylaw is is it the delegation bylaw

[43:49] that refers to spending authority

[43:53] indicates that um all general managers

[43:55] have a certain threshold which includes

[43:57] the CFO after which the CEO has

[44:00] discretion up to basically the budget.

[44:03] Um, I think if we're talking about

[44:07] like part of this is essentially what is

[44:09] reasonable to be indemnified by MIAC or

[44:13] indemnified by the district. Um, if

[44:16] there's a concern about a power

[44:18] discrepancy with the

[44:21] one person agreeing to the amount, then

[44:23] adding a second signature provides that

[44:26] financial control and eliminates that

[44:28] power discrepancy which with this

[44:30] particular bylaw doesn't exist in a

[44:32] process in our procurement policy.

[44:36] >> Thank you for that context. Um I will go

[44:39] » Thank you for that context. Um I will go

[44:39] to staff now to answer on the second

[44:41] question which I've forgotten what it

[44:43] was but I'll go to you.

[44:45] >> Uh the second question I believe was

[44:47] » Uh the second question I believe was

[44:47] around conflict of interest and if a

[44:51] council member would be indemnified if

[44:54] they inadvertently

[44:58] have a legal claim arising from a

[45:01] conflict of interest scenario. Is that

[45:04] my understand? Is that correct? Uh, I

[45:07] believe councelor Penning, does that

[45:08] capture your your concern? You're asking

[45:10] about the about this piece around

[45:13] conflict.

[45:15] >> Well, let's take the answer and we'll

[45:16] » Well, let's take the answer and we'll

[45:16] see if it addresses your concern. Does

[45:17] that

[45:21] » Okay.

[45:21] >> Okay. Uh, the first thing I'd like to

[45:24] » Okay. Uh, the first thing I'd like to

[45:24] state is that the purpose of the

[45:26] indemnification bylaw is to protect

[45:28] officials,

[45:30] you included, that who are acting in

[45:32] good faith while doing their jobs.

[45:35] uh it's to prevent and then some of the

[45:37] restrictions in the bylaw are to prevent

[45:40] the use of public money for shielding

[45:42] personal misconduct. So it's I think the

[45:46] key word around this is acting in good

[45:48] faith.

[45:50] Um and then in terms of the conflict of

[45:52] interest component

[45:55] the limits on indemnification.

[45:58] So this is what uh the district will not

[46:02] cover in terms of legal claims and

[46:04] conflict of interest is not included in

[46:06] here and it's important to note that

[46:09] most of these elements except for a

[46:11] couple are u directly from the

[46:14] legislation. So council has the

[46:17] discretion to be more restrictive and

[46:20] limit more

[46:22] limit the number of things that will be

[46:24] covered through the indemnification

[46:25] bylaw. So, right now, the way it's

[46:28] written,

[46:29] conflict of interest claims would likely

[46:32] be covered. Unless there's a conviction

[46:34] and there's a fine issued, then the

[46:36] district couldn't pay the fine. Um,

[46:41] council has the discretion though to

[46:44] totally eliminate covering conflict of

[46:47] interest claims that may arise by

[46:49] including that in this section. Is that

[46:52] clear?

[46:53] >> I think so. So I think one of the risks

[46:56] » I think so. So I think one of the risks

[46:56] that happens in the in can one of the

[46:59] risks that exists in these roles is

[47:01] someone could bring at any point in time

[47:03] a conflict of interest um matter forward

[47:07] uh even if it was frivolous I would need

[47:09] to go through a a legal process and I

[47:11] think there's a difference between um h

[47:14] being um having that happen and it

[47:19] ultimately being not coming to uh being

[47:22] dismissed or coming to some other

[47:23] conclusion. usion versus oh yeah there

[47:25] was a conflict here and there's a

[47:26] penalty and if there's a penalty then

[47:27] our indemnification wouldn't apply. Is

[47:29] that correct?

[47:32] >> That's my understanding. Yes. So that's

[47:36] » That's my understanding. Yes. So that's

[47:36] the sa the safety the safety net here

[47:39] and I think it's

[47:41] I think that's reasonable and I think

[47:44] without that sitting in these seats

[47:46] becomes even harder than it than it is

[47:49] because we're open to um um to this to

[47:55] this risk that could just

[47:59] you know I don't know how else to it's

[48:00] it's it's not appropriate I think to be

[48:03] exposed to that to that risk unless you

[48:05] did something that was ultimately found

[48:08] guilty for and and there's a penalty and

[48:10] I think that this addresses addresses

[48:12] that. I'll go to you councelor Penning

[48:13] then I've got councelor Stoner.

[48:15] >> Yeah, maybe not a topic of discussion

[48:17] » Yeah, maybe not a topic of discussion

[48:17] for tonight but it seems to me it might

[48:19] make more sense for us to set aside a

[48:22] bit of a funds where if you are unsure

[48:26] there's some support to get that uh as a

[48:29] counselor a clear legal advice on

[48:31] conflict. So you're, you know, you're

[48:33] not sort of saying, "Oh, maybe I can

[48:35] take a risk and try and do my best

[48:37] without a lawyer, which seems to be sort

[48:39] of where this is pushing us and

[48:40] hopefully we'll catch it on the back end

[48:42] as opposed to like actually have a very

[48:44] high standard and maybe less

[48:46] indemnification if you're offsite on

[48:48] conflict because you would have had the

[48:50] ability to check in with legal at the

[48:52] start before doing anything wrong." But

[48:54] I think um yeah, thank you for that. I I

[48:57] have seen some uh renumeration bylaws

[48:59] that that include the ability to to use

[49:02] some discretionary funds for or some

[49:05] funds for um uh a conflict conflict of

[49:10] interest consult legal consult or

[49:12] something like that up to a certain

[49:13] amount. So I think that's where that I

[49:16] like that suggestion but I think that is

[49:18] um is is important but is outside of

[49:20] this obviously it'll interact with this.

[49:22] Do you have thoughts on this?

[49:24] >> I do. So, I I don't have the language in

[49:27] » I do. So, I I don't have the language in

[49:27] front of me exactly, but the code of

[49:28] conduct bylaw does allow for counselors

[49:31] to seek approval from the CAO for a

[49:34] legal opinion if it's related to

[49:35] conflict of interest. So, that language

[49:38] is written into the code of conduct by

[49:40] law and the intention isn't to

[49:46] have all matters, you know, if they're

[49:48] if they're tangent tangential,

[49:52] uh, go for a legal opinion. But if

[49:53] someone is truly concerned, there is an

[49:57] avenue through the code of conduct bylaw

[49:59] to seek a legal opinion that is covered

[50:02] by the district.

[50:04] >> Okay. Um, councelor Stoner, I I think

[50:07] » Okay. Um, councelor Stoner, I I think

[50:07] you're next to my speaker's list.

[50:09] >> Yeah. Just trying to consider this

[50:11] » Yeah. Just trying to consider this

[50:11] component around conflict of interest on

[50:14] the limitations list 5.1b

[50:17] specifically says willfully acted

[50:19] contrary to the terms of their

[50:20] employment. Um, and I had originally

[50:23] flagged that because that's employment

[50:25] is generally a difficult word for those

[50:28] on this side of the table because we're

[50:30] not technically employees.

[50:32] Um, and so I wonder if it's worth adding

[50:36] in a bullet around like willfully acted

[50:38] contrary to the terms of their oath of

[50:40] office or in contrary to the community

[50:43] charter or the code of conduct to kind

[50:47] of capture

[50:48] that component. And I I don't know if

[50:51] I'm ready to propose that today off the

[50:53] fly because I haven't thought through

[50:55] the potential negative implications

[50:56] thereof.

[50:58] Um but I wonder if there's if staff have

[51:01] any thoughts around that like weighing

[51:03] of contrary or like willfully acted

[51:06] contrary to the terms of their

[51:07] employment and how that can be reflected

[51:10] or if it is already reflected in the

[51:13] other language there for council members

[51:16] who are not employees.

[51:24] Uh the number was 5.1B.

[51:32] » I don't know.

[51:32] >> I mean I do think that 5.1A maybe just

[51:34] » I mean I do think that 5.1A maybe just

[51:34] does it like been guilty of dishonesty,

[51:37] gross negligence, malicious or willful

[51:39] misconduct is maybe sufficient.

[51:42] Um,

[51:47] but that's maybe more for my council

[51:48] colleagues to consider if they feel like

[51:51] that is sufficient and strong enough

[51:53] given the other avenues that we have as

[51:55] well with code of conduct.

[51:57] >> Oh,

[51:57] » Oh,

[51:57] >> layered in here.

[51:59] » layered in here.

[51:59] >> Uh, yeah, when I was reading that that

[52:01] » Uh, yeah, when I was reading that that

[52:02] this document that piece felt like it

[52:04] didn't apply to me. it applied to the

[52:06] the employee piece, but there's also

[52:09] nothing that really separates out those

[52:11] categories in the document itself. So,

[52:14] is that sort of the in the intent there?

[52:16] It's not meant to cover

[52:18] I know I agree with the spirit of it,

[52:20] but just the letter of it really seems

[52:22] to speak more towards employees than um

[52:24] elected officials.

