Organizer of the University Neighbourhoods Association almost-all candidates debate, Charles Menzies, has put on-line video of the event:
http://anthfilm.anth.ubc.ca/forum.html
Update
Point Grey PAC has put questions and answers - in text, not video - on-line for all our reading pleasure.
Reminder: Next week on Wednesday November 5 and Thursday November 6 Vancouver DPAC will host what we all hope might be all trustee candidates forums. Details >
As quoted in a recent CBC news piece, Vancouver School Board Chair Clarence Hansen appears to suggest that he has been lobbying for a special situation for the General Gordon school community for many months. This is a revision of history which needs to be corrected.
The chair of the Vancouver Board of Education issued a statement Monday night, offering a "clarification" of the decision upon which the three schools were selected. Clarence Hansen said a seismic study determined General Gordon should be replaced because the cost for renovation exceeded the cost of replacement.
He said the school's parent advisory committee took their concerns to the premier's office and advocated for it to be one of the three project schools while getting seismic upgrades at the same time.
"I … wrote to Education Minister Shirley Bond in February 2008 to request parents' concerns be considered in the planning of a replacement school," Hansen said.
Hansen wrote the letter to Minister of Education Shirley Bond on 20 February 2008. Only one paragraph makes mention of the Gordon community needs specifically; Hansen's letter is appropriately focussed on the additional needs which many of Vancouver's schools have over and beyond the standard Ministry policy. Indeed Hansen recognizes this as the current reality in the second paragraph of his letter (attached in full at the end of this post):
Many of the issues raised in this case are also relevant to other proposed and current projects within the district. The Board recognizes the Ministry's policy on such issues but is asking herein for clarification and consideration for change to the current facility area and funding standards. Clarence Hansen, Chair, Vancouver School Board
Parents did not meet with Premier Campbell until many weeks had passed; they did so in frustrated reaction to the lack of flexibility the Vancouver School Board had at its disposal.
Hansen's letter translated into zero action. He did what he was asked to do. Nothing was forthcoming from the Ministry until parents from the Gordon community went direct to their MLA who happens to be the Premier of the province. They were provided with positive feedback from the Premier but no conclusive promises up front.
Meanwhile back at the VSB, Trustees continued to operate with no knowledge of a forthcoming pilot project announcement from the Premier which means that every school under consideration, including Gordon, had to operate within the existing policies Hansen refers to in his February letter to Minister Bond--policies which Gordon and many other school communities have long been fighting against.
The Minister would have us all believe that extensive consultation was taking place between the VSB and the Ministry at the same time that the Vice Chair of the VSB was berating Gordon parents for "blindsiding" the VSB by going direct to the Premier.
This doesn't wash as anyone involved or closely observing the process can attest. Minister Bond and Chair Hansen ought to get their stories straight before going on camera.
"I … wrote to Education Minister Shirley Bond in February 2008 to request parents' concerns be considered in the planning of a replacement school," Hansen said.
Parents are crying foul over a decision to grant concessions to an elementary school after members of its community objected to rules about seismic upgrades and lobbied their MLA - Premier Gordon Campbell - for changes. Peggy Alca said it isn't fair that General Gordon elementary gets special treatment because its parents complained loudly to the province's most powerful politician. "I'm really angry," said Alca, co-chair of the Lord Kitchener parent committee that has been working for seismic upgrades at that school.
I was quoted in the article, and find the treatment of the article fair... but incomplete. What I'd like to have seen was greater emphasis on what we feel is a deeply flawed process, because most of us involved in championing seismic upgrade or school replacement projects do so with our big hat on. We want to see all at risk schools dealt in an expedited manner. I wasn't complaining from a Douglas Elementary point of view, for as far as I know our school project is still moving forward. Should that change, then I'll have more to talk about. Much more.
Its no wonder the Gordon parents felt they had no choice but to go around the system as it stands and for that I can not blame them one bit. Mike Watkins
We all want to see a transparent, logical, fair, process, one that doesn't force parents to go around the VSB. The Ministry of Education and the Premier have it within their power to do the right thing and empower the VSB with a revised process that allows for the complex nature of Vancouver school requirements to be addressed through a formal variance process. Right now there is none - school communities accept a formula school, or their project doesn't go through. Period.
Its no wonder the Gordon parents felt they had no choice but to go around the system as it stands and for that I can not blame them one bit.
