Madam Speaker: I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members, firstly, to the Speaker's Gallery where we have with us this afternoon His Excellency Antonio Britto, Governor of the State of Rio Grande do Sul.

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

Also, seated in the public gallery we have forty Grades 5 and 6 students from the Van Walleghem School under the direction of Madelle Kim Peppler and Mr. Bob Weber. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable First Minister (Mr. Filmon).

Also, twenty-five Grade 6 students from Dr. D.W. Penner School under the direction of Mr. Larry Schroeder. This school is located in the constituency of the Speaker (Mrs. Dacquay).

Also, 10 visitors from Winnipeg Teen Touch under the direction of Ms. Joelle Page. This group is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos).

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

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, my question is to the First Minister.

On May 2, 1996, the Premier, in announcing that he was going to break his election promise and proceed to sell the Manitoba Telephone System, said: Our first priority is to ensure that Manitobans would continue to control the Manitoba Telephone System.

Yesterday in this House, when we asked five months after the sale had taken place what was the percentage of shares that were indeed controlled by Manitobans, the minister stated that the information was not available. In fact, he said it may be available, it may not be available.

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier what authority has the government maintained to ensure that his priority, his alleged priority of controlling the telephone system is going to be met.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I think what is important to Manitobans is that they receive in their telecommunication services the highest quality of service possible at a reasonable rate, a very reasonable rate, that it continues to be evaluated by an independent authority such as the CRTC and that indeed the operations are centred here, that the employment is here, that--[interjection] Well, you know, the member who has some very, of course, deep socialist ideology, the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) makes the comment about branch plant. No matter how often they are rejected by people throughout the world for their ideology, they continue--

* (1340)

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Filmon: The whole world, Madam Speaker--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Point of order, Madam Speaker. I listened very carefully to the comments of the Premier, and I think the Premier is definitely provoking debate with his comments. I think the Premier ought to be called to order to deal with the question as posed by the Leader and not engage in debate, because if he is going to engage in debate he is clearly going to lose.

Mr. Filmon: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker, very clearly, while I was attempting to answer the question of the Leader of the Opposition, I was being interrupted by the constant heckling of the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) and the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale).

Madam Speaker, in response to the point of order, the phoney nonpoint of order that was raised by the member for Kildonan, I would not dream of debating or entering into a debate with the member for Radisson, because I do not believe in fighting an unarmed opponent.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Kildonan, I would remind that all honourable members should respect each other when a member is either identified to pose a question or respond to a question. Indeed, other members should respect that member's rights and privileges, and I would also remind all ministers that answers should be direct and respond to the question asked.

Mr. Filmon: So, as a consequence, I believe Manitobans are more concerned with the fact that they receive their services at a reasonable cost, that they continue to have the services here in Manitoba, that the employment is here in Manitoba and that any expansion will take place here in Manitoba.

The fact of the matter is, Madam Speaker, that all of the members of the board of the Manitoba Telecom Services are either Manitobans or former Manitobans, and their commitment is to providing these services to Manitobans at the best possible rate and in the best possible fashion.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, I think the priority for Manitobans is people that tell the truth, and that is what the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) does every day, unlike the Premier.

Was the Premier telling the truth last year when he said--we know he was not telling the truth in the election when he promised not to sell the telephone system--our first priority is to ensure Manitobans will have control.

Was he telling the truth then? Was he telling the truth when he said on May 2 in this House, Manitobans will continue to control and own and operate their own phone system, or is he telling the truth now, today, that they do not have the authority to implement their promise that they made a year ago?

Mr. Filmon: Of course, the member opposite is not telling the truth about what I did say during the last election campaign. When it comes to telling the truth, Manitobans have judged him, and that is why he is on the other side.

The fact of the matter is, Manitobans still do control the Manitoba Telecom Services, and it will continue to be thus.

Mr. Doer: Of course, the minister of telecommunications could not tell us whether we controlled 50 percent of the shares yesterday and said he did not know whether that information was available.

I would like to ask the Premier--the Premier has repeatedly stated that he told the truth, but in the press conference on May 2, he confirmed that he did promise that he would not sell the Manitoba Telephone System during the last election campaign. How can the Premier be trusted on other issues of public importance, like Manitoba Hydro, when clearly he is prepared to say one thing before an election and do something else after an election campaign? How can anybody trust this Premier?

