* (1040)
Mr. Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Would the Committee of Supply please come to order. This section of the Committee of Supply has been dealing with the Estimates of the Department of Education and Training. Would the minister's staff please enter the Chamber at this time. 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): Mr. Chairman, as requested at our last sitting, I have called in people from the PSFB: the chairperson, Barbara McFarlane; and the director, Bob Goluch. As you recall, the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) and the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) I believe had requested they be present at this sitting as they had some questions regarding specific projects in their constituencies. As well, Jim Glen and John Carlyle, ADM and deputy minister, are back with us.
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, neither of my colleagues will be here this morning, but if I can ask about the Transcona situation, I think the member had posed his question and the minister was going to bring a response on that. So if we could start with that, and then I think the Swan River situation dealt with small schools and the problems in Duck Mountain. So one and then the other, perhaps.
Mrs. McIntosh: I believe the member for Transcona had asked for a status update on Transcona Collegiate. I do not have the Hansard here with me.
Ms. Friesen: I am not sure if it is the same information the minister is bringing, but what he did say--and it is the Hansard of May 12, Tuesday's--I am quoting: "a need in the Transcona-Springfield School Division for a new middle years school within the Springfield area." What he asked the minister was: "can she give him an indication of whether or not there are plans to construct a new middle years school in the Springfield area?" He understood that there was "an existing request from Transcona-Springfield School Division within the department that has been on the books"--and again I am quoting--"for somewhere between three and five years and that nothing has progressed in that regard." We are looking at a total enrollment in that particular area for 1,700 students for the collegiate, the elementary and the junior high, and the community, as we have seen from recent electoral maps, is continuing to grow in that area.
Mrs. McIntosh: The Transcona-Springfield School Division No. 12 in terms of the Springfield Junior High School, that particular school has a current enrollment of 450 students, and that is with the enrollment figures as of September 30 of this fall, the 1997 school year. Next year, the population is expected to grow moderately. The board of trustees recently decided to reconfigure the existing kindergarten to Grade 6 Anola Elementary School to create a kindergarten to Grade 7 school in 1998 and a kindergarten to Grade 8 school in 1999. Thus, they have decided that some students who would normally be attending Springfield Junior High will now attend Anola School. Because of this, Anola Elementary School will require additional space for September 1998 and, in all likelihood, September 1999 as well.
* (1050)
To that end, the Public Schools Finance Board will likely provide the required number of units as a short-term solution as requested by the school division. In the long term, either an addition or a new elementary/middle years school may be required in the Anola area. The Public Schools Finance Board will be monitoring that situation closely and will work together with school division officials to resolve the space problem in a timely and economic manner.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, the school division will submit information and requests to the PSFB, which then assesses the need and the projections and so on, and determines in terms of priority which projects do require moving upon, which do not, and which will require potential movement in the future. Those that will require potential movement in the future are watched to see if projections are correct or incorrect, and then, as they get closer to being able to finalize or confirm projections, they will then make a decision as to whether or not a new facility is required or some addition required or not.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, my colleague had two concerns, and one was that he was given to understand that Transcona-Springfield had applied to the department between three and five years ago.
Can the minister tell us whether that is the case? Has that application been at the Public Schools Finance Board for that long?
Mrs. McIntosh: I think it might be important for the member to understand the process here, because school divisions have to submit every year their five-year capital plan. So they do not just submit requests that are for immediate action. They do not just say: this year we have to have a new whatever and submit the request that year. They have to submit a plan that will project for five years hence what their current needs are and what their future needs are expected to be. That way everybody can do long-range planning. So when you say that something has been submitted three to four years ago or three to five years ago, then if it is part of the five-year capital plan, it would not, in many instances, be coming up for decision until close to the end of the five years. It is part of a long-range plan. It might be decided upon that in four years you could expect a school, but it is not likely that they would make a definitive statement that far ahead of time. They are asked, however, to project their anticipated needs that far ahead.
So every year then school divisions submit what are called five-year capital plans. It is a mistake to think that everything in that five-year capital plan is the highest priority of the division or that it requires immediate action. That is something that should not be automatically assumed. In a sense, many of these projects are being red flagged as potential future issues that need to be tentatively prepared for or to have in mind as estimated needs for capital expansion down the road.
