Madam Speaker: To resume adjourned debate on Bill 203, The Graffiti Control and Consequential Amendment Act, standing in the name of the honourable member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer). Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Madam Speaker, it is not as though the government has this enormous legislative agenda that we have to rush through bills and spend hours and hours on legislation. They have 47 bills. This is a very important piece of legislation. The member whose name this is–

An Honourable Member: Take your time; we have lots of time.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Ms. Barrett: I would like to–[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Ms. Barrett: Madam Speaker, would you please call the Minister of Environment to order?

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Ms. Barrett: This piece of legislation that was brought forward by the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) has a great deal of positive elements in it. Material, information, programs, and giving the government the ability to deal with a very important issue, with a critical issue facing particularly the residents of the city of Winnipeg. That deals with the whole issue of graffiti. It is an issue that has been facing us for a long time. It is an issue that has ramifications for the gang situation in the city of Winnipeg and throughout the province of Manitoba. It has ramifications for how we as citizens see our city and our province. It is a very good piece of legislation.

For the government to stand here today and say they do not want to discuss this piece of legislation just is another indication of how little care and concern this government has for the citizens of Winnipeg, for the citizens of Manitoba. They do not care about passing a piece of legislation or, at the very least, debating this legislation so we know what the government's position is on this piece of legislation. But they are too chicken, if I could use that word. [interjection]

Yes. Oh, the member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Downey) is unhappy with that word, is he? Well, then, maybe the member for Arthur-Virden would like to put his government's position on the record on this very important piece of legislation instead of just sitting on it–

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert): Madam Speaker, the honourable member for Wellington knows quite well that all questions and comments should be put through the Chair. She is directing her comments directly at a member on this side of the House. Could you bring the honourable member to order, Madam Speaker?

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for St. Norbert indeed does have a point of order. I would remind the honourable member for Wellington that when speaking she should be speaking through the Speaker or the Chair.

Ms. Barrett: Madam Speaker, I take full responsibility for the fact that I did not follow the rules of the House, unlike some members of the government benches who, No. 1, are not called to order, and, when they are called to order, do not choose to follow the rules of the House.

I will say through the Speaker to the member for Arthur-Virden that if he has some problems with my comments on this piece of legislation or my concerns shared by my caucus colleagues that this very important piece of legislation is not being debated by the members of the government, then that is too bad for him, because it is incumbent on all of us as legislators, whether we are debating a government bill or a private member's bill brought forward by the opposition, that the people of Manitoba, as represented by us, know what our position is on pieces of legislation. We have an opportunity this afternoon because of the paucity of meaningful legislation brought forward in this session by the House.

Madam Speaker, I think that we all know why there are not very many pieces of legislation on the Order Paper this year. It is because the government expected, as did the people of Manitoba, that by the middle of the month of May this House would have risen and we would have been into a provincial election campaign. We know why that did not happen. We know that the Premier stuck his toe into the water and it was cold. It was very, very cold.

An Honourable Member: Is this relevant to the topic?

* (1610)

Ms. Barrett: Madam Speaker, I believe this is very relevant to the concern that I am raising, that we have a very small legislative agenda, we have a very important piece of legislative business before us on the table. The member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) in whose name this piece of legislation is standing, is choosing not to participate in the legislative process. The government members are choosing not to allow the bill to go forward. They want the bill to remain standing.

Madam Speaker, if they had any intestinal fortitude, they would put on the record what their position is on this piece of legislation. If they do not put it on the record, they run the risk of having the people of Winnipeg and the people of Manitoba saying, ah, ha, they were not prepared to deal with this legislation; therefore they do not support it. It is a logical conclusion to make. So I would suggest to the members opposite that they take advantage of the fact that we have virtually a total wasteland of legislation in this session and deal with Bill 203.

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Natural Resources): Madam Speaker, this government was anxious to get in here and debate the important items that the opposition was crying for, and this is it? This is all they bring forward? Where are the points of interest that they wanted this government to sit and debate all summer? We are waiting for some input.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Natural Resources did not have a point of order.

Ms. Barrett: Madam Speaker, the member for Ste. Rose (Mr. Cummings) asked where our agenda was. We have the lightest government legislative agenda in the 11 years of this government's reign, the lightest. I have given one reason why I believe that that is so, and that is because this government thought they would be in the middle of–well, would have completed their election campaign by now but also because they have been in power for over 11 years. They are tired. They have no new ideas. Bill 203 that we wanted to debate this afternoon and wanted the government's position on on the record is only one part of a very extensive program of justice initiatives that we have raised over the last few years.