* (1345)

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I do not know whether the Leader of the Opposition acts out of sheer ignorance or out of total dishonesty, but I can tell him that I did not say anything of the sort either at the news conference or during the last election campaign, and he knows it full well.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, the Premier--as is his wont to use the term "dishonesty" in regard to the Leader of the Opposition. In the context of MTS, that is not only unparliamentary but absolutely amazing.

I would appreciate that you not only ask the Premier to withdraw that word, but admit to the fact he did not tell the people of Manitoba what he was going to do with the Manitoba Telephone System during the election. Why not just come out and say it, Mr. Premier?

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, the term "dishonest" appears in Beauchesne on both the unparliamentary list and the parliamentary list. However, the use of such words including "untruth" or " not telling the truth," by all members in this House does nothing but promote debate and cause severe disruption in this House. I would ask that all members pick and choose their words carefully.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): My question also is for the Premier (Mr. Filmon), Madam Speaker. It might surprise members of the House, but June is spina bifida month in this country. Imagine the shock of parents and of members of the Spina Bifida Association of Manitoba, who number up to 500, to find out the government had decided in their budget to claw back $400,000 from their pockets and the pockets of others and to charge a user fee for necessary services.

I will table a letter for the Premier that went to the Minister of Health from the head of the association talking about the parents requiring bladder devices at a cost of $1,000 a year. They are only allowed $500 a year for a chair; the cost of a chair is $3,000 to $15,000 a year. The Pharmacare costs have been eliminated, and then they decide in the budget to impose a user fee on these devices.

Can the Premier answer how an item like that, that the minister is now back-pedalling on, gets through a cabinet that is supposed to be informed of the needs of Manitobans?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): I think we discussed this matter a fair bit yesterday. I have no problem again entering into the discussion on this particular matter that the member raises. There is no doubt that over the last number of years all provincial governments have been under increasing pressure in their health budgets. Reductions in federal contributions to health care, our own budgetary requirements forced governments all across the country to look at ways of ensuring that they can distribute the dollars they have across the system.

In this particular item, as I indicated yesterday to the media--I think there was coverage of it--that in our whole area of support for devices, for medical equipment, we have a great deal of inconsistency. It has developed over 30 years of ad hoc support in a variety of areas. So what I have said we are going to do before we move in any of these areas is, with Treasury Board, come up with a consistent policy across the system that is in line with what happens across the country.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, did it ever occur to the Minister of Health, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), in this development of this clawback on this tax on the sick, that, in fact, as we move from acute care hospitals to community based, these devices keep people mobile, keep people out of expensive hospitals, improve their quality of life, that in fact this is an investment and rather than increasing the taxes on the sick, you ought to be removing them? Did it ever occur to anyone on that side of the House to consider that?

Mr. Praznik: Absolutely, Madam Speaker. That is why, in fact, now we are attempting to develop a far more consistent policy, but let us not let the member for Kildonan leave the impression that a co-payment or deductible has not been part of the system across this country for many of these devices for years. In fact, in the area of Pharmacare, there has always been a deductible for Pharmacare; there has always been a deductible for eyeglasses in a variety of areas. The point that I readily admit is that we have a very--and have had, over a number of governments over three decades, a very inconsistent approach in this area, one that is the result of, I think, a lot of ad hoc policy decisions. I think it is time we look at finding a reasonable approach to these areas to avoid the kinds of difficulties that the member has outlined.

* (1350)

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, my final supplementary to the minister--and it is indeed unfortunate that he did not rule out that he would maintain this tax on the sick. Did the minister ever consider or will he consider, before you decide to impose these taxes on the sick, that you talk to organizations like the Society for Manitobans with Disabilities, the Canadian Paraplegic Association, Independent Living Resource Centre, Cerebral Palsy Association, Muscular Dystrophy Association, Association for Community Living, Spina Bifida Association, all those organizations that are affected by this? You did not even talk to them before you imposed this tax on the sick. Will you at least talk--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, I would not want to see the member get too worked up over this issue, because his point is a very valid one. The department had, in fact, entered into some discussions after the budgetary process. In bringing me up to date on their discussions, I also was not satisfied with the degree of consultation that had gone on. I share that same concern. As well, the advice coming from the organization that was directly affected by this issue on orthotics had another proposal that they made to us, and so that is why, in fact, we have taken the action that we have. I have been in communication with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), and we hope to be able to do a much better review in all of these areas, because ad hocking it is not the way to go.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, to the Minister of Justice: The Court of Appeal of Manitoba recently made a decision in the Queen versus Bauder that the accused, who was found to have sexually assaulted a child, was not a danger to the safety of the community. One of the parts of the decision that we find most obnoxious and indeed truly a throwback was the conclusion by the court, the finding of fact, that the victim, a child, was a willing participant in the sexual assault.

