[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.