[1. Opening Statement]
          [00:00:04]
          AND I'LL CALL OUR COUNCIL MEETING FOR MONDAY, NOVEMBER 1ST, 2021 TO ORDER, AND I'D LIKE TO BEGIN BY ACKNOWLEDGING THAT WE ARE LOCATED IN CHIEF DRYGEESE TERRITORY. 
          FROM TIME IMMEMORIAL, IT'S BEEN THE TRADITIONAL LAND OF THE YELLOWKNIFE'S DENE FIRST NATION. 
          WE RESPECT THE HISTORIES, LANGUAGES AND CULTURES OF ALL OTHER INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, INCLUDING THE NORTH SLAVE METIS AND ALL FIRST NATION METIS AND INUIT, WHOSE PRESENCE CONTINUES TO ENRICH OUR VIBRANT COMMUNITY. 
          [2. Approval of the agenda.]
MS. BASSI-KELLETT ANYTHING FURTHER TO ADD TO THE AGENDA? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR. 
          NO, NOTHING ELSE TO ADD. 
          THANK YOU. 
          NEXT, WE HAVE DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTERESTS IN THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF. 
          DOES ANY MEMBER HAVE A PECUNIARY INTEREST TODAY? SEEING, NONE. 
          NEXT, WE HAVE MEMORANDUM REGARDING WHETHER TO DISPOSE OF A PORTION OF LOT 
          [4. A memorandum regarding whether to dispose of a portion of Lot 1001, Quad 85J/8 to the owner of Lot 24, Block 13 (4702 Anderson‐Thomson Blvd); and whether to rezone that portion of Lot 1001, Quad 85J/8 under consideration for disposal to R2 – Residential – Low Density.]
1001 QUAD 85J/8 TO THE OWNER OF LOT 24 BLOCK 13, WHICH IS CIVIC ADDRESS 4702 ANDERSON THOMPSON BOULEVARD. 
          AND WHETHER TO REZONE THAT PORTION OF LOT 1001 QUAD 85J/8 UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR DISPOSAL TO R2, WHICH IS RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY MS. BASSI-KELLETT. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR. 
          YES, THE CITY RECEIVED A REQUEST FROM THE OWNER OF 4702 ANDERSON THOMPSON BOULEVARD TO PURCHASE 576 SQUARE METERS OF ADJACENT LANDS THAT ARE ZONED NATION THAT ARE ZONED NATURE PRESERVE AT THIS TIME. 
          CURRENTLY, THE PROPERTY, THE 4702 ANDERSON THOMPSON, HOSTS A HOME BASED BUSINESS NARWHAL AND A BED AND BREAKFAST. 
          AND IT'S TERRIFIC WHEN WE SEE BUSINESSES DEVELOP IN YELLOWKNIFE AND WHEN BUSINESSES GROW BEYOND THE PARAMETERS FOR A HOME BASED BUSINESS, WE ENCOURAGE BUSINESS OWNERS TO LOOK AT OPTIONS THAT ARE LEGITIMATE FOR EXPANSION. 
          IN THIS CASE, THE CITY STAFF IN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT HAVE WORKED WITH THE OWNER TO EXPLORE OPTIONS THAT COULD WORK FOR NARWHAL, INCLUDING SEEKING REZONING FROM RESIDENTIAL TO OLD TOWN MIXED. 
          AT THIS POINT, ADMINISTRATION DOES NOT RECOMMEND SELLING THE PORTION OF THE ADJACENT NATURE PRESERVE AS IT WOULD LEGITIMIZE A NON-COMPLIANT USE. 
          INSTEAD, WE URGE THE PROPERTY OWNER TO WORK WITH CITY ADMINISTRATION ON ALTERNATIVES. 
          THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND MS. ALLOOLOO I BELIEVE YOU WEREN'T LOOKING TO SPEAK JUST HERE FOR THE DISCUSSION, OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY ANY ANY COMMENTS? THANK YOU, HONORABLE MAYOR. 
          I AM AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS I DON'T REALLY HAVE A COMMENT QUITE AT THIS TIME, BUT I MAY AS AS THE CONVERSATION UNCOILS, THANK YOU. 
          OK. 
          PROCEDURALLY, WE DO THE COMMENTS AT THE BEGINNING FOR PROPONENTS AND THEN GO INTO DISCUSSION, BUT THAT BEING SAID, OF COURSE, BETWEEN OUR INITIAL DISCUSSION AND THEN WHEN WE VOTE ON IT NEXT MONDAY, YOU CAN ALSO SEND AN EMAIL IN WITH ANY COMMENTS AND YOU CAN ALSO COME IN AND SPEAK BEFORE WE VOTE ON IT AT COUNCIL NEXT WEEK. 
          SO. 
          I SEE. 
          OK, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. 
          PERHAPS I WILL MAKE A BRIEF COMMENT AT THIS TIME, IF I MAY. 
          SOME OF THE PROPOSALS THAT WERE BEING PUT FORWARD BY ADMINISTRATION, IN MY OPINION, WERE MORE INVASIVE ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAN WHAT I WAS PROPOSING. 
          SO I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN KNOWING WHAT THEY HAD IN MIND FURTHER THAN WHAT HAD BEEN PROPOSED. 
          AND JUST TO ALSO PERHAPS MENTION THAT THIS THIS LITTLE SLIVER OF LAND IS FAIRLY UNOBTRUSIVE. 
          IT'S BETWEEN MY HOUSE AND A DOCK. 
          AND ALTHOUGH IT DOESN'T FIT THE THE THE GENERAL PLAN PER SAY, IT'S SUCH A MINUSCULE PIECE OF LAND AS WELL. 
          THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS SUPPORTED THE BACK OF THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, HAS SUPPORTED AND DOES CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THE APPLICATION, SO THE NEIGHBORS ARE ARE ON BOARD. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU DOES COUNCIL, HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. ALLOOLOO COUNCILMAN MORGAN. 
          HMM. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ACTUALLY, IT'S I GUESS IT'S PARTLY FOR FOR CATHY AND FOR ADMINISTRATION. 
          I'M JUST STILL NOT CLEAR ON THE DISCUSSION THAT SEEMS TO HAVE HAPPENED AROUND ALTERNATIVES AND I FEEL LIKE I'M MISSING SOMETHING IT WASN'T CLEAR FROM THE MEMO TO ME WHAT WERE THESE ALTERNATIVES THAT WERE ACTUALLY PROPOSED AND WHY IT WASN'T ACCEPTABLE TO CATHY, BUT I JUST NEED MORE CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND HERE TO BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND HOW WE GOT TO THIS POINT. 
          I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO SPEAK TO SPEAK TO THAT AND THEN I'LL ASK MS. BASSI-KELLETT. 
          CERTAINLY, I COULD FIND THE EMAIL WITH THE DETAIL. 
          [00:05:03]
HOWEVER, JUST OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, THERE WAS SOME SUGGESTION THAT I PURCHASED NOT JUST THE LAND BESIDE, BUT THE LAND IN FRONT ALL THE WAY TO THE WATER AND THEN GO THROUGH RATHER LENGTHY PROCESS, WHICH WOULD TAKE TWO YEARS OR MORE. 
          THAT WOULD INCLUDE A TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF SORT OF OWNERSHIP, I SUPPOSE, FROM THE TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT. 
          THAT PROPOSAL I DON'T AGREE WITH AND NOR DO I FEEL THE NEIGHBORS WOULD BE IN AGREEMENT WITH SOMETHING SO, SO EXTENSIVE. 
          SO THAT WAS TO MY RECOLLECTION, THAT WAS THE EXTENT OF THE ALTERNATIVE SUGGESTED BY ADMINISTRATION. 
          OH, SORRY. 
          IT'S A GOOD TIME TO TO HEAR FROM ADMINISTRATION WHAT THEY'VE PROPOSED OR DO WE WAIT TILL AFTER? MS. BASSI-KELLETT, DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THAT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          I'LL ASK MS. WHITE TO SPEAK TO THIS. 
          RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE QUESTION. 
          AND IT'S VERY MUCH AS WAS DESCRIBED, SO THE PROPERTY IS THAT WE ARE SPEAKING OF IS OWNED, IT'S COMMISSIONERS LAND IN FRONT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HERE. 
          AND IN ADDITION TO WHAT IS IDENTIFIED IN FIGURE ONE AS THE BLUE PARCEL, IT WAS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF THAT ADDITIONAL LANDS THAT THE CITY APPROACHED THE GNWT TO SEE IF WE COULD CREATE THAT LARGER PARCEL TO ENCOMPASS THE REQUIRED PARKING BECAUSE THE BLUE PIECE PLUS LOT 24 BLOCK 13 STILL DOESN'T MAKE ENOUGH LAND TO PUT THAT PARKING AREA AS WELL. 
          THERE ARE MATERIALS THAT ARE CURRENTLY ON THE COMMISSIONER'S LAND, AS WELL AS DOCK AND ACCESS TO THE WATER. 
          SO WE WERE LOOKING TO FORMALLY RECOGNIZE THE BUSINESS AS WELL BY PROPOSING A REZONING TO THAT COMMERCIAL, AS WAS MENTIONED BY THE CITY MANAGER. 
          OK. 
          THANKS. 
          THANKS FOR THAT EXPLANATION THAT HELPS PROVIDE MORE CONTEXT. 
          OK. 
          AND SO MY NEXT QUESTION FOR FOR CATHY THEN WOULD BE. 
          SO IT SEEMS LIKE BEYOND THE PARCEL OF LAND THAT YOU'RE REQUESTING TO PURCHASE YOUR BUSINESS EXTENDS FURTHER ONTO OTHER PUBLIC PROPERTY AND WATERFRONT PROPERTY AROUND. 
          ARE YOU ABLE TO OPERATE YOUR BUSINESS WITHOUT ENCROACHING ON THE OTHER PUBLIC LANDS BEYOND THIS PARCEL THAT THAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR? JUST TO CLARIFY THE THE MATERIALS THAT WERE REFERENCED BY MS. WHITE ARE ACTUALLY A COUPLE OF TRAILERS, A BOAT, SO THEY'RE ACTUALLY THEY'RE PARKED AT THE END OF THE ROAD. 
          THEY'RE THEY'RE MOBILE STRUCTURES. 
          THAT WASN'T CLEAR EARLY ON IN THE APPLICATION, BUT I DID CLARIFY THAT THEY ARE JUST TWO, TWO OR THREE TRAILERS FULL OF CANOES, WHICH ARE EASILY MOVED IF THE LAND PURCHASE IS APPROVED. 
          MY INTENTION IS TO HAVE THE LAND LEVEL AND TO MAKE THE LAND MORE USABLE FOR PARKING, WHICH COULD ALLOW ME TO MOVE THOSE TRAILERS ONTO THE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY AND A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE DOCK, WHICH WAS ALSO MENTIONED. 
          THE DOCK WAS INSTALLED IN THE EARLY 1980S AT THE SAME TIME THAT THE DOCK WAS INSTALLED AT THE FAR END OF THE STREET. 
          A FEW NEIGHBORS GOT TOGETHER AT THIS END, FEW NEIGHBORS GOT TOGETHER AT THE OTHER END AND BUILT DOCKS, WHICH ARE COMMUNITY ACCESSIBLE. 
          THE FAR END DOC WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS OF ACQUIRING A COMMUNITY FUND, MUNICIPAL FUNDS FOR THE UPKEEP. 
          THIS DOCK DOWN MY END HAS BEEN CONTINUED AND CONTINUES TO BE MAINTAINED BY MYSELF, AND IT IS ACCESSIBLE NOT ONLY TO THE COMMUNITY BUT TO THE LARGER YELLOWKNIFE COMMUNITY. 
          IT IS NOT USED AS A PRIVATE DOCK. 
          OK, BUT DO YOU STORE YOUR MATERIALS LIKE BOATS AND THINGS LIKE THAT AT THIS DOCK ON A REGULAR BASIS AS PART OF YOUR BUSINESS, AT LEAST IN THE SUMMER? 
          [00:10:03]
WELL, YOU'RE WELCOME TO COME DOWN AND HAVE A LOOK. 
          THE OCCASIONALLY, WHEN THERE'S, FOR EXAMPLE, A KID'S CAMP, WE GET KIDS THAT ARE LIKE 7 TO 10 YEARS OLD. 
          THEY'RE THEY'RE NOT STRONG ENOUGH TO CARRY THE BOATS BACK AND FORTH. 
          SO DURING THE KIDS CAMP, SOMETIMES THEY'LL BE SOME CANOES DOWN BY THE WATER. 
          BUT GENERALLY, ON A WEEKLY BASIS, EVERYTHING'S BROUGHT UP AND PUT AWAY ON THE TRAILERS. 
          OK. 
          AND SO IF IF THIS APPLICATION TO PURCHASE THE LAND BESIDE YOUR PROPERTY IS DENIED. 
          WHAT WILL YOU DO THEN? I THINK, WELL, I'LL PROBABLY CONTINUE TO OPERATE AS I HAVE HERE FOR THE LAST 30 YEARS, WHICH IS. 
          LIKE WE'RE JUST A SMALL FAMILY BUSINESS, IT'S IT'S NOT, IN MY OPINION AND IN THE OPINION OF THE BACK BAY COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, WE DON'T WE'RE NOT INTRUSIVE IN ANY WAY. 
          WE DON'T AFFECT THE THE THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          IN FACT, I THINK IN SOME WAYS WE ADD TO THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          SO I DON'T SEE ANY PARTICULAR CHANGE, I MEAN, I WON'T BE ABLE TO REALLY MAKE ANY ANY PARTICULAR CHANGE, BUT I'M I'M KIND OF RAMBLING, BUT WHAT I WHAT I SEE IS IF THIS LAND IS MADE AVAILABLE, MY MY FOOTPRINT WILL ACTUALLY BE REDUCED AND CONTAINED TO THAT AREA. 
          OK, THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE, BUT THANKS FOR COMING AND BEING WITH US TODAY, CATHY, TO GIVE US MORE INSIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MS. ALLOOLOO? SEEING NONE. 
          OPENING IT UP TO QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS, SO QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR COMMENTS. 
          COUNCILLOR MORGAN, I DO SEE YOUR MIC ON. 
          DID YOU WANT TO? DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR OR I DO, ACTUALLY. 
          BUT IF THERE'S SOMEONE ELSE THAT WANTS TO GO FIRST, I CAN TURN MY MIC OFF. 
          OK, WE'LL GO WITH COUNCILLOR KONGE, COUNCILLOR MORGAN AND COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS. THANK YOU. 
          SO I HEAR IN THIS THAT THAT WE'RE OFFERING UP WATERFRONT LOTS. 
          LIKE IT, IT MAKES IT SOUND LIKE THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET. 
          TO BUY LAND THAT GOES UP TO THE WATER, IS THAT ME NOT READING CORRECTLY BETWEEN THE LINES OR [INAUDIBLE]? MS. BASSI-KELLETT? MS. WHITE. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE QUESTION. 
          WE DON'T CURRENTLY HAVE OWNERSHIP OR AT LEAST INTEREST IN THAT PROPERTY. 
          IT WAS IDENTIFIED THAT WE COULD WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO APPROACH BECAUSE IT IS COMMISSIONERS LAND THE [INAUDIBLE] TO SEE IF THERE WAS A WAY, WHETHER IT WAS SALE OR LEASE TO MAKE THAT LAND RECOGNIZED BY THE AS PART OF THE BUSINESS. 
          AND THE WHOLE OF THIS WOULD COME TOGETHER WITH A REZONING OF NOT JUST THE PROPERTY BEING REQUESTED TO BE SOLD, BUT ALL OF THE LANDS THAT MAY BE REQUIRED FOR THIS BUSINESS. 
          BECAUSE, AS THE CITY MANAGER IDENTIFIED, THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF A BUSINESS IN AN AREA THAT FITS WELL WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND IS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING TO TO SUPPORT. 
          OK. 
          I THINK THAT'S A SLIPPERY SLOPE, BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S LOTS OF PEOPLE AND BUSINESSES IN TOWN THAT WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE CITY ADVOCATE THAT THEY COULD GET SOME WATERFRONT LAND AS WELL. 
          SO I'M NOT SURE I'M IN SUPPORT OF OF THAT ON THE BLUE LOT THERE THAT MS. ALLOOLOO IS REQUESTING. 
          IT'S GROWTH MANAGEMENT IN OUR NEW COMMUNITY PLAN, WHAT WOULD WHAT WOULD THE NORMAL PROCESS BE FOR SOMEBODY TO CARVE OUT A SLIVER OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT? BECAUSE I THINK, YOU KNOW, IF WE CAN SORT OUT A WAY TO DO THIS, I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF AREAS AROUND TOWN WHERE PEOPLE HAVE ADJACENT PROPERTIES TO GROWTH MANAGEMENT THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO ACQUIRE. 
          HAVE WE CONSIDERED THE THE PRECEDENTS THAT WILL BE SET WITH THIS? MS. BASSI-KELLETT. 
          MS. WHITE. 
          YES, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, AND YOU'RE RIGHT. 
          THAT WAS ONE CONSIDERATION WAS, IS THIS ALL OF THE LAND THAT IS REQUIRED? THERE IS A STRUCTURE ON THAT PIECE OF LAND, SO WE WERE LOOKING AND ASKED THE 
          [00:15:01]
APPLICANT TO IDENTIFY WHAT WOULD BE NECESSARY. 
          BUT AGAIN, WE'RE NOT RECOMMENDING THAT THIS TRANSFER TAKE PLACE AT THIS TIME UNTIL MORE IN DEPTH AND EVALUATION CAN BE DONE OF THE WHOLE BECAUSE REALLY, THIS SHOULD BE LOOKED AT NOT JUST WITH THE BLUE LAND AND THE LAND CURRENTLY OWNED, BUT THE LAND SURROUNDING SO. 
          SO YOU'RE RIGHT, IT IS A BIGGER QUESTION AND MORE IMPLICATIONS TO REVIEW. 
          I WOULD SAY TO TO CLARIFY MS. WHITE, THAT'S NOT A GROWTH MANAGEMENT. 
          THAT'S NATURE PRESERVE. 
          AND [INADUIBLE] YEAH. 
          COULD I [INAUDIBLE] CLARIFICATION TO SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN SAID, WHICH IS INCORRECT? SURE, WE DON'T REALLY GO BACK AND FORTH, BUT FOR THIS POINT. 
          JUST TO CLARIFY FOR MR. KONGE, THE LAND I'M SEEKING TO PURCHASE IS NOT WATERFRONT. 
          THAT WAS PART OF THE PROPOSAL PUT FORWARD BY ADMINISTRATION THAT I PURCHASED WATERFRONT, SO I'M ONLY LOOKING AT THE LAND BESIDE NOT LOOKING AT WATERFRONT. 
          WELL, THANK YOU. 
          I DO REALIZE THAT, BUT I JUST FOUND IT INTERESTING BECAUSE WATERFRONT LAND IS, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE BEING OFFERED, PERHAPS WATERFRONT LAND WHEN I'M QUITE CERTAIN THAT THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE IN TOWN, THAT WOULD BE. 
          WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY AS WELL. 
          SO I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS ON THIS, THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, COUNCILLOR MORGAN. 
          AND I THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. 
          SO I. 
          OK. 
          I GUESS MY QUESTION FOR ADMINISTRATION, SO IT SAYS THAT SHOULD THIS APPLICATION BE DENIED, THEN THE CITY WOULD PROCEED WITH COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS. 
          AND CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT THE EXPECTATIONS WOULD BE MS. ALLOOLOO IF WE [INAUDIBLE]? WELL ON THE ONE HAND, IF WE DENY THE PURCHASE OF THIS LAND, WHAT WOULD BE THE EXPECTATIONS AND THEN IF WE SAY, OH NO, WELL, SHE SHOULD BE ABLE TO PURCHASE THIS LAND. 
          BUT WOULD THERE ALSO BE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS TAKEN AGAINST HER USE OF LAND THAT'S NOT THIS PARTICULAR LITTLE PARCEL OF LAND. 
          JUST TO GIVE US A SENSE OF WHAT THE SCENARIOS ARE. 
          YEAH, I GUESS IT'S ALSO NOT A DICHOTOMY BECAUSE WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF UPDATING OUR ZONING BYLAW. 
          SO WE ARE HOLDING A STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 27TH. 
          AND SO IF. 
          THIS PARCEL OF LAND WAS REZONED IN THE UPCOMING ZONING BYLAW. 
          THEN THERE'S ALSO THAT OPPORTUNITY THAT THE PURCHASE COULD THEN COME BACK TO COUNCIL. 
          SO JUST SO THAT FOLKS AREN'T IN A DICHOTOMY. 
          THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT OPTIONS ON THE TABLE. 
          MS. BASSI-KELLETT TO COUNCILLOR MORGAN'S QUESTION. 
          THANK YOU, MS. WHITE. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          TO THE TWO SCENARIOS PRESENTED. 
          THE FIRST IS IF THE BLUE PARCEL WERE NOT TO BE PURCHASED BY THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER, THE REMOVAL OF THE STRUCTURE FROM THAT LAND BECAUSE IT IS CURRENTLY CITY LAND WOULD BE REQUIRED BY THE APPLICANT. 
          AND IF THE BLUE PARCEL WAS TO BE ADDED TO LOT 24 BLOCK 13, THEN IT WOULD PROVIDE ADDITIONAL AREA AS THE APPLICANT IDENTIFIED TO LEAVE THAT STRUCTURE, AS WELL AS MOVE THE TRAILERS OFF OF THE OTHER LAND, ALL CONTAINED WITHIN ONE PARCEL. 
          AND IT WOULD BE ADMINISTRATION'S RECOMMENDATION THAT, YES, THAT BE REZONED ALL AS ONE PARCEL SHOULD THAT OCCUR. 
          OK. 
          I GUESS I'M I'M WONDERING IF ADMINISTRATION CAN EXPLAIN WHY IN THE MEMO IT'S PRESENTED AS. 
          THE COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS WILL HAPPEN IF COUNCIL DECIDES TO REJECT THIS APPLICATION LIKE TO ME, THE COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT SHOULD DEFINITELY HAPPEN REGARDLESS. 
          WHEN IT'S OUTSIDE THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL, I GUESS THERE'S TWO ISSUES HERE, THERE'S THE USE OF THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL OF LAND THAT SHE'S ASKING TO PURCHASE, AND THEN THERE'S THE USE OF THE OTHER SURROUNDING LAND FOR THE BUSINESS. 
          WELL, IF COUNCIL APPROVES THIS, THEN THERE'S NOTHING TO ENFORCE, BECAUSE THEN IT BECOMES LEGAL, EXCEPT THAT THERE'S STILL USE OF LAND THAT'S NOT ON THIS PARCEL TO BE PURCHASED. 
          THERE'S STILL ENCROACHMENT ON OTHER SORT OF PUBLIC LAND, SO I'M JUST WONDERING 
          [00:20:03]
WHY IT WAS PRESENTED IN THE MEMO AS SORT OF ONE OR THE OTHER, OR MAYBE I MISUNDERSTOOD. 
          COULD THERE STILL BE ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ACTIONS TAKEN FOR THE ENCROACHMENT ON THE LANDS NOT INCLUDED IN THE PARCEL? CORRECT. 
          MS. BASSI-KELLETT. 
          AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE POSSIBLE OTHER STRUCTURES THAT ARE IN THE LANEWAY. 
