Debates of Nov. 2nd, 1995

Department Of Health Act

[Harold Culbert, Liberal, Carleton—Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to attempt to reply to the hon. member's statement and possibly a question.

He called the greatest health care system in the world, that is admired by citizens in every country throughout the world, a stupid system. Yet it is based on not how many dollars you have got in your pocket, but on need.

The hon. member did not go on. I see him moving out now-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. I would like to remind colleagues that we are not to refer, reflect or certainly not mention the absence of any member in the Chamber at any time.

[Harold Culbert, Liberal, Carleton—Charlotte, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for reminding me of that. It is a usual courtesy that when one asks a question to wait around and hear the answer.

I am amazed that the hon. member would prefer the system of our good friends in the United States where there are literally millions of people who have no health care. We have all heard the horror stories of their losing a lifetime of savings, losing their homes as a result of a health problem some time during their lives. I am sure the hon. member was not suggesting that we should look at that type of system for Canada.

The principles that were put in place were put there to protect the health care of all Canadians so that all Canadians would be treated equal.

I would suggest to the hon. member that if his particular situation, to which he referred, was an emergency situation, most hospitals that I have been involved with over the years-and I served on a hospital board for some 15 years-always set aside time both in their outpatients, in their emergency rooms and in their OR for emergency situations. They also schedule those selective procedures that have to be done. Some may be in day surgery, some may be a little more serious and take more time.

The world is not perfect in each and every hospital, but in the particular situation the hon. member describes that certainly his doctor-and I am not being critical of his doctor-should have interceded on his behalf if indeed it were an emergency situation and obtained the OR time or the day surgery time and made sure that it was scheduled. I think there was some responsibility there.

We have the greatest health care system in the world. We see this on a daily basis. However, there is always room for improvement, which is exactly what we are doing. We are trying to work with the provinces to avoid those areas of duplication and to assist in putting together a better program.

The provincial health care ministers are trying to develop a better program that will continue to evolve and improve in order to make it even better than it is today. I suggest that it takes all of the health care practitioners working to improve the program and maintain those principles that have made the health care program in Canada envied throughout the world.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

We have approximately two minutes left in the question and comment period. I would ask the hon. member for his co-operation that I might also give the member for Carleton-Charlotte equal time to respond.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will give him time to respond. I thank him for giving me the opportunity to say that no, I do not support a United States style health care system. Neither does anyone else in the Reform Party.

Reform members have made it very clear that we support medicare plus which is a lot different. Sweden uses a similar system. I can also give an example from New Zealand of my 82-year old mother who needed a cataract operation. The waiting list in the public system was years. If you are 82 and you have to wait six years, then what? Since there is a choice down there she paid a couple of thousand dollars to have one of her eyes done. So many seniors did the same thing that the waiting list came down. When she went for her second operation she had it done within the public system and it only took two weeks. The waiting list vanished within a very short period of time.

We do not support a U.S. system. We support choice in addition to the present medicare, common sense.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I thank the hon. member for his co-operation. I would ask the same from the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte.

[Harold Culbert, Liberal, Carleton—Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, indeed I will respect your wishes. I am pleased to hear that the hon. member and his colleagues support the health care system we have in Canada. I cannot speak at great length about the system that might be in place in New Zealand to which I believe he referred. I do not have any expertise in that area so I will not refer to that part.

However, I do know, and I have seen it personally over many years, of the benefits of the medicare system in our country. Yes, we can improve it. Yes, we should continue to work toward improving it and making it even better. It is a system that has been admired throughout the world and we should continue to promote and protect it for years to come.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin I would like to commend my hon. colleague from North Vancouver because he laid bare in the House a personal health care matter. I say to the people across the way who have

been heckling him that if he had not gone down to the United States he would be dead today. It is a very real example of how our health care system failed him as it fails other Canadians from coast to coast. The reason why he was able to have a life saving operation in the United States was because he had the money. That is what the government is preserving today. It is preserving a system that enables the rich to get better health care than the poor.

Today we are dealing with Bill C-95, an act to establish the Department of Health. It is a housekeeping bill, a bill of wordsmithing, a bill that changes words, a bill that does not have anything to do with devolution of powers, nothing to do with personnel changes, nothing to do with any vision to save health care in this country; health care I might add that is in critical condition and needs emergency help.

It is profoundly tragic that we have this bill in front of us. In the last two years the Minister of Health has yet to put a single piece of legislation on the table to amend and improve health care for Canadians, Bill C-7 notwithstanding, which did not come from her department but came from another source.

The minister keeps on saying that we do not have a problem, that we are moving toward reorganization. She claims that Reform members are in favour of a system that prevents access for the poor. The problem is access. Canadians are not getting access to essential health care services from coast to coast. That is the problem. The government is defending a health care system that is crumbling from within.

I will give a little background. When the Canada Health Act was written in 1984, the people who wrote it with very noble intentions simply could not envision the increasing costs, the increasing demands and the changing demographics of an aging population. That was not envisioned. Today we are using a health act organized over a decade ago to deal with problems that did not exist then. Therefore we see the failure that the Canada Health Act has in trying to address the problems that we have today.

If we continue to pursue the course we are on now we will not have a health care system in this country. We will only see people suffering to varying degrees. Those who will suffer the most are those who are the poorest. I will give an example.

Operating rooms are closing across the country. They are closing because hospitals have to save costs. However, waiting lists are increasing. In the hospital in British Columbia where I worked patients decided to have their own blood transfused and banked for operations in case they needed it. It cost the patient $125. The Minister of Health in British Columbia, Mr. Ramsey said: "No, you can't do that because it contravenes the Canada Health Act". One month later we had an acute blood shortage in British Columbia.

I had patients with fractured hips, bleeding to death, with low haemoglobins and no blood was available. If the province had allowed the autologous blood transfusions we would not have had that problem. Is that access? I hardly think so.

In Victoria the wait for radiation therapy for prostate cancer is 16 months. What happens? Patients are sent down to Washington state where an entire industry has grown to serve Canadians. Is that Canadian access?

People with carpal disorder in the wrists have to wait six months before they have surgery. They are off work six months. This surgery could be done in a private clinic within two weeks. Is that access?

