Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, last year we quoted from the United Way report that talked about the unfortunate situation where children at six and seven years old were losing hope and were living in despair. We have had other reports that we have quoted in this Chamber.

Just this last week, the Social Planning Council of Winnipeg talked about 63,000 children living in poverty here in the province of Manitoba, an increase over the last number of years since this government has been in office. They talk about one in four children living in poverty in the city of Winnipeg. In fact, the rate goes up to close to 35 percent for aboriginal children in Winnipeg, and I am sure that number is very, very high in some of our remote and northern communities in the province of Manitoba.

I would like to ask this minister: why has the rate of child poverty risen under the Conservatives and under this minister's administration?

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Leader of the Opposition for that question. It does provide me with the opportunity again to indicate to all Manitobans that no level of child poverty is acceptable. We need to work very diligently to try to eradicate child poverty. That is exactly the reason that we have focused all of our initiatives on getting people into the workforce, because we recognize and realize that the best form of social security is a job and that we do not want individuals committed to a life of poverty on welfare. All of the initiatives like the national child benefit that has just been announced--and I might say that the national child benefit is an initiative that has been endorsed by the federal government and endorsed by provinces of all political stripes right across the country because they believe it will in fact reduce the depth of child poverty.

I have many, many more initiatives that are underway that I will be prepared to answer with subsequent questions.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, in the Social Planning Council Report, they talk about not only the necessity of a job, which we obviously all agree with, but also the necessity to have jobs in the province that have a living wage, and they recommend to this government or they identify the tremendous pressure on people dealing with the wages in the province of Manitoba. They recommend to this government that they in fact raise the minimum wage in the province of Manitoba.

I would like to ask this minister: in light of the fact that the last increase in the minimum wage was two years ago on January 1 of '96, has the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) recommended to her government, a government that is committed to a low-wage strategy, that they abandon the low-wage strategy that they followed and raise the minimum wage to get more families out of poverty here in Manitoba?

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Labour): Madam Speaker, this issue was brought to us yesterday by the Manitoba Federation of Labour in a meeting we had with them on a wide range of issues. We have indicated as recently as yesterday--a very productive meeting with the Manitoba Federation of Labour, and I have indicated that we will be looking at that issue.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, I am glad the minister is looking at the issue. My question was: are you recommending an increase in the minimum wage? The Social Planning Council has recommended and articulated the fact that Manitoba now has one of the lowest minimum wages in Canada. We have one of the highest child poverty rates in Canada. They are saying that there is a connection between the two. They are recommending to us, the people who are stewards of policy, that we raise the minimum wage. I would like a yes or no answer from the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson). Are you recommending to your colleagues that the minimum wage be increased in Manitoba and be increased immediately to deal with families living in poverty?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Madam Speaker, I am surprised that the Leader of the Opposition does not know that we have a process in place where a minimum wage board will take advice from all Manitobans on that issue, and that process will be followed.

* (1350)

I would like to ask the Minister of Family Services: what is her government going to do in a proactive way to address this problem, particularly for the 23 percent of children in Manitoba who are living in poverty? Instead of cutting welfare rates, instead of reducing the welfare rate for children on city assistance, what are you going to do in a positive way to have a positive impact on these terrible, negative statistics?

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Madam Speaker, I thank my honourable friend for that question. Again, it does provide me with the opportunity to talk about some of the things that our government has done, contrary to some of the things that governments of New Democratic Party persuasion across the country have done. For instance, our rates for children are among the highest in the country. When I look at the rates for children in Manitoba on welfare, they are considerably higher than those of the province of British Columbia where in the city of Vancouver they pay a rate of $103 per child. Our rates for children are $116 to $189 per month per child, significantly higher than a province that boasts a socialist government that has reduced rates for children. We have not reduced those rates.

Madam Speaker, I want to indicate that, regardless of the differences, there are many, many things that will be taking place in Manitoba as a result of the national child benefit. There certainly will be more money in the hands of working people on low incomes than there ever has been before. I think that is a significant message to all of the children and families that need support.

