Manitoba Hansard

Volume I No. 10b - 8:00 p.m., Wednesday, November 5, 1958

Page Index


Table of Contents


8:00 o'clock, Wednesday, November 5th, 1958

[Opening prayer by Mr. Speaker. ]

MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions

Reading and Receiving Petitions

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees

Notice of Motion

Introduction of Bills

Orders of the Day.

HON. STEWART E. McLEAN (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Industry and Commerce that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into committee to consider the following Bills: No. 2, an act to amend the Public Schools Act; No. 3, an act to further the economic development of the province by encouraging the growth of business.

[Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]

[The Honourable member for St. Matthews took the Chair. ]

DR. W. G. MARTIN (St. Matthews): Bill No. 2, an act to amend the Public Schools Act.

MR. R. PAULLEY (Radisson): Before we start considering the bill. We received a list of amendments. Is that the complete list or shall we still use the ones that were given to us in committee in conjunction with them, or are they all contained in this one last document?

MR. McLEAN: No, Mr. Chairman, you may discard the other lists. These are the complete sets in numerical order.

MR. W. C. MILLER (Rhineland): These are the ones that we agreed to in the special select committee. Is that right?

MR. McLEAN: That's correct. Yes.

MR. MILLER: There has been no dissenting voice on these?


[Bill No. 2 was read section by section, clause by clause and passed up to Section 481, inclusive. ]


MR. CHAIRMAN: Section 482.

MR. MILLER: In connection with 482, may I suggest that because of the unavoidable absence of some of our members who expressed - had some very - had some suggestions and comments to make, that the bill be held in committee with respect to 482.

MR. McLEAN: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if I might inquire what members wish to - what members that are absent that wish to discuss this particular item?

MR. MILLER: I think the members of the committee - the select committee - they were given notice by the Leader of the Opposition today, that he intended to speak on that section, and I would respectfully suggest that he be given the opportunity. I, myself, had some observations to make, but in order not to take up the time of the committee now, I suggest that all members who wish to talk on 482 pass up that opportunity now, and all speak when the committee meets again.

MR. McLEAN: Would it be possible to do that this evening, later?

MR. MILLER: No, I suggest not this evening, Mr. Chairman.

HON. DUFFERIN ROBLIN (Premier): for clarification here, Mr. Chairman, in accepting this in committee, we made some amendments as the members know, and my impression was that it was "IX" was the clause that was causing the trouble, and if that's the case would there be any objection to proceeding with the others and leaving that one open?

MR. MILLER: I suggest, Mr. Chairman, with respect, that it was 482, sub-section 1(B) 1 and subsequent sections, as well as IX, and I really think that the committee would make good progress if we deferred discussion on these sections until the members who wanted to speak are here. As I indicated, I could make my observations tonight, but I think it would help to expedite business of the House if we let it stand and then discuss it all at the same time.

MR. ROBLIN: I'm agreeable to that, Mr. Chairman. I think probably the minister would give his consent to that procedure but we do urge members to be present because this is a short session and we don't want to unduly delay things.

MR. MILLER: They're unavoidably absent and not for political reasons.

MR. ROBLIN: I wasn't making such imputation, yet.

MR. MILLER: Well the suggestion - I could gather by the smile on my honourable friend's face, that such might be the implication.


MR. ROBLIN: I don't really think he's out at Beausejour talking with Mr. Pearson.

MR. McLEAN: Are we holding all of Section 482 out then? Is that the wish?

MR. MILLER: I think that would be helpful, Mr. Chairman.

MR. McLEAN: Will the members concerned be able to be here tomorrow afternoon so that we can...

MR. MILLER: We are not asking for a postponement longer than tomorrow afternoon.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is for Clause B...

MR. McLEAN: Hold all of Section 482, Mr. Chairman.

[Bill No. 2 was continued, and read to Section 496, sub-section 4, clause (A). ]

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, before leaving the part dealing with the boundaries commission, I would like to ask the minister when he will be able to announce the personnel of the boundaries commission. I understand it is very, very urgent; they have to get at work immediately. Will we have the names of the members of the commission before this House rises?

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Chairman, I will be prepared to give that information when the bill has been passed and received Royal assent.

MR. MILLER: Will that mean that the bill will receive Royal assent before this House rises and the question that I asked was, will the minister be in a position to announce the personnel of the commission before we disperse?

MR. ROBLIN: I doubt it, Mr. Chairman, because if present plans are followed, which of course are subject to amendment, the Royal assent to these bills will be given just before prorogation as far as I can see at the moment and we will not make any announcement until the Bill has received Royal assent. I don't think we should. But as soon as that has been done, I understand the minister is well advanced with naming his committee. It certainly won't be more than 24 hours after that.

[The remainder of the bill was passed, the bill being allowed to stand. ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill No. 3, an act to further the economic development of the province by encouraging the growth of business.

MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, or Mr. Chairman, I understood the minister was going to supply us with copies of the amendments.


HON. GURNEY EVANS (Minister of Mines and Natural Resources, Acting Minister of Industry and Commerce): Mr. Chairman, I missed what the honourable member was saying.

MR. PAULLEY: I was just enquiring, Mr. Minister, as to whether or not, as I understood it in the committee, you were going to supply us with a list of the amendments.

MR. EVANS: I regret, Mr. Chairman, that it has not been possible to prepare them in time for tonight's meeting. I think I undertook to prepare these amendments to see that all honourable members get them either before we prorogue or shortly after mailed direct to them.

MR. PAULLEY: I think we should have had then, Mr. Chairman, if I may, while we are considering the bill itself to make sure that they are there.

MR. EVANS: Well, we have all the amendments here and I think there will be no change from the list I have already presented to all the members of the committee in the other room. There are only minor changes from the list of amendments that have already been supplied.

MR. M. N. HRYHORCZUK, Q.C. (Ethelbert Plains): ...those minor amendments that the minister refers to, would you mind reading them out as we come to the section?

MR. EVANS: I would be very glad to, Mr. Chairman.

[The bill was passed to Section 4, (III). ]

MR. M. A. GRAY (Inkster): Mr. Chairman, would that include a skating rink or any other community necessities like a hall, dancing hall?

MR. EVANS: I don't know of any circumstance in which they would be developing a business enterprise which would consist of a curling rink.

[Question by a member. ]

MR. EVANS: That refers to a special kind of community development corporation that is expected to be set up, particularly in rural areas to encourage business development. I think that it does not refer to such community recreation facilities as curling rinks.

MR. E. GUTTORMSON (St. George): Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister a question. Communities trying to build a skating rink or anything like that, would they be able to come under this bill? I know you said curling rinks were out; did that also mean skating rinks or ... you did mention it? I'm sorry I didn't hear you.


MR. EVANS: I don't contemplate any circumstance in which this board would undertake loans to skating rinks, even a commercial enterprise in the form of a skating rink. I don't think it is contemplated that they will make loans to the amusement industry. I think any commercial skating rink would be under that heading.

MR. GUTTORMSON: I wasn't referring to a commercial enterprise, Mr. Minister, I was referring to a community, a non-profitable organization trying to erect a skating rink.

MR. EVANS: No, I think the general field that is covered by this act is that of business development, so I think it would be outside that reference.

MR. G. MOLGAT (Ste. Rose): Mr. Chairman, on that respect, when you say the difference between amusement and business, I realize that it can be pretty closely tied. I'm thinking of something specific in our constituency, that's a development we are hoping to see in the Riding Mountains on skiing. Now that would be amusement but I am sure it would be included, would it not?

MR. EVANS: I think you will find that there is ample provision for that under the description of tourist facilities where it talks about such things as boating and swimming in the summertime, and also things like skiing -- I believe it says in the wintertime, or other winter sports. But they would have to be ancillary to a resort, not an individual independent enterprise, I think.

[Reading of the bill was continued. ]

MR. GRAY: Is the government ready to announce the chairman of this corporation?

MR. EVANS: No, Mr. Chairman, there has been no change in that in the last 24 hours.

[Reading of the bill was continued to Section 14. ]

A MEMBER: Mr. Chairman, what is the maximum that any corporation can borrow?

MR. EVANS: There is no limit named in the bill.

[Reading of the bill was continued to Section 17. ]

MR. GRAY: It reads that the corporation shall take all such steps which may be necessary to supervise the expenditure of each borrower. Does that mean that the supervisor or the general manager would have something to say as how the money is being spent by the borrower?


MR. EVANS: Yes, that would be correct, Mr. Chairman, that if money is loaned to a corporation or to a borrower for a specific purpose, as to add a certain machine to a factory or to add an addition to a building, or whatever the case may be, then it would be the duty of the corporation to insure that the money that it loaned for that purpose was indeed spent for that purpose.

MR. GRAY: ... Is it for him to pick a machine which he thinks is better than the borrowers would purchase?

MR. EVANS: No, Mr. Chairman, I think that the corporation would have to be satisfied that the machine proposed to be bought by the borrower was the proper machine to be bought and from there on that would be the end of his duty.

[Reading of the bill was continued to Section 30, Section 31. ]

MR. GRAY: Section 31, it ... by proclamation - is that that you are going to wait until they organize the machinery for it, is that the reason for it?

MR. EVANS: That was the idea in having it come into force by proclamation. I think it makes no practical difference but that is the way it was elected to be done.

MR. GRAY: How would the public know when it's been proclaimed; not everyone probably reads the Gazette, and how will they know when they could apply for a loan?

MR. EVANS: I think we would take the occasion to announce, make a public announcement and perhaps use advertising to say that the fund has started to operate.

[Reading of the bill was completed and the committee rose and reported. ]

MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has considered certain bills, one of which remains in committee and the other is passed with amendments. Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Roblin, that the report of the committee be received.

[Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]

MR. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable the Attorney-General that Bill No. 3, an act to further the economic development of the province by encouraging the growth of business be now read a third time and passed.

[Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]

MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the


Honourable the Minister of Agriculture, that Mr. 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.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, before you put the motion, I would like with the consent of the House to direct a question to the First Minister - in view of the statement that he made in connection with the first motion that was put. I understand that he intends to make his presentation on a motion to go into ways and means. And I would like to call the attention of the House that under this motion, to go into supply, a very wide variety of debate is allowed. It is under this motion that any matter of public importance within the jurisdiction of the province may be discussed and any grievances aired. I think, as I recall it, the Honourable the First Minister availed himself of this motion to air some of his grievance when he sat in another seat. Now there is no doubt about it that there are many grievances to be aired and many matters to be discussed. As a matter of fact, I haven't quite recovered from the shock that was administered to me this afternoon. However, the question that I want to ask the Honourable the First Minister; I take it then that the same latitude will be allowed without restrictions on the motion of going into ways and means?

MR. ROBLIN: If I may be allowed to answer that, Mr. Speaker, I would say that of course that House will decide what latitude is allowed in the debate under the guidance of Mr. Speaker, but with that statement in mind, I would say that I propose to speak and cover a fairly wide field when I speak, and I certainly expect that other gentlemen will be entitled to do the same.

The honourable member is quite right in saying that on a motion to go into supply, any member can, who has not previously spoken, as I understand it, in this motion. We got into a wrangle on that once - as to how many times you can speak, but...

MR. MILLER: That's why I asked, Mr. Speaker, so that my right to speak wouldn't be...

MR. ROBLIN: I don't think your right to speak has exhausted, because I think Mr. Speaker is very kind in allowing us to have a question and answer period here instead of a debate. But I would say that the honourable member is perfectly within his rights to speak now, if he wishes, on almost any single topic. I think it's usually restricted to a single topic, on going into supply. But ...on any one topic; well, we can debate that later on if we wish. But, I have no objection to him speaking now on any topic that he likes, and, as far as I can tell, he will have the same privilege on going into committee on ways and means. So, as far as I can see, he's got a clear field.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?

MR. T. P. HILLHOUSE, Q.C. (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, before you put the motion, I would like to bring to the attention of the


House, a matter which I think is worthy of the House's consideration.

We have passed in this session unanimously, the resolution of the honourable member for Inkster, and I have, during the past several years, come across a situation which I consider is working a hardship on the very people who the honourable member's resolution has been unanimously adopted to help. I refer to those people who are in receipt of old age assistance, and old age security, and I particularly refer to the section in the Municipal Act which gives an exemption on buildings to market gardeners whose chief source of livelihood is from that source, and who gives an exemption on buildings to grain farmers whose chief source of livelihood is from that source. Now, it has come to my attention, and this is fairly widespread, that a number of old age pensioners who were bona fida market gardeners, before qualifying for old age assistance, or old age security, when they obtained that assistance or security, their chief source of livelihood shifted from the market garden to the income they were getting from that source. Now, I would suggest to the House that that is contrary to the resolution which we have unanimously adopted here, and I would suggest that the Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs look into this matter, so that at the next session of the House, he can bring down an amendment to the Municipal Act, which exempts from the calculation of income making up livelihood, any monies received either from old age assistance or from old age security.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? Those in favour please say "aye". Those opposed please say "nay". In my opinion the "ayes" have it, and I declare the motion carried and the House resolve itself into a Committee of Supply.

The honourable member for St. Matthews take the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Continuing the debate upon capital supply.

MR. R. S. CLEMENT (Birtle-Russell): Mr. Chairman, are we in order? Mr. Chairman, I feel somewhat (well, I've been trying to find the word for it ever since the Honourable the Minister of Public Works brought out this program this afternoon, and I still haven't found it.) However, from little acorns grow mighty oaks. I sewed the seed here on Monday night and it sprouted already. In fact, there's more sprouts on this program he brought forward today, with regards to the Birtle-Russell constituency, than I had even hoped for. Had I been in the Conservative caucus with him, I couldn't have done a better job, and to that effect, I must congratulate you and thank you very much. However, Sir, one's spot in the Opposition is not always supposed to be one of thanks. The point that worries me considerably is that out of personal interest; or does he like to have me around here so much? Did I give such a glowing speech on Monday night of beefs and bouquets, that he thought he could keep me around by this lovely program or is it that, and I hope it's not, that he despises me so much that, with a program like this, my opposition can take all the credit


before the next election comes around. Really, I don't think he is that kind of a fellow.

Mr. Chairman, this program this afternoon - brought forward this afternoon, shows the total sum of work to be done on roads in the Birtle-Russell constituency, and one or two highways coming in to the constituency, a total of 114.1 miles. Now, I ask you, Sir, how can I be critical? The honourable member below here, my honourable friend from Rhineland, hasn't got a dime. I guess the constituency of Rhineland must have been heard of before Birtle-Russell, because I really -- well I never thought I'd ever give an address like this to a member of the opposition but it really floored me, and I still can't find the answer. It isn't because I voted with the left wing of the coalition the other day, was it? Because if it is you may have friends again, or more friends.

Mr. Chairman, (well, the presents are here, we'll watch), on highway No. 4, 27.5 miles of work from Shoal Lake to Foxwarren; base course and bituminous mat. This is a very important highway, and will be the completion of the final link of hard-surfacing from No. 1 highway west of Portage to Russell. I might point out that this road was completed a year ago and it would be expected that this road would be hard-surfaced. To that extent, I can't give the honourable minister all the credit, because I'm quite sure it would have been done anyway. However, it's on the program. 20.1 miles completion of bituminous road from Russell to Foxwarren is to be completed. That I thank him also for. However, I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that on last spring's estimate, 20.20 miles from Foxwarren to Russell, base and bituminous mat, money was voted for that, and so it will take little out of the 33 million to complete it.

However, I hope, as I mentioned the other night, with this amazing weather that this work may be almost completed this fall. Great progress has been made on it in the last three weeks; I understand it is almost completed from Russell to Binscarth, and some four or five miles south on the road to Foxwarren. No. 41 highway, 21 miles from Birtle to Shoal Lake. That, as I mentioned the other night, is a much desired road and one that likewise was promised. I have never been able to get it in black and white, but the Honourable First Minister promised it last spring, to some residents in Birtle, although some of them say he did and if he did, I thank him for fulfilling his promise because it is a road that is much needed in that locality. (Time will tell, I'm afraid, I can't argue with you up to the present). 14 miles on highway No. 45, from Russell to Angusville, commonly known as the Turkey Trail. This road is proposed to grade and gravel. I would at this time ask the minister if he will inform me later on this evening, or immediately if he cares to, what grade of a road are you proposing to construct? Will it be a 30 foot surface, 40 foot surface, 32 foot surface, or what grade of a highway?

MR. ROBLIN: That's our policy; we always keep our promises.

MR. CLEMENT: Well, I don't suppose it does any harm to ask for anything but we don't want to overdo a good thing.


MR. ROBLIN: I'll consult you about your needs.

MR. CLEMENT: Thank you, Sir. 6.5 miles on number, highway 83, which was constructed last year, is to be given a double prime. This is a beautiful highway, 40 foot surface; I hope someday the whole of highway 83 from the border north is constructed to this standard. Thank you. Highway No. 83 from Birtle south, for some 25 miles, is to be (I'm not just too sure) of base and bituminous mat. Well, now that is a welcome asset to that road and I hope that it will stand up but I do know, and I think maybe the minister does, in the not-too-distant future, that road will have to be reconstructed and brought up to standard.

However, the 114.1 miles is a welcome asset, and I am certainly glad that the Honourable Minister of Public Works has recognized the northwest central part of Manitoba because, as I hope I pointed out on Monday evening, it is one of the better constituencies. I am not going to stand up like some of the honourable members on the back benches across the way, who said they had the best, but we have equally as good as any of the others.

As I have pointed out, the progress of No. 4 highway, excellent progress is being made. I did also point out, and I'd like to re-affirm it and repoint out, it was approved last spring, money was granted for that highway; this afternoon I believe, one of our members asked the Honourable Minister of Public Works how much of the proposed 33 millions was voted on last spring by the former government. Well, I can't tell you the exact amount of money that was voted on this road from Russell to Foxwarren, but it was voted on last spring and most of it will be spent this year, so it will ease considerably the burden on the 33 million next year.

I have asked you the grade, if you will answer me, the type of a grade to be constructed, not only on the highway from Russell to Angusville, but also the type, grade and standard and width of the road to be constructed from Birtle to Shoal Lake.

I think, Mr. Chairman, with those few comments, I can find little more to criticize, as a member of the Opposition is supposed to criticize. I simply point out that the majority of this road work was expected; it is needed, and I hope with the few sprouts that have already shown through the earth from the seed sewn Monday night, that they're nourished and looked after and that they'll grow to complete manhood, (put it that way) and believe me, if there is any way I can help them grow, they won't die of thirst, because I'll be nourishing them every day. Thank you, Sir.

MR. W. C. McDONALD (Dufferin): Mr. Chairman, when we heard the minister this afternoon, I am rising not because I have not been treated well in my constituency, as I sure wish to assure the committee that the work that has already been commenced is about to be finished, with the exception of one small stretch running west from the town of Morris, which lies mainly in the member's constituency from Morris.