Imagine one of your grandparents needs a hip transplant,Mr. Speaker, and is in severe pain. If they live in British Columbia, 40 per cent will wait over 13 months to get that hip replaced and all of that time they are in pain. Is that access? Not at all.

The health care system is falling apart. To get around this, those who are rich go down to the United States for their health care needs. The politicians in this government say that the Canada Health Act is sacrosanct. They say: "We the government are defenders of the health care for all Canadians because we want to ensure that they have access, because we don't want those terrible Reformers amending the Canada Health Act and having an American style system that enables only the rich to have access while the poor suffer". That is the complete opposite to what we have.

My colleagues and I never got involved in this matter to destroy health care. We saw the suffering occurring in emergency rooms in hospitals across the country. We got involved to save health care. We recognize there is a problem. We do not want to destroy health care. We got involved to amend the Canada Health Act to ensure that all Canadians, regardless of income, have their health care services performed in a timely fashion. My colleagues and I have given examples to indicate that is simply not occurring.

We have proposed a system that would amend the Canada Health Act to allow for private clinics. Basically people could pay money to a private clinic for health care services. Not a single penny of the taxpayers' money would go into the system. Is it an unequal system? Yes, it is. However, is it not better to have an unequal system with better access for all people than the relatively similar access we have today that provides for declining access for all Canadians. In the present system the rich can go to the United States for their health care services while those in Canada suffer and die.

In Toronto, where I trained, the waiting list for coronary artery bypass grafting is seven months. People are dying waiting for bypass surgery. I know a similar example happened in 1986 when I was finishing my training in British Columbia where men and

women in their fifties were dying waiting for bypass surgery in Vancouver. That is not access.

We have declining funds and increasing demands, but caught in the middle is the most important element of all, the patients who are sick, scared and worried. Their families are worried and scared. At a time of their greatest need our health care system may fail them. That is not what we want. That is not what Canadians want. That is not what the government wants. That is certainly not what the Reform Party wants.

I implore the Minister of Health and the government to stop the political rhetoric. Let us move away from political postering. Let us work together to build a new Canada Health Act that enables all Canadians from coast to coast to obtain their health care services in a timely fashion. We want to protect medicare, not destroy it.

We cannot sacrifice, as my hon. colleague from Macleod said, the most important social program we have today, the health care system. We simply cannot let that program, which is a defining characteristic of Canada, disappear. We must preserve it because it is the most valuable thing each and every one of us have as individuals.

As an aside I ask the hon. minister to look at some interesting work being done by one of the greatest minds in the country, Dr. Fraser Mustard. In Toronto he looked at the determinants of health care. He has a new vision with respect to health care. The determinants of health care are somewhat different from what we have seen in the past. A investment in the early development of children will pay Canadian society in many aspects in the long run.

I implore the minister to look at the work this man has done because it is ground breaking and something we can incorporate federally and provincially into the health care programs that exist today.

The government also needs a fiscal plan. As we unfortunately saw about six weeks ago, the IMF downgraded us by 50 per cent, saying very clearly to the Minister of Finance that if we do not get a plan to decrease the debt Canada would be in very serious and dire straits. We can read into it that our social programs will be in dire straits. Nobody in the House wants to see that. We want to preserve them in a financially sustainable fashion. Health care will suffer the same blows as all other social programs. Unfortunately sick people are the ones who will suffer.

I implore the hon. Minister of Health to speak to the Minister of Finance and other cabinet ministers to look at our zero in three plan and utilize aspects of it to put our fiscal house in order.

One of my colleagues said today that rather than amending the Canada Health Act we need to look to preventive measures. That is all well and true. However, will prevention lower taxes on tobacco? Is prevention cutting the tobacco reduction strategy by 50 per cent? Is prevention putting legislation programs and plans in place that are actually increasing tobacco consumption, especially among the youth, by 10 per cent or 15 per cent.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Liberal prevention.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

That is right. The government is talking prevention out of one side of its mouth. On the other hand it is causing hundreds of thousands of youths to take up tobacco smoking and will cause between 40,000 and 200,000 premature deaths over the next 20 or 30 years. That is not prevention.

If the government had enacted sensible solutions with respect to tobacco, we could accept it and work with it. I cannot accept talking about prevention on the one hand as a solution to health care problems, while on the other hand lowering tobacco taxes and decreasing the tobacco reduction strategy. That simply does not make sense.

I implore the government to work with us to amend the Canada Health Act so that medicare can provide essential services to Canadians from coast to coast. It must also realize that we have a problem. Pedantic statements about preventive health care, saying that somehow we will build greater efficiencies into the system and quoting laparoscopic surgery as the panacea for health care cost control will not work. It will take more radical, thoughtful, sensitive changes for all Canadians to have their health care needs met.

It disturbs me greatly that members of the House across the way accuse us of wanting an American style health care system. They accuse us of saying that what is in our pockets when we need health care services is what matters. We deplore that. It is anathema to us and we will fight against those types of attitudes every way we can. In my estimation as a physician we are the only party in the House putting forward a plan to save not only health care but all our social programs.

If we can put aside the political rhetoric and work together to build strong and sustainable health care and social programs, we can build a better country for all Canadians. We are building the country for Canadians from coast to coast. We are particularly preserving health care programs for those most in need.

[Ovid Jackson, Liberal, Bruce—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting here all day; there is nothing closer to my heart than work and health care.

I was fortunate at 12.30 today to listen to the great American fighter, Ralph Nader, talk about health care to the nurses association. He said that in the United States of America some 80,000 people died in hospital due to malpractice. That is more people

than those killed by accidents and those killed by homicides. His contention was that it was malpractice and that some doctors in their system were actually operating on Americans who had no disease at all.

We hear a lot about systems in the world. Mr. Nader said, and I think the parliamentary secretary from Vancouver Centre said it as well, that our system rates between one and three in the world. There is no question about that. Mr. Nader also mentioned that some 38 million Americans do not have any health care. He said the longest waiting line in the world is for those with no health care at all.

Our friends opposite talk about having a two tier system. I want to cover that point. We have a $72 billion pot of money. What happens if we start to shift the money over? Profit will motivate many people such as insurance companies. Most doctors are very good. I would not say anything against them because many of my friends are doctors. They follow the Hippocratic oath. They are well versed, Christian and want to help people. However, there is the occasional doctor who looks at the balance sheet.