In the last year, just in the earlier parts of this year, we have the graffiti law that we are attempting to debate, and the government is refusing to put their position on the record. We have had a youth crime package that was announced in February and again in June, a five-point plan dealing with auto theft that was announced on April 14, a maintenance enforcement plan that was announced on May 7, and an antigraffiti plan reminder on June 9. So in response to–

Mr. Laurendeau: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), again, knows the rules quite well. At this time, we are debating Bill 203 which is The Graffiti Act which the honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) has brought forth, not all these other bills which the honourable member is talking about.

I would like to hear about the relevancy on Bill 203. Thank you.

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

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, I believe the Deputy Speaker might have benefited from a little bit of patience, because what the member did was outline our agenda in terms of issues, not other bills. These are all specific plans brought in, and the moment he stood the member was pointing out that not only have we brought in this bill, but we made an announcement on this particular issue in terms of graffiti.

So, in fact, what the member is doing is pointing out that while we have outlined an agenda, this government has brought in the lightest legislative agenda in 11 years.

So if anybody has run out of gas, I would suggest that the government go look in a mirror. It is this government that has run out of gas.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for St. Norbert did indeed have a point of order, and I would ask the honourable for Wellington to keep her comments–this is second reading of Bill 203–relevant to the bill.

Ms. Barrett: Madam Speaker, I am going to close my remarks on Bill 203 and again to reiterate the distress and the disgust–I use that word–that I have for this government's unwillingness to debate the issues that are of importance to the people of Manitoba, the lightest legislative agenda in 11 years. Here we have a piece of legislation that actually discusses an issue of importance to people in Manitoba, a piece of legislation that can help make our city, in particular Winnipeg where the largest problem of graffiti resides, a bill that, if it were passed, would go a long way towards alleviating a very difficult problem facing the people in Manitoba and Winnipeg, and this government refuses to debate it. That is just another sign of this government's tiredness, unwillingness to discuss issues of concern to people in Manitoba and their disdain for the legislative process. Shame on them, Madam Speaker, shame on them.

Mr. Laurendeau: Madam Speaker, the honourable member has challenged me to speak to Bill 203. Let me tell the honourable member that it gives me great pleasure to rise today and speak to said bill that the honourable member is speaking about.

Madam Speaker, we as a government do not bring forth legislation, such as the NDP do, just for the sake of bringing forward legislation. We, today, have in place laws that make it illegal for people to do this graffiti. Within my community alone, I can show you 15 times where we have had kids, the children who have made these mistakes, go and have to correct those inequities. We did it as a community. We did it with the existing laws that are on the books today.

So, Madam Speaker, for this member to bring forward legislation that is already on the books today, to try and say that this is the way to go–there might have to be some adjustments to the laws we have, but there is no necessity for what the member is bringing forward today. The legislation that we have today is in place. The legislation is there. We as a community must work–[interjection] You got my position right, Gord.

So the legislation that this member is bringing forward would need a lot of work. This is something–

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): The member for St. Norbert very recently spoke about addressing members by their names. He just finished doing that, Madam Speaker. I wonder if you would call him to order.

Mr. Laurendeau: Madam Speaker, I would like to apologize.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Crescentwood did have a point of order, but the honourable member for St. Norbert indeed has admitted and apologized to the violation of the rule.

Mr. Laurendeau: When one lives in a glass house, Madam Speaker, he should not throw rocks, and I guess that is what I have been doing today a little bit. The honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) is correct. The honourable member for St. Johns brings forward an issue that, yes, we have a lot of concern within the city of Winnipeg. We see a lot of what is happening throughout the city with some of these graffiti artists, as they call themselves, but dealing with the issue is not as simple as legislation. With some of the people who are doing this so-said art out there, we are running into more problems of education for some of these certain groups of people, these gangs, as they tag buildings, as they tag certain objects. That is the area that this government is working on, correcting some of the gang problems that we have within the city, and that will correct some of the inequities we have within this so-called tagging practice that some of these juveniles and, in some cases, adults have been doing.

