4th-36th Vol. 31-Oral Questions

Madam Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery where we have this afternoon twenty-three Grades 11 and 12 students from the Vincent Massey Collegiate Exchange Program and directly from the Lycée Ste-Marie Des Champs from Toulouse, France, under the direction of Mrs. Lorraine Carter. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Vodrey).

On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon. Bonjour.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, the Ernst & Young report on the 1997 flood gave credit to the people of Manitoba for their fight across our communities on behalf of their fellow citizens, but was very critical of the Filmon government, the Conservative government opposite in the way in which they handled a number of the elements of the flood. They were so critical in fact that the government chose to release the report on the afternoon of the federal budget to escape public accountability.

The report talked about the human elements not given proper consideration. It stated that people endured unnecessary anxiety waiting for compensation programs to get them back on their feet. I would like to ask the Premier today: will he apologize today in this Chamber for the criticisms that have been made by an independent review, the Ernst & Young review, and apologize to those victims of the flood that suffered through the lack of consideration of the human elements of this flood?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, first and foremost, this government is always interested in improving what it has done and what it does do throughout its period of time in office, and therefore, we did commission the Ernst & Young report to give us a thorough review of all the things that were done during that flood event.

Madam Speaker, I know that all Manitobans understand very well that this flood, which was the worst civil disaster in this province's history, was indeed a flood of epic proportions that had not been seen this century in Manitoba, obviously stressed all of the various elements of our ability to respond.

Madam Speaker, we have a Manitoba Emergency Management Organization that I believe consists of about 14 staff on a normal basis that was required to marshall the efforts of not only some tens of thousands of volunteers, but 18 different government departments, 17 municipal governments, federal public service that included areas such as Transport Canada, Department of National Defence and so on and so forth. It was an enormous effort.

I have had people from all over Canada, including people from the military, tell us what an incredible job was done, that not one single life was lost, that above all, people's health and safety and circumstances were put first and foremost, that no effort was spared to attempt to ensure that we did everything possible to protect human life and keep it safe during that period.

During all of those efforts, Madam Speaker, obviously there was not a possibility of doing all of the paperwork, all of the administration, all of the other various aspects of it, and so if some people felt that somehow, some way a better job could have been done, I apologize to them for that effort. All I can say is that nobody spared any effort. Nobody spared any effort on the part of government or its departments to try and meet the tests, tests of challenges that had never been faced in the history of this province, and I do not apologize for that.

I do regret, however, that the Leader of the Opposition wants to make some cheap politics of it, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Doer: Perhaps if the Premier followed our advice in this House early on, on some of the matters of compensation, something that took them six or eight months to follow, a lot of flood victims would have been in much better shape. Madam Speaker, the report also states that this Premier (Mr. Filmon), this government, this cabinet did not adopt a 1994 report that was placed in front of them, and it goes on in a number of places to cite the mistakes that were made.

* (1340)

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): On March 31, 1998, the government received the Water Commission interim report. I would like to know why, two weeks after the report has been received by the government, the government, the Premier has not had this report released to the public. We had to work very hard to get the government to review and reveal its own evidence that was given initially in private to the government-appointed Water Commission. We found this report released on the day of the federal budget, Madam Speaker. I know the Premier was not playing politics with the release of that report, heaven forbid. Would the government now release the interim report which many flood victims are awaiting?

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Natural Resources): Madam Speaker, I intend to release and be responding to the interim report of the Water Commission within a very few days.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, Mr. and Mrs. Semenchuk, an 80-year-old couple, a year after the flood are still waiting to rebuild their lives and restore their situation. They still are not able to recover from the flood, as I say, a year later. Of course, many of the reports, many of the recommendations and the analyses that were provided in the Ernst & Young report talk about the human dimensions and the lack of preparedness of the government on the rebuilding of lives for flood victims.

I would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon) why a year later this family is still begging the provincial government and begging the Premier for support and help to rebuild their lives, Madam Speaker.

Hon. Frank Pitura (Minister of Government Services): I think, as the Premier pointed out, this flood of 1997 was probably the largest civil disaster, was the largest civil disaster this province has ever seen. And yes, we are constantly trying to work with the people trying to return to their homes to rebuild their lives, and we also, the staff of the Manitoba Emergency Management Organization, are out there with an understanding, with compassion, willing to work with the individual people whose homes are in a process of being rebuilt to help them work through the process. We have countless numbers of people from other departments that are out there in terms of counselling, working with people, trying to help them deal with the aftermath of the flood. So, Madam Speaker, this government has done everything it can do in terms of trying to help people get back on their feet.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): With a new question, Madam Speaker. Last week we asked what action the government took pursuant to their golden share at last year's annual meeting, and 20 times yesterday--we went back through Hansard--we asked: did the minister or a representative hold the golden share by proxy at the 1997 meeting?