I got a pile of books from a friend in Los Angeles on their medicare system. They talk about waiting lines as if there is a panacea in the United States. There are many scam artists in the United States. They go for capitation. If five doctors each have 1,500 patients and each patient pays about $200 a month, it amounts to a pile of money. A patient can select one of the five doctors. However if the doctor sends too many people for CAT scans and various other expensive procedures he is called before a procedure committee and the patients are stacked up.

There are no easy answers. Our system is good. It needs to be fixed. We cannot legislate against stupidity or when people do not do things right. If there is a waiting line for hip fractures I am sure the hospital board will allocate enough resources to shorten the line.

How does my friend from Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca envisage this two tier system? When people are sick and cannot pay for services we end up with a two tier system. The doctor says he will see the patient in the clinic across the street at night because there is not enough money in the system. That is what happens in a two tier system.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member raised a couple of points. He illustrated the salient misunderstanding of health care on the part of the government.

He spoke about taking part of the $72 billion and putting it into a private clinic system. That is what we are opposed to. Not a single penny of public moneys, not a single penny of taxpayers' dollars, will go into a private system.

When people are in the private system they have actually left the public system and are spending their own money. They are still contributing through their taxes to the public system and therefore the pot of money in the public system will be preserved.

Because the numbers of people on waiting lists in the public system will decrease there will be a greater amount of money on a per capita basis in the public system, which will provide for greater access and better equipment.

Another point the member raised was that if hospitals saw an urgent need for something they would find the resources or the money. The problem is that they do not have the resources. They are rationing all manner of services and are not getting access together. We have an opportunity not to duplicate any other system in the world but to enable an excellent system to continue to be excellent. We can do that by making the changes necessary to preserve publicly funded medicare in this country through amendments to the Canada Health Act. If we do not do that, we will not have a health act in this country. We will not have publicly funded health care access to people in this country in a timely fashion. That is going to be the tragedy if we continue on our present course.

[The Speaker]

My colleagues, it being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

``On To Ottawa'' Trek

[Simon de Jong, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government, on this 60th anniversary of the "On to Ottawa" Trek, should offer an unequivocal and official apology for the government of the day having perpetuated the following:

(1) having caused, through the use of violence as administered by the combined police forces of the Regina City Police and the RCMP the termination of the trek in Regina, Saskatchewan on July 1, 1935, with attendant loss of life, injury and imprisonment;

(2) having contributed to, rather than detracted from the plight of the unemployed by:

(a) forcing many unemployed young men into work camps,

(b) having prevented all the trekkers from coming to Ottawa to express their democratic right for better conditions in the work camps,

(c) abrogating its responsibility of providing the necessary leadership in a time of high unemployment which would have created decent and rewarding full time employment;

(3) displaying a total lack of policy initiatives which would have provided meaningful work and wages for the unemployed, and for the violent attack on the participants of the "On to Ottawa" trek.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I have this opportunity to present the motion in the House today. This year marks the 60th anniversary of the "On to Ottawa" trek. This motion calls for an apology, which is 60 years overdue.

In Regina we have an historic marker set in front of the Regina city police station. On it appears the following:

At 8.17 p.m. July 1, 1935, rioting erupted here in Market Square when RCMP and city police arrested the "On to Ottawa" trek leaders as they addressed trekkers and city residents. Rioting then spread to the 11th Avenue and Scarth Street area. Ending near midnight, it left extensive property damage, numerous injuries, and a city policeman, Detective C. Millar, dead.

The trekkers were single men en route to Ottawa from B.C. to demand better conditions in relief work camps set up for the unemployed. They were stopped in Regina on June 14 by the federal authorities, who feared a revolution if the trek reached Ottawa. At a meeting between trek leaders and the federal cabinet, mistrust grew, and trekkers were prohibited from advancing or going home. To break the deadlock, Ottawa ordered the leaders' arrest. In the furor of the resulting riot, the frustration of the trek's failure and years of unemployment were released.

The next day the provincial government arranged for the trekkers to return to their homes.

Signed by the Government of Saskatchewan in 1979, the text on this marker refers to the tragic events known as the Regina riot. The text is short and temperate and barely explains why the provincial government signed an epitaph commemorating a riot. I will attempt to do that.

Facts will show that the riot was planned and provoked not by the trekkers but by the police on direct orders of the federal government, which in so doing illegally usurped the authority of the provincial government, which was in the process of negotiating a settlement with the trekkers.

The riot was the climax of a strike of the relief camp workers begun on April 4, 1935, in British Columbia. With a set of demands adopted at a meeting of the relief camp workers' union in Kamloops on March 10, 1935, the strikers stayed for two months in Vancouver and then started east to Ottawa to put their grievances before the government of Prime Minister R.B. Bennett.

Before arriving in Regina, the trek's ranks were augmented with new recruits. By the time the trekkers reached Regina the numbers had swelled to 2,000. Unbeknownst to the trekkers and the Saskatchewan government, Regina was their ultimate destination, not Ottawa.

Having stopped them in Regina, Prime Minister Bennett arranged to meet with a few representatives. He obviously did not want the entire trek to arrive in Ottawa, with however many more who would have joined along the way.

Unfortunately the meeting with the Prime Minister was unproductive. Bennett offered a temporary camp near Lumsden, Saskatchewan, where the trekkers would go until arrangements were made to return them to the permanent camps and the same inhumane conditions they had left. All along the only option the federal government was prepared to give the trekkers was no option. The status quo is the operative word.

When the trekkers' representatives returned to Regina from Ottawa, they attempted to undo the deadlock the Prime Minister's offer had presented by developing a revised proposal. They worked diligently to set up meetings with all the authorities. The trek leaders also decided to hold a public meeting to inform the citizens of the result of their meeting with the Prime Minister. Posters went up, and it was known that only a few trekkers would attend the rally.

Early in the morning on July 1, the trek leaders initiated negotiations with both the federal and the provincial governments in the hope of obtaining an agreement for an early withdrawal. One of the trek leaders, Arthur Evans, requested a meeting of federal, provincial, and trek representatives. The chief federal representative in Regina refused to meet with provincial officials but agreed to meet with the trek representatives at 10.30 a.m.