So, Madam Speaker, do I see the necessity for this law? No. We have in place laws in Manitoba that–

Ms. Barrett: Madam Speaker, I believe that the member for St. Norbert is straying from the discussion of Bill 203, and I would like you to call him to order and ask him to speak to the specifics of Bill 203–most particularly, is he in support of what is in Bill 203?

* (1620)

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Wellington did not have a point of order.

Mr. Laurendeau: Madam Speaker, I am sorry, I thought I was speaking about the graffiti, which was exactly what this bill was about. If the honourable member did not hear those comments, I apologize, but I am attempting to put forth on the record my position. The honourable member asked for that position, and I am attempting to do that. Why she does not seem to be getting the drift of it, I am not aware.

But, Madam Speaker, the graffiti problem has been a concern of mine in my area, but we put together teams that have gone out and cleaned up some of those areas. We, as a community, have used the existing laws today. There are some adjustments that will have to be made on the laws in the future, but I believe that we have to work with the community to see that the laws that are put in place are workable. That is what I am not sure about with this law, that it is workable. Until such time that I know it is workable, I cannot support this type of legislation. Thank you.

Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and put a few remarks on the record, and I would like to begin by agreeing with the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett). I was certainly shocked when the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) did not rise and speak to the bill. I thought he had a little bit more gumption and moral fibre, so I am quite disappointed in his refusal to address this extremely serious issue. However, he made his choice. I was also extremely disappointed in the member for Ste. Rose (Mr. Cummings), who I believe said that this was a nothing bill. The issue of graffiti may be nothing in Ste. Rose, but I can assure the member that it is a very serious issue in the community that I represent, the community of Osborne.

If anybody from this Legislature drives through Osborne Village, and I am sure we all at some time do, and especially takes any of the by-ways, you will notice that graffiti is a problem. It is one that the Osborne Village business owners have struggled to deal with but certainly would be in a better position to deal with if there was some legislation that had a little clout which would help them to do their work.

I know that the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) brought this matter to the Legislature last year, brought in a bill last year, and I know that last year we had a similar reaction from the members opposite, the same kind of cowardice and refusal to speak, other than I do recall very clearly the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) did rise and I think made much the same speech as he did today. Whilst we are speaking about the member for St. Norbert, I would like to say that I am very happy that the community is able to mobilize and do the work in St. Norbert, but St. Norbert is not typical of all communities. Osborne Village, for example, is much more an apartment-based community. There are many seniors. There are a lot of transient people living there, and the community organizes itself differently.

To do the work that perhaps can be done in St. Norbert through community people cannot necessarily be done in Osborne Village or in other areas of our city, which is why we need some legislation. I really think that the refusal of this government to speak on this matter is probably indicative of the fact that they do not have a position. If they supported graffiti control, they would endorse the bill put forward by the member for St. Johns or put forward something of their own, and they have failed to do so quite miserably.

Graffiti, as I think we would all acknowledge, is particularly or can be particularly a problem in downtown communities, so maybe this is one of the reasons that this government is not interested, because they have not shown much interest in Winnipeg; they have not shown much interest in urban affairs. I know that the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer) popped up and suddenly listened. Maybe he should get on his feet and address this important issue of graffiti control, actually come to terms with this very serious issue.

I do not think that graffiti, Madam Speaker, in itself destroys a neighbourhood, but it creates a climate, sometimes creates a climate of fear and unease. It certainly is not esthetic. It does not make people comfortable in their communities. It can also, I think, be the beginnings of a kind of wave of decay. It has to be, I think, nipped in the bud.

It is a social problem as much as anything, and we have to deal with it. Now, the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) has proposed a number of crime fighting measures. I think it is interesting that this government, which does not have enough courage to address this particular issue, accuses the opposition of having no new ideas, but the member for St. Johns has a raft of new ideas. He proposed a youth crime package earlier this year. He has proposed a maintenance enforcement package. I was pleased to work with him on that package. He has proposed an auto theft plan, and now we have the graffiti control plan. There are four very solid ideas, all ideas that would work to create community, that would work to create safer communities, healthier communities, and alleviate some of the poverty and disruption that characterizes some parts of our city.

The Graffiti Control bill is very specific. It is a serious bill that proposes serious deterrents. The Graffiti Control bill addresses the issue of cover-up, immediate cover-up or as soon as possible. It proposes a minimum fine. It proposes community service. It also proposes the suspension of driver's privileges for those who indulge in graffiti. I think it is very interesting that the member for St. Johns has included community services, because it seems to be a tit for tat. Those who interfere with the smooth and healthy runnings of the community by defacing the community will be in a position where they can come to terms with the real meaning of community by performing community service. So it is not retributive. The measures proposed are educative as well as deterrent.