However as I've stated on many occasions we can't have every single school at risk become a political battle ground. Tens of thousands of Vancouver-area children go to unsafe schools every day. We must push through seismic projects as quickly as possible, and Vancouver needs the support of the Ministry and the Premier to make this happen.
The use of the word fair can lead a reader to empathize with the subject or it can portray a sour-grapes attitude. Unfortunately the article is written in an ambiguous manner which leaves interpretation up to the reader when from my perspective, as well as that of Peggy Alca who was also quoted in the article, the situation is very clear. We both stressed our dissatisfaction with a flawed process that has at its root the Ministry of Education's one-size fits all formula. We both indicated our dismay having learned that the Premier himself its playing political games in his own riding when the Vancouver School Board has faced a stonewalling Ministry of Education consistently.
At this point we seem to be witnessing a prime example of pork-barrel politics in the Premier's own backyard. He needs to rise above this and make all B.C. schools at risk his priority, not just a few, and its our desire to see a fair, unambiguous yet flexible requirements determination and approval process for all schools that has driven us to speak out.
There has been much communication going back and forth over this issue. Following is the full text of an email I sent to Vancouver School Board Vice Chair Carol Gibson, copied to all trustees and certain Planning and Facilities Committee II members as well as several parents involved in this issue including Dawn Steele whose letter Ms. Gibson had replied to:
Ms. Gibson:
I appreciate your lengthy response and agree with a number of elements you have highlighted, in particular the questionable value of the heritage ranking.
On Mon, September 15, 2008 1:47 am, Carol Gibson (trustee) wrote:
The chronology which you assembled assumes that during this time there was a known and stable framework within which trustees and staff across districts were working. Further, it assumes that the record of meetings during this time permits an observer to deduce a logically defensible sequence of decisions. There were several frameworks in operation during the 3 years, none of which was stable for very long. There is therefore unlikely to be a logical sequence of decisions.
As have staff and trustees, school communities have been witness to this evolving set of processes and we clearly can see there is no logical, stable, framework even though VSB trustees and staff often act/react as if we should be confident there is a defensible process in place.
It seems very clear from the public portions of Committee II meetings I've attended that trustees and C-II members had, quite legitimately, the expectation that whatever process "framework" was in place at the time would be driven by our local board of education, not by parents engaging in one-off activism directly with their MLA, the Premier of the province.
Rebuke seems a fitting term for the words you deployed following the General Gordon parent presentation at the last C-II meeting before the summer. I believe you used the term "blindsided" in reference to the approach taken by General Gordon parents.
I applauded the stance you took at that meeting.
I'm sympathetic to the desires of the General Gordon community but I am more sympathetic to the needs of the greater Vancouver public school community. There are dozens of priority projects which must be done in a much more timely manner. Adding to the already unprofitable delays introduced by the ministry over the past few years, this politically driven detour in the process du jour introduces the real potential for additional delay and uncertainty.
Its been said at several C-II meetings that members are generally in favour of any approach that would allow for filling the gap between school community requirements and the ministry funding formula, yet at the same time the constant refrain from trustees and C-II has been that the ministry funding formula is the defacto "framework" for decision making. Take it, or leave it.
As of the June C-II meeting it was abundantly clear the General Gordon community approach did not fit into the VSB's operating "framework" of the day. This was highlighted by the surprise revelation made by Supt. Kelly of a memo citing a potential pilot project for certain schools including General Gordon and Douglas Elementary (which I represent). It was very clear that few, including yourself Ms. Gibson, were aware of this memo and the detour it represented. Certainly we, the Douglas community, were unaware of the existence of this list or inclusion of our school by the proponents.
In fact, other school communities, including the one I represent, have been pushed very deliberately to avoid following in Gordon's footsteps, and indeed we have sought to work with, not against or behind, the VSB and C-II.
Our out-of-scope, by Ministry standards, requirements were fairly modest and all were in direct support of school activities, as opposed to other requests for community services such as daycare facilities which other schools have come to the table seeking. Yet even with modest additional requirements to support our curriculum, physical education/sports and music programs, the Douglas school community has been told that we have to take on faith that somehow our real needs will be met by a formula which does not allow for same. On behalf of the community I was able to indicate that we would put some faith in the system, but we have always had deep reservations about this.
