* (1650)

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): I move, seconded by the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale),

"WHEREAS in 1988, the Provincial Government was paying 76 percent of the total cost of education–the rest being the special levy or school tax; and

"WHEREAS in 1998, the Provincial Government was contributing only 67 percent of the total public education bill; and

"WHEREAS school divisions have been forced to reduce classroom opportunities and increase school taxes to backfill the cuts; and

"WHEREAS in the lead up to the 1990 election, the Premier told Manitobans that it would be the goal of his Government to increase the Provincial Government's contribution to 80 percent; and

"WHEREAS as a result of these cuts, school taxes all across the province have been escalating, causing a great burden on Manitoba families; and

"WHEREAS residents of communities like Selkirk, Neepawa and Brandon have averaged double digit increases in the last two years; and

"WHEREAS early in its mandate, the Provincial Government reduced the property tax credit from $325 to $250, which translated into a $75 property tax increase; and

"WHEREAS according to the Provincial Auditor, there is a $565 million 'Fiscal Stabilization Fund' which has been built up in part because education has been underfunded.

"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Premier to take responsibility for this unnecessary financial burden on Manitoba families; and

"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly urge the Minister of Education to consider providing adequate and stable funding to public education."

Mr. Struthers: Madam Speaker, one of the things that I have noticed with this government is a very unaccountable way in which it talks about its funding levels to priorities such as education and to health care and to some others. One of the examples that I want to put forth is the way one Education minister after the next, on behalf of this government, misuses percentages to try to make their funding levels look bigger than what they are. They use percentages to try to cover the fact that they are actually putting fewer dollars into education each and every year that this government has been in power.

The current Education minister (Mr. McCrae) falls into this trap, unfortunately, as well. It was just last week, again, I heard this minister refer to the percentage of the budget that is spent on education. Madam Speaker, a percent is a relative term. They are able to talk about a percent increase in the education part of their budget, because the rest of their budget has been hacked and slashed. The total budget is smaller, and even though the amount of money being put into education is smaller too, it only seems as if it takes up a larger percent of the budget. It does not mean there is an increase of 19 or 20 or 21 percent, like the Education minister likes to say. It means that part of the budget having to be spent on education rises relative to what they have cut in agriculture and natural resources and environment and highways and health care and all the rest. It does not have anything to do with anything else other than wanting to cover up the cuts that this government have foisted upon the people of Manitoba. It is a dishonest way of doing things.

Let us take a look at some figures that are not based on phoney percentages like the Education minister (Mr. McCrae) likes to talk about. Let us talk about real dollars for real students in real classrooms being taught by real teachers. This government has cut over $482 per pupil in purchasing power from our public schools. That is not a phoney percentage like the minister tries to use; that is an actual amount of money; that is $482 less for every pupil in Manitoba's public schools.

Since 1993-94, provincial revenues have increased by a billion dollars per year. Of course, whether it is the current Finance minister or the previous Finance minister, we have trouble following all the little moves that they make to try to hide some of the surplus that they have been seeing every year because they cannot have the people of Manitoba think that they are running a surplus every year, huge surpluses, and still reducing funding to education, which is what they are doing. So what we have seen happen is over the course of 10 years, the amount of school division tax collected in 1988 being $208 million, in 1998 rising to $377 million. It makes sense that as this government backs out of its commitments to fund public schools, somebody has to pick up that slack. Who would that be? Well, in a lot of cases, in most cases, it has to be the local school division, so they have to raise taxes or cut programs to make up for this government's cutting.

Madam Speaker, if you take a look at the increases that school divisions in our province have had to backfill for the cuts of this government, that would translate, that would be equivalent to an 8-point increase in provincial income tax. Now, this is the government who talks about, who bragged last year in the budget of reducing the income tax from 52 percent of the federal level to 50 percent.

Let us look at the whole picture. The backfill that school divisions have to do to make up for this government's cuts relates to an 8-point increase in Manitoba's income tax rate. Well, Madam Speaker, in the city of Winnipeg, the average home has seen an increase of over 55 percent in school division taxes since 1990, a 55 percent increase. That represents the number of increases that local school divisions have had to approve in order to backfill the cuts that this government has made to public education.