I think I will draw to a close here, but I do want to make the point that this particular legislation is very specific, very concrete. It is an excellent idea. I am disappointed that the government has not chosen to address this very serious issue.

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): I would like to make a few comments about this bill. I think that for a number of years, when I worked as a community constable, at first graffiti on first blush to me and my thinking did not seem to be an important issue. But I came to realize that graffiti by some is considered a form of violence, violence on the community. More and more people reported to me how it made them feel about their community, elderly people in the community of Lord Selkirk when they saw hateful things written. When they saw gang graffiti it made them frightened and want to stay in their homes. So it is a very important issue.

I remember as far back as 10 years ago, people were starting to do graffiti cover-up campaigns. A lot of them were community based. I have to respectfully disagree with the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford). I think with the right organization any community could be mobilized to do a graffiti cover-up. I have seen it done in every part of the city. And if we examine what is being done right now about the graffiti program, there are some fantastic things that are happening. Number one, Take Pride Winnipeg has been doing some fantastic work with graffiti. I have seen it. At times their response is not as quick as it is at other times, depending on the volume that they have. A lot of times they look for community groups.

* (1630)

I know they have invited me as an MLA to organize a community group in my area. If I do they would come out and assist me, so any area of the city that wants a cover-up graffiti campaign, we as MLAs can show leadership and find volunteers in our community and Take Pride Winnipeg will gladly assist us in that.

Constable Shawn Matthews, a community constable with the Winnipeg Police right now, has become one of the department's experts in graffiti. He has gone to conferences and that, and now he is heading a cover-up graffiti ongoing community work service program. On our justice committee, the Maples Youth Justice Committee and other justice committees, we are invited to contact Constable Shawn Matthews who will pick up the youth at their home–it could be during the school year, it could be after school, it could be on weekends–and will take them and have them do as many hours as possible on a Saturday, the entire day, or in an evening, working on covering up graffiti. So there are positive things that are happening

Madam Speaker, I remember back when we had the Maples Youth Service Canada project funded by the federal government for two summers in The Maples, and in the first year Colleen Dell, our co-ordinator, developed a graffiti cover-up handbook. She developed it as a prototype, and it was a handbook to tell other community groups how to run a graffiti cover-up program. I know on several occasions the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) came out with Youth Service Canada, and we did cover up graffiti campaigns in the north end together. It was very good.

So right now there are a number of things. Besides cover-up graffiti there are a lot of preventative programs going about graffiti. I know working with the Seven Oaks School Division, the Province of Manitoba through the Urban Green Team, the Government of Canada through HRDC. We have received funding for the Maples youth activity centre which will employ a number of young adults, who live in The Maples, to operate activity centres every day of the week, in different schools in The Maples area.

And you say, what does that have to do with graffiti? Everything, because from two in the afternoon until 10 every night there is a safe place, safe from gangs, safe from violence, where youth in The Maples area could have activities. It is not just sports; it is everything from crafts to music to sports and other activities, and that is the type of program that will keep youth busy, active, happy, responsible, so they will not do graffiti.

The other thing is what I am trying to develop in The Maples is pride in the community. As youth feel part of their community, why would they want to damage their own community if that community belongs to them? Just today I dropped off my last constituency report to The Maples, and it is titled Maples Pride, Proud to be from The Maples, and in fact, I have printed up T-shirts that I am selling as a fundraiser for the Maples youth activity centre that says Proud to be from The Maples, and we are selling them to youth in The Maples. As we develop a community pride and if they are proud of their community, why would they want to deface it? I think others can do that type of thing.

So I have to admit that I have not studied the member for St. Johns' bill as well as I should, but if I know the member for St. Johns, he has been active in youth justice committees, and he is very interested. I know he is active in Neighbourhood Watch, and I am sure his intent is good. Whether or not this legislation will help, I am not 100 percent certain, but anything that will help is welcome and we would support.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Industrial Relations for Monday, July 12, 1999, for 10 a.m., be amended as follows: St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) for Transcona (Mr. Reid).

