Fifth Session, 41st Parliament

(2020) REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS

(HANSARD)

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY,

SECTION A

Virtual Meeting

Thursday, June 25, 2020

Morning Meeting

Issue No. 1

ISSN 2563-3511

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Committee of Supply

Proceedings in

Section A

Estimates: Ministry of Education (continued)

Hon. R. Fleming

D. Davies

S. Sullivan

B. Stewart

S. Bond

T. Shypitka

J. Sturdy

THURSDAY, JUNE 25, 2020

The committee met at 9:40 a.m.

[S. Malcolmson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Proceedings in

Section A

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

EDUCATION

(continued)

On Vote 21: ministry operations, $6,657,927,000

(continued) .

The Chair: Good morning, everybody. I’m Sheila Malcolmson. I’m the MLA for

Nanaimo. I’m chairing this session this morning.

I want to recognize that we’re participating from all over British

Columbia. I am participating today from the homeland of the

Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking people,

today known as the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations. I extend

appre­ciation to them for the opportunity to undertake this

work on their territory.

We are meeting today to continue consideration of the estimates of

the Ministry of Education.

I recognize the minister to move the motion. That wasn’t done

before.

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for getting us underway with that

First Nations introduction of the traditional territories. I’m on the very

same territories that you are this morning. I realize we have members

joining us from around the province and throughout the buildings here in the

legislative precinct.

Given the time that has elapsed, approximately 100 days, since we last

enjoyed estimates together, I do have a bit of a statement just to outline

some of the parameters of things that we have been doing as a ministry that

I think will add valuable context to the estimates debate.

Per your direction, Madam Chair, I’ll wait for the member for Peace

River North to ask me a question first and indulge him in a tangential

answer to his first question.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

I now recognize the member for Peace River North, who is the

official opposition critic for Education.

D. Davies: Good morning, everyone. I just want to, first of all…. I mean, we are

starting off in a new world here, of course, where we are from all over the

province.

I want to start by thanking all of the teachers, administrators and

school districts around the province — certainly in my own school district —

that came to the call to do what probably nobody ever thought we would have

to back in March. Both of my children are in the education system. We

weren’t too sure what it was going to look like moving forward and certainly

appreciated how everybody did pull together and delivered education to the

best of everyone’s abilities. Certainly, my kudos go out to everybody

involved in getting us through these trying times.

I also want to thank all the front-line workers and those folks that

have kept us going — from our medical staff and emergency services to our

truck drivers that are delivering our goods. I certainly appreciate all of

them as well.

Finally — I know some had the opportunity to do this yesterday — I

want to do a very special and heartfelt congratulations to all the graduates

across the province, the graduates in my own riding and in the different

communities of Peace River North.

[9:45 a.m.]

It has been said before, but students, when they entered into their

grade 12 year in September, would have never expected a graduation that

would look the way that it did here in these last couple of weeks — reverse

parades, these virtual meetings and gatherings. Again, I take my hat off to

the administrators of these schools, the school districts and teachers for

how they pulled off quite a memorable graduation for these

graduates.

I had the opportunity to make virtual comments to a couple of the

graduating classes for the schools in my riding. I certainly recognize that

this pandemic should not take away anything from the accomplishments of our

grade 12 students, the commitment that they’ve made throughout this past

year, but in fact, it should enhance it. They had to finish off with the

incredible challenge of a worldwide pandemic to get themselves to

graduation. Congratulations to all the graduates in my riding, as well

across the province.

Our plan here today is that we’re going to start off focusing on

capital questions. I believe that the ministry staff should have received

that note, that we’ll be starting with capital. I know that the minister had

mentioned it 100 days ago, but it seems like eons ago that we sat in the

committee hall there and did the questions. I can imagine, as the minister

also stated, that there are significant changes. We do expect that, and we

will be certainly asking questions over the next number of hours today and

tomorrow to kind of paint the picture of how things have changed.

I will start out with my first question. It’s probably one that the

minister is expecting already. Basically, how has COVID-19 impacted capital

expenses as well as the capital timelines for his ministry?

Hon. R. Fleming: I’ll get to the member’s question in a moment. I thank him for that,

and thank him also for his acknowledgment of the graduating class of 2020. I

know that members have had an opportunity in their communities to connect

with students and school communities, which are really important to the life

of their constituencies, and I recognize that those are ongoing even

today.

I know that my own children were involved in graduation ceremonies of

their own, moving on from elementary and middle school yesterday. It is nice

to see, after a prolonged period of uncertainty, isolation at home and

difficult times for everybody in British Columbia, that there is a joyous

conclusion to the most unusual school year that we’ve experienced, I think,

in 100 years.

I thank, and join, the member for Peace River North in acknowledging

the creativity that districts and individual schools have deployed to

rightly celebrate the achievements and accomplishments of students who are

completing 13 years of a school career.

We have tried, as a provincial ministry, to amplify that as well. We

had a lot of famous British Columbians wanting to step up and also pay

tribute to the efforts of the grad class of 2020. We’ve put out a number of

videos. We’ve partnered with the WE organization and did a broadcast in that

regard and communicated with school districts through the provincial health

organization about what might be an appropriate and safe way to rightfully

acknowledge the grad class of 2020. I want to thank the member for Peace

River North for joining in on some of those activities around B.C. and in

his own community.

It’s great to be back in the Legislature, and I want to thank everyone

who’s joining us — all the members, and those who may be watching this

virtually. I look forward to trying this out, the first virtual estimates

experience of this legislative sitting. As I mentioned earlier, it’s

probably an understatement to say that a lot has changed in our education

system since we last met. So I wanted to give the Committee of Supply a

little bit of an update on the many investments that we’re making in support

of students, families and staff across B.C.

[9:50 a.m.]

There is no doubt about it. COVID-19 has had a deep and profound

impact on the way education services have been delivered over the past few

months. Throughout this health crisis, the education sector in B.C. has

responded in ways that have made us all proud, right across our

province.

I think the key to our success is the collaboration that we’ve had

with all 60 school districts, with First Nations and Indigenous communities,

with independent school authorities, with the B.C. Teachers Federation and

with union partners like CUPE B.C. as well as the B.C. Confederation of

Parent Advisory Councils and organizations like the Principals and

Vice-Principals Association. I would also add to that list the many parent

and inclusive education advocacy groups that the ministry has worked with in

coming up to a restart and a staged plan for the safe reintroduction of

in-class instruction.

The approach, as the member will know, has been gradual. It has been

measured. It has followed the clear direction of the provincial health

officer and the B.C. Centre for Disease Control, and I think this approach

has definitely paid off for B.C.’s school system.

Right after spring break, staff and educators began welcoming back

approximately 5,000 children of essential service workers so we could keep

our front-line health care system ready to respond to the pandemic. Also the

schools were open to support those children that required additional

learning supports, and we did that safely for the first two months, April

and May. We had school staff redeployed from their usual jobs to help with

everything from cleaning to meal programs. In fact, the capacity around

delivering nutrition and meals to kids and families that were vulnerable

during the pandemic increased to 75,000 healthy meals per week from March to

June.

