Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, when parents default on maintenance payments, their children become their victims; hence, Manitoba has a Maintenance Enforcement office intended to enforce collection and protect our children. Yet, sadly, this provincial Maintenance Enforcement office is failing to deliver support and protection to our children.

I would like to ask the Minister of Justice today then to explain how he can justify to Manitobans a whopping total of $40.2 million in maintenance arrears from 1991 to 1997 or a miserable 51.8 percent collection rate. Manitoba children are–

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.

* (1005)

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I certainly am aware of the efforts of my staff to assist people who have maintenance orders to collect those orders. We, as a government, over the past number of years have brought in consistently more programs and enforcement mechanisms to ensure that if money is available, those monies will be secured to the deserving spouse. If the member has any specific issue on any specific case where she feels that the staff has not been utilizing the full legislative tools available to them, I would certainly be pleased to discuss each and every one of those cases.

Ms. McGifford: Madam Speaker, my concern, of course, is with the policy of this government.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member, with a supplementary question, please.

Ms. McGifford: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice to justify and explain to us an 86 percent increase in arrears from '91 to '96 as opposed to a 63 percent increase in collections, and this is despite the so-called tough '95 legislation.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The question was put.

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, I know that on a regular and consistent basis our staff has asked for additional resources and also legislative tools to assist in the collection of these outstanding payments. As you know, the issue of collecting funds from some spouses is extremely difficult, and that is why the maintenance enforcement system was strengthened by this government on a number of cases in order to ensure that, where money is available and where people are deliberately avoiding their legal responsibilities, our staff have the tools to ensure that they can collect it. If there is no money available or if people are deliberately hiding assets, that does make it much more difficult to fulfill the responsibilities that my staff have. But, as indicated, if there is a specific issue with a specific case, I am prepared to address that.

Ms. McGifford: I would like to ask this minister why his government is not able to achieve the 75 percent collection rate that has been achieved in B.C. Where is the leadership; where is the policy? What is going on?

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, without accepting any of the preamble by the member, I do want to–

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, I think the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) has a question to ask me.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): I have a question for him, Madam Speaker. Would this minister who believes–

Madam Speaker: Order, please. One person at a time to pose a question, please. The honourable member for St. Johns was recognized to pose a question, and I am having difficulty hearing him.

* (1010)

Mr. Mackintosh: This government, Madam Speaker, is failing to collect about half of what is owing to children. Its arrears have doubled almost since 1991, and a record amount, now I understand about $40 million, is owing. So families are often forced into poverty, onto welfare, and then only to deal with the infamous brick wall of this government's maintenance enforcement office.

I ask the minister: how can the government and he be so callous and negligent as to be content with a program where you can rarely get through by phone; when you do, you cannot speak to your worker and then will not return phone calls for weeks upon weeks?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): It has been this government that has been a leader in terms of the establishment of a Maintenance Enforcement Program and bringing in new mechanisms to ensure that people pay their maintenance enforcement.

We will continue to enhance that program and to ensure that the appropriate resources are there. But, as indicated in my answer to the other member from the opposition, where there are cases where there are no monies to be had, it is difficult to obtain those monies. We do in fact make every effort, through a variety of mechanisms, to ensure that where monies are available, those monies are in fact collected by the government on behalf of the individuals who have an order in their favour.

Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister explain to the desperate single mothers who call day after day and who talk about how they are unable to pay utilities or their rent–a woman last week unable to pay for her daughter's bus tickets–why he is content with this program that even when you do talk to your worker, there are very serious enforcement delays? Would he explain that to them, please?

Mr. Toews: I do know that, from time to time, the member for St. Johns writes to me in respect of specific cases. I pass those letters on to the specific enforcement workers to ensure that all appropriate steps are taken in order to address these concerns.

If there is a specific case where the member feels that this has not been done, I would appreciate him bringing this to my attention. Again, as indicated, our government has been a leader in terms of the enhancement of resources, of bringing in programs to enforce maintenance orders.

