“Parents Believe That This is Part of a Quid Pro Quo:” The Story of the Queen Elizabeth Annex Closure Consideration
Editor’s Note: This report is brought to you by Hannah Azad, Erika Chung, Spencer Izen, Jessica Kim, and Stephen Kosar. You can reach us at ehnewspaper@gmail.com. Learn about The Griffins’ Nest’s standards and ethics here.
QEA families protest the Annex’s proposed closure prior to the May 30 Board Meeting. Chants of SOS: Save Our School can be heard. | Photo by Jessica Kim
Update: A previous version of this story incorrectly stated that Premier John Horgan stood on the grounds of the Olympic Village School during the 2020 election. He was not there during the 2020 election. The photograph used was from a different year. We apologize for the error. [8:25 PM Sunday, June 5]
Queen Elizabeth Annex is a small, tranquil Early French Immersion (Kindergarten to Grade 3) school tucked into the Dunbar area of Vancouver's West Side. It seems far removed from Vancouver’s busy, metropolitan attitude, with its grounds bordered by Pacific Spirit Regional Park and Chaldecott Park.
With only 71 students enrolled for the 2021/2022 school year, it's one of the smallest schools in the District.
On January 17, senior staffers at the Vancouver School Board ("VSB") came forward with a proposal to the Board of Education's nine school trustees, recommending they consider the closure of Queen Elizabeth Annex ("QEA") effective June 30, 2023. Following 60 days of required — and controversial — public consultations initiated earlier this year, the Board will face one of the most consequential and contested votes of its term on June 6.
On its face, the VSB's argument for closing the school seems simple. They've said that QEA's low enrolment, comparatively higher operating costs, and the lack of a substantial need for a site in the future make it a prime facility to consolidate with one of the two nearby elementary schools. Additionally, there has been significant interest from the province-wide francophone school district, the Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique (“CSF”), in acquiring QEA, which supposedly creates a win-win for both parties: one gets a school and the other gets cash.
However, the story is much more complicated than that. Current enrollment is only one side of the long-term planning coin, and public education advocates argue that the land is necessary to support future students as extensive development plans plot the region. Skepticism over opaque, proprietary analyses done by a private firm has invited considerable public outcry. Critics also lament that the VSB shouldn't be putting the needs of another school district over the needs of its own constituents, nor bowing to provincial pressure.
The debate over QEA's closure isn't necessarily just about one school.
Many say it's a reflection of larger, systemic issues within the VSB's approach to long-term planning that threatens access to public education. It's a consideration tied to one of the largest issues across municipal and provincial politics, linking a small west side annex to city-wide urban planning challenges, a BC Supreme Court decision, and a presently-unfulfilled election promise by the Premier.
The Queen Elizabeth Annex | Photo by Spencer Izen
Some History
In 2010, the CSF, along with three parents, brought an action against Her Majesty the Queen and the Ministry of Education for the Province of British Columbia. They argued that the Province had underfunded and under-supported the school board's site acquisition efforts, which breached BC’s Francophones rights under section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Section 23 of the Charter protects the right of minority language parents in provinces where they are the linguistic minority to have their children educated in the minority official language. In BC, the language of minority is French.
CSF and French Immersion programming are not the same things. CSF enrolment is only available to section 23 rights-holders of those whose first language is French, French Immersion, on the other hand, is open to everyone in the regular English school district and instructs French as a second language.
In 2016, the Supreme Court of British Columbia found that in certain areas, including Vancouver, the Province had failed to adequately fund the CSF, and as a result, unjustifiably violated Section 23. In particular, when compared to the city’s anglophone school district (the VSB), the court found the Ministry had not allowed the CSF to "offer a global educational experience that is equivalent to that in comparator elementary schools." Vancouver is just one of several communities, including Abbotsford, Burnaby, and Whistler, in which the court ordered the Province to step up.
Kevin Gourlay, a lawyer familiar with the case, explained that "the CSF sought an order that the Minister of Education force the VSB to transfer a particular site to the CSF." However, the court concluded that the Minister did not have that authority. Gourlay pointed to Justice Russel's finding that "the Province should have some latitude with respect to how it responds to constitutional breaches," and that instead, she issued declarations with respect to each community the CSF was entitled to under the Charter to receive funding to offer minority language education.
"With respect to Vancouver (West)," the 2016 judgement reads, "the Ministry could remedy the situation in a number of ways. It could meet the CSF’s needs temporarily by building a modular structure on the Jericho Lands, then wait to secure a site from that parcel when it is redeveloped. It could terminate the lease with the West Point Grey Academy and provide that school to the CSF. It could provide space for 500 elementary students on a single site. Or, it could assist the CSF to secure several smaller SD39-Vancouver sites and occupy those schools, with renovations or reconstructions as necessary."
The Province appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Canada in 2020, which ruled 7-2 in favour of the CSF. Chief Justice Richard Wagner delivered the reasons for the majority, in which he wrote: "Nearly two generations of elementary school students have thus been denied their language rights, and this has contributed to the erosion of British Columbia’s French speaking community."
In December 2017, the Province arranged for Partnerships BC to identify possible sites for the CSF in Vancouver-West. The assessment recommended that "the Ministry further investigate the development of a new CSF elementary school on the Queen Elizabeth Annex site under a long-term lease from VSB." The report was finished in April 2018.
Vik Khanna, the Vice-Chair of the Vancouver District Parents Advisory Committee ("DPAC"), told The Nest in his reading of the report, it only addresses the Ministry's interests in satisfying the 2016 ruling and ignores the interests of Vancouver public education.
In September 2019, VSB senior management brought forward a proposal to close QEA. The staff report references the Partnerships BC one, outlined that significant revenue generated by a long-term lease of the QEA site to the CSF could provide much-needed funding for capital and seismic projects that hadn't been by the Ministry.
And at the end of the initial staff presentation, Board Chair Janet Fraser read a statement at the request of then Minister of Education Rob Fleming regarding the closure of QEA.
"I was contacted by the Minister of Education today, and he would like to share the following information,” said Fraser.
“‘If the VSB is able to consult, gain support, and transfer Queen Elizabeth Annex to become a new public francophone school for French-speaking rights holders in the City of Vancouver, he will have an opportunity to bring forward to government a new school at Olympic Village utilizing contributions from the VSB the Ministry and the City of Vancouver.'”