There was a technology gap that we quickly realized needed to be

fixed, and we worked with school districts to create a lending program for

those who lacked technology for remote learning. Almost 23,000 computer and

technology loans occurred that helped families with everything from Internet

connections to tech support they needed at home.

The school year ends tomorrow, formally, and I can tell you the return

to in-class learning over the past month was a tremendous success. Giving

the parents the choice to send their kids safely back to the classroom on a

part-time basis was the right decision for our province. Nearly 200,000

students returned to their classroom for the four weeks of instruction in

June. I’ve heard daily from parents and teachers who tell me how much it has

meant to them to have those in-class, in-person connections again, to be

back in the classroom, not to mention those parents who have appreciated the

school system being there for them so that they can transition back into the

workplace.

For those children who needed extra support, this has been an

invaluable month in stemming learning loss and setting them up for the

traditional summer break and a strong restart to the school year in

September. All of what has happened in June in terms of the stage 3, as we

call it, of in-class instruction has been extremely valuable in terms of the

lessons learned for September.

To make sure that we have a solid plan in place before the next school

year begins, we’ve convened a steering committee that includes teachers,

parents, staff, First Nations, CUPE, principals and vice-principals, school

boards, trustees and public health representatives. This is going to allow

us to learn from those best practices that I just mentioned and to

collaboratively find solutions together to some of the questions that do

need answers.

We’re committed to ensuring that families have information as soon as

possible ahead of time so they can plan for the school year ahead. We want

people to have a safe and happy summer, and we want them to have information

that is useful for them as they plan the return in September.

We all know that we’re not able to predict how the virus will behave

or change over the next year, but we have plans in place to meet any

situation that may arise. All school boards and independent school

authorities will have plans for each stage, approved by the ministry, that

ensure they’re ready to make changes if there’s a risk of transmission, if

there’s a second wave or if there are isolated local community outbreaks

that disrupt the school system’s return.

Back to Budget 2020, tabled way back in February. Just looking ahead,

we’re making sure that all students have the opportunity to thrive. That’s

what this budget supports, no matter what their circumstances, their

learning needs or where they live.

[9:55 a.m.]

It’s the highest school operating and capital funding ever — more than

$20 billion of investment for B.C. schools over the next three years. After

years of underfunding, we’re making historic investments in school capital

projects, with $2.8 billion in this budget over three years to replace aging

schools, to add more spaces in growing communities and to continue to

fast-track seismic upgrades.

I went over the specifics of these significant investments when we met

in March, but I’d like to recap our active work and new investments for

expanded schools, seismic upgrades and replacements as well as land

purchases for future schools in communities across B.C. Just to give some of

the highlights, since September 2017, we have now invested $363 million in

Surrey for new student spaces; $288 million in Vancouver; $169 million in

Sooke, the fastest-growing district in the province; $97 million in

Coquitlam; $92 million in North Vancouver; $91 million in Chilliwack; $51

million in Langley; and $27 million in Abbotsford, just to name a few

communities.

I’m pleased to say that, once again, we’re on track to ensure that

more playgrounds are built with our annual $5 million fund, which continues

to relieve the fundraising burden that had been placed on parents and parent

advisory committees for far too long. That’s a popular program. It remains

popular and fully subscribed, and we’re very pleased to see that playgrounds

will be installed over the summer break and be ready for students returning

in September once again.

To date, we have now funded 23 neighbourhood learning centres at new

or replacement schools since September 2017, with 1,200 new high-quality

child care spaces in schools and more on the way. In total, we have 95

active school capital construction projects being delivered in B.C.

currently. That is not only good news for students, families, teachers and

staff who work in the school system, it is especially good news economically

in terms of getting money circulating in the economy during this very

difficult time as we transition towards a strong recovery to B.C.’s

economy.

I’m also pleased just to say again that targeted funding for students

with special and complex needs with Budget 2020 have now gone up an

estimated 35 percent under our government since September 2017. Funding to

support Indigenous education has now increased by an estimated 34 percent

since September 2017. The member will recall that in Budget 2020, we’ve

increased the classroom enhancement fund by an additional $93 million over

three years. We have used that fund to hire over 4,200 teachers, including

nearly 700 new special education teachers and nearly 200

teacher-psychologists and counsellors who are doing important work to look

out for the mental health and well-being of students across B.C.

I’m pleased to also state that, since we last met in March, the B.C.

Public School Employers Association has reached a three-year agreement with

the B.C. Teachers Federation which will provide $454 million of increased

compensation over the term of the agreement. That contract covers 45,000

teachers and gives stability to our classrooms, and we’re looking at how to

support bargaining negotiations in future years on the basis of the

successful conclusion of negotiating in March.

Before I finish here, I’d just like to mention that we have been

hearing and listening to community organizations about the experience of

people of colour in our schools, including Indigenous students and Canadians

of African descent. They’re raising legitimate concerns, and that’s why we

have organized a number of meetings with Indigenous organizations, the

African-Canadian community and other multicultural communities to look at

how we can do things better.

This will be an all-ministry, all-government approach. We’ll be

partnering with community organizations to ensure we have effective

anti-racism campaigns for kids in the next school year. We will model and

build these new anti-racism programs on the successful anti-bullying

campaign that we currently have in schools. Part of this work will continue

to ensure that curriculum plays a critical role in ending systemic

racism.

As Minister of Education, this is a responsibility that I take very

seriously, and I look forward to working with all members of the House in

terms of soliciting ideas and updating them on some of the conversations and

formal meetings that I just outlined are underway.

[10:00 a.m.]

I want to thank the Chair for allowing me to answer a question but

make a statement, bringing us up to date from where we were 100 days ago and

sharing some of the important work underway at the Ministry of Education. I

look forward to answering the Education critic’s questions that he will have

today and tomorrow and outlining some of our significant accomplishments in

greater detail.

To the specific question that he asked me, I will go on mute for a

moment and get right back to him.

Thank you to the member for the question. I think maybe I would begin

with this, and, un­doubt­edly, he has some follow-ups. I

think British Columbia has undoubtedly benefited from the fact that,

unlike other prov­inces, we didn’t shut down construction activity

at any point during the pandemic. We have kept jobs and projects being

built, kept economic activity happening in terms of public sector

infrastructure right across British Columbia — energy projects, major

projects, including school construction. We have carefully and closely

monitored any impacts that COVID-19 has had on scheduled work and

construction activity that was already underway before the pandemic

occurred and also for projects that were in the competitive bidding and

tendering processes.

I think I would characterize it, in terms of the aggregate impact of

COVID-19 on school capital projects, as having some impact in terms of

schedule. There are some projects that have been knocked back by a few

months and some impact on costs. But overall, we’re very, very pleased that,

for the most part, the impacts have been very modest, and in many projects,

there has been little to no impact. That’s the good news.

