In June 2025, the City of Vancouver initiated what it characterized as a "competitive procurement process" to determine “qualified vendors" to log out another 111 hectares of forest in Stanley Park.
The response window was a mere four weeks. Proponents were required by the City of Vancouver to submit at least two implementation strategies, which were to include "public safety, wildfire risk reduction, environmental considerations, archaeological and cultural values, operational considerations, recreational and tourism values as well as economic considerations and cost estimates."
Only one company submitted a proposal: Blackwell Consulting Ltd., which provided a choice of three implementation strategies.
Stanley Park Preservation Society believes that the procurement process was stacked in favour of Blackwell. Due to its previous assessment and logging work, Blackwell was the only company that had sufficient knowledge of Stanley Park with which to develop strategic plans, let alone within four weeks. An assessment would have to be done first to develop strategic plans, but the City of Vancouver made no effort to provide access to the park— or sufficient time— to allow competing vendors to survey and assess the park. It seems that the City’s intention from the beginning was to contract with Blackwell, rendering the “competitive procurement” process a perfunctory farce.
Additionally, despite the stated requirement for cost estimates for each implementation strategy, there is no evidence that Blackwell provided such cost estimates. The City of Vancouver presented the three strategic options developed by Blackwell to the Park Board commissioners for decision, but none of the options included a cost estimate.
On July 21, 2025, the City of Vancouver appeared before the seven elected commissioners of the Vancouver Park Board to seek approval to advance the procurement process for contracted services with Blackwell.
Stanley Park Preservation Society maintains that Blackwell has an apparent conflict of interest in that Blackwell performed the initial assessment of looper impact to Stanley Park then recommended itself to do tree removals in response to the danger it claimed existed. The City of Vancouver never obtained an additional thorough assessment of Stanley Park to corroborate Blackwell’s findings before awarding Blackwell two previous tree removal contracts, and then the current award up for approval on July 21, 2025.
Commissioner Angela Haer shared such a concern when she stated:
I just find that to be a little bit of conflict of interest. I find it interesting that they recommended option one, which is the most amount of work, right? They'd be making the most amount of money with that as well.
Haer voiced concern a second time:
I'm a little concerned that the company . . . there's a conflict of interest. I’m not undermining them. I’m sure they're very professional. But typically, especially as such a large scope of work — this is not a small job — they're doing the consultation, they're doing the assessments, and then they're doing the work on top of that. I think there should be a third party that should be able to bid on the work— at least that's a typical procurement process and also we can control costs in that sense as well.
Haer then attempted to move an amendment to the proposed resolution. She sent her amendment electronically to Chair Scott Jensen and Meeting Assistant Jessica Kulchyski (but it is not visible on the meeting video).
In response to Haer’s motion, Park Board Chair Scott Jensen stated:
It does look like it's out of order . . . and we'll just go to our clerk for a clarification on the out of orderness [sic].
Jensen turned to face Kulchyski who was seated behind him. Kulchyski stated:
So, because the work has already been done . . . there's already been a competitive process performed . . . yeah, so it would be out of order.
Jensen then quashed Haer’s proposed amendment with no discussion and no vote, stating:
Fine, all right, so we are going to . . . move that one out of order.
In summary: The City asked the commissioners to advance the procurement, but it was out of order for a commissioner to modify the procurement—because the work had already been done.
This is not the first time that the work had already been done by the time the City of Vancouver requested permission from the Park Board: None of the previous contracts for logging in Stanley Park were approved in advance by the Park Board; the City merely proceeded on its own volition in violation of the Park Board Procurement Policy.
After silencing Haer, Jensen then presented a separate amendment by Commissioner Digby which did not challenge current approval of the procurement but rather sought a future “public listening and discussion process.” Digby’s motion was not seconded, and died.
Despite the defects in the procurement, and after Haer being silenced, the Vancouver Park Board approved the award to Blackwell with only one “no” vote— Angela Haer.
Haer’s suppressed motion probably called for a delay in the award decision and a referral back to the City for an extension and/or modification of the bidding process to receive additional bids. Had her motion been allowed, it may have passed—thus giving the commissioners an alternative to the binary “yes” or “no” with which they were presented.
Stanley Park Preservation Society would like to know: What is the justification for City of Vancouver employees to tell elected Park Board commissioners, the latter of whom who have sole authority over Vancouver parks, that they are “out of order” when they question and request an extension or change to a procurement for services which will dramatically impact Stanley Park and cost millions to Vancouver taxpayers?
See the report submitted to the Park Board commissioners
We will be appearing before the Supreme Court of British Columbia to get this decision quashed and block further logging. We are in need of financial support for this legal effort. Please contribute.
Donating on this change.org page helps promote the partition, but cannot be used for our legal costs.