We are very concerned that people carry out their legal obligations to their spouses on the termination of the marriage, or otherwise, to ensure that both the spouse and the children receive the monies that they are entitled to.

Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): In 1994, concerns were raised with the Minister of Agriculture and subsequently brought to the attention of the Ombudsman that there were violations regarding Crown lands lease policy use by an Interlake leaseholder. The minister assured the complainant by letter–and I would like to table the letter–that the leaseholder would be held accountable.

Will the minister explain why his department did nothing when the leaseholder continued to violate the policy for two years further after the complaint and after the minister's assurance to the complainant?

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): The issue of the leasing of Crown lands from time to time has a number of situations develop that call into question judgment calls by the advisory board that deals with Crown land leases. There are a number of occasions where disputes arise with respect to the usage of Crown lands. The department tries and accepts a fair amount of leniency in the interpretation of the rules because situations do change. Farmers, cattle people, have from time to time not always a sufficient number of cattle on their Crown lands that they occupy, but these situations are looked at by the Crown Lands board.

* (1015)

Mr. C. Evans: I want to ask the minister: given that an investigation by the Ombudsman showed that the leaseholder was in violation of the Crown lands policy, a policy that the minister himself signed, when it comes to cattle being used, why did he take no action and in fact allowed the leaseholder to then buy and sell the land for his own benefit two years after saying that the leaseholder will continue to do what is necessary? Why?

Mr. Enns: A policy that I am very proud of, that my colleague the former Minister of Industry and Trade is very proud of, introduced in the Sterling Lyon government, that enabled Manitobans to own land in the North and throughout Manitoba. It is an active policy of my government because we believe in private land ownership, and this particular lessor, now that there has been a bit more detail, who had cleared a lot of his land, spent a lot of sweat equity, cleared, spent days, months of clearing stones off his land, was allowed to purchase his land, Madam Speaker.

Mr. C. Evans: Madam Speaker, when the Ombudsman's findings shown in his letter to the complainant that there were violations regarding the lease, and given cabinet approved the sale, how can the minister justify his decision against the Ombudsman's charge that, and I quote, the sale "on the basis that the applicant was eligible under Agriculture Crown Land policy was wrong"? How can he justify the sale? I will table the Ombudsman's letter.

Mr. Enns: Madam Speaker, my Department of Agriculture, as I am sure most departments of government, in most instances accept or try to correct or review their policies when so advised by the Ombudsman. Certainly, the Department of Agriculture, if reviewed over a longer period of time its track record, we, in many instances, accept an Ombudsman's report, but not in all instances.

I have many instances where farmers, who have a dispute with Manitoba Crop Insurance Corporation because of an assessment of crop damage, are not happy with the assessment, will go to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman from time to time makes a ruling, but we do not accept the Ombudsman's ruling in every instance, not at all.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): It is interesting because this matter, Madam Speaker, involves guess who? You know that rogue Tory that members opposite do not seem to know, all except for the Minister of Agriculture who vacations with him, the person who was involved in getting the Cross Lake liquor licence that is now in court and one of the people cited as violating our election laws and one of the liars in the Monnin report. It is Cubby Barrett who ended up buying the land six months after it was flipped.

I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture, who is indeed a close personal friend of Mr. Barrett, if he can explain why he allowed the original leaseholder to purchase the land when the Ombudsman's report indicated that he was in violation of his lease. Is it just a coincidence that Mr. Barrett purchased the land within six months, Madam Speaker, after that land was flipped?

* (1020)

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Speaker, it has been a long-standing policy of this government to allow users of Crown lands to purchase the same Crown lands. In reviewing the situation of the original lessee of these Crown lands, in my judgment and the judgment of my department officials, he qualified for such a purchase.