[52:27] >> Through the mayor, I would agree that it

[52:28] » Through the mayor, I would agree that it

[52:28] speaks more towards employees than

[52:30] elected officials and there is a

[52:31] differentiation there.

[52:35] Okay. And I don't think that this is a

[52:38] these matters are large enough uh

[52:42] or or that we need two separate like we

[52:43] don't need two separate versions of this

[52:45] to cover like to parse that out. I think

[52:48] this makes good sense to me that some

[52:50] pieces the wording is just not for us.

[52:52] The wordings for staff. Um any other

[52:54] questions

[52:57] on this?

[53:00] Um

[53:01] I'm going to look to councelor Hamilton.

[53:03] I think we might be ready for a motion

[53:06] that may

[53:08] >> amendment. So I will um move the staff

[53:11] » amendment. So I will um move the staff

[53:11] recommendation that the district of

[53:13] Squamish identification bylaw be given

[53:16] first,

[53:18] second and third readings with the

[53:20] addition of

[53:22] uh

[53:24] and CFO or and chief financial officer

[53:29] after chief administrative officer in

[53:31] section three.

[53:43] Okay. Um, are you seconding that that

[53:45] motion? And um I like to minute taker.

[53:48] Does that was that clear? Okay. Uh, go

[53:51] ahead, counselor.

[53:53] >> Thanks very much. Um,

[53:55] » Thanks very much. Um,

[53:56] this the indemnification bylaw. Uh, I

[54:00] think this is a really important piece

[54:02] of our municipal framework. Uh, and like

[54:05] so many things in my first term here on

[54:07] council, um, you didn't really didn't

[54:10] really reflect on how important these

[54:11] things are until you read it in the

[54:14] bylaw and think about all of the ways

[54:16] that things can go, um, uh, sideways for

[54:22] for all kinds of various reasons. And I

[54:24] think it's important that we have um a

[54:27] bylaw that helps us and supports

[54:31] employees and counselors in the event

[54:34] that there is some under the honest and

[54:39] um in under the honest carrying out of

[54:41] their duties uh happen to fall into uh

[54:45] some kind of legal dispute. Um and then

[54:48] if they are guilty of those uh offenses

[54:51] that they are held uh to account. I

[54:53] think it's important that we have that

[54:54] and I absolutely recognize it's

[54:56] difficult to define those things and

[54:58] that's why we're here tonight and I

[55:00] think this bylaw does a pretty good job

[55:02] of defining them as best we can. Thanks.

[55:06] >> Thank you. Other comment I'll go to the

[55:08] » Thank you. Other comment I'll go to the

[55:08] secondary and then I'll go around. Go

[55:10] ahead.

[55:12] Uh it's important that bylaws like this

[55:15] get regular review and um I'm happy that

[55:19] uh this one is in front of us getting

[55:22] the modernization that um it's being

[55:25] given and a little bit of um extra

[55:29] spice. Thank you um councelor Hamilton

[55:32] and and the rest of council for the

[55:34] discussion to um to get us to the place

[55:37] we're recognizing adding the CFO in

[55:39] section 3 is um a prudent thing to do.

[55:42] Um and um thank you staff for the good

[55:46] work to get this in front of us.

[55:48] >> Thank you councelor Steart.

[55:50] » Thank you councelor Steart.

[55:50] >> Yeah, thank you the chair. Happy to

[55:51] » Yeah, thank you the chair. Happy to

[55:51] support the motion on the floor uh and

[55:53] the updated bylaw in front of us. I

[55:56] think it's important to note that this

[55:57] is not necessarily new identification

[55:59] that we're providing to council and

[56:01] staff. It's an update to a bylaw that is

[56:04] was originally written in 1998 and

[56:06] brings it, as councelor French said, up

[56:08] to more modern standards and reflects

[56:09] the current wording in the local

[56:11] government act and the community

[56:12] charter. Um, so I think this is just

[56:15] good prudence on our part to make sure

[56:17] that our bylaws are up to date and

[56:19] reflective of current practices.

[56:22] >> Thank you for that, Councelor Penning.

[56:24] » Thank you for that, Councelor Penning.

[56:24] Yeah, I think I'm going to support this.

[56:25] I think I'm I'm a bit intrigued by my

[56:27] colleagues comment, you know, whether or

[56:29] not we would limit indemnification for

[56:32] when there's a code of conduct or oath

[56:34] of office violation, those two in

[56:35] particular. Um, and I guess, you know,

[56:39] part of me is like, yes, if you've

[56:41] willfully violated those things, I don't

[56:43] think we should be indemnifying you, but

[56:46] I'm not sure there's a case where you

[56:48] only violated those where you would need

[56:51] indemnifica. like it may be a

[56:53] non-existent use case. And so that's why

[56:56] I'm not sure if that's one to push on,

[56:57] but um I'll just sort of flag and maybe

[57:00] if staff has a moment to sort of see is

[57:02] this even a real thing because I I do

[57:05] feel a bit uncomfortable with the idea

[57:06] of I guess I'm looking for some

[57:09] alignment like if you've acted contrary

[57:11] to the terms of your employment or your

[57:13] oath of office or your code of conduct

[57:17] maybe makes a little more sense. Um, I

[57:20] guess I'll leave it there for now, but

[57:21] that's the one piece I'm struggling with

[57:23] a little bit.

[57:25] >> Thank you. Any other comments? Um, just

[57:28] » Thank you. Any other comments? Um, just

[57:28] in in reply, I think the um uh the

[57:31] answers I I for for me personally, the

[57:33] the answers that I received from staff

[57:35] were this is really that external thing.

[57:37] So, when it goes past a code of conduct

[57:39] and I think if you violate your oath of

[57:41] office, it's these other processes that

[57:42] would do that would determine that. So,

[57:45] um I'm I'm comfortable with where we

[57:47] are. I do think that um as councelor

[57:51] Stoner um stated uh this is a an update

[57:55] to a very old uh bylaw and the um the

[58:00] legislation that it relates to has has

[58:03] changed in that time and this is a

[58:04] modernization. I think it's important to

[58:08] um for folks to to understand that this

[58:11] isn't this isn't about creating a a

[58:15] shield for elected officials that have

[58:17] done something that is off that is

[58:19] offside or in this case illegal. Uh by

[58:24] um uh it's about ensuring that we uh

[58:27] that these seats are and these roles are

[58:31] reasonable things that people could be

[58:32] expected to participate in. And I think

[58:34] without the reasonable protections that

[58:36] this provides, I would have a very hard

[58:38] time um sitting in these in these seats

[58:41] uh without these these protections. But

[58:44] again, this does not provide uh

[58:46] protections um uh where folks have

[58:49] clearly gone into the uh um uh clearly

[58:54] offside. Uh so happy to to support this

[58:57] and um I do think that after uh if this

[59:02] when this gets used I would expect to

[59:05] I'm happy that it sat for so long in so

[59:07] much as it doesn't feel like it's been

[59:08] used very often. So, I'd imagine that

[59:10] going forward if this does get used that

[59:12] that um it continues to be to be refined

[59:15] uh to ensure that it's not that it's

[59:17] performing its duty and um and not more

[59:21] than it's intended to, which is the

[59:23] which I think is really important. With

[59:24] that, I'll call the question. All in

[59:26] favor?

[59:27] Motion carries unanimously. Thank you.

[1:00:15] So, our next order of business is

[1:00:16] section uh 8A1

[1:00:19] uh landback task force terms of

[1:00:21] reference and appointments. So, staff

[1:00:25] are just getting set up for the

[1:00:26] presentation and we'll get underway when

[1:00:28] they're ready to do so.

[1:00:50] The floor is yours when you're ready.

[1:00:52] >> Uh, thank you very much to the chair.

[1:00:54] » Uh, thank you very much to the chair.

[1:00:54] Good evening, council public who uh are

[1:00:57] watching online and in the audience. My

[1:00:59] name is Linda Glende. I'm the chief

[1:01:01] administrative officer here at the

[1:01:02] district. Uh I am joined by Ms. Asia

[1:01:06] Peterson who will introduce herself in a

[1:01:08] moment and we are presenting about the

[1:01:11] landback task force which is a priority

[1:01:13] activity in the memorandum of

[1:01:15] understanding with Squamish Nation.

[1:01:19] Hello um mayor and council. My name is

[1:01:21] Asia Peterson and I'm the projects and

[1:01:23] research coordinator. privileged to be

[1:01:26] here tonight and honored to be working

[1:01:28] on the traditional unseated territory of

[1:01:30] the Squamish people.

[1:01:34] Thank you. So, as Linda mentioned, we

[1:01:36] are here tonight to present on the

[1:01:38] proposed terms of reference and to seek

[1:01:41] three appointments to the landback task

[1:01:42] force. On March 4th, Squamish Netian

[1:01:46] Council approved the terms of reference

[1:01:47] that you'll see and appointed three of

[1:01:49] their own council members to join the

[1:01:51] task force as well. Next, Uh just a bit

[1:01:55] of background on this report that I'll

[1:01:56] highlight. In 2018, council formally

[1:01:59] recognized the United N um nations

[1:02:02] declaration on the rights of indigenous

[1:02:04] people, otherwise known as UNRIP. And in

[1:02:07] building on our own relationship with

[1:02:08] Squamish Nation in 2023, council signed

[1:02:12] the Wima Squomish Protocol Agreement,

[1:02:15] which led to the development and signing

[1:02:17] of the memorandum of understanding

[1:02:18] between the two governments in 2025. So

[1:02:21] this built on a long um history between

[1:02:24] the partnership of the partnership with

[1:02:25] Squamish Nation and was a significant

[1:02:28] step forward in our rec reconciliation

[1:02:30] journey. The establishment of a landback

[1:02:32] task force was identified as a priority

[1:02:35] activity in theou.