The motion before the trustees was whether or not to proceed to public consultation regarding a potential closure. Trustee Wong made a lengthy statement regarding the information he sought to make a decision, and questioned whether the Minister's suggestion amounted to a "quid pro quo with respect to QEA and Olympic Village or the [University of British Columbia] site."
Trustee Gonzalez said that "part of our long-range facilities plan has to involve...what is going on with the city and where we're going with the development," specifically referencing the Jericho Lands and UBC." Gonzalez concluded she wouldn't support the motion. Trustee Hanson called for an increased focus on students and not just finances and expressed the Board had committed to not closing schools in his statement opposing moving to public consultation. Trustees Reddy and Parrott expressed concern at the Minister's pairing of QEA and the unfunded Olympic Village school capital request.
(The VSB’s current LRFP was approved in January 2021. It had yet to be developed at this point)
Two hours into the meeting, trustees voted 6-3 not to proceed to public consultation and end the close discussion there. CBC later reported that Fraser stated that the Board would not consider the closure of the school again.
Three days earlier, on October 25, the CSF had sent a letter to Board Chair Fraser outlining the Conseil's position on QEA. It described a long-term lease of the site as a "win-win collaboration" for both Districts.
The letter also reiterated the CSF's needs for a site: "The CSF desperately requires additional school sites in Vancouver, including west of Granville Street, and has been in discussions with VSB officials regarding the potential long-term lease of Queen Elizabeth Annex."
Although the 2016 ruling has been in effect for several years, the CSF has not been able to acquire a site in Vancouver, West of Main Street. One month after the Board voted not to further consider the closure of QEA, the CSF sent a letter to the VSB on November 26, 2019, with a Notice to Mediate under the Education Mediation Regulation.
A year after the mediation proceedings, which are currently ongoing and include the Ministry of Education, the CSF filed a notice of civil claim against the Province, the Ministry of Education, and the VSB. This is the first case that names the VSB as a party in the proceedings.
A notice of civil claim is a document that initiates a lawsuit.
Gourlay, who is also a past president of the BC Trial Lawyers Association, said in an email he doesn't agree that VSB should be named as a party and said the dispute is solely between the Ministry and the CSF. He believes the inclusion of the VSB in the lawsuit is wrong at law and will not be successful.
In paragraphs 167 and 168 of the CSF's pleadings, released earlier this year, they argue that when the Board of Education is tasked with making decisions regarding land assets that could impact section 23 rightsholders, they are "required to proportionately balance their statutory objectives with section 23 Charter values."
Both the mediation and the civil proceeding were noted in the January 17 staff report as factors for consideration in closing QEA.
As the CSF is still without a Vancouver West site according to the 2016 judgment, reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Province is likely in violation of the ruling, and they could be found in contempt of court in the most recent CSF proceeding. However, if a site like QEA was provided, the lawsuit could theoretically be settled. Hence the Ministry’s interest in closing QEA.
There is one significant difference — besides the CSF legal proceedings — that distinguishes this QEA closure consideration from the last one: the NDP’s Olympic Village 2020 election promise.
How Olympic Village Fits In
The need for an Olympic Village site was first identified over a decade ago. Rapid densification quickly increased the area’s population and brought enrolment at the catchment school, Simon Fraser Elementary, from 218 in 2006/2007, to 334 this school year, according to data from the Ministry of Education.
In a capacity utilization file for the 2021/2022 school year supplied by the VSB, Simon Fraser Elementary is listed as operating at 190 per cent capacity.
For years, the VSB has asked the Province to provide funding to build a school in the Olympic Village neighbourhood and has routinely listed it as a top priority in the District’s annual Five-Year Capital Plan submission to the Ministry. However, the Ministry has declined to fund the much-needed school for a decade.
The riding of Vancouver-False Creek, where Olympic Village is located, had been held by BC Liberals since its creation in 2009. In 2020, two NDP candidates, Brenda Bailey and adjacent riding Vancouver-Fairview candidate George Heyman stood on the site of the proposed Olympic Village and committed to using pandemic recovering funds to build the school.
Premier Horgan standing on the site of the proposed Olympic Village School (not in 2020) Photo by Darryl Dyck/THE CANADIAN PRESS via CBC
“A re-elected BC NDP will build a new school in Olympic Village,” reads the party’s statement 15 days before the October 25 election. It continued, “the BC NDP are making different choices and will move quickly to build a new school in Olympic Village.”
Bailey won that riding and the BC NDP formed a majority government following the election, and VSB trustees moved quickly, writing to Horgan and Vancouver MLAs on November 9, 2020.
“The Board of Education looks forward to working collaboratively with the Ministry of Education and the City of Vancouver so that this school’s construction can move forward as quickly as possible,” reads the letter signed by Janet Fraser. “We have clearly heard that an elementary school in the Olympic Village is key to building a complete walkable community and we appreciate the community voice in advocating for families with young children.”
On November 10, the Board also wrote to Mayor of Vancouver Kennedy Stewart and City Council requesting “In light of [the NDP’s] announcement,” that the City and VSB work together in “finalizing the acquisition of the school site and to moving forward with the construction of a new elementary school in Olympic Village as quickly as possible.”
“We have clearly heard that this school is key to building a complete walkable community that has sufficient school spaces, and we appreciate the community voice in advocating for families with young children.”
The City and VSB soon announced months later on February 24, 2021 in a joint press release that both bodies had “approved entering into a 99-year ground lease for a site that would see a future elementary school and childcare facilities constructed in the Olympic Village neighbourhood.”
“Under the proposed terms of the lease agreement with the City, funding must be obtained and construction must start no later than January 31, 2024.”
However, days earlier, Minister Jennifer Whiteside had written back to the Board, not committing to funding the school and shying away from the party’s election promise.
Months later, when none of the VSB’s major capital projects were approved by the Ministry, the District was asked to prepare a “long-term investment plan,” a unique requirement that only applied to Vancouver. According to a June 2021 report, the District received a letter requesting they “work with the Ministry to develop a long-term investment plan that incorporates the recently approved Long-Range Facilities Plan information, seismic priorities, partnerships, public use of facilities and enrolment changes in communities, including Olympic Village.”
The Board, frustrated with the lack of approvals, wrote to Minister Whiteside on July 8, 2021 requesting “an immediate meeting to discuss advancing approvals for major capital expansion and seismic projects as well as clarification on the ten-year investment plan.”
What the Ministry’s Been Up To
A review of the Minister and Deputy Minister’s calendars from June 2021 to the present shows that the meeting requested by the Board likely took place in the fall.
