We are on Resolution 16.4. Support to Schools (a) Schools Finance (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits.
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): I am ready to continue on with my answer to the question, Mr. Chairman.
Just before we broke, I had been asked questions about some specific schools and was talking about the Gimli situation, the Gimli Early/Middle Years School. Enrollment has increased significantly at that school from 471 students in 1996 to 512 right now. The projected enrollment for September is 513 students.
To accommodate the current overcrowding, the school division has converted two of their existing rooms that were not previously being used for classrooms into regular classrooms. To accommodate the anticipated enrollment increase for September '98, as requested by the school division on October 28 of this fall, 1997, the Public Schools Finance Board on May 4 of 1998 approved two portable units as a short-term solution there. But the long-term solution is the modernization of this school, and a project has been identified for this school under the government's Aging Buildings Program.
The Public Schools Finance Board will conduct an assessment of that school in the near future and will forward its recommendation to the minister for consideration. Subject to the Public Schools Finance Board's formal assessment and the minister's approval of the project, the school division could be authorized to proceed with planning and design authority for a major renovation project in 1999-2000.
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): The minister has mentioned the Aging Buildings Program and makes reference, of course, in the Estimates to that as well. Could the minister table any formal documentation that exists on that, the criteria for example, and could she give us an idea of--I am not clear whether that is a separate application that one makes over and above the five-year general plan, over and above the amendments that come from time to time to those five-year plans?
Is the Aging Buildings Program something which is considered separately to which you apply separately, and what are the criteria for that?
* (1440)
Mrs. McIntosh: Government approved, in this last round, a new three-year Aging Buildings Program which is beginning this year, '98-99, with a total budget of $30 million. That $30 million is spread over three years--it will work out to about $10 million a year--to address unmet significant capital needs beyond the regular capital support programs. So it is new money. It is over and above the amount we have spent this year, which was $29.7 million, I think, on capital in the schools. We are putting in additional money for several aging building projects.
The member asked a very good question in terms of, where does this fit in with the regular work that might be done on a building that is aging? In a regular five-year capital plan would it not be addressed? The answer is, ultimately, yes, it would be. For the project selection criteria, projects will consist of--these are the things that will be addressed with that $30 million--major renovations and upgrading of older school buildings that are certified structurally sound and deemed to have a remaining useful life of at least 25 years following the renovations. So they can be repaired and extended by 25 years, then that would be one criteria.
Another is the replacing of roofing, mechanical and structural systems that have been assessed by independent consultants commissioned by the PSFB and designated as high priority based on age, conditions, repair record, cost to repair and maintain the system, disruption to the school, et cetera. These projects had to be identified as high-priority projects by school divisions via the five-year capital plan process.
So put simply, this money tops up our regular budget to allow the PSFB to address right away many of the aging buildings that fit those two criteria without any unseemly delay, and part of the reason for this is we had, as I indicated earlier today, after the Second World War and babies started to be born in the '50s primarily, a whole series of schools built very quickly that have all aged simultaneously and are all due for major repairs right about now simultaneously.
So it is the same identification process but with narrower specific criteria, and this is extra funding to meet the aging building needs without jeopardizing regular capital requests. In other words, to address all these aging buildings that we would want to in this next three-year period, might have meant some of the other priorities would have had to be set aside. This way, they do not have to be. So it is a three-year project, and those are the criteria.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, could the minister tell me which schools have applied to that fund?
Mrs. McIntosh: Yes, I can provide the names of the schools that are in this first round. The others are all still being--they are in the five-year capital plans, and they have to be identified for next year which they will be before too long. Right now, I can only provide for certain, in terms of the choices for this year, the ones that are going to be done right now.
There will be about the same number done next year and again in the third year of the program. They are buildings, as I say, that have been identified as high priority projects via the capital plan process, and staff check to see if they meet this narrowest criteria to be done, pulled off that list and done separately, so that everything else on the list can be moved up for earlier treatment, thereby avoiding the delay that might have happened if we had tried to address these aging buildings simultaneously. We might have had to lose some other projects. This way we do not.
But I will give the member the names for this year. They were the subject of a press release, I believe, earlier where we published those names or which schools were getting their aging building needs met.
