LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Wednesday, May 25, 1994

The House met at 7:30 p.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

(continued)

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

(Concurrent Sections)

EDUCATION AND TRAINING

Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Good evening. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order?

The committee will be resuming consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Education and Training. When the committee last sat, it had been considering item 5.(a)(1) on page 43 of the Estimates book.

Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, as I indicated last night, I was going to try and bring additional information to the committee with respect to Workforce 2000.

I undertook to try and provide additional information with respect to Caron's Collectibles Inc. This company produces customized greeting cards and business cards by doing the design work and printing the product to customer specifications.

The total value of training was $18,000 for 168 hours of training for two employees. The cost to Workforce 2000 was $10,000, representing 56 percent of the eligible costs of training. Workforce 2000 funds up to 75 percent of eligible costs of training to a maximum of $10,000 per fiscal year.

The training was specifically tailored to meet the business requirements of Caron's. This training involved new digital graphics technology specifically tailored to permit Caron's to take a painting or drawing, scan it and digitally transfer that painting or drawing to a press system. The training included familiarization with several input technologies such as computer‑assisted design, 3‑D rendering, motion‑video imaging, photographic compact discs and desktop communications. This is an active company.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I also undertook to provide some additional information with respect to Murray Chev Olds: Training of nine employees for 120 hours of training in quality assurance, this was done by Automotive Service Consultants Inc. The total cost of training was $26,600. The actual Workforce 2000 contribution was $9,258.

I might point out that of interest was the fact that the Workforce 2000 training consultant did background research to ascertain whether this specific training‑‑and we are talking about training related to the introduction of new processes to the businesses‑‑had received government support in other jurisdictions.

In 1992, the Ontario Skills Development program approved funding to seven dealerships in Thunder Bay, Ontario, for applied service‑management training delivered by Automotive Service Consultants. The training was rated as excellent by the participating dealerships. Prior to the training, the needs assessment measured existing system efficiencies and provided a cost‑benefit analysis which was utilized as the basis for onsite training. A monitor was conducted by Workforce 2000 training consulting at the first classroom session in Portage la Prairie. Training was well organized and received a positive response. A second monitor occurred onsite at Murray Chev Olds. The trainer met with all of the participating employees, requested feedback from participants, and then incorporated that feedback into subsequent training at the dealership.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that is the information that I have to provide at this time.

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): I want to thank the minister for that. I wondered if he would have an address where one could actually have an example of Caron's Collectibles. That was what I was having difficulty finding from the information the minister gave us. Is there a business address or somewhere one could look at the greeting cards or purchase them?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not have that information. I am led to believe, though, that they are not a formal business in the sense of being registered. They are an informal business, and they are located outside of the city of Winnipeg.

* (1935)

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): After we had the break, I had asked the deputy minister if he could get me some figures. Unfortunately, I was not able to get here early enough to talk to him in advance to it. I believe he has it now, maybe. I am wondering if the minister can just clarify what the specific funding formula is for special needs I.

Mr. Manness: For Level I, you take the population, you divide by 180, and whatever that quotient comes to, you then multiply by $43,700, or allowable expenditures, whichever is less.

Mr. Lamoureux: When we had left, when I had asked the question, again I am not 100 percent accurate, but Hansard would demonstrate, I believe it was, the minister, when I asked him specifically about St. John's‑Ravenscourt, he had indicated that you take the number and you multiply it by 154. So, using the formula the minister just finished talking about, that would not indicate, then, that St. John's‑Ravenscourt would receive, if you go‑‑I understand there are approximately 650 students. If you divide that, you are looking at 4, say, times the 43,000. It would be a grant of approximately $157,000 to St. John's‑Ravenscourt?

Mr. Manness: No, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there is a different formula in place for the private schools. The private schools, in this case, is a $154 times the student enrollment, $154 per student. The number, the product, then, is much less than the $157,000 referenced by the member.

Mr. Lamoureux: I do not have my calculator here, but I believe it would be around $100,000 for St. John's‑Ravenscourt. I did ask questions with respect to that. I do not want to continue on that particular line. I think that the minister indicates that he has a committee that is addressing the whole issue of special needs and the different funding formulas that are out there.