On July 16, the Minister had a briefing on the “VSB Investment Plan” followed by a 30-minute meeting with MLAs George Heyman and Brenda Bailey. An FOI was filed for the meeting notes and briefing notes but is still pending as of publication.
On September 1, the Minister attended an “East [Vancouver] meeting with [the] VSB”. Given the time most FOIs take to be fulfilled, The Nest informally asked for meeting minutes from both the VSB and the Ministry of Education. Previous correspondence with VSB Directors of Instruction and Superintendent Helen McGregor indicated this method of informal request would be fulfilled, as they suggested FOIs were not necessary.
However, VSB communications manager Jiana Chow declined to provide the meeting minutes, citing confidentiality, but did provide the meeting agenda, which included an item regarding the Long-Term Investment Plan. The agenda confirmed that the then-Board Chair, Trustee Carmen Cho, attended the meeting. It remains unclear if the rest of the Board was present.
The Ministry of Education also declined to provide the meeting minutes, but said in an emailed statement that the meeting “touched on school capital matters in Vancouver including, but not limited to, the district’s long-term investment plan and how it relates to a potential future Olympic Village elementary school.”
“For confidentiality reasons, any further information would need to be requested through the Freedom of Information process,” the statement continued, before closing that the government is “committed to a new school for Olympic Village families in this fast-growing community.”
On September 15, MLA Brenda Bailey and Mayor Kennedy Stewart had a meeting to discuss Olympic Village. An FOI was filed for a copy of the notes and briefing notes for that meeting but turned up nothing as the meeting because verbal and nothing about it was documented.
On October 27, the Minister had a briefing regarding the VSB LRFP. In December, the Deputy Minister had multiple meetings regarding CSF sites.
Given the now-interconnected history of QEA and the Olympic Village site, The Nest filed an FOI for the Minister of Education’s briefing notes from 2018 to the present regarding QEA on April 20. On May 30, the Ministry replied that the requested records “are withheld in their entirety pursuant to section(s) 13 (Policy advice and recommendations) and 14 (Legal advice)” of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
FOI advocates have increasingly voiced in recent years that the broad interpretation of section 13 enables unjust secrecy.
This year, as the public consultation on QEA was underway, on April 26, Minister Whiteside introduced Bill-22, the School Amendment Act, into the provincial legislature, to fulfill the section 23 obligations in the Charter. Whiteside specifically mentioned the case against the province by the CSF.
This bill amends the School Act, making it possible for the Minister of Education to order a school board to transfer board-owned land to the CSF.
“The province has used several mechanisms to acquire land and school facilities for the CSF. However, these mechanisms are insufficient to meet the full scope of the province’s constitutional obligations as now defined by the 2020 Supreme Court of Canada decision,” Whiteside stated during the bill’s introduction.
Lawyer Kevin Gourlay, who analyzed the text of the legislation for The Nest, called the government’s bill “concerning.”
In a press release, the province said the powers in the amended School Act will only “will only be used when all other avenues to fulfil the Province’s obligations to minority language education rights-holders have been exhausted.” However, Gourlay says such “limitation is not found anywhere in the legislation.”
“The Government is saying ‘Trust us, we’ll only use it if we have to,’ but they certainly don’t place any such limits on their powers in the legislation.”
Gourlay said it is “hard to take [their statement] seriously because the Government could have fulfilled its obligations to the French language school boards in the years since that 2016 judgment through multiple avenues.”
Gourlay also noted that the legislation specifically makes clear that the Minister does “not require the consent of the board that owns the designated land,” and further that the amendment eliminates the expropriation rights Boards of Education would “otherwise have under the Expropriation Act.”
Bill 22 received royal assent on June 2. There is now significant concern among QEA parents that, to avoid being found in violation of the 2016 ruling, the Minister of Education will use her newly-minted statutory authority to force the VSB to hand over QEA in exchange for compensation, a legislated version of the Ministry’s 2019 offer.
Earlier this year, the VSB submitted its Five-Year Capital Plan with Olympic Village as its first priority. This was denied, and the Ministry advised that the VSB secure the lease for the site before funding is committed.
While the City and VSB approved entering a lease in February 2021, they didn’t actually sign it. Parents have been asking for some time when the two will get around to putting pen to paper. But when The Nest inquired to the City regarding its status, a spokesperson declined to comment.
However, in an email sent to the QEA PAC from a City of Vancouver official obtained by The Nest, it was confirmed for the first time that the “City of Vancouver and Vancouver School Board have entered into a 99-year lease agreement of the Olympic Village School site.”
“Parents believe that this is part of a quid pro quo and that the announcement for Olympic Village will be done after the Trustees decide on the school closure of Queen Elizabeth Annex,” DPAC’s Vik Khanna shared in an email.
The Ministry has not responded to questions regarding what prompted the new powers under the School Act or whether the Minister intended to use them on QEA.
In a statement, Janet Fraser declined to give the Board’s position on Bill 22.
But why keep QEA in the first place? The 2019 closure consideration fell through following a community protest and a Board of Education unwilling to trade a school for a school. This time around, QEA parents say their argument is even stronger as Vancouver sits on the edge of “generational change.”
What’s About to Change on the West Side
QEA’s students come from a wide variety of neighbourhoods across Vancouver West, chief among those are UBC/Wesbrook Village, West Point Grey, Dunbar-Southlands, Kitsilano, and the Arbutus Ridge. The school has also managed to attract a small number of students from Marpole, Downtown, and the East Side.
As the city densifies and becomes more expensive (Vancouver is now the third least-affordable city in the world according to a recent Demographia survey), urban planners have focussed on developments offering rental housing and social housing. Developments that could affect enrolment at QEA are no exception.
Vancouver’s urban planning climate can be summarized by “Vancouverism,” a term coined by Larry Beasley, former co-director of the City’s Planning department. It refers to a large population living in urban communities in a variety of residences (towers, townhomes, single-family houses) with accessible parks and public spaces. Sustainable public transit and walkable streets are emphasized.
Contrast this to North America’s typical “urban sprawl,” which is characterized by a compact urban core with few residences, and developments decreasing in density as they move further from the core. As the city grows, the populations move outward, creating an urban fringe (suburbs) and a rural fringe. Populations here are dependent on freeways and automobile transport for their daily commute.
In practice, “Vancouverism” has created a distinct identity for the city, consistently ranked as “one of the most livable cities in the world.” A typical summer outing for a Vancouverite may include a bike ride along the water, admiring tall, skinny high-rise towers superimposed on the backdrop of evergreens and the North Shore mountains.
