April 17, 2008

CHARLES DICKENS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

J. Kwan: I’d like to ask the minister some questions around some of the schools in my area. In particular, today I’d like to start with asking questions on behalf of the Friends of Dickens School.

The Friends of Dickens is a neighbourhood group and a subcommittee of Kensington–Cedar Cottage city planning committee. They really were formed to bring issues to the attention of representatives at the local level as well as at the provincial level regarding the retention of the building in their school, a wing of Dickens School that was originally built in 1913. They would like to see that building retained as a heritage site and be used for the community.

[1125]

There are a variety of community needs in that neighbourhood — not in any order of priority. The area of a music centre or artistic centre has been considered. In fact, at one point there was a possibility where the Sarah McLachlan music school was going to move into this wing. It turned out that the space was not big

[ Page 11517 ]

enough, and that deal fell through. It was very unfortunate because the community was very excited about it, and a deal was almost to be had.

At the end of the day, the negotiations didn’t work out. It remains a viable space that could be used. The community also says they would like, as another possibility for consideration, to use that space for child care or even a seniors centre. Near that neighbourhood is the wonderful Cedar Cottage Neighbourhood House, which provides a variety of services in the neighbourhood, including senior services. There’s some contemplation for potentially that use there.

So there’s a whole variety of needs in the community, to be sure. People in the community are working like mad to see how they can sort of save that space and prevent demolition — which is slated, by the way, for later this year — in order to save a heritage building.

I should add that the Vancouver Heritage Commission has passed a unanimous resolution in support of the retention of this building. It is an icon in the sense of the heritage character of that era, and the retention of it….

On the issue around sustainability in terms of being able to use buildings that are still viable…. There’s no need to tear down a building just because people want to tear it down and think that it’s old and antiquated. Then you end up putting all the stuff that you end up tearing down into a landfill in an era when we know we should be reusing and recycling and really working and doing everything we can to save the environment.

Of course, in extending the use of that building on a school site, in essence, you create a community hub. Activity in the community and utilizing the school in ways that perhaps may not have been thought of before create a sense of community in addition to the school on the site.

To that end, the Friends of Dickens had numerous meetings with friends, with advocates in the neighbourhood — heritage advocates and so on. A few months ago they called together a meeting with a range of representatives — a round-table discussion, if you will.

As the local MLA, I was invited to participate, and I was delighted to go and participate. There were city councillors there. There was the school board chair as well as the school board trustee representatives, city council planning folks, heritage folks from the city heritage committee and so on.

At that meeting there were lots of ideas talked about with respect to that, but most notably there were no provincial government representatives there — I should say, on the government side — and people were kind of dismayed, and rightfully so, because they kind of needed all the players at the table in order to engage in this discussion.

The long and short of it is this. They’re still looking for ways to keep the building, to stop the demolition and to ensure that the building is sustainable, that it becomes a vibrant core in the neighbourhood and that it integrates the potential arts or other community uses into this neighbourhood.

First I’d like to ask the minister: is she is aware of this issue, and if she is, what is her view? I have written a letter to the minister as far back as February 6, 2008, inviting the minister to come and participate in a round table with the Friends of Dickens and a variety of people at the table, including the school board and city of Vancouver representatives. To date I have not received a response from this minister.

I wonder if she hasn’t heard about this issue. Has the letter gone missing somewhere? Or if she’s heard about it, can she tell us what her response is?

Hon. S. Bond: We will certainly look for that letter. Obviously, I was not able to be at the round table, and the member has pointed that out. We will check the correspondence files for the member’s letter.

I think the member brings some very valid concerns to the discussion. Yes, we are well aware of the issue. We are in the process of having a discussion with the Vancouver school board, because this particular situation is part of a very complex set of circumstances for this school board.

[1130]

We would agree that the way we look at schools today and in the future is likely to need to change. As a government we have had a very clear emphasis, for example, on early learning and the provision of opportunities for families. We know the importance of child care and those kinds of programs.

What I can tell the member opposite is that we have a genuine interest in working with the Vancouver school board to discuss not only this particular facility but a number of others. The member opposite is correct. There are heritage buildings. There are needs for child care spaces. There are buildings that need seismic upgrades. We have a very good working relationship with the board of education in Vancouver, and we’ve committed to working with them and with parent groups like this.

I do appreciate the member opposite bringing this to the table. We are aware of it. Actually, I am quite looking forward to the discussion about…. Not only the schools we have today but the ones we build in the future probably need to be built differently, as well, to look at things like child care space and hub models and those things.

We are aware of the issue. We are working with the Vancouver school board. We also welcome the input from parent groups like this and also parent advisory councils. It is a work-in-progress as we look at these projects within the Vancouver school board.