We have in Agassiz School Division No. 13, we have the Beausejour School. We have Transcona Collegiate being done in Transcona-Springfield; Virden Collegiate in Fort La Bosse; Sisler in Winnipeg; Neepawa in Beautiful Plains; St. Paul's in White Horse Plain; Melita in Antler River; West Kildonan Collegiate in Seven Oaks; and Pembina Crest which is the South Winnipeg Tech Centre site.
Now, with roofing replacements, we have in Winnipeg 1, Isaac Brock, George V. These are Phase 1 of Issac Brock, Phase 1 of George V; Robert Browning in St. James; Minnetonka in St. Vital; Nordale in Norwood. Those are the roofing ones.
System replacements, repairing boilers and piping in Inkster and Shaughnessy Park; boiler replacement, Phase 1, in Viscount Alexander in Fort Garry; furnace replacement in Princess Margaret School in River East; furnace replacement in Elmdale in Hanover; oil furnace propane conversion in Arden in Beautiful Plains; furnace replacement in Whitmore in Dauphin-Ochre; boiler replacement in Binscarth in Pelly Trail. Those are the systems replacement projects.
I believe that is all. There may be one or two others. Staff is just checking to make sure that I have not missed any from that list. There is another systems replacement, Mr. Chairman, a furnace replacement at Rivers Elementary in Rolling River; and in terms of roofing, Robert Andrews School in River East; Woodlawn A and B in Hanover; Arthur Meighen High School, the gym area is getting new roofing, in Portage la Prairie; Carberry Collegiate in Beautiful Plains; Brookdale gym in Beautiful Plains; Vincent Massey in Brandon; St. Jean Baptiste in the DSFM; and J.H. Kerr in Snow Lake and Deerwood in Mystery Lake are getting new roofing.
* (1450)
Ms. Friesen: So just to clarify the process, these names and projects are culled from the five-year applications, five-year plans, that divisions make on a regular basis.
Mrs. McIntosh: That is correct. Because they know what the priorities are best, and culling is a good word to use for the process.
Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate if I could just follow up on earlier questions with respect to the Gimli Early/Middle Years School and the situation that it is in. There have been, of course, letters written and articles in our local papers with respect to the condition and the situation that we have at Gimli Early/Middle Years and the effect that it has on the young students and the teachers and the whole community.
Can I ask the minister, we talk about a five-year plan, has Evergreen School Division had this Gimli Early/Middle Years School in their five-year plan some years ago? Is it something they just implemented as put in this year, this fiscal year? How long has this school been on the agenda?
Mrs. McIntosh: As I indicated yesterday, when the five-year capital plan is submitted, we ask divisions to look ahead five years and try to anticipate what their needs will be, as well as their immediate needs. So school divisions will do that, and they send in a list of priorities. They will say we have 10 projects that we can think of that need to be done between now and five years from now.
They will put them in order of priority. So they might identify something that they think could be needed in five years that may, in fact, not be needed in five years, so each year, of course, the list is reassessed and updated, modified or confirmed that it is still the list, and this year they might say five years from now we are going to need a new school. Then, of course, next year it will be four years from then, and the year after that it will be three years, and two, until finally we are in the year when the new school is needed. So it is not needed necessarily the first year they identify it. Some people think because it appears on the list that it is needed right away. It sometimes appears on the list identified as something that might be needed in five years' time.
With Gimli and the Evergreen School Division, this one appeared for the first time on their list of five-year anticipated needs, their capital plan in--I am looking to see what year it was--two years ago, 1997. I may be off on that. I know that they did have it on for a couple of years. It was certainly within the last five years, but not five years ago. It is a shorter time than that that it has been on. It has not been listed as their highest priority. It is now, but it was not until just now. Last year they identified as their highest priority Winnipeg Beach; that was approved. Now they have identified as their highest priority the Gimli Early/Middle Years School, and it looks as though the school division will probably be authorized to proceed with the planning and design authority for 1999, the year right after the one we are in.
They currently have two portable units there which have just been approved. They were just approved this month as a matter of fact. Are they already there? [interjection] Okay, so they have, pardon me, two portable units that were approved earlier this month that will be there for this next year. That is the short-term solution for this which is now their top priority.