          YEAH, AND SO, YOU KNOW, PARKING OF VEHICLES AND TRAILERS, IF THERE'S ITEMS LEFT AROUND THE DOCKS OR, YEAH, OTHER STRUCTURES THAT MAY BE AROUND THAT ARE NOT ON EITHER THE THE OWNED LOT OR THE THE PARCEL THAT IS REQUESTED TO BE PURCHASED. 
          I GUESS TO MS. ALLOOLOO'S POINT, SHE'S SAYING THAT THE STUFF WOULD BE MOVED ON TO THIS ONE PARCEL, BUT MS. BASSI-KELLETT. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          MS. WHITE. 
          THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THE QUESTION, AND AND ULTIMATELY, IT'S OUR GOAL TO SUPPORT LOCAL BUSINESSES TO TRY TO CREATE A SOLUTION WHEN CERTAIN SCENARIOS PRESENT THEMSELVES. 
          AND WHILE YES, THERE ARE SOME TRAILERS THAT ARE ON WHAT WE WOULD CALL THE RIGHT OF WAY OR THE ROAD AREA, THOSE COULD BE MOVED IF THE PURCHASE WAS SUCCESSFUL TO THE HIGHLIGHTED BLUE AREA WHEN IT COMES TO THE COMMISSIONER'S LAND. 
          WE WOULD NOT NECESSARILY BE LOOKING TO ENFORCE THERE, BUT WITHOUT THE SALE OF THE LAND, THE NONCOMPLIANCE WOULD CONTINUE. 
          AND YES, THE CITY WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION WOULD WOULD MOVE FORWARD. 
          BUT AGAIN, WE WOULD LOVE TO SEE A SOLUTION WHERE WE CAN FIND AN ACCOMMODATION ALL WITHIN ONE PARCEL OF LAND. 
          OK. 
          AND JUST TO PROVIDE FURTHER CONTEXT HERE. 
          I HAD HEARD AND I WANTED TO GET CONFIRMATION THAT THIS WAS THE CASE, THAT A WHILE BACK THERE HAD BEEN SOME SQUATTERS SHACKS ALONG THE WATERFRONT THERE ON THE WATERFRONT SIDE OF [INAUDIBLE] THOMPSON BOULEVARD, AND THAT AT SOME POINT THE CITY BOUGHT OUT, YOU KNOW, A SQUATTER TO BE ABLE TO MOVE THEM OUT AND HAVE THAT BE PUBLIC LAND ALONG THE WATERFRONT. 
          IS THAT THE SAME PIECE OF LAND THAT NARWHAL NOW USES FOR THEIR BUSINESS, OR IS THAT WHERE THE ENCROACHMENT IS THAT THE ADMINISTRATION IS PROPOSING THAT THERE COULD BE A PROCESS TO TO PURCHASE THAT LAND ALONG THE WATERFRONT THERE? MS. BASSI-KELLETT. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR, HISTORICALLY ACROSS THE ROAD FROM SOME OF THE PROPERTIES ON ANDERSON THOMPSON. 
          THERE WERE SOME SHACKS WE ALL REMEMBER STAN THE MAN OR MANY OF US WILL REMEMBER STAN THE MAN, THOSE I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT HISTORY OF HOW THOSE DISAPPEARED MUCH BEFORE MY TIME WORKING FOR THE CITY. 
          BUT THEY WERE. 
          THOSE ARE NO LONGER THERE. 
          THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO WHERE WE ARE PROPOSING, AND WE'RE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN TALKING WITH MS. ALLOOLOO ABOUT THE POTENTIAL TO ACCESS. 
          I WILL ASK MS. WHITE IF SHE WANTS TO SPEAK TO ANY OF THE SPECIFICS AROUND WHERE THAT LAND IS. 
          ALL I CAN SAY IS THAT I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE EXACT LOCATION, HOWEVER, I'M NOT AWARE THAT IT WAS DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THE SUBJECT LINES. 
          OK, I'LL LEAVE QUESTIONS FOR NOW AND HAPPY TO HEAR WHAT OTHERS HAVE TO SAY ON THIS. 
          BUT I'LL HAVE MORE COMMENTS LATER. 
          THANK YOU, COUNCILLOR WILLIAM. 
          THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. 
          GOT A QUICK QUESTION FOR ADMINISTRATION, I BELIEVE THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IN REGARDS TO THE NEW ZONING BYLAW IS LOOKING TO BE R1. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT, YES. 
          YEAH. 
          OK. 
          SO FROM THE ADMINISTRATION'S POINT OF VIEW, AGAIN, I'M KIND OF SPEAKING MORE IN CONTEXT OF OF PREPARING US FOR SOME OF THE NEW ONE, THE NEW ZONING BYLAW THAT WE'RE WORKING ON. 
          AND I LOOKED AT SMALL BUSINESS AS THE DEFINITION. 
          AND IS IT THE ADMINISTRATION'S POSITION THAT THIS THAT THE CURRENT STATE OF THAT LOT IS THAT THE BUSINESS IS STILL CONSIDERED SECONDARY USE? I SEE LOTS OF MATERIAL AROUND THE YARD AND I KNOW THAT THERE WERE SOME DISCUSSIONS ON THAT. 
          IS IT THE CITY POSITION THAT IT'S THE PRIMARY USE OF THAT PARTICULAR LOT OR STILL CONSIDERED SECONDARY? MS. BASSI-KELLETT. 
          MS. WHITE. 
          THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION, THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          SO WE DID TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT IS IN PLACE RIGHT NOW, AND WHILE WE UNDERSTAND FROM THE APPLICANT, CURRENTLY THERE IS ONLY ONE BUSINESS RUNNING. 
          THERE IS TWO BUSINESS LICENSES FOR THIS PROPERTY. 
          AND AGAIN, BASED ON WHAT IS OUTSIDE, WHAT PORTION OF THE STRUCTURE IS ACTUALLY THE [INAUDIBLE]. 
          THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE BEING USED FOR THE BUSINESS OR BUSINESSES. 
          [00:25:02]
NO, WE WOULD SAY THAT THIS HAS GONE BEYOND AN ACCESSORY OR A SUBORDINATE USE, WHICH WAS WHY WE HAD CONVERSATIONS AND WOULD RECOMMEND THAT IT THE WHOLE IF IT WERE TO BE PURCHASED, BE REZONED TO THAT MIXED USE COMMERCIAL RECOGNITION, THEY WOULD STILL HAVE THE DWELLING AVAILABLE. 
          AND AS WE MENTIONED IN THE ZONING PROCESS, THIS IS THE KIND OF USE AND TRANSITION THAT WE ARE LOOKING TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF. 
          SO AT THIS POINT, NO, I WOULD SAY IT'S BEYOND THAT HOME BASED BUSINESS. 
          OK, THANK YOU SO. 
          JUST FURTHER TO THAT POINT AND GOING DOWN THE PATH THAT YOU STARTED, THERE WAS. 
          SO WHAT WOULD BE SOME OF THE COSTS ASSOCIATED TO A CLIENT FOR HAVING THAT REZONING DONE ON THAT PARTICULAR LOT? SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, THIS WAS APPROVED? WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS FOR THE RESIDENT TO HAVE THAT REZONED AND WHAT SORT OF HURDLES WOULD BE PRESENTED TO TO THE TO THE RESIDENT? MS. BASSI-KELLETT. 
          MS. WHITE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THAT'S A REALLY GOOD QUESTION ABOUT PROCESS. 
          SO BEFORE THE PROPERTY CAN BE REZONED, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE CREATED SO WE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAVE THAT SURVEY CREATED. 
          SO THERE'S A LEGAL DESCRIPTION SO THAT THE TWO PIECES CAN BE CONSOLIDATED TOGETHER. 
          AND THEN IT WOULD BE A REZONING ONLY ONE APPLICATION BECAUSE NOW IT'S ONE PARCEL RATHER THAN TWO THE REZONING WOULD BE FOR THAT ONE PIECE. 
          AGAIN, MORE MORE TIME THAN, I WOULD SAY, COST FOR THAT REZONING PROCESS. 
          BUT AGAIN, IT'S A PUBLIC PROCESS. 
          AND SO THE NEIGHBORS WOULD BE MADE AWARE AND WE WOULD GO THROUGH A VERY SIMILAR PROCESS TO WHAT WE'RE DOING AT THIS POINT. 
          OK, GREAT. 
          GREAT. 
          THAT REALLY HELPS ME THERE. 
          I GOT ONE MORE. 
          I'M GOING TO MAKE ONE NOTE HERE. 
          IT'S GREAT. 
          THE STRUCTURE THAT WAS ON THE LINE OF COUNCILLOR MORGAN'S QUESTIONS, DOES CITY ADMINISTRATION KNOW WHAT THE CURRENT USE OR HOW THAT STRUCTURE IS BEING CURRENTLY UTILIZED ON THAT LOT? MS. BASSI-KELLETT. 
          MS. WHITE. 
          YES, IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT IT'S CURRENTLY BEING USED AS STORAGE. 
          FOR THE SPECIFIC BUSINESS IN QUESTION, CORRECT? CORRECT. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          GREAT. 
          YEAH, OK, WELL, I'LL DEFINITELY LISTEN TO THE REST OF THE QUESTIONS OF SOME OF THE COUNCILS HAVE IT, BUT I CERTAINLY HAVE SOME COMMENTS. 
          THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY. 
          FURTHER QUESTIONS, THIS IS ALSO THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY WHETHER YOU'RE SUPPORTIVE OF OR WOULD LIKE AN ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION. 
          COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS. OR COUNCILLOR MORSE, DID YOU JUST COMMENTS OR DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? HAVE A QUESTION. 
          OK COUNCILLOR MORSE. 
          THANKS. 
          I HAVE TO ADMIT, LIKE READING THROUGH THIS MEMO AND KIND OF LISTENING TO THE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE ALREADY HAPPENED, IT'S IT FEELS A LITTLE BIT UNCLEAR TO ME. 
          WHAT ALTERNATIVE ADMINISTRATION IS PRESENTING HERE, BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE MS. ALLOOLOO HAS APPLIED FOR A CERTAIN PORTION OF LAND AND THE CITY IS COMING BACK AND SAYING, THAT'S NOT GOING TO WORK. 
          WE'D LIKE YOU TO BUY WATERFRONT PROPERTY IS WHAT I HEARD. 
          AND SO CAN I JUST GET SOME A BIT MORE CLARITY FROM ADMINISTRATION AS TO EXACTLY WHAT THEY THINK IS THE BETTER PATH FORWARD, CONSIDERING THE RECOMMENDING COUNCIL DOESN'T APPROVE THE CURRENT APPLICATION? CAN THE ADMINISTRATION JUST LAY OUT LIKE WHAT THEY THINK IT SOUNDS LIKE I THINK THE IDEA IS TO LET THE ZONING BYLAW GO FORWARD AND THEN MAYBE RECONSIDER AN APPLICATION, BUT IT'S BECOME A LITTLE BIT UNCLEAR TO ME IF I COULD JUST GET THAT CLARITY, THANKS. 
          MS. BASSI-KELLETT. 
          MS. WHITE. 
          THANK YOU, AND I'M HAPPY TO PROVIDE THE CLARIFICATION IN CONVERSATIONS WITH THE APPLICANT WHILE A NUMBER OF ALTERNATIVES WERE PRESENTED. 
          IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING FROM STAFF THAT THEY WERE NOT THE PATH IN WHICH THE APPLICANT WISHED TO GO. 
          THEREFORE, WE HAVE NOT PRESENTED THOSE TO COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION, SO THE ONLY CONSIDERATION AT PRESENT WOULD BE TO SELL THE LAND AND TO ENSURE THAT IT'S REZONED TO R2. 
          HOWEVER, UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT WOULD NOT CREATE COMPLIANCE BECAUSE THEY'RE STILL OUTSTANDING ISSUES IDENTIFIED. 
          OK, THANK YOU. 
          INTERESTING. 
          IT SOUNDED TO ME THAT THE THE THE APPLICANT, HOWEVER, IS KIND OF STATED THAT THEY THINK IF COUNCIL WERE TO APPROVE WHAT'S BEING PRESENTED TODAY, THAT IT'LL BE THAT THE ISSUES WITH ENCROACHMENT WOULD BE. 
          WILL BE DEALT WITH AS PART OF THAT. 
          [00:30:02]
I HAVE TO ADMIT IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFICULT FOR ME TO KIND OF SEE A CLEAR PATH FORWARD HERE, IT SEEMS SOMEWHAT REASONABLE TO KIND OF WAIT FOR REZONING. 
          AND TO CONSIDER ANOTHER APPLICATION, IT'S A BIT TOUGH WITH THE ADMINISTRATION NOT BRINGING ALTERNATIVES TO THE TABLE, THAT COUNCIL COULD HAVE CONSIDERED IT TO KIND OF LOOK AT THOSE AND SAY, WELL, THOSE THOSE SEEM LIKE REASONABLE OPTIONS. 
          SO IT'S KIND OF LIKE WE'VE GOT A RECOMMENDATION TO NOT APPROVE, WHICH, YOU KNOW, COULD CREATE SOME ISSUES UNTO ITSELF. 
          WE DO HAVE A LETTER FROM THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION SAYING IT THEY KNOW COUNCILLOR KONGE IS LISTING CONCERNS WITH PRECEDENTS. 
          WHEN I LOOK AT THIS PROPERTY JUST IN ITSELF AND NOT THE PRECEDENCE ISSUE, I MEAN, IT DOES SEEM LIKE A REASONABLE THING TO TO TO SELL THE PROPERTY OWNER AND ACQUIRE THE TAXES FROM THIS LITTLE PORTION OF LAND NEXT TO HER PROPERTY, AS IT'S NOT A PORTION OF LAND THAT THE CITY COULD OTHERWISE SELL OR USE. 
          IT'S ZONED NATURE PRESERVE. 
          BUT I MEAN, I DON'T THINK PEOPLE ARE KIND OF GOING INTO THE WOODS BACK THERE BEHIND THE PROPERTY AND AND USING IT. 
          SO I DON'T THINK IT'S LIKE A PIECE OF LAND THAT THAT IS VALUABLE TO THE CITIZENS OF YELLOWKNIFE FOR ITS PUBLIC USE. 
          SO IT SEEMS TO ME REASONABLE TO KIND OF IDENTIFY A SOLUTION IN WHICH WE CAN ALLOW THE BUSINESS TO EXPAND A LITTLE BIT. 
          IT'S A FAIRLY MINOR EXPANSION OF THE PROPERTY AND KIND OF LEGITIMIZE WHAT THE BUSINESS HAS BEEN DOING FOR A LONG TIME. 
          YOU KNOW, THE ONLY TOUGH THING IS IS KIND OF FIGURING OUT THE BEST WAY TO DO THAT. 
          SO. 
          YEAH, A PIECE OF ME IS IS WANTING TO PERHAPS SUGGESTS REFERRING THIS BACK TO ADMINISTRATION AND TO HAVE THEM COME FORWARD WITH SOME ALTERNATIVES THAT THEY THINK ARE MORE VIABLE, MAYBE WORK WITH THE BUSINESS OWNER A LITTLE BIT MORE, BUT I'M HESITANT TO JUST THROW THAT OUT THERE. 
          NOT. 
          YEAH. 
          I'M CURIOUS TO HEAR WHAT THE MAYOR HAS TO SAY AND PERHAPS OTHER COLLEAGUES. 
          ULTIMATELY, MY DESIRE, THOUGH, IS TO IS TO FIND A SOLUTION. 
          IT SEEMS LIKE A PRETTY REASONABLE REQUEST TO ME, AS I SAID, AND I THINK THAT PRECEDENTS ASIDE, SOMETIMES YOU CAN LOOK AT AN APPLICATION AND IT'S LIKE, I DON'T THINK THERE REALLY IS A BETTER USE FOR THIS LAND. 
          SO I DON'T SEE ANY MAJOR PROBLEMS WITH THE IDEA OF ALLOWING THEM TO EXPAND A LOT, A LITTLE BIT TO ALLOW THEM TO RUN A BUSINESS THAT THEY'VE BEEN RUNNING FOR FOR QUITE A LONG TIME. 
          I DON'T GET THE IMPRESSION THAT THE BUSINESS IS EGREGIOUSLY ENCROACHING ON ON CITY PROPERTY OR DOING ANYTHING TO SUGGEST THAT THEY WOULDN'T BE COMPLIANT IF THEY WERE TO ACHIEVE ACQUIRE A LITTLE BIT MORE LAND. 
          SO I DON'T KNOW. 
          THAT'S NOT REALLY A POSITION. 
          IT'S MAYBE A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFICULT ONE FOR ADMINISTRATION, BUT I GUESS IT'S JUST IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A TOUGH ONE TO TAKE A STRONG POSITION ON AT THIS POINT. 
          SO THAT'S KIND OF MY THOUGHTS AT THIS TIME. 
          ONE OF THE. 
          SO IN THE MEMO, PAGE EIGHT OF OUR GPC PACKAGE, IT TALKS ABOUT ALTERNATIVES PRESENTED, SO IT DOES TALK ABOUT CONVERTING THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL USE TO A COMMERCIAL OR MIXED USE THROUGH THE REZONING PROCESS, SPECIFICALLY TO OLD TOWN MIXED USE, SO TO SPEAK. 
          A LITTLE BIT ABOUT PROCESS. 
          COUNCIL CAN APPROVE SELLING THIS TO THE APPLICANT AND AND RECOMMEND THAT WE DO A REZONING, WHICH WOULD MEAN THAT WE WOULD HAVE FIRST READING OF THE REZONING NEXT MONDAY, WHICH IS NOVEMBER 8TH, WHICH THEN WOULD HAVE A STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING ON THE REZONING. 
          MONDAY, NOVEMBER 22ND. 
          THEN ON SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 27TH, WE WOULD HAVE A STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ZONING BYLAW, SO WE WOULD BE HAVING TWO STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ZONING IN THE SAME WEEK. 
          AND WE WOULD BE. 
          BASICALLY, THIS FIRST ZONING FOR THIS PARCEL OF LAND WOULD THEN CREATE A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING USE IN THE UPCOMING ZONING BYLAWS. 
          SO THAT'S THE PROCEDURAL CHALLENGE OF COUNCIL SUPPORTING THE SALE AND REZONING TODAY, WHICH IS WHY THE RECOMMENDATION WAS THAT THAT IF THE APPLICANT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          WANT THIS TO GO AHEAD THAT AT THE STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING ON SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 27TH, THAT EITHER COMMERCIAL RECREATION IS LISTED AS A USE, CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USE, PERHAPS AN R1, OR IT'S CHANGED TO OLD TOWN MIX. 
          SO THEN IT BECOMES A LEGAL CONFORMING PARCEL IN 2022 AND BEYOND. 
          AND THEN ONCE THE CIVIC ADDRESS OF ANDERSON THOMPSON IS ZONED, MIXED USE OR COMMERCIAL RECREATION IS LISTED AS A PERMITTED OR CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED IN R1. 
          [00:35:01]
THEN THE SALE COULD THEN COME TO COUNCIL IN 2022 WHEN WHEN THE ZONING BYLAW HAS BEEN AMENDED TO ALLOW THIS LEGAL USE OF OF THE OF THE MAIN PROPERTY. 
          SO IT'S IT'S JUST A LITTLE TRICKY TIMING BECAUSE WE WILL HAVE IF COUNCIL DOES WANT TO GO AHEAD WITH THE REZONING AND THE SALE OF THE LAND, WE'LL HAVE TWO STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ONE AGAIN RELATES TO THE CURRENT BYLAW AND ONE RELATES TO OUR FUTURE BYLAW. 
          SO. 
          UH, KIND OF THE THE NUANCE OF THE PROCEDURE. 
          I HAVE COUNCILLOR MORGAN WITH ONE MORE QUESTION, AND THEN I'LL I'LL LOOK TO AND YOU CAN DO YOUR COMMENTS AS WELL, COUNCILLOR MORGAN AND THEN WE'LL GO TO COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS AND COUNCILLOR PAYNE FOR COMMENTS. 
          OK, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR. 
          SO I HEARD FROM ADMINISTRATION ONE OF THE MAIN ARGUMENTS TO DENY THIS WAS THAT IT WOULD LEGITIMIZE. 
          YOU KNOW, THE CURRENT PRACTICES OF ENCROACHMENT AND NONCOMPLIANCE. 
          IF, BUT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. 
          THE ALTERNATIVE PATH THAT WAS DISCUSSED THAT WAS REJECTED BY THE APPLICANT TO PURCHASE MORE LAND AND THEN, I GUESS, CHANGE IT TO COMMERCIAL AND MIXED USE. 
          DOES THAT AVOID LEGITIMIZING YOU KNOW, THE CURRENT PRACTICES ARE OR HOW BECAUSE I MEAN, MY CONCERN HERE. 
          IS MAINLY ABOUT THE PRECEDENCE THAT WE'RE SETTING AND ENSURING THAT WE SET CLEAR RULES AND THAT WE ENFORCE THEM AND WE HAVE THE COMPLIANCE, SO THAT'S TO ME, THAT'S THE END GOAL. 
          ONE OF THE END GOALS THAT WE'RE GOING FOR HERE. 
          SO I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND OF THE DIFFERENT PATHS THAT WE'RE EXPLORING HERE ARE POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES THROWN OUT. 
          WHICH OF THEM DOESN'T LEGITIMIZE, YOU KNOW, NONCOMPLIANCE WITH ZONING BYLAWS? I THINK IT'S MORE ABOUT THE SO ZONING BYLAW, YES, HOME BASED BUSINESS IS THE DEFINITION IS LIMITED TO TWO PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE. 
          YOU CAN'T HAVE PEOPLE WORKING THERE WHO LIVE ELSEWHERE. 
          AND THEN AGAIN, IT'S ALSO LIMITED TO TWO ADULTS THAT LIVE THERE. 
          SO THAT'S HOW IT SHOULD BE RESOLVED TO A COMMERCIAL AND MIXED USE, WHICH IS OLD TOWN MIXED ZONE, BECAUSE WE CAN. 
          BECAUSE IN R 1 AND R2, IT'S NOT THAT IT'S [INAUDBILE], SO IT'S NO LONGER A HOME BASED BUSINESS. 
          OK, SO I UNDERSTAND THAT. 
          SO IT'S MAINLY THE PIECE ABOUT CHANGING TO COMMERCIAL OR MIXED USE RATHER THAN THE PART ABOUT PURCHASING PROPERTY THAT HELPS US TO GET THINGS MORE INTO COMPLIANCE AND AVOID LEGITIMIZING. 
          NOT [INAUDIBLE]. 
          OK. 
          AND SO IS IS THERE AN OPTION OF. 
          UH. 
          HAVING THIS ADDITIONAL PARCEL. 
          BE CONSOLIDATED INTO A LARGER NEW LOT AND HAVING THAT BE CHANGED TO A COMMERCIAL OR MIXED USE DESIGNATION, BUT NOT HAVE EXPANDED TO INCLUDE COMMISSIONERS LAND INCLUDED IN THE COMMERCIAL PARCEL IS THAT ONE OF THE OPTIONS BEING EXPLORED. 
          THAT COULD BE AN OPTION. 
          MS. BASSI-KELLETT. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          YES, IT COULD BE, AND I WILL ASK MS. WHITE TO RESPOND TO THE OPTION THAT WAS DISCUSSED AROUND ACCESS TO THE WATERFRONT TO LEGITIMIZE THE USE BY A FOR PROFIT BUSINESS OF THAT WATERFRONT LAND MS. WHITE. 