Madam Speaker, would the Premier (Mr. Filmon) today confirm that Mr. Jules Benson was in fact the person that attended the annual meeting in 1997 and held the proxy vote as designated by the minister responsible for the golden share?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Well, Madam Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for that question, and I am prepared to go one step further today and to table a copy of a proxy, issued on behalf of the Province of Manitoba for use at the 1997 annual and special meeting of the shareholders of Manitoba Telecom Services, appointing Mr. Julian D. Benson or, failing him, J. Patrick Gannon to represent the Province of Manitoba.

As I have indicated on many occasions, it does give very specific direction on the voting of the special share, and it goes on to suggest that the persons above-named are specifically directed to vote on behalf of the undersigned in the following manner: on the election of directors, vote for the four persons nominated by the Minister of Finance on behalf of the Crown in right of the Province of Manitoba set forth in Information Circular accompanying the notice of meeting, being Robert M. Chipman, N. Ashleigh Everett, Donald H. Penny, D. Samuel Schellenberg.

That is a copy of the proxy that I am tabling right now.

* (1345)

Mr. Doer: I am extremely disappointed in the cover-up we had last week when we asked the government what action they took and yesterday--[interjection] Well, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) would not know a justice issue if it hit him, Madam Speaker--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I would ask that the member opposite retract that. I do not think that was called for.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable Minister of Justice, the honourable minister does not have a point of order; however, this is a very sensitive issue, as many are in this Chamber, and I would ask all members to exercise caution when directing questions and refrain from singling out individuals so that it causes disruption in the Chamber.

The honourable Leader of the official opposition, on the same point of order.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, you should, as Chair of this Chamber, ensure that members do not heckle in the middle of questions, which was the first intervention in the question being raised, and to cite only one side of the House again is in our view not representing all the interests of all the elected members here in this Chamber again.

Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Justice, on the same point of order.

Mr. Toews: Well, Madam Speaker, I simply make that point. This member consistently does that to me. The last time he criticized me it was on account of where I grew up, where I was born, my country of origin, by criticizing where I was born. You know, I do not think that is appropriate to criticize me because I was born in a country other than Canada, and yet he does that, and now he says things like this.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I have repeatedly cautioned members on both sides of this House to stop having debate across the floor of the Chamber when a member has been recognized to either pose a question or respond to a question asked. I would ask once again for the co-operation of all honourable members in being more attentive to our rules to ensure that there is no disruption when one is posing a question or responding to same.

Mr. Doer: On 20 occasions yesterday we asked the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the Minister of Finance to inform us of who was holding the proxy vote, because under Section 10 of the act, which we raised last week, and under the by-laws, which we raised yesterday, the minister holding the golden share has a responsibility to either exercise a vote or by direction through proxy have that vote represented at the annual meeting.

I would like to ask the Premier why he allowed his Minister of Finance on 20 occasions yesterday to not answer the question dealing with the proxy vote, and why is the government not honest with the people of Manitoba that the Minister of Finance does have power under the telecom act and does have responsibilities to either vote or exercise a proxy on issues related to the telecom company?

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, not surprisingly the Leader of the Opposition is dead wrong with the information he brings to this Chamber today. Again, that is a pattern that certain members of his party frequent in this Assembly. That was one of my concerns yesterday in terms of being absolutely certain when I provide information to this House--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Finance, to complete his response.

* (1350)

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, as I was going to say, to be absolutely certain, when we provide answers to questions that they are in fact 100 percent accurate. That is something we all take pride in on this side of the House.

In terms of the issue of the special share of the separate class, the only issue that that special share, separate class voted on and was entitled to vote on at the annual meeting in 1997 was to nominate and elect the four directors that I have read into the record. Those are the facts and that is the situation. The information that the Leader of the Opposition has just provided is dead wrong.

Mr. Doer: Is the minister trying to tell this House that he did not remember signing a document a year ago indicating that Jules Benson, a person whom we asked directly to him yesterday in Hansard in Question Period, is he trying to tell us that he did not remember giving Mr. Benson the proxy vote, Madam Speaker, or is he telling us yesterday he was trying to cover up the truth from the people of Manitoba?