At this stage federal officials in Ottawa refused an excellent opportunity to reach a peaceful compromise. They refused any compromise whatsoever. But the trek leaders did not give up. They went to Liberal Saskatchewan Premier Jimmy Gardiner, who promised them a reply the following morning. The premier had arranged for a cabinet meeting that evening.

The fact is, when the trekkers were conferring with Gardiner the federal government was preparing warrants and strategy for the arrests of Evans and six other leaders of the trek. At the public rally that evening a crowd of 2,200 had gathered to hear a report of the trekkers' delegation to Ottawa. In this crowd there were no more than 300 trekkers, as most had already been informed and were slated to attend a ball game elsewhere. In other words, it was a known fact that the meeting was for citizens rather than trekkers.

Why the choice was made to arrest the leaders in front of a mass meeting of their supporters raises serious questions. Why they did not wait until after the meeting, after the crowd had left, to make the arrests has never been fully explained. However, it does not

take a rocket scientist to understand that it was the nature of the arrangements and the means by which the police carried them out that provoked the Regina riot. A more discreet and less provocative arrangement could have been devised and the arrests could still have been carried out successfully.

The riot that resulted from this action left plainclothes detective Charles Millar of Regina city police dead, scores of trekkers, citizens and policemen injured, and several trekkers and Regina citizens hospitalized with gunshot wounds. Downtown Regina was left in a shambles.

The riot began as the Premier of Saskatchewan and the provincial authorities were considering the trekkers' proposals. The provincial government had not been informed of police intentions. Premier Gardiner wired the Prime Minister late that night, both protesting the police action and offering to disband the trek under provincial auspices. It is not difficult to understand how this marked the beginning of a dispute between the federal and provincial authorities. Gardiner was fearful that the intransigent federal attitude would lead to a resumption of hostilities and he demanded the federal authorities take a more reasonable position.

The federal government had taken over provincial jurisdictions, starting with control of the RCMP, which had moved to organize the Regina city and railway police forces. Preparing for a showdown, the federal government also moved into other provincial areas, namely transportation, blocking the trekkers from access to roads and allowing them to leave only if they agreed to go to the camp near Lumsden.

The federal authorities had obviously taken it upon themselves to instruct the RCMP in Saskatchewan in the enforcement of the ordinary criminal law and not merely in matters under the Railway Act. This represented another violation of provincial jurisdiction.

Based on the exchange between the Bennett and the Gardiner governments, it is more than fair to say that the Premier of Saskatchewan placed the responsibility for the tragic end to the trek in Regina squarely on the shoulders of the federal government of the day. The premier was not by any means alone in believing that.

Ten years ago, on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the "On to Ottawa" trek, I presented a similar motion in the House. At that time I had the benevolent support of one of our colleagues who now sits on the other side of the House. She said: "We should say that we are sorry. While it may not mean much in terms of individual compensation for the agony suffered by those people who lived through the Depression, it would certainly be a first step on the road to clearing the record". This is quoted from the Commons debate of October 7, 1985, when the present Deputy Prime Minister supported an official apology to the trekkers and the citizens of Regina.

She also stated: "And we, both as members and as the government, should apologize to the unemployed workers who were forced to take to the streets to seek their own rights, which they should have been given by the Prime Minister at the time, who abdicated his responsibilities in this respect".

Like our colleague in 1985, I now challenge the government to listen and redress this pivotal event in our Canadian heritage. I want to believe this government is different from the previous one. History need not repeat itself once again.

Ten years ago the Deputy Prime Minister and member for Hamilton East accused the Mulroney government of taking the same attitude as the Bennett government of taking a hands off approach to solving the unemployment crisis. She said: "It does not want to be involved in the creation of jobs because somehow Conservative governments see something distasteful in direct government job creation. In fact, the Bennett solution at that time was to send the workers off to work camps, where they lived in intolerable circumstances and in fact were not ever able to have the dignity of a democratic election in those particular camps".

The tables have turned. The hon. member now sits in power, where she can actually do something to ensure there is not only democracy but also employment, social justice, and a future for our young people.

This government started its term with job creation and the infrastructure program, but something terribly wrong has happened. This government has been hijacked by some group with another agenda.

The motion I have placed before the House might merely be regarded as a footnote in history were it not for the fact that history has a tendency to repeat itself. Since this year's budget, instead of jobs we got cutbacks and massive decreases in provincial transfers. Jobs, we are told, are not for the governments to create; they will appear out of market forces-as if Prime Minister Bennett has been resurrected one more time.

By leaving the provinces in the lurch, some of the provincial leaders are quickly turning the country's clock back to the 1930s. The present government still has an opportunity to make good on its election promises and the hope they offered. The federal government does not need to starve the provinces by abandoning its responsibility to the people. The deficit reduction plan does not need to be inhuman.

I agree with the endorsement from the member for Hamilton East of my 1985 motion, when in reference to the apology she suggested that "that act of good faith and goodwill on the part of the government would begin to restore the credibility this government has lost in insisting upon measures that are anti-worker, anti-family, anti-labour, and anti-union. Work must be done or the government's word cannot be believed. Now is the chance for the

government to win back some of the credibility it has frittered away since"-to which I add, the end of October 1993.

Let this government show us that it is not just another job eliminator party. The Liberal government has its chance to stand up and finally set the record straight by making to these people, the strikers, a general, all-encompassing public apology.

The Deputy Prime Minister further stated 10 years ago: "If it"-meaning the Mulroney government-"is truly sincere about beginning to gain back the confidence of young working people, young unemployed people, older working people, and older unemployed people to realize that the time has come for it to endorse an all-party resolution which calls for an apology to redress an event which occurred 50 years ago and which is indicative of the type of Conservative mentality which has led all Canadians to realize that Tory times are tough times".

The sad fact of the matter is that history, as I have just outlined, is in many ways and places across the country repeating itself. Many of the problems for which the trekkers sought solutions in the 1930s have returned in spades in the 1980s and continue in the 1990s. Once again we have massive unemployment. Once again we are faced with widespread business failures, farm foreclosures, personal bankruptcies, food banks, user fees, head taxes, and policies that are reminiscent of an era we had hoped to have surpassed.