          GREAT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND YES, I JUST ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THIS OPTION WE'RE DISCUSSING RIGHT NOW WAS DISCUSSED WITH THE APPLICANT, BUT UNDERSTANDING THAT REZONING TO A COMMERCIAL USE WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT THEY WERE LOOKING TO DO. 
          BUT AS THE MAYOR HAS IDENTIFIED, THAT IS SOMETHING COUNCIL COULD MAKE AS PART OF THEIR RESOLUTION TO THE SITUATION. 
          BUT AS FOR ACCESS TO THE WATER ACROSS THE COMMISSIONER'S LAND, YES, WE WERE LOOKING AT DIFFERENT OPTIONS. 
          LIKE I SAID, WHETHER IT'S A SALE, WHETHER IT'S A LEASE TO LEGITIMIZE THAT USE AND PROVIDING THAT ACCESS TO SUPPORT THE LOCAL BUSINESS. 
          BECAUSE AGAIN, THIS IS A LOCAL BUSINESS WHICH WE'RE WE'RE LOOKING TO FIND A SOLUTION. 
          OK. 
          SO I KNOW THIS HAS BEEN CONFUSING A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH. 
          BUT I WANT TO START BY SAYING I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THE BUSINESS ITSELF, AND I DON'T THINK THAT THE THE BUSINESS IS HARMING THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTURBING THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          HOWEVER, I THINK WHAT IS HARMFUL BOTH TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND JUST IN TERMS OF SETTING A BIGGER PRECEDENT FOR THE CITY IS THE CONTINUED. 
          [00:40:04]
OVER MANY, MANY YEARS, YOU KNOW, NONCOMPLIANCE, ENCROACHMENT ON ON PUBLIC LANDS, AND SO I DON'T, YOU KNOW, THE GOAL IS NOT TO SHUT DOWN THE BUSINESS, THAT THAT'S HOW THE PROBLEM, BUT I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THE BUSINESS. 
          IS IN COMPLIANCE AND. 
          AND SO EITHER WE FIND A WAY TO, YOU KNOW, CHANGE THE RULES, CHANGE THE ZONING OR SOMETHING SO THAT. 
          IN IN A REASONABLE WAY, NOT JUST IN A WAY THAT INVOLVES, YOU KNOW, WIGGLING AROUND UNTIL WE FIND A WAY TO TECHNICALLY NOT BE BREAKING THE RULES, BUT IN A WAY THAT THE RULE MAKES SENSE, THAT IT'S A REASONABLE CHANGE OF THE ZONING OR THE LOT CONFIGURATION, AND THAT THE THE BUSINESS CAN THEN GOING FORWARD, BE IN COMPLIANCE. 
          AND WE CAN FEEL COMFORTABLE THAT WHEN WE ARE ENFORCING, SAY, THERE IS CONTINUED USE OF OTHER PUBLIC LANDS IN THE AREA THAT WE'RE NOT, YOU KNOW, AUTOMATICALLY SHUTTING DOWN THE BUSINESS NECESSARILY. 
          BUT. 
          YOU KNOW, FORCING THE BUSINESS TO STAY YOU LIVE WITHIN ITS MEANS OR, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER EXPRESSION YOU WANT TO THINK OF, BUT TO. 
          YEAH. 
          TO OPERATE WITHIN WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF ITS SUPPOSED TO WITHIN THE PROPERTY LINE, SO. 
          FROM WHAT I GENERALLY UNDERSTAND, ADMINISTRATION IS SAYING THAT THE PURCHASE OF THIS LOT IS NOT THE WAY TO GO TO GET TO THAT END GOAL. 
          SO EVEN THOUGH IT SEEMS COMPLICATED, I WILL SUPPORT THE RECOMMENDATION THAT ADMINISTRATION HAS MADE. 
          I BELIEVE YOU THAT THIS IS NOT THE BEST WAY, BUT I DO HOPE WE CAN FIND ALTERNATIVES OR FIND A PATH FORWARD THAT ACHIEVES, LIKE I'M SAYING, COMPLIANCE, YOU KNOW, WITHOUT SHUTTING DOWN THE BUSINESS BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT'S IT'S THE BUSINESS ITSELF THAT PEOPLE WANT TO SEE DESTROYED, THAT'S NOT WHAT ANYONE WANTS. 
          THANK YOU, COUNCILLOR, WILLIAM. 
          YEAH, THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. 
          YEAH, I'M ACTUALLY OF A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT FRAME OF THOUGHT ON THAT ONE. 
          I'M ACTUALLY NOT FOR THE RECOMMENDATION AND I WOULD APPROVE THE SALE OF THE LAND. 
          HOWEVER, WITH ONE LITTLE CAVEAT, WHICH WOULD BE WHAT THE ADMINISTRATION HAD SAID, WHICH IS THE REZONING OF THE OVERALL LOT FROM R1 TO SOME TYPE OF A MIXED USE. 
          THE REASONING BEHIND THAT IS IS THAT THAT WOULD TRIGGER A PUBLIC CONSULTATION, WHICH THEN NEIGHBORS WOULD GET AN ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN. 
          AND REALLY, I FEEL LIKE THESE ZONES ARE VERY MUCH MORE ABOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WHAT THEIR THOUGHTS AND DESIRES IS FOR FOR FOR THEIR HOMES. 
          SO IF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS SUPPORTIVE, WHICH THEY'VE ALREADY INDICATED THAT THEY ARE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS, THEN I COULDN'T. 
          I COULDN'T SEE THERE BEING A PROBLEM APPROVING SUCH A THING. 
          NOW, CERTAINLY JUST LIKE COUNCILLOR MORGAN HAD SAID, THOUGH, THAT THERE ARE SOME NON-CONFORMING ISSUES, ESPECIALLY IF IT WAS TO EXIST, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER IT CURRENTLY IS OR ONE. 
          SO I CERTAINLY WOULD SEE THAT THAT REZONING WOULD BE AN IMPORTANT KEY COMPONENT TO IT BECAUSE THEN, YOU KNOW, THE BUSINESS COULD THEN BE RESOLD COULD HAVE LEGITIMIZED THE STAFF THAT'S ON THERE. 
          I THINK THAT THERE WOULD BE ALSO LESS ENCROACHMENT AND OVERALL LESS FRICTION, AND I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE WHERE THAT A MAYOR CAME FROM, WHICH WAS THAT THERE'S ALREADY GOING TO BE A PUBLIC CONSULTATION AT THE END OF NOVEMBER. 
          SO WHY NOT JUST GET A RESIDENCE TO REZONE THAT ENTIRE AREA NOW, I THINK I'D HAVE A CHALLENGE THERE BECAUSE I THINK THAT THAT WOULD THEN PUT MORE ROADBLOCKS IN FRONT OF THE BUSINESS OWNER. 
          IT WOULD ALSO OPEN UP EVERYBODY ELSE THAT MAYBE WANTS TO DO SOMETHING IN THERE, WHEREAS THIS IS, YOU KNOW, A LONG TIME BUSINESS. 
          AND I THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT THIS ONE SPECIFIC LOT. 
          SO I'M NOT IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMO AS PRESENTED, AND I AND I WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF SELLING THAT LAND WITH THE CAVEAT THAT WE WOULD REZONE IT AS SOME TYPE OF A MIXED USE. 
          THANK YOU, COUNCILLOR PAYNE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THIS IS PRETTY CONFUSING, AND I'M NOT 100 PERCENT. 
          SURE. 
          THE PERSON THAT I AGREE WITH THE MOST WITH HIS COMMENTS WAS ACTUALLY JULIAN EARLIER ABOUT BRINGING IT BACK TO ADMINISTRATION FOR MORE ALTERNATIVES. 
          BUT I'M JUST WONDERING IF IF WE REZONE TO COMMERCIAL OR MIXED USE, WOULD THAT REZONING TRIGGER A TAX RATE CHANGE? AND IF SO, IS THAT THE REASON WHY THE ALTERNATIVE OF BUYING THE PROPERTY OR WORKING WITH THE PROPONENT TO BUY THE PROPERTY THAT GOES TO THE WATER? 
          [00:45:02]
IS THAT THE REASON, ONE OF THE REASONS WHY IT WAS NOT FAVORED? IT'S NOT ZONES THAT DICTATES TAXES, IT'S THE USE OF THE PROPERTY, SO MS. BASSI-KELLETT. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          NO, IT'S NOT ABOUT JUST SEEKING TO GET MORE TAX REVENUE. 
          IT'S LOOKING AT THE NATURE OF THE USE ON A RESIDENTIAL LAW. 
          AND SO HOME BASED BUSINESSES ARE A GREAT WAY FOR FOR SOMEONE TO DETERMINE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A LITTLE SIDE HUSTLE AND TO BE ABLE TO MAKE SOMETHING HAPPEN THAT'S GOING TO BE REALLY CONTRIBUTING TO THE COMMUNITY. 
          AND SO WHEN A BUSINESS GROWS, THAT'S A HOME BASED BUSINESS. 
          WE THINK THAT'S EXCELLENT. 
          IT DEMONSTRATES SUCCESS. 
          IT DEMONSTRATES THE VIABILITY OF THE BUSINESS. 
          BUT IT DOES RESULT IN CHANGES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          AND I WILL HEARKEN BACK TO NOT IN THIS CASE, BUT THERE HAVE BEEN CASES WHERE TOUR OPERATORS PRE-COVID, WE HAD LOTS OF COMPLAINTS ABOUT TOUR OPERATORS OPERATING IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS BECAUSE, HEY, IT STARTS OFF AS, HEY, I'M JUST BOOKING. 
          I'M JUST DOING SOME BOOKINGS FOR PEOPLE TO ALL OF A SUDDEN HAVING TOUR VANS PARKED AND IDLING ALL NIGHT AND DIFFERENT KINDS OF USES THAT ARE RELATED TO THE HOME BASED BUSINESS. 
          BUT THERE'S THAT NATURAL EXPANSION THAT HAPPENS. 
          SO THAT'S WHY WE SEE HOME BASED BUSINESSES. 
          THERE ARE PARAMETERS WITHIN THE ZONING BYLAW THAT WE REALLY WANT TO SUPPORT. 
          AND SO BUT WE DO SEE THAT THERE'S A NATURAL PROGRESSION. 
          WHEN BUSINESSES DO GROW, WE SEEK TO FIND OTHER WAYS TO LEGITIMIZE THEM. 
          AND THROUGH REZONING THAT ENABLES THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO HAVE A FULSOME ENGAGEMENT AROUND, HEY, IS THIS GOING TO MEAN, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE STAFF PARKING, THERE'S MORE ISSUES GOING ON. 
          DIFFERENT KINDS OF BUSINESSES WILL OPERATE IN DIFFERENT KINDS OF WAYS. 
          IN OLD TOWN, WE KNOW THE OLD TOWN MIXED MODEL WORKS REALLY WELL FOR FOR A SHARED MULTIPLE USE. 
          AND SO WE'VE SEEN THAT OPERATE WELL IN A LOT OF DIFFERENT AREAS OF OLD TOWN. 
          SO WE'RE PROPOSING THAT SOMETHING THAT LEGITIMIZES THE USE AND DOESN'T POSE ISSUES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WE WOULDN'T OTHERWISE. 
          WE DON'T SUPPORT ANYWHERE ELSE. 
          VERY CLEAR ON THAT IN THE ZONING BYLAW. 
          VERY CLEAR IN THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESS. 
          MS. WHITE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO ADD? NO, THANK YOU. 
          SO IN IN. 
          LET ME SEE IF I CAN PULL PULL THIS OUT OF IT. 
          SO. 
          WHAT USED TO BE THIS WOULD NORMALLY BE CONSIDERED A HOME BASED BUSINESS, BUT BECAUSE OF THE SUCCESS OVER. 
          I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY YEARS IT'S WOULD IT BE ALMOST CONSIDERED MORE OF A COMMERCIAL ENDEAVOR NOW AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR ARE TO HELP THE OWNER. 
          SO I GUESS SORT OF NUDGE THE OWNER TO FIND FIND A DIFFERENT LOCATION THAT WOULD MEET THOSE NEEDS BETTER. 
          I'M SEEING YOU SHAKING YOUR HEAD, SHEILA, BUT I'M. 
          I'M JUST NOT SURE. 
          YEAH, I THINK IN THE NEW ZONING BYLAW WOULD BE CONSIDERED COMMERCIAL RECREATION MS. BASSI-KELLETT. 
          I'LL ASK MS. WHITE [INAUDIBLE] THE WAY ON THIS ONE FOR THE TYPE OF ZONE. 
          GREAT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND THERE'D BE A COUPLE OF OPTIONS WITH REGARDS TO WHAT TYPE OF ZONE AND WHAT THE USE WOULD BE. 
          BUT TO ANSWER COUNCILLOR PAYNE'S QUESTION, NO, WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO. 
          I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY THAT'S AN OPTION THE APPLICANT HAS IS TO MOVE. 
          BUT THAT'S THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING. 
          WE'RE LOOKING TO COME UP WITH A SOLUTION SO THAT THE BUSINESS CAN REMAIN WHERE IT IS. 
          BUT AS MENTIONED EARLIER TO COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS, YES, THIS IS GREATER THAN A HOME BASED BUSINESS NOW. 
          SO WE'RE LOOKING AT WHAT TYPE OF COMMERCIAL RECOGNITION CAN WE GIVE THIS PROPERTY AND ENSURE THAT THEY CAN MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BYLAW? THANK YOU. 
          RIGHT NOW, I DON'T HAVE. 
          I WANT TO DO MORE RESEARCH ON THIS AND DO A BIT MORE READING. 
          I DON'T HAVE A CLEAR DIRECTION ON WHAT I WOULD SUPPORT. 
          SO I'LL JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT AT THE TIME BEING. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL, COUNCILLOR KONGE? THANK YOU. 
          YEAH, THIS IS REALLY AN INTERESTING MEMO THAT I THINK IS A WHOLE LOT MORE COMPLICATED THAN THAN WHAT IS SORT OF PRESENTED TO US. 
          YOU KNOW, I'M GOING TO SUPPORT WHAT ADMINISTRATION HAS PUT FORWARD HERE. 
          I THINK THAT. 
          FOR ME, IT'S A PRETTY SLIPPERY SLOPE, IF IF WE IF IF COUNCIL SAYS, YOU KNOW, WE WE'RE GOING TO SUPPORT THE APPLICANT AND AND CARVE OUT THAT PIECE OF LAND AND SELL THAT. 
          WELL, I MEAN, MY RECOMMENDATION TO EVERY OWNER IN CAMP LAKE ALONG ENTERPRISE DRIVE WHO WHO FRONTS THE, YOU KNOW, THAT EXTENSION THAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS HURRY UP AND PUT STUFF OUT THERE. 
          BECAUSE ONCE YOU PUT YOUR STUFF OUT THERE, THEN CITY WILL TRY TO FIND A SOLUTION. 
          AND PART OF THE SOLUTION IS MAYBE WE'LL SELL YOU THE LAND. 
          SO I THINK IT'S, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S A PRETTY SLIPPERY SLOPE, BUT WHEN THERE'S 
          [00:50:04]
ENCROACHMENTS THAT WE SUPPORT, THEN SELLING THE LAND SO THAT THERE'S NO LONGER ENCROACHMENTS, I HAVE A BIT OF, YOU KNOW, I WOULDN'T SUPPORT THAT. 
          UM. 
          YOU KNOW, IT'S GROWING PAINS. 
          I REMEMBER BEING ON [INAUDIBLE] CONSTRUCTION AND DIDN'T TAKE VERY LONG ON IT. 
          YOU KNOW, AS SOON AS I BOUGHT MY FIRST ONE TON TRUCK, IT WAS LIKE, OH YEAH, I'M NOT IN COMPLIANCE ANYMORE. 
          I NEED TO GO SOMEWHERE. 
          AND WE DID, BUT I MEAN, THAT'S IT'S NOT EASY. 
          DEFINITELY NOT EASY, ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE RUNNING A, YOU KNOW, WATER TIGHT ENTERPRISE LIKE CATHY IS, YOU KNOW, SHE NEEDS TO BE CLOSE TO THE WATER. 
          SO, YEAH, I MEAN, THERE'S LOTS OF THINGS GOING ON IN THIS. 
          WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE US IS WHETHER OR NOT WE WILL SUPPORT THE SALE OF THIS LAND. 
          AND BECAUSE I THINK IT'S A VERY SLIPPERY SLOPE, YOU KNOW, TO SELL LAND WHEN THERE ARE ENCROACHMENTS. 
          I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THE RECOMMENDATION THAT ADMINISTRATION HAS COME FORWARD. 
          AND I DO BELIEVE AND I'M HEARING ADMINISTRATION SAY THAT THERE ARE OTHER SOLUTIONS OUT THERE. 
          AND LOOK, YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY ADMINISTRATION AND AND, CATHY, THEY CAN COME TO SOME SORT OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT. 
          YEAH, WITHOUT IT BEING TOO PRECEDENT-SETTING, I MEAN. 
          YEAH. 
          I THINK IT'S A REALLY SLIPPERY SLOPE IF WE APPROVE IT, SO. 
          THAT'S WHERE I STAND ON IT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY OTHER COMMENTS? UM, FOR MYSELF. 
          IT'S A TRICKY ONE, BECAUSE WE'RE IN THE MIDST OF DOING THE FULL ZONING BYLAW REVIEW, SO PROCEDURALLY, I WANT US TO GO THROUGH THE FULL ZONING BYLAW AND FOR THIS PARCEL OF LAND TO AT THE END OF THIS MONTH, YOU KNOW, ENCOURAGE CATHY AND THE BACK BAY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION TO RECOMMEND THAT A CHANGE TO THE ZONING BYLAW IS MADE, THAT THIS PARCEL BECOMES OLD TOWN MIXED OR TO ALLOW COMMERCIAL RECREATION, WHATEVER IT MAY BE, AS EITHER PERMITTED OR CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USE IN R-1. 
          BUT. 
          AND THEN ONCE THAT'S ALLOWED IN THE AREA, THEN TO CONSIDER SELLING THE LAND. 
          I WOULDN'T RECOMMEND SELLING THE LAND RIGHT NOW BECAUSE IT IS, YOU KNOW, ZONES, NATURE PRESERVE AND PARKS AND REC AND URBAN AGRICULTURE COMMERCIAL IS PERMITTED AND CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED OR DISCRETIONARY USE, THAT WOULD BE THE TERM IN THE UPCOMING BYLAW, WHEREAS R-1 DOESN'T ALLOW THAT THAT USE. 
          SO JUST REALLY. 
          RECOGNIZING THAT WE'VE GOT TO TAKE THE LOOK ACROSS THE WHOLE CITY, SO FOR ME, IT'S IT'S ABOUT DOING THIS ZONING BYLAW FIRST AND THEN DOING THE SALE OF LANDS TO MATCH. 
          SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE RECOMMENDATION AS PRESENTED. 
          ANYTHING FURTHER FROM COUNCIL? SEEING NONE, THIS WILL COME FORWARD THEN TO BE VOTED ON NEXT MONDAY, WHICH IS NOVEMBER 8TH AT SEVEN P.M. 
          WITH THAT, THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS A MEMORANDUM REGARDING WHETHER TO ADOPT A 
          [5. A memorandum regarding whether to adopt a Proof of Vaccine Policy.]
PROOF OF VACCINE POLICY. 
          MS. BASSI-KELLETT, IF YOU'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE THE ITEM. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR. 
          I THINK IT'S WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT COVID HAS IMPACTED OUR WORLD IN COUNTLESS WAYS, AND THESE DAYS WE FEEL THE REVERBERATIONS OF BOTH THE DISEASE AS WELL AS THE TREATMENT. 
          AND ON OCTOBER 22ND, THE CHIEF PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICER ISSUED A PUBLIC HEALTH ORDER WHICH ALLOWED FOR INCREASED NUMBERS INDOORS AND OUTDOORS. 
          25 INDOORS AND 50 OUTDOORS AFTER OUR PROLONGED CIRCUIT BREAKER THIS FALL, WHERE WE DID SEE QUITE AN INCREASE IN THE CASELOADS IN YELLOWKNIFE. 
          BUT THIS ORDER ALSO INCLUDES AN OPTION TO GO FURTHER WITH A MANDATORY VACCINATION REQUIREMENT IN PLACE. 
          NUMBERS CAN GO BEYOND THE 25 AND 50. 
          THIS IS TERRIFIC NEWS, BUT IT POSES A CHALLENGE FOR MANY CITY FACILITIES THAT ARE DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE MANY MORE THAN 25, WHICH IS WHERE WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW AND WHAT WE DID RIGHT AWAY AFTER THAT ORDER CAME OUT. 
          DEMAND IS DEFINITELY THERE FROM USERS AND OPENING FACILITIES TO SMALL NUMBERS. 
          IF WE WERE TO STAY ONLY AT 25 HAS A BIG IMPACT ON OUR FISCAL POSITION AS A MUNICIPALITY, GIVEN THE COST TO OPERATE ARE THE SAME, BUT REVENUES FROM FEES AND CHARGES ARE 
          [00:55:03]
GREATLY REDUCED IF WE'RE CAPPED AT 25. 
          WE KNOW THAT WE'VE DONE A LOT OF RESEARCH AROUND THIS, AND YOU'LL HEAR MUCH MORE ON THIS AS WE TALK ABOUT THE IMPLICATIONS OF A PROOF OF VACCINE REQUIREMENT FOR STAFF. 
          WE KNOW THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION HAS ISSUED A STATEMENT ON MANDATORY VACCINE POLICIES AND PASSPORTS, AND THEY'VE REAFFIRMED THAT A PERSON WHO CHOOSES NOT TO GET VACCINATED BECAUSE OF A PERSONAL CHOICE OR SINGULAR BELIEF DOES NOT HAVE A HUMAN RIGHTS CASE OR THE RIGHT TO BE ACCOMMODATED. 
          SO AT THIS POINT, AS WE LOOK AT WHAT THE CHIEF PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICER'S ORDER LAYS OUT, WE HAVE OPTIONS. 
          AND THE FIRST OPTION WE CAN CONTINUE TO OPERATE UNDER THE CAP THAT'S SET OUT IN THE OCTOBER 22ND ORDER AND ALLOW 25 PEOPLE INTO OUR FACILITIES FOR CITY RUN PROGRAMS. WE CAN ESTABLISH A PROOF OF VACCINATION POLICY, WHICH ENABLES US TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE ALLOWED IN PENDING PROOF OF VACCINATION AND ID. 
          NOW, OF COURSE, THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THIS. 
          WE COULD GO TO THE CHIEF PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICER AND WE COULD APPLY TO ALLOW MORE PEOPLE IN WITHOUT PROOF OF VACCINATION. 
          BUT IN DISCUSSIONS THAT WE'VE HAD WITH THE CHIEF, THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICER, WE CAN EXPECT THE LIMITS TO BE RAISED. 
          BALLPARK THE 35 PEOPLE IN OUR FACILITIES. 
          GIVEN THE NATURE OF ACTIVITIES THAT TAKE PLACE IN OUR RECREATION FACILITIES. 
          THE CHIEF PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICERS OFFICE WOULD CONDUCT A RISK ASSESSMENT AND THE LIKELIHOOD OF SPREAD AND THE NATURE OF OURS IS HIGH. 