I do wish to draw to the attention of the committee, however, what has been omitted on Public Trunk Highway No. 32, lying to the south of Winkler. We in this House, have given considerable thought to the idea of having industries located in the southern part of province and as a matter of fact all over the province. We are getting fairly well along the way; we have made a good start in and around the town of Winkler and the town of Morden, and it is in that area, Mr. Chairman, that a lot of this canning industry is taking part and I must assure the House that over those roads, and that road particularly lying to the south of Winkler, there are very heavy loads - travel, mostly all the year round. The milk routes are very heavy; it is an international road which runs down to Haskett, which is the entrance to the United States, to that town lying just to the south, Walhalla, and while it has been graded and has been double primed this summer, it is already breaking up.

Now, we have heard what the minister said this afternoon about the roads in this Red River Valley, and I am sure there is not one member of the committee but realizes the truth of that statement. Here we have very heavy frost and, with the moisture that we receive we have trouble with frost boils, and it isn't always, as has been suggested in the Press and at other times throughout the province, that the Department of Public Works in the government up until last June, was not fulfilling and doing its job as far as the roads were concerned. It has been suggested, Mr. Chairman, that the government was penny-wise and that they were just doing a light job. I wish to say that where grade is promptly put up, that does not complete the road; it will break up, if you haven't got a heavy topping of gravel on it and it's double primed and eventually seal-coated. That is well pointed out in the road which is between Oak Bluff and Sanford, and that road, up until this summer; this is the third time I believe when it has been torn up, and I do want to commend the minister on the part that he has, I believe, got a proper base on that road now that will withstand the heavy load; and I only hope, the winter conditions that we have here in Manitoba.

However, there is one thing that I would like to just observe at this time; that he made the statement that concrete roads were the only satisfactory method of solving our road problems for a long time to come. I do note that in this whole program there are seven cases, I believe, where there are short strips of concrete to be laid down for a total of 30.8 miles. If it is the case that he believes that this is the only type of road, I believe that more construction should have been given to laying down more roads of this kind. I have been wondering, Mr. Chairman, and here I want to offer what I hope will be an objective observation, that in some other countries, notably the Old Country, England, when they let out contracts for roads they make it a part of the contract, that the contractor must repair and keep up the road for a period of five years after it is built. And, I am wondering if that would be of any help here in Manitoba, where the contractor if he made a skimpy job that was not caught by the engineers because I do believe, Mr. Chairman, that


our engineers, when the road is being built, have a lot to do in the manner in which the road is finally finished. I was wondering if this type of a contract, with these conditions written into it, would be of some assistance to us here in Manitoba. I would like the Honourable Minister to check into it, if he already knows about it - if he could make some comments about it.

On some of our highways that are already being fairly heavily used, where they have now been double primed and where they have a bituminous mat, the traffic is increasing to such an extent, that at some intersections there is some way which must be devised to channellize the traffic, where a left turn is being made. There is one, very serious, to my way of thinking, -- corners, at what is called the Morden Corner, at the intersection of No. 3 and No. 14, which lies about midway between the town of Morden and the town of Winkler. A traveller on that road, travelling from west to east, even in the daylight, but certainly more so in the evening, finds it very difficult, particularly if he's meeting oncoming traffic which is travelling from east to west, to know just when to make the turn. There have been some serious accidents happen there, Mr. Chairman; I have written a letter to the Deputy Minister of this Department, and I must say I received no answer, but I feel sure that that should be drawn to the attention of the minister, and something done in the way of either building another lane whereby, the traffic, that is going to turn to the left, can seek refuge without doing it in a space of 30 or 40 feet, particularly in view of the oncoming traffic which sails along merrily at 60 miles an hour and does not have to come to a stop. I wish the minister would make a note of that and see if something could be done.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I come to the performance which we saw this afternoon. Every member here, whether he sits in the Opposition seats of this House or with the government, and in this I speak particularly of those who are not Ministers of the Crown, have every right, from the usages and customs of the past in this House, and certainly I believe there is some protocol involved in it, that if there be an important announcement from the Ministers of the Crown, that this House should receive it first, and that it should be given to the members of the House. This is a custom that has grown up over the years, and I feel certain that it is one that should be not overlooked. I couldn't help but thinking when this was going on this afternoon about the discussion last night about the blinking lights, and the blinking lights are nothing to what the importance of this question here is. We have had already, Mr. Chairman, within the past few months, the spectacle of there being reported in the paper, the findings of the interim report of the Royal Commission on Education. We have had details of the Gas Enquiry get into the papers, and this afternoon, when I saw the honourable member from Pembina up in the Press Gallery, handing out the statements of the ministers, I must say, Mr. Chairman, that this is the first time in nine years that I have ever seen that. I think this is most important. I must say I think this is a very shabby performance that went on this afternoon. I say that not only on behalf of the members of the Opposition, sitting on this side of the House,


but also of the private members on the other side of the House. In the years that I have been in this House, I must say that the first information that I, as a private member, ever received, of the Minister of Public Works about what he was going to say about his detailed program, was received by the members when I was in the government, when he made the statement and the program was laid on the table before us. And I do feel, I do feel that we have lost something this afternoon, which, if it continues, is a most serious condition. And I would recommend, Mr. Chairman, that this not happen in the future.

MR. GRAY: I have listened with great interest to the presentation of the Honourable Minister of Public Works, or Acting Minister, when he introduced the estimates for road construction, and I felt that it is perfectly right, and he has made an excellent speech. Then when I listened to the Opposition, and particularly the Leader of the Opposition, criticizing the minister and finding fault with his presentation, I believed him too. The question may be asked by some honourable member, "how can both be right?" My answer would be, "he is right too". There is one thing that when two members in the House start quarrelling among themselves, particularly those who are on the inside in the Cabinet position, we get to know all about it and we get to know -- we've got together to know the truth of what is going on. So the discussion was very, very entertaining. Now whether it has done any good, I do not know.

My constituency does not ask for any roads in the sense, of the same, as the rural members. They are interested in roads, but they are interested because it helps the entire province. I have never claimed to be looking after the interests of my constituency alone. I feel that every corner of the province needs help, needs improvements.

And by the way, if the Honourable Minister of Public Works would ask me how to win the next election, I would tell him that the first thing to do is build the roads in the constituencies of the Opposition, and then probably take away their ammunition. So while I am not criticizing at all, as a matter of fact, I compliment each member of each constituency, bringing their requirements and the need for roads, in their own particular constituency. Personally, I am interested more in building roads, as much as possible, without worrying how much you are going to spend. A good road helps every community; a good road brings the producer and the consumer together, and both benefit by it. They get acquainted and they see each other's needs and, at the same time, both of them, because the producer gets a little bit more for his products than selling them to the big market, and the consumer pays a little bit less for the necessary supplies they need. So my suggestion, or my contribution, to this debate would be that let the government go ahead, build roads wherever necessary, don't give anyone any suspicion that they are favouring any particular party or particular district, just go ahead and build the roads, for good roads is very, very essential from many points of view; from the point of view of the farmers, from the point of view of -- the case of water, from the point of


view of making the life on the farm easier, better, because too many are leaving the farms for the conveniences of the city, not as much now as before the electrification, but at the same time they are leaving the farms. This is our main industry and we ought to encourage the young people by good roads, by electrification, by other essential conveniences, to stay on the farm.

But 10 or 12 years ago, or 15 years ago, the only roads they had in Israel is a path where the donkeys walked. Now they have the best roads that I ever seen anywhere, because they realize the foundation of their economic strength depends on the roads. The First Minister happened to be in Israel and I think he will bear me out, that all they do is build roads and good roads anywhere, and not particularly in this constituency or in the other constituency. That's my appeal from one, who is not directly interested in the particular constituency, but he is interested in development of the people of the province.

I personally would urge, and I will never oppose -- this is personal -- I will never oppose for any expenditure of improvements, because I know in the long run it will pay. And I am not worrying so much about the taxpayers making a contribution, because the average taxpayer, taking as an example of the city, is not paying enough when he gets out of the city; for instance, I paid 20 years ago, I paid $120.00 a year taxes and I had four children at school, which at that time cost $125.00 to educate a child. I don't think the taxpayer is worrying about making a further contribution, the man that pays big taxes, like the corporations, they have the money, but I am speaking about the average worker, the average farmer. He is not paying so much taxes because he gets more service from the stake than he's been contributing. So, let's go ahead and keep on building; keep on improving our roads, and let's make the lives of our people in the province a little bit happier and easier. Let's quit quibbling on local merits.


MR. A. A. TRAPP (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Chairman, listening to the debate on this very important question of highways brings me to mind other days when I sat on, as a reeve of a rural municipal council. The arguments are very much the same, the demands are definitely the same, more and more roads; and it is quite understandable, and we, in the municipality at that time, felt that while we were unable to give these extra roads, we didn't have the finances, we didn't have the resources from where to draw the money that was necessary to provide these roads, we always felt that, well if we could get more money from the provincial government, then we, in turn, could give more money - or more roads to the people of our municipality.

Now with a programme such as this, that the Honourable Minister has laid before us, 33 million dollars, and with the facts as I know them, in construction of highways and so forth, and the demands, I wonder if it isn't time that the provincial government should look elsewhere for some place to draw extra money from. It could be that the provincial authorities here, the government here feels that they are well able to finance this kind of a programme and they no doubt can find the money. However, I wonder if the time is not here - where there is some other level of government that should assume some responsibility in the financing of highways.

There is only one other level of government that we can approach and that is, those are the Federal authorities. The argument for the Federal people entering into the financing of highways I think has some merit. I think that there must be millions of dollars collected each year in sales tax on our automobiles, and when we build better highways, all we do is provide more money for the Federal government in the way of -- because people will buy more new cars.