I ask the Minister of Justice if he can tell the House and Manitobans where did this finding of fact come from, since he knows the Court of Appeal does not make such findings of fact. Where did it come from? Did in fact the Crown agree that the victim had somehow consented?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, the decision, of course, has been one that has concerned my department very much. It seems to me that, in applying the law in that particular situation, the law makes Manitobans victims on the street or in the community and also appears to victimize people in our courts. If that is the interpretation of the law, then I am very, very concerned. In fact, the department has indicated to me that they are of the opinion that an error of law has been made in that particular case, and without getting into the reasons mentioned by my colleague from St. Johns, there will be an application made by the department for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, and that will be done shortly.

Mr. Mackintosh: I think that goes without saying. There must be an appeal, but my question to the minister was what was the position of the Crown. Did they agree to the conclusion of fact that somehow she was a willing participant to the sexual assault? What was the position of the Crown as to why this was even somehow relevant to the finding on sentencing?

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, I think that it is not appropriate for me to get into the--

* (1355)

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, I think I have clearly made my position known in respect of this particular issue. The department is very concerned that it is sending out a wrong message that somehow children can be victimized or exploited. We feel that that is in fact an error of law, that the interpretation that the court made is not correct.

In respect of the Crown's position, the Crown in fact took a position that incarceration was necessary, and indeed that was the portion of the judgment that the court overturned.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Would the minister, who has still not answered both my first and second questions, also concern himself as to whether his own department is also sending out the wrong message and also consider was it the position of the Crown that there should not be a victim impact statement filed? What is the position of the Crown in the filing of victim impact statements, which can really help the court and show the court what the victims of Manitoba are feeling when sexual assaults occur?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): One of the things, Madam Speaker, that this government has been very proud of is its record in respect of enhancing services to victims. Both the member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae) and the member for Fort Garry (Mrs. Vodrey), the prior Attorneys General, have been very strong in respect of ensuring that victims are made a part of the process, that they understand the process, that they brought--[interjection] The member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) sits there sniping in his seat. If he has something to add, why does he not get up and say it after I have finished speaking, but right now I think the Chair has recognized me and I am answering that question.

The victims, Madam Speaker, are very important. We have done everything that we possibly can to ensure that they remain an important part of the process so that the judicial system understands that they too have a part to play.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): A second series of questions to the Minister of Justice.

This decision is of great concern, I hope to all members in this House and to Manitobans. It should be of great concern also, of course, to the minister. I ask him, would he please answer the simple questions that we posed? Was it the position of the Crown that the victim, the child victim in this case, was a willing participant? Why did the Court of Appeal make that announcement in their decision? Where did that come from? Was there an agreed statement of fact to which the Crown was complicit?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, in respect of this particular case, I have discussed the matter with the attorneys who represented the Crown. I understand the particular situation that led about to the entering of a guilty plea. I believe that the Crown attorneys worked very, very hard in respect of securing that guilty plea, and that in fact was achieved. I am not prepared to discuss anything further in respect of that issue other than what may already be publicly known.

Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister, who certainly openly spoke of this case on election day--and we ask him to again speak openly today--tell this House, if he will not answer what the position of the Crown was on the statement of fact, what was the position of the Crown then as to the relevance of the victim's conduct to the sentencing? Why is all of a sudden the victim's conduct relevant to sentencing in a case like this?

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, there are all kinds of things that a court may take into account appropriately. It is our position, the Department of Justice's position that there were certain errors made in this particular case, that there were certain decisions that were wrong, and that is why we have appealed this to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Mr. Mackintosh: Then would the minister at least tell this House whether he has concerns that the perceived consent of a victim or the victim's conduct should be relevant or not when it comes to sentencing? Because clearly the Criminal Code in the 1980s was changed to ensure that the conduct of a victim in a sexual assault should not be relevant. Why is it relevant in sentencing?