[1:02:40] In both the protocol agreement and theou

[1:02:43] principles are outlined to help guide

[1:02:45] this work in an intentional way. So I

[1:02:47] just wanted to highlight them here

[1:02:48] before we begin. Listen and engage.

[1:02:51] Follow the ways of the Skomish.

[1:02:54] Genuinely care. Learn the advice of the

[1:02:56] Skomeish. The people go through it

[1:02:58] together.

[1:03:00] And protect the rights and title of the

[1:03:01] Skomeish.

[1:03:04] So before we review the details of the

[1:03:06] terms of reference, I wanted to take a

[1:03:08] minute to highlight the concept of

[1:03:09] landback. This is an intentional term

[1:03:12] that we use. Landback is a

[1:03:14] reconciliationdriven initiative that

[1:03:16] acknowledges the impacts of colonization

[1:03:18] on indigenous people. It aims to restore

[1:03:21] governance, stewardship, and cultural

[1:03:23] connections to land. So in this context,

[1:03:26] landback is referenced in theou and it

[1:03:29] means exploring possibilities for the

[1:03:31] return or the co-management of public

[1:03:34] lands in a way in a way that respects

[1:03:36] Squamish nation rights and title.

[1:03:38] Landback is not a threat to private

[1:03:40] property. It's about reconciliation and

[1:03:42] moving forward together. It's not about

[1:03:44] exclusion.

[1:03:48] Um, so in turning to the terms of

[1:03:50] reference, as I mentioned earlier, the

[1:03:52] task force will have three

[1:03:53] representatives from each government.

[1:03:55] Squamish Nation appointed all three of

[1:03:57] the Squamish Valley counselors earlier

[1:03:59] this month. Diana Lewis, Anthony Joseph,

[1:04:02] and Johnny Williams. The terms of

[1:04:04] reference outlines that this is a

[1:04:06] timelmited task force. It will exist

[1:04:08] until 2028 or until project deliverables

[1:04:11] have been met and the task force will

[1:04:13] meet on a quarterly basis.

[1:04:17] So now I just wanted to highlight um the

[1:04:19] structure of the task force. This um

[1:04:23] graphic is an overview of what the

[1:04:25] structure will look like. Staff from

[1:04:27] both organizations will provide the

[1:04:29] research, administrative and technical

[1:04:31] support and will develop work plans for

[1:04:33] task force approval. The task force will

[1:04:36] inform, advise and engage the community

[1:04:38] on this work and then all

[1:04:40] recommendations will go to both

[1:04:42] respective councils for final

[1:04:44] independent deliberation and decision-m

[1:04:49] I now wanted to highlight some of the

[1:04:50] roles and responsibilities of the task

[1:04:52] force. Really the function of the task

[1:04:55] force is to serve as a coordinated

[1:04:57] research and engagement mechanism

[1:04:59] between the two governments. It's to

[1:05:01] coordinate research efforts looking into

[1:05:03] landback opportunities.

[1:05:05] So once the task force is established,

[1:05:07] they'll approve work plans and a

[1:05:09] communications and engagement plan. The

[1:05:11] task force will review and analyze the

[1:05:13] research that staff produces. They'll

[1:05:16] provide guidance on community engagement

[1:05:18] and dialogue opportunities. And then

[1:05:20] based on the on this research and

[1:05:22] community engagement process, the task

[1:05:24] force will make recommendations on a

[1:05:25] framework. Those recommendations would

[1:05:27] go up to each council independently for

[1:05:29] consideration and decision-m. The task

[1:05:32] force itself does not have

[1:05:34] decision-making authority.

[1:05:37] Next slide.

[1:05:40] So in terms of the scope at this time,

[1:05:42] the scope of the task force is limited

[1:05:44] to exploring, researching and engaging

[1:05:47] district residents and Squamish people

[1:05:49] on the topic of landback. Some of the

[1:05:52] areas areas that the task force could

[1:05:54] explore include the nation's historic

[1:05:56] continued connection to their to their

[1:05:59] traditional territory, reestablishing

[1:06:02] cultural and linguistic connections to

[1:06:04] the land,

[1:06:06] um ways to enable shared decision-m or

[1:06:08] co-management of lands, potential policy

[1:06:11] updates,

[1:06:12] ways to support or advocate for Squamish

[1:06:14] Nation as it relates to crown land, and

[1:06:17] any other initiatives that might be

[1:06:19] identified. One thing that we should

[1:06:20] emphasize is that private property is

[1:06:23] not involved with the scope of this task

[1:06:24] force.

[1:06:28] So, some of the examples that the task

[1:06:29] force could consider making

[1:06:31] recommendations related to are things

[1:06:33] like co-management of parks and

[1:06:35] protected areas, restoring original

[1:06:38] place names, granting exclusive access

[1:06:41] to cultural sites for Scoomish people,

[1:06:44] facilitating access to traditional

[1:06:46] harvesting sites,

[1:06:48] um exploring opportunities to recommend

[1:06:50] policy updates for district land

[1:06:52] dispositions or leases. Again, these are

[1:06:55] just some examples. There'll be other

[1:06:56] opportunities that haven't been

[1:06:58] identified yet.

[1:07:01] So, finally, um, community learning and

[1:07:04] dialogue opportunities are central to

[1:07:06] this work. We know that these topics are

[1:07:08] complex and nuanced. So, as a first

[1:07:10] step, we're focused on providing

[1:07:12] community learning opportunities. We'll

[1:07:14] be providing a ton of resources on our

[1:07:16] website and leveraging our library's

[1:07:18] capacity to support residents in better

[1:07:20] understanding these topics. A

[1:07:22] comprehensive trauma-informed committee

[1:07:24] engagement plan will also be shared and

[1:07:26] approved by the task force.

[1:07:29] So, in returning to the recommendations

[1:07:31] for consideration, we'll leave it here.

[1:07:34] Thank you for your time and we're happy

[1:07:35] to answer any questions you have.

[1:07:39] >> Thank you very much. Council, do you

[1:07:42] » Thank you very much. Council, do you

[1:07:42] have questions for our staff at this

[1:07:45] time?

[1:07:48] >> Councelor French.

[1:07:51] U thanks Mayor Herford. Um think that

[1:07:54] this is a a bit of a housekeeping

[1:07:56] question. Um with the meetings that are

[1:08:01] expected to be ahead of us um held in

[1:08:04] spaces provided by each organization as

[1:08:07] we see in the report, I'm I'm guessing

[1:08:08] the district space will likely be this

[1:08:10] chamber or within u municipal hall. And

[1:08:13] I'm wondering has the Squamish Nation

[1:08:15] indicated their space of choice? Is it

[1:08:17] Totem Hall or another location? is is is

[1:08:22] there um maybe an indication that the

[1:08:25] Squamish Nation would like meetings to

[1:08:27] be held in North Vancouver? Can you give

[1:08:29] us any insight into that?

[1:08:32] >> Oh, sorry. Thank you. Through the chair.

[1:08:34] » Oh, sorry. Thank you. Through the chair.

[1:08:34] Um I think since all of the um appointed

[1:08:37] members from Squamish Nation are from

[1:08:39] Squamish Valley, Totem Hall would likely

[1:08:42] be the space to convene.

[1:08:47] Thank you for that very practical

[1:08:49] consideration. Uh councelor Stoner,

[1:08:52] >> thank you chair uh and thanks to staff

[1:08:54] » thank you chair uh and thanks to staff

[1:08:54] for the very clear presentation and

[1:08:57] report in our package this evening. Um

[1:09:00] you mentioned that it's a time limited

[1:09:02] task force to 2028 or until such time

[1:09:06] that the task force has completed its

[1:09:09] outcomes. Um I'm just wondering if you

[1:09:12] can speak to why 2028 was selected as

[1:09:15] kind of the end date.

[1:09:17] >> Yeah, through the chair. Um the 2028

[1:09:20] » Yeah, through the chair. Um the 2028

[1:09:20] deadline was selected because that's

[1:09:22] where we've identified priorities in

[1:09:24] theou. It was from 25 2025 to 2028. So

[1:09:28] we put that timeline on it to align with

[1:09:30] theou.

[1:09:35] » Thank you councelor Penning. Yeah, just

[1:09:38] curious if you can remind us because

[1:09:40] we've also committed to meet council to

[1:09:42] council with Squamish Nation more

[1:09:44] frequently if if we know um sort of how

[1:09:47] that um intersects with this and would

[1:09:50] this task force uh sort of report when

[1:09:54] the broader council council meetings or

[1:09:55] does it more come to our individual sort

[1:09:58] of staff and councils and sort of

[1:10:00] separate from the the more the broaderou

[1:10:02] council council meetings.