Mr. Martindale: I would like to ask the minister, who was quoted in the Free Press saying that the province's major goal is to get those on social assistance into the workforce, why it is that a single parent has gone into the workforce at $6 an hour and is making less money working full time than on social assistance, a difference of $235 less? Why is this government promoting low-wage jobs which pay less than social assistance?

Mrs. Mitchelson: That is an issue that is being dealt with right across the country with the national child benefit. The principles of the national child benefit are to, No. 1, reduce the depth of child poverty; No. 2, to ensure that people who are working are better off than people on welfare; and to reduce the overlap in duplication between two levels of government so more money can go into the hands of families that need our support. Those are the objectives, Madam Speaker, and that is what is going to happen when the national child benefit kicks in as of July of next year.

Madam Speaker, all of our efforts and our energies on reinvestment through the national child benefit will be to ensure that we can find attachment to the workforce for people who are presently on welfare and that those people will be better off working than on welfare.

* (1355)

Mr. Martindale: I would like to ask the minister what she and her government are going to do, other than the hollow promises of a throne speech, to address the shocking levels of child poverty in Manitoba and amongst aboriginal people in particular. I quote the report card again which says that 47 percent of all aboriginal households with children in Manitoba lived in poverty and 80 percent of all aboriginal single-parent households were poor.

What is this minister going to do to address the level of aboriginal poverty, particularly amongst children, in a positive, proactive way? What plans do you have to address this problem?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Again, I thank my honourable friend for that question because it does not matter what children are living in families that are living below the poverty line, Madam Speaker, we need to have initiatives to try to address issues right across the board. We all realize and recognize the statistics that my honourable friend has pointed out are statistics that need to be addressed. The initiatives that we will be announcing through redirection of funds from the national child benefit will address those issues.

I want to indicate that some of the employment programs that have been taking place through Taking Charge!, through the Department of Education and through the private sector are single-parent welfare caseloads at the lowest levels that they have been since 1990. We have 1,700 less single parents and general assistance people on our welfare caseloads as a result of the Employment First initiatives that we have put into place. We also know that there are 900 more single parents that are declaring some income and only having to have that income topped up by welfare than there were in the past. So indications are that we are moving in the right direction, and we will continue to place a focus on moving people off welfare and into the workforce.

Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): My questions are for the Minister of Justice. He probably has had an opportunity by now to review the court decision of yesterday in Thompson where a man was sentenced to just six years for the murder of an aboriginal woman by the name of Carol Marlene Hastings from Oxford House.

In regard to the charge of murder, why would the minister's department accept a statement that he should only receive the lesser charge because he did not have any prior convictions? I would like to ask the minister: what kind of message are we--and particularly this government--giving to the public when an aboriginal woman can be murdered, dumped in a ditch, and the minister's department strikes a deal allowing the killer to be released in less than the six years that he was given yesterday? My question is: will the minister appeal this decision?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I have been briefed in respect of that particular case, and I am advised that, on the basis of the evidence, that was the appropriate disposition of this case. That is the best legal advice that my department received and provided, and they proceeded on the basis.

Mr. Robinson: Madam Speaker, last night I had the opportunity of talking with the parents of the late Miss Hastings, the mother, Ethel Okimow, and the father, Thomas Okimow, who were no doubt very upset about the decision that was made in the courtroom yesterday in Thompson and also the lack of remorse shown on the part of this killer.

I would like to ask the minister: why did his department make a deal to accept a charge of manslaughter instead of proceeding with a more serious charge? [interjection]

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, whenever an unlawful death occurs in our province, we are concerned, and unlike the comments made by the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin), who continues to make inappropriate statements based on race, I do not--[interjection] Well, now the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett)--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

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

* (1400)

Mr. Toews: I find the kinds of comments coming from members opposite based on the race of a victim to be totally despicable, and it is a slur on the Crown attorneys who I believe are doing an excellent job in this province. They made a determination on the basis of evidence and proceeded on that basis. I find it very strange that when the Crown attorneys make decisions one way or another, whether it is a release of an accused or a conviction of the accused, there is always somebody there criticizing the Crown attorneys without knowing anything about the facts.