J. Kwan: Yes, indeed, the school here that really initiated this process invited other parents from other neighbourhoods in the Vancouver school district to come and participate as well at this round table. There were folks from the Premier’s riding who actually came, and there are a couple of schools there which they’re concerned about. Queen Elizabeth comes to mind. General Gordon is another one on which they’re working with the Premier.

[ Page 11518 ]

My understanding is that they actually had a very positive meeting with the Premier, who had said that if you can get other schools on board or other areas and parents on board, they’d be willing to look at this. That’s actually good news for Dickens, because Dickens started this fight right from the get-go and couldn’t get anybody’s attention until something happened in the Premier’s riding. The Premier is saying: "Well, I don’t want to be the only one that’s doing that. If you can get other parents on board with other school districts, then maybe we can get something going.”

Guess what. I’m an opposition member in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. I support an initiative in actually dealing with some 60 schools in Vancouver, in the Vancouver school district, where there are heritage buildings at issue, where potential closures of schools are at issue. Potentially, with some innovation and flexibility and willingness and creativity, we can actually make use of these buildings in the broader context. That’s good for the schools, good for the neighbourhood and, frankly, good for our city.

In fact, the Friends of Dickens were so motivated to get this initiative going, as we discussed this matter at that round-table discussion, that there was talk about having a larger community meeting, inviting all sorts of people to come — an open invitation for people to come and participate and to explore ideas and concepts.

I think it was about two weekends ago, if memory serves me correctly. It could have been three — I believe, on a Saturday. Again, if my memory serves correctly, it could have been on a Sunday too. It’s all a big blur. All our workdays become Saturdays, Sundays, and it’s all one big blur.

Anyway, on the weekend there was a wonderful, wonderful meeting that was held, an open discussion called Think School that the Friends of Dickens had put together, inviting all sorts of people from all walks of life to come. I think some 200 people in Vancouver showed up on a very rainy day, which is not unusual in Vancouver. People sat together and heard some presentations around these kinds of issues, including seismic upgrades — and I’ll get to that at a later time — and then we all got put into smaller groups and smaller group discussions.

People were invited to talk about: "What are the challenges right now in your particular schools in your area? What is your wish list? What do you think could be done? What are the innovations that could be done?” It was a wonderful meeting. It really was. Really, the folks and the Friends of Dickens should be thanked for all of their efforts, continuous efforts for a couple of years now, in trying to get this initiative going.

[1135]

The minister says that she’s willing to entertain this and look at this. So I would reinvite the minister to come to a round-table discussion that involves not just the school board but a variety of the range of folks that were there at the round table, which included representatives from the Vancouver school board, from the Vancouver city council, the heritage department of the city of Vancouver, the heritage commission in the city of Vancouver, heritage advocates and concerned parents and representatives of the community organizations related to protecting the 1913 wing of the Charles Dickens School.

I would extend that invitation again to the minister to come and participate. I’d be very happy to coordinate that with the participants. In fact, they’ve asked me to initiate trying to coordinate something with the ministers.

That’s why I wrote a letter. The letter was actually addressed to several ministers — the Minister of Education, obviously; but also the Minister of Health, because there could be some health-type initiatives that might be relevant; the Minister of Children and Family Development, because of the child care component; and last but not least, the Minister of Finance, because at the end of the day there’ll be some costs associated with it.

The community, I have to say, were not just saying that the provincial government should pay for everything. They were very willing to explore a range of options — including private partnerships, different levels of government and so on, with everybody chipping in to play their part — but they were saying very clearly that we do need the province at the helm here because the Minister of Education should be and ought to be the lead with respect to this.

I would reinvite the minister. I won’t read the entire letter because the minister can read it for herself. I’ll just simply pass the letter over to the minister so she doesn’t have to rummage through her files, because I made a copy of it to bring here. I would await contact from the minister or a representative from the minister’s office so that we can arrange for that meeting and so that we can proceed. Time is of the essence because the demolition is slated to take place later on this year.

If we don’t act on it now and we don’t put a hold on it, I’m afraid that it’s going to be too late, at least for Dickens School. That may happen for other schools, but we’re certainly hoping that Dickens School could be included in a larger plan that really could be showcased to other communities on how this can be done, and done with innovation. I’ll leave it at that. I’ll thank the minister in advance for the call that I’m going to receive from her office in setting up this meeting.

The other issue that I do want to raise with the minister, because it also did come up at the round table, is the seismic upgrade issues. The parents there, as you could imagine, are very concerned with school safety and for their children in the event that that big day should come. That would be the big day not in a positive sense but rather in a negative sense, and that is an earthquake in our community.

First off, then, on this set of questions, I’d like to ask the minister if she could give me a quick update on the seismic programming with respect to the province, particularly in the city of Vancouver or for the Vancouver school district. What schools are allocated dollars for seismic upgrading? I’m not talking about just some sort of feasibility study. I’m talking about actual work that’s being done. What is the time line?