Mr. C. Evans: I thank the minister for the response. It is my understanding that staff has been out to visit at the school. My understanding is they have certainly seen first-hand the needs that are there and the conditions that are at Gimli Middle Years. I just want to make a comment that certainly my concern for the condition of the school and the need for Gimli Early/Middle Years is that I do have constituents and children who attend school in Gimli. Of course, this issue was raised to me, with me, by parents and trustees that are involved in this. Now it is my understanding also that there is to be a presentation made to the department by the end of this month.
Am I correct in assuming that? Basically what I am asking is, at the minister's support, the division's now perhaps change of heart when it comes to what the priority is. Now you say that this has become a priority. That is fine. They probably appreciate that too, but how quickly can we move along with that priority on behalf of Gimli Middle Years?
One other question: will the portable classrooms cost Evergreen any money for having those portable classrooms there? [interjection]
* (1500)
Mrs. McIntosh: Sorry, Mr. Chairman. Through you to the member, I can indicate first of all that the requests do not come to the department. They go to the Public Schools Finance Board which is arm's length from government, so government does not interfere in those--
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I hate to interrupt the honourable member, but I have to come to the committee member for the other section.
All sections in Chamber for formal vote.
* (1600)
Mr. Chairperson: The bells have rung for one hour. I am asking the Sergeant-at-Arms to turn off the bells.
Order, please. In the section of Committee of Supply meeting in Room 254 considering the Estimates of the Department of Justice, a motion was moved by the honourable member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed). The motion reads: that the question be now put.
This motion was carried on a voice vote, and subsequently two members requested that a formal vote on this matter be taken. The question before the committee is the motion of the honourable member for Turtle Mountain.
A COUNT-OUT VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas 0, Nays 43.
Mr. Chairperson: The motion is accordingly defeated.
The sections of the Committee of Supply will now continue with the consideration of the departmental Estimates.
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Chairman, I had just been concluding a response on the Gimli school situation, and I want to correct something I had said. I had said that the Gimli Early/Middle Years schools was now the top priority, and, in fact, the Winnipeg Beach School is still the top priority. It has been approved and the next on the list is the Gimli school. So for the next go-round, once the Winnipeg Beach is dealt with, it will be their highest priority because it is second on the list now. In short, Winnipeg Beach first, Gimli second; and the Winnipeg Beach has been approved.
Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Mr. Chairman, I did ask also to whose cost would the portable classrooms be, whether it would be incurred by Evergreen, or does the department take care of the cost?
Mrs. McIntosh: Those costs are borne by Public Schools Finance Board through the government of Manitoba funding.
Mr. C. Evans: Before the bells, I did ask about the proposed meeting that I have been told is supposed to be happening by the end of the month. The school board, I understand, has put everything sort of together in another way and is going to be presenting it to the department. Is that so? Is there going to be another meeting, another presentation, by the school division?
Mrs. McIntosh: I am not sure if the member is referring to a request to meet with the minister and the department or the PSFB. The PSFB does not normally have presentations made to it by boards. However, what they do is they regularly will assess, then, project requests or renovation requests. School divisions will ask for things. The PSFB will then meet with division officials to assess the need and examine the criteria, see that they are met, et cetera. That may be what you are referring to.
It may be that the board has asked to meet with me or senior staff on a variety of issues because I do meet regularly with boards. The sort of standard instructions to my appointment secretary is if a school board phones and asks for the meeting, grant the meeting. At this time of the year with the House in session, the meetings are backed up a fair bit. So there may be one scheduled that I am not yet aware of in my weekly schedule with me.
Those would be the two types of meetings. None of us here have a recollection of a specific date or a specific meeting to come. But those are the two types of things that may be on the books that would be part of our regular communications with boards and divisions.
I just want to indicate that, I do not want to leave a wrong impression. I mean, the PSFB does regularly meet with school divisions. If I am reading what the member was asking for, the kind of meeting they were describing would be probably with staff and not with the board.
* (1610)
Mr. C. Evans: Just a final comment. I certainly would like to indicate to the minister and the department--and I am sure that she has received the letters. I know that the department has received and seen the articles in the local paper with respect to Gimli Middle Years. I know that the minister and the department certainly do not take the issue here lightly. I know that they know that it is a very important situation, a very important issue, for the community. It is growing, we know that. I wish that we would be able to support Evergreen School Division's requests to get the Gimli Early/Middle Years School rebuilt. This is basically what they are asking for, a bigger school built.