[1:10:07] Thank you for the question through the

[1:10:09] chair. Um I would say it's it's both and

[1:10:12] um that there will be times when staff

[1:10:15] come to council and council needs to

[1:10:17] make their own decision in district

[1:10:19] chambers as an example and same with

[1:10:21] Squamish Nation Council and the

[1:10:23] opportunity for the Lambback task force

[1:10:25] themselves to present to both councils

[1:10:28] at the same time would likely prove

[1:10:30] fruitful.

[1:10:34] » Okay. Um any other questions for staff?

[1:10:36] Councelor Stoner.

[1:10:38] >> Yeah, thank you through the chair. Uh

[1:10:41] » Yeah, thank you through the chair. Uh

[1:10:41] also appreciate the clarity on the focus

[1:10:43] here on public lands. Um I'm curious if

[1:10:46] there's been any dialogue amongst staff

[1:10:48] in the development of the terms of

[1:10:50] reference of inviting other orders of

[1:10:53] government in. Much of the public land

[1:10:55] that exists within the boundaries of the

[1:10:57] District of Squamish are crown lands. Um

[1:11:00] and so how do we start to address this

[1:11:02] conversation or is that a topic for the

[1:11:04] task force to do um of what that looks

[1:11:07] like?

[1:11:09] >> Thank you. Through the chair, I would

[1:11:10] » Thank you. Through the chair, I would

[1:11:10] say it's the latter. So at this point,

[1:11:13] staff are bringing terms of reference

[1:11:15] for each council to approve. Following

[1:11:18] that, the task force themselves would

[1:11:20] would commence that work.

[1:11:23] Um and just and

[1:11:25] I think that point is is is very

[1:11:28] important and in the in the terms of

[1:11:31] reference and scope uh the second bullet

[1:11:35] point from the bottom I guess is the way

[1:11:36] to describe that it's not numbered

[1:11:38] support or advocate for scholar nation

[1:11:39] as it relates to crown land dispositions

[1:11:42] that doesn't quite cover the the

[1:11:43] totality of the interacting with the uh

[1:11:46] crown more broadly but there's um

[1:11:48] definitely sort of recognition of that

[1:11:50] there but I do think much of the terms

[1:11:52] of reference um uh I would expect the

[1:11:56] group jointly to look at this together

[1:11:58] and see if there's room to move at this

[1:11:59] point. Any changes to the to the um to

[1:12:04] the terms of reference uh would need to

[1:12:06] be negotiated with the Squamish Nation.

[1:12:08] I do think this the task force is the

[1:12:11] best mechanism to sort recommend

[1:12:12] whatever those changes would be back to

[1:12:14] their joint to their their own um board

[1:12:18] or governance structure.

[1:12:20] Um,

[1:12:22] I'm not seeing any further hands for

[1:12:26] questions. So, I would like to I will

[1:12:29] move uh that council approve the terms

[1:12:32] of reference for the landback task force

[1:12:33] and appoint three members of council to

[1:12:35] serve on the landback task force as

[1:12:37] follows. Mayor Hurford, councelor

[1:12:39] Stoner, and councelor Anderson. And I'll

[1:12:41] speak to it if it's seconded. Second by

[1:12:43] councelor French. Thank you. I think um

[1:12:47] this is incredibly um important work. Um

[1:12:51] and I'm going to read directly from the

[1:12:55] um from the terms of reference. The

[1:12:57] Lambach task force exists to research,

[1:12:59] learn, and engage both District of

[1:13:01] Squamish residents and Squamish people

[1:13:04] on the concept of landback. Its primary

[1:13:06] goal is to develop a framework for land

[1:13:08] back in the District of Squamish,

[1:13:10] including policy considerations for

[1:13:11] future public land dispositions by the

[1:13:13] District of Squamish and joint use of

[1:13:15] district lands. I think this is in um

[1:13:19] incredibly important that we um

[1:13:23] that we have this dialogue with uh the

[1:13:26] Squam with the Squamish Nation directly

[1:13:28] and with our community around what um

[1:13:33] what this is and what it isn't. We've

[1:13:35] heard a little bit in the presentation

[1:13:36] around what this what this uh isn't in

[1:13:39] it is not something that's um and we do

[1:13:42] not have the juris the the entity itself

[1:13:45] the task force does not have jur does

[1:13:47] not have decision making uh um in power

[1:13:51] in and of itself and neither does this

[1:13:54] group have decision-making power around

[1:13:56] uh private private land. This is not

[1:13:59] what it's what it's about. But there are

[1:14:01] some very um uh meaningful conversations

[1:14:05] to be had and in a good way and those

[1:14:07] need to be shared with the community and

[1:14:08] that is a lot of uh of what this is in

[1:14:12] in my mind and I've heard some fear in

[1:14:14] the in the community um and around the

[1:14:16] the province and country around around

[1:14:19] this and I really uh my expectation is

[1:14:22] this can be a vehicle to fill those um

[1:14:26] uh to fill those gaps uh in

[1:14:28] understanding that uh folks have uh

[1:14:31] often filled themselves with with fear.

[1:14:34] So, this is um a really important piece

[1:14:37] uh of work and and I really think back

[1:14:40] to the protocol agreement where we

[1:14:42] committed to as a as a group in this

[1:14:45] room and as a community to listen and

[1:14:47] engage to follow the ways of the

[1:14:49] Squamish, to genuinely care, to learn

[1:14:51] the advice of the Squamish. And I love

[1:14:54] this one, the people go through it

[1:14:55] together. We are all going through this

[1:14:57] together as a community. the residents

[1:14:59] of Squamish and the and uh the Squamish

[1:15:03] Okme. We're going through this together

[1:15:05] and I think it's this is a together part

[1:15:08] of that as well as protecting the rights

[1:15:09] and title of the Squamish. So, I look

[1:15:11] forward to um to um working uh with

[1:15:16] Squamish Nation and my colleagues on

[1:15:17] this and um thank you to everybody

[1:15:20] involved to get us to this point. Um I

[1:15:24] I um I do think that having a table to

[1:15:28] sit at to discuss these matters with our

[1:15:31] uh neighbors at this at the Squamish

[1:15:33] Nation um is incredibly important and

[1:15:36] likely at any point in time, but

[1:15:37] particularly at this point in time. So

[1:15:38] I'm thankful for the creation of this

[1:15:40] initiative and look forward to doing the

[1:15:42] work. I will other comments on this.

[1:15:45] Councelor French.

[1:15:47] >> Thanks, Mayor Herford. Um this is

[1:15:49] » Thanks, Mayor Herford. Um this is

[1:15:49] exciting tonight. Uh the task force has

[1:15:51] an important historical mission ahead

[1:15:54] and coming into this meeting tonight

[1:15:56] I've had some mixed feedback on this

[1:15:58] task force from many people and

[1:16:01] surprisingly to me a little bit people

[1:16:04] from all over the province. Um, many

[1:16:07] eyes are on Squamish tonight with this

[1:16:10] decision and uh and this recommendation

[1:16:13] and this motion.

[1:16:15] And what I've discovered over the last

[1:16:17] couple of days in going through the

[1:16:19] feedback that I've seen is uh those who

[1:16:22] get what we're up to, they truly get it.

[1:16:25] Those who don't, in my opinion, are

[1:16:27] mainly driven by fear, feelings of

[1:16:29] superiority, and a belief that there's

[1:16:31] no historical wrongs to be reconciled. I

[1:16:34] fully disagree with that. There are

[1:16:37] wrongs to be corrected. And part of what

[1:16:40] we're doing tonight is taking that on.

[1:16:42] The path that we're continuing on with

[1:16:44] the Squamish nation feels minimal. When

[1:16:46] I think about my white European

[1:16:49] ancestors who came here, claimed these

[1:16:52] lands, and introduced the human

[1:16:54] construct that we call private property.

[1:16:56] And the newcomers to this place then

[1:16:58] tried to assimilate the Skoish people

[1:17:00] into European ways using what I think

[1:17:04] are cruel tactics. And many people agree

[1:17:07] with me on that. With no ability to undo

[1:17:09] the historical hurt brought to the

[1:17:11] people who lived here for thousands of

[1:17:13] years before my ancestors arrived, I see

[1:17:16] this task force as a small step along a

[1:17:19] path that we're meant to be on until we

[1:17:22] can all collectively agree that true

[1:17:24] reconciliation has been achieved with

[1:17:27] the Squamish people. Councelor Lewis

[1:17:30] told me a few days ago that she's stoked

[1:17:33] about the work of this task force and

[1:17:37] she's keen to learn who's appointed to

[1:17:39] the task force to represent the District

[1:17:41] of Squamish. We've achieved that I I

[1:17:43] think or we're about to confirm that

[1:17:46] tonight. And I want to add that

[1:17:49] transparency through this process is

[1:17:51] important to me individually. And I've

[1:17:53] heard from many in our community that

[1:17:55] transparency with this process is vital

[1:17:57] to them as well. I pledge to do all that

[1:18:01] I can to promote public education

[1:18:03] through this process and to keep the

[1:18:05] work of the task force as transparent as

[1:18:08] it possibly um can.