The City of Vancouver’s Climate Emergency Action Plan Summary (2020-2025) outlines their vision for Vancouver. They aim to have 90 per cent of people “living within an easy walk or roll of their daily needs,” which includes groceries stories, public transportation, and schools, among others, in line with traditional Vancouverism.
According to the QEA PAC, developments (and their predicted capacity in number of people) that could affect QEA’s enrolment include those at UBC (15,000), Lelem (2,500), the Jericho Lands (18,000), Musqueam IR2 (currently in planning), Sen̓áḵw (10,000), the Broadway Plan (50,000-60,000), and the Cambie Corridor (51,500).
In a delegation to the Board on April 19, Lia Gudaitis, a career urban planner at UBC and QEA parent, outlined each of these developments, questioning where children would attend school as 65,000 more people are estimated to be brought in by developments.
The Nest took a dive into each, analyzing their composition and the potential impact they could have on the community.
Although largely still in the public consultation phase, Campus Vision 2050 briefly outlines how “UBC Vancouver’s physical campus [could change] and [grow] over the next 30 years.
Developments in the 21.44-acre Lelem community are primarily composed of one, two, and three-bedroom apartments and townhomes. There are three all-rental apartments and two apartments with residences currently for sale.
Development of the Jericho Lands will have a 30 per cent affordable housing component (20 per cent social housing and 10 per cent rentals), adding 9,000 homes total and most notably, bringing Point Grey’s population from 13,000 to 31,000 (18,000 additional people). More traffic will be brought to the area with the Millenium Line extension (part of the Broadway Subway Project).
For the 10.5-acre Sen̓áḵw development, over 6,000 new homes are ready to be constructed this year and finished in as little as five years. It contains over 1,200 affordable homes and is projected to bring in 10,000 people.
The Musqueam IR2 targets the “future development and preservation of the reserve land,” and is currently in planning.
Sen̓áḵw is being developed by Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Úxwumixw (Squamish Nation). Lelem by xʷməθkʷəy̓əm (Musqueam Nation). The Jericho Lands and Heather Lands are being developed by the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Úxwumixw, xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, and səlilwətaɬ (Tsleil-Waututh Nation) through their joint development corporation, MST.
Regardless of its status as non-market or market, rental or condo, additional kids will join neighbourhoods with any kind of housing supply, data scientist and founder of MountainMath Jens von Bergmann told the Tyee.
With many families being priced out of Vancouver proper, developments such as these will be an attractive opportunity for living in one of the most expensive cities in the world. And with an urban plan focused on easily-accessible amenities, Vancouver will be more eco-friendly and livable as well.
The Broadway Plan is a guide for redevelopment within almost 500 city blocks between Vine and Clark that aims to create 30,000 new homes over the next 30 years. About 65 per cent will be rental housing, 25 per cent of which will be below market. They will welcome around 50,000 new residents living in the towers of up to 40 storeys (near transit stations) and 20-30 storeys (other areas). The plan is expected to be approved by the City Council, despite protest.
One of the slides from a QEA PAC presentation, overlaying the Vancouver Plan’s draft density map with developments. (Lelem number is 2,500, according to what The Nest was able to verify).
The Broadway Plan in particular has the support of George Heyman, MLA for Vancouver-Fairview, as well as David Eby, the MLA for Vancouver-Point Grey and Minister Responsible for Housing. Both penned open letters to Vancouver City Council encouraging members to cast their vote in favour of the plan.
Parents have noted that as the Province is pushing housing policy on Vancouver, they aren’t stepping up to provide the funding for schools to support those developments.
The Premier’s office did not respond when asked whether the government will commit to funding schools needed as a result of its housing policy. The Ministry of Education extended its deadline to respond from June 3 to June 6.
The City of Vancouver’s Cambie Corridor Plan outlines all redevelopments for the neighbourhoods along the Canada Line. From North to South, the targeted neighbourhoods are Cambie Village, Queen Elizabeth, Oakridge Municipal Town Centre (“Oakridge MTC”), Langara, Marpole, and Marine Landing.
Additionally, according to the most recent census, two UBC census tracts (0069.02 (CT) and 0069.03 (CT)), top the charts for the highest total percentage of elementary-age children (5-12 years old) at 8.96 per cent and 7.83 per cent respectively. This is followed by a census area almost entirely in QEA’s vicinity (0025.00 (CT)), with 7.60 per cent elementary-age children. To control for differences in population between census neighbourhoods, The Nest calculated the percentage of elementary-age kids in the total population of each neighbourhood. 0069.02 (CT), 0069.03 (CT), and 0025.00 (CT) still rank above average, compared to a West Side (broadly) average of 6.23 per cent.
The Nest produced a chart showing how many elementary-age children could live in each development, when applying one of the various percentages of elementary-age children from around the city. Parents say that unlike previous developments, the ones that will impact the West Side are specifically designed to invite families and be affordable.
The Nest produced a chart showing how many elementary-age children could live in each development when applying one of the various percentages of elementary-age children from around the city. Get the actual sheet here.
Elementary schools along the Cambie Corridor, Broadway Plan and Sen̓áḵw developments, although accessible by future public transit plans, are not options for those in need of an elementary school. Hudson, False Creek, Carr, Cavell, Fraser, Wolfe, Jamieson, Van Horne, Laurier, and Sexsmith are at 100 per cent, 115 per cent, 111 per cent, 118 per cent, 190 per cent, 97 per cent, 108 per cent, 90 per cent, 121 per cent, and 106 per cent capacity respectively.
QEA is not a catchment school, instead enroling students from across the city for its Early French Immersion Program. Although QEA’s students come from across Vancouver, the proponents of QEA tout its identity as a “community school.”
In an interview with the Nest, Bruce Gilmour, President of the Dunbar Residents Association, explained how the QEA’s community extends to the broad West Side. Dunbar alone covers two catchments: Southlands and QEA. Upcoming developments such as the Broadway Subway Project will serve to further connect Vancouver neighbourhoods, meaning residents can expect a future of intermingled communities, he explained.
Gilmour stated that in a “complete neighbourhood community, a core service is education.” Closing a school in areas with growth potential can have ripple effects throughout the community. Take Simon Fraser elementary’s current school crisis: the elementary school is currently at 190 per cent capacity. It serves the area around False Creek and Olympic Village, where there are unrealized plans to build a new school.