The school divisions, in submitting those five-year capital plans, are asked to also identify priority areas. So they might submit a five-year capital plan that would say: we have an immediate need; it is a very high priority that we get this particular building attended to as quickly as possible, this year if possible. This junior high problem has not been flagged as a priority with Transcona-Springfield in its initial applications.
So, when it put in its five-year plan three to five years ago, they indicated that they were going to be showing a growth in junior high population and identified some tentative considerations, but they were not their highest priority. In fact, their highest priority was and has been Transcona Collegiate. Only recently has the junior high population become a more immediate issue, and that is not unusual if you submit a five-year projected plan and then three years down the road, after that initial presentation, something that was not listed as a priority moves from a lower priority to a higher priority as you approach the end of the initial five-year capital plan.
Mr. Edward Helwer, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair
What has been interesting, however, is that the school division, as it watched its population grow, as it looked at comparisons between Anola and Dugald, has come to the conclusion that the growth area that needs to be addressed is in Anola. Hence, their immediate request to the Public Schools Finance Board is for Anola to have capital expansion. That is for a variety of reasons that the school division has addressed in terms of where it sees its student population.
* (1100)
The Public Schools Finance Board received a letter just yesterday, two days ago, from the Transcona-Springfield School Division informing the PSFB that at their meeting on April 7 they had asked for the new Grades 6 to 8 middle-years school to be constructed in the Anola area, that three portables be requested to be placed at the Anola School, and that predesigned classrooms be requested again to be placed at the Anola Elementary for the following year as well, the 1999-2000 year, that there be some upgrading at Springfield Junior High, but basically that the Anola area be upgraded.
So, that request has just come, and it is in keeping with how the school division sees grouping its middle-years students. They will have made those decisions as to how to group them or in which areas to put them based upon their own understandings of the needs of their constituent members. This is a new request. It has only recently been formalized in writing to the PSFB, although they did identify in earlier submissions that they were going to be experiencing in the future growth in their middle years in that area.
Ms. Friesen: So it does appear that Transcona-Springfield, in its five-year plans that it has submitted to the department, has indicated that this is a long-term planning issue, and that is in accordance with the regular planning process of the department. I guess what I do not understand is if every division does that, what is the process then for the kind of request that you have just had from Transcona-Springfield? Do those come in throughout the year? Somebody says, okay, here is our five-year plan. We have put that in on a regular basis. We have alerted you to where the problems are going to be. Surely, that five-year plan would also have shown the timing and the population growth and the choices of the school division for the priority areas for location.
So just from an administrative perspective, where does this recent request come from? Well, I guess we know where it comes from, but what is the administrative process by which those are received and dealt with?
Mrs. McIntosh: There were two questions there. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to indicate, first of all, the requests do not come to the department. They go to the PSFB which is arm's length from the department, although it definitely comes under our Estimates, but the requests go directly to PSFB. They do not come to the department. We will see them ultimately when the PSFB has its recommendations completed and makes its request for funding from its annual amount of money to spend on schools, but I just wanted to clarify that for the process. I did not want anybody to think that those requests come to the minister's office.
Mr. Chairperson in the Chair
The member asked two good questions: the first being, what happens when a school division puts in an amendment to its five-year request, and it is pretty straightforward. It does not happen that often. Normally, the five-year capital plan is put in. PSFB is in constant touch with the officials in the divisions, and they continue to assess and monitor the long-range projections to see if what was anticipated is, in fact, what is going to be happening. Occasionally, from time to time, but very much the exception rather than the rule, a school division will make an amendment to a plan and submit that to the PSFB, and they will then assess the amendment.
In this instance, the amendment is not so much that they indicated they have new projections or vastly differing numbers or a decline instead of an increase in middle year students, but rather they have identified that they would prefer to do their building, et cetera, in Anola, as opposed to Dugald. So they have simply indicated that, as they have gone along in their work as a school division, they have made a determination that a better place to do further accommodating of middle year students would be in the town of Anola. Hence, they have alerted the PSFB that their request for accommodating middle year students will take on a little bit of a different shape.
Again, then, the PSFB will assess that and work with the officials and monitor that to see if those projections hold true and at what point there may actually need to be some building done in that area. From time to time--and these would be even more rare--there might be some disaster occur where a roof falls in or a building burns down or some disaster of that type. That is about the only time I can see where something might be suddenly put on a list that was not there before. It does not, thank heavens, happen that often, because then that requires the Public Schools Finance Board to suddenly be dealing with an emergency situation, and that will require, in many instances, having to approach government for assistance, for example, if a school has burnt down or whatever to restore facilities for students. But, for the most part, the system works without surprises and on a sort of methodical program of requests and response to request on a five-year plan that seems to have served the system quite well.
