CRD Watch Homepage

Transcript of City of Victoria Council Deliberation on Motion put forward by Councillors Hammond and Gardiner to “Terminate Victoria’s membership in the Urban Development Institute”. (Sept 4, 2025)

The transcription of the deliberation provides very interesting and sometimes revealing material as to the thinking of various councillors on this issue regarding the potential separation of lobby and state in the City of Victoria.

The outcome is still to be determined.



By Sasha Izard
Sept 6, 2025



On September 4, 2025 a Council Member Motion by Councillors Hammond and Gardiner was deliberated on at Victoria City Council.

The motion was: “regarding terminating Victoria’s membership in the Urban Development Institute, a lobbying organization for the development industry. “

The motion can be read in full in this previous article:

City Councillors Hammond and Gardiner put forward Motion to “Terminate Victoria’s membership in the Urban Development Institute” “effective immediately”. – CRD Watch Homepage

Or alternatively at the following City of Victoria link: filestream.ashx

—————————————————————————————–

The result of the deliberations were that Hammond and Gardiner’s motion was referred to for a later date, after discussions would be had in regard to a potential municipal lobbyist registry. Hammond and Gardiner voted against the referral, preferring instead to focus at the time on the motion that they had put forward.

——————————————————————————————

The following is a transcription of the deliberations that was made initially by a transcription program, and hours of human editing after to remove computer errors. If any mistakes are made in the transcription, please email info@sashaizard.com, and I will fix those at the first opportunity. Thank you.

——————————————————————————————–

The transcription of the deliberation provides very interesting and sometimes revealing material as to the thinking of various councillors on this issue.

The transcription is as follows:

Mayor Alto:

H4. Another Council Member Motion with regard to Victoria’s membership in the Urban Development Institute.

I believe this is Councillor Hammond and Councillor Gardiner. If you would like to both move and second, moving and seconding, yes.

Cllr. Hammond: So moved.

Mayor Alto: Yes, we’re good and Councillor Gardiner, you’re good for seconding.  Councillor Hammond, please motivate.

Cllr. Hammond: Thanks, Mayor.

I believe the City of Victoria should not be paying for a membership in the lobby organization, whose outcome is to benefit their members, the development or building industry, the Urban Development Institute is a lobby organization trying to get the most for their members. I am not opposed to the building industry trying to get any and every level of government to enrich their membership.

They have every right to do this. On September 12, 2023, while speaking to the View Royal Committee of the Whole council meeting UDI’s executive director said the UDI, is not a lobby organization.

In fact, they were and continued to be listed with the Government of BC office of the registrar of lobbyists.

They are listed in this registry as “currently active” and “last updated July 1, 2005”.

We as councillors and our staff, speak to many people, including those in the building industry, and that’s what developers are, amongst other structures, they build homes, which the city of Victoria needs.

I know lots of people in the building industry, and they do great work.

However, when it comes to their business and their Association, they want to get the best outcome for their members and their membership counts in the hundreds, and we would normally be able to see who is a member, however, the UDI removed that list from their website in November 2023.

But we as councillors want to get the best outcome for all residents without favouring any particular group, hence it doesn’t make sense to me that the taxpayers of Victoria pay an annual membership fee of $1575. While the city of Victoria charts its own course, we can also look to other local governments close to us who have ended their membership in the UDI.

In 2025 councillors of the District of Sooke voted unanimously to discontinue the district’s membership with the UDI.

This followed the councils of Saanich and View Royal, which also voted unanimously in 2023 to discontinue their organization’s UDI memberships.

The staff of the municipality of Oak Bay and the senior staff of the Capital Regional District discontinued their organization’s, UDI memberships in 2024.

It’s worth noting that the CRD had been a member of the UDI for 23 years.

At some point a number of these municipalities realized they shouldn’t be paying a membership into an organization that is trying to lobby us for the benefit of their members, and if we think well, what about other memberships?

If I am correct, the city has a membership in the Victoria Chamber of Commerce for approximately $1800 a year. During the summer, as a council representative for Destination Greater Victoria, I was at a dinner for the Deuce Days event and had a chance to congratulate John Wilson as the new CEO.

As I recall, we had a nice chat, yet that didn’t stop him from blasting this council regarding a Victoria’s downtown on his August 19 first newsletter.