It was interesting, I did get the chance to talk to the member for River Heights (Mrs. Carstairs) after we had broken, and she had indicated to me that Alberta, in fact, went back to the old system, from what I understand. They used to do what we currently do, and because of the discrepancy between the different school divisions and the independent schools, I understood that they actually went back to the way we used to do it, which no doubt, administratively, was an additional cost in order to implement, but it was more fair than the current formula. I do not know if the minister would want to comment on that. If not, I would like to continue on to another area.

Mr. Manness: Only to say this, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that we must remember that there was an equivalent per student last year provided of $63 in support of special needs. So that, then, does not represent, when one looks this year compared to last year, $100,000 increase to the institution mentioned. It basically represents $60,000, yes, a $60,000, in rough terms, increase.

As far as the Alberta situation, if the member is asking us to emulate education funding in Manitoba compared to if he wants us to change the system of funding in Manitoba to reflect that in Alberta, I would hope he would state that for the record. Generally overall, they took 10.8 percent out of the system and, certainly, there is a mature system of funded support in Alberta that has never existed, in other words, a fully funded Catholic school, Mr. Deputy Chairperson.

* (1940)

It would be nice to be able to pick and choose the best of everything, but unfortunately that is not possible. What we have decided to do, and we said we were doing, we will review again as governments have long before us and indeed continue to do‑‑every three or four years special needs requirements are reviewed. It has tried to be determined with greater accuracy where the logistics lie, where the greater focus is, because these issues shift over a period of time. I say, in all honesty, that we are committed to that. As I indicated on the record the other night, we have funding in place to do this analysis and maybe after we have the results and do the evaluations, at that time we may again change the funding formula to reflect those realities.

Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, just wanting to move on and not necessarily having the last word because the minister might want to comment on it again.

I believe what I was referring to is the model that Alberta is using, not necessarily the amounts of dollars that are being allocated out to special needs. It is just that they are recognizing that there is a difference in the social economic demographics of different regions in the province and felt that working on a straight percentage across the province was not, in fact, appropriate. This is what Alberta is, in fact, acknowledging.

This is what we did acknowledge up to the change that his predecessor in Roblin‑Russell implemented, that particular change. I believe that it was pointed out to him at that point in time, that that will cause a number of discrepancies depending on the school division that you are in. Some will be penalized more than others.

I did want to move on to the whole question of block grants, I should say conditional dollars, that are tied. For example, the Department of Education will say we want to have libraries enhanced, and we are anticipating that the school divisions will use this block amount of dollars towards improving libraries or whatever else it might be.

I am wondering if the minister can just give some sort of an idea‑‑money that is actually tied from the Department of Education that goes into the school divisions, how is that followed up to ensure that the monies that are being allocated are in fact being used for what they have been allocated for?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we are into the area of categorical grants, and the FRAME budget which we provided to the member, I believe last night, shows division by division, the amount of expenditure within the library services area. I might indicate that there has always been an on‑running dialogue between school divisions and the department as to whether or not there should be fewer categorical grants and therefore greater block funding that would lead to greater flexibility at the school division level. That is an ongoing discussion and will continue to be, I am sure, regardless of who is in government at what time.

I think it is important to indicate that the Provincial Auditor has reviewed the Schools Finance Branch. Of course, the Provincial Auditor wanted to indicate, or at least find out, come to some conclusion, as to whether or not receiving divisions were spending money in accordance with the direction of the funding as laid out in the formula.

By the Provincial Auditor's assessment, at least, there was compliance as far as school divisions' spending in the areas that had not been targeted by way of funding formula, including library services.

Mr. Lamoureux: Can the minister indicate under the categorical grants what would be the library services policy or the conditions? I am not too sure of the actual wording that I should be using, but how has the minister instructed the expenditure of monies towards libraries?

Mr. Manness: The definitions, of course, again come out of the glossary of terms that are presented in the FRAME reporting document, and the formula is the lesser of eligible enrollment divided by 600, multiplied also by that $43,700, plus $15 per eligible enrollment. So it is the lesser of that or allowable expenditures. In other words, that is the maximum one can receive, yet if the division spends less on that by way of the FRAME accounting, if less is spent, then they do not receive what the formula would provide; they receive an amount equivalent to what they actually spent.