Mr. Robinson: Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Okimow family and other aboriginal people that have been failed by the white justice system. I would like to ask the minister how he is going to explain this to the daughters of the late Ms. Hastings, who are eight, seven, five and three years of age and also to the widower of Ms. Hastings, Mr. Hank Hastings. I would like to ask the minister why the family was not consulted prior to last Friday before this deal and this conviction made yesterday.

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, the facts that the member puts forward are incorrect. The family in this particular case lives in Oxford House, and the RCMP kept in regular contact with them. They came to Thompson specifically to meet with the Crown attorney who met with the family for over three hours. A translator was also present. They were comfortable with the manslaughter plan and the sentence range. The Crown felt their comments on the sentence should be put before the court, and he arranged for them to meet with a victim services worker on both Saturday and Sunday. A report was prepared and sent to the Crown who presented it to the court. The comments of Sara Okimow, Ethel Okimow, Thomas Okimow, Jr. and Hank Hastings were then read to the court at the sentencing, and the plea, again, as I indicated, was the appropriate one given the difficulty in proving this particular case. So I resent very much the implications that the Crown attorneys in this case did anything but their duty, and the comments regarding the racism from the other side are despicable.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): It was during the last election campaign when this government promised to make the needs and the rights of victims the top priority in the judicial system. I think those were the words used. Yet, Madam Speaker, it is under this government that the public of Manitoba has come to realize and that we are committed to and that is rebuild the justice system around the needs of victims.

Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice. In view of the needs and rights of victims and in this case the survivors of the victim, is it not true that the Crown cannot appeal this because the Crown was a party to the plea of manslaughter and to the sentence? Is it not true that in fact the Crown, the minister's department has bargained away the facts in this case, as in Bauder?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Well, Madam Speaker, these are the slimy kinds of tactics that the member for St. Johns uses--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would caution the honourable Minister of Justice to pick and choose his words carefully so as not to provoke a disruption.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Point of order, Madam Speaker. I would ask that the minister be required to withdraw those comments. The member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) has talked to the family. This is of some concern. I know my own community of Thompson--we are asking questions. I think it is only appropriate the minister not resort to the kind of language he has just used in this House, show some respect, if not for this House, for his office as Attorney General and answer some very serious questions that are being asked by people who are concerned about the way in which this case was dealt with. We are asking serious questions; we expect the same kinds of serious and direct answers.

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

Mr. Toews: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker, day in, day out the opposition brings to this House facts that are not correct and then expects the public of Manitoba to accept their word as being accurate. I have indicated what the true facts here are, that this is both an issue involving the police, the Crown attorneys who analyze the evidence in respect of the law, and after consultation with the family, that this decision was made.

These are not decisions that are made lightly, and to make disparaging comments about the quality of the service provided by our Crown attorneys is simply unacceptable, and it is for that reason I use that kind of word.

Madam Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, just prior to recognizing the honourable member for the point of order, I had indeed admonished the Minister of Justice and asked him to pick and choose his words carefully. I have checked all of the unparliamentary lists in Beauchesne. That word has not been listed, but it is not a very polite word. It is the kind of word that does indeed, as I indicated earlier, cause a disruption with the proceedings, and I think at this instance I would ask that the honourable minister withdraw the words.

Mr. Toews: I think, Madam Speaker, that is a good idea. I withdraw the word "slimy."

Madam Speaker: I thank the honourable Minister of Justice.

Mr. Mackintosh: I thank the minister. But the minister who knows of course that we on this side have high respect for the Crown attorneys--it is the government policy that we are criticizing in this province and in that regard I ask the minister: was it not the case and it is not the policy of this government that the survivors of the victim in this case had no knowledge whatsoever of the plea bargain, had no input whatsoever into the plea bargain of manslaughter nor the sentence? Would he simply answer that question?