The degree of impact, though, does appear to vary, depending on the

type of project, where it’s located in B.C. and the stage of construction

under which the project was engaged. We have asked school districts to do

market sounding now as part of a pre-tendering approval process to ensure

that we’re getting good, competitive bids that are within budget.

The impact of COVID-19 on construction projects is obviously something

that we have seen worldwide. We have worked with WorkSafeBC and the

provincial health office to ensure that there are safe physical distancing

practices in place on construction worksites and that contractors have those

plans in place for projects to continue.

The Chair: Minister, thank you. That’s your time.

I recognize the member for Peace River North.

[10:05 a.m.]

D. Davies: I didn’t know that we had time limits on responses. Okay. Thank you,

Chair.

The minister, I guess, made it certainly sound like there are very

minimal impacts on construction projects throughout the province. Maybe a

specific question, then. I get that every community is going to be

different, different contractors and such. Has the minister heard of any

school districts that have larger capital projects underway facing any

challenges due to contractors going out of business due to COVID? I know

that there have been some construction companies that have not fared through

this pandemic. I’m just wondering if the minister is aware of any impacts

directly on these construction projects.

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. I’m pleased to say that no

projects have been cancelled due to COVID-19 in the school capital

construction activity. To the hypothetical scenario where contractors have

had business interruption or been unable to perform to their contract, we

haven’t had any reports across the province.

D. Davies: Like you say, we’re just kind of managing through this. I know I have

colleagues that are online here right now that do have a few capital

questions, so I might just give them the opportunity here. I have three

colleagues that have some capital questions. Then we will continue on as

well. The next person for our caucus would be the member for Vancouver–False

Creek.

S. Sullivan: A couple of things. I just wanted to thank you, first of all, for the

Henry Hudson announcement of $30 million, $10 million from the city, and

this very much needed, seismically safe replacement. I just acknowledge

that.

The real question for me is this perennial one that’s been asked for a

decade or more. It’s about the Olympic Village. I know the minister did make

an offer. The Vancouver school board did not take it. But given the changes

with COVID and the court case and the anxiety around budgets, I’m wondering

if the minister has any hope for the parents.

I’ll just preface it by saying that we did an analysis of the age of

school children in the area. Although people do think of the downtown area

as not having a lot of children, in fact, when you actually look at the

children per square kilometre, Vancouver–False Creek is second highest in

the city.

There are 307 children per square kilometre in Vancouver–False Creek

under the age of four and 285 children per square kilometre…. For example,

that compares to Point Grey. They have 97 children per square kilometre.

It’s 307 for Vancouver–False Creek. So there are a lot of young children

living in Vancouver–False Creek who need access to the elementary

schools.

I would just ask the minister: is there any update? Is there any hope

that he can give for this much-needed school?

[10:10 a.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. I know we have discussed

this both on the record, in forums like this, and privately. I appreciate

his long-standing interest in this, on behalf of his

constituents.

What I would say to him, by way of an update, is that to get a school

on the Olympic Village site, to get ahead of the planning problems that

Vancouver has experienced over the last, say, ten to 15 years, where you’ve

had densification in certain parts of the city at the same time as you have

had a growth in empty school spaces overall in the district, is going to

require a cooperative effort.

The city owns the identified preferred site. My understanding is the

district is actively in conversation with the city currently about the

acquisition of the Hinge Park site now. We’re certainly supportive of that,

as the Ministry of Education. The offer I have made previously to the

Vancouver school board and the city of Vancouver remains in place. We would

like to have cooperation, agreement, a three-way partnership to make

progress on the project that the member is asking about.

He referenced the recent Supreme Court case on

section 23, minority

language rights, as it relates to the francophone school district in B.C.

That is a real, live issue for Vancouverites, for his constituents who have

language rights that they wish to exercise and attend public francophone

schools. We have a shortage that has been identified there and a record of

litigation that goes back to 2010.

[10:15 a.m.]

We would like to…. The courts have certainly directed so-called

the ministry to help resolve the issues that the court has identified in

terms of the constitutional rights of students and their families to learn

in the French language. We think that’s a good way for the Vancouver school

board to address both its capacity issues and to more quickly address and

get to some of its capital priorities in their school districts.

So I am hopeful. The member asked me to sort of characterize my mood

on this. I am hopeful that we can make progress. I see all the ingredients

in place. The city has certainly been saying all the right things and has an

interest in the project that the member has asked me about. So thank you for

the question.

The Chair: Does the member for Vancouver–False Creek have a

follow-up?

S. Sullivan: Well, no. I thank the minister for his efforts on that, and I just

encourage him to please help with the parents. There’s a huge, huge problem

right now. People who have come to live in the downtown in a very

environmentally sustainable manner made some big sacrifices to do

that.

I just want to maybe alert the minister to the issue of Crosstown

School. There is a real, serious problem of…. You know, it’s very close to

the Downtown Eastside, and these problems of drug addiction and street

disorder are spreading right through my whole riding. It’s a serious

problem. I’m getting hundreds of people from all over asking about it. There

are parents who feel that their children are not safe.

There are very easy answers to this. They’re done all over the world.

I would encourage the minister to encourage the Minister of Mental Health

and Addictions…. This is the worst…. I can’t believe that after five years,

we actually have a worse problem of drug addiction overdose deaths. It’s

affecting the children in our school.

Remember, in our riding, 65 percent of all trips are made by foot.

People walk their children to school. They’re walking past all of this

disorder and the needles discarded everywhere. I just wanted to alert him to

that.

This is a provincial problem. Dr. Bonnie Henry has these emergency

powers, has the political credibility to do something about it. We’re losing

that opportunity if we don’t solve it soon.

I’ll just leave that. It’s not really a question. It’s just to confirm

that this is a serious problem in my riding and, I know, ridings throughout

the province. It’s not a Downtown Eastside issue anymore.

I’ll just note one final thing. June 23 was the 65th anniversary of

the Senate report on drug addiction in Vancouver. For 65 years, if you go

and look at the archives, front-page headlines about how drug addiction was

destroying neighbourhoods. In 1955, that’s when the Senate was so alarmed at

what was happening in Vancouver that they had a whole….

The Chair: Member, I’m going to ask you to return to the matter of the

estimates for the Ministry of Education, please.

S. Sullivan: I’m going on and on. Thank you very much for any comment that you

have.

The Chair: Minister, are you willing to respond?

Hon. R. Fleming: Yes, I am. If you could give me a moment to try and get some

additional information to the member’s comment and question.

[10:20 a.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for outlining his concerns about Crosstown

Elementary, specifically, and some of the community safety issues that he is

hearing about from his constituents.