[1:18:11] And when my time in this seat comes to

[1:18:14] an end, I expect that I will point to

[1:18:16] the work of this task force as a high

[1:18:19] point in my political experience. I

[1:18:21] support the recommended appointments and

[1:18:24] um any one of the elected officials I

[1:18:26] believe in this room tonight would

[1:18:28] suitably represent the District of

[1:18:29] Squamish on this task force. I'm happy

[1:18:32] that we've selected the three that we

[1:18:33] have. I support the motion in front of

[1:18:35] us.

[1:18:36] >> Thank you very much, Councelor French.

[1:18:38] » Thank you very much, Councelor French.

[1:18:38] Councelor Sto.

[1:18:40] Yeah, thank you to the chair. Uh, happy

[1:18:42] to support this motion this evening. Um,

[1:18:46] and I think back to even when we just

[1:18:48] signed theou in mid July, the context

[1:18:52] was very different. Um, it was before

[1:18:54] the Kawashan tribes decision court case

[1:18:56] came forward. Um, and there was a real

[1:18:59] pivot in the provincial, let alone the

[1:19:01] national narrative around the path of

[1:19:04] reconciliation.

[1:19:05] Um, I think as I continue to reflect and

[1:19:08] and hear the concerns uh that are

[1:19:13] emerging and I think um some of them are

[1:19:18] they're definitely they feel like valid

[1:19:20] concerns for many folks because there's

[1:19:22] a lot of uncertainty. I actually think

[1:19:24] what this task force does and our

[1:19:26] continued commitment to recon

[1:19:27] reconciliation does is actually

[1:19:30] open up the opportunity for dialogue,

[1:19:33] for understanding, for education,

[1:19:35] learning, and sharing. And that is what

[1:19:38] our community does best across both

[1:19:41] Squamish residents as well as the Scoish

[1:19:43] people. Um, as Mayor Hurford reiterated,

[1:19:46] I think one of the most appropriate

[1:19:48] components of the principles of theou

[1:19:51] that applies here is that the people go

[1:19:53] through it together. We are all in this

[1:19:55] together and we're trying to find our

[1:19:57] way through it. I'd be lying if I said

[1:19:59] we all knew the answers. But to

[1:20:01] councelor French's point, I think our

[1:20:04] council, our staff, our community, and

[1:20:07] I've heard this from the Squamish

[1:20:08] Nation, this task force is committed to

[1:20:11] transparency, to engagement, to

[1:20:14] research, and shared learning,

[1:20:16] developing a framework that we can all

[1:20:18] feel comfortable with to move us forward

[1:20:20] on a stronger foundation. Um, because we

[1:20:24] are all going to be here together no

[1:20:25] matter what. we can either battle it out

[1:20:27] in court or we can build strong working

[1:20:30] relationships and move forward together,

[1:20:32] show up represented to the province

[1:20:35] together as opposed to apart. And I

[1:20:37] think that's the piece that we're

[1:20:38] looking for in this work. Um, and I'm

[1:20:41] honored to take it on on behalf of

[1:20:42] council of community and with community

[1:20:44] and with council and our staff.

[1:20:48] >> Thank you for that, Councelor S.

[1:20:49] » Thank you for that, Councelor S.

[1:20:49] Councelor Anderson.

[1:20:51] >> Thank you, Mayor Herford. Uh it will be

[1:20:54] » Thank you, Mayor Herford. Uh it will be

[1:20:54] a great privilege and responsibility to

[1:20:56] be serving on this task force. I am

[1:20:59] looking forward to to fulfill the

[1:21:02] principle that's outlined in the snap

[1:21:04] presentation tonight. One of those

[1:21:05] principles, listen and engage. And I'm

[1:21:07] going to be learning how to pronounce

[1:21:09] that in the Squamish language. But

[1:21:10] that's one that leaps out for me. Uh we

[1:21:13] need in response to community interest

[1:21:16] as well. Of course, I see this I'm

[1:21:17] looking forward to a process of

[1:21:19] exploration as well as an educational

[1:21:21] process. Um I councelor French has so

[1:21:26] eloquently uh reminded us that or

[1:21:28] pointed out that many eyes will be on

[1:21:31] Squamish. So uh it will be important for

[1:21:35] a learning process

[1:21:37] important for other communities and

[1:21:39] agencies well beyond Squamish. So this

[1:21:42] is an added responsibility that uh I

[1:21:45] look forward to facing. Thank you very

[1:21:47] much.

[1:21:48] >> Thank you, Councelor Penning.

[1:21:50] » Thank you, Councelor Penning.

[1:21:50] >> Yeah, thank you. Uh happy to support the

[1:21:52] » Yeah, thank you. Uh happy to support the

[1:21:52] motion. Um just reflecting on a few

[1:21:55] things. I was never really a a huge fan

[1:21:58] of the the Harper government, but in

[1:22:00] 2008 uh that government uh apologized

[1:22:03] for the residential school system and

[1:22:06] later a couple years later adopted uh

[1:22:08] United Nation Declaration on the Rights

[1:22:10] of Indigenous Peoples with with a small

[1:22:11] caveat. But then in 2016, the Liberal

[1:22:14] government, I guess the other side of

[1:22:15] the aisle, you might say, uh fully

[1:22:17] endorsed it. Um and so you know

[1:22:21] colonialism and our history and how we

[1:22:23] move forward is something that Canada

[1:22:26] has been grappling with for a long time.

[1:22:28] Um our democratically elected national

[1:22:31] governments from both sides of the aisle

[1:22:33] seem to support when you sort of read um

[1:22:36] the text of of what they were doing and

[1:22:38] why they were doing it. It is, I think,

[1:22:40] as my colleague pointed out,

[1:22:42] understanding, there's a more

[1:22:43] constructive way than battling things

[1:22:45] out in court. When we try and understand

[1:22:46] and see each other's each others as

[1:22:48] human beings and trying to understand

[1:22:50] what we all need and how we can best

[1:22:52] move forward together, that's kind of

[1:22:54] the path to success. And that's what I

[1:22:55] really see is sort of the common element

[1:22:57] between these different governments and

[1:22:59] these different documents that we're all

[1:23:01] trying to work towards. And I I think

[1:23:02] that applies here, too. I'm really proud

[1:23:05] of our community every day on the

[1:23:07] National Day for Truth and

[1:23:08] Reconciliation. I see all the the orange

[1:23:10] shirts uh uh walking down the street

[1:23:13] together. And I think this is just sort

[1:23:15] of that next step. There is a whole lot

[1:23:18] of fear I think born out of a whole lot

[1:23:20] of information uh misinformation and

[1:23:22] political opportunism uh which is really

[1:23:25] quite frustrating. But I think this is a

[1:23:27] fantastic opportunity to have some

[1:23:29] really great conversation that I think

[1:23:31] uh should make things better for for

[1:23:33] everyone at the end of the day. I think

[1:23:35] this is a path of and it is the

[1:23:37] underlying goal of how do we make this a

[1:23:39] better place for everybody and I think

[1:23:40] that's really what this is all about.

[1:23:42] Um, and so I know this is something that

[1:23:45] our our whole council has felt

[1:23:46] passionate about and it's pretty hard to

[1:23:48] to I think we all sort of would would

[1:23:51] have liked to be in the room, but even

[1:23:52] if we're not in the room, um, we'll be

[1:23:55] finding other ways to support these

[1:23:57] absolutely critical efforts. Um, with

[1:24:00] that out of the way, just one small

[1:24:02] thing. I I do see that the budget for

[1:24:04] this is part of our broader memorandum

[1:24:07] of understanding uh, budget. I I do sort

[1:24:10] of wonder and maybe the task force needs

[1:24:11] to ask for this, but if if there's a bit

[1:24:13] of a a clear number that this task force

[1:24:15] sort of had to sort of scope like how

[1:24:17] far they can go in terms of having these

[1:24:19] community conversations and so on. Just

[1:24:21] a small thought as I read through the

[1:24:23] report, but otherwise um very happy to

[1:24:25] support this and uh thank you to the

[1:24:27] colleagues that will be leading this.

[1:24:29] >> Thank you, Councelor Hamilton.

[1:24:32] » Thank you, Councelor Hamilton.

[1:24:32] >> Yeah, thanks very much. I'm very happy

[1:24:34] » Yeah, thanks very much. I'm very happy

[1:24:34] to be supporting this motion. This is

[1:24:37] extraordinarily important work. Um, and

[1:24:40] I am extraordinarily grateful to my

[1:24:41] colleagues who are willing to take it on

[1:24:43] as members of the task force. Um, and

[1:24:46] I'm really grateful to staff for helping

[1:24:49] get the councils uh to this point. I

[1:24:53] think staff play a vital and pivotal

[1:24:55] role um in having our councils be uh

[1:24:59] able to have uh constructive, careful

[1:25:03] conversations, delicate and challenging

[1:25:05] conversations with each other. Um and so

[1:25:07] I think this task force is really a

[1:25:10] culmination of a lot of staff work um to

[1:25:12] be able to have challenging and

[1:25:13] difficult conversations uh with each

[1:25:15] other in uh open and um receptive ways.