The political repercussions and the legacy of the trek have a lot of parallels with today's environment. The National Council of Welfare's 1995 report on the last government budget states: "The policies of the 1990s will take us back to the 1950s". Recent statements and actions from at least two provincial governments would confirm that. In a 1987 article in the Canadian Review of Social Policy by Duncan Rogers, a former deputy minister of the Alberta Social Services described the 1950s period as "the remnants of the old relief days of the 1930s". He goes on: "It was not uncommon for children, particularly from larger families, to be apprehended as neglected and become wards of the crown simply because there was insufficient money available to the family".

The Liberal government is often accused of continuing the Tory legacy, while at the same time promising initiatives which will create jobs and opportunities for all Canadians. With nearly 10 per cent of our population unemployed, unemployment has become a chronic condition. Youth under employed is still worse, at 18 per cent. The rate for Canadians aged 15 to 24 years is nearly double the national average and costs the economy at least $4.5 billion per year.

However, that is not the dearest price we are paying. Canada now has the third highest rate of teen suicide in the world, which has increased fourfold since 1960. The social and economic conditions under which kids are living are creating a social phenomena described as existential despair. Is that the best country the world?

Will more jails and longer sentences deter the problems? They will do nothing if there is no hope for a future that brings rewards and fulfilment.

I acknowledge the tremendous financial debt this country and the public sector faces due to the gross mismanagement of previous governments. I acknowledge the challenge that lies ahead for all of us to begin to solve our financial problems. Surely we must find ways of dealing with our problems other than on the backs of the old and the poor.

As a Stats Canada study has shown, it is not increases in government expenditure that has created the debt. In fact, only 6 per cent of the debt is due to increases in public expenditure. The rest is due to loss of revenue and increases in interest rate payments. Of that 6 per cent increase in government expenditures, only 2 per cent is due to increases in social programs.

It is not the social programs which have created our debt. Yet it is our social programs that are paying for it. It is the cutbacks in health services, in unemployment insurance, programs to help train and create jobs for young people. That is where the burden is being placed to rectify the terrible, physical mistakes that past Conservative and Liberal governments have made.

We are in a period of declining standards of living. Recently, Stats Canada issued a report that in 1993 the average family income in Canada declined by some 3 per cent, inflation factored in. The decline for single parent families in that one year was 8.3 per cent. We are in a downward spiral.

New challenging solutions are needed. But the solutions of R.B. Bennett did not work then and will not work now. I challenge the government to come forward with new imaginative proposals to give hope to our young people, to give employment to our young people and to give young people a future.

I urge the House to adopt the motion to extend an apology for how those strikers were treated in 1935 in Regina some 60 years ago. They wanted to come to Ottawa to express their hope for a new future, to express their desire to work. They did not want welfare. They did not want the dole, they wanted jobs. Today the mass of unemployed young people are looking for work. They do not want handouts, they want a future.

I urge the House to adopt the motion as a symbolic gesture to our young people that we are concerned about their future.

[John English, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the motion of the hon. member for Regina-Qu'Appelle concerning the 1935 "On to Ottawa" trek and the Regina riot.

The hon. member's motion recalls a time and place far removed from the Canada of today. It was the time of the Great Depression, a time of staggering unemployment, prolonged and terrible drought and the near collapse of national economies. There were shrinking markets and falling prices, all of which contributed to human misery and hardship on a scale seldom seen before in North America.

This was a time when a woman working in a textile factory in Quebec could work a 60-hour week and earn only $5. The millions of acres of prairie wheat fields were turned into dust bowls and farmers walked away from family farms they had worked all their lives.

In 1929 when the depression began there were 107,000 unemployed in Canada. By 1933, the worst year of the depression, there were 646,000 unemployed, approximately one-quarter of the Canadian work force at that time.

The response of the Bennett government to the depression for younger men was to organize work camps. These work camps were organized under the Department of National Defence. The workers within them were paid 20 cents a day. This was an early and very harsh form of workfare.

Conditions in the camps were well described by the member for Qu'Appelle. They were camps in which work was done for the sake of doing work. "We are playing at highway building", reported the striker in his diary. "What a joke we are. We make a ditch one day and then change the plans and find that it is in the wrong place". A public servant for the Conservative government: "Not one cent of public money has been spent on reading material and recreational equipment".

The member has performed a service in drawing to our attention the consequences of this kind of attitude toward the unemployed and the consequences of using work camps, workfare or whatever to deal with the unemployed.

One of the workers wrote at the time: "It is really the fact that we are getting nowhere in the plan of life that moves us forward to march to Ottawa. We are truly a lost legion of youth rotting away for want of being offered a sane outlet for our energies".

The work camps were organized in B.C., it must be said, largely by communist workers. The workers organized for the trek to Ottawa and by the time they got to Regina in June of 1935 there were 12,000 workers. The Liberal premier of the province, Premier Gardiner, protested that the government of the day had decided to stop the workers there. Prime Minister Bennett met with the workers. The reply he gave them was very harsh and indeed he would not even let them talk.

On July 1 unfolded the tragedy that has been described by the member opposite. One policeman died and we mourn his memory. Dozens of policemen and others, workers obviously, were injured. It is a black mark in the history of the depression. It is a black mark in the history of the city of Regina as well.

The hon. member's motion suggests that the Conservative government of the day bears much of the responsibility for what took place in Regina and the judgment of history. The judgment of history in this case does largely bear out the hon. member's claim. I might add that during the depression solutions were not easy. Many kinds of solutions were made in various countries. The new deal in the United States was a very successful response to the depression but one that was thought to be authoritarian by many others.

There were responses. In Italy Mussolini responded by making the trains run on time but also causing wars in places as far away as Abyssinia and responses in Germany where public works projects did create jobs.

The party that the hon. member represents, the CCF, was formed during the 1930s and it sought solutions too. I quote from the Regina manifesto which called for complete social ownership and public management of the Canadian economy. It stated: "All financial machinery, transportation, communications, electric power and all other industry and services essential to social planning should be nationalized and operated by the state; furthermore there be no compensation for bankrupt private concerns for the benefit of promoters and for stock and bond holders".