Now, there are other things though that may be more important and better reasons for why the Federal Government should enter into the -- or assume their responsibility in this important matter. I feel that they have a definite responsibility and I would say just three reasons. I think that inter-provincial roads, roads that are constructed for inter-provincial trade are very important and I think that they certainly contribute to the economic growth of a nation. Not only to the economic growth of a province, but to the growth of a nation. I think that roads into mineral bearing areas or access roads in which the Federal Government now is taking a part in financing, I think these are definitely also a contribution to the economic growth of the nation. I think also that, well we talk so much of civil defence and we make so much of it, I think it is time that the Federal authorities assume some responsibility in the planning of roads that will contribute to the defence of the nation. That should not alone be the responsibility of the municipalities and of the provincial government.

Now as to inter-provincial highways, I might say that in the area, the constituency that I represent, I think that therein lies possibly the only other east-west road or rather running into the province east of us, the only road other than the old No. 1 which is now the No. 4, and the new No. 1 Trans-Canada highway.


And I'm speaking of a road that has been built east of Lac du Bonnet into the mineral areas of east of Lac du Bonnet and from there on into the province of Ontario. And, with the seaway coming right into the Lakehead, one cannot, maybe, be too far afield when he says that possibly in the not-too-far future, not too long a future, traffic will be wanting to go from eastern Manitoba through that section of Ontario connecting with the No. 1, the Trans-Canada, and going on to the Lakehead. And, also the other way around. If we have some enterprising business people establishing themselves in Lac du Bonnet to mill the minerals at, anywhere in that area, certainly those mines that will be located in eastern, in western Ontario will want to come down that road and come into our Province and have their work, their milling done there. Now, I think this is a very important thing and it, naturally, tends to the growth, the economic growth of the province, also to the economic growth of the nation. And, therefore, I say that possibly now is the time when the provinces in Canada should get together and should approach the federal authorities and say 'let us set up a commission, let us set us a group of people who will decide which roads are important to the nation'. And then designate these roads and have the federal authorities contribute to the maintenance, to the construction and maintenance of these roads.

While we talk so much of civil defence, it is, I don't think it is wrong to say that our roads that are being built now north and south into the big country to the south, that these roads may not play a vital part in the defence of our country some day. Let us hope that it does not have to happen, but it may happen. Let us hope that then we have a plan. Do we have a plan like that now? If there is a plan, then why should not the federal government contribute towards the cost of maintenance and construction of these roads? I think the time is here.

I would like to say to the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture, and he has been referred to as the acting Minister of Agriculture or rather of Public Works, - I would say to him that I am quite pleased with the program he has laid before us. Very pleased because highways have been something that I have been very interested in in the past years of my life and interested to the point where we in eastern Manitoba organized what we call "The Eastern Manitoba Development Board", and our main object was to get roads built. Municipal men, men of chambers, men that belong to the Chamber of Commerce, and business men all banded together and formed an organization where we could all plan together and lay down this plan before our government of that day. I might say that we were successful because the government saw that there were people who were interested who could point a program that would serve the people of eastern Manitoba and we've gone well along in that program and I see that the roads that are planned to be constructed in the area that I represent are roads that to a large extent, and I should say almost completely, roads that have been planned by the Eastern Manitoba Development Board in the past years. I feel that, I might say this, that there, at some times, has almost been a jealousy between representatives, provincial representatives


and men of the Eastern Manitoba Development Board and municipal councils even as to who should get the credit for building some of these roads but the fact is that they all were responsible. They all did a very good job in presenting the facts to the department of Public Works at that time and the result is that we do have a very good system of roads and while they are not all completed yet, I can see that the policy of the government will be to continue with that plan.

However, there are some questions that I would like to direct to the Honourable Minister of Public Works and I wish that he would make note of them and I believe he will because they are important questions to me and I would like to ask him what he means by this item where 53 miles north of No. 4 to Victoria Beach, of what that item actually covers. As I know it, construction was started on that section last year. The black-topping of it. As I know it, it has been completed this year. And I would like some explanation on it if there is anything, any explanation that he can give me on it.

I would also like to ask the Honourable Minister whether the Department of Public Works has decided to change the numbers of highways because reference has been made to this section under the number '12'. We have always known that highway as No. 22. I would like to know whether the number has changed to No. 12?

A reference has also been made to a bridge on the Brokenhead River. The construction of a bridge on the Brokenhead River. Well I am not aware that a bridge has fallen down or is in very bad dis-repair, and I would like that information. Only as information. I also might say that while the Honourable Minister has said none of the works - the proposed works here have been on last year's program or rather on the program of this past season, I have been under the impression that the bridge, the construction of the bridge over the Whitemouth River was under that, under this past season's program and on that program, and I would like to ask at this time, "what is happening to the approaches to both sides, are they, to that bridge, are they, will they be completed in the near future as early as possible or what the intention is there?"

Then, going on to highway No. 59 north. I would like to know what the municipal contribution will have to be if there, and if there will be a municipal contribution? I think that that is a question that the municipalities throughout the Province will want to know - if there are any of these highways in this program here that will require a municipal contribution? And we will, of course, wonder what that contribution will have to be. I might say that I am very glad to see that on the No. 11 from the Brookfield corner to MacArthur Falls, that work is proceeding there. It is work that was expected and believe rightfully so, that appears to have been the plan over the years - progressive plan - progressive construction and I'm also very pleased and I'm sure that the residents of the area between MacArthur Falls and St. George will be very glad to hear of the grading and gravelling that is to take place there under this proposed program.

I would like to ask the Honourable Minister though, and he


has said that construction will be different, it will be better, it will be superior to what has been done in the past. I would like to ask him in what way will this construction be different, or will it be different than the construction that has taken place on the - on that portion last year? I think that we will want to know just in what way these roads will be better. I'm also very pleased to hear that No. 59 from Libau to Gull Lake will receive attention next year. I think it is a nice, and a very important thing because that road, when completed, will take the congestion off the No. 4 east. And I would urge the Minister to consider including in the plan for other years to come as soon as possible the completion of that section up to Pine Falls because that will, that is, that should be the ultimate terminus of that highway.

Now I would also like to know, Mr. Minister, just on this section here where it says Seddons Corner to, I think it is the Radar Base, what contributions are being made by the municipalities, the municipality involved, or is there a contribution only from the Federal Government to the radar base, or who is contributing and what percentage? I think that is quite important that we know that because there is a lot of traffic there that comes in from the base, from the people who are manning the base and there have been some questions at some time as to whether, whose responsibility it is. Whether it is the Federal Government's responsibility, or whether it is the Provincial or a Municipal?

There is one other item here that has drawn my attention and there again the mention of P.T.H. No. 12 is on this program. I see here where contemplated construction five miles west of Beausejour connecting to P.T.H. No. 12. I take that to be the section that I have known as No. 22 south connecting with No. 12 at Ste. Anne. I would like to know if that is that portion that will parallel the existing No. 4 for a stretch of five miles. As I know it from this description here, No. 4 runs for a stretch of five miles parallel to this, to this location given here. I would like to know if I am correct in that assumption.

Other than that I would like to sum up by saying that I am very pleased that eastern Manitoba is going along or is getting the attention that it has received for the past number of years, a progressing of highway construction that will serve the needs of our area. And, while it may be said that this Government will do many other things, I feel that possibly when they get to constructing the section from Libau or the No. 59 at Libau through to Lac du Bonnet, then we will say the new Government is really doing something because nothing has been started on that yet. And I would also like to say that we certainly--while we understand what trunk highways are, there may be people who feel that the entrances to the Whiteshell and to the eastern Lac du Bonnet area, Bird River country, they feel that also is vitally a provincial highway. And they will want to know whether anything will be done on those sections, and when. I would really be pleased if some of these questions that I have raised could be answered.

MR. PAULLEY: I would like, I thought possibly somebody else was going to speak. Just for the purpose of clarification I


wonder if the Minister would give us the information as to what is involved in the term "channelization" which is the first item that is on the sheet 1. And also in reference to the Trans-Canada Highway-Seine River which I think is wholely in my own constituency, a brief description of what is contemplated in there. And also, I would like the Minister to answer, if he will, there was some discussion when the Symington Yard was under contemplation of the removal of part of either highway 59 or No. 1. I would like to know if any complication has set in as a result of the building of the Symington Yard in respect to the highways which were already built.

HON. ERRICK F. WILLIS (Minister of Public Works): I presume, Mr. Chairman, if there are any more questions I'd like to have them now. If not, I'll close the debate.

MR. EDMOND PREFONTAINE (Carillon): Mr. Chairman - close the debate? I don't imagine that there's any debate to be closed.

MR. WILLIS: Well, I'll wait then.

MR. PREFONTAINE: Go ahead - go ahead. You'll get mixed up in your questions - go ahead.

MR. SPEAKER: Any further...

HONOURABLE DUFF ROBLIN (Premier): I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that if some of the members have questions they would like to bring to the Minister's attention that it would be helpful if they would let us know what their points are so that he can include them in his reply.

MR. M. N. HRYHORCZUK (Ethelbert): The honourable minister has the opportunity of replying to questions oftenener than once. We notice this afternoon that the number of questions that were asked the Honourable Minister, made it almost impossible for him to give answers to all the questions that were asked, and I think that in all fairness to the members here, as well as to the honourable minister, he should be given an opportunity to answer the questions that are asked him, and take more than the one time to do the answering in.

MR. ROBLIN: I think an answer can only be given once and the Minister can use his own discretion. And I think if anyone has any points he would like to raise, let them put them forward and I know that we will do our best to get an answer.... Certainly, use your discretion. Nothing against that...

MR. W. C. MILLER (Rhineland): I think, Mr. Chairman, it would be much more helpful to the Minister if he answered the questions of a few members and then let the other members proceed and that would give him a chance to digest the questions and give his answers. We want to be very helpful to the Minister.