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, what I have already told the Leader of the Opposition is, unlike some members on his side of the House, when I provide information I want to provide absolutely accurate information. I have taken the steps to provide copy of the documentation today. The Leader of the Opposition will notice that two individuals are referenced in the proxy, the one that is directly appointed, Mr. Julian D. Benson, or failing him, the Deputy Minister of Finance, Mr. J. Patrick Gannon. So I have provided that information to the House today.

I notice, Madam Speaker, he did not come back to the issue that he raised as part of a second question where he is putting absolutely incorrect information on the record. That is the concern I had yesterday, and when I return today I return with the facts and I return with all of the accurate information.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, we are seeing a new definition in this House of political amnesia. This minister, who a week ago could not remember signing the Order-in-Council, who yesterday was asked 20 times in this Legislature, and now expects us to believe that he was doing anything other than covering up yesterday.

I would like to ask a follow-up, now he has come forward--after being asked 20 times--with the proxy form which appointed Mr. Jules Benson. Will he also indicate that the proxy form indicates very clearly, and I quote, that this does not limit the general authorization, that in fact Jules Benson had the full power vested in him under the proxy as the representative of the minister himself in regard to the Manitoba government special share at that meeting?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, I think what the member for Thompson fails to do is to look at the act and to read Sections 10 and 11 of the act, and I encourage him to do that. It spells out very clearly where the special share from the separate class can vote separately, can effectively, for all intents and purposes, have a veto. Those are outlined very clearly and I have read them into the record before: issues like the corporation cannot change its name; it cannot amalgamate with one or more other bodies. I could go on at length, but I am sure the member can take the time to look at Sections 10 and 11.

When it came to the annual meeting in 1997, the special share separate class only voted on one issue. That was the issue that I have already outlined in terms of both the election and the nomination of the four directors that I have read into the record. It was not entitled to vote separately on any of the other issues that were before the annual meeting at that particular point in time.

Mr. Ashton: Why is it this minister, who only a few days ago was trying to suggest that the only thing that was happening at that meeting was limited in terms of the appointment of the four members, why is he now admitting that indeed Jules Benson was present, represented the government as a voting share? Will he now admit the truth, that the former president of the Conservative Party, his right-hand person, was there, a close associate of Tom Stefanson, that indeed Jules Benson was very much a part of making his brother a millionaire through the stock option program?

Mr. Ashton: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I indeed should have said that Jules Benson was the treasurer of the Conservative Party, not the president, and I would like to correct that on the record.

* (1355)

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson did not have a point of order.

I think it is very important that everybody in this House understand what the provisions of the special share do allow for. They allow us to nominate and elect four directors to MTS. We have done just that and I have named the individuals. They allow us in instances outlined in Sections 10 and 11 of The MTS Reorganization Act to vote independent of the common shareholders as a separate class but only in those instances. I encourage the member and his colleagues to read where those instances apply, and I have already indicated at the 1997 annual meeting those instances only applied in one case and that was the nomination and election of directors. The third element that it allows us to do is to have one vote along with the 70 million other shares towards all of the operational issues. So we can have one vote out of 70 million shares.

We chose when it came to operational issues not to exercise that vote because they should be decided by the common shareholders, by the people who invested in the company. I want to tell the member for Thompson that, when it came to the ratification of the stock option plan, 93.7 percent of the people who invested in MTS, the common shareholders, voted in support of that plan. Those are the facts, and that is what happened.

Mr. Ashton: Since the minister is now trying to untangle the tangled web that he has been weaving, will he now confirm that last week he denied and yesterday denied the presence of anyone on behalf of the government, that today he is confirming that Jules Benson was there, Jules Benson was voting, indeed that he has not been telling the truth to this Legislature for the last week?

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, the only tangled web is in the mind of the member for Thompson. I did not put any incorrect information on the record, and I certainly did not lie to this Chamber. I have taken the steps to provide additional information today, to provide a copy of the proxy that outlines very clearly who the two individuals were, the one that is directly appointed and the one that is the alternate to represent the province.