[1:25:19] So, thank you to my colleagues for

[1:25:20] taking this on. Um, and I certainly

[1:25:24] would look forward to hearing uh as the

[1:25:26] task force progresses.

[1:25:29] >> Thank you very much. Um, and thank you

[1:25:32] » Thank you very much. Um, and thank you

[1:25:32] uh council for all the thoughtful

[1:25:33] comments. I I would love to riff on each

[1:25:35] of of the the themes that have emerged

[1:25:38] here. Um, and I do think that uh really

[1:25:41] highlights the uh importance of this uh

[1:25:44] of this work. So um we will this this is

[1:25:48] uh clearly not the but uh not the last

[1:25:50] touch point for the for this. So we'll

[1:25:52] save uh my comments for the next time

[1:25:55] these matters are before us. I'll call

[1:25:57] the question. All in favor?

[1:25:59] Motion carries unanimously. Thank you

[1:26:01] very much. Thank you for all your work.

[1:26:06] Um, so next, uh, we don't have any late

[1:26:09] agenda items or, uh, but or

[1:26:12] correspondence action requested, but we

[1:26:14] do have items referred from the consent

[1:26:16] agenda. So, we're on to 11

[1:26:19] uh C, I think, is what both of those

[1:26:23] are. So, Councelor Stoner, um, you

[1:26:26] pulled 6D1. So, this is the five-year

[1:26:30] the STR review. And just to orient

[1:26:33] everyone, I know council knows this. Uh

[1:26:36] for the most part, we don't um with

[1:26:39] these pieces where we have a a memo from

[1:26:41] staff uh come through. We don't have the

[1:26:44] staff uh available to answer answer

[1:26:47] questions. So if we have questions that

[1:26:49] are more uh involved, we could refer

[1:26:51] these to a future meeting to dig into

[1:26:53] them further. Um but uh just with that

[1:26:56] caveat, I will I will turn over to you

[1:26:58] to get us started, councelor Soner.

[1:27:00] Yeah, thank you uh through the chair. I

[1:27:03] was going to refer this to a future

[1:27:04] committee the whole for future for

[1:27:06] further discussion and if that's

[1:27:08] seconded I'll speak to it.

[1:27:09] >> I'll second it and do you want to go

[1:27:11] » I'll second it and do you want to go

[1:27:11] ahead?

[1:27:12] >> Yeah. Uh and thanks for supporting

[1:27:14] » Yeah. Uh and thanks for supporting

[1:27:14] seconding it before I actually

[1:27:15] articulated why I would like to discuss

[1:27:17] it further. Um but there are some

[1:27:19] components in the report uh that were

[1:27:23] that flagged me that I think are just

[1:27:25] worthy of some further council

[1:27:26] deliberation. in particular, um it is

[1:27:28] the suggestion that we continue to

[1:27:31] encourage folks to reapply

[1:27:34] for temporary use permits after their

[1:27:36] six years. Um so under the legislation,

[1:27:40] uh you technically can um reapply for a

[1:27:44] TUP under a new application.

[1:27:47] It's not generally our practice to do

[1:27:49] so. Um and I it I think that that's

[1:27:51] worthy of some council deliberation as

[1:27:53] to whether that is that is practice that

[1:27:55] we want to um address. And then we also

[1:27:57] got some late correspondences today from

[1:27:59] tourism Squamish uh that would also

[1:28:03] amplify um I think a further dialogue

[1:28:05] around our short-term rental regulation

[1:28:08] policy.

[1:28:11] >> Thank you. Um yeah, the thank you for

[1:28:14] » Thank you. Um yeah, the thank you for

[1:28:14] that. the the broader the TU issue here

[1:28:18] is is broader I think than obviously

[1:28:20] than just this use of t of t and I think

[1:28:23] that with that in mind just whether this

[1:28:26] is the um the preferred mechanism and I

[1:28:30] get that that's likely a future action

[1:28:31] thing that's not something that we have

[1:28:33] in our work plans but I'd really like to

[1:28:35] have a discussion around um around that

[1:28:38] and I think this is such an impactful

[1:28:40] piece for the community that it does

[1:28:42] deserve more space than uh and I know

[1:28:45] it's going to take more those sort of

[1:28:46] future action items piece make make good

[1:28:49] sense, but I do think we should spend a

[1:28:50] little bit more um time with this and

[1:28:52] address some of those or discuss some of

[1:28:54] those issues. I'll go to you c did I see

[1:28:56] a hand? No, you don't have to. You

[1:28:58] can't. Councelor Penn is that your hand?

[1:29:01] >> Yeah, I appreciate this coming back and

[1:29:02] » Yeah, I appreciate this coming back and

[1:29:02] just one thought maybe to uh for staff

[1:29:06] to think about or for us to think about

[1:29:08] when it comes back. I know there's been

[1:29:09] some question or concern about uh has

[1:29:12] this policy how many units has it

[1:29:14] returned to the long-term rental market.

[1:29:17] Um I think that is one aspect or in my

[1:29:20] mind one aspect or one goal. The other

[1:29:22] piece of it at least one other piece of

[1:29:24] it for me was um you know if if a a home

[1:29:28] can be a revenue generator um does that

[1:29:32] then raise the price and sort of force

[1:29:34] everyone to either do that or pay a very

[1:29:37] high price for a home? And so it's it's

[1:29:39] not just about returning uh units to the

[1:29:43] long-term market, but what it does to

[1:29:45] affordability. And we have many things

[1:29:47] pushing affordability in different

[1:29:48] directions. So not thinking that's, you

[1:29:51] know, there's one magic solution here,

[1:29:53] but um if there are any additional

[1:29:56] thoughts or new information about uh the

[1:29:59] push and pull there in terms of the

[1:30:01] affordability of a home, um that may be

[1:30:04] useful for our next discussion.

[1:30:08] Thank you. Um just another piece of this

[1:30:11] is the um the fees are meant uh I'm

[1:30:14] curious to dig into the fees a little

[1:30:15] bit. the um the fees revenue were uh

[1:30:20] generally 156,800

[1:30:22] and the annual um expenses to administer

[1:30:26] the program were at 145,000 and it did

[1:30:29] say that the third party monitoring

[1:30:30] services dropped out of that and I just

[1:30:32] I want to understand that better and if

[1:30:35] inside of that cost recovery piece and

[1:30:37] that's pretty close to the line with the

[1:30:39] numbers that are there um just how we're

[1:30:41] distributing those uh those uh fees

[1:30:44] inside of that I I think are is worth

[1:30:46] some. So, I'd like to dig into that

[1:30:48] little piece a little bit as well, but

[1:30:50] that is for a future meeting, which is

[1:30:52] exactly what the resolution is. So, with

[1:30:54] that, I'm going to call the question.

[1:30:55] All in favor? Motion carries

[1:30:57] unanimously. Thank you. And then back to

[1:30:59] you, Councelor Stoner. Item 62.

[1:31:03] >> Um, and I'm going to move receipt of

[1:31:05] » Um, and I'm going to move receipt of

[1:31:05] this memo uh because I just want to

[1:31:08] speak to it and highlight it.

[1:31:10] >> Is there a second for the motion?

[1:31:11] » Is there a second for the motion?

[1:31:11] Councelor French. Go ahead, Councelor S.

[1:31:14] >> Uh, yeah. Thanks. I couldn't help myself

[1:31:16] » Uh, yeah. Thanks. I couldn't help myself

[1:31:16] but to pull this one because I think

[1:31:17] that there's some really great numbers

[1:31:19] in this memo which speaks to uh the uh

[1:31:22] expansion of the evolve eBike share

[1:31:24] program which we launched last summer.

[1:31:27] So in just 166 days of its first year of

[1:31:30] operation, there were across 54 bikes

[1:31:32] were deployed from 18 locations that saw

[1:31:36] 1,318

[1:31:38] unique riders for a total trip of total

[1:31:41] number of trips of 3,96

[1:31:44] over those 166 days. Um so BCAA who runs

[1:31:49] the evolve program is looking to expand

[1:31:52] uh to an additional basic almost

[1:31:54] doubling their locations to 33 new

[1:31:56] locations extending into Gabali

[1:31:58] Highlands, Oceanfront, Brackendale and

[1:31:59] Mammqu uh and providing a new

[1:32:01] opportunity for folks not just ride on

[1:32:03] ebikes but also on e- scooters. And I

[1:32:05] think that this is a fantastic

[1:32:07] opportunity for our community to have

[1:32:09] different forms of transportation um and

[1:32:11] micro transportation across our

[1:32:15] very spread out community.

[1:32:19] >> Other comments on this council penning?

[1:32:22] » Other comments on this council penning?