That is not the stand of his party today obviously. I mention this only because we have to give credit to people's views and their times and not to support R.B. Bennett's decision on that day in this particular case. However we can recognize that for us to judge today what they thought then reflects the judgment of a later day. We cannot, except in exceptional circumstances, apologize for history. The only people who can apologize for what took place in Regina, July 1, 1935 are the people who made the fateful decisions that precipitated the riot and they are dead.

To apologize for the actions of a government in 1935 would be a well meant but futile gesture. If we cannot change history we can learn from it and we can look at the past wrongs through actions today.

If you look at the demands of the strikers in 1935, you can see that the men who marched on Ottawa have in many ways had their wishes come true.

The Canadian people tossed the Bennett government out of office in Ottawa in October 1935 and the Liberal government, which took office under Mackenzie King, righted many of the wrongs against which the strikers protested. For example, section 98 of the Criminal Code, which had been used for arbitrary arrest of strikers and others, was abolished.

By 1940 we had unemployment insurance in this country. After 1940, we built a social system that offered a kind of minimum that the strikers and the people in the depression did not have.

The best monument to the memory to the strikers of 1935 is the Canada we live in today. It is in our health care system which was created about 25 years afterward. It is in our system of unemployment insurance. It is in our comprehensive social services and it is in our fair hiring practices which was central to the protest made by the workers in Regina in 1935.

Look around and ask, could the "On to Ottawa" trek and the Regina riot happen in Canada today? I think the answer is an unequivocal no. The hon. member has done a service to the people by placing the motion before the House, but while I cannot agree with this call for an official apology, I can applaud the sentiment that inspired this motion expressing profound regret that this government, indeed, all Canadians feel for what happened to Canadians during the Great Depression.

It would be more fitting to honour the memory by taking the opportunity presented by this motion to re-dedicate ourselves to the principles of social justice that were lacking in Canada in 1935.

Let us then work together to build a country where there is social equality and equal opportunity for all. It seems wrong to look at our own times and compare them to the 1930s and suggest that the conditions today, in any way, resemble those of the 1930s. The pay for the young men in the work camps was 20 cents a day. There was no unemployment insurance. There was no health insurance. There was no social system. There were no easy answers as well.

Today, for whatever problems our economy faces, we have an unemployment rate that is probably one-third of what it was in the depression. We have protection for people who have lost their jobs. We have a government that is committed to creating jobs and work for Canadians and to maintaining a social system that protects the interests of all Canadians.

I hope members will agree, including the member for Regina-Qu'Appelle, that what we have accomplished since 1935 is itself the best memorial to the strikers in Regina in July 1935.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the motion tabled by the hon. member for Regina-Qu'Appelle, regarding the "On to Ottawa" trek which started in Vancouver and ended in Regina, on July 1, 1935.

I think it is important to tell our viewers how this episode came about, and to see if there are lessons to be drawn from it. It must be remembered that 1935 was one of the worst years of the Great Depression, which was probably the worst economic disaster of our century.

It must also be remembered that this disaster occurred at a time when governments were saying: "The less we get involved, the better it is. The less we try to control, the more we will promote wealth and its distribution". Reality, however, turned out to be quite different. There was an enormous lack of confidence in the economy. Unemployment suddenly soared to astronomical levels, which had nothing to do with reality, but which meant that people could not get enough income to ensure their survival.

We must not forget that, in those days, there were no social programs such as welfare and unemployment insurance. The safety net was not yet in place; consequently, those who lost their jobs had nothing to fall back on except begging.

Faced with this situation, the government of the day decided to set up work camps. Unfortunately, conditions in these camps were absolutely appalling, and this eventually led to the strike.

There is a lesson to be drawn from certain important aspects of this strike. We are about to launch a reform of the old age pension and unemployment insurance programs, and crucial decisions will also be made regarding things such as social assistance funding. It is easy, when you overlook certain factors, to make quick assumptions on the actual impact of such measures.

Finally, measures were established to ensure a distribution of wealth, a distribution of income and an opportunity to balance consumption. When essentially everything is in the hands of the rich, what remains, once the rich have taken what they require to satisfy their basic needs, becomes luxury. This situation moves the economy a lot less than if everybody had enough to live on and to feed their families.

This sort of strike, which was stopped by violence, happened because the government of the day lacked sufficient means to distribute wealth.

In order to avoid the excesses of the past and to permit redistribution of wealth, we must absolutely avoid behaviour such as that of the Government of Ontario, which drew up a list to show people they could live and feed themselves on $90 a month, forgetting milk for cereal and really crazy things. This sort of thing could lead to behaviour similar to this strike. We forget about respect for basic human dignity.

The other point we should remember is that mandatory work in unacceptable conditions is one thing that should be rejected as an option, because this too represents a failure to respect people's dignity. It leads to behaviour, which may not be justifiable, but which can be understood on closer examination.

There is also another component, which got less attention this afternoon, and that is police intervention. There have been a number of police interventions in Canada's history which have been more or less justifiable in the past. In this case, we are talking about an intervention that affected workers in western Canada in 1935.

In Quebec, there was another one that affected us in a very particular way. It happened during the October crisis in 1970, where a lack of control over police action resulted in unacceptable behaviour and unwarranted arrests, as was described earlier in connection with events in Regina. The same thing happened in Montreal and Quebec City during the October crisis in 1970.

As a state, as a country claiming to be one of the most democratic in the world, with highly interesting democratic practices we can boast of to others, we still have a number of lessons to learn from these examples, which must drive us to ensure that our police forces have very clear mandates and proper training to deal with the situations that arise. They must obtain mandates from a judge in special situations, so that such excesses never occur.

I think we can say, with hindsight, that these young men-for it was mainly young men in these work camps-represented in some way the future of Canada at the time the strike took place. The way that they were crushed is something that must never happen again.

One of the participants in the march, Joe McEwen, summed up the situation in a way by stating in the conclusion to his description of what happened "We were the salt of the earth". Young people, aged 20, aged 30, wanting to work, wanting acceptable conditions, not finding them, and taking steps to let the government know how dissatisfied they were. Their expression of the need for change fell on totally deaf ears which led to aggressiveness and unacceptable behaviour, probably on both sides, but this must serve as a lesson to us today to make sure that we are not demolishing everything that has been built and to avoid such situations.