I am trying to explain to these members where that special share, that separate class, has certain provisions. They do not seem to understand that. I am certainly prepared to answer as many questions as they have to ask to try to help them understand where it applies, where it does not apply. But at the end of the day when it came to the vote for the stock option plan that they are asking about, the people who invested, the common shareholders, 93.7 of those who voted, voted in favour of that stock option plan, and we, under our special share as a separate class, were not entitled to vote separately on that issue. Those are the facts.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, on the weekend, both I and the minister were contacted by a family whose son required an MRI on an emergency basis over the weekend and was unable to obtain an MRI over the weekend. We raised the issue of the MRI shortages for years. We raised it in the fall; we raised it in January. The minister said he was going to do something about it. We see that we have the same amount of MRIs as not even Latin American countries. How is it that a child who required a potentially lifesaving MRI could not get it on the weekend in the city of Winnipeg?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I am not sure if the member--[interjection] Well, the member is referencing a matter. I know I was home; I was working on my house. I did not speak to the family particularly this weekend. I am not doubting that they spoke to the member for Kildonan. I would have liked an opportunity to get the specific information to be answering the member's question. As the member knows, this was a holiday weekend. There are things that happen in the system. I would like the opportunity to investigate it.

* (1400)

Mr. Chomiak: Can the minister, when he gets the opportunity to investigate, explain to the people of Manitoba how it is that we have one of the lowest ratios of MRIs in the country and that last weekend, Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday, the MRI at St. Boniface was not operating, not available to Manitoba residents and that, for lack of staff, that is the reason why the MRI was not operating? Is that not unacceptable after year after year after year of Tory so-called health reform in this province?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the opportunity to investigate the particular matter. This is not an issue of which I am personally aware at this point. As the member may know, the MRI, the one that is currently operating in the province, is operated by, I believe, the St. Boniface Research Foundation. I am not sure what arrangements are made in terms of having that available, and I will endeavour to check into that because I agree with the member it is an important service. I am not sure what the specific difficulty was. It is the first time that I have heard of this particular problem, and I will endeavour to investigate it because the member is right. If there is an emergency situation in which that is required, it should be available, and we will want to make sure that it is in future.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): My final supplementary on a related question: is it now government policy that the reason we have long waiting lists and people in the hallways is because that is what people want? I am quoting from the comments of the member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck), who said: I checked this out the other day. Three people lying in a hospital; they all indicated they wanted to be there. And I am visiting and a nurse comes out and says would they like to go back to their rooms as of yet and they said: no, we like it here; we like the activity that is in the hallway. Is that now government policy that in fact people want to be in the hallway because they enjoy it?

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, you often remind us about the guidelines that we have laid down for the conduct of the putting of questions as well as the putting of answers in this House. The honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) is always reminding us about the rules about how we are supposed to answer questions, but the honourable member for Kildonan knows the rules. He gets to ask questions in this House on almost a daily basis, and he knows that a supplementary question ought to be a question and not some rambling dissertation complete with quotations from Hansard and so on. He knows that; his seatmate, the member for Thompson, knows that. Yet the rules are better known for their breach than their observance around here, especially on that side of the House.

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

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On the same point of order, Madam Speaker, I am not quite sure what the government House leader was referencing, because our critic did ask about some specific statements made in the House by the member. In fact, the member went on to say that it would make a very beautiful picture out there of people lying in the hallway. I was quite surprised when I heard the comments, and I think it is fairly appropriate for our Health critic to ask if this in any way is either the personal view of the member or this is in some way some new policy on behalf of the government that people lying in hallways is actually a good thing.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable government House leader, I would remind the honourable member for Kildonan that indeed a final supplementary question should consist of a single question.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I would be delighted to respond to the member for Kildonan, because I think again he has taken the statement of the member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck) out of context absolutely, totally. The member for Pembina spoke to me about this matter privately and pointed out that, upon visiting a relative in a particular Winnipeg hospital where those individuals were in single rooms, during part of the day they had asked and were moved out to the hallway so they could be with other people. His comment was how easy it could be--because he visited those people during that time--for a reporter to walk in, take a picture and make a case. That is absolutely true. The member has not denied nor do we deny that we had problems in the hospital system this winter, but to take the member's comments out of statement does a disservice to anyone who respects fact and truth.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for Lotteries.