He wrote “one of my first mandates is to be the unapologetic voice of business and call for urgent action to address the crisis in downtown Victoria.”

He said, “This isn’t just unfortunate. It’s the result of political failure.” and then he started with us, “Let’s start with the City of Victoria.  Successive city councils have spent years downplaying public safety concerns as a perception issue.

It isn’t. Ask the shopkeeper who had their windows smashed for the third time this year, or the restaurant owner who had who had to hire private security to protect the staff closing up at night. While council debated bike planes and other nice to have amenities, the downtown core was deteriorating. The City’s bylaw officers are stretched thin, and the police presence has been inconsistent. Our protective services deserve better, they need the resources and direction to do their jobs effectively.”

He ended this by saying: “For us we also need City officials to acknowledge the struggles, businesses face and enforce bylaws, remove entrenched city disorder, and make downtowns safe for families.”

On behalf of the Chamber, John has every right to be upset with us, and by the way, I agree with his comment, but I am pretty sure we can continue our good relationship with the Chamber and also hear their unapologetic voice without the taxpayers paying a membership fee of approximately $1800 a year, and the Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce is a registered lobbyist as well, but that issue is just an example, and any discussion of that can be saved for another date.

So, on this motion on the UDI, when it comes to upcoming budget discussions, I’m not looking forward to the decisions we’ll have to make, but cutting out the cost of a membership in the UDI just makes sense. And from a transparency standpoint, I think it makes even more sense to discontinue our membership immediately.

Thank you, Mayor.

Mayor Alto: Thank you, Councillor Gardiner as the seconder.

Cllr. Gardiner:

I will stick with UDI. I won’t wander from that.

Over the years, council has received concerns that individuals speaking at meetings were affiliated with developers and industry associations. Also that during policy discussions, industry interests are placed above community interests.

Public trust in council and city operations should be paramount to this table.

Residents have raised concerns through correspondence and media about the independence of council on land use decisions, particularly development proposals.

The time has come, I believe, to terminate city membership in the Urban Development Institute.

Thank you.

Mayor Alto: Thank you.

Anyone one else on this matter?

Councillor Coleman, I’m sorry.

Councillor Thompson first, and then Councillor Coleman.

Cllr. Thompson: Thank you, Mayor. I’ll be interested to see what my colleagues say.

I could end up supporting this motion. Um UDI does do lobbying, that’s for sure.

I don’t know if they’re, if they consider themselves primarily a lobbying organization.

I will say that I don’t think they’ve done very effective lobbying on housing policy.

I can only recall one instance where UDI lobbying was used at council and that was the letter that UDI sent in opposing climate action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

That letter was used by today’s seconder.

So to remind people, I think it was yeah, April 6, 2023.

UDI sent in this letter, opposing a motion to accelerate the zero carbon step code. The seconder today read the entire UDI letter into the record in support of her motion to delay adoption and get additional industry consultation.

I mentioned at the time that I could have informed UDI about the errors in their letter, but they sent it between meetings. Morning committee consideration of the motion and afternoon council consideration of the same motion, but when something is said on the public record, it needs to be corrected to the public. So, in the council meeting I spent a fair amount of time going through each of the errors in the UDI letter, and I will do that with the incorrect information that I mentioned earlier today as well, including the information in the Chamber letter.

Anyway, the motion to delay and get additional industry consultation failed over at the committee and at the council.  So, my reasons for maybe supporting today’s motion are a bit different. I’ve heard a lot from citizens wanting to get rid of, wanting the city to get rid of its membership in the UDI, for various reasons.

I’ve heard of costs and, I’m assuming that it’s .01% of the budget or less. I don’t see that as being a significant reason.

I have heard conspiracy theories about council influence. I doubt that very much.

I can only speak for myself.

I made it clear, long before running for election that I’m strongly in favour of more housing, much more housing, and that’s my position.

I don’t care what the UDI says about that.

There’s a chance, though, that for some folks that are out there who are not really aware of UDI’s roles and what it does and doesn’t do and what it does and doesn’t do effectively, uh, the membership uh that the city has in the UDI makes the city look bad, uh, and I think for me, that’s the thing that is kind of pulling me in the direction of supporting this motion.