If the next unemployment insurance reform requires, as we fear it will, 26 weeks of work rather than 20 weeks in the first year of eligibility for unemployment insurance, we will see an increase and a perpetuation of the current statistics which show more and more people on welfare because they are not eligible for unemployment insurance. This type of reform leads directly to violent behaviour, because when people cannot feed their families and provide them with the basic necessities it is somewhat normal for them to seek some way out, to show their dissatisfaction, sometimes in an aggressive manner.

The other reform from which similar lessons must be learned is the reform of old age pensions. Over the past 15 to 20 years, we in Canada have developed a program which has enabled our seniors to enjoy greater security than before, at least from the economic point of view. In the upcoming reform, we must make sure that this economic security is not threatened, so our seniors may continue to have a decent income, one that enables them to meet their basic needs and to make a proper contribution to society.

Often when these things are being discussed, there is talk of fearmongering and a desire to frighten people. I think we have to learn from the past and see that history often repeats itself. We must always be sure that rights are protected, and this is the main lesson I have learned from the motion, which asks the federal government to make an official and unequivocal apology for the reprehensible acts committed by the government of the day.

The main lesson I can draw today, in 1995, is that we must ensure that the government opposite, as Parliament, does not repeat the same mistakes and that it provides a system of social programs that meets the needs of the 21st century. Globalization of trade does not mean standardization of social programs and this seems to me to be the challenge of the 21st century for Quebec and for Canada.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as a Saskatchewanian born and bred, I cut my teeth on stories of the Dominion Day riots and the much worse events that actually took place at about the same time at the coal mine strike in Estevan.

I do not think there is anyone of proper mind who would deny that the work camps are a blot on Canadian history. I do not think anyone of my acquaintance would deny that the decision of the government of the day to arrest the trek leaders was stupid and unjustified.

Unfortunately, history is a chronicle of violence and injustice. Historical revisionism notwithstanding, there is nothing you can do to change history. As the bard said, "what is done is done and cannot be undone".

I am very uncomfortable with the principle of apologizing to people who suffered in the past because of my ancestors, if you will. We are faced with a stream of people who want to be apologized to for things their ancestors have suffered. At the moment there are Canadians of Ukrainian descent asking for apologies for the internment of their grandfathers and great-grand-

fathers during the first world war. There are Canadians of Chinese descent asking us to apologize as a society for the head tax.

Where do we draw the line? Are we going to continue apologizing forever? I had ancestors who were dispossessed of their lands in Scotland in order to make room for sheep. Am I supposed to go out and ask for apologies from people who had nothing whatsoever to do with that? I do not believe so.

More important, besides the question of where to draw the line, what is the point? Nothing we say or do here can undo the evil that was done 60 years ago. To be meaningful, an apology requires a certain degree of contrition. Frankly, I do not feel any guilt for actions that took place in my province when I was just a little boy. I did not break any heads, and I am not acquainted personally with anybody who did.

If the hon. member for Regina-Qu'Appelle wants to assuage his personal conscience or wants to go on a guilt trip, I am not going to accompany him. I would respectfully suggest that if he really wants to do something he should take a few thousand dollars out of his bank account, track down each surviving protagonist and buy each one a bottle of the best. That would be a commendable and meaningful gesture, which I would applaud wildly.

What is being proposed here in the House today is meaningless; it is window dressing. We are not going to resurrect the dead. We are not going to heal the wounds of people who had their skulls cracked 60 years ago. Let us get on with our lives. We have more important things to worry about in the House.

I will not be supporting the motion made by the hon. member.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, one interesting thing about being a parliamentary secretary is that you get to stay up late. So here we are. I thank the member for Regina-Qu'Appelle for keeping me up this late and bringing the motion before the House.

The motion before us calls on the federal government, on the 60th anniversary of the "On to Ottawa" trek, to apologize for its actions at the time. According to the motion, the government's reaction to the march displayed a total lack of concern for the unemployed and the government was responsible for violence, loss of life, injuries, and the questionable jailing of several participants.

In proposing the motion the member has given us a chance to consider the progress we have made in the last 60 years. I would like to reflect on where we were then and where we are now as relates to the labour movement. That is basically all we can do, because we cannot turn back the clock.

On June 3, 1935, over 1,000 unemployed men began the "On to Ottawa" trek. They were frustrated and angry about their plight and determined to tell their political leaders and the nation that they deserved better. The trekkers made stops in Calgary, Medicine Hat, Swift Current, and Moose Jaw before arriving in Regina.

At Regina a delegation of eight men was chosen and sent to Ottawa to meet with the Prime Minister. These talks failed. After attempts were made to arrest the leaders of the trek the situation deteriorated rapidly, leading to the Regina riot. By the end of it one policeman was dead, several dozen protesters, constables, and bystanders were injured, and 130 protesters were arrested. The events of July 1, 1935 were incredibly traumatic and they stand out in the pages of our history. What then did the trek accomplish? What lessons can we continue to draw from it today?

I think we can draw a number of lessons. First, it is vital that we do not put ideology ahead of people's needs. Governments should never let adherence to a particular ideology or fear of a particular ideology blind it to the real needs of the people. Some parties in the House should take that message to heart.

Another lesson of the trek is that if we as a society aspire to economic prosperity and social peace, we have to encourage the involvement of citizens. People have to take advantage of the opportunity to act through anti-poverty groups, social organizations and trade unions.

We hear a lot of union bashing by right wingers these days, but it is a simple matter of fact that free societies and free trade unions go hand in hand. Societies that do not have a vigorous union movement challenging them to examine and re-examine their policies and attitudes are sorely lacking. The sweeping economic and social policy changes that we saw in Canada after World War II came about because the people demanded change to the status quo. These demands were translated into effective policies.

Without people who agitate-and that is probably how I would classify my colleague across the way-criticize governments, challenge policies and organize their fellow citizens we would stagnate. We would not have made the progress we have in Canada.

It is because of the challenges issued by the trekkers and others that we have built up social policies that go hand in hand with economic growth and prosperity. For example, there is free universal health care. Not only is it socially enlightened but it gives Canadian businesses a competitive advantage. Medicare has reduced the cost of health care to the economy and has left more money in the pockets of individuals and businesses.