MR. ROBLIN: That's not the way you did it.


MR. WILLIS: I find myself just a little confused, Mr. Chairman, I had always thought that the Opposition preferred it the other way when they were in power. Now while I'm quite willing to answer a dozen times if that's called for, and, but if there are others, why I...I think you were about to speak now. Maybe you would.

MR. E. R. SCHREYER (Brokenhead): Well, Mr. Chairman, I did have some points to raise, some directly connected with this list here, and some indirectly connection. Now, I will raise two points at this time, and then I shall sit down and perhaps later on carry on with the other pertinent information.

First of all I would like to draw to the attention of the Honourable Minister as I did earlier this afternoon that, and as the Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet brought out that the mileage from P.T.H. No. 4, junction of No. 4 and 22 to Victoria Beach had been completed and seal coated last year and, in connection with that, I noticed that this list or this schedule lists 53.4 miles. Now I'm quite sure that the mileage is 47.9. Not--I admit there is only 4 or 5 miles involved there but it is 4 or 5 miles nevertheless. And also, on the seventh page, I noticed that there is some reference made to Bird's Hill P.T.H. No. 4, eight miles of shoulder gravel and seal coat. Now this is no reflection on any one but it seems to me again that this was done last year unless it was done poorly perhaps, I don't know. I can, I well recall seeing a good deal of shoulder work being done there last year in that particular stretch of road.

The other thing I wish to raise at this point was the matter of limited access. The Department declaring a certain area as a public works area. Now perhaps it's not directly connected with this which is under discussion but, nevertheless, it is pertinent to it. In the past few years, I don't know how long, there obviously has been a great deal of inconsistency in declaring certain areas public works areas. Take along a stretch of road near Lockport, you'll have one owner of property finding himself in a position where he has property and he cannot get permission to build a culvert giving himself access to that property - consequently the property is almost useless, and then on the very next adjoining lot you have a man setting up a stand of some kind and receiving permission to set up an entrance. Now, I just thought I'd bring that to the Honourable Minister's attention. Perhaps he could make some comment on that.

MR. SHOEMAKER: Mr. Speaker, about a week ago I had an order for a return on information relative to that section of P.T.H. No. 4 between Gladstone and Neepawa and I -- the program we got this afternoon satisfies most of the questions that I asked except that I still don't know the location - whether the proposed section of No. 4 between Gladstone and Neepawa, whether it is the intention of the department to rebuild the present road or use the one a mile south. That was question number one. I was particularly interested in the Minister's remarks relative to the road as it is today. I understand that it was the first black topped road in the Province of Manitoba. I think it was


put down in 1932 or thereabouts and indeed as the Minister has suggested, it has stood up very well. The soil, the composition of the soil in that particular area is such that it does make an excellent base for blacktop. In fact, I think in looking over the entire program here that it is the only place that you indicate the nature of the work as being sand stabilization. I think it's the only item of the 148 items - or whatever number it is, it's the only place that you indicate that there is sand stabilization.

Now I have very, very few complaints to make, Mr. Minister, because it would appear that of the $33,000,000.00 proposed, that about $1,000,000.00 of it will be spent in my constituency so I should be more than happy. I'm using a figure of approximately $50,000.00 per mile and I see that we're going to get twenty-two some miles on No. 4 and, in addition to that, on No. 34 the road running south from Gladstone to No. 1, we're getting another 18 miles or so of grading done that is really quite necessary. About a month ago, I obtained traffic counts which I found very, very interesting. The traffic--what I was seeking when I requested the traffic counts was this - I realize that No. 34 from Austin south had been blacktopped some years ago whereas the section from Gladstone to No. 1 had not been and the traffic counts revealed that the section which you propose to do now, carried almost exactly the same amount of traffic as the section south of Austin and it would indicate to me that every car that left the No. 2 highway proceeded straight through to No. 4. I haven't the counts with me but they were running about 285 a day or something like that on both ends and it would just seem a coincidence - those figures.

Now, there's one point that does bother certain municipal men and that is this. That where, if it could be established, the number of cars on any given road that was foreign to the area - I realize that you have machinery that can determine the traffic, but one thing it can't do is determine the traffic that's foreign to the municipality - but if there was some way of establishing the traffic that was foreign to an area on any given road and when it exceeded a certain percentage of foreign traffic that, if it were possible for the Government to take it over on a 100% basis rather than a market road, I think, at presently a market road, the Province contributes 60% and the municipality 40%. But if, and when, the traffic foreign to the area exceeded say 75% of the total traffic, would it be possible for the Province to take it over and maintain it on a 100% basis? I am thinking particularly of that section of road from Erickson east now, we go about a mile south of Erickson and go straight east to No. 5. Since the Government have taken over what Mr. -- what the honourable member for Birtle-Russell calls the Turkey Trail, I understand they took it over about two years ago. A year ago this summer? Well, anyway, whenever they did take it over it did seem to--good. As a result of that, and because of the fact that the Turkey Trail is a better road now than it used to be, you find that quite a little bit of traffic coming down to Erickson, going a mile south - Erickson by the way, is the end of the Turkey Trail. Then it goes a mile south and goes straight on through the Mountain Road and comes out at No. 4 and the


people in that area can't hardly understand why that 20 miles there should have been excluded because they consider it an extension more or less of the Turkey Trail.

Now, I'm not suggesting that you blacktop it or anything of that nature, but if it were possible to take it over and maintain it whereby the Province pays 100% of the cost of maintaining it.

Another road that I'm thinking of in particular and I think that the traffic counts would probably reveal that the traffic on it would be equal to that of No. 34, is what we call the Carberry Road, and it presently, I think, has about eight miles of blacktop on it now; blacktop that was laid there ten years ago - just a section of it - and the municipality of Langford and the municipality of North Cypress both feel that the traffic - that probably 80% of the traffic on that road is foreign to the area and it does become a bit of a burden to the municipalities in question.

Another thing that does bother me a little bit is that nine people I understand, have lost their lives since January 1st of this year at the Junction of No. 1 and the Carberry Road about two miles north of Carberry. Now, I don't know why--I can't account for that number of deaths but there was one there - a fatal accident there just about a month ago but whether it is due to the fact that there is not enough warning at the point where they cross No. 1, I, I can't account for it at all but if there has been nine lives lost, I think that that probably warrants an investigation of some kind and probably further precautions should be made.

Now, I don't think that I have anything else to suggest, Mr. Minister, and I am quite pleased with--because of the fact that we in the Gladstone constituency seem to be getting dollar-wise about $1,000,000.00 of the $33,000,000.00.

Thank you very much.

MR. TRAPP: I would like to ask the Chairman - will this close the debate--?

MR. ROBLIN: No, ...would like to say...

MR. WILLIS: Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate the kind remarks that were made by several of the members, particularly I think of the first one who spoke, the member for Birtle-Russell made me blush a little bit in regard to everything that he had.

Apparently he had been reading Dicken's "Great Expectations" and got them. The member for Dufferin spoke of several matters. I blushed at what he said in quite a different way.

As far as the statement that I said "concrete was the only method". That is quite a piece from what I said. Concrete in some locations where you must have heavy traffic, is the only answer and definitely was the only answer on '75' which is one of our most heavily travelled roads. But where you get a lighter traffic road, in my opinion, in most places, an asphalt road is satisfactory, as you don't need the concrete except where you are carrying heavy traffic. The honourable member spoke about the method used in the old country whereby the contractor,


having built the road, maintained it for five years thereafter. I think that is a good thing for the old country but I think that in this country, our contractors are so transient, they are in and they are out, and many of them go broke within the five years after they start building roads because some of them have the idea that all you need is the machine and credit with the machine company and you can build roads and the facts are quite contrary to that and many of them, to use the colloquialism, 'lose their shirts' because they get into a contract where they estimated incorrectly and I could tell you contractors who have lost $45,000.00 on one contract. And so it is not easy but our contractors to a degree are transient and for that reason it is more difficult to do it here although I think it's probably an admirable practice.

I note the member says that the danger of highways, the crossing of highways 14 and 3, and we'll certainly have a look at that. Now we come down to the question of the notice to the House and to the Press and as I pointed out before, this is the 11th time I have done exactly the same, whereby, besides speaking and then to give the information to the Press after you've started speaking. That is the regular Ottawa custom. I think it is the custom in nearly all Houses. That is the practice that once you start speaking in regard to a speech then it is handed out to the Press. That's done universally, I think, in the Legislatures and the Parliaments all over this country and that is not new here and has been a regular performance among those who have been in the cabinet for a length of time. And I regret the Honourable Member who had high positions in this province, should use the expression of a 'shabby performance'. The most vicious statement that has been directed to me in 23 years, and I shall not dignify the performance by an answer.

The Honourable Member for Inkster spoke about roads and their influence on civilization, and I think his point was very well taken, because in most countries of the world, roads came, then came civilization. That is why roads are so important and that's why the invention of the wheel was probably the greatest invention in the world, because it permitted travel all over the world itself.

The member for Lac du Bonnet mentioned the necessity for Federal aid and I would inform him that I moved four resolutions in four different years in this Legislature seeking for support from the then Provincial Government asking for Federal aid, and while three times I was refused, on the fourth occasion it was carried unanimously and the resolution went to Ottawa and at that time we were able to influence the Legislatures of Saskatchewan and Alberta and they too sent resolutions to Ottawa, and whether directly or indirectly, I would not say, but we got the Trans-Canada Highway. This year Manitoba will enter into an agreement with the Federal Government whereby $15,000,000.00 will be spent on northern roads within this Province, over a period of five years. I do not think it would be probably fitting if I should go over all these questions with the member for Lac du Bonnet, but I should be very glad to discuss them in my office with him, where we could have a map and go over them in detail,


and I would be very happy to give him the answers to his questions, and if he cares to put them in writing I would be glad to put answers in writing as well, so that he'll have them as a permanent record.