It is not just happening in the city of Winnipeg. Those of us living in rural Manitoba have been faced with the same kind of lack of support for public schools from this government as they see here in our capital city. For example, Brandon School Division taxes jumped 14 percent in 1998. The Minister of Education (Mr. McCrae) will know that. The next year, this year, they increased by 9 percent. That means that this Minister of Education, the member for Brandon West, and his colleague before him, have reduced the real dollars to schools in Brandon School Division, and they have been forcing the local Brandon School Division to take one of two courses: one, cut in order that you do not have to raise taxes; or two, raise the taxes yourself.

No doubt in the next provincial election, there will be signs around Brandon saying re-elect the Filmon team because we have not raised taxes. Madam Speaker, under that sign, I would suggest that the member seeking re-election in Brandon West put up another sign straightening out the false claim that they have not raised taxes. The sign underneath should say we got the school division to raise taxes for us because that is what is happening.

It is not just Brandon. Neepawa, part of Beautiful Plains School Division, Neepawa saw an 8-percent increase this year, 8 percent on top of 11 percent the year before, 20 percent over two years because this government cut the funding for public schools. Not a phoney percentage like the minister talks about, these are real dollars being taken out of our public schools. That is not being committed to an investment in education. That is simply offloading your problems onto somebody else, so that you can be re-elected in the next election. People are seeing through this, Madam Speaker. Thompson residents saw their bill increase by 10 percent in '98 and 4 percent this year in 1999.

* (1700)

Madam Speaker, I had mentioned already that in 1988 school division taxes amounted to $208 million and that in 1998 they amounted to $377 million. That represents $169 million, and that is an increase that this government has offloaded over its course of power in Manitoba, not just the current minister, but it has been a policy of this government. One Education minister after the next has done the same thing to taxpayers in this province. That represents a 7.7 point increase in income tax. Of course, to make up that difference, school divisions have had to raise their levies.

As well, Madam Speaker, this is the same government that reduced the property tax credit. They did that back in 1993. That is a tax increase. You can cut it up any way you like; you can put whatever fancy rationale around it, but it is a tax increase. You increased the tax by $75 by decreasing the tax credit from $325 to $250. You can cut it and slice it any way you like; you raised taxes.

Madam Speaker, there are several ways that school divisions and schools have had to cope with this government's lack of commitment to public education. On the one hand, school divisions are forced with either cutting programs, laying off teachers, laying off teachers' aides, not ordering textbooks that are needed, cancelling computer orders, or they have to raise their own taxes. In some divisions, they have done that. Most divisions have done a combination of the two, but they are getting to the point now where they cannot cut any further and they know that. So they have had to turn to the local taxpayer on behalf of this government.

There is another way that this is playing out, Madam Speaker, in our schools. More and more of our students are being asked to pay for the things that are absolutely necessary for learning to take place in classrooms. More students are selling chocolate bars than I can ever remember, and I have been involved in education for awhile. More students are organizing yard sales. Students and teachers and parent advisory councils are having to organize garage sales. They are doing walkathons. They are doing all sorts of fundraisers, car washes to pay for textbooks. You know, if this government doubts what I am saying, go check it out. Talk to the parent advisory councils, and they will tell you that they have gone from parent advisory councils that were advising on education and the needs of the students to simply being asked to contribute to their children's education by fundraising.

You know, the other day in Question Period the government tried to make a big deal, that, oh, it has always happened this way; there has always been fundraising at the school level; students have always been asked to go whether it was a Liberal government or an NDP government or a Conservative government. Well, that is just not right, Madam Speaker.

I think back to when I was in high school. The Swan Valley School band was taking a trip to Europe. The band was over there for a good part of the summer in 1977, and they raised money for that. They raised money in a variety of different ways, raffles, you name it. It was an expensive trip. The difference between then and now is that in 1977 students were raising money to go to Europe to play their instruments in a band and today they are raising money to buy textbooks to read about Europe. That is the difference.

The Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) can ignore it all he likes. He can put all kinds of excuses around this if he wants. The cold, hard facts are that in 1977 they were raising money to go to Europe. In 1999 they are raising money to read about Europe because now--

An Honourable Member: Get on the Internet.

Mr. Struthers: The Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Tweed) just thinks that everybody in the province can automatically get on the Internet. That is a total lack of knowledge of what is going on out there in rural Manitoba. The minister should go to Pelican Rapids or the minister should go to Valley River First Nation. The minister should go to many of my consituents in Dauphin and tell them that attitude that he just used now. It tells me that this government supports an inaccessible, out-of-date, old-fashioned view of education.