Similarly, good and balanced labour legislation that acknowledges the rights and needs of trade unions promotes stability in the workplace, improves productivity, maintains purchasing power and

results in the creation of pension funds that are then accessed for both public and private investment.

I could give other examples but I think I have made my point. Our collective experience with hard economic times, an experience that includes the "On to Ottawa" trek, has given us a certain perspective on social policy, a particular view of the meaning and purpose of social programs. In the short term the "On to Ottawa" trek probably did not accomplish much. In the bigger picture, though, it represents a shift in attitude. The work of the trekkers and other activists of the era contributed significantly to the rise of the Canadian labour movement.

The trek did not create a formal organization but it created stirrings among the unemployed and among workers. It created the conditions in which the labour movement could grow. Before a strong labour movement could take root, working people had to become conscious of their power, their value and their dignity. The "On to Ottawa" trek led to this awareness. Since then unions have become a major force in Canadian society. Unlike the United States where only 10 per cent of the workforce is organized, unions here are relatively healthy and represent about 30 per cent of workers in Canada.

Canadian society has developed in large part because of the work and prodding of trade unions. I value and appreciate the role they play in Canada. I have a significant bias as that is what I used to do for a living before I came to this place. The labour movement of today owes a lot to the "On to Ottawa" trekkers and to all other men and women who struggled to make the Canadian society more just, compassionate and democratic. With the rise of the labour movement came new labour legislation. A milestone was PC order 1003 in 1944 which put into law the right of workers to join unions and to engage in collective bargaining. That was not all that long ago.

Since then governments have adopted a number of laws involving work standards, workplace health and safety, and worker protection. I am proud our laws are much more progressive and responsive to working people than the laws in the United States.

In order that our laws continue to reflect and meet the needs of today's workforce we are in the process of a comprehensive review of the Canada Labour Code. In the spring we anticipate presenting legislation to the House for all members to consider. Our goal is to ensure a balanced system that benefits all of us.

Again I thank the member for introducing the motion. It reflects on how difficult times were for millions of Canadians 60 years ago. The changes the trekkers were trying to achieve was time well spent. It gives us an appreciation of how far we have come in working together to create conditions for social peace. This is a heritage we have to protect so that working Canadians can continue to build the country and continue to create opportunities for all.

I agree with members opposite who have spoken before me that we cannot go back in time to try to understand why people did what they did. However we can learn from our mistakes and we can advance as we have in the country. As I have mentioned, let us hope the lessons we have learned from the trekkers will be put into legislation. They will always have a place in our hearts and our history simply because they helped to start the labour movement in Canada.

[Francis Leblanc, Liberal, Cape Breton Highlands—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to speak but since there is some time remaining I will say a few words on the motion of the hon. member for Regina-Qu'Appelle, which I was pleased to second.

My reason for seconding the motion was to allow us to debate an event in Canada's history that serves as a reminder to us all of some difficult periods in our history that have in a sense given birth to many of the progressive pieces of social legislation and programs we now enjoy in Canada.

It serves us well to remember events such as the march to Ottawa, the "On to Ottawa" trek of 60 years ago, and the struggles our forebears undertook to pave the way for some of the social programs we regard with such pride today.

On the question of offering an unequivocal and official apology, I am not sure I would support that part of the motion for the same reasons that have already been expressed by my colleagues on both sides of the House. In this day and age we cannot judge the actions of our ancestors. We can only learn from them. I express that caveat in my endorsement of the debate the hon. member initiated.

I was a little uncomfortable with the member's attempt to compare current circumstances with the depression that led to the "On to Ottawa" trek and the unfortunate occurrences that took place in Regina on July 1, 1935. Canada has moved a long way from those unfortunate days. The struggles and the sacrifices of the workers who paid that price were part of what brought the country to where it is today.

Even though we presently have our own economic difficulties in Canada, in no way do they compare to the difficulties those workers experienced in the dirty thirties which have been eloquently described by the hon. member and others in this House. Those difficulties are part of the past which Canada must learn from.

With those caveats, I want to commend the hon. member for Regina-Qu'Appelle on having introduced his motion and on having brought our attention to this chapter in Canada's history. It has allowed members on both sides of the House to draw some lessons from that period in Canada's past.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Colleagues, we only have a few minutes left in this private members' hour. Would it be the disposition of the House for the member under whose name the motion stands to close the debate on this motion by taking no more than two minutes under right of reply and then we would adjourn?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Simon de Jong, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the members of the House for giving me this opportunity of closing the debate.

I do wish to thank the member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso for being a seconder, in that way allowing the motion to be introduced today and allowing the debate. Since there was no member of my party here, his gracious action in allowing his name to be used to second the motion is greatly appreciated. I recognize as well that when he did that, he did not necessarily endorse everything in the motion, nor all the comments I would make.

Despite what some hon. members say, we cannot rectify the past. We cannot mend broken bones nor can we raise up the dead, but I think it is important that in some instances we say that what was done back then was wrong. We should do it in an official way by extending an apology.

To me it then becomes a signpost in the evolution of our civilization. A formal act of this Parliament, for example apologizing and stating that what occurred in the Regina riot was wrong, becomes a signpost in our evolution.

I hope as well that what some of the hon. members particularly from the government side have stated is true, that there is a great difference between conditions then and now. Indeed, there are many differences. but the fear of many of us is that we are sliding into situations quite similar to the last depression.

That was one of the reasons I also wished to bring this item up. While there are differences, unfortunately there are also growing similarities, particularly the sense of hopelessness many of our young people feel, the lack of jobs, the lack of a future, the lack of opportunity. Surely those young men in those camps must also have felt a sense of hopelessness for the future which motivated them to start the trek to Ottawa to bring to the attention of Parliament the conditions which existed.

I hope those conditions will never return again. The reality is however that many of our young Canadian citizens face the future not with hope and aspirations, but with dejection and unemployment.

I hope the government and this Parliament will remember what the Bennett government did back then and will reject it as a solution to the problems we face. I hope that we will work together toward a new solution to the problem.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.

It being 6.30 p.m. the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.)