The member for Radisson was asking about channelization. It comes from the expression where you control traffic in a direction, where you want to ease them off that to get them over on the right hand side to turn to the right, or on the left hand side to turn to the left, you help them there with a special side road which permits them to go off without any damage. I must confess that I haven't go myself the full information in regard to the Symington affair but I understand that there is no interference there but I'd be glad to get that form at a later date.

The honourable member for Brokenhead too, spoke in regard to a number of roads in that area and if he would do the same, I think it would be much more satisfactory if he'd come to my office, I would be glad to go over them with him in detail. I'm sure that way, he'd have much more information than would otherwise be available.

In regard to the limited access roads, wherever they are, and these are at Lockport; it does present quite a problem. You do not want to interfere with traffic which is coming along there, which invariably is, and, therefore, you have limited access roads. Each person who has a 40 foot lot wants a separate road into his place and that makes the difficulty. As, and when it is possible, it is better to build a short side road over the ditch as it were, where they can go along and make a crossing at a safe place. But if you allow cars to come out any 20 feet onto a fast highway you're going to kill a number of people. Therefore, where there is not room for that side road, it makes a very great engineering difficulty, to say as to whether these people should have access to a highway where there is fast traffic and people are going by 60 miles an hour, or whether you should limit that access, and probably save some lives. It is a difficulty but, where possible, it is better to put a small side road there where they can go out all at the same place with safety and those things are difficult.

I was pleased with the remarks of the member for Gladstone when he spoke about the Gladstone-Neepawa road which is on the program. I didn't think it wise that he should be informed before the program was announced as a special favour to him. Consequently it is in the program and that's the answer and the location is the same location as it is now.

Question of traffic counts which the honourable member spoke about are important, and that is one of the best basis as far as planning highways is concerned. Because good engineers would depend upon the traffic counts, probably more than anything else to determine as to where a road should be made into a trunk highway. There is the further consideration of course, that where you're going to build a road where there hasn't been one before, you have to use other means on other roads before you can determine by a traffic count as to what traffic will be. In other words, at one time on the side of the road there may not be scarcely any traffic, consequently you'll have to estimate and


calculate and add up the traffic which there is in that area, and try and guess by means which engineers use, and quite accurately, to find out what traffic will develop if you build in that location the type of road which you have in mind. And the more superior the type of road the greater traffic you will have in that area, but traffic counts in general are very helpful for that purpose.

The honourable member spoke about the Carberry trail - the Carberry road and I'm greatly surprised that there have been at No. 1 and the Carberry road so many accidents. It is difficult to understand. I know that corner well, and I don't know whether there were special circumstances or not. The member for Gladstone did the usual thing which so many members do - he tried to give away three roads tonight, and I think if a Minister were to accept these offers, then every road in Manitoba would have become a trunk highway. But I should counsel him not to give up in regard to them, because it will be our endeavour to build new roads in the order of their importance. And it is my opinion that when we have a planning division, we'll be able to do them much more scientfically than would otherwise be the case. Much more on a question of need, much more on the question of traffic which will develop in those locations, and we will have our highways in the proper locations to a greater degree, than would otherwise be possible.

If there are other questions, I should be glad to try and answer them.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I have a question I would like to ask of the Minister and that is in connection with access roads - the policy that he has just announced. What is the position of a municipality which has entered in to an agreement with the department on a different basis, but where the work cannot be completed this year, and the vote expires - will they come under the new policy?

MR. GRAY: Mr. Chairman, have you ever considered building--constructing roads by the Province directly?

MR. WILLIS: I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.

MR. GRAY: Have you ever considered building roads on the equipment owned by the Government?

MR. TEILLET: Mr. Chairman, I waited deliberately until the Minister had answered a number of these questions because a few comments and questions that I have are somewhat on another line. I think every year since I've been in this House, I have made a plea for additional crossings under the Red River. I think the Seine River has improved to some extent, and while one part of the city will obviously be well served by the Disraeli Bridge, we have another sector of the city badly in need of additional crossings. Now I know that there has been a study completed on this question, and I wonder if the Minister might give us an idea of what the Government contemplates in this regard. We


know that we've suffered from traffic congestion in the southern part of the city because of this lack for some time and we've had just recently an example of what can happen if for one reason or another one of the only two practicable bridges we have, happens to be closed.

The third bridge - I know that I was called down on one occasion when I suggested that the Elm Park Bridge was obsolete and my honourable friend now sitting on my immediate left thought that I was a little harsh on his bridge, the one he used every day in those days, before he followed in the footsteps or rather preceded the Honourable the First Minister by taking a wife unto himself. Now of course he doesn't use it. But I do believe that here we have a problem that affects the development of the suburbs, it affects the livelihood of these people. It requires them to leave their residence at somewhat earlier times because of the traffic congestions that occur at the hours of the morning and hours of the evening when people are going to and from work. Any, any one of you who used the Norwood bridge at the closing hour - around five o'clock, or between, around eight and eight-thirty in the morning, will realize that it's a very trying experience. And I do believe - I'm sure that particularly now with the Wilbur Smith report on hand, it should be possible to take some action. I'm not going to suggest for a moment where this bridge should go. I'm not complaining about my constituency at this stage - there's nothing here for it. Of course it's not one of these constituencies that lends itself to highways. I only suggest to the Minister of course, that when these access - this access road policy comes into being, we might have a suggestion or two for him.

However, there is, between the Norwood Bridge and, at the moment, I believe it's Morris - no river crossing. You will have one very shortly at the Perimeter road which will serve to some extent to ease the heavy traffic that comes into St. Boniface, a lot of the truck traffic particularly. But it will not ease that jam that occurs in the morning or at five o'clock, at the closing hour, that we have now. I - the location presumably should be somewhere between the city of Winnipeg and the municipality of St. Vital, so that a lot of that traffic which now comes over the Norwood Bridge, and I'm sure that traffic counts will show that people have developed a habit now of using Archibald Street from the south end of St. Vital to come to Winnipeg in order to avoid this traffic they go across the Trans-Canada bridge on the Seine, go on Archibald, up north to Provencher, and those go go further north, use the Redwood bridge, presumably later the Disraeli. That is the kind of traffic pattern that is developing at the moment. People going miles out of their way, in order to avoid these jams. Now, I'm sure I don't need to say a great deal more to suggest, and I'm sure that the Minister will take a good look at this. I would be much encouraged if he would inform the committee of what the Government has in mind in this regard.

The other one, the Provencher bridge, of course, is going to be faced very shortly with another problem and that again should be taken into consideration. We have now traffic being


channelled in there from the north part of the city, that is Elmwood, East Kildonan, Transcona, that is those people who try to pick hours when it is a little lighter than Norwood bridge. Then later on with the completion of those approaches in the east part of St. Boniface, we will face a problem of an overpass or underpass, under or over the C.P.R. tracks at the far end of Provencher. That is the kind of thing I had in mind a moment ago when I said that we would be talking to the Minister one of these days about some of these problems.

There are - this is all part and parcel of the ever growing traffic problem and here again, because of the improvement of roads that we've had in the last year or two, for the first time in the last five or six years, we've had some fairly good roads in Eastern Manitoba. And that of course - that has helped the community, it has helped the area. It's not a complaint, but it does cause, of course, additional jams on those river crossings. And that is the - as you improve one situation in an area, it is worsened in another. And I suggest that unless some very quick action is taken on this question of river crossing, we're going to find ourselves in rather difficult circumstances. If an accident or anything of that sort occurred which would cause one of those bridges to be closed for any length of time, the situation would become intolerable. We've just had one week of it, and it was extremely difficult to get home. My own experience here when I had to get across the river during those hours, or at least when I should have gone across the river during those hours, I just refrained from doing so, and thereby neglected things I should have done, and that is only one example out of many. I know that it took, in some instances, as much as 45 minutes to drive from here to the junction of St. Anne's and St. Mary's Road, and about 40 minutes of that, I think, was taken to get across the bridge. Well, those are the kinds of problems that we're facing now. Problems that will be aggravated very, very acutely in the near future, so that I do urge the Government to take action as quickly as possible on these bridges.

MR. JUBA: I cannot resist to say a few words, especially when the honourable member from St. Boniface spoke of the many traffic problems in the Greater Winnipeg area. I would suggest that we could overcome a lot of these problems if we had total amalgamation and I think that if the honourable ... [Interjection] ...I didn't get that remark.

MR. TEILLET: Remember Horatio at the bridge?

MR. JUBA: Well, we'll see how far he gets, but the honourable member would be well advised to advocate total amalgamation, and I say this with good reason, that if all the municipalities would amalgamate in the Greater Winnipeg area, I am sure, in fact we have positive proof that regardless of what Government forms, or what Government is in power in the Province of Manitoba, they'll come to your assistance; that has been proven, both by the Liberals here a few years ago, and the Conservatives, in their assistance


as far as the Disraeli Bridge and Expressway is concerned. But if we would unite, I am sure that the Government will go along with us, and assist us in over-coming the problems that presently exist. Go ahead.

MR. TEILLET: I was simply going to say, Mr. Chairman, that unity would be not too difficult. Some of us are a little hesitant about the City of Winnipeg's attitude. Union is not compulsion.