While the minister is looking for the information, let me just put this on the record as well, because I think it’s useful, related to Dickens. It’s just background information, so there’s no question here, just background information to fill the void.

[ Page 11519 ]

The cost. The Friends of Dickens have actually done up some initial costing for the retention of the heritage building here. The original three-storey building is 8,600 square feet and was built in 1913. The cost to renovate and seismically upgrade it is estimated to be $3 million to $5 million. They do realize the vision and need the participation of the province, the city and the Vancouver school board. They are also recognizing that they also may well need private funders.

The building is scheduled to be demolished in the spring of 2008. Anytime now, later on this year, this is going to happen. Therefore, time is of the essence, and I really just want to emphasize that point.

[1140]

Hon. S. Bond: I do want to just go back and touch on…. Actually, the best way to approach this is by looking at the whole package, not just the seismic pieces. The member opposite brings what is a very complex situation. As I referenced in my earlier comment, there are seismic considerations and there are heritage considerations. There’s growth. There’s decline. There are all of those things.

We are very much engaged in a discussion about how we look at this from a holistic approach. One of the things we’re very encouraged by, with the Vancouver school board’s work, is their concept of neighbourhoods of learning. The member opposite has referenced some of the things that are being considered, things like: what do you put in space that no longer has students in it? How do you build schools of the future? Should we upgrade seismically, or should we build a new building?

There is a vigorous debate. As I understand it, there are even groups within the school district who are…. One wouldn’t be surprised by this, in the work that we do. Some favour retention; others say: "Demolish." There’s a wide-ranging debate going on. But it’s safe to say that we are very interested in looking at this from a very holistic approach. What could we do, what should we do, and how should we utilize the space? That dialogue is ongoing.

I am very cognizant of the member’s invitation as well. We will contemplate that. I think that anytime we can have a discussion about those issues, it’s more productive for all of us.

Just to fine-tune this around the seismic mitigation program in Vancouver…. I know the member opposite didn’t want to know about feasibility studies, but once a project gets to feasibility study, it is actually in the seismic program. So you can’t simply separate those out. That’s an important part of the process.

In terms of the Vancouver board — I can only do it that way; I don’t know which ones fit within the member’s riding — I can give the general sense that as a government we’ve committed to $1.5 billion over 15 years to upgrade schools in 37 of our school districts. Currently we have 13 completed, 14 under construction and 36 commencing in 2008. And 16 of those, which will be in the process, will commence their actual physical commencement in 2009. Then we have a number that are still at district review level, but all of those are in the seismic process. So that’s where those are at.

In terms of the Vancouver board of education, I can say that Captain James Cook phase 1 has been completed. Captain James Cook Elementary phase 2 will begin construction in 2008. Ecole Jules Quesnel is in feasibility stage, which means it’s in the process. General Gordon — which has already been referred to, where there’s some discussion — has a project agreement that will be expected shortly, but we are including that in our discussions with the Vancouver school board.

Kitsilano Secondary has a project agreement. Laura Secord will proceed to construction in 2008. L’Ecole Bilingue Elementary will proceed to construction. Lord Kitchener will proceed to construction. Lord Nelson is in feasibility, as are Queen Mary and Sir Guy Carleton. We will also see Sir James Douglas move to construction in 2008. Sir Matthew Begbie and Sir Sandford Fleming are also in feasibility. We have a project agreement for Trafalgar, and it will go to construction in 2008. Walter Moberly we’re hoping to move to construction.

Significant seismic activity…. No, I shouldn’t say it that way. That is not what we want to see. There would be significant seismic mitigation and upgrading and all of those things taking place in 2008 and onward.

J. Kwan: When the application gets put in…. The application, as I understand, is put in by the Vancouver school board, and then they get evaluated accordingly. The selection process, of course, is decided by the ministry themselves. Can the minister tell me how these schools are selected? Is it on seismic, or is it on the issue of seismic combined with the need for expansion? What are the criteria for consideration here?

[1145]

Hon. S. Bond: To the member’s question. A number of years ago — about three or so; I think it was actually a bit longer than that — there was a significant engineering study done on numerous buildings across the province. As a result, a list was created of the physical integrity of the building. That’s really what the priority is based on.

The projects that are moving forward would have been in the top…. I think it started out being the top 80 projects based on the engineering studies that were done.

J. Kwan: Could the minister make that study available so that I can look at that list?

Hon. S. Bond: We’ll have the staff actually look back and look at the format of the report. The best and most appropriate way for the member to get the information is…. The board of education creates its priority list, which is also funnelled to the Ministry of Education. That is certainly the practice we normally use.

Noting the hour, I would ask that the committee, rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:48 a.m.