There was a Gaming Commission report that came down, and one of the recommendations was that municipalities should be allowed through some form of referendum possibly to determine whether or not they want VLTs in their municipalities. Given that we have municipal elections coming up this year, this fall, is the government prepared to go on record as to whether or not they will support municipalities that want to have referendums in their local communities?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Lotteries Corporation Act): Madam Speaker, the member for Inkster references a report done by the Lottery Policy Review Committee chaired by Mr. Larry Desjardins. Some 14 Manitobans from a good cross-section of our communities represented on that committee made a number of recommendations and, as he knows, we have implemented a number of those recommendations. One of them did refer very specifically to the whole issue of referendums. As well, one of them was also the establishment of an independent Gaming Control Commission.

We have established that Gaming Control Commission, and one of the first items referred to them was this whole issue of a referendum, to do the necessary research, to see what is happening in other jurisdictions, to have discussion with individuals and communities affected, municipal organizations and so on. I believe that process is currently underway.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, will the Minister of Finance then indicate very clearly to municipalities that are looking at having potential for a referendum of this issue that the government would indeed respect the results of the referendum?

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, I think our first step should be to wait for the report from the Gaming Control Commission. They are having the consultations and discussions with individuals, communities, organizations. They are doing the research, and we should see very specifically what that report ultimately recommends.

As we have indicated to this House, one of the responsibilities of that committee is to provide research, to provide advice to this government, and we will certainly take that issue very seriously. We recognize the concerns being raised about potentially holding some referendums, and there is a need to get on with addressing that issue. We certainly are prepared to do that as a government, and we are encouraging the Gaming Control Commission to move that issue along.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, will the Minister of Finance acknowledge the need for the government to be very clear on a very simple question of: will the government respect communities that decide through referendum that they do not want to have VLTs in those communities?

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, we certainly have a great deal of respect for people elected at all levels of government, whether it is municipal or school divisions or whatever, but again, I think the first step should be to wait till we get the report and the recommendations from the Gaming Control Commission. We recognize, for some of the reasons that the member mentions, there are municipal elections coming up in the fall. There are some reasons that that issue should be moved along. I believe that the Gaming Control Commission, while they have many other issues to address, are certainly addressing this issue in a very responsible fashion, and we await the report from that commission.

Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, the annual minimum wage in Manitoba is $11,200. A single parent on social assistance with two children lives on $11,700. The Manitoba crafts guild struggles on $18,000, yet the Minister of Culture (Mrs. Vodrey) and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey) spent a whopping $41,500 of taxpayers' money for their Winnipeg Ballet junket to London last October.

An Honourable Member: $40,000?

Ms. McGifford: $41,500. I would like to ask the Minister of Culture the question she failed to answer last December and ask her: how many other Tory MLAs, ministers and staff members attended the ballet in London, and who are they? In addition to the Premier (Mr. Filmon), of course; we know he was there.

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Madam Speaker, the last time this was raised in the Legislature I was very happy to talk to the member about some of the work that was undertaken when I attended in both England and Scotland and had meetings with the Canadian High Commissioner, and it was in fact a very productive opportunity. I have in fact answered her in writing as well, but I attended and the deputy minister attended a performance of the ballet in London and also in Edinburgh.

* (1410)

Ms. McGifford: Madam Speaker, since the minister did not answer the first question, maybe she could answer the second one she failed to answer last December. I would like to ask the minister--since we know $41,500 does not include, for example, the Premier's expenses and presumably does not include those of other government members--if she has any idea of the total bill to the taxpayers incurred by her government last October in London.

Mrs. Vodrey: I have provided for the member information regarding expenses as Minister of Culture and also expenses which were required by my deputy minister. I am very happy to tell the member that, in addition to support to the Royal Winnipeg Ballet by attending a performance, which in fact is I believe a very important role for Manitoba, as well I was very happy to do other work while there: meetings with the Canadian High Commissioner, meetings with the London and Scotland arts boards, meetings with the London Film Commission, a meeting with the United Kingdom's Minister of State responsible for film and to do a great deal of work in that time period on behalf of culture, heritage, citizenship and immigration for the people of Manitoba.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): To the Minister of Justice, Madam Speaker. On April 3 there was a sentencing hearing in the Queen's Bench regarding a gang slaying. It was a manslaughter conviction of Andrew Ward Paupanekis where the judge, we understand, reduced the jail term down to four years by an amount of two years based on the offender's word that he had renounced his gang affiliation, evidence that today is challenged by the gang co-ordinator himself from Stony Mountain and a sergeant of the homicide unit. My question to the minister is: since the minister likes to point fingers at the police, at judges, the federal government, who will he point fingers at for this matter, or will he take some responsibility for the outcome in this case?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I am quite aware of the case. It was reported in the news media. I am advised by my deputy that our department is undertaking an appeal of that particular case.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Will the minister then answer this question? Will he not admit that he has no policy or direction in place for the specialized, vigorous and aggressive prosecution of serious gang crimes, as evidenced by the fact that even when asked, his department at the trial never challenged the word of the offender, never challenged the principle underlying the reduction of the sentence, had no information about the accused and his gang affiliation, never made inquiries since 1996, never telephoned the gang co-ordinator, never asked for an adjournment and never asked for a presentence report. When will they get serious about gangs, Madam Speaker?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, the member for St. Johns is a member who has misrepresented the Crown attorneys' positions on a number of occasions. Indeed, the Crown attorneys' union had to write a letter and a news release asking him to clarify and to ask him to quit misrepresenting their positions.