Gilmour also said that QEA being considered four times in the past fifteen years is “creating uncertainty for investment for people who might think about living here if they don’t have education.” Gilmour thinks that if the VSB moves forward with a 99-year lease on QEA, 5-10 years in they’ll notice Dunbar and the West Side’s population is insufficiency supported by available seats in the public school system.
Parents Called Out Planning Flaws
DPAC’s Vik Khanna pointed to Elementaries Maple Grove, Bayview, Henry Hudson, and General Gordon as examples of where VSB planning needs adjustment.
Khanna shared with The Nest the VSB’s statement to CBC before he joined On the Coast on May 30. The Nest read the statement, where the District said it plans to accommodate potential students from the Sen̓áḵw development at Henry Hudson Elementary, back to the VSB when asking how the District planned to do that considering the school is presently operating at 100 per cent capacity. In response, the District reaffirmed its position and said “At present, Hudson is not a full school, there is no catchment waitlist, and its enrolment is declining.”
Screen-capture from the above visualization with 2021/2022 data showing Hudson at 100 per cent capacity. All neighbouring catchments are near or over capacity.
However, according to kindergarten registration documents released May 16, the VSB themselves considers Hudson an “Identified Full School,” a term which appears to be reserved for only seriously crowded facilities. And while the District’s statement maintains Hudson’s enrolment is declining and alludes the Sen̓áḵw development will not bring many more students, it seemingly contradicts the fact that the VSB included an expansion of Hudson from 340 to 510 students as its second priority in their 2022-2023 Five-Year Capital Plan submission.
Screenshot of the sites the VSB requested the Ministry of Education fund in its 2022-2023 Five-Year Capital Plan submission. At the same time the District say’s Hudson isn’t full, its asking the Ministry to give it $10 million to increase the school’s capacity by 170.
Khanna’s other example, Maple Grove Elementary, is a school that was recently seismically upgraded and reopened as a new facility in 2020/2021. Khanna’s observation is that new schools attract families, and generally, an increase in enrolment is seen post-upgrade. He points out that Maple Grove welcomed 500 students to its 485-student capacity building the year it reopened. This year, Maple Grove is oversubscribed at 509 students, representing a capacity utilization of 105 per cent for the now two-year-old facility. Looking at kindergarten registration data, which shows that 74 students registered for the next school year, up from 53 last year, as well as blog postings from the PAC, Khanna predicts portables will be installed come September 2022.
And just like Hudson, Maple Grove is also considered an Identified Full School.
The other two of Khanna’s examples are Bayview and Gordon Elementary, both near Sen̓áḵw and Jericho Lands, which are operating at 68 and 97 per cent capacity respectively. As development cements itself near both schools, the VSB is predicting with its enrolment projections provided by private firm Baragar Infosystems that Gordon will decline to 306 students in 2031, down from 388 today, and Bayview will decline to 188 students in 2031 down from 224 today.
Khanna finds it disturbing that despite thousands of people being brought into certain catchment areas through development, the VSB is predicting fewer students will be enroled in the neighbourhood’s school.
Last year, Gordon saw 62 kindergartens register after it was staffed for 60, and Bayview had 30 when staffed for 40. According to the data for next year, Bayview, still staffed for 40, has 42 registered kindergarteners for the Fall. As for Gordon, after being staffed for 59, the school has 63 registered kindergarteners and is considered an Identified Full School.
Further, Bayview is a school currently undergoing a seismic upgrade, and the brand-new Bayview Elementary is set to open this fall, illustrating Khanna’s hypothesis that new builds bring more students.
These observations are shared by QEA PAC, who have pointed to them in saying their school can absorb potential enrolment pressures across the West Side.
In April, Deputy Superintendent David Nelson told The Globe and Mail that the VSB has “other options and opportunities to address any enrolment growth on the west side without [QEA].”
The elementary schools in close proximity to QEA and near the UBC and Lelem developments, University Hill and Norma Rose Point are currently at 96 per cent and 93 per cent respectively.
The new developments will force students to Queen Mary, Bayview, Queen Elizabeth, and Southlands, according to a VSB webpage, all of which are between 66 per cent and 73 per cent capacity. While the District says they won't be needing QEA, they also say they’ll be utilizing every single school around QEA because they anticipate growth in UBC/UEL.
There has been talk about a new UBC South elementary campus for over a decade. The first documented mention of it that could be located was in a January 2008 letter to UBC/UEL residents from the University’s Vice President, External, Legal and Community Relations. It discusses the UBC South Neighbourhood (now called Wesbrook) Plan that references a new elementary school to be operated by the Vancouver School Board.
What prompted that letter? A “number of members of the community” who “contacted UBC expressing their views on the Vancouver School Board’s consultation framework and proposals to close the Queen Elizabeth Annex,” reads the letter's opening sentence. This was the first time QEA was considered for closure.
A review of the VSB’s planning documents shows that since around the same time Olympic Village made its way into capital submissions to the Ministry, so did formal requests for the funding of a UBC South elementary school in the early 2010s. The VSB is still lobbying the Ministry today for the school as increased development approaches.
The VSB didn’t answer when asked if David Nelson’s statements in the Globe referred to the UBC South site, and if they did, why he was confident that the school would be funded, built, and operational in time to resolve enrolment pressure.
The VSB’s Long Term Facilities Plan (“LRFP”) “provides a framework for facilities planning” and “establishes facility needs, space requirements, priorities, and strategies to inform and guide facilities projects, priorities, and decisions from both a Ministry requirement perspective and a local Vancouver perspective.” Combined with the VSB’s Land Asset Strategy (“LAS”), these two important documents encompass school closure processes.
Every school district in BC is required to maintain an LRFP within provincial guidelines.
The LRFP only covers planning up to 2029, whereas comparable development and community growth plans such as Regional Growth Strategies and Official Community Plans look at much longer timeframes. In particular, the Regional Growth Strategy, a provincial requirement for every regional planning authority, must have a timeframe of 20 years minimum. Official Community Plans (one per municipality) are 30 years.
Shaun Kalley, former DPAC Chair, has criticized the VSB’s LRFP, calling it a “blueprint for massive school closures.” The 2019 draft report implied that there would be “capacity target[s] of 100%” and “the elimination of 12,500 seats (26 schools) by 2027.” The LRFP has since been amended.
In the largely redacted LAS, the VSB and contracted firm Urban Systems identify potential Surplus Sites. These are sites that could be leased or sold to generate revenue for the VSB. All Surplus Sites and their identifying have been redacted, resulting in tens of pages of black boxes on the 84-page document.