* (1945)

Mr. Lamoureux: The department monitors that. Again, the Provincial Auditor goes through the department's and the school divisions' budget to confirm that. I am not completely sure or understand in terms of how the Department of Education ensures that the money is actually being spent, in this case, for libraries. One of the specific reasons why I bring it up is because of the resource‑based learning document in which there are strong recommendations in terms of that provincial involvement.

Some of the individuals that I have talked to actually gave good marks to the government if in fact they follow through on some of this. A couple of the concerns that were quite specific were how government ensures that there is some accountability to the monies that they have allocated out. That is the reason why I ask the question.

Mr. Manness: We do not have the capacity to go through all of the line‑by‑line expenditures of school divisions to determine whether or not the proper allocation as to category has been done by their administration. So we rest very heavily on the audited financial report from the school divisions as prepared by obviously creditable outside auditing firms.

We, therefore, I guess, put a lot of trust in the professional accountancy trade and the way that they certify the audited financial statements of the school division, because they also know that obviously the professionalism around their column would be severely impacted if they misallocated these numbers to the wrong category. We very much heavily rely on the financial statements of school divisions.

Mr. Lamoureux: Could the minister indicate, how would the department measure or evaluate the success of the school library funding? How would they measure that? Is there something?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that is very difficult. It is hard enough to measure the effectiveness of the whole public school model, let alone to take a subset and indicate whether or not library services were contributing greatly or could contribute even more to success. We all intuitively know that libraries and resource materials have a real fundamental role to play in learning. We accept that.

Now, the member says, well, to what degree is it important? I cannot answer that question other than to say, good libraries, well managed, well used by the student body are obviously tremendous resources.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the other area that I wanted to comment on was, and I had made reference to it at the beginning of the Estimates, and that was the actual cost that would be put on to the Department of Education because of offloading from other departments.

I am wondering if the Minister of Education could give us some sort of an idea. An example that I quite often use is the additional demands on our schools and professionals in education to provide counselling, physiotherapy, the whole special needs issue again could come into this area, where at one point in time other departments were picking up the tab for this. I am wondering if the minister could give us some sort of indication where the government currently is at with respect to trying to come to grips with the offloading from the other departments.

* (1950)

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member would like to pretend, and I know others in the education field would too, that this is the fault of other departments. Set up the enemy now as being the Department of Health or the Department of Family Services. We are a government. We govern in an attempt to reach out to the needs of all our citizens. Where the funding comes from or what Estimates we happen to be in does not really mean a lot.

The great arbiter becomes the Treasury Board process, the Premier and the Minister of Finance and the Treasury Board ministers, who sit and make these decisions. They are not made in the closed context of this department versus that department versus the next department, they are made in the context of the greater good for our citizens.

The member seems to believe that if Health now picked up a greater share of some of the health‑associated costs that appear to be happening and that are happening within the public school system, and if Family Services would embrace a larger measure of the costs that are having to be picked up by Education, then Education would be better off. Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that is kind of an academic argument. Those two areas have not offloaded. How can you say that Health has offloaded, when we have put $500 million more into Health in the seven budgets that we have brought forward. So what is the member then saying? Well, you should have put $600 million more into Health. It would have kept pure the funding with respect to Education, not ask it to do more things.

The reality is, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we have asked Health, within their $1.8 or $1.9 billion budgets, to do more things. We have asked Family Services, within their area of budget, to do more things. That is because we have identified more needs or more problems. There are more professionals coming along pointing out to the problems, and there just has not been any more money. So we have to do as much and more with less. Education is no different.

Some would like to set up this wall of demarcation and say, well, keep all the health problems out of education, keep everything else out of education.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, government did not impose in all the cases. Society said that they wanted the school to do certain things. Society said that they wanted the government through the Department of Health to do certain things. Society has also said that they will pay only so much for accomplishing all of the good around the needs, real and perceived, that are out there. Of course, the greater arbiter becomes the government of the day.

* (1955)

I say to the member, I know where he is going. He would like to say there would be more support for education if we could more clearly define the roles and keep them within their boundaries. It is not that simple.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I want to bring up an example that is quite often brought up to me in my capacity as Education critic. That is, for example, when mainstreaming came into place, when government decided that the special needs students should be integrated into the public educational system, and society is what dictated to government, at least in part, that that be‑‑[interjection] Well, the minister says totally. I believe that everyone that was associated was quite supportive of seeing mainstreaming done, but I believe there was also an expectation that the level of funding would also be there to support that.