MR. JUBA: We're not compelling anyone, Mr. Chairman. I just made the suggestion. We do not believe in using compulsion by no stretch of the imagination. Because the municipalities in due course of time will find out that total amalgamation is their salvation. But I would like to ask the Minister one question. In going through the works program here, or the highway program, I've noted on 14 projects here that they use the word chloride gravelling - grading, gravelling chloride. I might point out that we in the city also use chloride, and I assume that the word chloride, is calcium chloride, and when we talk of calcium chloride it's nothing less than salt. We had a sad experience in the city of Winnipeg, when the public were aware that we were using salt on the streets and I could assure you there was a terrific uproar, and the citizens strongly objected to the use of salt on the highways. And I noticed that the use of chloride on the highways is just something new within the Province here. I was just wondering if the Government has received any objections from the motorists regarding the use of chlorides on the highway.

And, one other question I would like to ask the Minister. I believe that he stated that the cost of a concrete highway in comparison with an asphalt highway is two to one. Am I right? Yes, well I'm not going to be that technical. But I just wondered if the Minister has made a cost comparison over a period of ten or fifteen years of a concrete highway in comparison with that of asphalt...taking into consideration the repair work that is done on asphalt highways. I think I'll wait till he answers them two questions.

MR. PREFONTAINE: Mr. Chairman, I have just a few words under three headings. First heading is this one, "Readiness for an election." This program is opposite the proposed highway program. The size of this program, the amount of money involved seems to indicate to me that the Government would like to be ready for an election. It has survived this Session. We were up ready, and we did vote on the main motion and that's the real test, and we'll be up and ready to vote when you call the House again. I hope that our friends, and my friends to the left will have the courage to stand up at that time. The real test is the main motion, it's not the amendment - it's the main motion.

MR. ROBLIN: I don't mind which one. I'm easy to please.

MR. PREFONTAINE: You know that this group was ready - has been ready throughout the session all the time, and it will


be ready next Session, January or February.

MR. ROBLIN: I'm afraid that I'm not entirely convinced...not entirely...

MR. PREFONTAINE: And I'm sure that every - if this part of the Opposition is willing to stand up and to be counted on the main motion next January, or February, we'll have an immediate election and there will be a good roads program all ready to present to the people of Manitoba at that time. So the Government has shown the preparation by handing us this program at this time because I venture to predict, Mr. Chairman, that not half of the 33 million dollars will be committed by the time we sit next January. Not half that money will be committed. It was not necessary to present us with this full program - a year's program, '59 - '60 - at this time. There are items here that will be done by the Government itself. Some seal-coating - small jobs. The Government will do it with its own equipment. why should it be presented to us at this time? At an emergency or special Session? No good reason, except that it makes good reading. It's good, politically speaking. If there's going to be an election before - a real budget, an estimate presented to the House, and that's possible under the present situation, with a Minority Government in charge of Government. So that I say that it seems to me that this shows that the Government wants to be ready for an election.

I have another heading, "Credit and Blame". Now there's been a lot of talk here tonight and there was a lot of talk during the election with respect to the bad roads that we've had in this Province, of very many bad roads, but 75 Highway has always been claimed by a certain person as one of the best roads on the North American continent. It is a good road. I give credit to the Minister of Public Works of the time who started this road. He did not complete it. Mr. Morton, the late Mr. Morton finished it. But should all the credit go to him? He hasn't claimed all the credit, but he has made speech after speech, year after year, from this side of the House, comparing these 70 odd miles of Highway #75 to the other roads there were not standing up. Now, I should think that when a good road is built, credit should go to the Government that builds it, to the engineer, to the Minister. The engineers have recommended this type of road to Emerson. The Minister was able to secure the money from his colleagues and I think that credit should go to whom credit is due. When a bad road is built, it might not be the fault of anyone in particular, it might be the conditions that were difficult at the time of construction, and there was one stretch of road that was - did not stand up very well. That was constructed by the present Minister of Public Works, the ten miles of road between Steinbach and St. Anne's. And I see that there is on page five, to be put on a new bituminous mat on that road. I would like to suggest to the Minister that although I'm not an engineer, but I believe that possibly this road should be rebuilt. There's very heavy traffic there from the Trans-Canada to Steinbach, very, very heavy traffic and I do not know if it would be wise to put another mat, because there is a mat on that road now - it has been difficult to maintain it because of the


weight of traffic on it - and I would like to suggest to the Minister that maybe this road should be rebuilt before it is reshaped again. But I would like to say that I would not like to blame the Minister for this stretch of road, neither the engineers nor the Government that was in office at that time, and we should always be careful to think that there are three parties involved. The Minister himself has a lot of it to do, the engineers and the Government that supplies the money.

I would like to say a word to deplore the fact that the Mississippi Parkway has not been added to this program. Maybe the Minister will have some money appropriated next Spring for this road. I hope that the start will be made during the season, 1959-60. It is a very important road. It will bring a lot of wealth to this Province in the way of tourists, and, of course, I'm not blaming the Minister, he told us that some other projects were not included in this program, and I hope this is one. And also the road that I mentioned when I spoke in his absence yesterday.


MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, my dear friend over here to my right has caused me to reflect on some of the words that he has just uttered. His latter part of his remarks, I think, were quite in order when he was discussing the question of the roads. But the longer this session lasts, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that there is one road that the honourable gentleman and his colleagues is on, and that is the road to oblivion. The criticisms that the honourable gentleman has just made of the present government presenting us with this long list of road improvements reminds me of one or two similar sort of documents that we received from the former governments. I know, in the 1957 session, in the 1957 session, such a list accompanied by many other little frills, was presented to the House. And at that time we, in opposition, called it a Santa Claus budget. And we presumed at that time, because of the presentation by the government of that budget and program, that we would have an election. And then came June of 1957. So, like the reference to ostriches, the heads were buried in the sands, hoping that the indication of the fate that was going on to prevail a little later, would pass over. So then, again, in 1958, similar suggestions of a budget was made. And I am sure that the February dissolution at Ottawa had a lot of bearing on the type of a budget that was presented at that time. But, unfortunately, March came ahead of June. March came ahead of June the 16th, and all the plans, as the old saying goes "o' mice and men gang aft agley" certainly went insofar as the honourable friends to my right is concerned.

We have been continuously chastised by our honourable friends, for the course of action that we have taken in this House. We have continuously, in this corner, stated our position quite clearly, and, I would say, that once again to my honourable friend, that while it's true that we had an opportunity of voting on your resolution, out of the 19 members in your group, one had the courage of his convictions, to vote with ours. And I would like to say to the honourable gentlemen opposite, that the chastising which we have received, - from time to time, over there, - can be overcome by simply taking the same step that John did. You don't have to be defeated in this legislature. You can follow his steps when it pleases you. So, with all that ... with all of the blame that has been cast on our shoulders, I think of all the three parties in this House, Mr. Chairman, and I say it in all sincerity, we are the only ones who have stuck to our guns properly throughout this whole session.

MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Chairman, I didn't like to interrupt the honourable gentleman, because he was going along so nicely. But I would point out to you, Sir, and to the committee, that we're supposed to be discussing a captial budget for roads. Now, let's get back to business.

MR. J. M. HAWRYLUK (Burrows): Mr. Chairman, being a city member, I don't think I have any quarrel with the minister who presented a very worth while program of road building for this year, and possibly for the next. All I can say is this. Whether I represent the City of Winnipeg, whether many of you people


represent the rural areas, we're all aware that roads and good roads are a necessity to the Province of Manitoba. Firstly, because I think that we have moved away from the horse and buggy stage and the fact that the rural members and farmers are dependent a great deal on the revenue that they get, is by means of having the roads on which to transport their goods and livestock. Also, the trucking business that is going on in this province, whether it's by the City Draymen or by the farmer, has been a source of great revenue to those interested in that project.

As was mentioned by a member this evening that in order to implement the education bill, I'm in full agreement, that unless we have the roads built, your plan of having a centralized secondary area will fall by the wayside. I've had the occasion to talk to many rural members who are questioning, they're not questioning the, the, the, the sense of the bill, but are wondering how some of their children will be able to be transported long distances, through poor adequate roads.

Thirdly, I believe roads are necessary because the tourist trade in our province has increased immensely in the past four or five years. As a matter of fact, according to the figures that I read in the newspapers, the source of revenue that is brought in by the tourist trade is running into millions of dollars. In other words, not only the City of Winnipeg, but I'm sure that many other country points are gaining that revenue because of the access of good roads into the various parts of the north part of our country.

I would like to go to the defence, to the honourable minister. All afternoon we heard the honourable minister being berated that and criticized that when he was minister that he didn't do that and that. I believe that the chickens are coming home to roost. The fact that the coalition government, - well, he is taking care of himself, - but the fact is that when the honourable minister was in coalition I recall that there were four former Conservative members as ministers in that Cabinet. Four. That's right. There was the honourable member, Mr. Miller, Mr. Greenlay, and the late member Mr. McLenaghen, as well as Mr. Willis. They were members of that Cabinet of the coalition government, and I feel that I can go to the defence of the minister by the fact that I, whenever he might have had a good policy in regard to roads, the fact that the Liberal Cabinet when it was in majority, he might have been squashed. Never mind! He's spent ten years, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, as no one else has in the House, and I think that it's only fair that I was a member nine years ago, and I do recall the Cabinet was in existence at that time. And that is one of the reasons that a coalition government could not be put into practice this year. Because we feel that any time two parties -- all right -- I feel that when you have a situation existing like that .... I'll just finish that -- I feel that a situation existing of that type definitely one can lose one's identity. I would like to appeal to the minister, the fact that the road building plan has been going into effect for the past five to ten years; that more and more cars are on the highway; there is a tendency for more speeding, I would suggest and plead to the minister that something be done about


putting up more and more signs, safety protection signs on the highways of Manitoba. We have had many, many traffic fatalities at the railroad crossings and I think there's plenty of room for improvement in the province at the present time. I think some measure of credit goes to the previous government as well as to the present government, in the fact that they gave a million dollars or so more for the Disraeli Bridge. I can assure you that the City of Winnipeg as well as the Province of Manitoba will reap the benefits once that bridge is built. We had an example of what could happen in a short span of five days when the Provencher Bridge was closed for a short time. I think we need more bridges. I also would like to see the government appeal to the Federal Government. I think it's up to the Federal Government to have more subways built. According to the report of a recent newspaper, they claim that two crossings are in a critical state where once the railroad train passes, it creates a great deal of congestion. And there's two subways that should be built - there's the one at Oak Point Line which crosses Sargeant, Ellice and Portage, close by the St. James border. And I think the other one that is a must is the one in St. Boniface on Archibald Street. These are, subways and bridges are necessary if we are to meet the demands of the future suggestion that is being made by the commission in which they think that by 1961, they will have 365,000 cars operating on the streets of Greater Winnipeg.