A 2019 Simon Fraser University Master’s thesis, entitled “The future of VSB schools: funding schools during declining and uneven enrollment”, suggested the VSB investigate partial land leases as a method of “made in Vancouver” solutions to Ministry underfunding. Additionally, it called for the immediate implementation of School Site Acquisition Charges (“SSACs”), which are taxes levied on residential developers per dwelling. They are collected by the municipality to be transferred to the school district in paying for an eventual school as a result of development.
SSACs are currently used by school districts across BC, including most in the Lower Mainland, and generate millions in revenue. The VSB doesn’t, for one uniquely challenging reason: it can’t.
Unlike all other BC municipalities, which are governed by the Local Government Act, Vancouver is governed by the Vancouver Charter, which gives no authority to the City to collect SSACs from developers. For the VSB to collect SSACs from the various developments across the city, as confirmed by VSB Secretary-Treasurer J. David Green, the Vancouver Charter would have to be amended by the Legislature.
The LAS also outlines a process for “Land Disposition Implementation” and “Consolidation and Closure Implementation.” It lists 13 schools considered for closure or consolidation. QEA’s closure falls under the latter.
Last October, DPAC passed a motion voted for by 94 per cent of PACs against “any decisions that impact school closure, school consolidations, or land disposal, for two years,” or until the LRFP is based on Census 2021 population data, enrolment projects are accessible in a public way, school capacity targets are articulated and explained, and a lens of equity is used alongside clear criteria.
In an unattributed emailed statement, the VSB said that “The District does not rely on census data because it is not sufficiently sensitive to accurately estimate youth population,” saying that enrolment is “strongly correlated to youth population.”
“As census data is only collected every 5 years any inaccuracy in the population estimates and forecasting assumptions will accumulate over time meaning that census data becomes less and less reliable and accurate as the years progress toward the next census data collection.”
The statement also said the employed forecasting methodology “has been validated by Statistics Canada.” The Nest has reached out to Statistics Canada to independently verify that statement.
Khanna, who is DPAC’s representative on the VSB’s facilities planning committee, has regularly noted to trustees and on social media that the LRFP makes no qualification of any of the regional development plans. Until it is revised, Khanna says, the VSB needs to apply the brakes on any facilities decisions so urban planning and school planning can occur in tandem.
The QEA PAC started a Change.org petition — that has now amassed upwards of 1,675 signatories — calling for the VSB to abide by DPAC’s motion, not only about QEA, but all potential school closures. The description reads “VSB needs to do its due diligence before closing schools, and show its long term strategy for land assets.” The text just below instructs individuals to “Sign this petition if you think VSB should show which school sites it needs based on current and future planning data.”
60-Day Controversy
After the trustees’ vote on January 17, the VSB arranged to consult the public on their proposal regarding QEA. Deputy Superintendent David Nelson committed to holding a 60-day public consultation period before reaching a final decision on the closure.
An external consultant agency, Delaney and Associates Stakeholder Engagement, was hired by the VSB to, in the firm’s words, “provide opportunities to members of the public to share feedback on the proposed QEA closure.” An engagement report was also to be produced by the firm.
Consultation would begin with the release of a public engagement survey, facilitated by the VSB.
The QEA PAC requested in March that they receive a draft of this form before it was officially published to allow for feedback to be given and revisions to be made.
They were provided with a copy on Friday, April 8, just two full days before the survey was scheduled to be released on Monday.
A lengthy email was sent to Delaney, Nelson, and the trustees outlining the PAC’s primary concerns with the form.
The QEA PAC initially expressed their concern with being provided materials “on a Friday for action by Monday” — what the group notes as not a first with the VSB and Delaney’s communication. “This pattern needs to be changed as it makes it virtually impossible for people to respond effectively,” the PAC Executive wrote.
They first drew attention to the survey’s preamble, which stated that enrolment in Vancouver has and will be declining. The PAC criticized the fact that no numerical evidence was cited to support this claim, and that the data does not align with that provided by the BC Ministry of Education. “If the VSB's data contradicts the Ministry's data, then both should be provided and an explanation given for the discrepancy” their email read.
The PAC also suggested that the preamble address how the closure would decrease the capacity for French Immersion students. “The implications of QEA’s closure for French Immersion support more widely are not made transparent at all,” they wrote in the email. “Please be honest about this and put this in the preamble and do not require readers to put all these complex elements together to come to this currently buried conclusion.”
Their final concern was in regards to question three on the form, which asked respondents to provide the basis on which Trustees should make their vote. The PAC highlighted that the given responses to the multiple-choice question were, “in different ways, supportive of the arguments [the VSB] have offered for the closure.”
Screen-capture of a slide from a presentation given by Michael Hooper showing the connection between the VSB’s arguments in favour of closing QEA and survey question 3, which asked respondents to advise trustees on what factor they should base their decision. Parents say its flaws like this that discredit the survey.
None of the PAC’s feedback was incorporated into the final version of the survey. It was released on April 11 and remained open until April 29. 1031 responses were collected within this time frame.
Nelson responded to PAC concerns about the survey after its release in an April 12 email that read “Staff have endeavoured to provide accurate and balanced information throughout this process.”
In response to the survey’s question “Given the information provided, to what extent do you support or oppose closing QEA?” 38 per cent of respondents indicated that they strongly support it, 13 per cent somewhat support, 9 per cent somewhat oppose, and 37 per cent strongly oppose.
“I fully expected the survey results to be 100 per cent (in favour) due to this contrived design, yet only 51 per cent supported closure” Michael Hooper, an Associate Professor of Community and Regional Planning at UBC and a QEA parent shared “That might sound high, but as someone who has taught survey design and public participation for two decades, that result based on this rigged survey is staggeringly low.”
Another piece of the consultation strategy, five 90-minute Zoom sessions facilitated by Delaney, took place between April 19-28. All communication and promotional materials from the firm and VSB referred to the calls as “community dialogue sessions.”
Executive Editor Stephen Kosar, registered for the April 27 community dialogue session, using his personal e-mail and registering with no identifying affiliation to The Griffins’ Nest. The Engage VSB Team reached out in an email stating, “I see you are also part of the Griffins[’] Nest team.” VSB Engage went on to ask, “Can you confirm if you are participating as media or a community member?” When Kosar emailed back that he would be observing as media, his registration was revoked, with the rationale being that “To allow all participants to meaningfully engage in the session, media are not invited to attend.”