Madam Speaker, they are out of touch, and I think the government should make this a high priority going into the next election campaign and let the people of Manitoba decide whether or not they enjoying backfilling through their property taxes the cuts of this government to public schools.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I am sure you can imagine how delighted I was that the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) should raise this matter in the way that he has because he is sitting beside the honourable member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale), whom I have on record as telling us that people are not taxed to the limit in this province and there is lots of room to tax people more. The honourable member for Crescentwood will not take issue with that because he knows darn well that is his position and has been for some time.

That is why I am pleased because this debate this afternoon sets out some very defining matters that show the clear differentiation that people can make between my honourable colleagues opposite and the colleagues that I am so pleased to work with on this side of the House. I and my government are clearly and totally committed to the education of our children. We have demonstrated that for 11 years on this side of the House. Each of our budgets demonstrates that education continues to be the No. 2 spending priority of government, following only Health department spending, so with that in mind I am interested to hear the honourable member for Dauphin because he tears to shreds the platform, the key election platform policy being vaunted these days by the New Democrats.

I say "these days" because it is a late conversion to that concept that we are going to keep the things that Filmon got right. All of a sudden, after all these years of opposing balanced budgets, that is one of the things they have zeroed in on. They are going to have a little trouble with this because the honourable member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) today, the honourable member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) daily and other honourable members on the opposition side of this House demand more spending from government.

Now what is really interesting about it is that their demands do not add up, their rhetoric does not add up to what is achievable. They know it, and the more this is talked about, the louder the heckling becomes because they are very sensitive about this. This is a very, very serious debate going on within the back rooms of the New Democratic Party. I wish I had my clippings today, because we know that Errol Black from Brandon is a known New Democrat and he writes often. He is a councillor and a contributing and good councillor in the City of Brandon, but he does not share the same point of view as I do on a number of issues. We both know that and respect that. He writes often in the Brandon Sun, and more recently he has been quoted more often because he is a member of our City Council. But Errol Black says very clearly–balanced budgets, it is not right for Manitoba. We should not be trying to buy down our debt, because we are trying to do it too fast and this takes away–the same thing the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) said just a couple of years ago–the flexibility that governments need to spend money.

They are not today's New Democrats. They are the same old same old, Madam Speaker, and this is what is embarrassing to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) who wants to be believed. We all want to be believed, but the Leader of the Opposition especially wants to be believed because he wants after several attempts and several failures to occupy this side of the House, so he is going to tell the people whatever he thinks they want to hear.

Now, what is interesting here is that–and I am listening with great respect to the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers), but he is going to talk today about how we should be spending more money, and he has done so in education. Okay, fair ball. The thing is that tomorrow if there is a debate on health, he is going to tell us about all the money we should be spending on health. The next day if there is a debate on agriculture, he is going to say we are not spending anywhere near enough money on agriculture and we should be spending more money on agriculture. Then as many days as there are, he is going to have a different topic. The honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) knows this. I can see it in her face and in her eyes. She knows what I am talking about.

* (1710)

Oh, let us not forget highways, because there is an area where a lot of spending could well be done. Everybody knows that, just like I know that more spending could happen in all these other areas. But are we spending it effectively is a whole other question. But on day four, the honourable member for Dauphin, who often speaks about highways–as do other colleagues of his on that side–he would say there should be millions, millions, millions more spent on highways.

Nobody has to be accountable, Madam Speaker, except the honourable members on this side of the House. The trouble with honourable members opposite is they do not want accountability. Why? Because they cannot handle the truth. They cannot handle the truth about their own policy about balanced budgets. This is going to be a very major deciding issue for the people of Manitoba, and they are going to look at the record of 11 years of the Filmon administration, compare it to the rhetoric of honourable members opposite, and they are going to be left with the irresistible, inescapable conclusion that you simply cannot believe a New Democrat.

