CSA - 20190506 PM 030/dmm/1640
The committee recessed from 4:31 p.m. to 4:41 p.m.
[J. Rice in the chair.]
S. Sullivan: My first question comes from some discussions with Ian Cannon, principle of Henry
Hudson; and Robert Ford, the PAC chair with the French immersion. They've had some very
devastating news for many parents that their French immersion will be phasing out.
I guess my first question is about the capacity, really, for these kinds of programs, especially given that
most of the parents and most of the children come from downtown schools, downtown areas and
Kitsilano, etc. I'm just wondering if the minister has any advice or suggestions or support that he could
offer to these parents that are now looking at other options.
Hon. R. Fleming: To the member, I appreciate his question. I don't have any particular advice to that
particular PAC or school community. I'm reluctant to criticize the Vancouver school board for having
made a decision. In fact, if I'm guilty of any criticism, it's sometimes that they don't make any decisions
at all. Having said that, this is also something that is a school district's responsibility — making
educational programming decisions.
Vancouver is also long overdue to have a proper boundary catchment review. I think they've really not
had one for about 12 years. It's a tricky one because there are those who say the Vancouver
demographics are shifting. There are areas where there's no growth. There are areas where there is
growth. There's still, overall, an enrolment decline in Vancouver, I think, this year. I hope it's not the
case next year. So I would hesitate to evaluate the quality of that decision because I'm not really in a
position to have that opinion about what decision, from an instructional point of view and an educational
outcome point of view, Vancouver should have made, other than the one that they did.
I will say, though, that our government, in general, has been working really, really hard to allow all
districts to expand French immersion programming, which is tremendously popular. It has grown by
about 30 percent, I think, in the last decade. It's a wonderful thing, writ large for British Columbia, to
have more and more families aspire to have their children learn both of Canada's official languages.
We're trying to keep up with that demand, not just in Vancouver but in other districts where it's growing,
by focusing on recruitment and retention issues of French-speaking teachers. We have been recruiting
out of province, for example, in Quebec and Ontario and other provinces. We see out-of-province
applications to the teacher regulation branch having grown 85 percent now in just the last five years.
We're also recruiting internationally. We put out a sort of welcome mat to Belgium and France, and we
have, I think, 18 teachers certified just this year since March and up to 60-plus that are currently being
evaluated.
We're hiring internationally. We're hiring out of province. We're also expanding French teacher
education program seats at all of B.C.'s major universities. Some of those seats that we have directly
sponsored from the Ministry of Education, those people are student teachers right now. They'll be
available to hire September 2019 — this year. We hope that part of the future in Vancouver is that
there's more French immersion throughout the district and opportunities for all parents and kids.
S. Sullivan: Okay. On the issue of Henry Hudson Elementary, it is due for a seismic upgrade. It's
certainly a 100-year-old school. I know it had a lot of problems. At high tide, the basement leaks.There's a lot of concern about the replacement building and the size and the capacity. There are a lot of
— I think there are 22 — housing developments going on in the neighbourhood, plus some very large
ones about to happen and possibly the Molson site and some others in the near area.
I'm just wondering if the minister can give some support or comfort about what the plans are for the
replacement. I note that this is a 100-year-old school. It lasted 100 years, and this next version is going
to have to last 100 more years. Given what's going on in the downtown, the growth, the number of
children, the number of parents — young people moving in that want to raise their families in the
downtown area and close to the downtown — is there a chance that Henry Hudson will have an
increase in size, not just a maintenance?
Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. A couple things I would say around Henry
Hudson. Maybe I'll start with this. That school application for seismic mitigation is currently in the
business case development stage. We are reviewing it, currently, in conjunction with the Vancouver
school board. So it's difficult to comment, with that review underway, about what the project
configuration may end up being.
[1650]
I would also note that in the previous question, I suppose, the district decision around Choice Programs
and where to locate them…. That being done in parallel with the catchment boundary review will
obviously shift school populations. This school is over capacity because a lot of kids are coming from a
fair distance away to go to this school. I think what the school board is doing, if I understand correctly,
is to make this a neighbourhood school again and have a catchment based on geography as opposed
to a districtwide Choice Program.
It's a long way of saying that this will have an impact, one would think, on the district's request for an
addition or not. We expect, in the business case — and I don't think this is a secret — that there'll
probably be option for a seismic upgrade, and it'll be an option for a seismic replacement. There will
really be the analysis about the overall cost of the investment, done on a 40-year analysis and cycle, to
determine which is the best option for the province to fund.
What I would say, as well, because you really referenced the densification of downtown and having
school options for kids and families either moving to or already living in the downtown peninsula — and
he'll need no reminder of this, but I'll just put it on the record — is that the school district now has $75
million in its accounts from B.C. Hydro around the Roberts Annex decision. The district has so far said
that it will use approximately $30 million of that funding to build a new Coal Harbour elementary school
that will have all kinds of amazing opportunities for educational options in the downtown. It'll be a
fantastic facility, and it will be a net increase of 180 elementary spaces.
That also leaves a balance of funds for the school district to consider investing in other school
infrastructure. I think the priority is in the downtown peninsula. I won't speak for them, but there would
be a range of opportunities there where they may create seats for students living in the downtown. It's
their money. I mean, obviously, we will be consulted at the Ministry of Education about that investment.