I am aware of some ministry work with school districts, on safety

protocols, for schools that may have similar concerns as Crosstown

Elementary. I also understand that Crosstown has created a safety protocol

that’s specific to that school site, with school district 39 providing

leadership and staff resources to develop that with the principals,

vice-principals, and teaching and support staff. On site, it includes things

around supervised playground activities and those sorts of

things.

It’s obviously a big social problem. The member alluded to Senate

reports and to substance abuse and mental health issues as a large social

problem that is found in every jurisdiction in our country, across North

America and beyond.

I am pleased, though, as it relates to the Education Ministry, that we

have some very robust partnerships with the Ministry of Mental Health and

Addictions around preventing adolescents from getting involved in substance

abuse, and also providing additional, new mental health supports. The member

will be aware of the expansion and the success of the Foundry community hub

model that is available for youth 12 to 24. Those are developing and

deepening relations with school communities across B.C.

[10:25 a.m.]

Of course, there’s quite a reference to helping young people both

avoid it and get treatment, if they’re involved with substance abuse,

through the Pathway to Hope program that the Minister of Mental Health

and Addictions, who I see has joined us in Committee of Supply, outlined

on behalf of government. We have some pretty exciting, specific

partnerships and pilots underway in a couple of school districts — Maple

Ridge and Comox Valley are two of them — where we are enhancing the

kinds of mental health and substance abuse supports available to the

school system.

We’re sort of at the point where we’re looking at expanding those

pilots to other parts of the province and also developing some important

information and research on what is effective for school-aged populations on

helping them avoid drugs, helping them to get treatment if they need it and

also not waiting to be proactive — to be preventative and to have mental

health and counselling supports that are free of charge and available to

families and young people that come under those kinds of stresses in their

lives.

B. Stewart: Minister, we’ve talked a number of times about the capital plans that

have been made by school district 23 to the ministry. They’ve had a number

of challenges, I think. I know that in many places — such as that of the

member for Vancouver–False Creek — limited land availability for new schools

in urban areas is a challenge. In school district 23, obviously, the bigger

issues are the amount of land that’s in the agricultural land reserve and

Lake Okanagan as a geographic boundary, with the mountains and hills

trapping the valley in there.

On the West Kelowna side — where their number one priority is —

Westbank First Nation controls and has significant land holdings. They’ve

been moving ahead with your ministry on this particular issue. They’ve

eliminated the issues on an existing school site that has had some ALR

restrictions. Secondly, they’re looking at another site, which is on

Westbank First Nation land, as being the most promising site. It may not be

the only one.

I guess my question to yourself and the ministry is: at what type of

speed can the ministry provide a decision on a land purchase that the school

district may put in front of the ministry — so that they can move on with

the new secondary school that has been identified and, in our comments

previously, has been agreed to — and, I guess, the speed at which financing

on a fee simple piece could be exercised? Secondly, will the ministry

support a long-term lease with WFN lands as another option?

The Chair: For the benefit of the public, if anybody is watching out there,

we’re reviewing the estimates for spending for the Ministry of

Education. As you can see, there are opposition members asking questions

about what’s in their constituencies.

Ordinarily, we’d all be sitting around a committee table. The

minister, having been asked a question, would huddle, in effect, with

ministry staff and get some background on the question. But what we are

doing now, in this pandemic safety time, is doing this all from members’

homes and individual offices. The minister is on mute while he’s

conferring with his advisers to get the most locally relevant answers

and information in response to a member’s questions.

[10:30 a.m.]

This process is slow. It does look like paint drying. Some of the

estimates reviews go on for days. It is a slow process, but it is

transparent. If anybody is out there watching, I’m glad that you’re

along on the ride with us.

Hon. R. Fleming: Madam Chair, thank you for attempting to clarify and boost our

televised ratings out there as well. I appreciate that.

To the member for Kelowna West, I want to begin by thanking him

because he helped sort of broker a meeting between city governments, the

school districts and the ministry recently that I think that has helped sort

of move us past a potential logjam and move more quickly on site

acquisition.

The member will recall that for the first time, West Kelowna was given

the green light and a budget by the Ministry of Education in March of 2019.

So they’ve had the money available to acquire a site, from the ministry, for

a little over a year, for 15 months. They have spent the time looking at a

number of sites. They’ve ruled out a few, and they are zeroed in on one

particular site, which the member mentions, is with the Westbank First

Nation.

I think that the meeting that the member helped convene was important

because we’ve had follow-up meetings with the capital division of the

ministry and the chief administrative officer of West Kelowna and the mayor

just to make sure that they’re comfortable with that direction. I think they

had their hearts set or had presumed that another site may be the best

candidate. But circumstances have changed. We’ve got a new First Nations

partner potentially in the picture. I would hesitate to give any more

details, because that’s an active land negotiation that’s going on right

now. Hopefully, we will have some good news shortly.

As the member knows, the site [audio interrupted] to proceed towards

the school that he desires in his constituency. Once we get the land we can

move forward with a concept plan for a secondary school, followed up by a

business case that costs out what a project looks like and which could then

go to Treasury Board. [Audio interrupted] the stages of the work to do ahead

that still does involve time and creativity. But I think we’re getting close

to the first major hurdle, which is still outstanding, and that is getting

certainty a deal hammered out on a site.

The Chair: Are there any further questions from the opposition?

D. Davies: Yep, absolutely. Lots. Just a follow-up on that, I have one question

that…. Of course, we have a couple MLAs that are mid-travel back to their

ridings right now. I do want to ask a question on behalf of Kelowna–Lake

Country. He is looking at the status for replacing Rutland Middle School. So

just wanted an update from the minister on replacing Rutland Middle School

in his riding.

[10:35 a.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the critic for the question on behalf of his colleague. I

know that we canvassed this one back in March. By way of an update, I would

characterize it this way. The conversations are ongoing, as we talked about

back in March. There are some really, really big challenges on the current

site and acquiring additional land in this urban, very densely populated

part of Kelowna. Having said that, I know that the district has had a number

of conversations, bringing a little bit more clarity on the issue, with the

ministry staff.

We are expecting to receive their capital plan by July 30 this year.

We have extended the submission date for all school districts, because of

COVID-19, from June 30, the traditional deadline to receive their five-year

capital plans, to July 30. I think they’ll use that extra time wisely to

bring some additional creativity to see if we can get a workable project

proposal for Rutland School.

D. Davies: Just for clarification, that completes the colleague questions until

this afternoon, when we’re in operational. I will be the only one that will

be asking questions for the next while, so that’ll make it a little easier.

Thanks very much for that.

I do have quite a few other COVID questions, but most of those pertain

to operational, so I’ll probably put those when we move into that this

afternoon. I do have a number of questions, though, of course, that we

didn’t fully get to when we finished our estimates off back in

March.

I know that we have canvassed these questions numerous times since

2017. I just have a couple of questions around portables in the province. We

talked lots about the portables in Surrey and the issues around the promises

made in 2017 by your government and the reducing and elimination. I just

want to remind the minister you have one more year to eliminate all the

portables in Surrey, but I’m not seeing that probably happening anytime

soon, as we are looking at about a 35 percent increase.