          GIVEN THAT THESE ARE ATHLETIC THINGS WHERE PEOPLE ARE SWIMMING IN CLOSE CONTACT, THEY'RE PLAYING SOCCER IN CLOSE CONTACT BETWEEN TALKING. 
          THIS IS A TOUGH ISSUE, AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT ISN'T POPULAR WITH SOME PEOPLE, BUT AS A MEANS TO TO EXPAND ACCESS TO OUR FACILITIES FOR MAXIMUM ENJOYMENT OF AS MANY LAWMAKERS AS POSSIBLE. 
          THE PROOF OF VACCINATION MANDATE IS A CLEAR PATH FORWARD. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I'LL BRING IT UP TO QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION. 
          COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS? WASN'T QUITE SURE I WAS JUST SORT OF LIKE HALF INDICATING THERE, BUT I GUESS I'LL GO FIRST. 
          YOU KNOW? YEAH, I GUESS MY FIRST QUESTION, I GUESS, WOULD BE IN THOSE DISCUSSIONS WHEN THE ADMINISTRATION HAD IT, DO THEY CURRENTLY HAVE ANY IDEA OF HOW LONG THE EXISTING PUBLIC HEALTH ORDER IS GOING TO BE IN EFFECT FOR? AND IS THERE ANY BENCHMARKS THAT THE CPA JOE IS LOOKING AT TO GET US THROUGH WHAT WAS A BIT OF AN OUTBREAK IN MID-SEPTEMBER THAT'S THEN TURNED INTO SOME FURTHER RESTRICTIONS IN THE TERRITORY? SO THE CURRENT ORDER THAT'S IN PLACE, ANY KIND OF BENCHMARKS ON WHEN THAT MAY END OR THINGS FOR RESIDENTS TO ACHIEVE FOR THEM TO GET BACK TO NORMAL. 
          MS. BASSI-KELLETT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE QUESTION. 
          NO, WE HAVEN'T HAD THAT KIND OF SENSE FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICER. 
          WHAT WE HAVE SEEN IS THAT THIS IS DEEMED TO BE A LONG TERM ORDER. 
          SO IF THAT IS IT ALL ILLUMINATING, THAT'S WHAT IT'S BEEN DEEMED AS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YEAH, THANK YOU FOR THAT, AND I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU ASKING THE QUESTION TO THEM, BUT WE ALL KNOW THAT SOME OF THEIR LONG TERM ORDERS OR THEIR PLANS HAVE CERTAINLY CHANGED MULTIPLE TIMES. 
          AND AS MUCH AS THEY, YOU KNOW, SAY THAT IT'S NOT POLITICAL, IT CERTAINLY SEEMS THAT, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE'S VOICES CAN SOMETIMES CHANGE THOSE PARTICULAR ORDERS. 
          YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'M LEFT WITH IN THIS DECISION IS THAT, YOU KNOW, PUBLIC HEALTH ORDERS SEEM TO CHANGE ALL THE TIME. 
          WE'VE BEEN A COUPLE OF YEARS IN AND THEY USED TO PUT BENCHMARKS OR THINGS THAT WE WERE LOOKING FOR TO RELIEVE THEM. 
          THEY'VE SORT OF STOPPED DOING THAT. 
          THEY'VE JUST SORT OF GIVEN THESE BLANKET DECREES NOW, YOU KNOW. 
          BUT YOU KNOW, THE THING I'M WORRIED ABOUT IS THAT WE WOULD BE CREATING A BYLAW OUT OF THIS. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THAT PUBLIC HEALTH ORDER CHANGES THE BYLAW THAT WE CREATE WOULD WOULD STILL REMAIN THE SAME. 
          AND I CERTAINLY AM ADVERSE TO, YOU KNOW, BARRING ANY RESIDENT FROM A FACILITY. 
          I SORT OF VIEW THESE MAYBE THAT'S ERRONEOUSLY, BUT I ACTUALLY THINK OF THESE FACILITIES AS BELONGING TO ALL YELLOWKNIFE AND ALL YELLOWKNIFE TAXPAYERS. 
          AND I THINK I WOULD HAVE A REAL TOUGH TIME, YOU KNOW, TAKING SOMEBODY'S TAX DOLLARS AND THEN SAYING THAT THEY COULDN'T MAKE USE OF A FACILITY BECAUSE OF A PERSONAL DECISION THAT THEY MADE. 
          AND CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT A DOCTOR AND OR AN EPIDEMIOLOGIST, SO I CERTAINLY AM UNCOMFORTABLE BARRING PEOPLE FROM. 
          YOU KNOW, FACILITIES THAT THEY PAID FOR BECAUSE OF ITS MANDATES. 
          [01:00:02]
I THINK FAIRNESS IS ALWAYS THE BEST, AND EVEN IF IT'S A SMALLER CAPACITY FOR A SMALL AMOUNT OF TIME UNTIL A NEW HEALTH ORDER GETS UNVEILED AT LEAST, THEN THE FACILITY IS ACCESSIBLE TO EVERYONE. 
          SO CERTAINLY, I MIGHT HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION BECAUSE I WAS ONLY HALF HANDED UP THERE. 
          I WASN'T QUITE QUITE READY, BUT I THOUGHT I WOULD JUST AT LEAST PUT MY INITIAL THOUGHT OUT THERE. 
          THE WAY I'M LEANING IS NOT BEING IN SUPPORT OF MEDALIST PRESENT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          JUST TO KNOW WHAT IT IS POLICY VERSUS A BYLAW, SO BUT RECOGNIZING THERE ISN'T A SECTION IN THERE RIGHT NOW, BUT THERE COULD BE THAT THE POLICY IS SET FOR REVIEW EVERY SIX MONTHS OR THE POLICY IS RESCINDED BASED ON ON X. 
          SO SOMETHING TO CONSIDER. 
          COUNCILLOR PAYNE? THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. 
          I GOT A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS AND THEN SOME COMMENTS. 
          FIRST OF ALL, IS THERE ANY PROOF THAT COVID HAS BEEN SPREAD WITHIN OUR FACILITIES IN THE PAST? MS. BASSI-KELLETT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR. 
          CITY ADMINISTRATION DOES NOT TRACK OR GAUGE WHERE THERE ARE CASES OF COVID, WHERE THERE ARE EXPOSURE NOTIFICATIONS, WE HAVE LOOKED AT THOSE, BUT WE CERTAINLY HAVEN'T TRACKED CASES. 
          WE DO LEAVE THAT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH PROFESSIONALS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OK, I APPRECIATE THAT ANSWER. 
          NORMALLY, IF THINGS WERE GOING TO BE IMPLEMENTED AS I THINK THIS IS A PRETTY SERIOUS THING TO DO TO BAR CITIZENS AND UPWARDS OF 20 PERCENT OF OUR CITIZENS AND OUR TAXPAYERS FROM OUR CITY FACILITIES, AND THEY PAY TAXES ON THESE ON THESE PROPERTIES. 
          SO FOR US TO, I WOULD BE DEMANDING SOME PROOF OF WHY WE'RE HAVING TO DO THIS. 
          EVERYTHING IN THE NEWS RIGHT NOW IS POINTING TOWARDS VACCINATED PEOPLE AND UNVACCINATED PEOPLE SPREADING, CONTRACTING, CARRYING THIS VIRAL LOAD THE SAME. 
          AND IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S A PRETTY EXCESSIVE THING TO DO RIGHT NOW, AND THIS SITUATION IS CHANGING DAILY, I DON'T THINK ANYBODY CAN DENY THAT. 
          YOU KNOW, WE'RE EVERY DAY WE WAKE UP. 
          EVERY TIME THE CPHO'S OFFICE MAKES A MAKES AN ANNOUNCEMENT, THE SITUATION CHANGES. 
          SO IT'S A REALLY IT'S THIS IS NOT A I HAVEN'T BEEN LOOKING FORWARD TO THIS CONVERSATION AND THIS IS NOT ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT I SUPPORT A VACCINE OR NOT. 
          THIS IS ABOUT IMPLEMENTING MANDATES THAT WE WILL PURPOSELY DISCRIMINATE AGAINST PEOPLE AND SEGREGATE AGAINST PEOPLE OR SEGREGATE PEOPLE. 
          YOU KNOW THIS WE HAVE I WROTE SOME NOTES HERE BECAUSE I DIDN'T WANT TO GET OFF OFF TOPIC. 
          THIS IS NON-INCLUSIVE IN NATURE. 
          THIS IS WE'RE A SOCIETY, ESPECIALLY ALL THE. 
          WE PRIDE OURSELVES ON BEING INCLUSIVE AND TREATING EVERYBODY GOOD. 
          AND IT SEEMS LIKE WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE NOW IS COMPLETELY AGAINST THIS AND I'M UPSET ABOUT THIS, AND IT'S DETRIMENTAL FOR PEOPLE'S MENTAL HEALTH AND THEIR PHYSICAL HEALTH. 
          WE'RE DENYING PEOPLE AT THE WORST TIME OF YEAR. 
          WE'RE GOING IN THE WINTER. 
          THIS IS WHERE PEOPLE ARE AT THEIR LOWEST AND THIS IS WHEN FACILITY SPORTS FACILITIES AND CITY FACILITIES MEAN THE MOST FOR PEOPLE, RIGHT? SO IF THIS IS A PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY, YOU KNOW, NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU TEXT ON [INAUDIBLE], YOU KNOW THIS. 
          THIS IS A PRETTY IMPORTANT THING FOR US TO SUPPORT PEOPLE'S MENTAL HEALTH, AND IT'S A SERIOUS PROBLEM. 
          WE HAVE THE RATES, I WENT ON TO THE COVID DASHBOARD THIS MORNING, THE RATES OF UNVACCINATED CASES IN THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES ARE AT 55 PERCENT. 
          THE RATES OF VACCINATED AND PARTIALLY VACCINATED ARE AT 45 PERCENT, SO THE NUMBERS ARE SLOWLY BECOMING ON PAR. 
          LAST MONTH IT WAS TEN POINTS IN THE DIFFERENCE, SO THAT'S FROM THEIR NUMBERS. 
          THIS CREATES A TWO TIERED CLASS SYSTEM AND THIS IS GOING TO BE FROM THE VACCINATED AND UNVACCINATED. 
          SO I DON'T THINK THAT'S A PROPER THING TO DO. 
          JUST DOING THIS WILL CONTRIBUTE TO KIDS GETTING BULLIED, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THE KIDS THAT ARE GOING TO BE STANDING ON THE OUTSIDE NOT ABLE TO GO IN. 
          FIRST OF ALL, EVERYBODY'S GOING TO KNOW THEIR VACCINATION STATUS AND KIDS ARE BEING KIDS AND THEY'RE GOING TO BULLY OTHER KIDS FOR IT AND WE'RE STANDING AND SUPPORTING 
          [01:05:05]
THAT. 
          THIS ALSO GIVES US A FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY. 
          COVID'S HERE AND IT'S HERE TO SAY, I DON'T KNOW WHY WE HAVEN'T. 
          JUST WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LEARN TO LIVE WITH THIS AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO CARRY ON WITH SOCIETY, THIS HAS DECIMATED OUR ECONOMY, THIS HAS DECIMATED OUR TOWN. 
          THERE'S HOW MANY BUSINESSES HAVE CLOSED OVER THIS? AND YOU KNOW, AND ARE WE GOING TO REDUCE TAXES FOR TAXPAYERS WHO WILL BE STANDING ON THE OUTSIDE OF THESE FACILITIES, NOT ALLOWED IN. 
          YOU KNOW, THESE ARE THESE ARE TAXPAYERS FACILITIES AND THEY'RE OWNED BY THE PEOPLE WE ARE VOTED IN BY THE PEOPLE THE ONLY AND I KNOW RIGHT NOW WE HAVE AN 80 PERCENT FULLY VACCINATED RATE IN THE TERRITORIES. 
          WE HAVE AN 85 PERCENT AT LEAST ONE DOSE RATE. 
          SO WE'RE AMONG THE HIGHEST IN THE COUNTRY AND WE STILL HAVE OUTBREAKS. 
          UM, AND THOSE OUTBREAKS CONTAIN PEOPLE WHO ARE VACCINATED. 
          SO I THINK WE'RE PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE. 
          I THINK THAT WE SHOULD WAIT ON THIS. 
          AND I THINK THAT WE SHOULD GO BACK TO THE CHIEF PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICER. 
          I MEAN, YOU HAVE ALMOST 50 PERCENT OF OUR POPULATION. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT POWER, THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE SHOULD HAVE SOME POWER, SHOULD HAVE A LOT MORE POWER THAN WHAT I'M SEEING. 
          YOU KNOW, I KNOW THAT IT'S NOT EASY FOR ADMINISTRATION AND FOR EVERYBODY THAT'S WORKING WITH THIS TO BE BRINGING BACK NEWS OF, YOU KNOW, MAYBE WE CAN ONLY GET THIRTY FIVE. 
          I SAY WE GO BACK AND I SAY WE FIGHT FOR MORE. 
          BUSINESSES ARE OUT THERE HANGING ON BY A THREAD, FIGHTING FOR EVERY PERSON THAT THEY CAN GET IN THE DOOR. 
          AND THERE'S BEEN SOME EXEMPTIONS IF THIS WAS, AND IT'S ARBITRARY. 
          THESE NUMBERS ARE ARBITRARY. 
          WE HAVE HUGE FACILITIES. 
          AND IF MASKING AND SOCIAL DISTANCING WORK, THEN WE SHOULD HAVE MORE PEOPLE. 
          THE MULTIPLEX SHOULD HAVE HOW MANY SQUARE FEET THAT PLACE IS. 
          BUT YOU KNOW, WE SAID 35. 
          SO FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, IT'S 35 AT EACH RINK AND IT'S 35 AT EACH FIELD HOUSE AND IT'S 35 AT WALKING TRACK. 
          YOU KNOW, ALL OF OUR FACILITIES HAVE THIS NUMBER. 
          WELL, IT WOULDN'T TAKE A WHOLE LOT MORE OF AN EXEMPTION TO GET WITHIN THE LIMITS THAT WE CAN WORK WITH AND NOT HAVE TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST PEOPLE. 
          SO MYSELF, I'M NOT SUPPORTING A VACCINE MANDATE AT ALL, AND I'M DISAPPOINTED THAT THIS IS EVEN SOMETHING THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. 
          AND YEAH, I'M JUST DISAPPOINTED, AND A YEAR AGO WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT WE'D BE HERE AND A YEAR FROM NOW, WHAT KIND OF CONVERSATIONS ARE WE GOING TO HAVE? AND THAT'S WHAT I WORRY ABOUT. 
          BUT THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY RIGHT NOW. 
          AND. 
          YEAH, I'M SURE I'LL HAVE MORE COMMENTS AS THESE AS MY COLLEAGUES MAKE COMMENTS ABOUT THIS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, COUNCILLOR SILVERIO? THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. 
          THAT'S A VERY PASSIONATE SPEECH THAT MY FRIEND, STEVE, YOU KNOW, WHEN I WAS READING THIS MEMO OVERNIGHT, I REALLY SET IT ON AND SLEEP ON AND EVERYTHING. 
          I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR IN MY STAND. 
          YOU KNOW, I RESPECT EVERYONE VACCINATED AND UNVACCINATED. 
          THOSE ARE PERSONAL CHOICES THAT WE MAKE. 
          JUST ON RECORD, I AM FULLY VACCINATED. 
          I HAVE THREE DOSES, A THIRD DOSE AS WELL. 
          THE ONLY THING LAST NIGHT WHEN I WAS THINKING I WENT BACK TO THE BASIC, YOU KNOW, FOR FAIRNESS. 
          SO I'M VACCINATED, I CAN ACCESS ALL THESE FACILITIES. 
          BUT HOWEVER, ON THE OTHER SIDE, THESE FACILITIES ARE BEING PAID AS WELL BY OTHER PEOPLE. 
          TO ME AS A HEALTHCARE WORKER, WE STILL KEEP TELLING THEM THAT, YOU KNOW, MASKING, SANITIZING, HAND WASHING, DISTANCING. 
          AND YES, I BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD, YOU KNOW, WE SHOULDN'T IMPLEMENT THE VACCINE BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I BELIEVE THAT WHEN THEY GO TO THE FACILITY, THAT'S BIG ENOUGH. 
          I THINK THAT'S SAFER FOR THEM TO STAY THERE. 
          ANOTHER THING, TOO, IS THAT I HATE TO DISCRIMINATE OTHER PEOPLE AS WELL. 
          WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS ALMOST 20, 21 MONTHS NOW. 
          I THINK, YOU KNOW, EVERY DAY THAT WE WAKE UP, ALL POLICIES ARE BEING CHANGED DAY TO DAY, EVEN HERE AS WE GO TO ALL OUR PATIENTS. 
          YOU KNOW, ONE THING THEY SAID TODAY, TOMORROW WOULD BE DIFFERENT. 
          WE KEEP ADJUSTING. 
          SO FOR ME, I WON'T SUPPORT THIS MEMO AS WELL BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT EVERYONE SHOULD 
          [01:10:07]
HAVE ACCESS TO ALL THE FACILITIES, ESPECIALLY FOR THE CITY. 
          YEAH, THAT'S IT FOR MY TWO CENTS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? COUNCILLOR KONGE? THANK YOU. 
          I'M WONDERING IF THE ADMINISTRATION HAS ASKED THE CPHO, HOW THE HIGH SCHOOLS ARE AND ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, HOW THEY ARE FUNCTIONING AT THE LEVELS THAT THEY'RE FUNCTIONING WITHOUT ANY VACCINE PASSPORTS. 
          MS. BASSI-KELLETT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          I'LL ASK MS. THISTLE IF SHE COULD WEIGH IN ON THIS. 
          SHE DID A LOT OF THE HEAVY LIFTING ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF OUR POLICY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          WE DIDN'T GO TO THE CHIEF PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICER TO INQUIRE ABOUT WHY CERTAIN GROUPS WERE EXEMPT OR NOT EXEMPT AS EVERYONE SEEING FROM THE ORDER. 
          THERE'S NUMEROUS GROUPS THAT ARE EXEMPT, INCLUDING LIQUOR STORES AND BIG RETAILERS. 
          WE DID NOT GO BACK AND ASK WHY CERTAIN GROUPS WERE AND THEY WEREN'T. 
          WE ARE SIMPLY BRINGING FORTH POLICY BASED ON THE CURRENTLY EXISTING ORDER AND THE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS. 
          IF YOU READ THE STATES TO INCREASE NUMBERS PLUS THE TWENTY FIVE, YOU NEED TO HAVE A PROOF OF VACCINE POLICY. 
          WE'VE SEEN IT ROLL OUT WITH BUSINESSES THROUGH COMMUNITY, SO WE BROUGHT THIS FORWARD FOR DISCUSSION AND DEBATE. 
          YOU KNOW, I'D LIKE TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION, ALTHOUGH, ABOUT HOW COME THE HIGH SCHOOLS, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE DEEMED ESSENTIAL, BUT I'M A FIRM BELIEVER THAT THAT OUR COMMUNITY FACILITIES ARE ESSENTIAL, ESPECIALLY TO OUR YOUTH. 
          YOU KNOW, IT KEEPS THEM ACTIVE FIT. 
          IT GIVES THEM, YOU KNOW, THOSE KIDS WHO ARE PERHAPS NOT ACADEMICALLY INCLINED. 
          IT GIVES THEM A SPACE WHERE THEY CAN GO AND THEY CAN THRIVE AT SOMETHING THEY'RE GOOD AT, WHETHER IT BE SWIMMING OR HOCKEY OR VOLLEYBALL, OR THERE'S ALL THESE DIFFERENT THINGS. 
          SO I MEAN, I I FEEL BASED ON ALL THE INFORMATION THAT I HAVE THAT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO PRESENT A PRETTY GOOD CASE TO THE CPHO THAT OUR FACILITIES ARE ESSENTIAL AND THEREFORE THEY SHOULD BE THE SAME AS THE KIDS GOING TO THE HIGH SCHOOL OR THE SAME AS ALL OF US GOING TO THE GROCERY STORE. 
          YOU KNOW, I GUESS MY NEXT QUESTION IS, HOW HAS THAT COME UP AT ALL IN ANY OF OUR DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CPHO OR ARE WE JUST? YEAH, THAT'S IT. 
          MS. BASSI-KELLETT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR. 
          AGAIN, WE'RE NOT MAKING THE PUBLIC HEALTH DECISIONS ON THIS, BUT WHAT WE DO KNOW IS THAT SPORTS ARE NOT EXEMPT. 
          WE'VE SEEN THAT IN THE CHIEF PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICERS ORDERS. 
          WE ALSO KNOW IN DISCUSSIONS THAT OUR FACILITIES, SWIMMING POOLS, HOCKEY ARENAS, SOCCER FIELDS ARE HIGH RISK. 
          PEOPLE ARE RUNNING, THEY'RE BREATHING HEAVY, THEY'RE ENGAGING WITH EACH OTHER, THEY'RE NOT MAINTAINING SIX FOOT DISTANCE. 
          SO IN THAT SENSE, THAT THERE IS A GREATER RISK. 
          SO THAT'S WHY IN DISCUSSIONS THAT WE'VE HAD, IF WE WERE TO PROPOSE AN ALTERNATIVE TO HAVING A PROOF OF VACCINE POLICY, THE INCREASE WE WOULD SEE WOULD BE PRETTY SMALL. 
          AND AGAIN, I DO WANT TO EMPHASIZE AS WE BRING THIS FORWARD, IT IS FOR PRECISELY THE REASON THAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED BY SOME. 
          HERE IT IS TO INCREASE THE ABILITY AND THE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE ABLE TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS OUR FACILITIES FROM THE CAP OF TWENTY FIVE RIGHT NOW. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YEAH. 
          I MEAN, I GUESS THEY WE'RE TRYING TO GET MORE PEOPLE IN THERE, BUT I ACTUALLY WENT ON TO OUR COUNCIL'S GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR 2019 TO 2022, AND GOAL NUMBER THREE IS ENSURING THE HIGH QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ALL. 
          INCLUDING FUTURE GENERATIONS. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, I FULLY RECOGNIZE THAT IN THE HIERARCHY OF OF WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE WORLD AND WITH THIS COVID THAT WE'RE PRETTY LOW ON THE TOTEM POLE AND WE'RE REACTING AND BEING TOLD WHAT TO DO AS MUCH AS, YOU KNOW, LIKE WE DON'T, WE ARE NOT THE DECISION MAKERS, BUT AT SOME POINT. 
          I MEAN, THE DECISIONS THAT ARE COMING DOWN TO THIS FROM MY OPINION, IS THEY'RE ALL OVER THE PLACE, THERE'S VERY LITTLE CONSISTENCY THEY TEND TO, YOU KNOW, NOT MAKE A LOT OF SENSE, THERE'S NOT A LOT OF DATA BEHIND IT, LIKE, DO WE? YOU KNOW, LIKE IT, JUST IT'S REALLY, REALLY DIFFICULT TO FOLLOW ALONG AND AND THINK THIS 
          [01:15:01]
THROUGH HOW MY MIND WORKS AND COME TO THE SAME CONCLUSIONS. 
          YOU KNOW, I TEND TO AGREE WITH ROMMEL. 
          I THINK THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE NEW ORDERS. 
