“NORTH GRENVILLE HIGH SCHOOL DANGEROUS” – RUNCIMAN
(Toronto) In today’s Question Period in the Ontario legislature Leeds-Grenville MPP Bob Runciman called on the Minister of Education to commit to replacing the North Grenville District High School, a school described as unsafe by Kemptville Fire Chief, Tim Bond.
Runciman, along with PC Education critic Frank Klees, recently toured the school with school board officials.
Hansard for the Queen’s Park exchange is below.
SCHOOL FACILITIES
Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leeds–Grenville): I have a question for the Minister of Education. Minister, a couple weeks ago our education critic, the member for Oak Ridges, and I had the opportunity to tour North Grenville District High School in the town of Kemptville. That school was built in 1936 and it’s had a number of additions over the years. It’s faced with multiple levels, no full accessibility for handicapped, no front entrance or foyer, no proper cafeteria, poor air quality, quantities of asbestos—a significant range of challenges in that particular school.
Minister, I’m just wondering if you are aware of it. The municipality and the school board have all contacted your predecessors and have received no responses. Can you give any indication to the community today just what the possibility of replacement for that aged facility might be?
Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne (Minister of Education): A letter has gone to the board on this issue. The member opposite has been copied on the letter. My understanding is that this school has been put on the list of the prohibitive-to-repair candidates. Right now we’re in the process of consolidating the list of prohibitive-to-repair schools that boards are proposing. My understanding is that the board has put this school on the list and they’ve done everything they can to get the attention that the school needs.
Mr. Runciman: I’m not sure; perhaps the minister, in her response to the supplementary, can expand on what “prohibitive to repair” means in real terms. I guess the concern was that there was a letter sent from the fire chief in Kemptville to your predecessor in 2006, and in part it stated, “The original part of the school has had several additions over the years, creating nothing short of a complicated ‘maze.’ If a fire were to start in one of the lower areas of the school, it would be very difficult not to have occupants of the building be in great jeopardy due to the smoke travel.” So I think we’re all heartened by your response, but obviously we’d like to have elaboration in terms of, what does this really mean to the community? When can we expect to see a decision on this?
Hon. Ms. Wynne: Just on the first part of the question, “prohibitive to repair” is defined as those costs of bringing a school up to ministry renewal standards that would be greater than 65% of the replacement costs. So in other words, it would cost more to replace or as much as to replace as to renew. What we’re asking boards to do is to identify the schools that they believe are in that category.
I can’t say exactly when the final decisions will be made, and I can’t guarantee which schools in which boards are going to be dealt with. But the board, as I said in my letter that you’ve received a copy of, has done exactly what it should do in terms of bringing to the notice of the ministry the concerns around this school. As the ministry consolidates its list, the board will be informed of the funding that it will get.