My question to the minister is specific to Surrey. What does success

look like to the government on the elimination of portables in Surrey,

and what kind of a time frame are we looking at regarding this

incredibly important issue for the parents of Surrey?

[10:40 a.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. I think the good news in

Surrey is that the pace of project approvals has tripled under our

government. Surrey has never seen the scale and pace of investment, since

September 2017, for over two decades.

The number of portables, as the member knows, doubled under the

previous government. We have had a real mess to clean up in Surrey in terms

of families being deprived of the kinds of schools they have needed in

neighbourhoods that have been building out quite quickly in a fast-growing

municipality like Surrey.

It has been very, very difficult to come into government and discover

that behind the curtain, there was really noth­ing going on in

terms of money that had been ap­proved or business cases that had

been conducted for Surrey school projects. When I said to the member

sometime ago that the cupboard was bare, it was bare. The work had not

been done. There were lots of photo ops, but there was nothing behind

them in terms of working through the government to make announced

projects real.

We had to really, really move quickly. I’m really, really happy to say

that right now there are 8,700 seats either completed or under development,

under our government. That is enough to eliminate over 330 portables in

Surrey.

The member asked me, as his first question, about project impacts.

Surrey school district is managing incredibly well, under COVID-19, to keep

those school capital projects on track and within budget. There has been

tremendous success.

I was really pleased to see that the Surrey school district has so

much construction activity going on. To show Surrey families just what was

happening in the district, they purchased a drone to fly over Surrey and

show all the active construction sites, with workers building the schools

that they’ve waited decades to have as part of their communities.

If the member would like, I can read out all the supported projects in

Surrey. Maybe I’ll just do that.

We have recently acquired four new sites: Sunnyside area, South Newton

area elementary, Redwood Heights, Dart’s Hill. Additions have been

supported for Pacific Heights Elementary. Construction is underway at

Edgewood Drive on a brand-new elementary school, 575 seats. Douglas area

elementary is under construction, a 525-seat school. Coyote Creek has

entered construction for a 100-seat addition; and a 150-seat addition,

as well, at Frost Road Elementary.

[10:45 a.m.]

Sullivan Heights Secondary is under construction, a massive 700-seat

addition. Sunnyside Elementary has an addition of 250 seats. There’s another

Sunnyside area elementary school that has been approved, 575 more seats.

Three weeks ago I announced that an additional 175 seats will be supported

at White Rock Elementary.

In fact, a few weeks ago I announced an additional 1,000 more seats

have been approved for funding and to go to tender to create 655 seats at a

Sunnyside Heights area elementary school. That will be brand-new. I

mentioned the addition at White Rock Elementary as well as an addition to

Morgan Elementary, another 190 seats there.

I’m only on page 1. I can keep going if the member would like. I would

draw his attention in terms of all of the work that we have done, at a

record pace, with the Surrey school district, which has been strongly

supported by the Surrey Board of Trade, the business community and family

organizations in Surrey.

It’s long overdue and being done in very close partnership with the

Surrey project office, which our government continues to fund. We have a

24-7 operation. Rather than it being off the side of somebody’s desk, we

have a professional organization in Surrey that does nothing except work on

school expansion or new school projects. That has helped us

accelerate.

I would draw the member’s attention to, I think, a very unique

relationship we developed through two different administrations of the city

of Surrey. We’ve had, I think, four Surrey summits now — it could be five —

where we have all committed to remove regulatory burdens, which cost us time

and money, and to get projects moving even more quickly in Surrey. That has

paid significant dividends.

In addition to the 8,700 seats that I’ve mentioned, which are either

under construction or being planned and developed right now, there are an

additional 2,420 seats in the business case development stage in Surrey as

well. You add those two numbers together, and there are 11,075 seats that

have been supported and financed or are in business case development under

the government that was sworn in [audio interrupted] the previous

government. It’s a record we’re really proud of.

D. Davies: To clarify, then. I just want to work some of that into a time frame.

The minister had mentioned 8,700 seats are completed or in construction

right now, which would lead to the elimination of 330 portables.

Looking at those 8,700 seats, what would the time frame be for all

this to be completed, not the seats completed already? Once the whole

package is done, with those that are in construction, what is the time frame

there?

[10:50 a.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question.

There are a number of projects that are scheduled for completion in

2020. That is great news, because they’ll be available for the start of the

September 2020 school year. Many of those are additions that will directly

eliminate portables, in the next few months, to start the school

year.

The vast majority of the 8,700 seats that I outlined to the members,

though, will be completed by the September 2021 school year. There are some

major projects that are on track for September 2021. One of them is

Grandview secondary, a brand-new 1,500-seat high school. The Sullivan

Heights expansion that I mentioned has 700 more seats. New elementary

schools will be completed by then: Maddaugh Road is one of them — Edgewood,

Douglas elementary.

September 2021 is when you’ll see thousands and thousands of new seats

open up in Surrey, which is great, and this September we expect lots of good

expansion projects also to be available, to reduce the needs for portables

in Surrey.

D. Davies: Thank you for that. Moving on to seismic upgrades, I wonder if the

minister could give an update on how many seismic projects were completed in

2019 and on what the expected seismic projects to be completed in 2020 will

be.

[10:55 a.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. I think it’s pretty timely,

given the earthquake experienced in California today and in Mexico earlier

this week. It speaks to why we need to be prepared in British Columbia and

to have a robust seismic mitigation program in the Ministry of Education.

And we do.

I’m pleased to say, by way of an update, that since September 2017,

our government has approved $973 million of investment for seismic upgrades

or replacements at 46 schools. We currently have 30 under construction.

Sixteen are funded and proceeding to construction, awaiting final bidding.

We have an additional 30 seismic projects that are under business case

development. Right now there are 25,500 student spaces that will soon be

seismically safe because they’re part of that project portfolio that I’ve

just outlined for the member.

For those keeping score at home, in terms of our government’s record,

we’ve approved seismic projects three times as fast as the last government,

which is good. We’ve wasted no time over our first three years in getting

projects happening on the ground and completed.

There’s a lot more to come. The budget that we’re currently debating

here today, Budget 2020, includes a $925 million additional investment so

that we keep the acceleration of pace that we have accomplished as a

government. That will continue to direct close to $1 billion, over the next

three years, to accelerate upgrades at high-risk schools in every affected

school district around the province.

D. Davies: I appreciate some of the numbers there are just…. If I can maybe get a

direct response on the completions for 2019 and the expected completions for

[11:00 a.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question.