And I don’t really see much of a big adequate reason for maintaining the membership either. Um I mean, I get I get lobbied all the time by, uh uh community associations, uh, CALUCs, individuals, uh, with a range of views about housing. I think that if we’re going to be weighing in on a bigger motion, which is not before us today, but about, getting lobbied, I think that we will need to look at all the lobbyists.

But uh for this motion, I’m leaning in favor, but again, uh interested to see what my colleagues have to say, thanks.

Mayor Alto: Thank you councillor Coleman.

Cllr. Coleman: Thank you a question through you, your worship, to Ms. Husa. Our membership includes not just the body of council, but it includes our staff, which has been pointed out in numerous emails that we’ve got.

Um, do staff find value in the discussions? With UDI?

Staff: Thank you through you Mayor.

Um Through the UDI membership, there’s a couple of things that we get access to.

Um one is the sort of educational events and panel discussions that happen.

I don’t know, maybe four times a year, I think it is now. Um and there’s also a newsletter.

Um, it doesn’t actually impact our discussions with UDI as a stakeholder of um individuals who, you know, actually build the housing and other buildings in the city. Um so certainly from the um educational events and panels, I would say there is value, um, because it often brings together um different levels of government, um, you know, the province, CMHC, other municipalities, and there’s a sharing of information.

So that is a value , um, and but you do not have to be a member.

There’s a different, there’s a fee differential, but you don’t have to be a member to do that.

So that has been of benefit.

I think corporately.

I’m and I’m just speaking from my experience because there’s um quite a few people in the city staff and councillors that that have attended these um educational sessions.

Um So, as long as it’s under like, there there’s just needs to be an understanding that the conversations that staff have with UDI um around policy initiatives, and things like that, as we would with other stakeholders, that continues regardless of being a member or not a member, um, that’s simply a stakeholder discussion.

Thank you.

Cllr. Coleman:

Thank you for that response.

The problem for me is I’m personally, I’m ambivalent about UDI, but I look at the global politics that we deal with and we’re told that we have to work really hard at making sure everybody’s voice is involved. But we don’t want that to capture us where we’re merely pawns of a group.

So it was referenced earlier, we are also members of the Chamber and they lobby us on certain issues.

We are members of Tourism Victoria.

They lobbied us recently on a hotel that we’ve built. If we’re going to go down this path of saying, I don’t want this industry voice, then we’re gonna have to go through an assessment of all the other voices that are either registered lobbyists or lobbyists de facto, and cut them all out and say, we will only deal with you in personal meetings with or without staff.

Staff can deal with their own schedules.

I, this is a bit of a slippery slope issue.

I look back on some of the things that UDI have lobbied us on you referenced one earlier. Um step code was another where we chose not to take that advice and went in a different direction. I think, um it is conspiratorial in many ways that we see the conspiracies growing around not just in Victoria, but provincially, regionally, nationally, internationally, um and there is a danger in cutting out voices.

I recognize that people are concerned that we get constrained, and the $1575 means that we’re pawns of this group.

I don’t believe that to be the case. Um and I if there is some value that staff can get by having those discussions, whether it’s through membership or non-membership, I think we should keep that going. Um, as I say, personally, I can live either way which we go with this, but I have a real concern that we’re opening a slippery slope and closing out all memberships because people may lobby us.

That’s we are a governance table.

People are always going to lobby us.

We have to have one the intelligence to recognize that we’re being lobbied.

And two, um the circumspection to say, I’ve heard both sides all sides and staff, what is your recommendation, based on the evidence you have?

That doesn’t constrain us, but it just means we have to think of the way through.

So I I’m opposed to this because I think it’s the wrong step on a slippery slope.

Mayor Alto: Thank you.

Councillor Dell

Cllr. Dell: Ah, sorry.

Mayor Alto: Sorry, Councillor Loughton, and then Councillor Dell.

Cllr. Loughton: Thanks, and through you Mayor.

I just want to ask a question just for just um myself, so I have full understanding of this, that staff, if we if we weren’t a member anymore, that they would still have access to the research and reports and all of the forecasts on housing and economic trends, all of that information.

Mayor Alto: Director, is that correct?

The membership does not have an impact on your availability of, you’re working with them are accessing their research and resources?