* * *

Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Madam Speaker, I really had not intended to rise on this bill. However, after having listened to members of the NDP party address this bill on graffiti control and after having listened to the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski), I just was compelled to get up and say a few comments on, first of all, the bill; and secondly, some philosophical differences that I think are appearing. I think that the member for The Maples quite clearly enunciated it.

It has become very apparent that the NDP party in this province clearly wants to distinguish itself as the welfare party. There is no question about that. Everything that we have heard so far, presentations at committee, questioning at committees, on all sides of these issues, it is clearly becoming evident that the NDP's main platform in the next provincial election, in my view, will be ensuring that welfare will be retained as we know it and enhanced. Secondly, I believe it is important to note that these people are supporting bills and legislation that does away with a significant amount of programming that our government has put in place in areas such as Bill 203.

The bill that was passed a couple of years ago, I believe, that we put forward on graffiti and how to deal with the elimination of the graffiti on buildings and ensuring that there would be community involvement and community support by actions instead of just throwing money at it is, I think, again a significant one. The bill here, 203, I think addresses mainly fines. Again, that is the authoritative-control approach of the NDP party.

When I heard the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) address this issue, I think it was one of the most responsible speeches that I have heard in some time, and the member for the Maples lives this sort of situation on a daily basis. I have a great deal of admiration and appreciation for somebody like the member for The Maples standing in this House indicating to us what should happen instead of, and the kind of actions that he has taken as a member. I think that is admirable. The kind of community involvement that he is showing, and is not only showing, but demonstrating in his own community, I think is what true political involvement is all about and should be.

So, therefore, Madam Speaker, I had to rise and recognize some of the comments that the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) put on record because I do not think he put them on record frivolously. I do not think that he frivolously put forward an act or spoke against an act frivolously. I think he wanted to clearly indicate what the needs of the young people in the downtown core area really are.

I will never forget the meeting that we had on the Young Offenders Act in the core area when Reverend Lehotsky came and spoke to the meeting on the Young Offenders Act. I know that the honourable members opposite, the NDP party laugh at religious leaders. They do this continually. They ridicule the religious leaders of this province, as they ridiculed Mr. Lehotsky. Mr. Lehotsky, quite frankly, in my view–and I did not know him before I heard him speak to the Young Offenders Act, I had never met the man before–but this man again truly demonstrated to me an involvement and a willingness to get involved on the ground floor with young people. This man truly took the church to the people, did not have to build a huge monument as the NDP party continuously wants to do in its proponents of budgeting and budget changes. It appears to me that the ground-floor involvement, as the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) has indicated, is the only way that we are ever really going to see change.

* (1640)

Many of the pieces of legislation that we have put forward during the 10 years that I have been in this House have clearly been that kind of legislation–community involvement, empowerment of people kind of legislation. This bill, in my view, does exactly the opposite. It is time that we in this House said to the people of Manitoba, we believe in you. We believe in the people of Manitoba. We believe in our young people. We believe in empowering our young people to make decisions for themselves, and that we would encourage them to become upstanding, solid, working citizens, instead of throwing welfare at them, throwing money at them continually as is being proposed by our opposition members.

Young people have a great deal of pride in themselves, but young people also have a great deal of energy. This bill does nothing to support that energy. This bill only does what this bill clearly states out that it should do, and that is take away empowerment of young people and institutionalize them for energies that they exude. It is high time that we as politicians had better start recognizing that those young people want to be able to harness their energies. They want to be productive young citizens of our province.

If we encourage them, direct them, work with them on the ground floor, as the member for The Maples has said that he has done through community clubs, through organizations, through the churches, as Mr. Lehotsky has done and is doing. Many other church leaders and community leaders in this city are truly getting involved. They do not need restrictive legislation; they need empowering legislation. We need to as legislators far more focus on the ability of getting the rights and focusing on the ability of the people to encourage the young people to become the kind of citizens that we want them to be.

Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Madam Speaker, I wanted to put some comments on the record related to Bill 203 as it has been introduced by the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh).

You know, I listened to the members opposite, and it never ceases to amaze me the lengths they go to become partisan on an issue that I think all sides of the House can agree on has become increasingly a problem across the province. I know in the area that I represent, it has been difficult to deal with. There are some programs. They are on-again, off-again programs. I know that residents have called in concern about the response time when they call the graffiti reporting line, that there is a waiting list to have graffiti removed in the East Kildonan-Transcona community, that programs that have been set up for short periods of time on different grants are no longer available.

