Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, a number of announcements with respect to House business, and I look to my colleague, the opposition House leader, for concurrence. We have been speaking this morning with respect to today.

Madam Speaker, first of all, I am going to ask if you could call for introduction for second reading, Bill 203, The Graffiti Control and Consequential Amendments Act, firstly, and then I will have more announcements after that.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar), that Bill 203, The Graffiti Control and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi sur la lutte contre les graffitis et modifications corrélatives, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, I thank the House for accommodating the second reading of this bill today. I would just push that one step further and ask that the House now adopt this legislation. It did not receive support from the government last year when we introduced this legislation. We think it is very important that it receive the support of all members of this House.

I will not have extensive comments on this bill at this time, given that very, very similar legislation was introduced last year, and on June 17, I made the speech on second reading in this Legislature.

Madam Speaker, even since last year, the problem and challenge of graffiti, particularly in the city of Winnipeg but not confined at all to the city of Winnipeg, I think has worsened. That is despite some efforts at the municipal level and some limited funding, I understand, from the province to assist in removal campaigns.

The problem has increased, I assume, Madam Speaker, not only because gang activity has been increasing but also because of the rise or the increased popularity among a very, very small number of youth in relation to tagging. It is now estimated that about 80 percent of the graffiti in the city of Winnipeg is characterized as tagging.

Now, there are several different types of graffiti. We have, and you will note from our comments last year, expressed grave concerns about the proliferation and the threat of gang-related graffiti. This kind of graffiti is not simply a threat to one's esthetic values, it is a threat to our ownership of our neighbourhoods, indeed our city. I know from speaking to victims of graffiti how they are put in fear when graffiti, particularly graffiti which indicates a particular gang shows up on their property. They are scared to remove it for fear of retaliation. They are then worried that crime is right at their doorstep. The fear of crime, it has often been said, is just as bad as crime itself, and when graffiti proliferates, Winnipeggers and other Manitobans have an increased fear of crime and certainly a loss of sense of control over their neighbourhood.

Well, it is time to take back control of our neighbourhoods. It is no longer good enough that we continue to treat graffiti as a mere mischief or as a very minor misdemeanour. I think over the years this kind of wrongdoing has virtually been decriminalized.

Aside from the gang-related graffiti, there is then what is called tagging. The word "tag" stands for "tough artist group" and these individuals, for some reason, think that they are genuine artists and will go to great extent to mar the landscape and affect our sense of community well-being by using whatever kind of chemical or other application to put their tags around on private and public property.

Constable Shawn Matthews who is the resident expert, if you will, of the City of Winnipeg Police Service to deal with graffiti said the other evening at a meeting in Elmwood that at one time most of the graffiti was on public property, was on City of Winnipeg property, whether it be underpasses or perhaps signs, perhaps park buildings. But now that has extended to private property. It has even been found on many homes in certain neighbourhoods–I know of that myself–right on the sides, Madam Speaker, of people's homes. The latest now is a proliferation of tagging on vehicles.

Constable Matthews showed a video that was confiscated from a stolen automobile that was used by some taggers who were caught. Apparently, some of these taggers will videotape their own tagging and destruction and go home and play it to themselves. For some reason, they get some kind of a thrill out of that. Well, Constable Matthews showed this video at this meeting, and I think my reaction was the same as others watching. I could just feel my blood pressure rising. It was very maddening to see these young individuals spray painting private vehicles and buildings.

There are two other types of recognized graffiti, and one is, of course, the old "Kilroy was here" type of graffiti, and we all have to recognize, of course, that that was yesterday, although it is still out there. But we are dealing with a much more serious generation of graffiti now. So the sort of antisocial or political graffiti is still there, and we also are aware, sadly, Madam Speaker, of the heinous graffiti that expresses hate.

One of the first disappointments I had after my election was to discover that anti-Semitic hate graffiti done to a synagogue in the Interlake was treated by this government as mere mischief and not a hate crime. I did what I could to have the government change its view on that one, but they continued to deal with that as mere mischief, and I do not think that was the proper way to characterize that kind of graffiti.

No matter what kind of graffiti it is, Madam Speaker, it is unacceptable. What is commonly now known as a broken-windows theory, which is generally accepted around North America, holds that it is sometimes those crimes that we used to think were minor misdemeanours that have significant impact on our quality of life, our sense of well-being and indeed affect crime levels of a violent nature. If a business has a broken window which is not repaired, it is thought, soon other windows will be broken, soon there will be graffiti, soon there will be other criminal acts taking place in and around that building because the message has been given to individuals and to the community as a whole that that building is not within the control of anyone and no one cares. Well, it is important that our community take control of itself because we do care. Neighbourhoods do care. It is a matter of learning from experiences elsewhere.