But I think it's part of the puzzle, maybe, that the member is describing — that there are a lot of moving
pieces here, a lot of options for Vancouver students to address the lack of schools in densifying areas
and also to get a long-range facility plan that links with the official community plan much better, looks at
what city hall is doing and projects out ten years into the future and sees what schools might look like in
every part of the city.S. Sullivan: I believe it's 11 schools right now that are wait-listed, mostly in the downtown area. There
has been a school…. First of all, I'd like to acknowledge the Vancouver school board and their
resourcefulness that they are willing to do some very innovative funding options with B.C. Hydro. They
had to make some tough decisions that weren't always popular with the parents.
We have Amazon moving in with a thousand, and way more than that now, apparently, is coming. We
have an absolutely incredibly growing economy, especially in the tech sector. A lot of these employees
are young people, and they are having families, and they intend to raise their children in the downtown
area.
There is one school, the Olympic Village school, that has been discussed now for 20 years. As far as I
can remember, we've been talking about that. And now, with the new development, it's certainly
becoming much more an issue, especially right in that area. There's a lot of new tech development
happening and a lot of demand from young families who want to move in there. It's not only an issue of
children and education for the children. This is also related very much to economic development for the
province.
[1655]
We have a lot of families going to set up their households here, so I'm just wondering if there is any
other discussion about Olympic Village school, for example, which has now being discussed for quite
some time now.
Hon. R. Fleming: It's an interesting topic, and it's one that unravels in terms of all of the factors that are
currently going on in the Vancouver school board. We talked briefly about the boundary catchment
review, which is going to be critically important for the district to make decisions around where they
think enrolment problems — i.e., overcapacity schools and undercapacity schools — can be better
balanced out.
CSA - 20190506 PM 034/acr/1700
I know that the district has a lot of passionate administrators and trustees as well, who really want to fly
the flag of educational excellence in East Vancouver, for example, where, typically, schools are less
well attended than those on the west side, but there's a lot of commuting going on. The boundary
catchment review is maybe something that's going to address that — or future school choice strategies
that the school district has will help inform that.
What I would say is that a lot of discussions that have been, let's say, fruitless over the last number of
years around making a decision, for example, on Olympic Village will come into sharper view once the
district has discharged a couple of its important responsibilities. One is a new LRFP, under the new
guidelines that we've issued, and the other is the boundary catchment review.
I think, also, the member may have a view that he wants to consider and then express around where
the B.C. Hydro money — if I can call it that — should best be invested. I know that the district has
currently been very firm on Coal Harbour elementary, and we support that. The province will probably
be involved through B.C. Housing and/or a child care centre at that location. It's also a partial
replacement project, I suppose, given that the 120 seats at Roberts Annex were lost.
But in terms of False Creek in general, I can tell the member that the number one priority we have rightnow in that neighbourhood is a project definition report that we've supported around a seismic upgrade
of False Creek Elementary. We're reviewing that now. And just so he's aware, that'll be the nearest
major investment that we make in the False Creek neighbourhood. Because as part of our life safety
mandate, we need to make investments into seismic upgrades of schools like that.
The expansion projects that Vancouver has, I suspect, will be very much recast after they've done their
boundary catchment review. And of course, it helps when you have some money, which the Vancouver
district now has in that B.C. Hydro fund, to be able to consider your options while you're making a
bunch of decisions that could change the evolution of the district in the coming years. I think they're
now starting to see holistically how they can gain momentum on rebalancing overcrowded schools with
those that aren't and making strategic investments in areas that have growth.
The final point I'll make, too, is that while I don't dispute the member's interest in the tech sector and
some of the investment and the jobs that that will bring, I have to say that in recent years, what we've
seen in the downtown peninsula, even with densification, is not the number of kids that you would
anticipate. I think Vancouver was a little bit disappointed in the school, Crosstown Elementary, that is
down near the arena. It's nowhere near capacity at this point in time. Also, the district overall has still
seen enrolment decline overall, and we know where those families are going. They're moving to
Langley. They're moving to Chilliwack. They're moving to Abbotsford. We are seeing an increasing
amount of Vancouver families wind up in the Fraser Valley or even in the Tri-Cities — somewhere
south of the Fraser in general.
So while Vancouver grows and has economic investment happening and more jobs, it doesn't
necessarily translate into the kinds of families and kids that you would expect to see that would
correspond with that investment.
S. Sullivan: I won't ask any more questions, but just maybe a couple of comments on the way, just for
your consideration.
Something that I hear quite a lot from parents is that for all the faults of the old schools, they have these
wonderful high ceilings and wide hallways and cloakrooms and things like that that aren't part of the
new plans and don't fit there. So I would just make a plea for some consideration of the kinds of
standards that they used to have. Given that we're building for the next 100 years, you might consider
the comments from these parents.
The final one is that when I was on the city council, the developer of one…. Concord Pacific offered to
build a school as part of their community contribution, and the ministry said no. "We're going to wait till
we see the whites of their eyes. That's when we'll allow schools to be built."
[1705]
There are some big developments coming through, and I think we should be very aware that that has
been offered before. If it does in fact come in the future, I think there should be flexibility within the
system to go with something like that.
Those are my comments.
Thank you very much, Mr. Minister, for indulging me with these questions. Draft transcript only