Staffer:  Thank you Mayor.

No.

It has no impact on that.

Cllr. Loughton:

So just the only impact is that we would potentially pay more.

So a membership gives some savings and certain things.

Okay.

So I’m I’m looking I sort of missed I made a list of the pros and cons of membership and it and it seems to me that the cons really are optics and a perceived conflict of interest, and a focus on private sector interests, but the pros are resource sharing and cost savings, access to industry expert expertise and trends, support for housing and economic development goals, advocacy and policy influence, which is important because it helps us engage with senior levels of government on these issues that affect all levels of government.

And professional development and training.

So and I’m so it seems that there is, our benefit from it outweighs the cons, but I understand too.

We don’t want the public to think that we are, you know, in the pocket of big development.

So it’s a tricky one, but I think I’m I’m not sure how I’m gonna vote on this, but I’m I’m leaning to my my the previous comments before me because I think it is, I agree, it’s a slippery slope if we’re if we’re doing it with with uh this organization then what do we do with all of the other organizations?  Where we’re members and we get lobbied.

So, um this is a tough one, but I think that, um I do think that the pros outweigh the cons.

Thanks.

Mayor Alto: Thank you.

Councillor Dell

Cllr. Dell:

I’m sure, I’ll just want to put on the record that I think I’m going to oppose this for a couple of reasons. One every single conversation I have as a councillor is some type of lobbying generally. Um from neighborhood associations and CALUCs that are that are pushing to oppose projects or neighbors pushing to oppose projects or people who are very comfortable in single family homes, pushing to oppose projects in their neighborhood, uh to developers coming to go, hey, what kind of things are you looking for that might help new housing being built?

So we are all very good at listening to different sides of an argument and saying yes or no and balancing those things, so the information from UDI, we’ve proven that we rejected their last information where they were advocating against our climate goals.

So that’s one. Um, but I think two it’s pretty clear that housing is probably housing administrative red tape, housing policies is probably one of the most complex areas in our country, and that’s one of the reasons why we have a housing crisis.

There’s so many different layers to this, and so allowing staff to be part of the discussions with people who actually build our housing, including folks, I look on the membership like Byron Chard, who’s going to be building a ton of affordable housing right over here, going to those people and going, hey, what can we do to incentivize this type of housing we need in the city that you’re gonna be building with your sort of blood on the line is helpful.

And I think regretfully, I think this is a bit of a political movement I’ve seen against UDI just to go to get sort of push people who want to support housing in the pocket of developers. So that’s not true at all.

We are in the pocket of trying to build more housing in the city, and I think participating in professional associations and allowing staff to learn what other jurisdictions are doing, allowing staff to learn from developers I’d like to hear the next event is with premier Eby and him talking about provincial rules.

Those are the kind of conversations that we should be having and I think leaving any type of organization where staff can have more information, is probably unhelpful, including a couple that were referenced previously.  They are staff or professionals. They are not bowing over to whatever they hear at UDI.

I think they’re taking that in and weighing that with a lot of the other information that comes, so I see this is a bit of a political motion against, you know, housing in the city, and I’m just gonna stand up and say, uh, let’s just keep working with the people who build housing and the city, and I think that’s gonna be better for us in the future of the city.

Mayor Alto: Thank you.

Councillor Gardiner.

Oh, I’m sorry.

Cllr. Caradonna.  That’s OK, thanks Mayor.

I some only feel some ambivalent about this one, and, uh, just listening to the comments around the table.

I’d actually like to refer this motion and, um, if there’s a seconder, I can explain why.

Councillor Kim: I’ll second, sure.

Mayor Alto: Councillor Kim will second, yes.

Councillor Caradonna:

When I first read this motion, it inspired me to do some digging on to in the past of what this council has done to look into our relationship to lobbying more generally, and I found out that we had a staff report before we were elected back in 2021, looking into something called the municipal lobbyist registry and staff I think sent us that old PowerPoint, um, and took a look at it, a lot has changed since 2021. So I actually put together a council member motion that’s coming next week for us to take another look at the municipal lobbyist registry and probably have staff go back and take another look and update it because a lot has changed since 2021.