* (1010)

Now, there are jurisdictions in North America where graffiti has been a challenge for quite a number of years, although I warn that the types of graffiti found in the city of Winnipeg now are to no lesser degree than that found in other major North American cities, including cities like Chicago and San Francisco, Madam Speaker. In Chicago, Mayor Daley introduced what has now become one of the most popular public programs of that city, and that was the Graffiti Blasters Program. In Chicago they look at graffiti removal no differently than they look at other public services, whether it be garbage pickup or lawn-cutting. They think it is important in Chicago that those victimized by graffiti not be required, as some jurisdictions have required, to remove that graffiti. Often it does not happen, often there is fear, and there is always potential of retaliation or a sense of retaliation.

So Chicago has 23 or 24 crews that work each and every day in that city. They go out and they get approval and consent from property owners in most cases, and there are some exceptions, and they remove the graffiti as instantly as they can, knowing, of course, and this has been proven, that the quicker graffiti is removed, the greater the likelihood that graffiti will not show up again, and that is because, Madam Speaker, control has been exerted, because the person who put the graffiti there knows that their job will not remain, that it is futile.

In San Francisco there is a public service, an integral part of city government, where vans and trucks patrol the city with computerized colour matching equipment. They take this seriously. They take their city seriously. So one of the solutions is removal and quick removal. I know of locations in this city where the graffiti has remained, extensive hideous graffiti since 1996. I know that there are groups that have been working hard, whether it is Take Pride Winnipeg, and I know the City of Winnipeg Police Service, with their TAG program, which stands for Together Against Graffiti–take back that word–offers some promise. I know that BIZes and other residents' associations have done what they can to remove or cover up graffiti, but we still do not have a comprehensive public program to deal with this threat, and that is regrettable.

This is not about the Pan Am Games, because I have heard that from other associations: let us deal with graffiti because there are people coming to town; we want to look good. This is not about just looking good. This is about doing what is right. This is about acting for citizens, for neighbourhoods, for each and every individual resident of this province.

So, Madam Speaker, we want this province and this government to get serious about funding municipal programs. Second of all, it is important though to stop this in the first place, and that is why we have introduced today this deterrent legislation. This is Canada's first known provincial law that has been introduced to require the immediate removal or cover-up of graffiti by the wrongdoer, a minimum fine of $500, mandatory restitution, a minimum 50 hours of community service and suspension of driver licences. This should be the deterrent so that would-be graffiti artists will think twice whether that one moment of gratification, or whatever they get out of this, is really worth it when this kind of legislation is on the books.

Municipal governments have passed legislation like this one; it is high time a provincial government did. The Criminal Code says nothing about graffiti. I asked the members opposite to support this legislation. They have had plenty of time to look at it, and if there are certain problems, if they think it is too harsh in some areas, if they do not think in some wording that it is good enough, let us hear their amendments. But let us work together; let us resolve this problem. I ask for the government's help this time to get this legislation through. Unfortunately, they did not help last year; will they help this year? Thank you.

Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): I move, seconded by the member for Gladstone (Mr. Rocan), that debate be adjourned.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, in discussions with the opposition House leader, I would ask if you could then proceed, rather than deal with Private Members' Business at this immediate moment, to go through the Order Paper and call government bills that are in the debate on second reading stage in order, please. Some of the bills, there may be a willingness to pass through; others, the opposition may not want to speak to. So I will look to their guidance.

Madam Speaker: To proceed now with adjourned debate on second readings, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews), Bill 3, The Fatality Inquiries Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les enquP tes mJ dico-lJ gales), standing in the name of the honourable member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford).

Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [interjection] I know, but do you want it to remain standing? I need to clarify that first.

An Honourable Member: No.

Madam Speaker: No. Leave has been denied.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, I am going to be extremely brief on this bill and just say that it gives the Chief Medical Examiner authority to summarize reports on the deaths of children in care in the examiner's annual report. For those of you who may have read these reports, they consist almost entirely of statistics and give very little explanation as to why individuals have died.

Of course, the category that I am most interested in as the Family Services critic are children who die in the care of a Child and Family Services agency. We know that, regrettably, there are still children who are dying in the care of an agency or who have been in the care of an agency within the previous two years, which I believe is the definition that is used. I think the only way that we can demand that improvements be made in the way that service is provided to children in care is if we know the causes of why they died in care. Sometimes we find out because sometimes a judge conducts an inquest. So, for example, when a two-and-a-half-year-old died in a foster home several years ago there was a judicial inquest, and the results of the judge's report were made public in March of this year. So his recommendations were made public, but this is not always the case. So we think that this is an important amendment because it means that more information will be available.