Using this as a specific example, I was not around when it was actually implemented, at least inside the Chamber. Can the minister indicate the year in which that would have been implemented and be able to demonstrate the difference? What sort of an increase in funding would have went to, let us say, the Department of Education, because no doubt there would have been a substantial decrease in Health?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I think this process started in Canada 15 years ago. It may have been 12 years ago. It may have been 16. I could ask the educators around this table. They would know as well as me as to when mainstreaming really began. Certainly it started in the '70s, from my memory, in a significant fashion, and it has been growing ever since. Governments have been putting incredible amounts of money into education to take into account this and other demands.

If you want to look at the history of education funding through the '70s and '80s, when all types of political parties were in government, there was an explosion of the number of dollars that went into education. As I have said many times, this explosion of dollars, of revenue going in, was based not on taxing people of the day but for the most part was borrowed money. At the end of the day, society turned around and they saw, and still do see, incredible needs, but the ability to borrow is no longer there. So then it becomes a period of very difficult decisions.

The member for Inkster, today, gave us some incite as to how the Liberal government, if they become government, how the Liberal Party will handle the situation. They are saying they are going to put even more money into education. They will pull it off of property, and they are going to tax people. They are going to increase personal income taxes significantly.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the equation is the same. I will not let the member move into this dialogue on special needs and the funding and the support thereof unless he is prepared to accept dialogue around the larger picture. The larger picture dictates that the government of the day can only reach so far in trying to solve the problems or direct funding in support of all of the pure academic areas of education, also the desire of society to see all students of all mental capacities and indeed of physical capacities have opportunities that somehow are equitable, but at the end of the day, somebody has to, of course, pay for all of this activity.

* (2000)

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, again, I would go to the minister and look at some of the social services that are being administered today, particularly some of the school divisions, where you will have breakfast programs, in some cases lunch programs. It is not necessarily because of individuals were wanting to have their children have breakfast at school and this is why the program was instituted, it is because in many cases the children were not eating before coming to school and their minds during the morning would have been on eating, therefore not enabling them to learn what is being taught, if you like.

There just tends to be, and this is a consistent discussion that I have with different interest groups, more and more reliance on Department of Education to pick up on costs that are not necessarily related directly to education. I guess I am most interested in trying to find out what, if anything, the Department of Education is doing to at the very least recognize that. Is there something that is in place saying, look, this is in fact what it is costing the Department of Education to be able to do, this aspect of it, even though it might not directly be teaching in the classroom or however else one might want to say it.

Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we reviewed this issue in part the other day when we talked about the $10 million or $10.2 million that was put into at‑risk funding, 60 percent of it or at least $5.9 million going to Winnipeg School Division No. 1, to take into account some of the variables or factors that the member addresses in his commentary.

Money is not going to fix all of the problems that the member addresses. He may not believe it. I know there are some in the education field who believe that if there were twice the amount of money then all the problems will be fixed. That is not true. I do not pretend to be an expert in the field, but I do watch human nature and activity very, very closely.

I am mindful, as I look around either in our own backyard as a province or whether I look at other developing countries where indeed the level of support, individual, by family and/or by state is a pittance as compared to what we have here by way of state support. Yet, in those circumstances, I see the love of learning that is in the house. Nothing comes before it, absolutely nothing, so much so that the parents, they will find, they will give the highest priority possible to making sure their children are fed and have shelter and have comfort so they are in a position to learn. These are socioeconomic factors that exist in some of the poorest countries in the world.

I am not saying anything other than if there is a desire for learning and it comes No. 1 within the household, however you define it today, there will be means. But, I recognize that the love of learning is not No. 1 within the Canadian context in many of our homes, not only that, within the North American context. So society has taken upon itself, either through the province supporting by way of $10 million and/or school divisions going beyond that, they have taken upon themselves the responsibility for trying to be the surrogate comforter, surrogate parent, if you will. That works to a degree, but that in itself will never make up for the shortfall in the home.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, because I know there are other members who wanted to ask some additional questions on this, I wanted to emphasize at no point have I ever indicated that the overall budget of Education, in order to deliver a better quality education, that you have to increase the overall budget of Education. I have suggested, I believe on numerous occasions, that you need to change the way in which monies, tax dollars, are in fact being collected.