We've been taking things on faith for some time now. Once upon a time we were informed that the completion of our project would be near 2010. At the time I recall thinking that this would well serve one of our handicapped children in our all French feeder school Douglas Annex. Now I can only wonder how she will manage the inaccessible Douglas Elementary as clearly it will be years before we see a realistic move in date.
At the meeting I'd indicated our reason for taking a leap of faith: as a community -- the board, parents and school communities, the Ministry -- we all have among our other responsibilities an obligation and duty to see to it that the children of this province attend a school which they can reasonably expect to emerge from safely at the end of the day.
This isn't the case today and that reality should weigh heavily on us all as we make decisions.
Most Vancouver grade school children now attend a school which is at risk of building envelope failure or total collapse. Each day we are sending tens of thousands of children into facilities that were not safe the day they were built 50 or 100 years ago. Unlike the families in the devastated Sichuan province of China, we already know this is a problem. If we do not put in place the best process to solve this critical issue in the shortest period of time, then we are all to blame for the looming and inevitable tragedies. To escape justifiable charges of negligence it will not be sufficient to say that there was a learning curve involved or multiple decision frameworks.
What have we really learned? Upgrades are costly. New construction can be cheaper and faster. But we've know these facts for some time now. Some four years later what we do know with certainty is that delays and distractions impede progress.
If every school community refuses to work within the system, we are only condemning more students to live under heightened risk, and we expose our community to the long term economic and opportunity costs of significant post-disaster interruption to education services.
There appears to be universal acceptance that ministry standards do not provide necessary flexibility. Why then has this board elected to support the latest political detour rather than pushing the ministry and the Premier to fix the root problem?
What will we learn out of this pilot process, beyond the obvious that more money and multiple levels of government and authority will deliver something more than an educational facility? Lets save ourselves that exercise because that can be accurately forecasted today.
The seismic issue transcends all others.
We all know the scope of the problem. We all know the risks. Projects which could be fast tracked, should be. There isn't a moment to lose and we've got to start putting more and more children on the "safe" side of our seismic risk ledger.
On Mon, September 15, 2008 1:47 am, Carol Gibson (trustee) wrote:
As a final comment, I also question a methodology that, in a city as comparatively young as Vancouver, would place 64 of 109 (58%) of Vancouver schools on a heritage registry. Vancouver is not London, Paris
I too question this, as I question why "heritage" values were used in defense of the selection of schools for this new pilot. When looked at from that perspective, two of the three schools proposed for the pilot should not have been entertained.
Perhaps its overly simplistic but ought school selection be based on:
This would seem to be a far better "framework" than allowing parent activism to influence project selection. And indeed I believe these have been guiding principles the board has more or less relied upon. Until now.
What all parents will want to see is a working, fair, process. A working process has been a big question mark ever since the 2004/2005 announcements by the Premier; now fairness itself has been put under the microscope of scrutiny and early reports are not encouraging.
The instigators behind this pilot - Gordon - were asking for a variance to deliver non-curriculum special infrastructure. Contrast this to another school - I'll use Douglas as an example: that community had only asked for variance on things that were directly related to the delivery of school programs (including phys-ed/sports and our large music program). The Douglas community did not ask for non-school infrastructure such as a community centre or a day care or other community services.
If the province can see fit to putting some funds for non-school needs then why can't it see fit to deliver the schools we really do need? Now there would be a good use for "due diligence"; communities get a standard school by default, and if you can make the case for additional requirements in service of education, the Min Ed due diligence team can make a determination pro or con.
Formalize the begging process in other words.
I've no desire to politicize this situation further, because that will almost guarantee that we do not see a sensible, working, and fair process that translates to real results. The Premier's pet project - an 'earmark' to use U.S. terminology, or 'pork barrel politics' to use a less charitable synonym - is an example of political pandering that does nothing to advance seismic safety in Vancouver and in other at-risk areas of the province.
Still, many other school communities must be asking themselves right now: Ought we now follow in Gordon's footsteps?
I still say: No.
Clearly the Gordon experience has highlighted all that is wrong with the current "framework" and as a result school communities have legitimate reason to be concerned that the core deliverable - seismically safe educational facilities throughout the city - has now been pushed out even further.
As you said in your note to Ms. Steele, Vancouver's facilities issues are of a more complex nature than that which other boards face. Unsaid in your note, we here have the most children at risk of any municipality in the province.