It is the future, not only for Gimli itself, but it is the future for the whole Interlake region to have the availability for our kids and our young people to be able to attend a school that is up to date, modern, with all of the facilities available, proper building and whatnot in place.
So I am certainly hoping that the minister will support the recommendations and the request by Evergreen to engage in getting this new school in place as soon as possible on behalf of all the trustees and students and teachers of Evergreen School Division.
I thank the minister for the opportunity to express my concerns.
Mr. Edward Helwer, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair
Mrs. McIntosh: I appreciate the member's comments. The Public Schools Finance Board and the minister and the department do take these issues seriously. We are also very strict, though, and mindful that we maintain the integrity of all processes, and the PSFB has a mental discipline in terms of objectivity in that they work very hard to preserve objectivity. So the minister does not go to the PSFB, for example, and say we want you to move on this school in Gimli or with this school here or this school there, I think for obvious reasons, unless there would be a terrible disaster or something that was a huge priority, was some extraordinary circumstance that I cannot envision right at the moment.
Having said that, ultimately the recommendations do appear before the minister after the PSFB has done its work. We are generally receptive to those recommendations because they do require the minister's signature on them at the end of the process.
So, again, I appreciate what you have said, and the PSFB is accessible. I had indicated that they do not normally have some regular presentations from boards, but any board that asks to meet with them, they will agree to see. Staff works with them regularly and they do--I know from having watched them in the few years that I have been here--go through with a fine-tooth comb all those priorities.
They have indicated that they believe, as far as the Gimli School is concerned, that they will likely be authorized to proceed with planning and design authority for 1999-2000, the year after this one. That is their expectation at this point, and barring some unforeseen traumatic intervention, that is likely what would happen. In the meantime, they have the request for portables which have been approved earlier this month. I do not know if that gives you your Gimli answer. [interjection] Okay, I appreciate your interest.
I have an update here, too. I do not know if the official critic is interested in the Wolseley update that is on the books here. [interjection] Okay.
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): I want to start off by apologizing to the minister. I had expressed to her earlier this week that I was going to be available this morning, but I was unfortunately detained by another scheduled speaking engagement.
I know she had answered some questions that were posed by our critic for Education, and I thank the minister for her answers and my colleague for asking those questions with regard to Transcona-Springfield School Division, and I will read Hansard to see the questions and answers that were asked as soon as they are on the Hansard system.
But I want to ask some questions, because I am not sure that all of the questions that needed to be asked were asked with respect to the school division. I wanted to ask the minister at this time with respect to the Transcona-Springfield School Division. The minister, I believe, said that the Anola School will be the first priority for that particular school division and that project will go ahead. The minister, I noticed before the question and the bells were ringing here, indicated that Transcona Collegiate was on the project list for this year.
What I need to know is whether or not official communication has gone out to the school division. I know there was a meeting that took place a day or two ago with school division people with respect to some of their concerns, but I need to know whether or not official notification has gone to the school division with respect to Transcona Collegiate and its renovation program, and whether or not that project will commence before the end of this school year, or, at least, some announcement will take place with respect to that project so that the school division and school staff, et cetera, will know whether or not that facility will be under some renovation work during the summer months and perhaps into the fall.
* (1620)
Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, yes, I think we are on the wavelength but just for extra clarification, the actual highest priority for Transcona is the Transcona Collegiate, but of the elementary-middle years portion, the second would be Anola. So Anola is the first, if you are talking about the elementary-middle years, which I think is what you were meaning. Their first actual priority is Transcona. So we are understanding each other correctly. Sometimes people reading are not as sure as we are that we understand.
The Transcona-Springfield School Division got a letter--well, they should have it--official communication went out over my signature regarding Transcona Collegiate being highly recommended under the aging buildings project. We expect that within the next six weeks, they should have, through the PSFB, a formal communication to me on that. It was highly recommended and they are doing their assessment now. That should be completed, they expect, before the school year is out, like sometime within the next six weeks that they would be able to confirm that. They cannot formally confirm it until the assessment has been done, but it looks as if that will occur. But I have to be careful saying that in case something strange comes up in the assessment which is not anticipated. So a short answer to your question, they should be able to receive confirmation, we expect, before the academic year is complete here.