Tyee Reporter Katie Hyslop was also barred from attending the community dialogue sessions.
At all sessions, attendees listened to staff presenters for around 40 minutes.
Community members have since raised concerns about the information shared in the presentation, worried it was skewed, only mentioning arguments in favour of closing QEA.
Raised on Twitter by Carrie Bercic, a former VSB Trustee, was problematic wording on the presentation’s slides. A photo posted to her account captured the text “The findings of the French Program Review (2018) and the Preferred School Size Working Group Process (2021) support the proposed relocation of the QEA program to either JQ or QE. Both Initiatives were multi-stakeholder engagement processes that involved the District educational partners:
- Parents - DPAC
- Teachers - VESTA/VSTA
- School Administrators - VEPVPA/VASSA”
Bercic pointed out the phraseology made it appear as though DPAC supported the closure. QEA PAC also sent an email contesting the usage of DPAC’s name.
DPAC’s May Newsletter clarified “Unfortunately, in a recent presentation VSB implied incorrectly that DPAC agree with the rationale for the closure of QEA school because parents were involved in the Preferred School Size Working Group process. DPAC contends this was misleading.”
During the presentations in community dialogue sessions, all attendees were muted and the chat function was closed unless you directly messaged a moderator.
“You couldn’t see anybody’s questions, so if [the facilitators] didn’t like a question, they could just ignore it,” QEA parent, Rebecca Pitfield shared “It certainly left you with a feeling of not being heard, not getting the information you were actually looking for, and mostly being told the information that they wanted you to have.”
Attendees would then be moved into breakout rooms where they were individually unmuted and given the opportunity to answer three questions asked by the moderators — “In assessing the proposed closure of QEA, what are concerns and/or opportunities from your perspective?” “In assessing the proposed closure of QEA, what factors should be a priority for the Board in making their decision?” and “Are there additional comments you would like to contribute?”
“It really was not an opportunity for anyone to speak, you could only answer those exact questions,” Bercic revealed. “Anybody who chose to answer was [responded to with] ‘Thanks I have noted your reply.’ There was no back and forth, there was no conversation, nothing whatsoever.”
Pitfield expressed her frustration with the breakout rooms, stating “This is no longer David Nelson we’re speaking to, this is somebody else who’s going to relay my questions to him. I’ll never find out those answers.”
“You didn’t have an opportunity to have any kind of open forum or open dialogue in any way whatsoever,” said Bercic.
Sessions were not recorded, neither for internal use or public viewing.
Report and Review
The QEA PAC emailed Superintendent Helen McGregor requesting Delaney’s “What We Heard” Report be provided at least five full business days before the June 1 deadline to sign-up to present at the June 2 Special Delegations Meeting. The VSB intended to release the report on May 27.
They outlined the fact that Delaney had had almost a month to publish their report — nearly half of the full consultation window of 60 days — which in the PAC’s view was an excessive amount of time. The PAC also did not find that the time between the publication of the report and the deadline to apply to speak at the Special Delegations Meeting was long enough to do a full read-through of the report for parents and community members, but also trustees.
“Parents cannot be expected to review the report over a weekend,” they stated. The PAC requested that the report be released on May 20, giving them ten days to review it.
David Nelson responded to their email in place of McGregor. “As per usual process, the What We Heard report will be published on May 27 as part of the agenda package for the May 30 Board meeting. Requests to present as a delegation at the June 2 Special Board meeting must be received by the Secretary-Treasurer by no later than 4:30 pm on Wednesday, June 1. This is consistent with the timeline as outlined in Board policy.”
The QEA PAC emailed back, stating that “Weekends are typically spent with family and friends, celebrations, or with other relaxing activities and not on reviewing results of a survey, public engagement etc.” They then asked again to have at least five business days to review the report, this time asking that it be released by May 24.
After a couple more emails that, again, requested that the report be provided before May 27, on May 23, the QEA PAC adjusted their request to be for a draft, as opposed to the final report.
Upon Nelson once again refused to change the release date, echoing his previous statement, the PAC sent one final email, expressing their frustration, to the Deputy Superintendent.
“We really appreciate VSB staff pushing trustees and QEA PAC to scramble over the weekend of May 28/29 to review the engagement report prior to the Monday 30th board meeting. Nothing could delight us more than to review pages and pages of report that VSB and Delaney had an entire month to prepare. We really would much rather review the report than to spend the weekend with loved ones, family and friends, outdoors getting fresh air at our children's sports game or any other regular relaxing weekend activity. Likely trustees also have no life outside of their weekly work and appreciate having additional work loaded on them over the weekend.”
“Again, VSB staff timing is spectacularly similar to when the announcement of QEA closure happened on the late afternoon of Friday January 14th ahead of a special board meeting scheduled on Monday January 17th. Really, we applaud you for running the VSB akin to an emergency ER with emergency timelines but with the major exception being that the hospital ER actually saves and improves lives.”
When the report was finally released on May 27, it revealed that common themes raised at the community dialogue sessions included a “lack of trust” towards the district and its decision-making and consultation processes. “Numerous references and comments were made that parents of students in the impacted schools (QEA, QE, JQ) were not being provided accurate and transparent information by the District,” the report states.
Many people were also concerned with the long-range planning of the district, the impacts the QEA closure would have on Jules Quesnel, and the broader neighbourhood impacts.
The report concludes that “no participants at the community dialogue sessions voiced support for the QEA closure.”
According to the “What We Heard” Report from Delaney, a February 17 letter was sent to the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh nations to invite them to engage in the consultations. There was no response from the Musqueam and Squamish Nations, and the Tsleil-Waututh Nation indicated that they did not need to meet.
A second letter was sent two months later, on April 5, again inviting the Nations to participate in the consultations. This time, the Tsleil-Waututh and Squamish Nations turned down the invitation, and the Musqueam Nation did not respond.
Critics maintain that the VSB did not meaningfully consult the Musqueam Nation, the group closest in proximity to the QEA grounds.
Save Our Schools: A protest against closing QEA
On May 30, approximately 50 parents, children, and other QEA supporters gathered to protest against the Annex’s proposed closure.
The demonstrators stood outside the Vancouver School Board building on West Broadway as staff arrived for the month’s Board meeting. They walked the school board’s grounds before continuing the demonstration by walking around the block.
Attendees noted that unlike when they protested QEA’s proposed closure in 2019, the doors were locked and they were unable to enter the VSB building.