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, as indicated, that is not the case. The family specifically met with the Crown attorney for a period of three hours. A translator was present, and the issue of the manslaughter plan and the sentence range was put before the family. Indeed, the Crown felt that their comments in respect of this were essential to the administration of justice, and therefore they were in fact put in touch with a victim services worker on both Saturday and Sunday, and a report was prepared and sent to the Crown, who did in fact present it to the court. So the comments of the member for St. Johns are completely erroneous.

Mr. Mackintosh: The minister did not hear my question, Madam Speaker. I was not talking about what happened on Friday. I am asking the minister: will he not confirm that the family had no knowledge before the bargain was entered into and no input into the bargain?

That is the question. He is leaving the victims out and the survivors, the most affected.

Mr. Toews: I know that the member for St. Johns would love to see nothing better than a political minister being involved in the prosecution of a case. That would be totally inappropriate.

What I have indicated to this House is that in fact the family were not only in touch with the Crown's office but in fact with the RCMP where they live in Oxford House.

If the member has any information that is contrary to that, he can bring it to this House specifically or he can raise it with me otherwise, but I do not think it does the administration of justice in this province any good to simply make bald accusations without any facts and then expect me to agree with that.

* (1410)

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Justice. I had an opportunity to meet an elderly lady that lived in Portage la Prairie when we were out knocking on doors, and this particular individual was sleeping during the daytime. The reason why she was sleeping during the daytime was because one of the nights earlier her house was broken into in which she was roughed up, and she was literally scared to sleep at night.

In Winnipeg alone, 5,841 homes were broken into in 1995. My question to the minister is: does he believe that because of the number of break-ins that we have marginalized the seriousness of this very serious crime?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, without eliciting an opinion from me, which I do not think is appropriate, I can say that both my department and the courts view housebreaking as a particularly serious crime. Indeed, recent sentences given out by the courts in respect of what is commonly referred to as home invasions have been quite substantial and have been imposed at the urging of the Crown attorney's office. We are continuing to ensure that that kind of proactive prosecution takes place.

The other half of the equation, of course, is the issue of community policing where we need to have our police officers working closely with the community to prevent these types of break-ins, whether they are home invasions or the more common invasions, and I use that term in an advised manner. To me, whether they involve violence or not, they are serious invasions of personal property and personal security.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the minister will acknowledge that when he says a home invasion is very serious, every residential break-in has the potential to be a home invasion and can be very serious, and the aggregate total, if you like, of time served is less than nine months for someone that is actually prosecuted with this. Does the minister believe that not only should he be getting more strict with respect to home invasions but also with home break-ins?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I certainly agree that the Crown attorney's office needs to be vigilant in ensuring that all relevant facts are brought to the attention of the courts in making the disposition. Clearly, wherever there is a threat of personal violence or the invasion of someone's personal home, that is an extremely serious matter, whether violence occurred, whether actual personal contact ever occurred. I agree with that.

I know that the Crowns on a regular basis seek substantial jail sentences and prison sentences, and I would encourage them to continue that policy. I believe that it is absolutely essential to making our communities safe.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I am not convinced that that is in fact the policy. I would ask the Minister of Justice: can he then provide for this House an average, if you like, a means average of actual time served for those individuals that are caught in break-and-enter situations? Can he do that and bring it back to the House sometime over the next week?

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, I will look to see whether that type of information is available, both in the sense of home invasions and break-ins into residential homes where there is no personal contact with the occupant and indeed other types of break-ins which may involve businesses or unoccupied buildings. I will see if those types of statistics are available and bring them forward for the member's consideration.

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Urban Affairs. Has the Speaker attended a meeting of the Urban Affairs committee of this government?

Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Urban Affairs): I do not know whether she means recently or this year or at any time. I am not too sure what the question is implying, Madam Speaker. Maybe she could rephrase the question.

Ms. Barrett: Did the Speaker of this House attend a meeting of the Urban Affairs committee of this government on November 3, 1997?

Mr. Reimer: I will have to take that as notice and check the minutes. I do not have those types of facilities in front of me. The members must recognize that the Urban Affairs committee of cabinet is open to all members of Urban Affairs. I would have to check that specific date to see who was attending.

Ms. Barrett: Has the Speaker of the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba ever attended a meeting of the Urban Affairs committee of this government while she has been Speaker of the House?

Mr. Reimer: Madam Speaker, I would have to check the records because I do not have those figures in front of me. Whether I can get back to the member on that--

An Honourable Member: Were you there?

Mr. Reimer: I was there, but if the member is asking me for specific times, I cannot remember.

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, on September 8 of this year, the Minister of Education met formally with representatives of the student societies of Brandon University and the University of Winnipeg to discuss government policy and post-secondary education.

Would the minister tell us who, apart from students, attended that meeting?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): I meet frequently with students. The September 8 meeting--I normally will have officials from the department with me; I can check to see who was at that meeting. Normally, when I meet with students from the universities, which I do frequently, I will have either the deputy or someone of that stature, at that level of the government. I can check for her to find out who was at the meeting and let her know.

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, would the minister tell us whether or not the Speaker of the Legislature attended that meeting with the students?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): The Speaker does not normally attend meetings with students, although from time to time students will ask to meet with members of the Legislative Assembly, and I will extend invitations to those members. Again--I believe the member said September, some time in September--and I will check to see. There was a meeting that I had with students that I invited all members to attend if they wished, but I do not know who was there. I will check and see. She might like to check with students as well because they know who they asked to meet with, and they know who they asked to have in attendance at those meetings.

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Northern Affairs.

Could the Minister of Northern Affairs tell us whether he was at that meeting to discuss government policy with student representatives from the University of Winnipeg and the university of Brandon, and could he tell us which of his colleagues accompanied him?

Hon. David Newman (Minister of Northern Affairs): Madam Speaker, I was at a meeting involving some representatives of the student leadership community and certainly the honourable Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) was there. I would have to check my notes. I believe the Speaker was present at that meeting.

* (1420)

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, we seem to have collective amnesia on the other side of the House.

In view of the fact that Beauchesne in every principle of parliamentary law and every principle of democracy requires that the Speaker remain absolutely impartial and not involve him or herself in any partisan activities, I want to ask the Minister of Urban Affairs if maybe he would perhaps care to think back a little bit. Will he confirm now that the Speaker was part of the meetings with the Urban Affairs of cabinet, something that is absolutely unacceptable, which is absolutely partial and partisan behaviour on behalf of the Speaker of this House?

Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Urban Affairs): Madam Speaker, in the previous question that was asked to me by the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), I had indicated at that time I would check to see who was in attendance at the meetings. I can honestly say I do not remember or cannot remember under specifics what meetings the member is referring to who was there. At times there are people who come and go. There are members who come and go. I cannot specifically say that she was there or not there.

Mr. Ashton: Flashbacks to Watergate, Madam Speaker.

I want to ask the minister and perhaps the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh), who seem to have selective amnesia in this case--it is a very simple question. The Speaker, was she in attendance? Perhaps if the minister cannot remember that, will he outline who is eligible to be part of these meetings? Is it by any chance members of the Conservative caucus which the Speaker has functionally been ever since she has been in the Chair since 1995?

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, a number of times earlier today questions have arisen and been the subject of reminders from yourself that we ought not to be provocative, those of us on this side of the House. I wonder if the honourable member for Thompson would care to review his question and ask himself if honestly he feels there is no provocation intended in his questions. That aside, the honourable Minister of Housing and Urban Affairs has already responded that he will indeed look into this matter, but the presiding officer of the House, I suggest to you, is in no different position than other members of this Legislature when it comes to representing certain matters related to their constituencies.