* (1110)
I say that, as both a former trustee and now as a government member, the only thing I will ever hear that has ever been a desire for something different in terms of PSFB is that if everybody could have their ultimate desires all at once, then that would be the ideal world. That, of course, never has happened and never likely will. This measured methodical approach seems to meet the needs very nicely. I commend the people who are there at this present time for their very careful work.
Ms. Friesen: I had three follow-up questions on the Transcona area, and then my colleague from Swan River is here and would like to pursue the questions on Duck Mountain School Division. In the case of Transcona-Springfield, I wanted to ask about the Transcona Collegiate. We have been talking about the Springfield middle years school--Springfield Junior High, sorry-- and Transcona Collegiate, and I believe that my colleague from Transcona understood that there were proposals for both of those to have upgrading or possible replacement. The minister has said the division wants to look at a replacement--not a replacement--the division wants to look at a new school in Anola and hence would be presumably reverting to a proposal for upgrading of Springfield Junior High. So I am looking for confirmation of that. Is that what the board is considering?
Then, secondly, on the Transcona Collegiate issue, is there a proposal before the board for upgrading of Transcona Collegiate? Then, third, and it may well be connected, and this is an issue that my colleague raised about overcrowded conditions at Springfield Junior High. He made reference to a provincial standard and argued or believed that Springfield Junior High was 50 students over the provincial maximum student enrollment for that particular facility. So I guess, finally, I would like some information from the minister on those standards. Is there a list of those standards? What would lead to such an argument, that there is a provincial maximum and that this school is over it? When the board gets notification of such a condition of overenrollment, according to a provincial standard, if that is the case, what kind of action does the board take?
Mrs. McIntosh: In answer to the member's questions on middle years, essentially she was seeking clarification of my comments, and I believe that she has interpreted them correctly, that the school division has now identified they will be moving students to Anola. They will still probably need some renovations in Springfield, but since the renovations are not to accommodate increased students in Springfield, they are showing up as a lower priority on their request, but still there. The request now is as I indicated for some work in the Anola area.
A member asked about the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) having indicated that there were 50 students over. He asked, like, what would that be based upon. It would be based upon a school division decision, I guess it is, I will try to put it this way. Every division will have a sense of the number of students that they deem acceptable. Some divisions have said they will only allow 25 students per class in the elementary school, for example. Other divisions, because of scheduling problems, will say that they will have X number per class, so they will have to make decisions in terms of how they group students for learning, but of course all of their decisions have to abide by things such as fire safety codes and building codes and how many people per square feet you are allowed to have in a room if it is built of certain material and so on, so there will be all of those things that will guide them. The school divisions will determine what they think is an ideal number of people to have in any one given room.
The Public Schools Finance Board will come out if a school feels they have, in this case, say, 50 students too many, and they will do an assessment with the school division, and assuming, as I think is correctly assumed, that school divisions will automatically be in compliance with fire safety codes, et cetera, but all of those things will be checked. Then if there is a need in any given school, relocatable classrooms can be assigned and often are assigned as temporary measures. If, for example, a school division says they will only allow 25 students per class and it is determined that two new classes are required, they could ask for two new portable classrooms. If the PSFB determines that their assessments are correct, the classrooms will come forward.
* (1120)
In this situation the original request was to have I think it was three portables at the Springfield Junior High, but with students now slated to move to Anola, that may have changed the necessity, or the perceived necessity, for portables. That is something the PSFB is going to have to assess. They will go out, talk to the division and find out is there a need for relocatables here, and after that determination, then they will make their recommendation and decision. That is kind of the process they go through.
In terms of Transcona Collegiate, the Public Schools Finance Board commissioned a condition study of Transcona that did confirm architectural and mechanical and electrical problems in that building. That building is, 1960 and 1962, so it is in that era of buildings that we now see, they were built very quickly, a whole slew of them in the late '40s through the '50s and starting into the '60s. They are now aging and they were built quickly to accommodate a very swiftly growing student population.
Since that report, the PSFB has had numerous meetings with school division officials to determine how best to address the problems at Transcona Collegiate. It is a very complex project, requires a considerable amount of time to solve that collegiate's problems in a proper and a thorough manner.