* (1020)

Our only concern about this bill, which I think has been taken care of, is that it is important to guarantee the confidentiality of children and families who are involved. As far as I know, no names will be released, and I presume that enough of the circumstances will be left out that no one could identify the individuals who are involved.

So with those few remarks, we are prepared to pass this to committee.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading Bill 3, The Fatality Inquiries Amendment Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.

Madam Speaker: To resume adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Education and Training (Mr. McCrae), Bill 7, The Public Schools Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les J coles publiques), standing in the name of the honourable member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford).

Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?

Some Honourable Members: No.

Madam Speaker: No? Leave has been denied.

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, this bill has two purposes. The first is to require school divisions to ask permission of the minister before renting or renovating buildings for the purposes of education. I have discussed this with representatives of school divisions, and I understand that there are some questions about this that will be raised at committee.

I believe that some school divisions in particular are concerned about the need for flexibility for short courses for some schools, for temporary accommodations that might be required in some divisions at some time. I believe that they have spoken to the minister, and I believe that they are anticipating that there will be regulations drafted or amendments to the bill that will be made by the minister to accommodate this need for flexibility.

So we look forward at committee, Madam Speaker, to discussing that with the minister and to ensuring that the flexibility that the school divisions require as well as the responsibility that the government has for the financing of public buildings, that those two requirements can be accommodated in this legislation.

Secondly, Madam Speaker, this bill removes the requirement from school divisions to require a certificate at Grade 1 from each child to testify to whether or not they have been vaccinated. We have some concerns about this that we would like to discuss further at committee, and I want to put them on the record now. I am sure that the minister is listening to this, and they are quite specific. I have made a number of inquiries in schools, with the Department of Health, as well as the minister's own department, and partly I think because the appropriate people were not available within the department, I have not been able to get satisfactory answers. So I want to be very specific with the minister on this and to ensure that we can have the answers on the record and the discussion on the record at the committee.

Madam Speaker, the government believes in this bill that the Department of Health has a sufficient record known as MIMS of the vaccination records of children across the province. They believe that the existence of that record enables them to remove this requirement from presenting certificates at Grade 1. We do not have any concerns about the thoroughness of MIMS. That is not the issue.

The issue that we do face, I think, is the need for some assurance that the school principal or the school division or the accountable authority, and as I read the existing Public School Act, it is the school division which is responsible for this. We need to know how well they know who is vaccinated and who is not. We are concerned about the possible outbreak, as there has been recently, well, not this year but certainly in the recent past, of measles. As the legislation stands now, a school principal would know who in his school was vaccinated and who was not. If you remove this requirement and you place all the responsibility on MIMS, I think we need assurance that there is a speedy mechanism, and one that is not a charge upon the school division, that the principal will know who is vaccinated and who is not, or the school division will know. It seems to me, and I would need some further information from the Department of Health on this, that a principal would want to know who is not vaccinated in the event of an outbreak, because you would need not only to protect the child but you would in the interests of public health need to ensure that the disease does not spread. When you have people who are not vaccinated, that is a host for the disease and it does spread.

So there are two reasons for that. So how does the principal know who is vaccinated and who is not? How do they protect the children in their care? If the principal has to apply to MIMS, has to take a class list, a school list to MIMS, how long is that going to take to get the information back? Is there a cost for that information, and who is the responsible authority for requesting that information? Now we know that there is obviously a continuing co-operation between public health officials and the Department of Education and between public health officials and the schools within their division. I could not ascertain from either the Department of Health or the Department of Education the specific protocols that exist on this or that will be put in place to deal with the removal of these certificates.

So I think we need some discussion of that, we need to have that on the record, and we need to have the appropriate people there. I would suggest to the Minister of Education (Mr. McCrae) that it would be helpful if these answers are not available within the Department of Education to have somebody from the Department of Health at the committee meeting who can give us that kind of assurance so that we can get the record straight on this. So with those concerns, Madam Speaker, we are prepared to pass this to committee.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?

An Honourable Member: Question.

Madam Speaker: The question before the House is second reading Bill 7, The Public Schools Amendment Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

An Honourable Member: Agreed.

Madam Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.

Madam Speaker: To resume adjourned debate on second reading on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Environment (Mrs. McIntosh), Bill 8, The Ozone Depleting Substances Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les substances appauvrissant la couche d'ozone), standing in the name of the honourable member for Selkirk.

Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): I will be the only member on this side of the House to speak to this bill. [interjection] Not necessarily, my colleague from The Maples says. That is great, but I will be urging support of this legislation. Bill 8 represents this province's fulfilment on its obligation associated with an agreement to a strategy for phasing out ozone depleting substances brokered by the Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment. In fact, Madam Speaker, and I will give the government credit, Manitoba is one of the few provinces to proceed with the on-time implementation of the council's action plan. We would however encourage the government to go beyond the minimum goals suggested in the action plan, and I will offer some suggestions to the government.

In order to supplement the existing legislation, the government should also consider implementing a timetable for the disposal of existing CFCs. While a sunset schedule has been agreed to for the disposal of halons no such schedule has been agreed to for CFCs. We would encourage the government to consult with stakeholders and consider the establishment of a firm date to achieve this worthwhile goal.

Now that opportunities to sell halons in the United States have not materialized, the province should begin planning for the permanent disposal of halons. It is particularly important that taxpayers not be faced with the burden of paying exclusively for this disposal.

Finally, Manitoba Hydro, they have established a plan to phase out halons largely through changes to its computer systems. Hydro and the federal Department of Defence are two government departments to act in this regard, and we applaud this initiative. We would, however, appreciate the government of Manitoba showing some leadership by directing other government departments and Crown corporations towards a similar policy.

So, Madam Speaker, with those few words we look forward to moving this bill into committee stage and listening to Manitobans. Thank you.

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Madam Speaker, we are happy to see this bill come forward, and we are pleased to see it going to committee where we are hoping that there will be public support for this bill. We welcome it to go forward to committee hearings.

* (1030)

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading Bill 8, The Ozone Depleting Substances Amendment Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.

Madam Speaker: To resume second reading debate, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. Render), Bill 9, The Securities Amendment and Commodity Futures and Consequential Amendments Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les valeurs mobilières et la Loi sur les contrats à terme de marchandises et apportant des modifications corrélatives), standing in the name of the honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen).

Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? No? Leave has been denied.

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, the purpose of this bill is very simple. It is to change the refund procedures to make them more equitable. The intention is to create the Securities Commission as a special operating agency. This seems to us to be appropriate and given that those who are seeking approvals from the Securities Commission ought to be paying the costs of what it is they are seeking in terms of their corporate status either as an initial offering, IPO, or some other form of activity of the Securities Commission.

So this legislation should be passed to committee, and we have indicated that we will be supporting it.

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): I would echo the words of the member for Crescentwood. We are pleased to see it going to committee, and look forward to any public input into this bill.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading Bill 9, The Securities Amendment and Commodity Futures and Consequential Amendments Amendment Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker: Agreed. Agreed and so ordered.

Madam Speaker: To resume adjourned debate on the second reading of the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Vodrey), Bill 14, The Amusements Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les divertissements), standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).

Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?

Some Honourable Members: Leave.

Madam Speaker: Leave. Leave has been granted.

Madam Speaker: To resume adjourned debate on second reading, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. Render), Bill 15, The Cemeteries Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les cimetières), standing in the name of the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett).

Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?

Some Honourable Members: No.

Madam Speaker: No. Leave has been denied.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, I would like to speak on this bill because I received phone calls, as did many other members of the Legislature, about the problems at Elmwood Cemetery. I am probably one of the few people here who can say I spend a lot of time in cemeteries. Above ground, I would like to point out. In fact, I could probably regale members with stories, but it would probably be better that I not do that on the record.

However, in a more serious vein, I have actually visited Elmwood Cemetery a number of times, both as a clergy person conducting funerals or internments and also to look for the marker or the tombstone for one of my late, great uncles, whose name was Dr. Angus Fraser. He was the first doctor at the Workers Compensation Board of Manitoba, I believe from about 1919 to 1929, and he actually wrote a book called Trauma, Disease, Compensation, which I requested from the Legislative Library, and they found me one at the medical library at the University of Alberta. So I have a personal connection, and I am still looking, actually, for his grave marker and hope some day to find it.

But, of course, the people who were phoning us as members of the Legislature were very concerned about the lack of a perpetual care fund for the cemetery, the fact that the owner was no longer paying taxes and no longer maintaining the cemetery, and people were very upset about that, as I guess the former minister is well aware. I am sure he got lots of phone calls, too. There were also very serious concerns about gravesites that were in danger because they were between one of the driveways and the Red River, and, in fact, I believe, at the time of the flood of the century some of those were moved and interred at other sites, and that may still be an ongoing concern because of erosion of the riverbank.