          YOU KNOW, I THINK I THINK WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IS IF WE AS A COUNCIL, WE DECIDE NOT TO HAVE A VACCINE PASSPORT WHEN OUR WHEN OUR REVENUES COME IN WAY UNDER BUDGET, THAT'S GOING TO BE IT'S GOING TO IT'S GOING TO THE FINGER IS GOING TO POINT TO COUNCILMAN AND GO THAT'S YOUR FAULT BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE A VACCINE PASSPORT. 
          WELL. 
          I'M ACTUALLY WILLING TO ACCEPT THAT. 
          YEP. 
          I DIDN'T AGREE TO A VACCINE PASSPORT BECAUSE PEOPLE WHO ARE 19 AND OVER, THOSE ARE CHOICES THAT THEY MAKE. 
          BUT I HAVE A REALLY, REALLY HARD TIME AND I MEAN, I THINK MY RECORD SHOWS HOW MUCH I SUPPORT CHILD YOUTH SPORTS IN THIS CITY, WE DO A LOT PERSONALLY AND AS A COMPANY TO ENSURE THAT KIDS HAVE EVERY OPPORTUNITY THAT THERE IS TO TO BE ACTIVE AND TO DO THINGS. 
          AND I SEE THIS AS PUTTING A BUNCH OF KIDS BETWEEN THE AGES OF 12 AND 18 INTO A POSITION WHERE THEY'RE SCREWED. 
          THEY'RE NOT MAKING THEIR OWN DECISIONS THEY CAN THEY CAN GO AND GET A VACCINE AGAINST THEIR PARENTS WISHES. 
          IT'S TOTALLY POSSIBLE THAT THEY DO THAT. 
          BUT CAN YOU IMAGINE GOING HOME TO YOUR HOUSE AFTER DISOBEYING YOUR PARENTS TO THAT EXTENT AND EXPECTING THEM TO CONTINUE TO FEED YOU AND SUPPORT YOU AND PUT A ROOF OVER YOUR HEAD. 
          I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE EASY. 
          AND MY NEPHEW DID IT. 
          MY NEPHEW WENT AND GOT VAXXED. 
          HIS PARENTS AREN'T VAXXED. 
          IT'S DIFFICULT, I'M SEEING THAT IN MY HOME FAMILY. 
          AND I CAN'T DO IT. 
          SO WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS I WOULD LIKE TO GET A BLANKET EXEMPTION FROM THE CPHO FOR UNDER 18. 
          IF YOU'RE UNDER 18, YOU CAN COME INTO OUR FACILITIES, WE DON'T WANT TO SEE ANY PORT, ANY PASSPORTS IN ANY WHICH WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. 
          WE WANT TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT PASSPORTS FOR OVER 19. 
          THAT CAN BE A SEPARATE DISCUSSION, I MIGHT SUPPORT THAT. 
          BUT I DO NOT SUPPORT IT FOR UNDER 18, SO AS PRESENTED. 
          I DON'T SUPPORT IT. 
          IF WE GET SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAT SAYS THAT 18 AND UNDER. 
          YOU KNOW, THEY CAN GO INTO OUR FACILITIES. 
          THAT WOULD BE A NEW DISCUSSION THAT I MIGHT SUPPORT. 
          AND YEAH, THIS IS FRUSTRATING. 
          I THINK, YEAH. 
          IT IS. 
          THE GNWT POLICIES THEY'RE COMING UP WITH ARE CREATING CLASSES OF PEOPLE, AND IT IS IN A COMMUNITY LIKE YELLOWKNIFE, WHERE WE ARE SO TIGHT KNIT. 
          IT HURTS, AND I'M ANGRY ABOUT IT. 
          AND I THINK THAT THE GNWT POLITICIANS AND THE CPHO SHOULD DO BETTER. 
          IT'S TRICKY BECAUSE IT IS BALANCING PUBLIC HEALTH MEASURES ARE ALWAYS DIFFICULT, SO TO NOTE. 
          HOCKEY AND SOCCER BOTH HAVE THEIR RETURN TO PLAY PLANS IN PLACE. 
          THEY'RE REQUIRING VACCINES, SO NWT SOCCER EVENTS, WHICH INCLUDES ALL THE CLUBS, CAN HAVE UP TO ONE HUNDRED PEOPLE ON OUR FIELDS AND HOCKEY'S HAD THEIR LEAGUES THERE. 
          THEY'VE GOT A VACCINE, THEY'VE GOT THEIR PLAN OR VACCINE POLICY. 
          THEY'VE GOT THEIR PLANS IN PLACE SO THEY CAN HAVE UP TO 50 PER ICE SO THE CITY CAN CHOOSE TO NOT HAVE IT, AND OUR EVENTS WILL BE LIMITED TO TWENTY FIVE TO THIRTY FIVE. 
          BUT THOSE OTHER USER GROUPS ARE GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO HAVE THOSE HIGHER NUMBERS BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT LIKE EACH OF US HAS TO SUBMIT OUR OPENING PLANS. 
          SO I KNOW IT'S IT'S TRICKY AND HARD TO UNDERSTAND, BUT JUST WANT TO MAKE NOTE OF THAT. 
          YEAH, THANK YOU, BECAUSE I'VE HAD I'VE HAD PARENTS IN BOTH SOCCER AND HOCKEY WHO, FOR WHATEVER THE REASONS ARE, DON'T SUPPORT THE VACCINE AND AREN'T VACCINATED, AND NEITHER ARE THEIR FAMILIES. 
          AND I FEEL FOR THEIR KIDS. 
          I ABSOLUTELY FEEL FOR THE KIDS BECAUSE THEIR KIDS ARE NOT GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO GO ON THAT ICE. 
          AND IT'S NOT THE CHILD'S FAULT, IT'S NOT THE CHILD'S DECISION. 
          THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THEIR FAMILIES ARE FORCING UPON THEM FOR WHATEVER THE REASONS ARE. 
          AND WE AS A CITY. 
          OR ACTUALLY, IN THIS CASE, IT'S NOT EVEN THE CITY, IT'S THE USER GROUPS, NWT HOCKEY OR WHATEVER THE HOCKEY ASSOCIATION IS, NWT SOCCER THAT ARE NOW SAYING THAT, YOU KNOW, IF YOUR FAMILY DOESN'T BELIEVE IN THIS, YOU CAN'T PLAY WITH US. 
          AND. 
          [01:20:03]
YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO GO BACK VERY FAR, AND THERE WAS PEOPLE IN CANADA WHO WOULD SIT AT THE FRONT OF THE BUS. 
          AND WE WOULD, YOU KNOW, THEY WEREN'T ALLOWED TO SIT THERE. 
          IT WASN'T FOR THEM. 
          AND I THINK WE'RE DOING THE SAME THING HERE AND IT IT. 
          DOES COUNCIL WANT MORE INFORMATION ON THE SCIENCE AND WHY NUMBERS ARE SELECTED. 
          OR IS IT IT'S JUST STRAIGHT UP NOT INTERESTED IN INCREASING NUMBERS, AND WE'LL JUST KEEP THEM AT THOSE LOWER TWENTY FIVE TO THIRTY FIVE RANGE. 
          FOR ME, IT'S NOT ABOUT THE NUMBERS IT'S ABOUT. 
          I MEAN, I WANT OUR FACILITIES FULL, I WANT LOTS OF PEOPLE THERE. 
          BUT THE WAY WE'RE TRYING TO FILL UP OUR FACILITIES IS CREATING DIVISION. 
          AND FOR SOME OF THE PEOPLE, THE CHILDREN, FOR ME, ESPECIALLY. 
          IT'S NOT A CHOICE OF THEIRS. 
          IT IS BEING FORCED UPON THEM BY PARENTS AND THEN GOVERNMENTS, INCLUDING THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE. 
          WE ARE BASICALLY SAYING THAT. 
          YOU KNOW, YEAH YOUR FAMILY'S DECISION MEANS THAT YOU CAN'T PLAY. 
          I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. 
          YEP IF COUNCILLOR MORGAN AND THEN COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS WOULD COME BACK ON SECOND ROUND, BUT COUNCILLOR MORGAN. 
          THANKS. 
          SO FIRST, JUST THE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO YOUTH 12 TO 17. 
          THAT WAS CERTAINLY AN ISSUE THAT CAME UP FOR ME TOO WHEN I WAS THINKING ABOUT IT. 
          I MEAN, I SYMPATHIZE CERTAINLY WITH. 
          THE COMMENTS MADE AND COUNCILLOR KONGE IS, YOU KNOW, CONCERN AND PASSION TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GIVE ANY OPPORTUNITIES POSSIBLE TO YOUTH TO PARTICIPATE. 
          SO WHEN I LOOK TO THE END OF THE POLICY, THERE'S AN EXEMPTION IN THERE. 
          I MEAN, JUST MAKE SURE I'M READING IT OUT CORRECTLY. 
          SO THIS POLICY DOES NOT APPLY TO INDIVIDUALS 18 YEARS OF AGE AND UNDER WHO ARE ENTERING THE INDOOR PREMISES OF THIS FACILITY USED FOR SPORTS AND RECREATIONAL FITNESS FOR THE PURPOSES OF PARTICIPATING IN ORGANIZED YOUTH SPORT. 
          AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT'S PROBABLY SIMILAR TO OTHER POLICIES IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS. 
          I SAW A SIMILAR CLAUSE LIKE THAT IN THE ONTARIO PROOF OF VACCINATION POLICY. 
          CAN I JUST GET ADMINISTRATION TO EXPLAIN WHAT THE IDEAS BEHIND THAT AND AND HOW THAT WOULD ALLOW YOUTH 12 TO 17 TO STILL BE POTENTIALLY INCLUDED IN RECREATIONAL SPORTS? YEAH. 
          AND JUST TO FINISH THE CLAUSE THAT SAYS THAT ARE GOVERNED BY COVID 19 GUIDELINES FROM THEIR NATIONAL AND TERRITORIAL SPORTS ORGANIZATIONS, WHERE APPLICABLE. 
          MS. BASSI-KELLETT. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          MS. THISTLE. 
          THANKS FOR THE QUESTION. 
          YEAH, WE LOOKED AT POLICIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY, AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, THERE'S MANY SIMILARITIES AND THERE'S ALSO SOME DIFFERENCES BECAUSE IN SOME PLACES THINGS HAVE BEEN MANDATED PROVINCIALLY. 
          SO THERE'S LIKE PROVINCIAL DIRECTION TO HAVE PASSPORT VACCINATION PASSPORTS IS KIND OF THE TERM THAT'S BEING TOSSED AROUND. 
          AND THEN IN SOME PLACES, LIKE THE TERRITORY, IT'S BEEN PUSHED OUT TO INDIVIDUAL BUSINESSES AND MUNICIPALITIES TO DECIDE WHETHER THEY'RE GOING TO DO A PROOF OF VACCINATION POLICY OR NOT. 
          SO AS YOU CAN SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, IN ALBERTA, PROVINCIAL EDMONTON DID A POLICY, BUT CALGARY CHOSE TO ACTUALLY ADOPT A BYLAW AND MAKE IT MANDATORY UNDER THE BYLAW. 
          SO WE DID TAKE EXAMPLES, AND YES, MOST IF NOT ALL, HAD AN EXEMPTION. 
          AND THEN IF YOU LOOK AT THE ORDER THAT WAS ISSUED BY THE CHIEF PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICER, THERE'S ACTUALLY AN EXEMPTION IN THERE FOR A REQUIREMENT FOR SPORTS ORGANIZATIONS TO HAVE AN APPROVED PLAN BEFORE THEY CAN GO BACK TO PLAY. 
          SO IN THE ORDER, SWIMMING IS SPECIFICALLY NOT ALLOWED TO HAPPEN UNLESS THERE'S AN APPROVED SAFETY PLAN. 
          SO THE CITY PUT IN OUR PLAN, WE GOT APPROVED FOR LIMITED NUMBER. 
          HOWEVER, THE SWIM CLUB, FOR EXAMPLE, COULD GO ABOVE THAT NUMBER BECAUSE UNDER THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES CHIEF PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICER ORDER USER GROUPS SPECIFIC SPORTS GROUPS CAN APPLY. 
          MUST APPLY FOR THEIR. 
          TO BE ABLE TO GO BACK TO PLAY SO THE SWIM CLUB MIGHT BE ABLE TO HAVE AND I DON'T KNOW, BECAUSE I HAVEN'T SEEN THEIR LIST. 
          MAYBE THEY CAN HAVE 40 IN THE POOL AT A TIME, BUT THAT'S BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE THEIR SAFETY PLAN SUBMITTED TO THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICER AND APPROVED BY HER BEFORE THEY COULD GO BACK TO SWIMMING. 
          WHAT IT MEANS FOR THE CITY, FOR EXAMPLE, IS AT PUBLIC SWIM. 
          WE CAN'T EXCEED THE 25, SO THAT'S THE CAPACITY WE'LL STAY AT OR FOR SWIMMING 
          [01:25:01]
LESSONS, WHICH WE CAN DO. 
          KEEPING IN MIND THAT WE'LL STILL HAVE OUR OTHER SAFETY PRECAUTIONS IN PLACE, LIKE INCREASED CLEANING AND HAND SANITIZING AND MASKS UNTIL YOU GET IN THE WATER. 
          SIMILAR TO THE MULTIPLEX, THE SKATING GROUPS FIGURE SKATING HOCKEY, THEY HAVE OR CAN GO TO THE CHIEF PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICER AND SUBMIT THEIR SAFETY PLANS AND GET EXEMPTIONS. 
          AND AS THE MAYOR'S INDICATED, IT APPEARS THEY'VE BEEN APPROVED WITH PROOF OF VACCINE POLICIES TO EXCEED THOSE NUMBERS. 
          SO THE CITY, IF WE WERE IN A PUBLIC STATE, FOR EXAMPLE, WOULD BE LIMITED TO TWENTY FIVE ON THE ICE, WHEREAS HOCKEY MIGHT BE ALLOWED TO GO TO 50 BECAUSE POTENTIALLY THEY HAVE A PROOF OF VACCINE POLICY AND THEY HAVE ALL THESE OTHER PRECAUTIONS IN PLACE, LIKE MAINTAIN PHYSICAL DISTANCING, FACE MASKS BEING WORN, ET CETERA. 
          SO I CAN'T COMMENT ON THE PLANS THAT OTHER GROUPS SUBMITTED, BUT THAT'S WHY WE HAD THAT EXEMPTION THERE IS BECAUSE RECOGNIZING THAT KIDS IN THAT AGE GROUP ARE GOING TO BE GOVERNED BY THE RULES OF THEIR TSOS OR NATIONAL SPORTS ORGANIZATIONS AND HAVE TO SUBMIT THEIR OWN PLANS THAT MUST GET APPROVED BY THE CPHO BECAUSE THEY'RE COVERED UNDER A DIFFERENT SECTION OF THE ORDER. 
          I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT THAT IN THE POLICY, WHEN WE WERE DRAFTING IT. 
          THE ORDER SAYS 12 AND OLDER WE DID ELECT TO AMEND THAT TO SAY, PEOPLE ELIGIBLE FOR VACCINES, BECAUSE WE'RE ANTICIPATING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO OPEN IT UP TO YOUTH SHORTLY. 
          WE COULD JUST SAY OVER 18, BUT WE DIDN'T WANT A SITUATION WHERE COUNCIL, IF YOU WERE INTERESTED IN THE POLICY, WE APPROVED IT AND THEN A WEEK LATER, WE HAVE TO AMEND IT. 
          BUT THAT THAT COULD BE IT IF THE ORDER CHANGED AND AS MS. BASSI-KELLETT INDICATED, OR WE DON'T HAVE TO ADOPT A POLICY. 
          HOWEVER, IT'S UNLIKELY BASED ON THE INFORMATION ON THE WEBSITE AND THE ORDER THAT WE'LL GO ANYWHERE NEAR THE HUNDRED CAPACITY WITHOUT A PROOF OF VACCINE POLICY. 
          WE DON'T KNOW FOR HOW LONG THIS WILL BE IN PLACE. 
          YOU KNOW, SIGNS ARE THAT IT COULD BE FOR QUITE SOME TIME AS WE'RE SEEING FEDERALLY, YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO GET ON AN AIRPLANE WITHOUT PROOF OF VACCINE. 
          DIFFERENT PROVINCES HAVE PASSPORTS. 
          SO WILL IT CHANGE QUICKLY? MAYBE WE DON'T KNOW. 
          SO THIS WAS JUST AN OPTION FOR A WAY FOR US TO INCREASE CAPACITY AT FACILITIES, KNOWING THAT WE ARE HEADING INTO THE WINTER MONTHS TO GET MORE PEOPLE AT THE POOL AND PLACES LIKE THAT. 
          BUT AGAIN, WE CAN KEEP GOING WITH STATUS QUO BECAUSE IT HAS WORKED. 
          IT'S JUST LIMITING UNTIL SOMETHING CHANGES. 
          OK. 
          I'LL MAKE MAKE MY COMMENTS NOW. 
          SO FIRST OF ALL, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT. 
          WE REMEMBER THAT THIS IS A PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE AND NOT ABOUT. 
          YOU KNOW, DEMONIZING ANYONE OR SAYING THAT ANYBODY IS A BAD PERSON OR. 
          THIS IS ABOUT. 
          CREATING THE SAFEST POSSIBLE FACILITIES THAT WE CAN IN A RESPONSIBLE WAY, SO. 
          WE TALKED A LOT ABOUT PEOPLE'S PERSONAL DECISIONS, BUT THE REALITY IS. 
          THAT PEOPLE'S PERSONAL DECISIONS AFFECTS LOTS OF OTHER PEOPLE IN THIS CASE, THAT'S WHAT PUBLIC HEALTH MEANS. 
          AND I ALSO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT NONE OF US HERE ARE EXPERTS IN EPIDEMIOLOGY OR PUBLIC HEALTH, AND CERTAINLY THERE'S LOTS OF INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET AND AND PEOPLE MIGHT TRY TO READ DIFFERENT ARTICLES OR DIFFERENT THINGS AND INTERPRET IT IN THEIR OWN WAY. 
          AND. 
          AND PROBABLY IF WE GOT INTO DEBATE NOW ABOUT THIS DATA VERSUS THAT DATA AND EVIDENCE, WE MIGHT GET OURSELVES TANGLED IN KNOTS. 
          BUT. 
          WE HAVE PUBLIC HEALTH EXPERTS, WE HAVE EPIDEMIOLOGISTS, AND THEY'VE BEEN WORKING REALLY HARD AT THIS FOR A LONG TIME OR AT LEAST THE PAST YEAR AND A HALF. 
          AND SO THEY'VE TOLD US THAT IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS. THE ONLY WAY WE CAN PROTECT OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM FROM COMPLETELY COLLAPSING. 
          AND ACHIEVE SOME MORE DEGREE OF NORMAL LIFE WHERE MORE PEOPLE CAN BE PARTICIPATING IN ACTIVITIES THAT THEY LOVE INTERACTING, GOING TO SCHOOL WITHOUT HAVING TO BE THREATENED WITH GOING BACK AND LEARNING FROM HOME FOR THE NEXT FEW WEEKS, YOU KNOW, EVERY COUPLE OF WEEKS. 
          THE ONLY WAY THE ONLY PATH FORWARD IS VACCINATION TO HAVE AS MANY PEOPLE VACCINATED AS POSSIBLE, AND SO. 
          [01:30:01]
I THINK WE WE JUST HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S NOT REALLY UP FOR US TO DEBATE WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S TRUE, BECAUSE THAT'S IT IS THE EXPERT IS THE PUBLIC HEALTH EXPERTS. 
          THAT HAVE HAVE MADE THAT DECISION, AND, YOU KNOW, SOME PEOPLE HAVE MENTIONED THAT IT DOESN'T. 
          THEY BELIEVE THAT IT DOESN'T MATTER IN TERMS OF THE RISK OF TRANSMISSION OR RISK OF INFECTION, WHETHER OR NOT YOU'RE VACCINATED OR UNVACCINATED. 
          SO. 
          OUR PUBLIC HEALTH EXPERTS SAY THAT IT IT DOES MATTER. 
          AND I CERTAINLY I'VE SEEN SOME ARTICLES, BUT AGAIN, I DON'T I DON'T WANT TO BE SORT OF DEBATING ARTICLES OR EVIDENCE BECAUSE I'M NOT THE EXPERT HERE, BUT. 
          THE. 
          WHAT WHAT WE ARE TOLD IS THAT. 
          THERE IS AT LEAST A MUCH LOWER RISK OF TRANSMISSION IF YOU'RE VACCINATED. 
          NOTHING IS 100 PERCENT, ESPECIALLY WITH THE DELTA VARIANT. 
          SO WE'RE NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO ELIMINATE ALL RISK UNTIL PERHAPS THE ENTIRE POPULATION IS VACCINATED AND WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO ERADICATE THE DISEASE. 
          LIKE SOME OTHER DISEASES IN HISTORY, WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO ERADICATE THROUGH VACCINATION. 
          BUT UNTIL THEN, THE GAME IS ABOUT REDUCING RISKS AS MUCH AS WE CAN, SO WE REDUCE RISK OF TRANSMISSION. 
          WE WE KNOW FOR SURE THAT WE HUGELY REDUCE RISK OF HOSPITALIZATION AND SEVERE. 
          YOU KNOW, DISEASE AND HEALTH EFFECTS THROUGH VACCINATIONS, SO. 
          I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S OUR ROLE TO DEBATE WHETHER OR NOT WE BELIEVE THAT THE PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICIALS ARE RIGHT OR TELLING THE TRUTH. 
          WHEN IT COMES TO THE ISSUE OF INCLUDING OR EXCLUDING, THE REALITY IS THAT EITHER WAY, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE EXCLUDED. 
          SO IF WE KEEP OUR CAPACITY, YOU KNOW, AT HALF CAPACITY, WE ARE ALSO EXCLUDING LOTS OF PEOPLE FROM OUR FACILITIES. 
          AND. 
          TO ME, IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE. 
          TRY TO RAISE OUR CAPACITY TO INCLUDE MORE PEOPLE. 
          AND IT'S IT'S STILL WILL CONTINUE TO BE A CHOICE FOR THOSE WHO CAN BE VACCINATED BUT CHOOSE NOT TO BE. 
          THEY'RE NOT BEING EXCLUDED BECAUSE OF SOME CHARACTERISTIC LIKE RACE OR OTHER THINGS THAT THAT WE USUALLY ASSOCIATE WITH DISCRIMINATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS. 
          THEY'RE MAKING A CHOICE. 
          AND THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES TO THOSE CHOICES IN TERMS OF HOW THAT AFFECTS THE PEOPLE AROUND THEM AND HOW THAT AFFECTS OUR PUBLIC HEALTH. 
          SO TO ME, THAT'S NOT THE SAME AS DISCRIMINATION. 
          AND I WAS THINKING OF SOME OTHER PRECEDENTS OR PARALLELS, PERHAPS. 
          ONE IS THAT. 
          YOU KNOW, WE ALREADY REQUIRE CHILDREN TO HAVE CERTAIN VACCINATIONS BEFORE THEY ATTEND SCHOOL, BECAUSE THAT'S JUST PART OF HOW WE MAKE SCHOOLS SAFE. 
          AND THAT'S PART OF HOW WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO VASTLY REDUCE MANY, YOU KNOW, DISEASES IN THE PAST IS OK. 
          EVERYBODY HAS TO GET VACCINATED BEFORE THEY GET TO SCHOOL. 
          YOU KNOW, RUBELLA, MUMPS, ALL THESE KINDS OF THINGS. 
          THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS COMPLETELY UNPRECEDENTED IN OUR SOCIETY, AND OUR SOCIETY HAS ACCEPTED THESE THINGS THAT. 
          IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN, IN GROUPS AND IN SOCIETY, WE HAVE TO TAKE STEPS TO PROTECT OURSELVES AND PROTECT OTHERS. 
          THE OTHER THING I WAS THINKING ABOUT AND THIS IS NOT A PERFECT PARALLEL, BUT SMOKING USED TO BE ALLOWED WHEREVER RIGHT THAT WAS EVERYBODY'S RIGHT TO DO AS THEY CHOOSE. 
          YOU CAN SMOKE FREELY WHEREVER, BUT IT TURNS OUT THAT THAT IMPACTS OTHER PEOPLE THAT IMPACTS OTHER PEOPLE'S HEALTH. 
          SO THEN AT SOME POINT WE DECIDED, ACTUALLY, YOU CAN'T SMOKE WHEREVER YOU WANT, YOU CAN'T SMOKE INDOORS, YOU CAN'T SMOKE IN PUBLIC PARKS AND IN OTHER PLACES WHERE IT MIGHT AFFECT PEOPLE. 
          AND THAT THAT AFFECTS PEOPLE'S FREEDOMS IN TERMS OF. 
          BEING WHEREVER THEY WANTED IN ANY TIME, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T IF YOU'RE ADDICTED TO SMOKING AND. 
          YOU CAN'T JUST SMOKE WHEREVER YOU ARE IN PLANES AND LIKE, WE'VE JUST DECIDED THAT WE HAVE TO LIMIT CERTAIN PEOPLE'S FREEDOMS IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE BROADER PUBLIC HEALTH. 
          AND I MEAN, SMOKING IS AN EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING WHERE IT'S. 
          DEFINITELY NOT EASY FOR PEOPLE TO JUST QUIT AND NOT DO IT, IT'S A CHOICE, BUT BUT YET WE SAY THAT THE COST TO EVERYBODY ELSE IN TERMS OF OUR HEALTH IS TOO GREAT AND YOU JUST CAN'T DO IT. 
          [01:35:01]
YOU CAN'T RISK OTHER PEOPLE'S HEALTH IN THAT WAY. 
          AND NOW, I MEAN, I DON'T HEAR ANYONE ANYMORE TALKING ABOUT THE INJUSTICE OF NOT LETTING PEOPLE SMOKE IN INDOORS OR IN FACILITIES, AND IT'S NOT SEEN AS A DISCRIMINATION THING, IT'S JUST THIS IS JUST NORMAL. 
          WE JUST CAN'T ALLOW THIS IF IT AFFECTS OTHER PEOPLE. 
          SO. 
          I SEE THIS AS AN OBVIOUS THING THAT WE NEED TO DO TO PROTECT, TO PROTECT ALL OF OUR PUBLIC, ALL OF ALL OF THE POPULATION. 
          IT'S CERTAINLY IN LINE WITH WHAT'S HAPPENING IN ALL OTHER JURISDICTIONS ACROSS CANADA AND ACROSS THE WORLD. 
          SO I WOULD SUPPORT THIS PROOF OF VACCINATION POLICY. 
          RECOGNIZING THAT EFFORTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO CREATE THAT EXEMPTION FOR YOUTH 17 AND UNDER THAT ARE PARTICIPATING IN ORGANIZED SPORTS SO THAT PEOPLE ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED, I REALIZE THAT THEN WE'RE PASSING THE RESPONSIBILITY TO THOSE ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE MANAGING THOSE ORGANIZED SPORTS, BUT. 
          YEAH, THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS FOR NOW. 
          THANK YOU. 
          LET'S TAKE A 10 MINUTE MARK, 10 MINUTE BREAK STORY AND COME BACK AT 1:51. 
          AND WE WILL RECONVENE AND NEXT UP, I HAVE COUNCILLOR MORSE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          JUST GIVE ME A SECOND HERE, HAVE GOT SOME THOUGHTS HAVE BEEN MULLING OVER THE PAST FEW DAYS AND PUT TOGETHER IN RESPONSE TO SOME OF THOSE CONSIDERED AND SHARED BY COLLEAGUES. 
          I DO WANT TO START BY SAYING I'M SUPPORTIVE OF BRINGING THIS POLICY FORWARD OF ADMINISTRATION, BRINGING THIS POLICY FORWARD AND SUPPORTIVE OF APPROVING IT. 
          I DO HAVE ACTUALLY A QUESTION. 
          FIRST AND FOREMOST, MY QUESTION IS WHY IS TRANSIT IN PARTICULAR THE ONE KIND OF CITY SERVICE OR FACILITY THAT'S NOT BEING INCLUDED IN THE POLICY? I'M JUST CURIOUS WHY IT'S RECEIVED KIND OF AN EXEMPTION FROM THIS POLICY. 
          MS. BASSI-KELLETT. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE THE BYLAW IN PLACE, THAT COUNCIL ESTABLISHED LAST AUGUST, I BELIEVE IT WAS TO ENABLE RIDERS OF THE BUS UP TO 50 TO BE ALLOWED ON THERE WEARING THEIR AS LONG AS THEY'RE WEARING A MANDATORY FACE MASK. 
          SO THAT IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. 
          THERE'S A BYLAW IN PLACE THAT COUNCIL HAS ESTABLISHED ALREADY THAT ENABLES US TO HAVE A HIGHER AMOUNT OF RIDERS. 
          I'LL ASK MS. THISTLE IF SHE'D LIKE TO ADD TO THAT, PLEASE. 
          YEAH, WE HAVE THE MANDATORY FACE COVERINGS BYLAW, WHICH DOES ADDRESS TRANSIT IN ADDITION TO THIS FORCING TRANSIT AS AN EXEMPTION ACROSS THE COUNTRY. 
          I BELIEVE THE PREMISE FOR THAT IS TRANSIT FOR PEOPLE IN MANY CITIES IS THE ONLY WAY THEY CAN GET TO WORK OR SCHOOL. 
          IN YELLOWKNIFE, TRANSIT IS CONTRACTED, SO THE BUS DRIVER, IF THEY REFUSE, SOMEBODY WOULD ESSENTIALLY HAVE TO PARK THE BUS AND EITHER WAIT FOR THE PERSON TO GET OFF IF THEY DIDN'T SHOW THEIR MANDATORY PROOF OF VACCINATION OR WAIT FOR THE RCMP OR MED TO SHOW UP. 
          AND THAT WOULD MEAN THE OTHER PEOPLE ON THE BUS DON'T GET TO WORK AND SCHOOL. 
          IT IS AN EXEMPTION THAT'S INCLUDED, LIKE I SAID, IN POLICIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY. 
          IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE AN EXEMPTION. 
          WE JUST FELT THAT CITIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY DEEMED THAT TRANSIT WAS DIFFERENT THAT THERE ARE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS LIKE MANDATORY FACE MASKS ON THE BYLAW BECAUSE UNTIL THE CHIEF PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICER PASSED OR ORDERED MANDATORY FACE MASKS IN INDOOR PLACES ACROSS THE TERRITORY, THERE WAS NO SUCH REQUIREMENT. 
          AND THEN, AS I SAID, IT'S ESSENTIAL IN THAT IT'S HOW PEOPLE GET TO WORK AND SCHOOL. 
          AND SO IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT IN PERHAPS MAYBE NOT IN YELLOWKNIFE TO THE SAME EXTENT. 
          IN SOME CITIES, IT WOULD MEAN PEOPLE COULDN'T GET BACK AND FORTH TO THEIR PLACE OF WORK FROM HOME. 
          WHEN YOU THINK OF TRANSIT IN TORONTO OR VANCOUVER, MONTREAL, WHICH PEOPLE ACTUALLY HAVE TO COMMUTE LONG DISTANCES ON TRANSIT, SO WE DID KEEP IT IN AS AN 
          [01:40:01]
EXEMPTION IN THE SUGGESTED POLICY THAT WE'VE PUT FORWARD BASED ON WHAT WE'VE SEEN ACROSS THE COUNTRY. 
          AND THEN AS WE SAID, IT'S A CONTRACTED SERVICE AND THERE ARE ADDITIONAL SAFETY PRECAUTIONS IN PLACE AND WE'RE ALREADY AT THE CAPACITY OF 50 ON TRANSIT. 
          AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS. 
          NOPE, THAT'S IT FOR THAT QUESTION. 
          OK. 
          OK, WELL. 
          GOT A FAIR BIT TO SAY ABOUT THIS ONE. 
          YEAH, JUST TAKING A LITTLE BIT OF TIME TO COLLECT MY THOUGHTS BECAUSE SOME OF THE. 
          POSITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN SHARED BY COLLEAGUES, I MEAN, I SUPPOSE THEY'RE NOT PARTICULARLY SURPRISING, BUT. 
          YET THEY ARE A LITTLE BIT. 
          SO I'LL JUST I'LL JUST SPEAK TO WHAT I'VE WRITTEN DOWN HERE AND THEN MAY HAVE TO KIND OF FREEHAND A BIT, BUT SO THERE ARE SOME CONCERNS THAT WE'VE RECEIVED FROM RESIDENTS. 
          I HAVEN'T RECEIVED A LOT OF SUPPORT FROM RESIDENTS FOR THIS, BUT I THINK THAT THERE'S VERY OBVIOUSLY IN THIS CASE, KIND OF A SILENT MAJORITY, A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT SILENT MAJORITY WHO ARE SUPPORTING VACCINATION BECAUSE THEY ARE VACCINATED. 
          I SUPPOSE THERE ARE VACCINATED PEOPLE WHO DON'T NECESSARILY SUPPORT A POLICY LIKE THIS, AND THERE ARE THOUGHTS HAVE BEEN SHARED TODAY AND. 
          I'M SURE THERE'S QUITE A FEW PEOPLE OUT THERE LIKE THAT AS WELL. 
          SO WHAT WORRIES ME WHEN I LOOK AT THE CONCERNS RELATED TO THE VACCINE ITSELF, WHICH HAVE BEEN SHARED BY PEOPLE WHO'VE GOTTEN IN TOUCH WITH US, IS THAT ALL OF THE CONCERNS ARE STEMMING FROM MISINFORMATION ABOUT THE VACCINE ITSELF. 
          IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT PEOPLE WHO COULD BE AT RISK FROM THE COVID 19 VACCINE FOR MEDICAL REASONS ARE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION, AND I'M GLAD THAT WE HAVE EXEMPTION BUILT INTO THE POLICY FOR THAT REASON, AND I THINK IT'S COMPLETELY REASONABLE TO EXEMPT PEOPLE FROM VACCINE VACCINES FOR MEDICAL REASONS. 
          THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S SCIENTIFICALLY SUPPORTED. 
          IT'S MEDICALLY SUPPORTED. 
          I WOULDN'T DISAGREE WITH IT EVER. 
          FOR EVERYONE ELSE, AND I KIND OF WANT TO LIMIT MY COMMENTS ON VACCINATION BECAUSE OF SOMETHING I'M GOING TO SAY LATER HERE. 
          BUT VACCINATION IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF OUR MODERN, MODERN PUBLIC HEALTH CARE SYSTEM AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE SO INDEFINITELY. 
          SO I DO HAVE QUITE A BIT OF DIFFICULTY WITH THE CONTINUING DEBATE THAT'S HAPPENING AMONG LAYPEOPLE ABOUT VACCINATION AS IF SOMEHOW. 
          THEY HAVE A LEGITIMATE PERSPECTIVE TO BRING TO THIS SO-CALLED DEBATE, IT'S IT'S REALLY NOT A DEBATE. 
          VACCINATION IS NOT SOMETHING WHICH IS GOING AWAY. 
          THE CLEAR PATH FORWARD FOR OUR SOCIETY IS HAVING A VACCINATED POPULATION THAT'S GLOBAL. 
          IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S UNIQUE TO CANADA OR THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES. 
          WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO IN ANOTHER DIRECTION AS A GLOBAL SOCIETY AND ALLOW VACCINE PREVENTABLE ILLNESS TO RETURN AS A NORMAL AND INCREDIBLY RISKY PART OF LIVING IN A SOCIETY. 
          TO DO SO WOULD SET US BACK TWO HUNDRED YEARS OF SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION. 
          AND IT'S JUST VERY, VERY, VERY CLEARLY NOT A DIRECTION ANYONE ON THE PLANET IS GOING TO GO, EXCEPT FOR MAYBE A TINY MINORITY OF PEOPLE WHO. 
          I DON'T KNOW, I IT'S HARD TO EVEN KIND OF THEORIZE WHERE YOU'D GO WITHOUT VACCINATION, ASIDE FROM PERHAPS CREATING SOME KIND OF COMMUNE THAT THAT EXISTS OUTSIDE OF MODERN SOCIETY. 
          AND SO, AS I SAID, THERE ISN'T REALLY A DEBATE TO BE HAD ABOUT THIS FOR LAYPEOPLE LIKE MYSELF AND THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WHO AREN'T PUBLIC HEALTH EXPERTS, RESEARCHERS OR DOCTORS. 
          I'M NOT AN EXPERT IN THE FIELD OF VACCINATION AND NEITHER IS ANYONE ELSE ON THIS COUNCIL FOR THIS REASON. 
          I REALLY THINK THE BEST AND MOST REASONABLE COURSE WE CAN TAKE IS TO DEFER TO PUBLIC HEALTH HEALTH EXPERTISE IN OUR DECISION MAKING WITH RELATION TO IMPLEMENTING PUBLIC HEALTH RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH APPLY TO THINGS IN OUR JURISDICTION. 
          IT'S QUITE RARE AND A BIT OF A STRANGE PRECEDENT THAT WE FIND OURSELVES IN, AND I DO SYMPATHIZE WITH ANYONE ON THIS COUNCIL WHO FINDS HIMSELF IN A BIT OF DIFFICULTY HAVING TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT THIS BECAUSE NONE OF US SAW A PANDEMIC COMING WHEN WE RAN. 
          I DON'T THINK ANY OF US EVER CONTEMPLATED THAT WE'D BE MAKING PUBLIC HEALTH RELATED 
          [01:45:02]
DECISIONS AS COUNCILORS. 
          AND I DON'T THINK PEOPLE WERE THINKING ABOUT THAT WHEN THEY VOTED FOR US, EITHER. 
          IT'S JUST NOT A NORMAL THING FOR MUNICIPALITIES TO GET INVOLVED WITH. 
          AND YET THE PANDEMIC HAS HAPPENED. 
          IT'S PUT US AND LEADERS AROUND THE WORLD IN A VERY UNIQUE SITUATION OF. 
          KIND OF RECEIVING DIRECTIONS FROM THESE CHIEF PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICERS WHO WE USED TO KIND OF HEAR FROM ONCE IN A WHILE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THINGS LIKE HAND WASHING OR VARIOUS OR VARIOUS OTHER KIND OF HEALTH RELATED MEASURES, AND IT WASN'T SOMETHING THAT AFFECTED MUNICIPAL DECISIONS VERY OFTEN. 
          BUT THAT'S THE SITUATION WE'RE IN. 
          PART OF BEING IN A POSITION LIKE THIS IS YOU MAY END UP IN UNPRECEDENTED TIMES AND YOU MAY END UP HAVING TO STEP UP AND MAKE DECISIONS THAT YOU WEREN'T NECESSARILY PREPARED TO DO. 
          THE WAY THAT I AM CHOOSING TO DEAL WITH THAT SITUATION IS TO DEFER TO EXPERTISE, EXPERTISE THAT I DON'T HAVE. 
          AND I THINK THAT THAT IS A VERY REASONABLE POSITION TO TAKE. 
          AND I DO THINK THAT I WOULD HAVE COMMUNICATED DURING THE ELECTION THAT WELL, AND I DID COMMUNICATE IN MY PLATFORM THAT EVIDENCE BASED DECISION MAKING IS THE DIRECTION THAT I WILL ALWAYS GO. 
          AND SO. 
          EVIDENCE BASED DECISION MAKING INVOLVES DEFERRING TO EXPERTISE. 
          IN RESPONSE TO A FEW OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN SAID, I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE. 
          THE SITUATION WE FIND OURSELVES IN IS THAT IF WE DON'T GO FORWARD WITH THIS POLICY, WE ARE IN FACT ALSO RESTRICTING RESIDENTS FROM ACCESSING OUR FACILITIES BECAUSE OUR NUMBERS WILL BE SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED. 
          SO RESTRICTION IS SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE HAPPENING EITHER WAY, I MEAN, BUT THE VAST MAJORITY OF OUR CITIZENS ARE VACCINATED AND WOULD BENEFIT FROM THIS POLICY, NOT IMPLEMENTING IT IS GOING TO SERVE A MUCH SMALLER GROUP OF PEOPLE AND NOT DOING IT MEANS MANY MORE CITIZENS MAY NOT FEEL SAFE ACCESSING OUR FACILITIES WITHOUT A VACCINE. 
          SORRY, MAY NOT FEEL SAFE ACCESSING OUR FACILITIES REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY'RE VACCINATED. 
          AND SO THAT'S SOMETHING TO WEIGH AS WELL IS THAT I THINK IF WE DON'T IMPLEMENT THIS POLICY LIKE IT IS COUNCIL IMPLICITLY SAYING THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE RESTRICTING ACCESS TO OUR FACILITIES. 
          EFFECTIVELY, THE COUNCIL IS SAYING THAT WE DISAGREE WITH THE CPHO. 
          AND THE REALLY DIFFICULT THING WITH THAT IS THAT. 
          I DON'T THINK ANY OF US HAVE. 
          THE EXPERTISE TO BACK UP A DISAGREEMENT OF THAT KIND. 
          AND SO THAT I FIND QUITE CONCERNING. 
          IT'S ALSO CONCERNING ME TO HEAR ABOUT KIND OF THE DIVISION, AND I SYMPATHIZE WITH SOME OF THE STRUGGLES THAT COUNCILORS ARE HAVING ABOUT THIS. 
          IT IS A REALLY DIFFICULT ISSUE. 
          IT'S ONE THAT MOST OF US HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY KIND OF TRAINING IN TERMS OF MAKING PUBLIC HEALTH DECISIONS. 
          IT TAKES A DECADE OF EDUCATION TO PREPARE YOURSELF TO MAKE THOSE KINDS OF DECISIONS, ONE THAT I DON'T HAVE. 
          BUT IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT PEOPLE'S DECISION TO NOT BE VACCINATED HAS SIGNIFICANT IMPLICATIONS AS WELL, LIKE PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE DECISION TO BE VACCINATED. 
          THERE'S IMPLICATIONS WITH IT. 
          WELL, IT HAS BEEN SHOWN BY EVIDENCE TO PUT PEOPLE AT HIGHER RISK OF CONTRACTING AND SPREADING COVID 19 BEING UNVACCINATED. 
          IF WE ALLOW UNVACCINATED INDIVIDUALS TO ACCESS FACILITIES AND INTERMINGLE WITH VACCIN ATED INDIVIDUALS, HEALTH CARE EXPERTS ARE TELLING US THIS PUTS EVERYBODY AT HIGHER RISK. 
          THEY'RE THE EXPERTS, THE PEOPLE WHO ARE INTERPRETING THE EVER EVOLVING DATA, AND I HAVE SOME THINGS TO SAY ABOUT THAT AS WELL. 
          SO I HAVE A LOT OF DIFFICULTY WITH THE IDEA OF THE CITY MOVING FORWARD WITH SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T ALIGN WITH CPHO DIRECTION, THE OFFICE WITH THE EXPERTISE TO BE ADVISING US ON THESE THINGS. 
          I NEED TO TO NOTE AND DISAGREE WITH ONE POINT THAT WAS MADE. 
          AND JUST STATE THAT THERE IS AN INCREDIBLE AMOUNT OF DATA BEHIND THE DECISIONS BEING MADE BY HEALTH OFFICIALS, HUGE AMOUNTS, AMOUNTS THAT I DON'T THINK ANY OF US AGAIN HAVE RECEIVED THE TRAINING TO REALLY, TRULY UNDERSTAND. 
          WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DATA BEHIND BILLIONS OF PEOPLE RECEIVING VACCINES AT THIS POINT. 
          IT'S A HUGE AMOUNT OF DATA. 
          THERE ARE ENTIRE GLOBAL ORGANIZATIONS WHICH EXIST TO HELP INTERPRET THIS DATA AND ADVISE PEOPLE LIKE THE CPHO, OF WHICH THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF CPHOS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD. 
          THEY'RE MAKING THEIR DECISIONS BASED ON THE ADVICE OF THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF SCIENTISTS AND RESEARCHERS. 
          SO THERE'S A HUGE AMOUNT OF DATA, AND IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE WAY SCIENCE WORKS IS THAT THAT DATA IS GOING TO CHANGE AND EVOLVE VERY QUICKLY, AND IT'S GOING 
          [01:50:01]
TO CHANGE AND EVOLVE ON A DAILY BASIS. 
          AND DECISIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH ARE BEING MADE TODAY MAY NOT ALIGN WITH OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THIS VIRUS AND THIS PANDEMIC TWO MONTHS FROM NOW. 
          AND THAT EVOLUTION IS SHOWING US THAT SCIENCE IS WORKING. 
          AND WE JUST NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A SITUATION THAT'S GOING TO EVOLVE. 
          IT MAY COME OUT 10 YEARS FROM NOW. 
          CERTAIN THINGS ABOUT VACCINATION OR COVID DISEASES, WHICH HUMANS HAVEN'T CURRENTLY UP UNTIL, YOU KNOW, 2020 HAD TO REALLY CONTEND WITH. 
          THERE'S GOING TO BE ALL SORTS OF INFORMATION WE LEARN, BUT THE INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE NOW, THE BEST INFORMATION WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US IS TELLING US WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. 
          AND SO CPHO DIRECTION IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL OF THAT INFORMATION, WHICH IS GOING AROUND. 
          IT'S A HUGE AMOUNT OF INFORMATION TO PROCESS, AND THERE ARE VERY FEW PEOPLE IN THE WORLD WHO HAVE THE TRAINING AND THE SYSTEMS BEHIND THEM TO SUPPORT THEIR DECISION MAKING, TO INTERPRET THAT DATA AND MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON THAT DATA. 
          RIGHT NOW, THE DATA THAT WE HAVE IS THAT THE VACCINE IS PROTECTIVE, IT SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCES INSTANCES OF HOSPITALIZATION AND IT DOES REDUCE SPREAD. 
          THE PROBLEM WITH THIS ISSUE AND THIS KIND OF DEBATE, WHICH IS OCCURRING, IS THAT THE HESITANCY AROUND THE VACCINE AND CONCERNS ABOUT IT ARE ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY ROOTED IN MISINFORMATION ABOUT IT. 
          SO WHEN I HEAR PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT DIVISION IN THE COMMUNITY. 
          I ALSO FIND THIS VERY CONCERNING, BUT I SEE IT AS BEING A DIFFERENT SOURCE FOR THE DIVISION IS THAT IT'S CRITICALLY IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE SOURCE OF THIS DIVISION ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE SEEKING TO MISINFORM PEOPLE AND SCARE THEM ABOUT A COMPLETELY NORMAL AND LOW RISK PUBLIC HEALTH INTERVENTION, WHICH IS CURRENTLY UNDERSTOOD BY THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM TO BE THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO PROTECT PEOPLE FROM COVID 19. 