I would like to have the privilege of having that conversation before making this decision and the reason is that I would rather have a more fair and balanced and informed debate and discussion and some thought on our approach to lobbying more generally rather than picking and choosing one lobbyist and just willy nilly ending a relationship with them, as my colleague said to my right, we have relationship with a lot of lobbying organizations, DGV, the Chamber, DVBA is probably one.

Inherently, I don’t have a problem with us having those relationships, but I think if we’re gonna make a decision that’s fairly important like this and it has been described as a slippery slope, I think it should be based on some kind of principle rather than just kind of picking and choosing.

So I would like to have that discussion next week and either revisit this one next week or the week after or whatever, but have that conversation about municipal lobbyist registry, whether it’s feasible, how we feel about that, before just making this decision.

I don’t think it’s an urgent decision.

Mayor Alto:

Thank you, councillor, I think I would remis if I didn’t ask you to clarify, to what time or event or purpose would you like this to be referred?

Cllr. Caradonna: Would it be okay just to say after the discussion of a municipal lobbyist registry?

Mayor Alto: Sure.

Cllr. Caradonna:  Leave it somewhat vague, but, you know, the next couple weeks.

Mayor Alto: Okay, I’m glad to assume that was part of your original motion.

Councillor Kim, you were the seconder.

Cllr. Kim: Yes, thank you.

I think this is supportable.

I am aware that Toronto has the municipal lobbyist registry and, it certainly has helped manage and shape their conversations.

I think in a more reasonable way, and frankly, this why wouldn’t you make a decision though with a little more informed, so I think this referral is quite prudent.

Mayor:  Thank you and staff, that last word is registry, r y right there. Yes, a lobbyist registry.

Thank you very much.

It might be more clear to say a discussion of, an upcoming council member motion on. On a municipal lobbyist registry.

There you go.

That’s okay with you, Councillor Gardiner?

All right, that has been moved and seconded motion to refer.

On the motion to refer.

Yep, on motion to refer.

Cllr. Gardiner: I’d just like to amend it to put and an s behind the word motion.

Mayor Alto: Under council member motions?

Cllr. Gardiner: Yes,

Mayor Alto: Yes, sure, absolutely.

Cllr. Gardiner: Yes, put an s please thank you.

Mayor Alto: Councillor Hammond, on the motion to refer.

Cllr. Hammond: Is this referring to us creating a municipal lobbyist registry?

Mayor Alto: That’s to be determined based on what the council member motion might say.

Cllr. Hammond: But we’re not talking about some larger group?

Mayor Alto: No, no.

The motion to refer speaks to this motion, the one about termination, returning after council considers an upcoming council member motion about a municipal lobbyist registry.

Cllr. Hammond:  Meaning the City of Victoria municipal lobbyist registry?

Mayor Alto: To be determined.

Cllr. Hammond: OK, well.

Mayor Alto: I haven’t seen the council member motion, so.

Cllr Hammond: Sure, I can appreciate the benefit of it, but when we’re coming up to budget, I can’t imagine I want to suddenly get a new bureaucracy within the city when we’ve got a provincial lobbyist registry all right?

Mayor Alto: Anybody else on the motion to refer.

Okay?

All those in favour of the motion to refer? Motion to refer, Councillor Loughton, Councillor Thompson, Councillor Kim, myself, Councillor Coleman, Dell.

And in opposition: Hammond and Gardiner

Motion to refer is adopted.

Shockingly, that does conclude the items on our committee agenda, there is no closed meeting requirement at committee today, and therefore I will seek motion to adjourn.

Thank you.




————————————————————————————————–


References: Committee of the Whole – September 04, 2025

Video link:

pub-victoria.escribemeetings.com/Players/ISIStandAlonePlayer.aspx?Id=65d3c6b9-0ba2-4b9a-b76e-35e3edd02f03

The deliberations on this agenda item starts at the 5:06:10 time point in the meeting.

————————————————————————————————–


See also:

Index of articles regarding lobby events and other meetings between government and lobbyists. – CRD Watch Homepage

City Councillors Hammond and Gardiner put forward Motion to “Terminate Victoria’s membership in the Urban Development Institute” “effective immediately”. – CRD Watch Homepage

Letter sent to Victoria’s Mayor and Council and City Manager’s office, regarding the City’s potential withdrawal from the UDI development/real estate lobby. – CRD Watch Homepage