Mr. Toews: That raises a good point, and I think that is a point that I can answer very, very directly. Prior to the change in the Criminal Code, there was a specific provision that said that a child could not, under the age of 14, consent. In my opinion, that was an appropriate law, that was the good law. Then what we had as a result of changes to the Criminal Code I think was a very dangerous erosion of the protection of victims, and that is what my concern is. That is certainly what I want my prosecutors, when they are arguing that case in front of the Supreme Court of Canada, to ensure, that even though the law might be weakened in that respect by the federal government's action, we in fact want to stand up for the victims as much as possible within our area of jurisdiction.

* (1400)

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Premier. Yesterday I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) about the cash transfers versus tax transfers in order to fund health care into the future. Given the fact that the Premier over the summer is going to be meeting with his counterparts from across Canada, it is important for Manitobans' perspective that we have a government that is going to strongly advocate that there has to be a cash transfer into the future, guaranteeing those five fundamental principles for health care.

My question to the Premier is: Will he today advocate and give the commitment to this Chamber that he will do just that, protect those cash transfer payments?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): I find it difficult to be able to respond without a great deal of excess energy to the member for Inkster, whose colleagues in the federal government have been responsible for the largest reduction to transfer payments for health and education in Canada's history, who cut $7 billion of transfer payments for health and education to the provinces of Canada, over $220 million annually to our province. It is a tragedy that they could get away with this and have the audacity to position themselves as being the protectors of medicare in this country. Unbelievable, Madam Speaker.

So my short answer to the member for Inkster is: We will be advocating strongly on behalf of all Manitobans that the federal Liberal government stop the cuts that they have been engaged in over the past few years and restore the cuts so that we can indeed properly finance health and post-secondary education in this province in future.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, what we are asking the Premier is to take a very strong line in which he will not accept any sort of transfer from cash transfers to tax transfers. Someone like Premier Klein in Alberta, who now endorses Preston Manning, people who want to have a devolution of powers--will the Premier today stand up for Manitobans, take away the rhetoric that he just finished putting on the record and defend the cash transfers over the tax transfers?

Mr. Filmon: Rhetoric, Madam Speaker. This is rhetoric that we have just heard from the member for Inkster. This is nonsense. It is absolutely ridiculous that this member for Inkster, who was standing on the back deck there on Scotia Street handing the sandbag to the Prime Minister and supporting the Prime Minister, would have the audacity to try and get us off in a blind alley talking about tax points or cash. What we need is a federal government that stops the cuts to us so that we can, in fact, support health care.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Inkster, with a final supplementary question.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, will the Premier acknowledge what Manitobans need is a Premier who is going to stand up for the provinces that are going to rely on the cash transfers, provinces like the Atlantic regions, provinces like Saskatchewan, that cannot compete with Ontario, Alberta and B.C. on the Treasury Boards? This Premier has a responsibility to stand up for those cash transfers and stop playing the political games that he is entering into.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, this kind of nonsense gives new meaning to the words "Liberal toady." Standing up here attempting to defend his federal government's cuts to health care and education in the provinces is what we do not need. We need a Liberal member of this Legislature who will stand up for Manitobans instead of always standing up to defend his federal cousins. We need a Liberal government in Ottawa that understands the harm that they have created by reducing transfers to the provinces, including their $220-million annual reduction in transfers to the province of Manitoba for health and education.

Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Madam Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Natural Resources.

Last spring this government introduced annual $20 passes for vehicles stopping within provincial park boundaries. Apart from discouraging tourism and being an annoyance for northern residents who live near the parks, the passes are also creating unnecessary red tape and economic hardship for businesses within the park. For example, one lumber operation owned by the Petryk brothers of Cranberry Portage has been in operation before the Grass River Park was even thought of. Yet, the Petryk brothers are expected to have park passes for eight of their vehicles. When the fuel truck comes from Cranberry Portage, that truck is expected to have a park pass. When teenagers work for them, casual labour on Saturdays, those teenagers are expected to carry park passes in their vehicles, and so on.

My question for the minister is: What is the minister willing to do to accommodate these concerns?

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Natural Resources): Madam Speaker, there are provisions that allow for businesses operating within the parks to obtain passes for employees within a reasonable number. There are also provisions to assist those who have fleets, delivery trucks operating in parks, that they would be given additional consideration. I suggest that, if the member has found an anomaly that seems to be unreasonable, we are always prepared to look at those.