A very strong argument ought to be made that no matter what position one holds in this Chamber, one has a duty--and not only a right and a privilege and an opportunity but a duty--to represent constituents. So if Your Honour had been present at this meeting or that meeting in furtherance of your responsibilities, that would, I am sure, be the appropriate response to this particular matter being raised by the honourable members today. But I do suggest that they preach a lot about some of our answers; they might do well to read Hansard once in a while and look at the provocative nature of some of their questions.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. Just for clarification, I would ask: was the honourable government House leader on a point of order?

Mr. McCrae: I was answering the question.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable government House leader responded to the question. I thank the honourable government House leader for clarification.

Mr. Ashton: On a final supplementary, since the government House leader is now answering for the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer), I want to ask the government House leader: in all honesty, how can he say that attendance at a cabinet committee or attendance at a meeting sponsored by a minister of the government does not violate every principle of Beauchesne 168(2), that in order to ensure complete impartiality, the Speaker has relinquished all affiliation with any parliamentary party and any outside political activity?

When are we going to have an unbiased Speaker in this House, Madam Speaker?

Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, my colleague and friend and the honourable member for Thompson can bang away at Beauchesne all he likes, but the fact is members around here have a responsibility. He need look only two seats to his left to see an honourable member who is brought into the councils of government decision making from time to time when that is appropriate, and earlier today the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) announced a history-making development and the honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) was part of those meetings.

If something like that was going to happen in your constituency, Madam Speaker, would you not want to be present and take part in some of the discussions? I suggest there is nothing wrong with that.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Ashton: On a new question.

Madam Speaker: On a new question.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I want to point out that the member for Brandon East is not the Speaker. He would make a very good Speaker actually, but he is not the Speaker. I want to ask the government House leader if it is the policy of this government to treat the current occupier of the Speaker's chair as being part of the Conservative caucus?

We see pictures issued under the Conservative caucus with the Speaker as part of that. We see the Speaker at meetings with the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) in the Urban Affairs committee of cabinet. Is it the policy of the government to have the Speaker as part and parcel of this government and is that why you refuse to bring in an elected Speaker, an impartial Speaker that we all need in this House?

Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, if I were a New Democrat, I suppose I would be rising in my place on a question of privilege and complaining that by the questions being asked today the constituents of Seine River are being denied appropriate representation on issues of importance to them.

The honourable member for Thompson said that the honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) is a member of the Legislature and not the Speaker, and that is true, but if the honourable member for Brandon East were the presiding officer of this House, you can be damned assured that honourable member would want to be heard on matters of importance to his constituency and you, I suggest, with respect, Madam Speaker, ought to be accorded that same right.

* (1430)

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, as a supplementary, I want to ask: what is the policy of this government? The Urban Affairs committee of cabinet, who is that committee open to? It is apparent, it is obvious that it is open to Conservative MLAs of which the Speaker is being an active Conservative MLA.

I want to ask perhaps the government House leader if he can maybe indicate whether there was a House strategy committee of cabinet last year. Maybe the Speaker was part of that last year when we saw you ram through the sale of MTS, again breaking hundreds of years of parliamentary tradition.

Mr. McCrae: I think most times the honourable member for Thompson agrees with me that being an elected representative is a noble calling, and I think we try to carry out our duties as if that were the case, Madam Speaker.

I implore the honourable member for Thompson and his colleagues to forget about their narrow political interests and put the interests of the people of Manitoba ahead of their own political Brownie-point interests. The honourable members cannot seem to get on. They cannot seem to get over it. They cannot seem to get on with the business of doing the work of the people of this province, and I think that explains their questions and their behaviour again in the House today. I wish they would search their souls, look in the mirror and ask how best can we serve our constituents.

Madam Speaker, I suggest to you that honourable members are deflecting--and not doing a very good job of it--away from the very miserable record that they have been putting before the people of this province for the last number of years.

Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.