I have talked to Mr. Norrie who I guess volunteered a lot of his time to organize the Friends of Elmwood Cemetery, and I believe it is their hope that they can set up a perpetual care fund that is substantial enough that the interest would be used to maintain this cemetery in perpetuity. I am sure that the former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has much more understanding of this issue than I do. I know he is trying to give me some hints here, but I cannot talk and listen to him at the same time. We certainly hope that Mr. Norrie's efforts are successful. That would be reassuring to many people. I do not really know if this bill takes care of that, but I am hoping that it does.

Some of the people who spoke to me were quite upset, and I think understandably so, that an individual could own two cemeteries, make a profit from one and not even pay the taxes on the other. I do not think this is a party position, but it always amazed me why the government did not just take over both cemeteries and use the profits from one to subsidize the other. I know this government would not want to go there because they would not want to interfere with a private enterprise, but it does seem quite amazing that an owner of two cemeteries could extract a profit from one and do absolutely nothing about the other, including not even paying their taxes, and face no repercussions from the government or anyone else.

In fact, the most recent phone call I got about Elmwood Cemetery was pointing out that the house where the office is on Hespeler is for sale, and the allegation that was made to me was that this was for sale by the owner. Now, I do not know if that is true or not. I see the minister shaking his head so I trust that that is not the case. I am not sure where the office is going to be. I hope that people will still find that they can access the records and that sort of thing in a timely fashion.

So we are pleased to see this bill, especially if it takes care of the problems at Elmwood Cemetery, and I hope that that is why the minister responsible brought it in. We will certainly find out the details when it goes to committee, and we will have a chance to ask questions and get them answered there. We can always put more remarks on the record at third reading. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Madam Speaker, I, too, would like to speak to this bill. You know, growing up in the Elmwood area, I have been to Elmwood Cemetery a number of times. I know that there has been a group–I know that there is more than one individual, but I am just aware of the former Mayor Bill Norrie who has been very active in the saving of Elmwood Cemetery.

So I think this bill is a welcome bill. We look forward to it moving through to committee and passing it through third reading.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading, Bill 15, The Cemeteries Amendment Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed,

Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.

Madam Speaker: To resume adjourned debate on second reading, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews), Bill 16, The Court of Queen's Bench Small Claims Practices Amendment and Parental Responsibility Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur le recouvrement des petites créances à la Cour du Banc de la Reine et la Loi sur la responsabilité parentale), standing in the name of the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett).

Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?

An Honourable Member: No.

Madam Speaker: No? Leave has been denied.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Bill 16 is a straightforward bill and changes a number of the items that were brought in last year in terms of the amounts in terms of The Small Claims Act and includes amendments to The Parental Responsibility Act that deal with the amount of liability. It is basically dealing with the financial numbers. It is not a significant bill in terms of principle. Those bills were already dealt with. So we are prepared to see this through to committee.

* (1040)

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): The raising of the limits from $5,000 to $7,000 is due, but we would look forward to the possibility that this could be put in regulations later so that we would not have to keep amending it every time we have inflationary moves in this country.

We look forward to it moving to committee and listening to the public input.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading Bill 16, The Court of Queen's Bench Small Claims Practices Amendment and Parental Responsibility Amendment Act.

Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.

Madam Speaker: To resume adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), Bill 19, The Agricultural Credit Corporation Act (Loi sur la Société du crédit agricole), standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, I am deferring to our Agriculture critic on this who is definitely a voice for agriculture in this province. I fully agree with whatever she has to say on this bill.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, the Agricultural Credit Corporation, the amendments to this act are basically housekeeping and modernization of the act. The initial plan was simply to change the regulations, but attempts to do this led to the conclusion that it would be easier to change the act as a whole. There are minor changes that are updating definitions and modernizing the phrases, but the major change to the bill adds flexibility to MACC in order to meet the changes to the agriculture economy today.

Madam Speaker, the Agricultural Credit Corporation plays a very important role in the farming economy, and I believe that role could be broadened. There are many ways that the corporation could be used to meet the financial needs of the farming community. One of our biggest concerns is the heavy debt load that farmers have to carry, particularly young farmers as they look to carry on the agriculture industry, because our farming population is an aging population, and many farmers are looking to retire and looking to pass the farm on to children or to sell it to other young people in the community who might want to take over. This requires very large debt loads to be carried, and the MACC plays a very important role in that.

As farmers look at different ways to survive in this economy as a result of changes that federal governments have made, such as the abandonment of the Crow and changes to pooling and other things that we have had, there is tremendous pressure on farm families. There is a role for MACC to play, and it must be broadened out. So this legislation will allow for that.