[1:32:22] >> Yeah, I was very happy to see this. I

[1:32:24] » Yeah, I was very happy to see this. I

[1:32:24] think it was in the first week or two

[1:32:26] after launch uh which was not meant to

[1:32:29] go past the mamquam. I saw uh folks at

[1:32:32] the bag with a you know a pile of bikes

[1:32:34] cuz they they'd ridden the bikes to the

[1:32:35] bag and then they I guess rode them back

[1:32:37] downtown or wherever. Uh so having this

[1:32:39] uh available stops available in the

[1:32:41] whole community I think is uh is a great

[1:32:44] thing. Um uh sort of curious and ex

[1:32:48] really curious to see how the the

[1:32:50] scooters go. U I'm sort of wondering if

[1:32:53] those stay more localized. That's just a

[1:32:55] curiosity. Uh just a slight tangent. I I

[1:32:59] saw I think an email that the um the on

[1:33:02] demand transit service is starting to

[1:33:05] and and so there's a lot of really uh

[1:33:07] exciting things uh and I have people

[1:33:09] asking for for more already for the on

[1:33:11] demand. So it's great to see these

[1:33:14] things uh moving forward.

[1:33:17] >> Thank you. Any other comments on this?

[1:33:19] » Thank you. Any other comments on this?

[1:33:19] >> Um I'm going to say yes to those

[1:33:23] » Um I'm going to say yes to those

[1:33:23] comments that I've heard already around

[1:33:24] the table. This really remarkable

[1:33:26] success here. I think um Squamish um in

[1:33:32] various initiatives hasn't quite been

[1:33:34] the right size to support some other

[1:33:36] initiatives around asomely like car

[1:33:39] share as a you know we all know the the

[1:33:42] challenges but to see something um

[1:33:45] really be such a good fit for our

[1:33:47] community is really is really great and

[1:33:50] uh it shows when there is a there when

[1:33:52] there is a fit that works for people

[1:33:54] people will use it. those uh 1,318

[1:33:57] unique riders uh is that's a lot of

[1:34:00] people. That's impressive. And that is

[1:34:03] with only uh 54 ebikes in 18 locations.

[1:34:07] So, I'm really looking forward to uh

[1:34:10] seeing and and feeling how the community

[1:34:13] feels when there's um far more uh both

[1:34:17] locations and and bikes available. And

[1:34:20] one of the pieces that uh should jump

[1:34:22] out to everyone that reads this report

[1:34:25] uh not that there may be a line up for

[1:34:27] people to read this report is under the

[1:34:29] budget section. I'm going to read the

[1:34:30] very first section. The partnership does

[1:34:33] not cost the district money.

[1:34:38] Remarkable. So happy to support. Of

[1:34:41] course, we have uh folks uh do need to

[1:34:44] uh on our team that do need to do some

[1:34:47] what have been described as sort of

[1:34:48] light touches around uh some some

[1:34:51] planning uh for these, but essentially

[1:34:54] the operations of these um do not cost

[1:34:56] the district money and that's really

[1:34:58] remarkable. Um,

[1:35:02] oh, and a little side note that there

[1:35:04] are uh the bikes and the scooters both

[1:35:07] have uh GPS enabled and any that go

[1:35:10] astray are found and returned to so uh

[1:35:14] there has not been a a lost piece. Thank

[1:35:16] you for that. Um I'll call the question.

[1:35:18] All in favor? Motion carries. Thank you.

[1:35:21] I think those were the two pieces

[1:35:24] um left. So now uh we don't have any

[1:35:27] business arising from the minutes. We

[1:35:29] have no notice of motion. Open question

[1:35:32] period. Clarification related to agenda

[1:35:34] items. Is there anybody in the audience

[1:35:36] this evening that has a question of

[1:35:37] clarity for council? Um seeing none, uh

[1:35:42] council or staff announcements. Go

[1:35:44] ahead.

[1:35:46] >> Uh thanks Mayor Herford. I wanted to

[1:35:47] » Uh thanks Mayor Herford. I wanted to

[1:35:47] share that on Wednesday, March 4th, I

[1:35:49] attended a youth council event at House

[1:35:51] Sound Secondary. Some of my colleagues

[1:35:53] might want to pick up where I leave off

[1:35:55] on this. Uh thank you to councelor

[1:35:57] Stoner, Petting Gill, and Greenlaw for

[1:36:00] uh the work that um you did to prepare

[1:36:02] for the night and just generally your

[1:36:05] work with youth youth council. Uh there

[1:36:07] were uh no Squamish has some very bright

[1:36:11] young people who are engaged and

[1:36:14] actively working to make Squamish more

[1:36:16] inclusive and uh offer a wider range of

[1:36:20] things for all young people to do. I was

[1:36:22] impressed. the future is definitely

[1:36:25] bright.

[1:36:27] >> Thank you for that. I would agree with

[1:36:28] » Thank you for that. I would agree with

[1:36:28] that assessment. Uh councelor Anderson,

[1:36:32] >> thank you. Um the Railway Museum of BC

[1:36:36] » thank you. Um the Railway Museum of BC

[1:36:36] is hosting a seat to sky model train and

[1:36:39] hobby show. It's an annual affair and

[1:36:42] I've been to a few of them already.

[1:36:44] It'll be taking place this weekend,

[1:36:46] Saturday and Sunday, March 21st and

[1:36:48] 22nd. Fun for the whole family, says the

[1:36:50] ad. And that is certainly true. uh model

[1:36:53] train layouts of all scales, opportunity

[1:36:56] to climb onto the Royal Hudson or engine

[1:36:58] number two and other artifacts in the

[1:37:00] railway park. People can ride the

[1:37:02] museum's Bud Rail passenger car, be

[1:37:05] going up and down the track. Railway is

[1:37:08] topical these days and certainly in

[1:37:11] Squamish. And railway modelers are not

[1:37:13] only enthusiasts, rail fans, they are

[1:37:17] experts with broad knowledge of the

[1:37:19] history, technology and possibilities of

[1:37:21] railway transportation. So anybody's

[1:37:24] curiosity will be satisfied at this uh

[1:37:27] train and hobby model train and hobby

[1:37:29] show taking place this weekend. Thank

[1:37:31] you.

[1:37:33] >> Thank you for that. Um other go ahead

[1:37:36] » Thank you for that. Um other go ahead

[1:37:36] councelor Penniguel.

[1:37:38] >> Yeah, two things. one uh just we have an

[1:37:41] » Yeah, two things. one uh just we have an

[1:37:41] endocrinologist now in town uh

[1:37:44] regularly. So as a diabetic um I always

[1:37:47] had to do my calls remotely or sometimes

[1:37:49] they come to the drop-in center. I I

[1:37:51] think I think I was the first patient on

[1:37:54] their first day. So it is a

[1:37:57] endocrinologist that uh is typically in

[1:37:59] the city but they they have an office

[1:38:01] here now. And so for anyone uh

[1:38:03] struggling with diabetes and so on, um I

[1:38:06] I think it's sort of I know there's a

[1:38:08] lot of challenges that comes come with

[1:38:10] growth uh but but seeing more services

[1:38:12] like this I I think uh make the

[1:38:14] community a lot better. So that was

[1:38:15] great to see. Um and then I also just

[1:38:18] wanted to had an opportunity with my

[1:38:20] partner to go to the uh the fashion show

[1:38:22] at House Sound. It was a fundraiser for

[1:38:26] uh prom and uh a really great show. Um,

[1:38:30] it it hurt a little bit to hear some of

[1:38:32] the giggles and laughs at some of the

[1:38:33] outfits that, you know, I think we wore

[1:38:35] and we thought were cool, but it was uh

[1:38:39] it was a really great event. So, thank

[1:38:41] you to everyone who uh put that on.

[1:38:46] » You have to submit some photos to

[1:38:48] document this. Um, councelor Stoner.

[1:38:52] >> Yeah, thanks to the chair. I'm going to

[1:38:53] » Yeah, thanks to the chair. I'm going to

[1:38:53] look forward a little bit uh later this

[1:38:55] week. We will be welcoming welcoming a

[1:38:57] delegation um of local government

[1:39:00] officials from Zambia here in Squamish

[1:39:03] as part of the partnership and municipal

[1:39:04] innovation women in local leadership

[1:39:06] program that we've been involved with

[1:39:08] through the federation of Canadian

[1:39:09] municies and global affairs Canada. I'm

[1:39:12] actually not sure how many folks we'll

[1:39:13] be welcoming from Zambia but there'll be

[1:39:15] a group of folks uh who have traveled

[1:39:17] this way. Um and the PMI will project is

[1:39:20] really focused on achieving gender

[1:39:22] parity in local councils and ensuring

[1:39:23] inclusive approaches to service delivery

[1:39:26] um uh in in all the work that we do. And

[1:39:30] so we have been partnered with the local

[1:39:31] government association of Zambia um and

[1:39:34] we've had the opportunity for some

[1:39:35] myself and some staff members to go down

[1:39:38] um and work with the folks on the ground

[1:39:39] in Zambia and this is a chance for them

[1:39:41] to come here uh and share some of the

[1:39:43] learnings in both directions. So, uh,

[1:39:46] really excited to welcome them. Uh, and

[1:39:48] then also another

[1:39:51] component for youth council to flag and

[1:39:54] mark on your calendars at the end of

[1:39:55] April, Squamish Youth Council will be

[1:39:58] putting on a one-day event called Rise,

[1:40:01] uh, which the description says, "The

[1:40:03] Rise Youth Summit is an Inerson event

[1:40:04] where young people come together to

[1:40:06] share ideas, learn new skills, and

[1:40:07] ignite their passion for making a dis a

[1:40:09] difference. expect awesome speakers,

[1:40:11] interactive workshops, and tons of

[1:40:12] opportunities to network with peers who

[1:40:15] are just as driven as you are. And

[1:40:17] there's currently a call out for

[1:40:18] speakers, um either uh keynote speakers

[1:40:23] or folks who might want to deliver some

[1:40:25] workshops at this event. Um, and they

[1:40:28] are looking for folks who have skills or

[1:40:30] experiences to share that fit the areas

[1:40:32] of health and wellness, real life skills

[1:40:34] such as budgeting, cooking, mending,

[1:40:36] navigating taxes, leases, and other

[1:40:38] adultting basics as well as business and

[1:40:41] career basics. So, if anybody has any

[1:40:43] ideas on who would be a great speaker

[1:40:45] for youth council uh in their youth

[1:40:48] summit um who would like to share some

[1:40:50] tips and tricks on how to be an

[1:40:52] effective adult, I could sit in on a few

[1:40:55] of those. Um but uh there's an

[1:40:57] application form so um happy to share

[1:40:58] that with council if you feel like you

[1:41:00] would like to pass it on to someone.