Mr. Jennissen: I thank the minister for that answer. I may have found an anomaly, and I hope the minister can answer this question. There is a service station at the intersection of Highways 10 and 39, which is technically within the park, and I would like the minister to tell me: Where there are any vehicles stopping there for gas, does that vehicle technically need a pass or not?

Mr. Cummings: Madam Speaker, I am not familiar with the location of the service station that the member refers to. I will be glad to pursue that if it is somehow sitting on the boundary or in a position that was unanticipated when this policy was put in place.

The fact is, Madam Speaker, for those businesses that are located further within the park's gate, there are a number of policies with some flexibility to them that are intended to allow people who wish to go in for a brief period of time and do business and then leave, that they can do that without any expenditure.

* (1410)

Hon. Mike Radcliffe (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to a question put on the record yesterday. The question that was put to me was what was the date by which the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs received notice of the failure of the Arizona Fitness club. I would advise my colleagues here today that the department received one complaint on this issue and only one complaint. That complaint was logged on the 27th of May, 1997, subsequent to which the bureau responded quickly. Thank you.

Madam Speaker: For the record, I assume the minister was responding to a question taken as notice.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): The Hudson Bay rail line and the Port of Churchill are important not only to northern Manitoba but particularly important to many Manitobans generally. Now that there will be a strong voice in Ottawa speaking out on behalf of the Bay Line in the form of our new M.P., Bev Desjarlais, I would like to ask on a co-operative note if the Minister of Highways and Transportation, perhaps in conjunction with the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Newman), would be prepared to work with us as northern representatives to bring together representatives of the Bay Line and OmniTRAX to answer many of the unanswered questions about the future of the Bay Line rail line service under the sale to OmniTRAX, the American company that will be operating the Bay Line?

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Madam Speaker, the Johnny-come-lately party has finally got on board with Churchill. This government has been advocating for months to achieve what is happening today. Somebody is committed to make that line operate for the good of moving product up and down, for the good of tourism, for the good of Akjuit, and that is a process this government has been supporting and endorsing and promoting for months and months, and now, finally, the NDP decides they want to get on board. Catch up.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson, with a supplementary question.

Mr. Ashton: So much for asking for a co-operative approach with the provincial government. Perhaps I will try the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Newman), who was in Pikwitonei, a Bay Line community, with many northern representatives and perhaps had the opportunity to talk to them.

Will he commit to work with northern representatives to bring together Bay Line officials, both councillors and mayors and OmniTRAX, to answer the many unanswered questions about rail service on the Bay Line under the sale to OmniTRAX? Will the Minister of Northern Affairs perhaps try that co-operative approach?

Hon. David Newman (Minister responsible for Northern Affairs): Madam Speaker, I will not commit to any specifics, but I will commit to good-faith dealings with the M.P.s that have been elected in the province of Manitoba if it contributes to the improvement of anything in Manitoba.

Mr. Ashton: Will then the Minister of Northern Affairs support bringing together the Bay Line communities? I am suggesting that what we do is arrange a meeting with OmniTRAX in a central location, perhaps either Churchill, Thompson or The Pas, to discuss the future of rail line passenger service, because there are no guarantees on passenger service. People are concerned the number of trains may be decreased to one per week or two per week. Will the minister perhaps work through his department with the mayors, councillors and northern representatives to work toward this meeting?

Mr. Newman: The northern round table has recently signed a memorandum of understanding between its component members who consist of George Muswagon, the Grand Chief of MKO bands; Mayor Comaskey, representing the urban municipalities in the North; Bob McClaverty, being their secretariat of the organization; and Sonny Clyne, representing the northern communities. I think that would be the appropriate vehicle to convene such a gathering. I would support that sort of convening and working with that organization that has been established to do that sort of work.

Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Madam Speaker, commercial fishing season has started this week. As you know, several new regulations were implemented last month by this minister. One of the new regulations was to allow the whitefish fleet to use 4.25-inch mesh instead of the 5 inch that was requested by the fishermen or the 4.75 inch that was allowed last year. My question to the minister: Why is the minister going against the recommendations of fishermen he met with, and who did he consult with before allowing the recommendation to go ahead with a 4.25-inch mesh?

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Natural Resources): Madam Speaker, I think I consulted with about eight to 10 different groups that came in from the various communities and representatives of the various fleet enterprises on Lake Winnipeg before proceeding with what are some very carefully thought-out changes in the fishery regulations for this coming year, the most important of which is that a limit was placed, in terms of the beginning of the fishery, to allow for the spawning to be completed in a more real sense. The 4.25-inch mesh, I believe, in the north basin the member would be referring to is a very sustainable mesh size, and it is supported in the communities as the size that is being used as well. It provides uniformity. At the same time--and I see the member is shaking his head--the limit has been placed on the pickerel, sauger quota of 20 percent.