The member for Concordia, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer), does not like this because he accuses me of refighting old elections against Howard Pawley, but he forgets who sat right at the same table with Howard Pawley in those days when they were increasing income taxes. Remember 1987? I do, very well. [interjection] Who was the godfather of the surtax, the 2 percent surtax on our income tax form? Well, that was Eugene Kostyra, Dr. Debt we used to call him. Who were the godparents of the payroll tax in this province? Who is it that increased the corporate capital tax, the gasoline tax? Who was it, Madam Speaker? Who speaks out of one side of their mouth about how they would like to save and enhance the railroading industry in this province, but who is it brought in a locomotive fuel tax or increased the locomotive fuel tax? Sorry about that, Darryl, but that needed to be said.

An Honourable Member: I was not here then.

Mr. McCrae: That is right. He was not here then. Oh, but those were glorious days, were they not, because we had an NDP government. Workers Compensation–[interjection] You know, they even taxed the life-giving water that we need to sustain life. I shiver when I think about what they might have been thinking about taxing next. They do not like it when I talk; in fact, it has been said of the honourable members opposite, they never met a tax they did not like and never met a tax they did not hike when they had an opportunity.

Madam Speaker, the honourable member for Dauphin, I do not know where he is coming from. He does not like us to refer to percentages, because it does not make his argument very well. The honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. L. Evans) is a master at these things. The honourable member for Dauphin should listen to him. He knows how to manipulate figures and come to the wrong conclusions and make them sound, you know, maybe okay.

Madam Speaker, the honourable member for Dauphin hates that we use percentages to talk about our commitment to education. How else do you want to demonstrate a commitment? You see, you can take the pie and the way you divide up that pie will demonstrate more clearly than anything else where your commitments are. But you know what we know about honourable members opposite, never mind what they are promising about balanced budgets, they just want to make the pie bigger. Manitobans do not want the pie bigger, they want the pie smaller; they want their government to be effective and efficient with their dollars. But while we are doing that, Manitobans are watching us closely, and that is fair, that is the way it should be, because we believe in accountability.

If you look at 19.3 percent of our spending being on education and compare that with the 17.7 percent left to us by the previous government, pretty easy to show where the commitment is, given the size of the pie. The size of the pie is a whole other debate, but the honourable member does not want to get into that debate. He just wants to say, well, you are not dividing it up right, but he will say that when we are talking about education. Then we will go to the health debate, but you are not dividing the pie up right. You see, by the time it comes all the way around–pies are generally round–that round pie, there ain't nothing left. It does not add up, does it? Do the math, Madam Speaker, do the math.

In terms of commitment, I would like to talk about commitment as opposed to the approach used by the member for Dauphin. If it works for him, fine, but the point is it is not correct because it does not–

An Honourable Member: The only reason they oppose standards is that they do not want the people to know how to add up the figures.

Mr. McCrae: Right. My honourable colleague, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews), is absolutely right. The New Democrats simply do not want the people to know the truth, and this is somewhat disturbing to me because I am interested in laying it all out. Warts and all. There is nobody here who is going to say that perfection is not an elusive thing. I certainly am ready to suggest that perfection has eluded me all my life, and I am looking at the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) over there, and maybe he can help me somehow but I doubt it. [interjection] Through a glass darkly, through a glass darkly.

That being said, given the realities of life at a time when, Madam Speaker, we have experienced the second worst recession in the history of this century, at a time when we have experienced the flood of the century, at a time when we have experienced forest fires, conflagration of the like, no one can remember in this province, at a time when the federal partner in health and education has virtually walked away from the table leaving Manitoba taxpayers holding the bag, at a time when we are left as a result of the profligacy of the previous government paying out over half a billion dollars every year in debt financing charges, I say shame on honourable members opposite.

I would love to have more than $500 million more to deal with an education system ,and I can tell you so would all of my colleagues. That would make life too easy for us in public life, however. No matter how many dollars are available to us, the people of this province expect us to be responsible with their hard-earned dollars. I do not get that message every day in this House from honourable members opposite. I get an entirely different message from honourable members opposite day in and day out, and it does not add up.

In my humble opinion, I know they never want to take any advice from me, but maybe they should not have been so quick to move to adherence to balancing budgets and living within our means as a people. Maybe they should not have done that because they simply are not committed to it, and that shows day in and day out. They are not committed to that; they have resorted to gimmickry which the people of Manitoba quite simply are too smart for honourable members opposite.