We’re going to endeavour to get him some information. He asked

specifically about completions in 2019 and 2020, so we’ll get him some

numbers there. If he’s disappointed, though, especially in the 2019 numbers

of completions, the member will need to recognize that for a project to be

completed in 2019, it would likely have had to be approved, planned,

procured way back in 2015-2016. So if he’s disappointed in the results in

2019 of completions, and I will get him a final number, unfortunately, it’s

a reflection on the record of the previous government for making lots of

announcements but very rarely following through with a funded project that

was able to proceed.

Similar to the Surrey portable reduction effort, we came into office

and found that much less was being actually done than had been announced.

And we have been very, very busy getting projects on the ground and

approved.

I’ve mentioned the $973 million of funded projects that are either

under construction or proceeding to construction as we speak. To give the

audience at home there an idea of how quickly this government has moved,

relative to the previous government’s record, we’ve been approving a seismic

upgrade at a rate of one every three weeks as a government. We’re moving

three times as fast in terms of the average year for approvals than the

previous government’s record.

I think approvals are a more significant number, but we’ll get the

member some data on completion. Some of the approvals we’ve made

immediately coming into office have indeed been completed, because we

began announcing seismic projects as early as September of 2017 within a

month or two months of being sworn in as a government. So we certainly

are some…. This current year, I’m very happy to say, we’ve got 18 new

approvals that are part of this fiscal year, which is very, very strong.

As I say, one seismic project approved approximately every three

weeks.

D. Davies: I appreciate that the minister keeps bringing up records of the

past and likes to hover on the portables. I mean, we could go back and

look at records through the ’90s, when the NDP were in government, that

took portables from 286 in Surrey to 372, which is the record high in

Surrey. So our government actually reduced them during our time in

government from when the NDP were in government. So, I mean, we could

talk about records. But, really, I’m not here to talk about records. I’m

here to talk about going forward, which is really what I think people

out there and we want to know.

Back to seismic. The ministry’s service plan initially had shown a

goal of 18 seismic upgrades to be completed each year. We know that this

isn’t happening. With that being said, does the ministry have a new goal

going forward regarding seismic…? I mean, you’ve said the numbers on….

Projects are in different stages. Is there a goal, though, for

completions per year?

[11:05 a.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: To the member, I can confirm that the metric that was contained in the

service plan was for 18 approvals per year, not completions. We did approve

18 seismic upgrade projects for the 2020 year. Since we’ve formed

government, as I mentioned earlier, 47 approvals there.

I’m pleased to hear the member say that our government should be

judged on its record in office and going forward, rather than the low

completion record of the previous government that overlaps the electoral

cycle. Not enough was in the hopper, in other words. So if we are to be

judged on our record, it should be around the $973 million worth of seismic

investment that has tripled the pace of those projects that resulted in the

2020 year, for example, of 18 approvals — one every three weeks. And we have

47 approved projects on the go.

D. Davies: I’ve just got a couple more questions here on seismic. I said that

my colleagues were done, but I do have a couple of colleagues that do

have some further capital questions. I’ll finish up on seismic and then

allow them the opportunity as well.

Regarding seismic upgrades, I mean, obviously, we know that there

are significant costs involved with those and expenses are escalating

every year as they’re pushed out. David Livingstone School was budgeted

by the province for $9.5 million less than what the then Vancouver

school board did the year previous. I’m just wondering if the minister

can explain why this change was made. Was this a cut, or is there a

scope in construction change? Just an update on that, please.

[11:10 a.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. I don’t think we have

anything that supports the premise of the question there that there was a

budget reduction. What happened at David Livingstone was that there was an

approval for a $17.3 million seismic upgrade to bring it up to the latest,

in terms of strength, in the building code. If the member is looking for

information about the status of the project, I’m advised that it’s 25

percent complete at the current time. Scheduled completion is the fall of

2022; occupancy for the building, shortly thereafter.

D. Davies: Thank you very much for that.

Now my colleague from Prince George–Valemount has a couple of

questions that she would like to ask. So I’ll turn it over to

her.

S. Bond: Thank you to our critic, and good morning to the minister.

I wanted to ask a couple of questions about the capital plan for

school district 57. As the minister, I know he’s very familiar with our

school district, a very large, dispersed district. Just a couple of things.

First of all, if the minister could update me and my colleagues — especially

the member for Prince George–Mackenzie — as well, on the status of Kelly

Road, when that school will be opening and what the plans are for the

transition to the new school.

I’ll just give the minister the question so that I don’t have to go

back to them. There has also been a great deal of discussion about the

number one priority for our school district, which is D.P. Todd Secondary. I

know that there has been discussion about how that should be built or

expanded, or however that might take place. There’s also some request for

expansions at four elementary schools, basically to add child care

spaces.

I’m wondering if the minister would mind just giving me an update on

Kelly Road, on the top priority for our district, obviously — which at this

point is D.P. Todd — and any other information that he could provide me on

what is planned for the capital program for school district 57. I’ll thank

the minister and wait for the answer.

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. There are a number of

questions within the question.

I’m really happy to start off with Kelly Road. Obviously, a major

project, very important to her school district and to families in district

We started this morning by talking about potential COVID-19 impacts on

the 95 school capital projects we have underway in all parts of the

province. There have been some impacts, not as severe as we had feared and

not uniformly across projects. I’m happy to say that Kelly Road is one of

the projects that has kept on schedule. It is still projected to open in

September 2020. So in a few months’ time. That has not changed during the

pandemic. So that’s good news.

D.P. Todd is a newer capital request from the district and my

understanding is a request for a 275-seat expansion. We’re waiting currently

for the school district to submit their most updated capital plan. We have

given every school district in the province, because of COVID, an additional

month to compile their capital submissions to the ministry, in recognition

that all hands were on deck to support students and their families with

continuous learning during the pandemic and then to work on the June restart

in the school system.

The short answer there is that we haven’t received their latest

capital submission but expect to get that in July. Then, of course, we’ll

consider district 57’s request along with the other 59 school district

requests, concurrently, as to how we allocate the $2.8 billion worth of

capital that is part of Budget 2020.

Finally, on child care. I don’t have too much to add and to be able to

tell the member about these child care requests, although I’m very happy to

hear that they have been made. I suspect that she may want to take

part in

the estimates for the Ministry of Children and Family Development. I would

expect that if the district made a formal application, it would have been

done under the new spaces fund in that ministry.

It certainly piqued my interest. We have seen a number of districts

apply for that fund and successfully be given capital grants of up to $3

million to have on-site child care at schools. It has been very successful

across B.C. If it’s the case that district 57 is going ahead with some

applications there, I think that’s fantastic for Prince George.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister for that information. Certainly, we’ll touch

base again with the school district. I know that D.P. Todd is a particular

concern for the school district. So I wanted to just raise it and make sure

that he has that on his radar screen.

I will confirm whether or not those spaces are through another

program. I think the issue was capital space to actually accommodate them in

schools. With that, I will look forward to a further update after the

district has sent in its final capital plan.