The school division has to determine how it wants to deal with student numbers, with program offerings and grade groupings at Transcona Collegiate right now, and those are some factors that will impact on the nature of the Transcona Collegiate project. So they have to--well, they do not have to, but they are going to be doing some consultations in the community, and after they have done that and they have done their own internal dialogue, they will have recommendations that are specific for the Public Schools Finance Board, and the Public Schools Finance Board will then be able to formalize its decision and recommendations to me.
So there are just those few little processes, and they are all in a stage of completion right now, this process really that is required in the next few weeks.
Mr. Reid: I appreciate when the minister says it could take a couple more weeks or a few more weeks to move this process along. I do not understand, though, when the minister references that there is an assessment process that has to take place. Is that an assessment of the condition of the structure itself, Transcona Collegiate, or is there some other assessment process that you have that needs to occur with for which I may not be familiar? Perhaps you can explain that process to me.
Mrs. McIntosh: The member asks a very good question. It is a process that has been ongoing for some time. They are in the final stages of the assessment. The preliminary indication is that this project appears to fit all the criteria. They have been assessing it for some time. What has happened now as we get to the end of the process is that the school division has now identified some things. For example, they have indicated they are going to move from being a Senior 2 to a Senior 4, to a Senior 1 to a Senior 4 and they have just completed, at the end of March, a review that they had done--this is the school division now I am talking about--in terms of program offerings and grade groupings. But the building itself is clearly recognized as an aging building and just the process that has to be gone through necessitates those final pieces of information coming so the assessment can be properly done. That is in its final stages now.
I think the information is either with the PSFB or on its way from the Transcona School Division in terms of those things. They have a couple more meetings left on this type of, how the accommodations are going to be needed in the schools, what type of student is coming in, the groupings they are going to be requiring in the school and so on.
Those are little pieces of information needed to finalize the assessment properly. If they know exactly what is needed in a newly renovated building, then those will form part of the project criteria for the planning. I am trying to think of the word they call it when they go out to do the drawings and so on.
Mr. Reid: The minister is right. It is my understanding that the meetings have already occurred with respect to the reorganization for the school division. I know my wife is participating in that process as the chair of the junior high for which the Senior 1 will now move into the high school, Transcona Collegiate. So it will be an S1 to S4.
There has been some discussion I believe with respect to the facilities itself. Perhaps the minister can provide some guidance on this for me. I think there is a request for a multipurpose facility. As the minister well knows, and I have raised in this House during members' statements, having attended the production of Anne of Green Gables put on by the local school division through the Transcona Collegiate, and what a success that particular program was. The type of facilities that really stretched the ability of the students, the staff and the parents to put on that type of a production, wherein they had to utilize an elementary school that was not really set up for that type of drama or that type of multipurpose. I am wondering whether or not it is within the responsibility of the Department of Education or the Public Schools Finance branch or perhaps some other branch of the Department of Education where support can be lent to development or construction of a facility, a multipurpose facility, within that particular grouping of schools, because you have an elementary school, a junior high and a high school within the same block area complex, whether or not there can be a multipurpose facility set up.
Mr. Chairperson in the Chair
I am quite worried after what I saw, and I say this quite guardedly since it is on the record here, quite concerned that the multipurpose facility that was being utilized for that particular drama production can lead some to question whether or not there is a fire hazard, fire regulation hazard, with respect to the utilization of the current facilities in the elementary school and whether or not it would be more appropriate to have productions like they have put on in another facility.
* (1630)
I think that may be at least one of the reasons why the school division may have requested a multipurpose facility. Perhaps the minister can advise whether or not that would be within the area of responsibility for her department and whether or not a request that may have gone forward would receive positive approval.
Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, staff had indicated to me some of the things they look at in terms of the process that I would like to provide to the member in answer to one of his earlier questions, and then I will get to his current one.
The projects, they are subject to preliminary assessment by the PSFB, board project leaders who review rationale for requests, current and projected enrollment trends, cost estimates, number of years that a project was requested by the school division as its highest capital priority, condition of building particularly as it applies to health and safety, adequacy of proper instructional spaces to deliver the department's educational programs, and solutions and what alternatives were considered by the school division.