MACC also had an important role to play that this government has changed. MACC used to hold a large amount of land that was leased out to farmers. This reduced their burden of having to borrow large amounts of money, but since this government has come into power the number of long-term leases has been tremendously reduced and the amount of land controlled by MACC has also been reduced. The move to sell this land during times of low commodity prices has put a lot of pressure on farmers. This is not addressed in this piece of legislation, Madam Speaker, but it is a concern and a change that this government made that has put pressure on farmers.

Madam Speaker, farmers across the province and particularly in the southwest of the province are under a tremendous amount of pressure and are looking to hear from all members of the Legislature as to how they are going to be supported. We have raised the issue many times about the serious financial crisis that farmers are in, and we look for all members of this House to recognize that it is a very important issue and that we cannot afford to lose any more farmers in this province. The farm population continues to decline, and I think when the last census was taken we see that we have lost another 5 percent of our farmers. We cannot afford to lose any more farmers, so I would think we have to take every step possible to ensure that they have the supports and the financial supports to help them through.

We look to the federal government to provide the same kinds of supports for farmers as were provided during the Red River flood, but that does not look like it is going to happen. The announcements that we heard recently from the federal government to change AIDA and NISA will not help many of our young farmers. These young farmers are going to have to turn to MACC to look for additional support. Many of these people who carry loans with MACC are going to be looking for ways to extend their loans or have their interest payments deferred.

MACC also played an important role during the Red River flood, and they made loans to farmers in that area to offer floodproofing. There is that possibility for those farmers in the southwestern part of the province who are facing very different circumstances because they do not have to floodproof their land. They are going to be in serious financial situations that they are going to have to look towards MACC, and that is a tool that the government will have to look at being creative with. They were able to be creative through the floodproofing program in the Red River Valley. We will have to look at ways that we can be creative to help the farmers in the western part of the province because unfortunately our federal government does not want to help them out.

The proposals put forward by the federal government to make changes to AIDA and to advance money out of NISA and speed up the process of getting some money will help some farmers, but we know that there are a lot of farmers who do not qualify for AIDA. The criteria to qualify for that program have been highly criticized and should be criticized because as the program is developed, it ends up being a bit of puffery for the federal government where they can say they have put all this money into agriculture but in fact very little is going to be accessed. The federal government also said that they are going to change NISA and allow people to take out money without a penalty, but if you look at the amount of money in NISA that many of these farmers have, if you have got no money in NISA then that particular announcement is no advantage for the producers either.

Madam Speaker, the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation has played a very important role in the farming economy. We had hoped that we would not have to draw on it to help farmers out, but the credit corporation is going to have to look at how they can help these farmers so that we do not have foreclosures and do not lose more people from the economy. We think about the Agricultural Credit Corporation just helping farmers, and some people will question why we have that, but if you look at the impact of agriculture on the economy of this province, you see that it is very important.

You see what is happening in the southwest part of the province now when we have a year where there is going to be a million acres that are going to go unseeded. We hear what business people are saying. We hear what farm machinery dealers are saying. They are basically going to be put out of business. Madam Speaker, I think it is very important that we all work together, to recognize this crisis and address it. Certainly, the federal government should recognize that they have a much bigger role to play in this situation than they have agreed to, but without that support we are going to have to look at other options. Changes made to The Agricultural Credit Corporation Act will allow the corporation to move quickly when there is a need to lend money when farmers look at different ways to diversify.

So we support the government on this legislation and hope that we will continue to see the Agricultural Credit Corporation play a very important role in the farming community. I hope that all members of this House will recognize the important role that agriculture plays in this province and that we can join together, and rather than play politics as some people say, work together to ensure that we save this farming community and put the supports–[interjection] Let us take, as my colleague says, a nonpartisan approach to this and stand up for Manitobans and ensure that they are treated as other provinces are treated when they have a disaster, because what we are facing in Manitoba, particularly in the southwestern part of the province–and I have to say, Madam Speaker, that there are other problems in other parts of the province where there have been some drowning out of crops and the inability to seed. But certainly, the real crisis is in the southwestern part of the province.

We have to stand united and stand up as Manitobans to ensure that we do not lose the farming community, we do not lose the ability to produce a crop in the southwest part of the province and take a huge amount of money out of the economy. Those people who cannot grow a crop this year are going to suffer for many years. We are going to lose some of them. Hopefully, we will not lose too many. MACC is going to have to play a role in helping them through. The province is going to have to play a role. The federal government is going to have to play a role, and I hope that all of us can stand together to ensure that that happens.