A pilot project that introduces additional complexity will not put more children in safer schools in a shorter period of time.
Speaking to you Ms. Gibson as well as all trustees copied on this communication, what specific changes to the "framework" of the day would you make in order to get more children in safer schools in a shorter period of time? Can you give Vancouver school communities any confidence that there is a workable, fair, expedient process in place to deliver much-needed seismic upgrades and replacements? Should every community adopt an every-man-for-himself attitude and "do the Gordon"?
Michael Watkins Douglas Elementary 2008/09 Seismic Committee Chair
Update: I want to make it clear that my beef with the Neighbourhoods of Learning pilot project announcement is fully aimed at the provincial government, not at either the Gordon parent committee nor at the Vancouver School Board (VSB).
Had the Ministry of Education developed a rational funding and approval scheme, and stuck to such a policy, political opportunism coming from the Premier's office would not be the issue it is today.
My experience with the VSB has been they are treating all areas of the city with fairness and due process. But the process framework, imposed by the Ministry of Education, is flawed, and that has driven parents to do whatever they can to achieve that which they feel is necessary.
I'm sympathetic to the desires of the General Gordon community but I am more sympathetic to the needs of the greater Vancouver public school community. There are dozens of priority projects which must be done in a much more timely manner. Adding to the already unprofitable delays introduced by the ministry over the past few years, this politically driven detour in the process du jour introduces the real potential for additional delay and uncertainty.
If every school community refuses to work within the system, we are only condemning more students to live under heightened risk, and we expose our community to the long term economic and opportunity costs of significant post-disaster interruption to education services.
There appears to be universal acceptance that ministry standards do not provide necessary flexibility. Why then has this board elected to support the latest political detour rather than pushing the ministry and the Premier to fix the root problem?
What will we learn out of this pilot process, beyond the obvious that more money and multiple levels of government and authority will deliver something more than an educational facility? Lets save ourselves that exercise because that can be accurately forecasted today.
VSB chairman defends upgrade of school in premier's riding (Monday Sept. 15 2008, Vancouver Sun):
The B.C. government, not the Vancouver board of education, selected a school in Premier Gordon Campbell's riding for special treatment under a $30-million project unveiled this month, the board chairman admitted Sunday. But Clarence Hansen said he supports the government's choice, even though some parents are angry over what appears to be political favouritism.
No politics? Then explain this:
Hansen said General Gordon "isn't the one we would have picked" for the pilot but added that parents earned that right through their aggressive lobbying and creative ideas.
That's interesting, as it has been abundantly clear that Committee II did not support in any way shape or form the aggressive lobbying and creative ideas the Gordon parents were putting forth. If anything such creativity was going to slow down the Gordon project from ever getting approval.
Could someone at the VSB also explain why:
When news of these surprise pilot projects first broke we were told the VSB made the school choices, and that various factors including heritage value were part of the consideration.
Noted today on Vancouver Sun journalist Janet Steffenhagen's weblog:
Education Minister Shirley Bond, meanwhile, was sticking to her message. "The Vancouver Board of Education and the Province worked collaboratively to develop the Neighbourhoods of Learning pilot," she said in an email that arrived too late for my story. "The Vancouver Board of Education identified the three schools based on a number of factors including heritage status, the need for seismic upgrades and the community desire to see full use of these facilities."
While we already know this now not to be true thanks to VSB Chair Clarence Hansen's admission this weekend, lets look at the heritage value of Gordon and Queen Mary.