The school division, for example, conducted a review of the west end of Transcona and they studied population fluctuations, program offerings, grade groupings, those kinds of things. They completed that review very recently and in March of this year, the board of trustees approved Transcona Collegiate to become a Senior 1 to Senior 4 facility effective August 1998, so that will be coming up this summer. It used to be a Senior 2 to Senior 4 facility, so essentially they are adding Senior 1 to the building. That was an important decision that was reached last month, or the month before last, rather, by the school division itself.
Another important decision made by the school division was to designate Murdoch MacKay as the focus school to provide for special needs students. The board decided last year to phase out work education program over three years, and that will also affect student numbers at Transcona. So the school division has to determine how it wants to deal with student numbers, program offerings, grade groupings at Transcona Collegiate. Those are important factors that will impact on the nature of the Transcona Collegiate project.
Once the school division has concluded its recommendations, it will first, I understand, be consulting with its communities and then finalizing recommendations. Once they have done that, the Public Schools Finance Board will, in turn, formalize its decision and provide recommendations to the minister. The PSFB met on May 11, just a couple of days ago, with the Transcona School Division people, and it is hoped that the assessment process will conclude in the next few weeks. That is the update on the Transcona Collegiate.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Chairman, the last day in Education Estimates I raised the issue of Duck Mountain School Division and funding for Duck Mountain. The question that I was asking was that in this particular year the department recognized that there is going to be a shortfall of money and has put money in to help the division through this year, but, as I understand it, that is only a one-year funding. So I would ask the minister: what work is the department doing with Duck Mountain School Division, and what does she see as the future of that division? Does she see it as having to be divided up amongst other divisions, or does the minister see any way that the Duck Mountain Division can continue to operate? Is there a possibility of additional funds being provided so that this division can continue to operate and provide educational opportunities for the students of that area?
Mrs. McIntosh: I thank the member for the question. The member is correct that last year some extra money was provided to Duck Mountain, and at the time, that was given in order to allow the division time to determine what their long-term goals might be. It was not given with the intention that it would be an ongoing annual grant. Neither was it given with the intent that it would just be for that one occasion only. It was provided because the school division was wrestling with its future in terms of consolidation, and so it needed time to consult not just with its own community but with neighbours, and it has been discussing with neighbouring school divisions.
* (1130)
For example, it has had discussions with other divisions regarding possible amalgamations or joint functions or shared services, those kinds of things. The Department of Education staff have been out there a lot. Mr. Farthing has been out there many times, for example, and others as well as him, working with the division to talk about where it might go in the future.
The member is probably aware that we encourage amalgamations. We promote them, but we do not force them, and we do not act in a punitive way if people do not want to amalgamate, but rather we try to offer encouragement--a carrot rather than a stick approach--and facilitate amalgamations where divisions themselves honestly feel that that is the best route for them to go. So in this instance, the school division has not yet, I understand, determined whether it wishes to remain as a stand-alone division or partner in some way with another or other, like with one or more other divisions.
So I really cannot answer her question at this stage. Last year that was the reason for providing money, was just to give them--take a little load off their back so they could breathe deeply and plan without feeling that they were being strapped financially. We did not want money to be the motivating factor, and I am sure we will hear from them in due course as to what their conclusions are, and we will respect those conclusions, but I cannot say at this stage if it would be prudent for the government to provide more money until we know what their plans are.
Ms. Wowchuk: Just on that same line, it is a very difficult decision. I am sure the minister is aware of the geographic area that we are talking about in the Duck Mountain division. So it is not going to be a decision that is made very quickly or a decision that I think will be complete in this year. That is one of the reasons I am asking if this is going to take some time.
As I understand it, other divisions may not even want the Duck Mountain division because of their low assessment and the low amount of taxes that they can raise. It is not really one that people are jumping up and down to grab ahold of. So if they are not able to negotiate anything by the next fiscal year, can the minister indicate whether that money can be there for another year to help them through so that they do not make a hasty decision as to what they should do with the division?
Mrs. McIntosh: I appreciate the member's question. It is difficult to answer because it is hypothetical at this stage, but I know why she is asking it. It is a good question and it is one that I know, I am sure the members there are asking themselves also. But I understand they are having some very dynamic discussions at the current time. I hope and I know they are being encouraged to see the issues of governance as the important issues. The questions that they should be zeroing in on, and I believe they are, are not so much questions of finance, because, while that is definitely important, finances will always be an issue. Even when money is flowing abundantly, it never is enough to meet all that could be done in a system of perfect-world calibre.