Mr. Ashton: Well, I would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon), Madam Speaker, who by the way signed the Order-in-Council which transferred the land, whether the Premier will explain whether it was indeed just a coincidence that Mr. Barrett ended up purchasing this land within months after the individual who had the lease was in violation of the lease according to the Ombudsman. Will he indicate that once again this is another example of Mr. Barrett receiving favouritism and treatment from this government that no other Manitoban would get, that he only got because of his Tory connections?

Mr. Enns: Madam Speaker, the land was not sold to Mr. Barrett. The government sold the Crown land to a lessor who had held that Crown land for some 25 years, 30 years, who had put a lot of sweat equity into developing that land, removed rocks and stones and built fences around that land. That is the person that the land was sold to. Subsequent action on the owner of that land surely cannot be held accountable by anybody in this government.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Ashton: My final supplementary: once again, it is the Premier (Mr. Filmon), who signed this Order-in-Council, and I want to ask the Premier if Mr. Barrett used his political connections, that whether the Premier even–

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, as we have been listening to the exchanges back and forth, the members opposite are trying to imply that there is an Order-in-Council in which Crown land was sold to a Mr. Cubby Barrett. We have heard the Minister of Agriculture clearly indicate that that is not the case. Surely, to misrepresent the facts in such a way, to twist them, to imply to members of the media and the public that there was a sale of Crown land to an individual that did not in fact occur, surely to goodness must offend the rules of this House.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I did not hear what the honourable government House leader's point of order was. I heard an explanation regarding same. For clarification, I wonder if I might ask that the honourable government–

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, the member is coming to this House with information and making the implication by the questions that he is asking that there was an Order-in-Council issued by this government in selling land to Mr. Cubby Barrett. I would ask him to please provide the name of the person who has actually received the land, because it is not Mr. Cubby Barrett. By implication, the member I believe is misleading this House.

Mr. Ashton: On the same point of order. It is obvious that the government House leader was not listening, because if he would have cared to listen to the questions that we put forth, Mr. Malkowich received the land that was flipped within months to Mr. Barrett.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Ashton: The purchase of the land was not, Madam Speaker–

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Ashton: Further on the point, Madam Speaker–

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

* (1025)

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On a new point of order?

Mr. Ashton: Further, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: No. Each member is allowed to speak once to a single point of order. I have not dealt with the initial point of order.

On the point of order raised by the honourable government House leader, with the greatest respect, there was no point of order. It was clearly a dispute over the facts.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson, to pose his final supplementary question.

Mr. Ashton: My final supplementary, once again to the Premier. Given the clear fact, Madam Speaker, this was not an appropriate purchase to begin with, I would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon) what investigation he did of the Minister of Agriculture's, I would say, direct conflict of interest with a personal friend, who within months–

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would like to remind–

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would like to remind the honourable member for Thompson that a supplementary question is to consist of a single sentence framing a question. This is not a time for debate.

Mr. Enns: Madam Speaker, shades of Joe McCarthy.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Enns: Shades of Joe McCarthy.

Madam Speaker, as I indicated in my first answer, there is often a competition and a dispute surrounding the acquisition and the use of Crown lands; that is why we have a Crown Lands advisory board.

The former NDP Minister of Agriculture's friend, Mr. Bill Uruski's neighbour, wanted, coveted this particular piece of land that this Mr. Malkowich had as a lessor for some 25 to 30 years. He came to me on one occasion and asked to be able to have the permission to purchase the land, and I allowed that and recommended that it should happen.

I did not deal with Mr. Barrett. I did not know of Mr. Barrett's interest in this land at the time.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, over the past 10 years, we have seen a growing reliance of funding public education on our property tax. The government has assisted greatly in seeing property tax increases over the years. Then they formed the Lower Tax Commission in which already it is somewhat biased in the sense you have the former Minister of Finance, Clayton Manness, now outright virtually indicating that property tax is not necessarily a high priority.

My question to the Minister of Finance is: can we give this new tax reduction committee any credibility towards reducing or providing any form of property tax relief in the future?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, given that the member opposite has put a number of things on the record that are not accurate–I was at the news conference and heard the various comments made; he was not, so he might be perhaps misled by just taking things out of context.