So I say I will compare our 19.3 percent commitment to education with the 17.7 percent commitment to education of the New Democrats any day of the week. I would like to point out that the over $500 million being spent annually on debt occasioned by honourable members opposite, if you add that up over 11 years, you are looking at something in the neighbourhood of $6 billion we could have had at our disposal these last years.

An Honourable Member: I was not here then.

Mr. McCrae: I know the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) was not here for that so I do not hold him personally responsible, but he supports a party that goes in for that sort of thing, Madam Speaker, and I do not.

Education support levy on farmland. Just thought I would mention that the people in Manitoba are carrying around $160 million as a result of the government backing away from that tax. I recognize there is a challenge for school divisions. I recognize there is a challenge for taxpayers at the municipal level and taxpayers at the provincial level and taxpayers at the federal level. They are all the same taxpayers after all, and many of them are the fathers and mothers and grandfathers and grandmothers of the children we all love very dearly, so I am quite happy to accept the comments of the honourable member.

* (1720)

I am not happy to accept his resolution because I simply do not agree with it, and I cannot. The best examination I can make of the way he makes his case simply does not add up, and you do not have to be very smart, Madam Speaker, to notice. Thank you very much.

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, I want to comment on the Minister of Education's (Mr. McCrae) inability to understand his own government's memos and those pieces of arithmetic he talks about that come from the Federal-Provincial Relations branch.

I want to start by talking about a little memo that was issued pursuant to a report in the Free Press after the budget in the spring of 1993 when a Free Press reporter apparently got some numbers wrong. That upset the Minister of Finance something terrible so he had his Federal-Provincial Relations folks recalculate the cost of the 1993-94 budget for an average taxpayer and they put together a memo. I do not know how it happened, but we just seem to have a copy of that memo.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Sale: No, I have no idea how it happened because it arrived before my time here, you see. At that point, I was working in the private sector as a successful consultant running a small business. So I think they probably sent it to us in error but, of course, I was not here at that point having not been elected until April '95.

Now, what does this memo show? The civil servants, who are always ever helpful to the Minister of Finance and did not want him to be embarrassed by wrong information in the Free Press, very carefully showed what the tax increases in the 1993-94 budget were all about. Those members will perhaps have to cast their memories back a bit. They broadened the sales tax, taxed things like baby bottle nipples, stuff like that. Things that, you know, one would sort of wonder what the point was.

An Honourable Member: Extras.

Mr. Sale: The little extras, yes, like baby bottles and stuff, nonessentials. They also, of course, cut the property tax credit by $75 million–$75 rather, $53 million. The civil servants, ever helpful, calculated the total impact of those tax increases. The Filmon government tax increases in 1993-94, $114 million, not, you know, $3 million or $4 million–$114 million. They said, helpfully, I think, they said, now, look, we have achieved this by broadening the sales tax base; we have achieved it by cutting the property tax credits; we made some other incidental changes. They said, you know, to achieve this change by other means would, for example, require, and then they calculated two figures. One figure was how much you would have to raise your income tax by to raise this amount of taxes. The other was how much you would have to raise your sales tax by. They said, in two little lines right at the bottom of this memo, to raise $114 million on income tax would require an increase of 5.7 points of personal income tax. So the Filmon government that never raised taxes in 1993-94 alone raised taxes by the equivalent of 5.7 points of personal income tax. They said, oh, the other way you could do it would be to raise the sales tax by a little over one point, from 7 to 8.2.

Now, that was just 1993-94, Madam Speaker. In 1993-94 the Filmon government raised its taxes by the equivalent of 5.7 points of personal income tax. Now they were not satisfied with that little bit of increase. They offloaded–[interjection] No, no, no, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) just does not get it. These are not figures from the NDP. These are figures from the Federal-Provincial Relations and Research branch of the Department of Finance. Not our figures, your figures.

An Honourable Member: He was sneaking the brown envelopes under the door for you.

Mr. Sale: I do not know who slipped the brown envelope under the door, Harry. I have no idea. It could have been Vic. Vic was working as a civil servant then. Who knows? Were you over at Great Waste of Life by then? Who knows?

Well, you see, they were not satisfied with just that increase of 5.7 points of personal income tax. They went on to cut funding to school divisions from $732 million in 1992-93 to $709 million this year. Real dollars–22 million of them–cut out of our kids' classrooms, out of our kids' libraries, out of our kids' Internet connections, out of special needs students. Twenty-two million real dollars cut by your government in the last seven years.