          SO THE CPHO REQUIREMENTS, WHICH WE'RE LOOKING AT, WHICH SOME COUNCILORS HAVE ISSUE WITH, ARE CONSISTENT WITH MOST OTHER JURISDICTIONS IN THE COUNTRY. 
          TO NOT ADOPT THIS POLICY WOULD BE QUITE A SIGNIFICANT DEPARTURE FROM THIS. 
          AND THAT, I THINK WOULD BE REALLY QUITE CONCERNING AS A CITIZEN, AS A COUNCILLOR WHO. 
          YOU KNOW, SITS ON THIS COUNCIL, I THINK IT WOULD BE QUITE CONCERNING TO ME TO SEE THIS COUNCIL KIND OF DEVIATE FROM WHAT IS. 
          WHAT HAS BEEN KIND OF THE MAJORITY OF LEADERS AND DECISION MAKERS DIRECTION, WHICH IS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE IMPORTANCE OF AND THE IMPERATIVE NATURE OF VACCINATION AS A RESPONSE TO THIS PANDEMIC. 
          SO. 
          SEEING US SEEING THIS COUNCIL START TO GO IN A DIRECTION WHICH WHICH DEVIATES FROM CPHO DIRECTION I FIND PRETTY DEEPLY CONCERNING. 
          I'M NOT REALLY SURE WHAT TO DO WITH THAT CONCERN RIGHT NOW. 
          I HAVEN'T BEEN SURE WHAT TO DO WITH IT. 
          IT'S GOING TO BE THE SECOND TIME IN THE PAST FEW WEEKS THAT COUNCIL HAS FACED A SITUATION WHERE THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH IS ASKING US TO DO SOMETHING OR ADVISING US TO DO SOMETHING, AND WE DEVIATE FROM IT. 
          IN ALL CASES, I DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE REALLY IN A LEGITIMATE POSITION TO DEVIATE FROM THAT DIRECTION OR THAT REQUEST. 
          AND SO. 
          THIS IS A TOUGH ONE FOR ME. 
          I'M JUST GOING TO RE-EMPHASIZE, IN ABSENCE OF DIRECT EXPERTISE ON AN ISSUE, ESPECIALLY COMPLEX ONES RELATED TO PUBLIC HEALTH. 
          I THINK WE SHOULD STRONGLY LEAD TOWARDS DEFERRING TO THE EXPERTISE OF THOSE WHO ARE ADVISING US AND SETTING POLICY AT HIGHER LEVELS. 
          IT'S GOING TO BE VERY INTERESTING IF COUNCIL DECIDES TO NOT IMPLEMENT THIS POLICY TO SEE HOW THE CPHO MANAGES IT. 
          THEY MAY SIMPLY SAY, OK, WELL, WE'RE NOT GOING TO ALLOW YOU TO INCREASE CAPACITY OF PUBLIC HEALTH FACILITIES OR SORRY AT PUBLIC FACILITIES RUN BY THE CITY. 
          OR MAYBE THE CPHO WILL DECIDE TO STEP IN A LITTLE MORE HEAVILY. 
          I MEAN, I DO THINK THAT THERE, IF THERE'S ONE THING TO BE SAID HERE, IS THAT IF WE DON'T CONSIDER OURSELVES TO BE EXPERTS IN THIS, THAT MAYBE IT IS JUST ULTIMATELY UP TO THE CPHO TO BE GIVING DIRECTION OR IMPOSING RULES ON CITY FACILITIES. 
          SORRY ABOUT THE NOISE MY DOG'S COLLAR'S MAKING. 
          YEAH, IT'S GOING TO BE IT'S GOING TO BE INTERESTING TO SEE WHAT THE RESPONSE IS. 
          BUT YEAH, I'M JUST GOING TO SUM IT UP IN SAYING AS A COUNCILLOR IN MY OWN CASE, I 
          [01:55:03]
WANT TO CONTINUE TO STICK TO EVIDENCE BASED DECISION MAKING AND MAKING DECISIONS BASED ON THE EVIDENCE, THE BEST EVIDENCE AND THE BEST INFORMATION I HAVE IN FRONT OF ME. 
          THAT INFORMATION RIGHT NOW IS TELLING US THE POLICIES LIKE THIS ARE GOING TO HELP PROTECT CITIZENS, AND THEY'RE CONSISTENT WITH DIRECTION FROM THE CPHO. 
          SO I THINK THAT THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION IS FOR IS TO DEFER TO THAT EXPERTISE. 
          THAT'S THE DIRECTION THAT I'D LIKE TO TAKE. 
          AND THAT PRETTY MUCH SUMS UP THE REASONS I'D BE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS POLICY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          JUST ONE FINAL CALL FOR ROUND ONE. 
          AND SO SMITH, DID YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? AND FOR NOW. 
          SURE. 
          OK. 
          COUNCILLOR SMITH? SURE. 
          I MEAN, REALLY, WHAT CAN BE SAID TO US IS THAT OTHERS HAVEN'T ALREADY SAID? I MEAN, I ALMOST PREFER THE CPHO IF I WERE TO JUMP IN AT THIS POINT AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO CRACK DOWN THE WHIP AND, YOU KNOW, HAVE OUR VOICES TAKEN FROM US BECAUSE REALLY? [INAUDIBLE]. 
          UM. 
          REALLY, AT THIS POINT, IT'S THE SAME AS OUR DECISION A FEW WEEKS AGO. 
          YOU'RE DAMNED IF YOU DO, DAMNED IF YOU DON'T. 
          FOR ME PERSONALLY, THIS ISN'T A DEBATE ABOUT A VACCINE. 
          IT NEVER REALLY WAS. 
          WHAT THE DEBATE IS ON IS FAIRNESS, DISCRIMINATION. 
          IT'S THE HAVES AND HAVE NOTS. 
          AND THAT'S THE SOCIETY THAT WE ARE GOING TOWARDS. 
          AND WE'RE MAKING IT OK BY SAYING, YEAH, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE HAVES GO IN THERE AND HAVE NOTS CAN'T. 
          AND WE'RE HEADING DOWN A ROAD WHERE HISTORY SEEMS TO REPEAT ITSELF REPEATEDLY. 
          BUT WE JUST GIVE IT A NEW NAME. 
          UH, IN MY OPINION. 
          I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT REALLY ANY OF THE MEDICAL STUFF, BUT I'M NOT VOTING ON THE MEDICAL STUFF. 
          I AM VACCINATED ONLY BECAUSE I'M A SINGLE PARENT. 
          I HAVE TO BE. 
          I NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT I CAN PROVIDE FOR MY CHILDREN. 
          BUT WE'RE TALKING IN TERMS OF FACILITIES THAT ARE BEING RUN BY TAXPAYER DOLLARS, WHICH MEANS EVERY TAXPAYER, WHETHER THEY'RE VACCINATED OR NOT, THEY SHOULD ALL HAVE ACCESS TO THE FACILITIES BECAUSE THEY'RE THE ONES WHO ARE PROVIDING IT. 
          THEY'RE THE ONES WHO ARE PAYING FOR IT. 
          SO IF THAT MEANS A REDUCTION IN WHO GETS TO BE IN THE FACILITIES WILL AT LEAST IT'S THE HAVES AND HAVE NOTS. 
          THEY BOTH GET TO GO IN AND NOBODY'S DISCRIMINATED. 
          SO I'M OPPOSED TO GOING FORWARD WITH THIS. 
          BUT I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THAT THIS IS NOT ABOUT A DEBATE ON WHETHER THE VACCINE WORKS OR NOT. 
          THIS IS A DEBATE ON FAIRNESS AND IN FAIRNESS TO OUR COMMUNITY. 
          EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE ACCESS. 
          PERIOD. 
          WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE INCLUSIVE. 
          PERIOD. 
          THAT'S IT. 
          THANK YOU, SO FOR MYSELF, I AM SUPPORTIVE OF THE RECOMMENDATION. 
          UH, WE CAN KEEP THE NUMBERS LOW AGAIN THIS YEAR, WHICH THE NUMBERS WERE THE SAME AS LAST YEAR, THE MAXIMUM OF 25 AND REC FACILITIES AND WELL, THIS YEAR WE GOT UP TO 32 IN THE LIBRARY. 
          OR WE CAN PUT IN PLACE THE VACCINE REQUIREMENTS AS A PUBLIC HEALTH MEASURE TO REDUCE THE RISK OF RECEIVING AND TRANSMITTING COVID WHILE INCREASING THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO CAN PARTICIPATE IN OUR PROGRAMING. 
          I KNOW FOLKS HAVE SUGGESTED THAT OTHER MEASURES GET PUT IN PLACE, BUT THE CITY, LIKE BUSINESSES, NEED TO FOLLOW THE CHIEF PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICERS ORDERS AND WE DON'T GET TO PICK OUR CAPACITY. 
          AND THE CORE WAY TO INCREASE CAPACITY, PARTICULARLY FOR HIGH RISK ACTIVITIES, IS BY PUTTING THE VACCINE PROGRAM IN PLACE. 
          AND FOLKS HAVE HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW THE CAPACITY LIMITS GET SELECTED. 
          THE CPHO DOES A RISK ASSESSMENT TO DETERMINE WHETHER X ACTIVITY OR X BUSINESS HAS A HIGHER OR LOWER RISK OF TRANSMISSION AND THEN SETS A HIGHER OR LOWER CAPACITY BASED ON THAT WHEN IT COMES TO RECREATION FACILITIES VERSUS, SAY, A BOOKSTORE WHERE YOU GO IN, GRAB A BOOK, WEAR YOUR MASK THE WHOLE TIME. 
          REC FACILITIES INVOLVE LARGE NUMBERS IN CLOSE CONTACT, BREATHING HEAVY WITH NO MASKS AND FOR A DURATION OF AN HOUR OR MORE. 
          WAYS TO MITIGATE TRANSMITTING AND RECEIVING COVID IS TO WEAR A MASK AND TO KEEP AT LEAST SIX FEET FROM OTHERS, WHICH IS WHY REC FACILITIES HAVE THAT HIGHER RISK PROFILE. 
          YOU CAN'T PLAY SOCCER OR HOCKEY WITH A MASK, OR AT LEAST NOBODY WANTS TO, AND 
          [02:00:02]
YOU CAN'T PLAY THESE SPORTS AND BE SIX FEET FROM OTHERS. 
          YOU DEFEND IN THESE SPORTS BY BEING SHOULDER TO SHOULDER AGAINST THE PLAYER YOU'RE DEFENDING AND YOU'RE BREATHING HEAVILY. 
          IT'S A RECIPE FOR SPREADING COVID. 
          I HEARD FROM SO MANY FRUSTRATED PARENTS AND FAMILIES LAST YEAR BECAUSE THEY WERE UPSET THAT THEY COULD NEVER GET INTO A FAMILY OR PUBLIC SWIM OR SKATE BECAUSE OUR CAPACITY WAS LIMITED IF YOU WEREN'T ON THE COMPUTER RIGHT AWAY WHEN THE REGISTRATION OPENED FOR THE UPCOMING PUBLIC SWIMMER SKATE. 
          YOU ARE UNLIKELY TO GET IN, AND EVEN IF YOU'RE QUICK, IT WAS TOUGH TO GET IN BECAUSE WHEN YOU BREAK DOWN A CAPACITY OF, SAY, 20 PEOPLE BECAUSE WE HAVE TO LEAVE ROOM FOR STAFF, YOU END UP WITH ONLY FOUR, OR FIVE, SIX FAMILIES GETTING IN THIS WINTER, I WANT TO BE ABLE TO INCREASE OUR CAPACITY FOR OUR PROGRAMS. 87 PERCENT OF YELLOWKNIFE RESIDENTS 12 AND UP ARE VACCINATED, 13 PERCENT ARE UNVACCINATED. 
          WE'D LIMIT RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES FOR OUR RESIDENTS FOR ANOTHER YEAR IF WE DON'T PROCEED WITH THIS RECOMMENDATION. 
          AND YES, WE COULD INCREASE BY FIVE, 10 PEOPLE, MAYBE. 
          BUT THAT'S ALSO DEPENDENT ON THE RISK ASSESSMENT AND SO I DO. 
          WE ALSO HAVE A DUTY TO ENSURE A SAFE WORKPLACE FOR STAFF AND FOR PATRONS COMING, ALTHOUGH BEING VACCINATED DOESN'T MAKE YOU IMMUNE TO GETTING COVID DRASTICALLY REDUCES THE SEVERITY OF GETTING SICK AND BEING HOSPITALIZED. 
          OVER TIME, GOVERNMENTS HAD TO PUT IN MANY PUBLIC HEALTH MEASURES FOR THE SAFETY OF OUR RESIDENTS OR RESIDENTS AND COMMUNITIES. 
          WE LEGISLATE SEATBELTS NOT ONLY TO PROTECT THE INDIVIDUAL, BUT TO PROTECT EVERYBODY IN THE CAR. 
          WHEN SOMEBODY ISN'T WEARING A SEATBELT, IT CAN BECOME A PROJECTILE AND ACTUALLY KILL OTHERS WHEN THERE'S A CRASH. 
          LIKE SEATBELTS, THE VACCINE PROTECTS THE INDIVIDUAL AND OTHERS. 
          GOVERNMENTS HAVE ALSO LEGISLATED NO SMOKING IN BUILDINGS, WHICH COUNCILLOR MORGAN MENTIONED TO REDUCE THE HARM OF SECONDHAND SMOKE LIKE SMOKE FREE BUILDINGS. 
          GETTING THE VACCINE IS ABOUT THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THOSE AROUND YOU. 
          I KNOW THIS WILL BE DIFFICULT FOR SOME RESIDENTS AS THEY'RE NOT COMFORTABLE GETTING VACCINES OR THEY'RE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH GETTING THIS VACCINE YET. 
          HOWEVER, PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY MAKING IS ABOUT MAKING A DECISION THAT'S GOING TO BENEFIT SOCIETY AS A WHOLE. 
          AND I BELIEVE BY PUTTING THE PROOF OF VACCINE PROGRAM IN PLACE, WE'RE ADDRESSING THE HEALTH OF THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. 
          AN INCREASING RECREATION OPTIONS FOR AS MANY RESIDENTS AS POSSIBLE. 
          AND I DO NOTE THAT PEOPLE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE REVENUE AND THAT TAXPAYERS WOULD BE LIMITED. 
          REC FACILITIES ARE 35 TO 43 PERCENT IS COVERED BY USER CHARGES. 
          SO BY KEEPING OUR NUMBERS LOW, WE'RE GOING TO ACTUALLY BE PUTTING THE FINANCIAL BURDEN MORE ON TAXPAYERS AS OPPOSED TO THE USERS OF THE FACILITY. 
          SO AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, THERE'S MANY REC FACILITIES OR FACILITIES THAT RESIDENTS NEVER USE. 
          WHETHER THERE'S COVID OR NOT, WE DON'T GIVE TAX BREAKS BACK TO PEOPLE WHO DON'T USE, SAY, THE HOCKEY ARENA EVER OR A PUBLIC PARK. 
          SO AGAIN, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY AND I AM SUPPORTIVE OF THE RECOMMENDATION AS PRESENTED AND RECOGNIZING THAT THIS IS AS LONG AS THE PANDEMIC LASTS AND THE POLICY WOULD BE REVOKED AFTER THAT. 
          BUT FOR THE TIME BEING, I'M SUPPORTIVE. 
          WITH THAT FOR ROUND TWO, I'VE GOT COUNCILLOR PAYNE AND THEN COUNCILLOR MORGAN. 
          THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. 
          SO. 
          JUST TO BE CLEAR, WE'RE STILL LOOKING AT IT WITH THE USER GROUPS HAVING THEIR OWN NUMBERS. 
          WE'RE STILL LOOKING AT A TWO TIERED SYSTEM IN PLACE WHERE MINOR HOCKEY CAN HAVE THEIR OWN NUMBERS. 
          SOCCER CAN HAVE THEIR OWN NUMBERS, AND THAT'S THEIR POLICY BASED ON USERS BEING VACCINATED. 
          SO MY QUESTION IS WHEN IT COMES TO REVENUE. 
          WHAT? AND I THINK THIS IS A PRETTY BIG PERCENTAGE OF OUR SPORTS FACILITIES GET USED FOR USER GROUPS AND WHAT PERCENTAGE GET USED FOR PUBLIC USE. 
          DO WE HAVE A LIKE A ROUGH I DON'T NEED EXACTLY, BUT A ROUGH NUMBER. 
          IT'S MORE USER GROUPS THAN IN THE CITY, DROP THEM PROGRAMS, BUT MS. BASSI-KELLETT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YEAH, OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, I'M NOT SURE I'LL ASK MR. WHITE IF HE HAS ANYTHING THAT HE'D LIKE TO TRY TO SORT THEM. 
          A SORE THUMB VIEW WOULD BE SOMETHING LIKE MONDAY TO FRIDAYS FROM FOUR TO MIDNIGHT ON ALL THREE RINKS. 
          OUR RENTAL TIMES, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF MAYBE THREE HOURS WOULD BE PUBLIC TIME. 
          AND THAT'S A VERY ROUGH SOURCE, BUT WE CAN, IT'S EASY ENOUGH TO TO CLARIFY. 
          I JUST NEED SOME TIME. 
          THANK YOU, SO WE'D BE LIKE, I'M JUST THROWING A NUMBER OUT HERE. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, MY KIDS PLAYED SPORTS, SO I SORT OF GET AN IDEA OF THE SCHEDULES 
          [02:05:01]
THAT WE HAD IN PLACE. 
          IT'S PROBABLY A 90 PERCENT USER SPACE ALLOTTED AND ABOUT A 10 PERCENT, MAYBE 10 TO 15 PERCENT PUBLIC USE. 
          WOULD THAT BE CLOSE, GIVE OR TAKE? [INAUDIBLE] WOULD HAVE TO JUST UP IN THE AIR RIGHT NOW, SO THEY HAVE TO GET BACK. 
          AND SO MY POINT IN THAT IS THAT THE BULK OF OUR REVENUE IS COMING FROM THE USERS AND THE USERS WON'T, THAT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE. 
          THEY HAVE THE NUMBERS IN PLACE AND THIS IS NOT ABOUT TELLING THEM WHAT TO DO. 
          THEY HAVE THEIR OPINIONS AND THEY HAVE THEIR RIGHTS TO DO SO. 
          SO WHEN IT COMES TO REVENUES, I DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE GOING TO SEE A BIG DIP, IF WE DECIDED TO GO WITH NOT ENFORCING THE VACCINATION POLICY. 
          AND HERE'S JUST A QUESTION FOR ADMIN AS WELL. 
          SO RIGHT NOW, SO WE HAVE [INAUDIBLE] HE'S OR SHE'S FIVE YEARS OLD, FOUR YEARS OLD, ARE WILL THE CITY BE? WILL WE BE HIRING AN ASSISTANT TO HELP WITH GETTING THESE KIDS READY BECAUSE THEIR PARENT WON'T BE ALLOWED INTO A FACILITY IF WE IMPLEMENT THIS VACCINATION ID REQUIREMENT? MS. BASSI-KELLETT? I'LL ASK MS. THISTLE IF SHE'D LIKE TO TAKE THIS ONE. 
          THANKS FOR THE QUESTION. 
          I CAN'T COMMENT ON WHAT THE APPROVED PLANS WERE FOR THOSE GROUPS, FOR EXAMPLE, YELLOWKNIFE MINOR HOCKEY, WHICH WOULD RUN, I BELIEVE, RUNS TIDBITS THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN COVERED UNDER THEIR APPROVED OPENING PLANS. 
          I HAVEN'T SEEN THEIR OPENING PLANS, AS I INDICATED EARLIER. 
          OUR USER GROUP RENTAL AGREEMENTS HAVE BEEN AMENDED TO SAY THAT. 
          THE USER GROUPS HAVE TO COMPLY WITH ORDERS OF THE CHIEF PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICER, SO, FOR EXAMPLE, THE MANDATORY FACE COVERINGS ORDER AND ANY THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE CPHO, SO I WOULDN'T KNOW WHAT. 
          THEY'VE BEEN APPROVED FOR, BUT WE COULD LOOK INTO THAT IF IT WAS SOMETHING THAT COUNCIL DIRECTS. 
          WELL, I'M NOT REALLY LOOKING AT LIKE DIRECTING YOU GUYS TO DO THIS. 
          I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO FIND OUT WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS ARE AND WHAT THE THE END RESULT IS FOR THIS. 
          AND I WANT TO MENTION SOMETHING THAT STACEY HAD BROUGHT UP TO JULIAN'S POINT. 
          THIS TODAY'S CONVERSATION IS NOT ABOUT A VACCINE. 
          WHETHER YOU SUPPORT A VACCINE OR NOT, THIS IS JUST ABOUT WHETHER WE SUPPORT THE MANDATE OR NOT. 
          THIS IS ABOUT OUR FACILITIES. 
          I'M A VACCINATED INDIVIDUAL AND I'M OK WITH THAT. 
          I MADE THAT CHOICE MYSELF, RIGHT? I HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE UP HERE THAT ARE A LOT OF FRIENDS OF MINE WHO CHOSE NOT TO GET THAT VACCINE FOR REASONS THAT AREN'T ANY OF MY BUSINESS. 
          AND YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING. 
          NONE OF US ARE DOCTORS, AND YOU'RE RIGHT. 
          WE DON'T HAVE THAT MEDICAL BACKGROUND, BUT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO MAKE THIS DECISION. 
          AND WE REPRESENT THE TAXPAYERS, [INAUDIBLE] REPRESENT THE RESIDENTS OF THE ONLY, AND WE MAKE THAT DECISION BASED ON ON THEM. 
          SO. 
          YOU KNOW, WHILE I DO APPRECIATE YOUR TALK BEFORE, I APPRECIATE EVERY WORD YOU SAID, THIS IS NOT ABOUT WHETHER I SUPPORT A VACCINE OR NOT. 
          OBVIOUSLY, I DO SUPPORT A VACCINE BECAUSE I DID. 
          WELL, I DIDN'T SUPPORT IT. 
          I WOULDN'T HAVE GOTTEN IT. 
          SO RIGHT NOW, JUST ABOUT THE VACCINE MANDATE AND MOVING FORWARD AND WHAT THAT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE, AND I DON'T THINK THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE LONG TERM, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE DECISIONS RIGHT NOW BASED ON WHAT FEELS RIGHT FOR US? YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES THE DECISIONS THAT WE MAKE DON'T FEEL GOOD, AND IF THAT'S WHY NOT EVERYBODY RUNS FOR A POSITION LIKE WE HAVE. 
          WE ARE ALL IN THESE POSITIONS TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN OUR TOWN FOR THE BETTER. 
          I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYBODY HERE THAT WANTS TO LEAVE YELLOWKNIFE WORSE THAN WE FOUND IT. 
          AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, MAYBE THEY SHOULD RETHINK BEING ON COUNCIL. 
          AND IT'S A TOUGH ONE, AND I KNOW WE'RE GOING TO GET BLASTED THE SAME AS THE LAST CONTROVERSIAL VOTE. 
          WE GOT BLASTED AND THAT DOESN'T FEEL GOOD EITHER, BUT I CAN'T GO TO SLEEP AT NIGHT REALIZING THAT I MADE A DECISION THAT I DIDN'T FEEL RIGHT ABOUT. 
          [02:10:01]
SO THAT'S MY THAT'S MY INPUT ON IT, AND I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S OPINIONS ON THIS AND I'VE LEARNED A LOT. 