I firstly make the point that we as a government for the past 11 years have not added to the property tax load in terms of the ESL. It has not increased, unlike the days when the New Democrats were in office and they increased the ESL, the Education Support Levy, massively during their period of time. We have not increased that portion of the property tax.

I would also say that Mr. Manness is one of three individuals on the commission. He has a responsibility to include as part of their deliberations all the various forms of taxation in which the province is involved, and that is clearly stated out in his terms of reference. He indicated that although he had a bias towards tax credits. The fact of the matter is that the commission would look at all of those issues. That is part of their mandate in bringing a report back to government.

* (1030)

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I wonder how the Premier can justify–and the question to the Premier is: how can, on one hand, the Premier say that he is not responsible for property tax increases when in fact they clawed back the property tax, and, in fact, they have been freezing and decreasing the funding to public education? Does he not realize that did have an impact on the property tax people are paying today?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): The member opposite should know this, that in terms of the proportion of support for education financing that comes from general revenues, there has been very little change. In the time that the New Democrats were in government, it went from 54 percent to 52 percent over a period of just about seven years, and since then it has gone from 52 percent to 49 percent. So it remains approximately 50 percent coming from general revenues. That has not changed dramatically during the period of time that we have been in office.

Mr. Lamoureux: I ask the Premier: what has changed since the days when he was in opposition and his party argued that the funding of public education should be coming through general revenues, up to 80 percent? Why do we see no movement toward alleviating the property tax issues onto general revenues for financing of public education?

Mr. Filmon: Actually the commitment was provincial revenues which included ESL. As I indicated earlier, the way in which the New Democrats dealt with it was that they increased the ESL substantially, massively, over the period of time they were in office. So they in fact implemented greater reliance on property taxes.

That is not the issue. We are talking about the difference between the money that comes out of general revenues. As I said, over a period of the last 18 years or so it has changed not a great deal from 54 percent to 49 percent. But the one thing that the member opposite should be aware of, along with his party, as they develop their proposals, is that the money has to come from somewhere to support education. The real issue is that if you are going to say that you are going to take it off certain areas such as the property tax then you have to say where you are going to put it on because the money has to come from somewhere.

So if it is the Liberal position that you are going to increase the sales tax or increase personal income taxes or so on, then tell us that. Do not just try and create the impression that you are going to somehow magically create a better situation by taking it off the property tax. You know that you have to put it somewhere else because otherwise tell the people in education that you are going to cut their funding, because that is precisely what you are leading towards.

Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): I have a question for the Minister of Health, and advise him I was studying the accounts in the Brandon General Hospital and noted that the base funding for the Brandon General Hospital was around approximately $45 million back in 1990-91, in the early period of this government. Today it is about a million dollars less in current dollars. But when we take inflation into account, the hospital today should be receiving at least $54 million, or $9 million more than it did back around 1990-91 just to maintain the level of services.

My question to the minister is: how can the Brandon General Hospital possibly offer the same level, the same quality of services today as it did nine years ago when it is short at least $9 million, maybe $10 million of what it was at that time?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Health): First of all, without necessarily accepting any of the numbers from the member for Brandon East, he will note that this year we have significantly increased funding for all of the regional health authorities. An announcement was made a couple of months ago, and certainly part of that was the Brandon Hospital, Brandon Regional Health Authority. I have had contact with the board, with the management there, and they are certainly very pleased with the increase in operating funds being provided to them to meet their needs, as well as the significant capital commitments that have been made to Brandon, and particularly the Brandon General Hospital, in the many millions of dollars to improve those facilities.

Certainly we made a very significant commitment in terms of the operating dollars for the Brandon Hospital, the Brandon Regional Health Authority and for their capital dollars.

Mr. L. Evans: Thank goodness for elections, Madam Speaker.