Signs criticized the school board’s planning for the potential QEA closure. “No VSB School Sales Without Transparent Planning” the group communicated on a large banner. Another poster read “Don’t be short-sighted VSB.”
Chants of “VSB, do your job,” “Kids before cash,” and “SOS: Save our school,” were met with honks of support from cars passing by.
CTV, Global News, and The Griffins’ Nest were on-site and produced coverage of the protest.
Protesters of all ages walk up Fir Street next to VSB HQ. | Photo by Jessica Kim
Signs post-protest on May 30. | Photo by Jessica Kim
What’s next? Turning to Trustees
On June 2, the Board convened to virtually hear five-minute delegations from members of the public in a Special Delegation meeting, all of which spoke against the proposed closure of QEA.
Delegates included not only QEA parents, but representatives from Nightingale Elementary PAC, Jules Quesnel Elementary PAC, and John Oliver Secondary PAC, who were concerned that the VSB’s rationale for closing QEA could apply to their school.
Julia Lockhart, a Jules Quesnel parent, said that her school, the one most likely to harbour the students from a close QEA, told the Board it doesn’t even have space for them.
“There is not sufficient outdoor space to accommodate all the QEA students at JQ, and I would challenge anyone who has been to JQ at recess or lunch to disagree with me."
Last month’s Special Delegation meeting, held on May 19, also had a number of delegates, eight of a total of 15, speak against the proposed closure of QEA.
In a presentation given by delegate Hooper, on June 2, he argued that with the absence of public participation at meetings and discussion time at dialogue sessions, among other concerns, “the VSB’s process to push forward [QEA’s] closure has failed to satisfy the VSB’s own due process requirements.”
He raised concerns about the level of public engagement and consultation in particular, with specific reference to VSB Policy 14 and International Association for Public Participation (“IAP2”) Standards to which the VSB and Delaney both state they adhere to.
The Chair of the meeting, Trustee Cho, interrupted Hooper mid-presentation, stating “Delaney is one of a handful of firms in Canada that is able to deliver IAP2 instruction and certification, and we do have full confidence in their expertise. I’m going to ask that in your comments you please refrain from maligning the consultants or staff.”
In an emailed statement to The Nest, Hooper shared his reaction to the interruption by Trustee Cho. “The entire point of a democratic body like a school board is to ensure accountability. If the public can't ask questions about what the VSB or its consultants do, then there is a profound democratic crisis at the VSB,” he wrote. Hooper continued, asking, “What is the point of hearing from the public if any question about the work of the VSB or their consultants is considered, by definition, to be maligning them[?]”
Hooper also noted in his delegation that the alleged violations of VSB Policy 14 Guidelines “are now the subject of a formal complaint to BC Ombudsperson.” The Board maintains they fully satisfied all applicable policies and declined to comment on the Ombudsperson complaint.
Delegate Rick Yoo, a QEA parent, raised his concern around the content presented in Delaney’s report. Of the 180 comments in favour of closing QEA and 236 against, he asks “Should [the 180 in favour] be less?” Referring to the fact that some of the comments that Delaney found to be in support of the closure were not explicitly in favour of it and therefore questioning the accuracy.
He drew attention to specific comments such as; “I am confused by the CSF legal proceeding being a concern,” “What about demographic changes? There may be fewer students now, but we might expect the demands of those students to change,” and “Public schools should not be closed. Should be for community use.” These were all deemed comments in support of closure in the Delaney report.
Delaney did not respond to an opportunity to respond to criticism from parents regarding the firm’s work for the VSB.
Yoo was interrupted by Trustee Fraser who raised a point of order and noted “We have to maintain a respectful environment and suggesting the staff or consultants acted in that way is not appropriate.” Trustee Chan-Pedley then interrupted with another point of order saying that Yoo’s “Strong use of sarcasm is noted.”
Members of the public were alarmed by the conduct of trustees at the June 2 meeting.
Kim Weber tweeted “I can’t stop thinking about how school board trustees interrupted the limited speaking time of parents at the [VSB] meeting last night about closing a school — one of the more emotional topics a board can hear speakers on — to tone police them and be defensive.”
Shaun Kalley, Former DPAC Chair, responded to Weber’s tweet with his take on the meeting’s goings-on. “I've liked, respected, and worked with the trustees, and most are completely unrecognizable now in terms of their values.”
Bercic, a former VSB trustee herself, expressed her shock in an interview with The Nest. Since 2014 she has consistently attended every VSB meeting, with less frequent attendance in the years prior, and noted she has never seen something similar.
“There is nothing that any person who was presenting said last night said that warranted being interrupted and, frankly, chastised for not agreeing with and not liking the ‘consultation process,’” Bercic explained.
In an emailed statement, Board Chair Fraser addressed the June 2 meeting, writing that “the meeting chair does not restrict the content of what is expressed, whether critical or supportive, but does, as appropriate, address the manner in which that is expressed.”
Fraser pointed to section 70 of the School Act, which affords the chair to authority to regulate “improper conduct at meetings.” However, there is public debate over the section’s applicability in light of a lack of objectively noticeable improper conduct. In both instances where section 70 was supposedly weilded, the chair interrupted the delegates to initially express disagreement with the content of their statements, taking issue with the content before addressing the tone as an alleged secondary issue.
The Board also did not answer when asked to state their qualifications to debate with an academic on their own field of study, as they did in the June 2 meeting.
"I trust that any Griffins’ Nest publication will ensure that it is in no way defamatory," Fraser concluded in her email.
Fraser's threatening comment comes at a time when politicians in Canada and the United States have increasingly turned to defamation as a method of chilling critical coverage in the public interest, in claims legal experts have frequently described as meritless and baseless attempts to shut down or discourage robust public discussion. In 2019, British Columbia passed legislation to end Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (“SLAPPs”) that silence journalists and critics from discussing matters of the public interest.
In her statement, Fraser also assured that the Board welcomes feedback.
Another delegate and QEA parent Chin Sun, like many others, ended his presentation with a plea to trustees. In reference to the upcoming October 15, 2022, Municipal Election, he asked the nine trustees to vote no in closing the Annex as one of the final actions of their term.
To trustees, he posed the question “What legacy do you hope to leave behind after you [have] stepped down (or up)?”
The Vancouver Board of Education will be making its final vote on whether to close QEA at the VSB Special Board Meeting taking place on Monday, June 6 at 7:00 PM.
Vancouver School Board office | Photo by Jessica Kim