So I fail to see why members opposite, such as the Minister of Housing and Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer), would not be on their feet supporting a bill that is going to enable communities to start doing what this government says they want to do. They have had ads on TV. They have had ads on TV about cracking down on crime. Here we talk about having some type of restitution program put in place so that the young people who are seen to express their artistic abilities in this way are going to have to repair the damage that they are doing to private property, are going to have to take some responsibility, another thing this government claims that they are trying to do also, but just because we are introducing it, Madam Speaker, on this of the House, they are silent.

The Minister of Urban Affairs and Housing–I do not know if he is reading the file I have been waiting to get for the last month and a half. He is busily reading something, Madam Speaker, but he is not speaking on the bill, and he is certainly not responding to a proposal that would go to assist a problem that has increased by far, far and away a greater amount since they have been in government, since they have reigned over the increase in gangs in our province, in our city. The Minister of Urban Affairs is sitting there and reading a report, and I would hope that he would support the bill, that he would rise and certainly at least put his position on the bill on the record, would certainly put some comments on the record about why they are not going to support the bill and would explain to us some reason why they would not want to see an order in place to have to perform 50 hours of community service for those who are caught defacing private property.

We know that there is a serious problem in the urban area of Winnipeg, that when the new assessment comes in in terms of taxes, that property values are going to be reassessed, and many areas are going to suffer and the revenue line of the city is going to suffer. There are going to be serious consequences even at the provincial level, because we have such a decline in property values in the city of Winnipeg.

It has been another problem that has gone completely unaddressed by this government. It is compounded by problems such as graffiti, and, again, we have the minister across the way sitting silently. The other day I asked questions about why this minister is hiding. Why is this minister not providing information he promised more than a month and a half ago, more than two months ago? Perhaps he is waiting for the session to be over, so we cannot ask him further questions. Why is the minister hiding on issues related to graffiti? Why is the minister hiding from tenants who want to meet with him? There are many, many issues, and the Minister of Housing and Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer) does not deal with the fact that there are serious problems in urban areas in this province, and this government, all that they have done is cut programs. They have not instituted the kinds of programs that are going to add to the property values in Winnipeg and other urban areas. [interjection]

I am explaining to the members opposite that this is another example of where the Minister of Urban Affairs and Housing has been silent, and we want to hear from the Minister of Urban Affairs and Housing what their position is on this bill.

I think that any bill that talks about, wherever possible, having community service hours required in dealing with a problem like this would be supported, but we have to remember, I think it was under this government that they got rid of the fine option program. That was another program they emasculated, I guess I could say, because the program is there, but it is not there I think in the same way for people who had different violations, parking tickets and the like, where they could do community service to work off those offences. In trying to create a program that would deal with graffiti, those are the kinds of community-based solutions, the kind of restitution, alternative measures programs that we are talking about in this bill.

I was just reading the section of the bill that makes reference to the Young Offenders Act of Canada. I mean, this is another issue that the government has touted itself on, where it has taken out ads. It has gone to Ottawa. It has made recommendations. It has chosen this as one of the issues that it wants to deal with, so it is difficult for us to understand when we bring in legislation in a way that we thought would be supported by all parties, I listened to the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) speak, he was in support of the legislation. The member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) as well, I believe, spoke on the bill. We are waiting to hear particularly from the Minister of Housing and Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer) what the government's reasons are for not supporting the bill.

I know that the Minister of Housing must be aware that graffiti is a problem on a number of the properties that are owned by his department and through the Manitoba Housing Authority. I think that a number of the tenant groups that are involved in those properties have tried to address the problems, not only of gangs but of graffiti as well.

I basically wanted just to put those comments on the record and encourage the Minister of Urban Affairs and Housing to respond. I look forward to hearing his comments.

* (1650)

Madam Speaker: As previously agreed, this bill will remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer).

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Finance): I have a message from His Honour the Lieutenant Governor, the honourable administrator, of the government of the Province of Manitoba.

Madam Speaker: Would all members please rise.

The Lieutenant Governor transmits to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba revised estimates of sums required for the services of the province for Capital Expenditures and recommends these revised estimates to the Legislative Assembly.

Mr. Gilleshammer: I move, seconded by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Tweed), that the said message, together with the Estimates accompanying the same, be referred to the Committee of Supply for consideration and report.

Hon. David Newman (Deputy Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance, that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve into a Committee of Supply to consider the resolution respecting the Capital Supply bill.