          AND THE DIRECTION THAT I'M STILL GOING TO BE GOING FOR IS IS NOT SUPPORTING THIS MANDATE. 
          AND YEAH, SO THAT'S WHERE I AM RIGHT NOW. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COUNCILLOR MORGAN? THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. 
          I JUST WANTED TO ADD FIRST THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'VE IN TERMS OF THE EFFECTS OF EXCLUDING PEOPLE BEYOND JUST HAVING LIMITED CAPACITY, SO PEOPLE JUST NOT BEING ABLE TO GET A SLOT OR GET A CHANCE TO ACCESS FACILITIES, I ALSO KNOW, YOU KNOW, PARENTS WHO ARE SCARED TO TAKE THEIR UNVACCINATED CHILDREN WHO ARE UNDER 12 TO PLACES LIKE RECREATION FACILITIES. 
          UNTIL THEY HAVE SOME ASSURANCE THAT THE KIDS WILL BE INTERACTING WITH. 
          OTHERS WHO ARE VACCINATED, SO I'M SAYING THE STATUS QUO IS ALREADY EXCLUDING LOTS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE RIGHTLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE HEALTH OF OF THEMSELVES AND THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS. 
          THEY MAY HAVE FAMILY MEMBERS WHO ARE IMMUNOCOMPROMISED. 
          YOU KNOW, WE HAVE LOTS OF SENIORS THAT USE OUR FACILITIES. 
          THERE'S ALL KINDS OF REALLY VULNERABLE PEOPLE THAT MAY BE AVOIDING OR BY DEFAULT, BEING EXCLUDED FROM OUR FACILITIES RIGHT NOW BECAUSE OF THE RISK OF COMING INTO CONTACT WITH COVID, WHICH WE KNOW THAT THE RISK OF TRANSMISSION IS HIGHER IN UNVACCINATED PEOPLE. 
          SO I JUST WANT US TO TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT. 
          AND THE SECOND THING, I JUST HAVE TO BE HONEST AND SAY THAT I HAVE BEEN FEELING NAUSEOUS AT SOME OF THE COMPARISONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE BETWEEN THE CURRENT EXPERIENCES OF PEOPLE WHO ARE UNVACCINATED AND HISTORICALLY, GROUPS THAT HAVE BEEN SYSTEMATICALLY OPPRESSED BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE, BECAUSE OF THEIR CULTURE. 
          I THINK THERE WAS MENTION OF COMPARISON TO SEGREGATION, JIM CROW GOING TO THE BACK OF THE BUS. 
          I THINK THAT IS A REALLY INACCURATE AND INAPPROPRIATE COMPARISON TO MAKE AND COULD BE, YOU KNOW, PROFOUNDLY DISRESPECTFUL TO PEOPLE AND GROUPS WHO HAVE HISTORICALLY SUFFERED FROM SYSTEMIC OPPRESSION. 
          THE EXPERIENCES AND CONCERNS OF PEOPLE CURRENTLY WHO ARE CHOOSING TO BE UNVACCINATED IS VERY, VERY, VERY DIFFERENT FROM HISTORICAL AND CURRENT CASES OF SYSTEMIC OPPRESSION AND RACISM. 
          AND I THINK IT WOULD BE REALLY UNFORTUNATE FOR US TO CONFUSE THE TWO. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANYTHING FURTHER? I'M HEARING THE MAJORITY ARE NOT IN FAVOR, WE WILL BRING THIS FORWARD TO BE VOTED ON NEXT MONDAY, WHICH IS NOVEMBER 8TH. 
          BUT THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WILL BE IN THE PACKAGE IS TO NOT SUPPORT ADOPTING A PROOF OF VACCINE POLICY. 
          UM, AND AGAIN, IF FOLKS ARE IN FAVOR AGAINST NEXT WEEK, OF COURSE, THE MOTION CAN BE AS AMENDED AS NEEDED. 
          NEXT, WE HAVE A PRESENTATION ON PROOF OF VACCINATION FOR CITY EMPLOYEES. 
          [6. A Presentation on Proof of Vaccination for City Employees.]
MS. BASSI-KELLETT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR. 
          NOW TURNING TO LOOK INWARD, WE NEED TO CONSIDER HOW CITY ADMINISTRATION IS GOING TO UPHOLD THE FOUNDATIONAL COMMITMENTS TO PUBLIC SAFETY. 
          STAFF SAFETY AND THE CONTINUITY OF CORE AND ESSENTIAL SERVICES BY THE CITY ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN LOOKING LONG AND HARD AT THIS, INCLUDING WHAT LOOKING AT WHAT THE GNWT IS DOING, WHAT THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA HAS BEEN DOING AND OTHER MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS AS WELL, AND LOOKING AT HOW THEY ARE WORKING TO SUPPORT THE SAFETY OF THEIR EMPLOYEES AND ARE PREPARING TO MOVE FORWARD IN A CONSULTATIVE MANNER. 
          WE'RE LOOKING RIGHT NOW AT ENGAGING WITH OUR UNIONS. 
          WE'RE LOOKING TO WORK WITH THEM ON THE CONTEXT AROUND WHAT A MANDATORY VACCINATION DIRECTIVE WOULD LOOK LIKE FOR CITY STAFF THAT WOULD ENSURE THE SAFETY OF OUR STAFF IN THE WORKPLACE AND THE SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC THAT WE COME IN CONTACT WITH CITY OF CALGARY, TORONTO, OTTAWA, NEW YORK CITY, EVEN RANKIN INLET, THEY'VE ALL IMPLEMENTED OR IN THE CASE OF RANKIN, THEY'RE CONSIDERING IMPLEMENTING A REQUIREMENT FOR PROOF OF VACCINATION FROM THEIR STAFF AS AN ACT OF PUBLIC SAFETY. 
          [02:15:01]
AND SO I WILL TURN THINGS OVER RIGHT NOW TO KERRY, WHO WILL MAKE A QUICK PRESENTATION ON SOME OF THE THINKING THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT IN TERMS OF MAKING A MANDATORY PROOF OF VACCINATION DIRECTIVE FOR CITY STAFF. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OVER TO YOU, KERRY. 
          THANKS, SHEILA. 
          SO WE CAN GO STRAIGHT TO THE SECOND SLIDE. 
          SO WE'LL START OUT WITH HOW DOES THE VACCINE MANDATE RELATE TO THE ORDER THAT WE'VE SEEN FOR THE CHIEF PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICER, WHICH WE'VE JUST DISCUSSED QUITE A BIT AS WE'VE SEEN EFFECT OF THE 22ND OF OCTOBER. 
          THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICER HAS ESSENTIALLY RECOGNIZED THAT VACCINATION ASSISTS WITH PREVENTING DECREASING COVID. 
          AND SO WE'VE SEEN, AS WE'VE JUST DISCUSSED QUITE A BIT THE POTENTIAL THAT INCREASED NUMBERS IF WE HAVE LIMITS FOR AND ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO BE VACCINATED SO WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. 
          REALLY HAVE TO CONSIDER THE POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE POLICY IMPLICATIONS AND LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS IF WE'RE GOING TO CONTEMPLATE SUCH A POLICY. 
          SO THROUGHOUT THE PANDEMIC, THE CITY HAS REALLY BEEN COMMITTED TO PROVIDING A SAFE WORKING ENVIRONMENT FOR ALL OF OUR EMPLOYEES, AS WELL AS THE COMMUNITY BROADER. 
          AND THE CHIEF PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICER HAS CONSISTENTLY TOLD US LOCALLY AND NATIONALLY THAT THE COVID 19 VACCINE, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT'S PAIRED WITH PUBLIC HEALTH MEASURES, IS THE SAFEST, MOST EFFECTIVE FORM OF PROTECTION FROM COVID 19 AND. 
          PARTICULARLY THE CITY HAS AN OBLIGATION UNDER THE SAFETY ACT TO PROVIDE A SAFE WORKPLACE FOR ITS OWN EMPLOYEES. 
          AND WE'VE SEEN WITH THE RECENT INCREASE IN COVID CASES IN YELLOWKNIFE, THANKFULLY WE'VE BEEN OUT OF THE ORDER OR GATHERINGS ORDER FOR ABOUT A WEEK NOW. 
          BUT WE SAW THAT THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICER REALLY RELIED ON VACCINATION AS AN EFFECTIVE WAY TO PREVENT THE SPREAD OF THE VIRUS AND. 
          ALTHOUGH WE DON'T HAVE ANY LEGISLATION FROM THE TERRITORY REGARDING MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES IN DEVELOPING ADMINISTRATION OF A MANDATORY VACCINE POLICY, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ARGUABLY A SOCIAL OBLIGATION TO MANDATE SUCH REQUIREMENTS FOR CITY EMPLOYEES SIMILAR TO BUSINESSES THAT WE'VE SEEN THROUGHOUT THE CITY THAT HAVE IMPLEMENTED IT, GOVERNMENTS LIKE THE NORTHWEST GOVERNMENT TO THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES AND BUSINESSES THAT HAVE DONE IT. 
          FOR EXAMPLE, FITNESS CENTERS THAT REQUIRE PROOF OF VACCINATION IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE THEIR FACILITIES ARGUABLY SAFER. 
          THEN, OF COURSE, WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. 
          WE HAVE TO CONSIDER HUMAN RIGHTS, ANY VACCINATION POLICY THAT WE MIGHT CONTEMPLATE HAS TO COMPLY WITH INUIT HUMAN RIGHTS ACT AND RECENTLY EVEN THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION HAS RECOGNIZED THAT IN SITUATIONS SUCH AS A PANDEMIC, YOU DO HAVE TO BALANCE HUMAN RIGHTS AGAINST THE GENERAL HEALTH AND WELL-BEING AND SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC AND IS ENCOURAGED EMPLOYERS THAT YOU IMPLEMENT MANDATES FOR VACCINES FOR EMPLOYEES TO ENSURE THAT THEY DO BALANCE HUMAN RIGHTS AGAINST THAT. 
          OF COURSE, AS IN ANY HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERATIONS, WE DO HAVE TO ACCOMMODATE PEOPLE THAT ARE UNABLE TO GET VACCINATED ON THE BASIS OF A PROTECTED GROUND. 
          HOWEVER, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM ALBERTA'S LARGEST WORKING GROUP, THE ALBERTA FEDERATION OF LABOR, THEY'VE RECENTLY STATED THAT IN ALMOST ALL CASES, MANDATORY WORKPLACE COVID VACCINATION POLICIES WILL BE HEALTH LEGAL, AND THE PUBLIC SERVANTS ALLIANCE OF CANADA HAS ALSO STATED THAT THESE ARE LIKELY GOING TO BE MORE OF THE WAY OF THE FUTURE AND THAT UNLESS AN EMPLOYEE HAS A PROHIBITED GROUND FOR A REASON OF NOT BEING VACCINATED, THAT LIKELY THIS POLICY WILL BE LEGITIMATELY HELD AGAINST IN THE WORKPLACE. 
          AND THEN ANOTHER REQUIREMENT THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE WE CONSIDER IS PRIVACY, BECAUSE AS WE KNOW, PERSONAL INFORMATION CLEARLY INCLUDES ANY INFORMATION THAT'S RELATED TO A PERSON'S MEDICAL HISTORY. 
          AND EVERY COURT HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL WORKPLACE IS ADVISING THAT ANY REQUESTS FOR IMMUNIZATION STATUS ARE CONSIDERED PRIVATE INFORMATION AND MUST BE CONSIDERED. 
          AND TAKE UTMOST PRECAUTIONS TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE DOCUMENTS ARE HELD IN SECURE PLACES AND SECURE WAYS. 
          AS WITH ANY HUMAN RIGHTS, HUMAN RESOURCES INFORMATION THAT A BUSINESS 
          [02:20:01]
MIGHT HAVE ABOUT AN EMPLOYEE. 
          SO NEXT SLIDE THE GOVERNMENT TO THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES, AS WE'RE ALL AWARE, ON SEPTEMBER 20 SEVEN, THEY HAD INDICATED THEY DON'T HAVE A POLICY THAT REQUIRED VACCINATION OF THEIR EMPLOYEES WHO DEALT WITH THE VULNERABLE POPULATION. 
          HOWEVER, IN OCTOBER 18TH, 2021 THEY AMENDED THAT TO MAKE IT APPLICABLE TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF THE GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES. 
          AND THEY'VE STATED THAT EMPLOYEES WHO ARE NOT FULLY VACCINATED BY NOVEMBER 30TH ARE GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO WEAR PPE OR PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT AND SUBMIT TO REGULAR TESTING, WHICH COULD BE UP TO THREE TIMES A WEEK, AND THEY COULD ALSO BE PLACED ON LEAVE WITHOUT PAY. 
          RECENTLY, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS STATED THAT IF AN EMPLOYEE FAILS TO COMPLY WITH A. 
          VACCINE MANDATE THAT THEIR EMPLOYER HAS, AND THEY'RE PUT ON LEAVE WITHOUT PAY. 
          IT'S VERY UNLIKELY THAT THEY'RE GOING TO QUALIFY FOR EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, AND THE GENDER PARITY POLICY ACTUALLY STATES THAT IT'S COMMITTED TO ENSURING A SAFE WORKING ENVIRONMENT FOR EMPLOYEES AND THAT THEY'RE COMMITTED TO ENSURING THE SAFETY OF RESIDENTS AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY AND WHO MIGHT HAVE LESS ACCESS TO ACUTE CARE. 
          SO THE NEXT SLIDE REALLY OUTLINES WHAT A VARIETY OF MUNICIPALITIES ARE DOING ACROSS THE COUNTRY. 
          WE COULD HAVE ADDED MANY, MANY TO THIS ALMOST DAILY. 
          YOU'RE SEEING ANOTHER MUNICIPALITY AD OR GOVERNMENT AD IN MANDATORY VACCINE POLICY REALLY TRIED TO TAKE A CROSS-COUNTRY VIEW. 
          HOWEVER, WE'RE FROM ST. JOHN'S, NEWFOUNDLAND TO PRINCE GEORGE AND KAMLOOPS IN B.C. 
          AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S BEING DEVELOPED IN MOST PLACES. 
          SO WHILE EDMONTON HAS IT IN PLACE AND WE'RE SEEING THAT IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS, THEY'RE JUST GETTING THE BALL ROLLING AND SEEING, THE DOCUMENTS ARE GOING TO BE OUT SOON. 
          SO NEXT STEPS REALLY WERE WILL CONTINUE WITH OUR CURRENT WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY MEASURES, WHICH INCLUDES DAILY SCREENING AND MANDATORY MASKING, PHYSICAL DISTANCING, HAND HYGIENE AND ENHANCED CLEANSING CONSULTING WITH THE AFFECTED UNIONS. 
          LETTERS WERE SENT ADVISING THEM OF THIS LAST WEEK AND THEN DEVELOPING A POLICY. 
          SO SUBJECT TO ANYTHING FURTHER, I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          MS. BASSI-KELLETT. 
          ANYTHING FOR THE BEFORE WE OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR. 
          YESTERDAY, WE'RE PROVIDING THIS FOR INFORMATION TO MEMBERS OF GPC FYI AS MS. THISTLE SAID WE'VE GOT CONSULTATION MEETINGS SET UP WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE UNIONS LATER ON THIS WEEK. 
          WE'RE LOOKING AT WHAT THE OTHER JURISDICTIONS ARE DOING, WHAT WOULD BE COMPARABLE AND WORK IN OUR CONTEXT, OF COURSE. 
          AND AGAIN, WE'RE LOOKING TO REALLY ENSURE THE SAFETY OF OUR STAFF AND THE PUBLIC THAT WE ENGAGE WITH. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL? COUNCILLOR MORSE? THANKS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          JUST WONDERING, IT SOUNDS LIKE POLICY DEVELOPMENT MAY HAPPEN. 
          MY QUESTION WOULD BE, IS THIS A POLICY WHICH ADMINISTRATION WOULD BE PLANNING TO BRING TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL OR IS THIS CONSIDERED AN INTERNAL ADMINISTRATION POLICY? WHAT'S GOING TO BE THE PROCESS OF DECISION MAKING AS YOU GO FORWARD? MS. BASSI-KELLETT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE QUESTION. 
          SO THIS WOULD BE FITTING WITHIN THE OVERALL AIR FRAMEWORK, WHICH IS ESTABLISHED ADMINISTRATIVELY. 
          THIS WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT PURSUANT TO THE SAO BYLAW, WHICH PROVIDES THE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CITY MANAGER TO BE ABLE TO DETERMINE SALARIES, BENEFITS, HOURS OF WORK AND OTHER WORKING CONDITIONS FOR CITY EMPLOYEES. 
          THIS WOULD FALL UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THAT. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          THANKS. 
          THAT'S IT FOR ME FOR QUESTIONS. 
          THANK YOU, COUNCILLOR MORGAN. 
          THANKS. 
          YEAH. 
          ONE OF MY QUESTIONS WAS THE SAME AS COUNCILLOR MORSE'S BUT THE OTHER ONE WAS. 
          IS ONE OPTION BEING CONSIDERED THE OPTION OF THE REGULAR TESTING AND LIKE HIS ADMINISTRATION LOOKING INTO THE COSTS AND VIABILITY OF DOING THAT SCALE OF OF 
          [02:25:06]
TESTING AND AND WHERE THINGS ARE GOING WITH TESTING, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT IS BEING EXPLORED? MS. BASSI-KELLETT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YES, WE ARE LOOKING AT THIS BECAUSE WE WANT TO LOOK AT THE BEST PRACTICES THAT ARE EXISTING OUT THERE RIGHT NOW IS A GREAT ROLE MODEL FOR US, AND THEY'VE BEEN CERTAINLY SHARING A LOT OF THE INFORMATION THAT THEY WERE DOING BEHIND THE SCENES TO GET TO THE POLICY DECISIONS THAT THEY HAVE. 
          AND SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S NOT A YOU MUST DO BY THIS TIME OR BOOM. 
          THE THE THE. 
          EVERYTHING CHANGES RADICALLY. 
          WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE ARE OPTIONS IN PLACE, SOME OF THIS WILL DEPEND, OF COURSE, ON THE NATURE OF WORK FOR SOME OF THE EMPLOYEES THAT WE HAVE. 
          BUT WE DO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT WHAT THOSE OPTIONS LOOK LIKE, HOW WE WILL OPERATIONALIZE THEM. 
          AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE BUILD THAT IN BEFORE THERE'S THE NATURAL PROGRESSION OF WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS ARE OF NOT BEING VACCINATED. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YEAH, THANKS FOR THAT. 
          I GUESS THE OTHER CONSIDERATION. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, ONE EXAMPLE I'VE BEEN FOLLOWING I DON'T HAVE ALL THE DETAILS, BUT FOR EXAMPLE, YOU KNOW, IN QUEBEC, THEY CAME OUT WITH THAT THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE A POLICY THAT ALL HEALTH CARE WORKERS HAD TO BE FULLY VACCINATED BY A CERTAIN DATE. 
          AND THEN I THINK THEY MAY HAVE REALIZED THAT THERE WAS PERHAPS TOO MANY UNVACCINATED WORKERS IN THE SYSTEM AND THAT IF THEY JUST DIDN'T LET THOSE WORKERS WORK, THEN THE SYSTEM MIGHT COLLAPSE LIKE, THAT IT WOULDN'T FUNCTION. 
          SO I'M WONDERING IF THAT'S BEING TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY ADMINISTRATION OR IF THAT CAN BE MITIGATED THROUGH. 
          I DON'T KNOW THE TIMELINES OR LIKE HOW. 
          HOW CAN WE CREATE CONTINGENCY PLANS IF IT TURNS OUT THAT TOO MANY OF OUR EMPLOYEES OR MAYBE THOSE DOING ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS ARE NOT GETTING VACCINATED, DO WE HAVE BACKUP PLANS OR OPTIONS? ROGER, THAT WILL BE PART OF THE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE UNION AS WELL. 
          MS. BASSI-KELLETT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          ABSOLUTELY. 
          AND SO WHAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE I AM HUMBLED TO BE ABLE TO WORK WITH THE NUMBER OF AMAZING STAFF AT THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE, AND THERE ARE SO MANY GREAT PEOPLE DOING A LOT OF GREAT WORK. 
          AND SO OUR POINT IN THIS IS NOT TO BE IN ANY WAY PUNITIVE, IT'S NOT TO BE DISPARAGING IN ANY WAY. 
          IT IS REALLY TO UPHOLD THE STAFF SAFETY AND PUBLIC SAFETY COMPONENTS. 
          SO WE REALLY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE WORKING WITH STAFF VERY HEARTENED ALREADY TO SEE THINGS LIKE THE PSC HAS COME OUT PRETTY STRONGLY AND AND THERE'S BEEN SOME OUTREACH TO ME DIRECTLY ON THE POSITION OF CONTINUING TO SUPPORT IMPLEMENTATION OF VACCINATIONS IN WORKPLACES IN WAYS THAT PROTECT THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND HUMAN RIGHTS OF THEIR MEMBERS. 
          THESE ARE THINGS THAT WE'RE ABSOLUTELY ALIGNED WITH. 
          WE WILL BE WORKING WITH THE IAF AS WELL BECAUSE WE WANT TO BE VERY RESPECTFUL, OF COURSE, OF MAKING SURE THAT OUR FIREFIGHTERS AND OUR FIRST RESPONDERS ARE PROTECTED AS THEY GO ABOUT THE VERY ESSENTIAL WORK THAT THEY DO ENGAGE THEM WITH MANY, MANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AS WELL. 
          SO WE'RE VERY MUCH LOOKING FORWARD TO BEING ABLE TO DO THIS IN A WAY THAT'S SUPPORTIVE OF OUR STAFF, THAT'S RESPECTFUL OF OUR STAFF THAT MAKE SURE THAT THEIR SAFETY IS NUMBER ONE AND THAT WE CAN SUPPORT THEM IN DOING THIS IN A WAY THAT'S NOT COMPLETELY DISRUPTIVE TO THEM AS WELL. 
          IF THERE ARE PEOPLE WITHIN THE STAFF COMPLEMENT RIGHT NOW WHO ARE NOT VACCINATED. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANKS FOR THAT, AND I YEAH, I'M SURE THAT THOSE CONSIDERATIONS WILL BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, SO I DO HAVE GREAT CONFIDENCE IN ADMINISTRATION TO COME UP WITH A POLICY THAT'S BASED ON BEST PRACTICES AND CONGRUENT WITH CPHO JOE AND WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS. 
          THANKS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL? SEEING, NONE. 
          THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THE UPDATE, AND GOOD LUCK WITH DISCUSSIONS WITH THE UNIONS. 
          THAT'S THE END OF OUR AGENDA FOR THIS WEEK, SO OUR NEXT MEETING IS NEXT MONDAY AND ITS BUDGET 2022 LAUNCH WOO-HOO. 
          AND THEN OF COURSE, WE'LL HAVE OUR EVENING MEETING, WHICH WILL DISCUSS ITEMS FROM TODAY, AS WELL AS FIRST READING OF THE ZONING BYLAW. 
          SO JUST CONTINUING OUR BUSY FALL REALLY NEXT WEEK, SO MOTION TO ADJOURN. 
          MOVED BY COUNCILLOR KONGE, SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR MORGAN. 
          ANYBODY OPPOSED? SEEING NONE. 
          SEE EVERYBODY NEXT MONDAY AT LUNCH.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.