I just thought it was important that I put that on the record. It is not to limit what it is that I might say in the future in terms of the overall budget for Education, but there has been a significant amount of movement towards more regressive forms of taxation, whether the minister wants to acknowledge it or not.

I just want to make that point, because I know when he goes out to speak he constantly makes mention that you do not have to throw dollars in order to resolve the problems facing education. I believe the minister also has to acknowledge that there is a need for adequate resources, and if in fact it is demonstrated, then it comes to a question of government's priority.

If there is a shortfall of dollars to provide an adequate level of quality education, then there is a need for additional dollars. We see that through independent schools where there have been hefty increases during the same period of time in terms of tuitions. So to try to say that the dollar has absolutely nothing to do‑‑or to increase the education does not necessarily guarantee the quality of education will get better‑‑is somewhat misleading.

I think that if the money is allocated, and there is accountability, and there is monitoring, the more money that you provide, the better the quality of education you are going to be able to deliver. For the minister to make the blanket statement that, look, we are going to operate from within‑‑and I must admit it is like the whole education reform package. I only started hearing about education reform when the minister decided that he is going to have a cut. The previous ministers, I did not hear them going around saying what the current Minister of Education is in fact saying. So I just wanted to say that and let other individuals here ask some questions.

Mr. Manness: What you have now is the classic case of confession by the member for Inkster and the classic backup scenario where he is trying to protect himself from the statements he made earlier. I am not going to let him do that. The Liberals are fully on the record stating that they would like to see the removal of education tax on property, and they would like to see it funded out of the consolidated revenue. They would, in other words, like to see income taxes go up significantly and/or payroll taxes and/or sales tax and all the consumption taxes.

I acknowledge they are both taxes. What the Liberal Party is saying is that they are now going to see a significant shift. They are going to call on income taxpayers and consumers of products that are now taxed to pay a significant higher level of levy.

My final comment in respect to the member's statement is that he says that they have never said we should put more money into education. When the member is talking about not sufficiently funding special needs, what he is saying is that you have not put enough money in, or else you are putting too much money in another area of education.

Again, I challenge him to tell me what areas of education, either by division within the public school sense, what divisions are we putting too much money in? Are we putting too much money into community colleges? Are we putting too much into universities? Are we putting too much into other areas of education so that we should direct more to special needs? I mean, he has to do more than just say, no, these are the priority areas, find some more money within the education envelope.

I would hope that he would find it within his heart to tell us what areas he would then reduce, because I think that is crucial. And if he wants to be open with the public, I would suggest that he provide that information.

Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it is a pleasure to participate in the debates concerning the Department of Education and Training. I want to raise a few issues this evening in terms of the Lord Selkirk School Division. As the minister is aware, the Lord Selkirk School Division No. 11 experienced reduced revenues and government grants, minus 5.88 percent or a reduction of over $1 million in the 1994‑95 school year. This will result in the staff reductions of 47.5 full‑time staff, 25 professional staff and 22.5 support staff. As well, they will be required to close the system down for eight days because of Bill 22, and there also will be a reduction in the transportation budget for extracurricular field trips by $60,000, which would explain why there are no children visiting from Selkirk to the Legislative Building in the last couple of weeks.

I want to ask the minister, in light of all these cuts, what action is he prepared to take, or what action has he taken to alleviate the effects of these cuts upon the students and the staff at the Lord Selkirk School Division?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that is part of the record. We addressed that. Outside of the formula, we have tried to work out or offer an arrangement to Transcona‑Springfield whereby we would advance a level of funding from next year's proceeds to try and help for a period of a year so that the impact of the decisions that they have finally agreed to did not have to be quite as severe. Secondly, once the effect of the taxation cap is off, and I am talking now about Bill 16, they will have an opportunity to decide either to find additional expenditures and/or go to the local ratepayer for additional revenue.

* (2010)

I point out to the member, I know he must be fully aware, that in 1992‑93 this division received a 3 percent increase. I would point out that in '93‑94, given that there was a 4.2 percent reduction in student count, there was a 3.4 percent reduction in funding. In '94‑95, the member, of course, regrettably, fails to point out that there is a further reduction in student count of 5.5 percent. Nobody really talks about that, Mr. Deputy Chairperson. Nobody wishes to be honest and open with the facts. That, in part, is responsible for the reduction of 5.9 percent, as indicated to the member.