This is a ranking, most-valued to least, of Vancouver schools from a recently completed heritage assessment (attached at the end of this post). Note where Gordon and Queen Mary show up on the list:
25 Vancouver Technical Secondary 25 Strathcona Community 25 Kitsilano Secondary 23 Selkirk Elementary 23 L'École Bilingue Elementary 23 John Oliver Secondary 23 Hastings Elementary 23 Dickens Elementary 21 Thunderbird Elementary 21 Sexsmith Elementary 21 Point Grey Secondary 21 Macdonald Elementary 21 Grandview Elementary 21 Douglas Elementary 21 Champlain Heights Community 19 Tennyson Elementary 19 Templeton Secondary 19 South Hill Elementary 19 Shannon Park Annex 19 Secord Elementary 19 McBride Elementary 19 Lloyd George Elementary 19 Kingsford-Smith Elementary 17 Wolfe Elementary 17 Tecumseh Elementary 17 Shaughnessy Elementary 17 Seymour Elementary 17 Renfrew Elementary 17 Queen Mary Elementary <- QUEEN MARY 17 Queen Alexandra Elementary 17 Nightingale Elementary 17 Moberly Elementary 17 Mackenzie Elementary 17 MacCorkindale Elementary 17 Kitchener Elementary 17 Gladstone Secondary 17 Churchill Secondary 17 Cavell Elementary 17 Carr Elementary 15 University Hill Secondary 15 Roberts Elementary 15 Queen Elizabeth Elementary 15 Norquay Elementary 15 Mount Pleasant Elementary 15 Maple Grove Elementary 15 Livingstone Elementary 15 Kerrisdale Elementary 15 Hudson Elementary 15 Hamber Secondary 15 Franklin Elementary 15 False Creek Elementary 15 Douglas Annex 13 Grenfell Elementary 13 Gordon Elementary <- GORDON 11 Van Horne Elementary 09 Trafalgar Elementary
Gordon was never a heritage candidate, and in fact the Vancouver Heritage Commission had passed a resolution in June which freed the VSB from considering heritage value in the redevelopment of Gordon.
RESOLVED THAT, regarding the project at 2896 West 6th Avenue (General Gordon Elementary School), the Vancouver Heritage Commission supports option 3 (full replacement) as presented at the June 16, 2007, meeting, recognizing the relatively lower score of 13 out of 25, but regrets the potential loss of the General Gordon Elem School building.
Queen Mary wasn't even on the VSB's close-in radar. From the current Seismic Projects page on the VSB web site, here are the projects which are moving closer to approval. QM is absent. Parents there have quite rightly been among those lobbying for seismic upgrades for years. Rumours suggest parent political connections have played a role in getting QM moving forward now.
In 2004 Premier Campbell made a promise, which he repeated during the 2005 election campaign, to ensure B.C. schools were made seismically safe. Parents of this province are still waiting for these promises to be kept, as the pace of project starts is wholly inadequate.
What's worse is the process for determining project focus is completely broken, as this most recent episode between the Ministry of Education and the Vancouver School Board so clearly illustrates.
Politicians are playing games with the lives of our children.
Its been my experience that many, if not most, parents in Vancouver (and likely in surrounding jurisdictions) are completely unaware of the serious building safety issues – a clear and present danger, if you will – facing the vast majority of Vancouver’s schools. Despite all the efforts of parent lobby groups such as Families for School Seismic Safety there remains a very large body of parents who are unaware that their kids walk into unsafe buildings every morning.
Its quite simple, really. Of Vancouver’s 109 elementary and secondary schools, almost 100 do not meet earthquake building codes. In fact, the largest percentage of these schools are deemed at high risk of significant structural failure in the event of a moderate or strong earthquake.
Put plainly – if we get the “big one” that scientists say is all but certain, some, or perhaps many, of Vancouver’s brick school buildings will fully or partially collapse. If that happens during school hours, many – perhaps hundreds or even thousands – will die. The risk is real.
Make no mistake about it, a big seismic event will hit Vancouver – its only a question of time. BC politicians at all levels are playing roulette with the lives of our children.
Most Vancouver school buildings were built before building codes took into account seismic forces; as you drive around the city you’ll note that most schools have at least one or more building that was constructed out of unreinforced masonry – brick – which is quite literally the most dangerous construction one might imagine to find in the modern world in region which will one day be hit by a massive earthquake.
Putting this into perspective, each morning in Vancouver alone there are over 30,000 elementary and secondary school students walking in the doors of buildings that are considered “high” or “moderate/high” risk of significant failure in the event of a moderate/strong earthquake.
If that wasn’t a serious enough problem, emergency planners and seismologists are planning for and anticipating our region will experience a strong to severe or even catastrophic earthquake – quakes in the range of Richter scale 7, 8 or even 9. Historically the region is predisposed to such monster earthquakes – in January of 1700 the region was hit with a monster quake off the coast of Vancouver Island at the top end of that scale. The resulting tsunami from that quake crossed the entire Pacific Ocean and destroyed warehouses in Japan.