During that same period of time, the special levy went up by about $160 million. Now our research staff, who are, I think, very capable people, took that $160 million and said: How much would that be in personal income tax? Well, the government tells us that one income tax point is worth about $23 million. They did the math, and they came up with about 7.7 points of personal income tax, the equivalent of that special levy increase. Now remember in '93-94 they have already increased by the equivalent of 5.7; here is another 7.7. You know, we are kind of over the 12 point mark now. This is the government that did not raise taxes, right? Did not raise taxes. They are already at the equivalent of 12 points on personal income tax., and during their entire time of office they claim that have cut personal income tax. They have. They have reduced the rate by four points, but they have increased other taxes by the equivalent of three times their tax reductions–three times.

So this government is now taking in a billion dollars more in revenue than they were about nine or 10 years ago. They are taking in $500 million more in personal income tax than they were at the beginning of their time in office. They have increased taxes by the equivalent of more than 12 points of personal income tax and cut it by four. So the net increase is eight points personal income tax. This is the government that wants to have a referendum on tax increases, and it is so dishonest, Madam Speaker, that it achieves its tax increases by burying them in the base of the sales tax, by offloading onto municipalities, by offloading onto school divisions.

The Minister of Education (Mr. McCrae) is the minister of a government that has cut funding to schools by $22 million since 1992-93, actual real dollars;, FRAME report, read it. So the motion of my honourable friend to condemn what is happening in education finance–the minister shakes his head. The minister knows that the FRAME report shows that $22 million less is going into classrooms today than it was in 1992-93. He knows that is the truth, and it is very embarrassing, so he tries to hide it by concocting percentage figures to show increases.

You know, if he were a little more forthright with the truth, he would tell Manitobans that those increases have come–

Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, I do not know if you caught it, but the honourable member made a reference to my not being forthcoming or forthright with–

An Honourable Member: He said if you were a little more forthcoming with the truth–

Mr. McCrae: Yes, and I have to say I resent that quite a bit. The fact is that Public Accounts demonstrate very clearly, no matter which way you want to argue the point, how much has been made available for the different appropriations. I am not hiding anything, nor would I try. The honourable member knows that overall expenditures of government on a per capita basis in Manitoba are down from what it was in the NDP days. We know that. I accept that; in fact, I am quite proud of that. But I do not think the honourable member meant to offend, and I would appreciate it if he would withdraw that statement.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Crescentwood, on the same point of order.

Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, the last thing I would want to do would be to offend the poor Minister of Education, but I think that using a conditional "if he would be more forthcoming with the truth" is hardly a breach of the rules of the House. I do not think that it is a point of order. I think he wanted to debate the facts and that is what he started to do. But I certainly would not want to hurt his feelings.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable Minister of Education and Training, I will indeed take the matter under advisement to research the Hansard transcript and report back to the Chamber. I would advise all members to use caution with the word "truth" when addressing another member in the Chamber. I raised the caution earlier today. All members in this Chamber are honourable members, so I would suggest that members exercise due caution in the choice of their words.

Mr. Sale: Well, Madam Speaker, what I was hoping the minister would be willing to do would be to bring forward the actual reports of his own department that are in fact audited and part of the public record that show that the only increases in funding to Education have come because he is paying out a bunch more money for teachers' pensions, he is paying out a bunch more money for his Assessment branch, and he is paying out perhaps a little bit more money, not very much, in capital. But in terms of any support to schools, the actual place where the rubber hits the road for our kids, he is paying out less money.

* (1730)

If he were forthright with Manitobans, he would tell them that and explain why it was appropriate for his government to give less money today to schools than it did in 1993. That is the puzzle that most Manitobans have. They see their property taxes going up sharply. They see funding to their schools going down, and they wonder why this government tells them the reverse. The government tells them they have not increased taxes. People are not stupid. They know that taxes have gone up. The government tells them there is more money coming to their schools. People are not stupid. They can read the Frame reports. They know that is not true. So they wonder why their government is not more honest and forthright with them about the real facts. The facts are indisputable, as the Frame report makes them. So I would just invite the minister to share the real facts with people and to explain what priority it is that has caused his government to reduce its funding to kids at the classroom level.