* (1050)

Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for allowing me the privilege of putting a few comments on record on Bill 19, The Agricultural Credit Corporation Act. I believe that this act is needed, and it is really an update and modernization of our ability to be able to flow money in various different ways to not only encourage and enhance agricultural expansion but indeed secondary processing and those kinds of initiatives.

I congratulate the minister for having had the wisdom to charge his department with the responsibility and encouraging them to rewrite the act in such a manner that it will be a much more acceptable and broader act and bring the act into the modern era. I think that this is clearly an indication of our government's intention to see the further diversification of agriculture in the immediate sense. I think for that reason, there is some urgency in passing this bill.

I would like to, however, also put some comments on record if you would allow me, Madam Speaker, in regard to this act and how it can be used to in fact underpin some of the needs out in western and eastern Manitoba, especially those areas that have had very difficult times seeding, putting crops in the ground, and bringing into being a flow of revenue or a flow of dollars that might otherwise not be possible.

It is very clear that when the 1997 flood took place in the Red River Valley, when the Liberals in Ottawa decided to call an election during the middle of the flood, it was their intention to just bail out the flood and many of the residents in the flood or making it appear that they were pumping huge amounts of dollars into the Red River Valley, almost bringing it in by the bucketload. The Custom Seeding Program was announced. The JERI program was announced. The early start program was announced, although I should tell you, Madam Speaker, that the early start program, virtually all the money had to be paid back later on although the federal Liberals did not tell the people in the valley that that would have to happen, but it was. The JERI program: much of those kinds of funds were initially flowed, then later on recalculated and put into a different area.

I think that this bill will clearly demonstrate our will that we can get involved in the disaster that is occurring now in many parts of Manitoba not being allowed to seed. The flood assistance program, the DFA program, will kick in for those properties that are not allowed to flood. However, many of those people that will rebuild their properties will need to be able to borrow money to assist them to rebuild, because only a portion of the money under the federal act, only a portion of the losses can be reclaimed and recovered, and therefore it is significant that this new MACC act can be brought into being.

It is interesting to note that the federal government has said NISA should be used as a disaster assistance program in western Manitoba. It is significant to note that they say AIDA can be brought in to become a disaster assistance program. These two programs were never, ever designed to become disaster relief programs. They cannot function that way. It is technically impossible. Number one, the calculations used to determine what amount of money a producer can put into a NISA fund is done by net income. If there is no net income, which normally most young farmers do not have in the first three or four or five or 10 years of operation, it does not allow them to put any money into NISA so therefore no NISA fund. How can those young people then be able to draw from a fund that is nonexistent?

Secondly, AIDA is the same kind of a situation whereby farmers in the southwest area over the last couple of years have received decreasing commodity prices. They have suffered drought, therefore a lesser crop, and so their incomes are down at a very low level. To kick in AIDA over a low level and demand a 70 percent drop in return before that kicks in means that they are in a minus zero position before any AIDA can be drawn. What is minus zero from zero calculate to, Madam Speaker? Zero. They will not get any money out of it, many of these people. Therefore, it is absolutely imperative that we give early passage to this bill to allow our Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) to announce that we in fact do have a vehicle where they could at least borrow money from to be able to help them through a process that I believe is sadly needed not only in western Manitoba but indeed in many other parts of Manitoba where we have had pockets of moisture levels that we have never experienced before in our lives.

I think it is absolutely disastrous that the federal Minister of Agriculture dared to come to Manitoba and southeast Saskatchewan, fly over the area and then comes along and says, yes, we must support these people, we will support them, and then comes back a week and a half later and says, well, the only thing we have for you is NISA and AIDA. I think it is a clear demonstration that the Liberal administration in Ottawa does not recognize that there is another part of Canada east or west of Ontario. I think it is absolutely imperative that we as a government impress upon the federal politicians their responsibility to the farm community in western Canada, the same as they did to the ice storm in Quebec, the same as they did to the disaster in the Red River Valley. These people in the rest of Manitoba have seen a drowning out of their ability to generate an income; in some cases, they will not even have enough pasture left to feed their cattle, their livestock.

I think, Madam Speaker, that it is absolutely imperative that our government and everybody in this Legislature, maybe through the media, make sure that Ottawa is aware of their responsibility and their negation of their responsibility. That is why I support early passage of this bill that would allow us at least to be able to borrow money for those people that have not an income-generating capacity for this year.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading of Bill 19, The Agricultural Credit Corporation Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I wish to interrupt the call of the bills. It was agreement of the House leaders that we would use one hour for as many bills as we could get through, so we will carry on with second readings of bills at a later date.