Will this minister acknowledge that, because of the steady cut in funding year by year over this past decade, the number of beds have been reduced, the number of nurses? The nursing staff has been cut to the point where the level of quality care has deteriorated in spite of the best efforts of the staff, including nurses who have been overworked and underpaid.

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, I will acknowledge no such thing. In fact, the feedback I get is that Manitobans are certainly satisfied with the quality of care they get in our hospitals, they get in our health care facilities. That is very much a compliment to the people that provide those services in our heath care facilities: our nurses, our doctors, our health care supporters, and so on. So, certainly, we have a lot to be proud of in Manitoba in terms of our quality of care. Certainly, Canada as a nation has a lot to be proud of in terms of the overall health care system that we have in place in our country.

Mr. L. Evans: Madam Speaker, he should sit down with some of the senior people–

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Brandon East, to pose a final supplementary question.

Mr. L. Evans: How is the Brandon General Hospital, which is called a regional health facility, expected to fulfill its role as a true regional hospital when it has been starved of funds for nearly a decade, when it has experienced staff layoffs, a shortage of specialist doctors, had to cope with inadequate equipment and a physical structure that has been allowed to deteriorate? How is that facility supposed to be able to be an important and effective regional health centre when it has been denied adequate funding for the past 10 years?

Mr. Stefanson: Well, Madam Speaker, I encourage the member for Brandon East to look at some of the information that has been provided over the last few months relative to the Brandon regional health centre. He will see that operating funding has been enhanced, has been increased to allow them to continue to provide more services. If he looks right across our health care system, he will see that we are doing more and more services for the public in all kinds of areas in terms of the services that are being provided.

When he talks about the capital side of the facility, Madam Speaker, the Brandon regional health centre is receiving almost $15 million for the redevelopment of their energy centre. The Brandon regional health centre is receiving $38 million for the whole clinical services and building services that are being redeveloped. The Brandon regional health centre is receiving $5 million for a whole number of changes relative to obstetrics and other neonatal intensive services. That alone, right there, is some $60 million in capital improvements for the Brandon regional health centre being made by this government. That shows our commitment to that very important facility.

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Madam Speaker, in the throne speech, in the Budget Address, in press releases and in Question Period, the government has talked about the Take Back the Streets Initiative which will create neighbourhood renewal committees.

I would like to ask the Minister of Urban Affairs today: where are the financial resources, where is the line in either the Urban Affairs budget or any other government department that puts financial resources into the Take Back the Streets Initiative?

Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Urban Affairs): Madam Speaker, one of the things that my honourable colleague across the way always asks regarding the finances is where funding is always going to come from. One of the things that we have indicated in the throne speech with the Take Back the Streets program is not only our commitment to try to get a better understanding of where we can make changes within the city of Winnipeg, working in co-operation with the City of Winnipeg but also looking at the tremendous assets that are within the communities there for the groups and the organizations that we can work with.

These are some of the plans that we are in the process of developing and working with the city, working with the groups that possibly have the wherewithal, the knowledge and the experience that we can tap into, and the availability of looking at the possible catalyst funds or supplementary funding to build upon these resources out in the community. It is not necessarily that it is going to be totally a government direction because we feel that working within the community, working with the community, that is where the results come about. That is where the tangible changes come up. That is where people take the sense of community, get involved and make changes.

Ms. Barrett: Madam Speaker, I would like the minister to confirm then that what we have suspected and the people in the city of Winnipeg have suspected all along is that there are no financial resources for this initiative, that it is an announcement, a reannouncement and another reannouncement of another empty statement by this provincial government. There is no money to help the city of Winnipeg in this Take Back the Streets Initiative. Is that not correct?

Mr. Reimer: Madam Speaker, it is absolutely astounding how the member across the way can say that we do not have a financial commitment to the City of Winnipeg, working with the City of Winnipeg in trying to resolve not only some of their infrastructure problems but the social problems–

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Ms. Barrett: Yes, Madam Speaker, Beauchesne 417 states that the minister must answer the question that was posed. The question was posed: is there a financial resource allocation for the Take Back the Streets Initiative? Simple.

