• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, June 13, 1978 Time: 8:00 p.m. MATTER OF GRIEVANCE (Cont'd) MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kildonan. MR. FOX: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I indicated, in the 12 years that I have served in this House this is my first time that I am going to attempt to go on a grievance. I had really no intentions of being involved. I sat back during the debates in the Labour Department Estimates, and I tried to do my share but unfortunately the thing that gave me concern was that I didn't get an opportunity. You know the House Leader indicated that there has to be co-operation, that we were participants in designing these rules and I think it's to our credit that we, even while we are in government, had the foresight to see that the opposition should have a good opportunity in which to debate and to look at what is going on in respect to government, have an opportunity to debate it effectively and with as much time as they desire. But you know I'm sure that the House Leader of the government sometimes has found himself in an embarrassing position. I appreciate his co-operation when it came to rules, his desire to have things go according to parliamentary procedure and, of course, to make this parliamentary system, which I value very greatly - and I guess many other members do, too - operate as efficiently and as well as it could for the purpose of conducting the business of the Province of Manitoba, or at another level, for the government for the people of Canada. But it so happens that unfortunately, even though he is House Leader, often he hasn't been leader of his particular group of colleagues because they are the ones who have created as much problem in respect to the Estimates, in respect to the debates that have gone on, as anyone that I can visualize in this House. I am not going to say that they are the only ones to blame but I am going to say that in the time that I have been involved, as a member of the backbench previously and as an opposition member and of course during the term when I was in the Chair, as yourself, Mr. Speaker, I saw many things and many events take place but this is the first time that I have seen where the opposition - and sometimes they have a right; they always should participate if they can participate productively - have really gone out and, in this instance I believe, especially in the Department of Labour, have frustrated the opposition. Now, some of their debates have been very good. I did appreciate the contribution of the Honourable Member for Pembina. I felt a little regret that the Minister hadn't done this, because she had been asked in respect to anhydrous ammonia regulations and so on. She had given us a printed paper and when we tried to question her on it, we didn't get too many answers from her. Her colleague, the Member for Pembina, did a very excellent job but he has also had the ability and the . What shall I call it? I don't wish to be unparliamentary. But he has been rude, outright, very often, and so have many of his colleagues. You know, these members, the House Leader's colleagues,. whom he is trying to protect, and I give him credit for trying to do that because, after all, he has to indicate that he is the leader and that he is trying to make things go well, he must close his eyes to when his own colleagues do not adhere to the rules that he would like to see us function under. I have to say this: That he really has to do a little bit of homework with his members in order to get them to participate, to co-operate, so that our members, when we try to do the job for the Province of Manitoba as members of the opposition, do have an opportunity, can be heard, can concentrate on what we are doing, so that the job is well done in the parliamentary fashion . He has had another thing to contend with. A couple of times they have pulled off quickies on him. Now, maybe he was aware of it; maybe he wasn't. But it was pressure tactics which were not necessary. We started on the Estimates of Labour on Tuesday. Tuesday evening his members tried to force the opposition to sit late, when we tried to get some kind of indication after we had passed a section of the Labour Estimates, where we thought it would be a normal opportunity to stop. It was a quarter to 12. Now, you know, I think that's a fair hour. We are not into speed-up yet. When we tried to determine as to how late we would be sitting, there was no answer given. Now 3677 Tuesday, June 13, 1978 that is not a sense of co-operation. We have also had the same kind of opportunity that his members pulled off in respect to the perusal of the committees. When we were on the Committee in respect to the Public Insurance Corporation, again there was a hurry-up job done in the absence of a few members who were late. Now this is not co-operation. We also had the same kind of a proposition that happened one evening, 1 believe it was two weeks ago this past Thursday, where again a committee was railroaded through in a hurry and pushed to its limit. Now if we are going to have these kind of tactics, that is not co-operation. That is not parliamentary system. It's aquid pro quo that has to take place and I'm sure that the Honourable House Leader of the government would like to have the co-operation of this side. We are prepared to offer it, but we want to be treated fairly, equitably and not like little children, pushed and shoved, intimidated, coerced and often maligned from across the table, while we are trying to make our point with the Minister. Now, maybe we have made a mistake in having two committees and having one in here. I have found that the proceedings in here proceed much more sedately. It may be the Chairman; it may be the atmosphere. I cannot say which but I do know that the ones in Room 254 have not been as conducive to good work or to as much good debate as the ones in here. So maybe we have to look at the atmosphere. Maybe we have to create some rules for the operation in that particular committee. Let me get at some of the issues that have, as well, given me concern. The Honourable House Leader indicated that we hadn't come to the defense of the taxpayers. Well, I think he is wrong. You know, Mr. Speaker, we have brought up the issue in respect to the taxpayers that what this government is doing is totally wrong. They have - yes, they have reduced taxes, but for what taxpayers? Not the general majority, the ones who need it in this time of rising cost of living and inflation but for those who don't need it, for those who can afford to go without. Where is the equity in that? This is what we have brought up. What else have they done? This government, Mr. Speaker, has gone ahead and created restraints. How? By playing a shell game, sort of a now you see it, now you don't. They have not spent the money, but they know that the cost of living is rising, they know that costs have not decreased and they have pawned off those rising costs on to other areas. Municipal taxes will have to go up, this is what is happening. The burden has been transferred in very many ways. There is no equity in the system that they are perpetrating. Where is the ability to pay principle that would create come fairness? They don't believe in that. Those people on minimum wages have not been given an opportunity to keep up with the cost of living, yet, when it came to negotiating with the doctors there was no problem. Mr. Speaker, there are many ways we have tried to defend the taxpayers so I'm not buying the story of the Honourable House Leader of the government that we haven't done our share in respect to trying to protect the taxpayers. Yes, we have. My colleague for St. George spoke on the two cent tax which is a transfer of tax which was not designed by the previous government as a general tax, but nevertheless this government says let's take it off the motorists and put it into general revenue. There are a number of other areas where we have tried to protect the taxpayers. We have indicated that the succession duties were not necessary to be taken off at this time. Those people, the 140, 150 families that were involved could very well afford the succession duties that were involved. The money that has not been taken in by the government in that regard could have been util zed for some other areas. We have created restraint in respect to our health system yet we have no problem in allocating extra funds to the Department of Highways.

Load more

  42

Copy Link