There is another obviously outside impact, and that is, of course, the reassessment impact. It has hit this division hard. I took that into account. It hit many divisions hard. I sense this division and Agassiz School Division No. 12 warranted some special consideration, the only two divisions throughout all of Manitoba that I sensed we should try and find some solution to deal with their problem.

Mr. Dewar: In the beginning of your answer, you mentioned Transcona‑Springfield. Were you referring to Transcona‑Springfield or to Lord Selkirk?

Mr. Manness: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the record should show Lord Selkirk. I was in error. Yes, I did mistakenly say Transcona‑Springfield. I meant Lord Selkirk.

Mr. Dewar: I do not agree with the position put forward by the Leader of the Liberal Party, and that, of course, is to kill a grant or a loan to a business that is interested in setting up in Selkirk, which, according to the Liberal Leader, if you were to follow his logic, would mean the killing of 594 jobs in the community. He suggested that instead of giving that grant to a reputable firm, they use that money to help the school division. Well, I do not agree with that. There are other means, of course, to help the school division. My colleagues have mentioned numerous examples of funding for elite schools and some of the questionable grants given to Workforce 2000, the $600,000 that is spent by the Lotteries corporation promoting Conservative backbenchers in the Selkirk paper. It is a great series. Every week there is a new one, and we have a chance to view all the fine work of the Conservative backbenchers as they go around cutting ribbons. This is, of course, dubious work on their behalf.

Another thing is the Manitoba Telephone System. They recently had to double their advertising budget from $3 million to $6 million because of long‑distance competition. So there is plenty of money there that the minister could have brought forward and used to support the public education system in Manitoba.

As the minister is aware, the Lord Selkirk School Division No. 11 encompasses an area much larger than simply the town of Selkirk. William S. Patterson School is in Clandeboye, which is in the Gimli constituency, and Happy Thought and Walter Whyte are in the Lac du Bonnet constituency. I would like to know, what representation has the minister received from the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) or the member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik) in terms of these cuts to their school division?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I thought the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) was all over the map. The member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar), he makes no sense at all.

I did not hear the member for Selkirk criticize Workforce 2000 when directing some funding to the Selkirk Rolling Mills. I have never heard one word of criticism. Indeed, I have not even heard criticism from the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen). So the member has to be consistent. When he runs down Workforce 2000, then he had better try and be somewhat consistent.

I should also correct for the record, I was looking at the wrong chart when I was talking about per pupil reductions, Mr. Deputy Chairperson. I was in error when I made reference to Lord Selkirk as if there was a significant reduction in pupils.

I do not know what the essence of the member's question is. Is he asking me to justify how it is that there have been some expenditures within Crown corporations that have increased? Is he asking me why I did not begin to attach myself to these levels of funding for communication purposes in Crowns and move it into the public school system? I do not know what he is suggesting. All I can say is that Lord Selkirk School Division had an impact, through reassessment, had a loss of $360,000. We also know, at least by the financial audited statement of the school division as of June 30, 1993, almost a year ago, that that school division had a surplus of $450,000.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we also know that the special levy mill rate at 12.7 is amongst the lower, but I will not pass judgment on anybody's local mill rate. So there are decisions that school divisions have had to make, obviously, and most have made them because they understand fully well that government today and government tomorrow is not going to have large sums of money to direct to school boards by way of grant. Anybody who wants to be honest with themselves, they do not need to be honest with me and they do not need to be particularly honest with the government, but if they are going to be honest with themselves, they will know that governments are at the realities of a time when there are not going to be significant increases in revenue. We may be in this period for a couple of years yet.

So, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I know that most school divisions, including Lord Selkirk, realize this. As distasteful as some of the decisions are that they have had to make, I know that in the long run the school divisions will just be in a better position to deal with the eventualities of the future because of the decisions they have had to make, like many others have across the province.

Mr. Dewar: In terms of the MRM, I spent two and a half years of my life working in the rolling mills. I do not need any lesson on the Manitoba Rolling Mills. As I worked there I recall that there was a serious commitment made by the Pawley administration to that particular facility. I know that we had a chance to visit there recently and discuss many, many topics with the president, and they at least showed us their curriculum in terms of their grant they received.