I think the minister knows how important it is to look at not just the

demands in urban British Columbia. I’m the first to admit they are

significant and very challenging. Our districts, also, are facing unique and

different circumstances. So I wanted to raise those issues on behalf of our

school district.

[11:20 a.m.]

I want to thank our school board. They’ve worked very hard, through

COVID, to try to deal with issues here.

I thank the minister and our critic for the time this

morning.

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. Just maybe some final

thoughts on the child care piece. One of the things that we changed last

year that I think will help districts like 57 is that the previous capital

grant rules required the operator, which is typically a non-profit, to make

them for their space expansions. Sometimes, as the member will know, the

society isn’t able to contemplate a business expansion, if you like, to

start building space and taking out loans and that sort of thing.

We have allowed districts themselves, directly, to apply for the

capital funds and then find the operator. So build it and then find or

create a non-profit society, if there isn’t one, to administer on-site

school child care programs. That’s good. That’s making space creation

proceed more quickly.

I think the other thing that was also very good was that the threshold

for a maximum grant used to be about $1 million. It’s now $3 million. So

it’s much more in line with the kinds of spaces that we would wish to create

— more of them and more in line with the cost, typically, of those types of

projects.

Just with regards to…. I mean, I appreciate her advocacy for projects

in her district. We’ve had a number of members in rural parts of the

province, or parts of the province outside of the Lower Mainland, if I can

put it that way, that have waited a long time for some investments, and

there are really good ones.

In normal pre-pandemic times…. I enjoyed going to Billy Barker Days

last year in Quesnel and announcing a brand-new Quesnel middle school,

which is also proceeding to construction. We have a project in Smithers

that is a very good investment. I just saw yesterday that a construction

award was given in Kamloops for the almost doubling of Valleyview

Secondary.

We’ve worked really well with the diversity of the school system in

urban, suburban, rural and remote communities to make sure that the benefits

of our expanded capital budget are allocated in consideration of districts

right across the province.

T. Shypitka: Thank you to the minister. A quick question, actually, just on an

update on Isabella Dicken School in the beautiful city of Fernie. There was

a large expansion that was budgeted there some time ago, maybe a couple of

years ago, and that was to rid some portables. I believe there are eight of

them. It went through a PDR. It’s kind of gone back and forth. It’s changed

slightly, and I’d just like to know where we’re at in the

process.

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. I hope he will take some

encouragement from the update I have. We received, at the Ministry of

Education, very recently, a completed business case. The PDR, project

definition report, was completed and submitted by the school district, which

is great. We’re doing an active review right now inside of the ministry,

just going over some of the details and the costing, of course, as we would

before we seek approval for a project there.

[11:25 a.m.]

The message is: stay tuned. But things have happened since we last

discussed this issue. Hoping for some good news for Fernie very

soon.

T. Shypitka: Thank you for that, Minister. Could you briefly explain the project

and what the scope of the project is right now? I know it went from an

expansion to perhaps a separation of the elementary school to a middle

school. It seemed to have morphed a little bit since the first time it went

through. Could you just maybe give me some detail on what this project is

actually going to look like?

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. Of course, the review of the

PDR that we’re currently undertaking, having just received it, will

determine the scope of the project. But the member is correct. The capital

request has changed in recent months and years.

Originally the request was for a very, very significant large

expansion to Isabella Dicken. I appreciate that that school is overcrowded.

The problem with that original concept was that it was very expensive and

cost-inefficient to take an old elementary school and really have a massive

addition to it.

What the district has come back and submitted to us is a more modest,

smaller addition — four classrooms, somewhere around 100 seats; and a second

project, which is currently under active site acquisition, for a middle

school to serve the community of Fernie. So a new school is part of

that.

[11:30 a.m.]

The advantage of that is that you’ll be able to improve Dicken and

then allow the district to have the flexibility of an optimal grade

reconfiguration for the community that will alleviate the overcrowding at

the elementary school and transition kids through the middle years to high

school. That’s the sort of broad strokes of the PDR that we have

received.

T. Shypitka: It’s just a little concerning. When it was first budgeted…. I know the

ministry understands that a 600-seat elementary school is not something that

they want to do. It’s understandable. So why would the ministry budget for

an expansion — a large expansion, as the minister said — of an elementary

school, knowing full well that the occupancy at that school would be 600

seats and that we’re into a situation now where we’re doing a smaller

extension and separating schools? Wouldn’t that have been best to be

identified right from the start?

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. I think this is exactly why

the business case development is such a critical phase of how we get to

approvals. What the district originally thought was the best submission has

changed during the course of looking at not just the cost but the

educational needs of the community.

Of course, the engineering numbers matter as well. A large addition of

a very old school, in this case, got less value for money than staging this

over two projects. It may take some additional time because we’re acquiring

a site for the middle school now. It will probably cost more money having

two projects rather than one. But there will be some real advantages for

that community and for kids to have grade configuration opportunities that

will be optimal for all of its schools, both the existing elementary and

secondary, and to have a brand-new middle school in the district.

I’ve had a number of meetings with mayors and councillors in Fernie.

They support that approach. They’ve been helpful with the school district on

site identification, which is good to have them involved as a local

government. The community faced additional pressure because they had closed

two schools in Fernie in the mid-2000s — sold them off and, in one case,

transferred it to another school entity. So their options were a little bit

limited. We’ve had to pursue the middle school configuration — identify a

site that will be in the hands of the community and the school

district.

J. Sturdy: Morning, Minister. I’d like to take the opportunity to canvass an

issue that we have talked about on a number of occasions — the CSF capital

for Sea to Sky. There are three communities in the Sea to Sky that have a

significant need. As the minister understands, I’m sure, there’s a very

significant francophone community in the Sea to Sky.

[11:35 a.m.]

I’d like to start with my own community in Pemberton, which has a very

significant francophone community and also was highlighted in the court case

which has been working its way through the system. I understand that there

was, I believe, a final judgment last week on this issue.

As the minister is aware, I’m sure, the land in the Pemberton Valley

is constrained for a variety of reasons: the agricultural land reserve,

geotechnical issues, this sort of thing. There are limited opportunities,

but those opportunities are there, and there has been a notable lack of

progress over the last several years. I am hearing that the ministry has

been, to some degree, dictating to CSF what sites are appropriate or not

with information that I’m not sure is entirely accurate.

I’d ask the minister, at this point: can he provide me with an update

on land acquisition and the potential for building a school or a facility in

the Pemberton Valley for CSF?

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. Let me give him an update as

best I can.

The Pemberton francophone language rights education needs have been a

high priority for that district and for the Ministry of Education for some

time. There has been, prior to the judgment he referenced, last week, an

extensive site acquisition and a collaborative planning exercise between the

ministry and the CSF.

I would definitely not characterize the ministry practice or position

on site identification as dictating to the CSF which site they should

identify or look at — quite the contrary. I think you’ll find that the CSF,

district 93, is in the driver’s seat when it comes to picking a site that

they want to pursue. We’ve asked them to identify a number of sites. We

assist them, when requested, to look at different sites. That’s kind of

where it’s at.