But the things they need to be asking are the really, to me, essential points of amalgamation, which are, will the community beliefs and values be reflected in an amalgamated system? Will the service for children in terms of being able to hire more specialists, being able to make better use of equipment, et cetera, of counsellors, that type of thing, be enhanced? Will the economies of scale in terms of purchasing of cleaning supplies for schools, for example, paper costs and all of those mundane, small things that add up to thousands and thousands of dollars, will the administration costs be able to come down?
There is the financial aspect coming in in terms of freeing up dollars, but basically the first two that I mentioned, the community beliefs and values and the service for children, are the two things that are sought as enhancements to education that should be primary driving factors in amalgamation, with money being important but not as important as those first two.
I am not so sure that Duck Mountain would be unattractive to all potential partners. I understand what the member says about low assessment, et cetera, but the opportunity to gain additional students if economies of scale are being looked at or if the ability to hire an extra specialist is looked at could be very attractive to neighbours.
I guess in a nutshell all I can answer her with is this. If Duck Mountain determines that it would like to amalgamate and makes that decision, then we stand by to do everything within our power to facilitate it. If Duck Mountain decides that it wishes to remain a stand-alone division and is experiencing financial problems because of that, then at that point the question you asked would turn from being hypothetical to actual, and I would have to do a number of things; one, examine the reasonableness of the request, examine and determine how much Treasury Board is willing to release for those kinds of purposes and provide to them an answer at that time, which, unfortunately, I cannot provide right now.
That is sort of the rationale behind things to just help the member understand where I am coming from on the issue, and I appreciate the concerns that that division has and the soul-searching they are going through right now.
Ms. Wowchuk: I thank the minister for the answer. The minister talks about money not being the most important thing, but, in fact, it is money that is driving the decisions that people are having to make right now. There is not enough money to provide what they want for their children, and every school division and every parent wants the best possible opportunity that they can get for their children, so that they can get the education that they need so that when their turn comes they can play an important role in society.
* (1140)
That is the goal of all of it, and these people are facing real challenges because they do not have enough money to provide the teacher's aide that they need. They do not have enough money because of low population as well. They do not have enough money to offer all the courses that they want. So then you have a spin-off effect because some people then leave the division because they go somewhere else where they can get the courses that they need. There are people leaving the area because of a policy that was brought in by another department, through social services, that people who are on social assistance have to leave the community to go and get their training.
So it all does tie into money, and it should not be the most important thing. The most important thing that we should be looking for is the ability to enhance our children's education and give them the tools that they need to play an important role in life. That is what these people want to do. The people in the Duck Mountain School Division want that. I know that they are struggling with what has to happen, and the board is doing an awful lot of work on it.
I want to ask the minister whether it is possible for them to negotiate with divisions that only border them or whether or not they can negotiate with other school divisions, and that in particular being Frontier School Division, whether they have that opportunity to negotiate with Duck Mountain, and, if they do, who does the negotiating? Are there representatives from the Department of Education who work with Frontier? Who negotiates with Duck Mountain if they were--and I know that they have given consideration to Frontier. Is this acceptable in the minister's mind for them to consider Frontier? Who does the negotiations, and what are the implications of that, because Frontier is a different funding formula than other divisions in the province. I wonder whether the minister could address that.
Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I wish to indicate to the member that I do not mean to downplay the importance of money in these decisions, but I maybe can put it to her this way: there are many people who believe philosophically that multiaged classes and multigrade groupings are the best way to teach and learn--not the majority, and not a very big minority, but there are groups of people who believe that children learn better in multigrade classrooms. Most would seek to have a single grade per classroom if they could.
There are also people who believe that in any given school the emphasis on specialists teaching is not something that they want; they prefer to have one teacher with whom a student can bond and have an extended bond. Sitting in this chair here, you hear from those people who say that they do not like the increased specialization in elementary schools, even though it does provide greater expertise, say, in music and physical education and language arts and math and so on, because they want their children to bond with a teacher who would teach them everything. Teach the child, not the subject.
Now, if people have those kinds of philosophically held beliefs and hold them deeply, then they can certainly, based upon their community beliefs and values and service for children, operate much more cheaply than those who believe in having music and phys ed specialists in an elementary school with at least one or two grades per classroom. So, in other words, they would do different things with the money I guess is how I am putting it.