* (1100)

At this particular time, Madam Speaker, I will be seeking leave with respect to Private Members' Business. Just by way of background, given the very critical situation in the southwestern part of our province, some discussions have been entered into by members in all three parties, very informally, to see if there would be a willingness of the House to deal on a nonpartisan basis, because we recognize there are a variety of partisan issues involved, but in a nonpartisan basis with a resolution that this House could adopt with respect to the support of aid programs to our very beleaguered farm community in southwestern Manitoba.

The member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Downey), who represents the bulk of the area affected, worked with his colleague the critic from the official opposition the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), and kept informed representatives of the Liberal Party in this Legislature, to develop a resolution that could potentially be adopted by this House.

I have had a copy of the resolution distributed. I believe there is a friendly amendment that will be moved because, as one appreciates, this has been coming together in the last few days. This resolution is to be moved by the member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Downey) and, I understand, seconded by the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) in part of the spirit of nonpartisan co-operation.

I also want, at this time, to indicate that we have attempted to keep members of all parties represented informed. We appreciate that there are different concerns that different groups have.

At this time, Madam Speaker, because this resolution is not on the Order Paper and I believe we have a copy that has now been provided to the Clerk, we would ask if there is the required unanimous consent of this Assembly to bring this resolution today for consideration. I would add, it would also be our intention, if there is, to ask for leave to limit the speaking time to five minutes per member, so that many members can speak to it, and agreement to bring it to a vote at five minutes to 12. So the idea is not just to debate it, but to ensure that the Legislature has a chance to pass judgment on it as part of Manitoba's appeal for support for our farm community in the southwest.

So the first leave I ask: is there unanimous consent of this House in order to bring this resolution today? I think the opposition House leader would like to talk on it.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, I just want to indicate that our caucus is not only prepared to give leave and have this matter dealt with, but, more importantly, to get this resolution passed. We feel there are times when you have to put partisan differences aside and when there is a crisis in southwest Manitoba.

I know many people out there personally. They are looking to us, as members of the Legislature, to act in a nonpartisan way on this and to represent their interests, whether is be the federal government or here provincially. So we are prepared to give leave, and, more importantly, we want this resolution passed as soon as possible to speak up on behalf of the farmers in southwest Manitoba.

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Madam Speaker, as instructed by the Liberal Leader, Jon Gerrard, I am not prepared to give leave.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. For clarification, I will ask the question. Is there unanimous consent of the House to proceed with this resolution, the private member's resolution which is not on the Order Paper, Farm crisis?

Some Honourable Members: Yes.

An Honourable Member: No.

Madam Speaker: Yes? No? No. Leave has been denied.

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, in fairness to our colleague from The Maples, whom I know we have spoken to about this and who did want to ensure–I want to put this on the record. In the discussions that I did have with him, he did want to ensure that this resolution was one that was not an attack on the federal Liberal Party, which I respect.

We did share information with him, and we do understand from his comment that as we all have Leaders and have to take instruction from them from time to time, that the member is denying leave on the basis of very clear instruction from Dr. Jon Gerrard, who is not a member of this House, to deny leave for this Legislature to debate and vote on a resolution in support of that farm crisis in southwestern Manitoba. I do want to personally offer my sympathy to the member. I appreciate the dilemma in which he has been placed by the Leader of the Liberal Party.

Madam Speaker, having said that, I would indicate now that we would like to move to Committee of Supply to deal with Estimates. In the Chamber, I would ask for leave to call the Department of Agriculture. The Department of Family Services will continue in the room in which it is meeting. I would also ask leave for this morning to have the department of Seniors, or the Seniors Directorate, to be considered in the vacant committee room, in the other committee room.

Madam Speaker: We will now proceed back to Orders of the Day. I will seek leave, first of all, to change the sequence for the respective departments in Committee of Supply. Is there leave of the House to proceed with the Estimates for the Department of Agriculture in the Chamber? [agreed]

* (1110)

Is there leave of the House to consider the Estimates for the department of Seniors in Room 255? [agreed]

The Estimates of the Department of Family Services will also sit concurrently, as previously scheduled, in Room 254.

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, I would move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and that this House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

Madam Speaker, in doing so, I would also ask for approval of the House that we will be able to move a similar motion this afternoon with respect to this afternoon's activity as well.

So before moving the motion, I would also ask for leave to be able to move the same motion later this afternoon, which I understand does require the unanimous consent of the House.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I will not be posing that question. The honourable government House leader needs leave at the appropriate time he wishes to make that change.

It has been moved by the honourable government House leader, seconded by the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.