With regard to asking for multipurpose space, I think it has been determined from staff's assessment to date that multipurpose space would be part of the approval of this project, and that multipurpose space, of course, then would be there for multifunctions which is the whole concept with multipurpose space.
Mr. Reid: So if I understand the answer correctly then, with the renovation project that is going to take place in Transcona Collegiate, there will be a multiuse facility or space attached to that particular project, and if so, will it form part of the existing building or will it be a new structure that is added on to the existing building?
Mrs. McIntosh: I am advised that those are exactly the kinds of discussions that are going on as they do the final assessment, and they have made some determination. They know it is an ancient building. It is a candidate for modernization and upgrading. They are looking at the needs as identified by the division.
They have made a preliminary determination that a multipurpose room would be a valuable asset to this building. They are talking about how that comes into existence, what it will look like, et cetera, et cetera. That is what they are currently in the process of doing. So it is premature for them at this point to try to second-guess the end result of those dialogues. I will find that out, I suppose, when they come with their final recommendations to me in the normal course of things, but this is the process they go through with each and every request. They cannot jump over any of the steps if they want to be fair and just and thorough. They need to go through them all.
The question you are asking is one that they are all currently asking with each other as they try to determine how to go about meeting these needs.
* (1640)
Mr. Reid: Then might we expect then that if approval, as you say, is going to given to, or notification is going to be given to the school division in the next six weeks with respect to the renovation under the Aging Buildings Program, would we expect then that negotiations would take longer than this six-week period and that that project for the multipurpose area would be delayed and given some consideration in the future, or will it form a part of the decision that is being made, the final decision being made with respect to the renovation of the existing structure?
Do you know whether or not that would be made, an announcement would be made at the same time as you announce the renovation project commencement for the existing structure? I am talking about whether or not the multipurpose area will be part of that decision.
Mrs. McIntosh: The decision will encompass all the issues, and once that has been indicated to the school division they can have an architect then engaged to design the approved project. So the architect, you know, he would have guidelines about how many square feet and all that kind of stuff, but the PSFB does not do the actual designing. They will approve money for aspects of replacing or building or renovating or whatever it is they are doing, and then the division engages an architect to do the actual design. But the decision that the PSFB will relay to the school division will encompass all of the issues involved in that aging building to modernize it and so on.
Mr. Reid: Okay, so then because the minister has already said that the renovation of the aging building portion will likely occur this year, this fiscal year, and the announcement will go out within the next six weeks, then the multipurpose program will be attached to that particular project, and then because through discussions that I have had with people within the school division--and I am not saying on the board itself--there has been some concern that there has been a stalling of the process because of some debate on whether or not the multipurpose area should form part of the renovation project. If I understand what the minister is saying here today, that will not be the situation here at this time and that the project will go ahead. Am I understanding correctly on that?
Mrs. McIntosh: I want to be clear here that what we are talking about are anticipated outcomes, because the final decisions are still in the process of being made. So I am expecting, because the PSFB has indicated that this project will be a go, and that they will be able to confirm that within the next six weeks, and that as they redo this aging building that their expectation at this point is that it would include multipurpose space. The actual details surrounding that, they are in the process of discussing with school division officials in terms of details on that, and while that is anticipated, it has not yet been formally concluded.
So when you say so this will happen, I have to say it tentatively appears that that will happen. I am just erring on the side of caution. Does the staff wish to add anything to that, that they feel would be--staff indicates that they cannot guarantee that construction will start or when it will start because that will depend upon the architect and the approval of design by the school division, et cetera. We just want to make sure we do not overstate our--[interjection] Mr. Chair, I just wanted to clarify something else as well.
The member referred to what he hoped were not unnecessary delays, and staff here advise me this project has taken some time and there have been--it has taken longer because of a whole series of discussions surrounding some of the issues connected with the school, but none of the delays were anything that anybody could do anything about. They involved having to meet and discuss, meet and discuss, on some of the issues surrounding this particular aging building. They were not surrounding whether the multipurpose room would be built now or later or anything like that, but it is just that there were a lot of meetings on various issues in this particular project which did cause it to move a bit slower, I think, than all the parties would have liked.