[1:41:01] Thanks.

[1:41:04] >> Okay. Any other comments? Um

[1:41:08] » Okay. Any other comments? Um

[1:41:08] so um

[1:41:10] also attended the uh the youth council

[1:41:13] uh event uh and making the case for

[1:41:16] local businesses to uh I would say cater

[1:41:20] to uh youth and the benefits of doing

[1:41:24] that including suggestions around hours

[1:41:25] of operation and so on. It was great to

[1:41:27] sort of see them really um uh um

[1:41:31] articulating what they'd like to see and

[1:41:33] not and and being brave to uh really ask

[1:41:37] for it directly from the business

[1:41:39] community. So, um it was great. Uh and

[1:41:42] I'd like to thank both the the youth

[1:41:44] council members for their continued work

[1:41:47] and advocating for

[1:41:49] um the things they'd like to see in the

[1:41:50] community and to our business community

[1:41:52] for responding. It was really

[1:41:54] remarkable. We know that uh um just

[1:41:58] running a business is

[1:42:01] is very demanding and it's very

[1:42:02] challenging times to be in business and

[1:42:05] there was a big chunk of the business

[1:42:08] community came out to um to be part of

[1:42:11] the part of the event and um I think

[1:42:14] that's a great response to the to the

[1:42:16] youth in the community uh asking for

[1:42:18] that. So, um, and we've already heard

[1:42:21] some foreshadowing of what's coming

[1:42:23] ahead, uh, with with youth council. So,

[1:42:25] I look forward to, um, to seeing that.

[1:42:28] Um, since we were last here, um, I, uh,

[1:42:32] had opportunity to, um, we have a, I'm

[1:42:36] going to use air quotes, a monthly

[1:42:38] meeting with, uh, the mayors and chairs

[1:42:41] in the Cedr

[1:42:44] um, that seems to happen every couple

[1:42:47] months with everyone's with everyone's

[1:42:48] schedule. Um, so, uh, was this the week

[1:42:53] week before last? Um

[1:42:56] we got together in Whistler uh with um

[1:42:59] we had um uh Mike Richmond, mayor of

[1:43:04] Peton, Jack Crompson, Mayor Whistler,

[1:43:06] myself, we had uh Patrick Wiler joined

[1:43:08] us for the conversation and he brought

[1:43:10] with him um uh Gregor Robertson uh who

[1:43:14] is the um go through his portfolio here

[1:43:18] is the Minister of Housing and

[1:43:19] Infrastructure and Minister responsible

[1:43:21] for Pacific Economic Development Canada.

[1:43:23] So when I think about um the needs and

[1:43:27] uh concerns of CD sky, he's a critical

[1:43:30] uh player here and it was great to um

[1:43:32] very thankful for um our MP Patrick

[1:43:35] Wiler who does uh this is one of many

[1:43:38] examples of him bringing folks together

[1:43:39] and bringing the uh important um

[1:43:42] ministers from his uh from his

[1:43:44] government to community. And um and I

[1:43:49] was I um

[1:43:52] Mr. Robinson was very uh engaged and

[1:43:55] very knowledgeable about the moving

[1:43:56] pieces down to like a surprising level

[1:43:58] of detail happening in the ca in the

[1:44:00] ceda sky. So um many of the concerns

[1:44:03] that we uh we have a lot of things that

[1:44:05] are in our direct control uh in this

[1:44:07] room but a lot of things the community

[1:44:10] comes to us for require this um this

[1:44:14] advocacy piece and um it's hard to sort

[1:44:17] of highlight those places and times it's

[1:44:20] happening outside of direct letters and

[1:44:21] so on but uh this is a great opportunity

[1:44:23] and um I think we uh also showed great

[1:44:27] unity in the in the seed of sky around

[1:44:29] what the concerns

[1:44:31] uh are so um thankful for that for that

[1:44:34] opportunity and um and for Minister

[1:44:38] Robertson's time and um so of course the

[1:44:42] the devil's in the detail. I didn't

[1:44:44] leave there with a giant check or you

[1:44:45] know all the any of those matters

[1:44:47] resolved but um we are on the uh and

[1:44:50] will continue to be on the uh federal

[1:44:52] radar. Um I um last week I spent um a

[1:44:59] few days with my elected official

[1:45:01] colleagues at the at the local

[1:45:03] government leadership academy uh which

[1:45:06] is um an important initiative supported

[1:45:09] by the province to really make us be

[1:45:12] effective in these roles or uh aspires

[1:45:15] to at any rate. And it was great to I

[1:45:18] always enjoy spending time with my

[1:45:19] colleagues from around the the province.

[1:45:21] There was a lot of given where we are in

[1:45:23] the term, there was a lot of reflection

[1:45:25] and I I was really struck by how open

[1:45:28] everyone was to share their uh you know

[1:45:31] the strikes and gutters of this of this

[1:45:34] work um and um and lessons learned and

[1:45:38] um and uh and so on. So um excellent

[1:45:43] opportunity and just um again I'd like

[1:45:45] to really thank everyone that was

[1:45:47] involved. There was also um I think a

[1:45:49] highlight for us maybe locally would be

[1:45:52] there was a presentation but from the

[1:45:54] SLRD. Uh so Chair Ford was there uh RCAO

[1:45:59] uh was there um uh and um and the there

[1:46:04] was also um one of the staff members

[1:46:07] working on the um the guide book to

[1:46:10] reconciliation was uh was the the topic

[1:46:13] and it was great to share that with

[1:46:14] folks from around the the province. Um

[1:46:17] and um yeah, it was it was quite surreal

[1:46:21] to sort of be sitting in in the in the

[1:46:23] audience as someone that sits at the

[1:46:25] table that that um was there and just

[1:46:27] listening to the discussion and the

[1:46:29] context is just so varied for this work

[1:46:31] around around the province. We've had

[1:46:33] some discussion around on this topic

[1:46:35] already in this in this room today and

[1:46:36] it's it's different uh everywhere you

[1:46:40] go. So I thought um yeah that was a

[1:46:42] great a great session and um it was good

[1:46:44] to see that work sort of highlighted in

[1:46:46] that way. Um, I could go on, but I am

[1:46:50] very excited about um uh the Zambia

[1:46:53] delegation uh this week and um look

[1:46:56] forward to spending some time uh some

[1:46:58] time with them and uh I enjoy showing

[1:47:01] off uh our community and the more I get

[1:47:03] in the more time I spend in this role uh

[1:47:07] I enjoy showing uh folks from around the

[1:47:10] world in uh local government um not just

[1:47:15] the beautiful bits that you show your

[1:47:16] friend when you're when they come to

[1:47:17] your community, you're like, "Oh, we

[1:47:19] also have this and this." Like this is

[1:47:20] the totality of it and also our where

[1:47:23] our challenges are. So, look forward to

[1:47:25] having those honest conversations um

[1:47:27] going forward. Um and that's I see no

[1:47:31] other hands for this piece. So, um we

[1:47:34] don't have a motion to close. We don't

[1:47:36] have any in camera announcements. I'll

[1:47:38] be looking for Yes. Councelor Stoner,

[1:47:39] can I help you?

[1:47:41] >> I would move uh that the meeting be

[1:47:43] » I would move uh that the meeting be

[1:47:44] terminated. Uh, councelor French, I

[1:47:46] believe you're seconding that. Uh, I

[1:47:47] think I always feel funny calling the

[1:47:50] question even on this one. I think we'd

[1:47:51] all like to terminate the meeting. So,

[1:47:52] all in favor, motion carries. Now,

[1:47:56] council, if you were keeping score,

[1:47:57] we're actually not done our work today.

[1:47:59] We did not make it through the totality

[1:48:01] of our closed meeting that we had uh

[1:48:04] scheduled to conclude prior to this

[1:48:05] meeting. So, we'll take a we'll

[1:48:08] reconvene that meeting in um 15 minutes.

[1:48:12] uh will reconvene our special close

[1:48:14] meeting. So stretch your legs, but

[1:48:17] you're not done yet.

Regular Council - 17 Mar 2026

Transcript