I want to assure the government that the road plan is, program that is being offered is a must. We need them, -- the taxpayers of Manitoba will not mind paying more money for it because it is a necessity if we are to develop to the extent that other provinces have in Canada.

MR. A. A. TRAPP (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Chairman, there is a few remarks that I'd like to make at this time. I would like to say that I was pleased to hear the minister say that he agrees with me that the Federal Government has responsibility in the construction of the roads. I'm sure that he arrived at that conclusion a lot sooner than I did due to the fact that he has been engaged in that work for many more years than I have. I feel that, also that now is the time that if he is of that opinion, that now is the time that he really can exert some pressure on the federal authorities and bring that thing about it, because he certainly is in a good position to do that.

I would like to draw a condition that exists now to his attention, a condition that has arisen over the past years. We, east of Winnipeg, were happy to see the construction of highway 59. We were told that this would be a quick entrance to Winnipeg; it would be a shortcut; it would be a quick entrance to the heart of Winnipeg, and we were all happy with it. However, developments have taken place that have sort of made the picture not quite as clear as it seemed to be at that time. Everyone who is familiar with the No. 59 highway, the Birdshill Area, knows of the existence of large gravel pits in that area; and while highway 59 is a good highway, while it is serving the public, during the school hours, school closing hours, and school,


just before the opening of the school, a school bus travels on that highway. Which is right, which is not bad at all, which is probably what it should do. But here is where the trouble comes in. The school bus loads on the highway and it discharges its load on the highway. The bus stops to load and stops to unload on that highway. The heavy gravel trucks that are travelling there with their very heavy loads; the heavy tandem trucks, and the single axle trucks, travelling on that road are having a difficult time of keeping within the law of stopping at that school bus when it stops to unload its passengers or load. There are an awful lot of trucks. I don't know the exact amount that are hauling gravel from there, but there are an awful lot of trucks. And when the school bus stops to discharge its passengers, its young passengers, there might be, I've seen 11 trucks lined up behind the school bus when it is unloading. And anybody coming up from the back doesn't know that there's a school bus ahead. They can't know it, because the trucks are large; they cover; they obstruct the view, and you just cannot see what the holdup is. I've had the occasion, and this is not the reason I'm bringing it up, I've had the occasion where I thought that there was a truck out of commission in the front and I passed it only to be stopped by the patrol car that was right behind the bus, and I naturally had to pay my fine. Now that isn't the reason, as I say, that I'm here and bringing this matter to the attention of the House, or to the attention of the minister.

I feel that if we are to construct highways that are to bring traffic in, I do not think that it is right that these buses should load on that highway and hold up the traffic. - I think, in the interests of safety. A very close neighbour of mine just got killed very recently as a result of an accident, where the bus stopped, the truck could not stop and had to swerve out and, naturally, an accident occurred in the fatality of a good citizen of this province. I think that we are endangering the lives of our school children by this thing that is happening now, and I feel that this could be avoided quite easily if a little bit of a turn-out could be made where the bus would load and unload. I do not say that this condition does not exist elsewhere on the approaches to the city, but I certainly say that due to the fact that the heavy trucks that are travelling there with their heavy loads, that this problem is considerably worse in that area than in any other entrance to the city.

Now, I was taking part in this debate a little earlier, and I'm certainly pleased to hear that the honourable minister will give me the answers to some of the questions that I asked, or to all the questions that I asked, if I would give them to him in writing. I do feel though, that there are several questions that deserve an answer here, because they possibly could be classed as policy of the government and I would refer the honourable minister the question that I asked on this one item on his program, and that is the item where it says construction, or grading and gravelling five miles west, P.T.H. No. 12 south. As I know it, this description means that there will be a highway built by the Provincial Government for a stretch of five miles paralleling, paralleling an existing highway, which is number 4 east, on which there


also is some construction to be done. And I just want to know if that is the location that is described in this program. I may be wrong. It may be that it is the No. 4 west that is being described there, west of Beausejour. And I would like that clarified.

HON. G. JOHNSON, M.D. (Minister of Health and Public Welfare): Time is short, and I feel that I would like to say a few things that have been irritating me since I've been sitting here. I realize I'm new and I'm a little nervous in front of all these learned gentlemen. But I've made a diagnosis of acute Rhinelanditus in the Opposition. But I want to tell the members opposite that I represent the only constituency in this province that ever became civilized without roads. The honourable member from St. Andrews, I'm sorry has left, made the recommendation of a double-lane highway between, from Selkirk to Winnipeg Beach, and I was just going to tell him, either he was preaching for a call or my colleague didn't realize that Winnipeg Beach was in my constituency; and I was going to inform the honourable member from St. Andrews that as we'll be around for quite a long time, I think we can both get on with that job. As a matter of fact, he decried this road, or he explained this Bennett Road between Selkirk and Winnipeg Beach as being in such poor shape and a patched job, and has been for many years. I would like to inform this House that that it was the best road in my constituency up until July 31st of this year when the first bit of hard-top went between Winnipeg Beach and Gimli and my poor and dear friend who sat opposite, or in the government prior, for 13 years, never lived in office, or never stayed in office long enough to see one foot of hard-top hit the Gimli consituency. Now this is a pretty poor record and I feel that having practiced in this area for ten years and been on these roads night and day, the attitude of the people in this north country, - it has been, and I, we will all admit, - a disgrace. People have been in this community, this constituency for 80 years. For 80 years they have never been able to use their roads in the late fall and first thing in the spring. They talk about access roads. Access roads are wonderful. The Falcon Lake project was a wonderful thing in it's own right, but when people in towns along the lake have existed for 80 years rid of curbs and hard-top roads and tourists resorts, they naturally begin to wonder and ask questions.

I feel also that the honourable member from Portage la Prairie made the remark that he was slighted and hurt that this resolution should have come down so quickly. However, it certainly is a good thing. I can remember going to the previous Minister of Public Works about our little road between Winnipeg Beach and Gimli, - just a little piece of road -- and sure enough, it took us five months to get a reply. But this was the old story. I know this government will build roads in this province and the Opposition will get no marks for holding up this program as the people have indicated, and I feel that criticism against the government for bringing down the program at this time is certainly a wonderful thing, as the minister has indicated. The contractors agree to get busy first thing in the spring and can bring down another program at that time. The many things, one of


the things that I feel should be brought up is the access roads and the roads to the, along the major lake, Lake Winnipeg, the value to the fishing industry. Many of the honourable members opposite sat on the committee which investigated the fishing industry in 1953. One of their recommendations was a road up along the lake to Pine Dock. But, I feel that at long last, there seems to be some realization of the dreams which so many of the people in the northern part of the interlake area have thought of for so many years with such little action. I just felt that I had to get up and state my consituency's case as I feel that of all the places that I have been in the province since coming to office, the constituency of Gimli has been years behind. And this is the type of program, in these types of areas which I am sure the minister is anxious to complete and get on with the job. Thank you.

MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Chairman, in view of the time, I suggest we be willing to accept a motion of ...

MR. HRYHORCZUK: I have to ask a question.

MR. ROBLIN: Well, how about asking it tomorrow? We're going to be discussing it tomorrow.

MR. HRYHORCZUK: Oh, no, no, no. You can't ask a question tomorrow.

MR. ROBLIN: You'll have plenty of time tomorrow.

MR. HRYHORCZUK: I'm not asking the honourable minister, I asked the honourable minister who has just spoken whether he'd permit a question.

MR. ROBLIN: Well, anyone can ask a question.

MR. HRYHORCZUK: Did I understand the honourable minister to say that his predecessor did not do anything in the way of roads or suitable roads for his constituency?

MR. JOHNSON: I wasn't - honourable member for Ethelbert, I didn't say that. Dr. Thompson, or the honourable member who sat in his seat before me is one of my best friends and a very fine gentleman who served this province well for many years; who did a tremendous job for his constituency in opening up that area north of Riverton; in pushing drainage and so on. I just said he didn't see any hard-top in the Gimli constituency in his term in office. Those were my words. But he certainly was ...

MR. HRYHORCZUK: ... I suggest that you read it and you'll find you said quite a bit more than that.

MR. ROBLIN: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move that the committee rise and report. ... Oh, they'll catch their breath tomorrow and they'll give us another good whirl. That's quite O.K.


MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the member from Roblin, that the report of the committee be received.

[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote, declared it carried. ]

MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture, the House do now adjourn and stand adjourned until 2:30 o'clock tomorrow afternoon.

[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote, declared it carried. ]

Manitoba Hansard

Page revised: 2 July 2009