* (1040)

Madam Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Wellington, I would remind the honourable minister to respond to the question asked.

Mr. Reimer: Madam Speaker, in trying to answer the question from the member for Wellington, her questions are so preambled and in various areas that I feel that it is worth trying to address in totality the amount of questions that she has, because a lot of times they are all over. I would like to zero in on where she is asking questions.

Madam Speaker, there are tremendous resources, like we say, that I have mentioned before in the community: the assets, the groups that are there that we will be working with and looking at and assessing. The funding that will flow from those comes through the consultation with the groups.

Madam Speaker, the member there would like to see us put a dollar amount on it, and then say well, that was not spent or we should be spending more in certain areas. We feel that we can get results best by looking at the asset, working with the community, find out where there is need for possible funding and where the allocation should come from. We are talking about a program that we feel can work very, very successfully in the cities and the various communities, but it would require their input coming back to the government, and we will be working with them.

Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Madam Speaker, this week the Mining Board convened a hearing to deal with claims of claim jumping and other breaches of The Mining Act when related to claim staking.

I ask the Minister of Energy and Mines if he will conduct a review of the mining review board process, including the investigative process and who takes the lead in that process. Costs: who incurs the costs of bringing in witnesses with the view of making the process fairer and comparable to other government review boards?

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I remind the honourable member for St. James that it is to be a single question, not a multiple-part question.

Hon. David Newman (Minister of Energy and Mines): Madam Speaker, I have not yet received the reasons for decision of the Mining Board in that particular case. I will, of course, review it with interest, and if there is anything arising out of that decision which would suggest the changes should be made to better the work of the departmental staff, we will of course honour those kinds of suggestions. That is the purpose of that hearing process.

Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Madam Speaker, will the minister commit now to making it a high priority to immediately hire claims inspectors who will supervise and check claims, both in the eastern part of Manitoba and in northern Manitoba? Manitoba still has no claims inspectors.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.

Hon. David Newman (Minister of Energy and Mines): Madam Speaker, I will not take that as a job application from the honourable member for St. James. However, the–

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Newman: The fact is, Madam Speaker, as I responded earlier to questions by the honourable member for St. James, there is a process of hiring of people to fill those positions. In the meantime, there is a contract for services that has been entered into with a well-known and experienced person in the mining industry who is performing inspector functions for the department.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister charged with the administration of the Manitoba Lotteries Corporation Act): Madam Speaker, yesterday I indicated, in response to a question from the member for St. James, that I would take it as notice and get back to the House. The question she brought to this Chamber was regarding the removal of trees.

I report today to the House that 24 Schubert chokecherry trees were removed from the boulevard at McPhillips Street Station casino. These trees had been killed by the excessive salt put on the roads by the City of Winnipeg during the winter, necessitating their removal. The lights on the trees were removed and are currently stored at McPhillips Street Station until such time as the contractor, Forester Landscaping, has planted the replacement trees. There will be 24 green ash trees planted to replace the Schubert chokecherry trees. I am sure the member could have discovered this herself with a phone call over to the corporation.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

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

Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Pardon me, Madam Speaker, I will go for a question, please.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for St. James, with a new question.

Ms. Mihychuk: Will the minister examine the tree specimens that we have in our possession that are still fully dressed with the outdoor lights, and in fact the neighbours in that area–

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I believe the honourable member had asked her question.

Ms. Mihychuk: I would like to ask the minister why he is trying to mislead the House when the evidence has it exactly opposite.

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, I am shocked, shocked. Has the member opposite taken, without right, lights from the Manitoba Lotteries trees? Is this what she is admitting to the House now, that members of their caucus are taking, without right, lights that belong to a public body? This sounds like it may require investigation.

Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. Question Period has expired. We are going to move on.