You know, I have great faith in those Crown attorneys. I know the particular Crown attorney, a Crown attorney of over 30 years. He is a very senior Crown attorney. I have a high respect for that Crown attorney, and these people make decisions in the course of their presentations to the court.

Whatever that Crown attorney did will be reviewed by the Court of Appeal, and I will review any results at that point. But I do not think it is appropriate to comment on this matter before the Court of Appeal hears it.

Mr. Mackintosh: A point of order, Madam Speaker. Since justice begins with truth and honesty in the minister's office, I ask the minister, and I give him this opportunity to put it on the record, that at no time had any Crown attorney or association ever said I misrepresented any position of them. In fact, is this the same association that tells me that they find observations and suggestions from me to be valuable?

Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Justice, on the same point of order.

Mr. Toews: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker. I can point to the exact news releases that they have made where this member has misrepresented their position, who has damaged, damaged the professional status of these Crown attorneys who dedicate their professional career to serving the people of Manitoba, and for him to make such a trite statement is disgusting.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for St. Johns did not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts.

Mr. Mackintosh: I ask then the minister, rather than trying to deal with his thin skin, deal with the issues that Manitobans are having to deal with. Would he now put in place a policy--and we are not talking about individual Crown attorneys. We are talking about support, direction, protocol from this government for the prosecutors. Will he put in place a position for the prosecutors for specialized, aggressive, vigorous prosecutions, so these kinds of outcomes do not have to be suffered by Manitobans?

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, I want to say that my predecessor, the member for Fort Garry (Mrs. Vodrey), in fact implemented that program, and the Crown attorneys have been following that policy direction in every case where it is applicable. I have great confidence in what those Crown attorneys are doing, and I believe that the results of what they are doing, assisted by the policies of my predecessors in these areas, have been a tremendous benefit.

You know, if there are issues of resources, we look at them; we address them. We are concerned not just about our Crown attorneys but indeed our police forces. I think our Crown attorneys and our police forces have been working together very, very well in ensuring that Manitoba is a safe place to live and work.

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, the Minister of Education has repeatedly broken election promises to provide fee policies for Manitoba students. Secondly, she has been part of a government which has allowed tuition fees to rise by 10 percent, 15 percent, 20 percent and on into the millennium, and finally she is part of a government which has pursued a deliberate low-wage strategy for 10 years.

I would like to ask the minister to confirm that the result of these combined policies is that in 1988 when this government came into office a first-year student needed 11 weeks of full-time work at minimum wage. Ten years later that same student needs to find 19 weeks of full-time work at minimum wage just to pay the tuition, Madam Speaker.

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, my goodness, there were so many points raised in that question I do not know where to begin, but I will begin with the first point.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Education and Training, to complete her response.

Mrs. McIntosh: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I shall attempt to take the points point by point as I recall them arising. I should indicate, first of all, in terms of tuition fees, that colleges in Manitoba have the second-lowest tuition fees in the country. In fact, in five years--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Wolseley, on a point of order.

Ms. Friesen: Madam Speaker, the question had one point. In 1988, it took 11 weeks of work to pay your fees; 10 years later, it takes 19 weeks. May I simplify the question for the minister. That is the question: 11 weeks versus 19 weeks, 10 years of Tory policy. Could she now answer that question?

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Wolseley did not have a point of order. She was clarifying the question asked.

* (1420)

It is fortunate in Manitoba that during our era there are plenty of jobs for students, and I can take the question as notice because I do not know the weeks that she is referring to. I do not know that they are correct because often the information presented in the preamble is not correct. I will check it out and get back with a response to her.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. Time for Oral Questions has expired.