When will such a thing occur here? Could be in two minutes. Could be in two years. Could be in another two decades. All we know is that these events happen in cycles of approximately 400 – 500 years. Given that many of Vancouver’s school buildings are over 100 years old, its past time to put them out to pasture and high time we started protecting our children.
The risk is real. The timing is unknown.
Mostly talk, and not nearly enough action. In 2004 at the Union of BC Municipalities meeting, in advance of the 2005 election, Gordon Campbell made a commitment to spend $1.5 billion and fix or rebuild all the schools at risk.
Some progress has been made, but very little. While a number of projects have been started over the past decade, very few projects have been initiated under Campbell’s 2004/2005 15 year plan. Initially 80 schools were placed on the “fast-track” for upgrades or complete replacements. Only 4 projects have started construction.
The Ministry of Education then added more schools to the fast track list – now 95 projects are slated for accelerated action, yet there’s been no acceleration and in fact, whether its school boards or the provincial government or both, the actual pace of project approvals and starts is slowing down, even as other government infrastructure gets upgraded.
In the throne speech of 2007, the government indicated its commitment to urgently upgrading the provincial legislature. Over the past 2 decades this province has proactively upgraded bridges, tunnels, dams, prisons and the liquor branch. Citizens did not have to ask for this risk mitigation work to be carried out, nor have they had to ask that the legislature be upgraded. Mitigating these risks and having carried out the schools assessment indicates an acknowledgment of the importance of this work.
Apparently Campbell’s idea of priority setting is to protect the asses of politicians in Victoria, and the supply of booze in the province, but not our children.
The provincial government and the VSB continue to point fingers at one another. The VSB says its complying with the Ministry edicts; the Ministry and Campbell say that the VSB is being obstructionist and not rationalizing its school space (read chopping schools). But as the sponsor of the 15 year plan and funder of such projects, clearly the onus is on the provincial government to make things work, and things are not working.
In the back end of Campbell’s mandate, its not hard to imagine that intrusive ideological politics are not being played out with our public school system by the provincial government, with apparently willing accomplices to be found in a number of the current Vancouver School Board of Trustees.
At a recent meeting of the Facilities and Planning Committee, Families for School Seismic Safety presented a recap of the issue and sought to seek a renewed commitment from the Board to accelerating the pace of seismic safety projects. Chair person Shirley Wong didn’t even do us the courtesy of looking at the presentation – for most of the meeting she sat with her back turned to the screen and ate her dinner.
In an in camera session of that same committee, Shirley Wong is reported to have made a cover her ass move, by asking Director of Facilities Les King if the children in Vancouver schools were safe. He said yes, what else could he say?
Would they be safe in the event of a major earthquake? For reasons of liability we can be quite positive that Les King would not answer in the affirmative.
Vancouver School Board trustees take note: The 2008 election is not far away, and seismic safety will be an election issue, you can be guaranteed of that.
Why do parents have to keep asking for school seismic safety? In the aftermath of tragedies elsewhere in the world parents grieve that the school should have been the safest building in town unfortunately schools are frequently the most highly damaged structures in earthquakes around the world, sometimes catastrophically. Isnt this precisely the kind of work we elect public officials to demonstrate accountability in carrying out?
By contrast, our neighbours in Seattle will have completed upgrading and improving their school buildings by 2010 and have spent $1 billion USD to achieve this. Citizens voted on 3 consecutive ballot initiatives to see their money spent in this manner.
Families for School Seismic Safety have done an excellent job at unearthing facts and presenting arguments as to why this issue is so important and time critical. Its likely that the Premier’s commitment to address school seismic safety in a 15 year time span was made in a large part due to the efforts of FSSS.
Yet Campbell’s promise rings increasingly hollow. British Columbians don’t need election promises without action and I’m convinced that as more parents become aware that their children’s schools aren’t safe today – in many cases weren’t safe the day they were built – that politicians will be forced to act. If not now, by the 2009 provincial election.
abc back-stabbing bc broken-promises cartoons child-care climate consumption controversy cpc criminal cycling democracy design django durus economics election emerson environment ep finance floor-crossing gaffes general gpc harper homelessness housing humour incongruity inside-baseball inspiration letters lpc markets media nau ndp npa nuclear outrage pcparty pcpc peakoil policy politics population poverty python qp recession reform schools seismic senate softwood sovereignty spp tablet technical trade tutorial us vancouver vancouver-kingsway vision-vancouver vsb war world