I do not believe that we have had a chance to see the curriculum from Keystone Ford owned of course by Mr. Kozminski.

The question I was raising was, are we getting any help? I am speaking of the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), who has raised this issue, and myself. Are we getting any help from the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer), the member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik)? Their constituencies are also within the boundaries of the Lord Selkirk School Division. Are we getting any help from them in our fight to stop this attack on the Lord Selkirk School Division? Apparently they have not. They have sat around the table and said, go ahead do it, cut it. They have done absolutely nothing. They are silent. They are in the bunker on this issue.

* (2020)

I just want to know, has the minister received any comment from them? Where do they stand on this cut to their school division?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not know how that question is in order. Did I ask the member whether his Leader put him up to this question? Is this what they discuss at their caucus? Because he has no notoriety in the Selkirk community, has his Leader put him up to asking this question so he can run around with Hansard and say that he has protected Lord Selkirk? I would think that question would be as out of order as much as the one he posed to me.

Mr. Dewar: Mr. Deputy Chair, at a recent meeting of the board of trustees of the school division they passed the following resolution that the board appealed to the Minister of Education and Training with regard to the 1994‑95 funding. They asked to meet with the minister. I ask the minister if he had a chance to meet with the board of trustees of the Lord Selkirk School Division No. 11.

Mr. Manness: I had a meeting, as of this morning coming in, with the Lord Selkirk School Division, I believe set for May 31 at eleven o'clock. My secretary had to cancel that today because of another meeting of education reform that has come forward. I am meeting with all the partners in education on education reform again on May 31. I have asked the Lord Selkirk School Division to set the next best time for them as quickly as possible that I might meet.

Mr. Harry Schellenberg (Rossmere): I have more concerns, maybe some questions, concerns passed on to me by parents, teachers, trustees. I appreciate your comment that love of learning is maybe lacking sometimes in our schools. That climate is fostered by government, education leaders over the years. I do not mean just right now either.

As we look at your whole funding formula, as I have been listening here, it is based on really the three Rs. It seems to be the basic educational philosophy to support that. You can see the cuts to specialists like phys ed, guidance. Those are cut. It seemed like they maybe are not too important. The grants to them are cut, as I understand. Also, there is great fear that physical education and the Independent Skills for Living will become optional courses. There are those fears, and there has not been too much support for extracurricular activities, and also the belief in teaching the whole child seems to be slipping somewhat.

(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)

The dropout rate is increasing. I am not just blaming the government of the day. That is a great concern, violence and abuse, and people are concerned about the‑‑I just got a phone call today‑‑educators about the emotional, social, physical needs of students.

Will the educational reform revitalize our schools? We are not looking for perfection. That is a question that I would like to leave with you. I know it is very general, very broad, very difficult to deal with. But how will our classrooms be changed so that there is a love of learning? It is very difficult, I realize, but it is more of a‑‑I raise that as more of a concern and as an issue.

Also, there is fear that we might be going back to the '50s and '60s. We do have the '90s now, and the solutions to our problems are very different. We have a very different student. That is a concern. If we look at the early Greeks and Romans, and I just paged through a book recently, they emphasized music, drama, art, phys ed, excellence and so forth, and they, of course, built great, great civilization, and their educational system was the basis of it.

I do not know if we have really addressed the issue of revitalizing our schools. That is my major concern, and that is being passed on to me continuously by people in the educational field.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I do not know where to begin. I guess I could spent two hours in addressing the issues brought forward. Certainly the concern as posed in the question is one shared by most of us around this table.

I have to correct the member, though. In the preamble he talked about reduced funding for phys ed and for some of the other‑‑Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we do not fund by subject. The funding formula has nothing to do with subject matter. We provide funding on the basis of students and classrooms, so I do not know what he is talking about funding. Maybe he is mixing it up with the fact that we have not seen fit to fill the position of the physical education consultant within the department, and that is a long stretch away from not funding physical education.

I say to the member and I realize he is new to this process, but be very, very careful what information one receives from those who lobby you and always check it out with another source. If it is something that one does not do, he ends up ultimately being horribly embarrassed and losing a lot of credibility along the way.

Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, revitalizing the schools, I think it is the issue that bedevils not the province of Manitoba and outside of any other province of Canada, outside of any nation in North America, outside of the western civilization as we know it. It is facing all of us. The member talks about bygone civilizations, Greek and Roman, and I have studied those civilizations also, and the member is right. These were well‑rounded students, but the first focus was on literacy, the first focus beyond that was on mathematics and science, and yes, there were expectations beyond those courses which were included in the day‑to‑day learning, and good students came from that.

I find it difficult to accept that from a teacher‑‑the reading tells me that there was structure, incredible structure in the learning environment, incredible respect shown to the educational leaders of the day.

So the member can talk, and I can talk, and any person can talk about the well‑rounded program. They can talk about the curriculum being improved. They can talk about more options, again, to making the well‑rounded student, but I can tell you one thing, unless you have structure in that classroom and you have respect for who is imparting the knowledge, you have got nothing, virtually nothing.

If you are not prepared to give thought to the process of learning when you are not in school‑‑in other words, if you are not prepared at times to take some work home and practise some of the thought process, the critical thinking, the problem‑solving at times other than the classroom, there is also a difficulty. So the issue is monumental.

The member talks about going back to reading, writing and arithmetic. I do not know what he is talking about. I honestly do not know what he is‑‑

An Honourable Member: There are those fears.

* (2030)

Mr. Manness: Oh, well, so there are fears. Yes, yes, because it is so easy in this game to brand somebody something. I have never used anywhere‑‑can somebody show me in quotes?‑‑Where I have used the term "back to the basics." Not one person, and I have challenged hundreds, can show me that. But the fears, the telegraph of drums passing along the message that this Minister of Education wants to lurch this system back 50 years, back to readin', writin' and 'rithmetic.

Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, what I said was that I will do everything in the system that I possibly can to make sure that those students once they have achieved Grade 9 or 10 standing have an understanding of literacy, and that is not the proper term, but are literate far beyond what they are today even though they are in Grade 12. That will mean, yes, that there is going to be some increased focus on the core subject areas, and I make no apology for that.

Because today if you cannot read, and if you cannot write, you therefore cannot comprehend, you cannot pull yourself up. The basis of everything you do beyond formal education is dependent upon your ability to communicate and to read and to write. If we do nothing more in this public school system‑‑and I tell you today we are challenged today in large measure by those parents who really care to make sure that we at least do that well, because they will tell me, yes, I want a well‑rounded graduate‑‑but before I want that, I want them to have the ability that they can read.

Today our students, as I have said before, the 13‑year‑olds did the mathematics exam in comparative terms across the country, and this is not a reflection on Manitoba, this is a Canadian score, did relatively well in the mechanics of doing mathematics‑‑A plus B divided by C multiplied by D. But put that expectation in the guise of a problem where you had to read and write and comprehend and yet do the very same mechanics to get to the very same answer, 16‑year‑olds could not do it.

Do not tell me what the problems are with respect to funding. Do not tell me what the problems are with respect to how it is we are favouring some subjects over another. Tell me why it is that our students who understand and maybe can do basic math, put it in terms of a problem, a written problem where you have to comprehend, and they cannot do it. Tell me what the problem is.

The problem is they cannot read. Well, why not? Why not? It is not money, because there are countries throughout the world, students in social economic conditions far worse, developing countries where they are reading, and they are reading far beyond our standards, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson.

So where does revitalization begin? The member says it should be a government edict that this love of learning come back. I am sorry, I would have passed that law, I am sure. The members of my government would have supported that law. It would have come in yesterday. And you know what? I bet members from the NDP would have supported it, too. You cannot government edict the love of learning. It is either in society or it is not.

I know my forebears, and I know the member's family history and I know his forebears, because it carried over to the member himself and to certain members of his family how important education is. But saying how important education is is just like saying that the future of the society is dependent on our youth. Well, that is like saying that morning follows nighttime and nighttime follows daytime. That is just what it is like saying.

So, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the reality is, who is going to revitalize education? Who is going to revitalize it? Well, we are going to revitalize it. We are going to seek the support from the opposition parties. There are going to be changes, but there are going to also have to be decisions made. Those choices are not going to be easy to some, particularly those who have been part of the education fraternity for a long period of time.

&