Mr. Clif Evans: Why then did the minister not go back to the fishermen that he did meet with and advise them of his--as he had said in the previous answer--nonradical deviations they made from the recommendations they made, the fishermen, when the fishermen themselves in the past three weeks have been saying that 4.25 is beyond radical?

Mr. Cummings: Madam Speaker, I am disappointed that some of the communities that I met with might consider this a radical change. This in fact is the mesh size, as I recall, that is being used in the communities, and this brings some uniformity to the area. The member and others who criticize this change conveniently overlook the fact that the whitefish fleet has been limited to 20 percent of its quota for pickerel and sauger. This is a very supportable, very sustainable net size, and at the same time this, in conjunction with other measures that have been taken on the lake, creates what we hope is the basis for a sustainable development strategy to return this lake to its rightful production.

Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): What action is this minister prepared to take to address the concerns of the fishermen that he has met with regarding the illegal sale of fish, which I know has been raised with his office, previous minister, and is still an ongoing concern? What is he going to do?

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Natural Resources): Madam Speaker, obviously, illegal sale or capture of our resources is always a concern of the department. In fact, from time to time there are some individuals who would accuse the department of being draconian in its measures, but the fact is it was brought to my attention during that series of meetings that I had over the course of the winter with the various fishing interests, and I assured them that we would be doing everything we could to follow up in terms of enforcement. The member may have missed it, but recently in the media within the last two weeks, he will notice there has been a series of charges that have come through the courts, and we have seen some very, very significant fines. One couple I am aware of received a total of $25,000 in fines just for the one couple, so I want to assure him that we will be enforcing the law.

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Consumer Affairs and concerns the recent closure of Arizona Fitness club and his nonanswer of a few minutes ago. Madam Speaker, the minister indicated that he acted quickly, but he does not say what he actually did. I would like to know what he is prepared to do for the latest victims that his department has once again failed to protect.

Hon. Mike Radcliffe (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my honourable colleague, the member for Elmwood, across the way for asking the same question today that he did yesterday, because that gives me the opportunity to once more put on the record that the expeditious and effective work of the Consumers' Bureau was to contact the City of Winnipeg Police and to work in concert with the constabulary to investigate this issue and to ascertain whether in fact there had been any fraudulent activities committed upon the good citizens of Winnipeg in Manitoba. So I can point to the effective work of our good civil service in this respect, and if my honourable colleague would like to give me another opportunity to extol our public servants, I would welcome the opportunity to do so.

* (1420)

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Would the minister consider making it mandatory that, in the sale of such memberships at these clubs, all the members receive a copy of the limitations of The Consumer Protection Act and that the clubs be required to post such laws governing such memberships prominently in the clubs?

Hon. Mike Radcliffe (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to advise my honourable colleague, the member for Elmwood across, that The Consumer Protection Act at the present time says, and I quote Section 125(2) of the said act: "A seller shall not collect payment of the fee under any contract except by approximately equal instalments, no fewer than two in number and payable in approximately equal payment periods the length of each of which shall be the number of months obtained by dividing the number of months in the contract by the number of instalments payable thereunder."

Madam Speaker, this is the state of the law and we, as the honourable member knows, the Consumers' Bureau is very assiduous to respond to any sorts of complaints that are levelled against any operation in the community, and if there was any further information on this, the bureau would be most eager to respond.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, Beauchesne is very clear that answers should be related to the question that was asked, and while we certainly appreciate the fact that the minister has read the act or was reading it from his briefing notes, the question that was asked was very specifically about the kinds of safeguards and protections that should be put in place to make sure people are aware of the limitations of the protection that is in place. I am wondering if you would like to ask the minister to give a very serious and direct response to a very good suggestion and question from the member for Elmwood.

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, it is somewhat surprising that this point of order should be raised. The question asked about the safeguards that are provided in our system here, and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was expanding on the details related to those very safeguards. So I cannot quite understand what the honourable member for Thompson is raising by way of a point of order here, but I am sure you will look into it and find that he does not have a point of order.

Madam Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, the honourable member for Thompson does not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts.

Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.