Still other communities believe it is very important to have a local school very close to the home whereas in some communities the people would rather travel to a larger centre to a consolidated school and do not worry so much about the distance if they can get to the larger consolidated school. So they say, yes, my child has to spend an hour on the bus, but my child reads on the bus, and the schooling they get in the town down the highway is improved because it is a bigger consolidated school. Others will say I do not want that bus ride. I will keep my child in this smaller local school and enjoy, because I prefer, the multiclass grade and the one teacher bonding with my student.
So depending on their philosophies, money becomes a larger or a lesser consideration. What I am trying to say when I said that I hope the emphasis would be first on community beliefs and values and service for children, that parents would first ask themselves those kinds of questions. Do I want a school with specialists and single grades per classroom, or do I want this multiclass grouping and one teacher-bonding thing? Does it matter to me if my child goes 30 kilometres down the road to another school, or do I want them just a couple of blocks from home? Are these things important to me as a parent? So they need to ask themselves those things first. Once they have answered those things, then they will have a much better idea of how much money they need to sustain those things, and then money becomes in that sense a secondary issue.
But the member is quite right in saying that all things are going to cost money, and I do not dispute that. I just wanted to clarify where I meant the focus should first go in determining what is desired and then secondarily on how much money will they need to sustain that, sustainability being a big factor in running a school division. So I just wanted to clarify that and indicate I understand what she is saying.
* (1150)
Mr. Edward Helwer, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair
With respect to Frontier, any division can negotiate or woo any other division. There is no restriction. I know Frontier has a different tax base and a different funding base, but any joining to Frontier must be considered primarily from the view of Frontier's mandate and its governance method, because anybody who joined with Frontier would likely have to subject themselves to Frontier's governance model. Whereas other divisions maybe could come together and merge and form a hybrid or a crossbreed or a new entity, going with Frontier would, in my opinion, necessitate coming under that kind of governance model.
That is in legislation, that particular model, and it has a cultural client mix, too, that people joining them would need to embrace because it was--and the member is aware of this, I realize, but Frontier was created primarily to serve northern and remote regions mostly if not exclusively in the Canadian Shield territories, and its communities are almost all like that. They are small, they are isolated, and they have very little tax base, and many--well, practically all of the people are of aboriginal descent. Further, its governance structure provides what it indeed requires, each school to have a committee, and from that committee, representatives were chosen to the regional board and then on to the overall board. So it is rooted in communities and then indirect involvement as opposed to direct school board.
That indirect involvement in the educational decision making works very well for Frontier, and it may well be that others would fit neatly into that kind of model. It is not unlike the model that in many respects is used for the DSFM, the French school board, in terms of the indirect representation, et cetera.
Mr. Chairperson in the Chair
They could do that. We do not have a negotiator, per se, although with all of the interest that is going on in the province right now, we will be having a person working with school divisions. We do now send out our financial people mostly, but others as well, to facilitate with consolidation. We will have a full-time person very shortly to facilitate. That would not be to negotiate, because we believe the negotiations must be done between the divisions themselves, but it does help to have a facilitator to identify issues, to show what has happened elsewhere, et cetera. So they can certainly negotiate with Frontier, and maybe there is something there that would be suitable for them.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister is probably also aware of capital questions and considerations in Gimli, and I believe the minister may have seen newspaper reports on the Gimli schools and the increase in population and the impact that this is having upon the schools. Can the minister tell me whether this has been raised with the Public Schools Finance Board in the five-year plan or on the basis of an amendment to the divisional plan?
Mrs. McIntosh: That is under the five-year capital plan, and if all goes as expected, unless other things come up, it is expected that planning authority would be given the go-ahead next year under the Aging Buildings category for the '99-2000 year.
Ms. Friesen: And what options does the division have for the interim period when the students are there and the buildings have not expanded?
Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I just wish to indicate, of course, something that I think, just for the record, should be made clear. This school is still habitable and so on. Sometimes people feel, or get an impression, that any particular school is not habitable. Of course, if that were the case, there would be immediate action taken in terms of relocatables or move to another building or something. This one, though, was an excellent candidate for modernization.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being 12 noon, pursuant to the rules, I am interrupting the proceedings of the Committee of Supply with the understanding that the Speaker will resume the Chair at 1:30 p.m. today, and that after Routine Proceedings, the Committee of Supply will resume consideration of the Estimates. The minister can conclude her remarks at that time.