I think that it was good that we have been working with them closely

for a while now prior to the judgment because, if anything, the Supreme

Court judgment just confirmed that we’re right to get ahead of it as a

ministry and start to look at and plan for that community’s educational

needs in Pemberton.

[11:40 a.m.]

I would say that CSF has had a change in leadership quite recently.

They have a brand-new — well, not brand-new, but quite new — superintendent,

a new secretary-treasurer and, fairly recently, a new board. We have begun

meeting with them in earnest on a number of issues as they relate to

communities around British Columbia. I think on this project and others,

we’ll be expecting an update next month, in July, when we get together with

them again.

J. Sturdy: I do have a letter from CSF that actually explicitly says that the

ministry has said no to a series of sites. I don’t believe that the

information that the ministry is making that recommendation on — at least

unless that’s just fundamentally not the case — is accurate. So I would be

happy to participate or contribute or perhaps provide some additional

information. We’re operating, I think, from afar in many cases and not with

local knowledge and a local understanding of the impacts of some of these

decisions.

At this point, I suppose there is no decision or no site that has been

chosen. That is what I’m hearing the minister say, for Pemberton, and

looking for an update next month from the school district. If that’s

accurate, then perhaps the minister can just confirm that. Certainly, please

take me at my word in terms of an offer to provide local

information.

Carrying on from there, what’s the status of the site for Whistler? I

understand there are some discussions with SD 48 with regard to utilizing

their site, which is a potential for SD 48’s middle school proposal for

Whistler in the long run. Would that have an impact on the opportunity or

the capacity for students outside of CSF in Whistler?

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: A two-part question there. Let me just conclude on the Pemberton and

then move on to the Whistler question. I would appreciate, maybe, a copy of

that letter, because it’s not jarring any memories here. So if he has an

opportunity…. I don’t know if the member is participating remotely or is

physically in Victoria for the legislative summer session, but if he could

get me a copy of that letter, that would be helpful.

Basically, the ministry is waiting for school district 93 to zero in

on its preferred site. We’ll look forward to that meeting I referenced

next month for them to give us an update on that issue.

As it relates to school district 48, Sea to Sky and Whistler, my

executive director of capital is reminding me that there was a very

productive meeting between school district 48, school district 93 and the

ministry in January 2020, just a couple months before the province locked

down under COVID. It was specifically a meeting to identify active,

productive site opportunities.

We certainly recognize, as a ministry, that Whistler is in need of a

CSF francophone school there to support families and support what the

community looks like in Whistler and their language rights. We’ve asked

school districts 48 and 93 to submit a joint proposal to the ministry on a

site. School district 48 actually owns a Crown land grant that is under

active discussion between districts 48 and 93.

I think that this is a good opportunity, though, for me just to

explain so recently after the Supreme Court decision, although it applied to

the situation prior to that. The jurisprudence now on francophone

section

23, minority language rights, is very clear in the constitution and that the

courts have weighed in on — not only for our province but across Canada —

oblige us to facilitate the creation of, in the case of British Columbia, a

provincewide francophone school district.

We have the beginnings of that. We, obviously, have made great

strides. But there is interest. There are unmet demands out there. And in

order to bring that into being in the 21st century, we would need the school

system that evolved in the 19th and the 20th centuries — i.e., the majority

ministry in making that happen.

It’s not just an SD 48-SD 93 issue. We’ve encountered this in

Vancouver and here in Victoria. We recently had a very productive asset

transfer that was good for both parties in Penticton. I think we’re starting

to get some momentum, and we hope to get even more momentum on fulfilling

not only what the court has demanded of government but what is right for

francophone families and communities, like the one that the member has

raised today.

J. Sturdy: Could the minister confirm that the ministry would support a CSF

school in both Whistler and Pemberton?

[11:50 a.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: To the member, the short answer to his question about whether the

ministry would support francophone schools in both the communities of

Pemberton and Whistler is yes.

Elementary space in both communities…. What we’ve said to school

district 93 with regards to secondary school space is that it should be in

one of the two communities. It should be up to school district 93 to

determine whether it’s in Pemberton or Whistler, recognizing that there will

be transportation requirements for secondary students in one of the two

communities.

We have made that pretty clear to school district 93. As I say,

they’re under active negotiations with the two school districts that we’ve

been discussing this afternoon to acquire sites and to get moving on

projects for French language education in Whistler and Pemberton.

J. Sturdy: Thank you for that clarity, Minister. I do understand that we have a

commitment to go to grade 8 this fall in Pemberton, which is good news. I

think the community is very excited about that.

Moving south to Squamish, if the minister could provide us with a bit

of an update on CSF acquisition or CSF proposals for Squamish as well as the

expansion that is being planned or, I think, actioned for Howe Sound

Secondary, combined with the seismic upgrade. I know that is a fairly

complicated project. If the minister could provide some update on that and

how it integrates with CSF, if at all.

[11:55 a.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: To the member’s question about Squamish as it relates to a CSF school,

we are very actively seeking a site, for the francophone school district, in

Squamish right now. The member will know that they lease space, of course,

from Capilano University. That leased space is on Crown land. We’re looking

for a permanent solution, having had a temporary solution in Squamish for a

number of years. We’re doing that actively right now.

In regard to Howe Sound Secondary, the short answer is that we’re very

much looking forward to the capital submission of the district, which will

come in July or no later than July 30. It is a complicated project because

it involves potentially two funding envelopes, both a seismic and an

addition, but we do have two buckets of funding in the ministry

budget.

I don’t have a lot of comments to make, prior to receiving the capital

submission from the district, at this time. We are aware that they are

planning to include that and will be submitting that to the ministry

shortly.

The Chair: Member, a final quick question.

J. Sturdy: Thank you, Chair. I guess more of a comment.

As the minister can see, from one end of the Sea to Sky to the other,

over the last number of years, with regard to CSF specifically, we…. I think

the answer has been the same in each community. We are actively seeking a

location to eventually build a building, and it would be nice to get to some

completion in one of those communities anyway. That’s a general

comment.

With regard to the capital submission for Howe Sound Secondary

specifically, that would be for fiscal 2021. Would that be

correct?

Hon. R. Fleming: For the capital submission, which is due by July 30, 2020, it would be

for the fiscal year 2021-22.

I move that the committee rise and report progress on the estimates of

the Ministry of Education.

Motion approved.

The Chair: We now stand adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

Copyright © 2020 Legislative Assembly of British Columbia

The Report of Proceedings (Hansard) and webcasts of

committee proceedings are available at www.leg.bc.ca .

For inquiries contact:

Hansard Services

612 Government Street

Victoria, BC V8V 1X4

Telephone: 250-387-3681

Email: hansardservices@leg.bc.ca

Published by Hansard Services under the authority

of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.