What is the priority here? The priority seems to be to spend more money on bureaucracy, to force people to raise money selling chocolates, and to force up school taxes so that you can claim somehow that you are more prudent with your finances. Manitobans know differently. They know that you have increased taxes by the equivalent of 12 points plus of income tax. You have cut them by four points. Your net increase is more than eight points of personal income tax. Our taxes are much higher today than they were, and it was because your government raised them.

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak to this excellent resolution.

Mr. Gerry McAlpine (Sturgeon Creek): It is my privilege to be able to put a few comments on the record with regard to this resolution. Looking at the resolution, Madam Speaker, just the WHEREASes, the last two WHEREASes, as far as the honourable member has presented to us, that:

"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Premier to take responsibility for this unnecessary financial burden on Manitoba families; and

"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly urge the Minister of Education to consider providing adequate and stable funding to public education."

Madam Speaker, I could say that that has already been achieved. The member certainly knows very well that that has been achieved when we consider the amount of money that has been put into the Education budget over the last 11 years.

It is really interesting when I look at the comments that are coming across from the other side there. We are really in a situation here where we are manipulating and working and trying to massage and manipulate the numbers and twisting and turning, and it is really interesting how the members across the way even almost appear to have convinced themselves that they are actually making some sense.

It is also interesting, Madam Speaker, where we have the two reverends, who represent their various constituencies over there, talk about truth, and I really understand. I have difficulty in coming to grips with this and actually appreciating where they are coming from. I am a God-loving Christian individual, and I would expect that they would demonstrate and show the way, but the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), just less than an hour ago, challenged our dean of the House that the information that he put on with complete accuracy, stood up, without any knowledge or anything like that, and said it was completely false.

I challenge people who are in positions like that, who are representing the divinity of this Legislature, people who stand in places and hold themselves out. I am troubled by that. We know that there are many things that are going on and have gone on, and I have chosen not to bring them to the Chamber, but we have heard nothing other than what they have put on the record for the last two weeks in chastising people and this government.

On this particular resolution, there is no basis for what they are offering in terms of suggestions. Education is a key component and a key priority of this government, and the Minister of Education (Mr. McCrae) has put truthful and honest facts on the record here. The people of Manitoba recognize that.

I represent a constituency in an area that has closed 15 schools. The number of children in our education today has severely dropped in St. James-Assiniboia School Division alone. There was a time when they were building schools and we had a population in the school system of something like 22,000, 23,000 children. Today, we have somewhere in the area of around 9,000. That is more than a 50-percent drop in enrollment.

Still we, as a government, have put more money into the education system, far more than what the NDP did, and what they are advocating in saying that they were the saviours and they will serve the education system of this province, well, Madam Speaker, I think the people know too well that will not happen.

Despite the federal cuts in funding, we have maintained one of the finest education systems in the country, and we will compare that to any province across the country. The honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) comes to this Legislature, his background is in the education system, he should know better. There is more to this representation in this Legislature than criticizing, but I sit and listen day after day after day and that is all I get. That is the only message. They twist and they do all these things to the point that people get confused. The public gets confused. They are saying, well, where are they coming from? That is not what we need. That is not what we talk about in good representation.

In the last provincial budget, almost 19.3 percent of funding was devoted to education, totalling $779 million. This is an increase of over $147 million, and the honourable member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale), he talks about cuts. Where is the cut? Is this some more of their manoeuvring and twisting and distorting numbers? That is what I interpret from their comments and their remarks.

Our government has also announced that this year's public school funding levels will be increased by at least 2 percent in the next budget. I would expect that the honourable members across the way would get up and applaud that. When we look at the aspect of the numbers in terms of enrollment in the province of Manitoba, they have shrunk considerably. Yet we continue to put more money in. Now, where is this extra money going? They talk about funding in Question Periods over the last few weeks, saying that parents are having to go out and raise funds to buy textbooks. Well, then, we find out a few days later that that is absolutely false. Where are they coming from, Madam Speaker?

As one of the key priorities of this government, support for education has continued to increase; 1999-2000 is the second year in a row that funding for education has increased overall by more than 2 percent and represents an increase of $34.4 million. These increases can be directly related to our government's responsible balancing of the budget.