But I think they are now at the stage where they have most things cleared up as they are now able to indicate as they have when they expect to be able to notify the division officially.
* (1650)
Mr. Reid: I thank the minister for that information. I take it then by the comments that in concept that the Department of Education is supportive of the multipurpose facility as part of the improvements to the Transcona Collegiate. Is there a particular stumbling block here? Do you have limitations or do you have numbers or size, and size square footage, for example, that the department would limit a particular project to? Is there some criteria that you have established that may be under some consideration or discussion or debate with the school division now that has to be resolved before that particular project can go forward?
Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, yes, we have space guidelines, et cetera. We tabled them I believe in '96. They are available. We have guidelines and criteria for all manner of things involved with construction in schools, including space guidelines. That does not mean that schools are restricted to that space. We have a couple of examples of schools that have been built recently where the Public Schools Finance Board has provided the money for the building, and then the community has decided they wanted some extra thing and they have gone and they have raised money through a variety of sources to, in one case, put on a supersized gym.
I think two schools have opted for what I call supersized gyms, and they have raised the money through the community and industry donations, et cetera, for that; but the PSFB has provided the money for the standard-sized gym and those types of things, so the PSFB has the standard guidelines which most divisions use. Occasionally though, some divisions will decide they want an enhancement. They are quite at liberty to do that, but there would not be extra dollars provided for those kinds of enhancements, i.e., they would pay for a regular-sized gym but not an oversized one.
Mr. Reid: The criteria are known and I guess the school division trustees would probably be well aware of that as long with their administration. I did not know whether or not there was some issue in dispute with respect to the criteria that the department uses versus what the school division was requesting for their particular project which I believe has been on their request list for a number of years now. I did not know whether that was an issue that was holding it up with respect to something that was perhaps larger than what the Public Schools Finance Board was prepared to consider. Can you tell me: is that a bottleneck for that area, for that particular project?
Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, the PSFB advises that the configuration of classrooms, the grades and types of classrooms, the utilization of facilities in the division were the main factor that slowed things down because they had to know if they were going to be looking at a building that would be accommodating certain groups of kids or not, and the division was doing a, did you say the west?--the west end review, and so they wanted to make sure that was done before they started designing the buildings, so that was the thing.
From the beginning the school board has been quite clear on the space guidelines that the PSFB abides by, and also I understand in looking at any possible enhancements, we are aware that if they were looking for the supersized gym-type scenario--I do not think that is what they were looking for, but they would need to source other funding then that might fall outside the parameters of what the PSFB is permitted to provide.
So I think the main thing that slowed things down was trying to decide what kinds of students and grades were going to be in that school utilizing the space. That I think is pretty well resolved, or soon to be.
Mr. Reid: That reorganization is, from the best of my knowledge, now concluded in that the S1 is now going to move from John Gunn Junior High into Transcona Collegiate with the next school year. So that reorganization, I am sure the department has probably been advised of that already. So that study has concluded.
I just wanted to ensure that the multipurpose facility that the school division and the parent councils, et cetera, were recommending be a part of that renovation program for Transcona Collegiate could be considered by the department for this particular budget year. I will accept what the minister has told me here and hope that project can go forward in this budget year, and that we can work through the difficulties between the Public Schools Finance branch and the school division to make sure that project can go forward.
I am quite worried about what I saw with respect to hazards in the facilities that they were utilizing in the elementary school. I know the minister has attended, herself, other plays and productions put on by school divisions. I am sure she would not want to see something tragic occur as a result of what we would consider to be less than safe facilities being utilized. I know the minister takes that responsibility very seriously. So I leave that with the minister, my concerns in that regard, and hope that the project can go forward.
In the short time left, I just wanted to ask the minister with respect to the industrial arts program, which is a part of Murdoch MacKay Collegiate as the industrial arts facility high school in the community: does the department have any plans with respect to expansion or changes within the industrial arts program? Have any requests come forward in that regard, and is the department giving any consideration to any changes or equipment improvements for that particular high school?
* (1700)
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The minister can answer that question when we again resume. The hour now being five o'clock, committee rise. Time for private members' hour. Call in the Speaker.