That is an interesting aspect now in terms of their playing with the numbers again, Madam Speaker. They are starting to say that they support balanced budgets, yet they voted every time that we presented a budget to this Legislature–are they all of a sudden going to say now that they are going to vote in favour of this budget that is going to be brought to this Chamber tomorrow? Well, we will just have to wait and see, because if what they are saying in this resolution has any accuracy and credibility at all, then they should be voting for an increase of 2 percent to the education budget.

Manitoba has a strong and adequately funded education system, Madam Speaker. I think over the last 11 years that has been shown. I think that we can attest to that. Our province boasts one of the lowest pupil-teacher ratios in the country–I think it is about 17, I believe, is the actual number per classroom, is the average, as well as the fourth highest per pupil expenditure in elementary and secondary schools.

* (1740)

You know, maybe the honourable members should go back into the classroom and start to really talk to the people who are there and listen to what these people are saying. I spent a good part of the time in elementary schools over the last little while. I love to read and things like that. The teachers are talking. They are not anywhere near what these people are saying over there. You know, I think all they are interested in, they are more interested in being in government than they are about bringing truth to the Legislature and bringing in responsible information that could assist and give this government–and help in the direction of this government.

When compared in terms of a percentage of the gross domestic product per capita, Manitoba ranks third in per pupil expenditures. These statistics show that the quality of education in Manitoba remains among the highest levels in Canada. I do not think I can say that enough because I think I would have to say it maybe six or seven times in order for people to understand that. That is what they say anyway. Maybe if I were to repeat that six or seven times as they do in fidgeting the numbers that they play with to convince themselves, maybe they could be convinced if I was to tell them that, yes, Manitoba has one of the best education systems in the country compared to other provinces, Madam Speaker.

This government has implemented a number of key components to improve the quality of education in this province. The opposition knows it, this government knows it, and the people in Manitoba know it as well. I look at the honourable members across the way, and they have smiles on their faces. They know that this is true, but what comes out of their mouths is different. It is different in their hearts. The only thing is that too often they do not want to admit it, for whatever reason. I can respect that–[interjection] Yes, the honourable members do have hearts over there. I will be the first one to attest to that, Madam Speaker.

Our vision for education renewal is very clear. Manitoba students in an environment of inclusion, care, support, safety and rigor will be among the best educated in Canada. When we talk about support and safety in our schools, it brings to mind the date just a couple of weeks ago in Colorado, and now I hear of another situation in Taber, Alberta, where there were shootings. This is a very serious thing to have to deal with. The people in the education system certainly need our support as a government, and, Madam Speaker, we have been doing that by putting more money into this because this is what they are saying to us. We look to the education administrators and the people who have an understanding and are the professionals in that portfolio. They are giving us good advice, and we are taking that advice. We are not listening to what the NDP through this resolution is saying because they have taken us down that road before, and we are just now being able to dig ourselves out of this hole.

So the people in Manitoba recognize that this government is on the right track with our education system, and lo and behold, it will be a doomsday in Manitoba if the NDP have any say in what is going to happen over the next 10, 15 years with the education system, and this resolution demonstrates their integrity in this education portfolio.

Madam Speaker, with those words, I understand that my time has pretty much expired. With that information on the record, I want to offer my congratulations to the Minister of Education (Mr. McCrae) and this government in terms of the vision and the foresight and the attention that they are giving to education in Manitoba and to the children of Manitoba.

Mr. Ben Sveinson (La Verendrye): Madam Speaker, let me say at the outset that this government has provided adequate and stable funding to education with total education support currently at $1.13 billion. Education has been and remains one of the top priorities of government and represents 19.3 percent of total provincial expenditures; in fact, this year represents a third consecutive year of increased funding to public schools. As a direct result of this government's responsible fiscal approach and sound management practices, we have been able to increase funding to education despite massive reductions in transfer payments from the federal government. My government has been able to do this without compromising our future under the weight of an onerous debt load.

Before this government came to office, education funding represented only 17.2 of the provincial budget. The NDP government strategy of deficit financing and other misguided public policy approaches of that time are clearly not strategies that would have resulted in a balanced budget and the strong Manitoba economy that we enjoy today. Let us not forget it is this government's vision and fortitude that balanced the budget and placed us in a better position to enhance our investments in areas of spending priorities such as health, education and services to families.

We are committed to delivering a high quality of education–

* (1750)

Madam Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson) will have 13 minutes remaining.