Mr. Speaker, the background of our great country is composed of telluric elements of great resistance. Each one of these elements contributes to the strength and personality of our country. From day to day those elements become more obvious, for it will not always be so. From time to time one is tempted to doubt the vigour of the Canadian identity, but in times of distress or of deep reflection, the powerful ties which unite us as Canadians stand out boldly.

Mr. Speaker, one of those ties is the stature of the men who are dedicated to public life in our country. Another tie is the fact that those in power in Canada have always, each in his own way, dedicated themselves to the welfare and the progress of Canada.

It may be said that Canadians have been well served by the men in their public life and that, when one of them passes away, regardless of what part of the country he comes from, it means a loss for the whole country. When a man of Daniel Johnson's stature leaves us, it is not merely the Canadians of that part of the country who are dealt a blow, but Canada as a whole.

Daniel Johnson exemplified those traits which any political leader, or any man, could well choose as standards of measurement: dedication to his country and his province; pride in the achievements and beauty of his culture and its language; courage in the face of adversities both personal and political; calmness and moderation on occasions when a lesser man would have exhibited neither; loyalty to his party and its convictions; devotion to his family.

All Canadians know that our country is going through a period of capital importance

for our future and that the basic values themselves are those which are sometimes questioned when the future is discussed.

There is no doubt that Mr. Daniel Johnson was one of the distinguished participants and interlocutors in that important dialogue which is now going on between Canadians and through which he was trying to find the common values on which the country could agree and unite. We will not forget that his objective was the recognition and the protection of the rights of French Canadians, since that protection is a matter of conscience for all Canadians and it is also, I think, the objective of all good men in Canada.

The people Mr. Johnson represented in the legislature, those who had elected him, those he had served for many years in his riding, know that they could not have a more conscientious, more energetic and, may I say. gracious spokesman.

On behalf of the government of Canada I express my most heartfelt sympathy to his family, to Quebeckers and to the government of Quebec.

Death could not come, Mr. Speaker, at a more untimely moment for this great Canadian.

Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, I was much grieved to hear of the death of Hon. Daniel Johnson.

His friends knew how heavy was his task but we hoped he had completely recovered and was able to resume his duties.

His death is a cruel loss for his family and deprives the country of an experienced and very talented politician. The country loses a man who, even in cases of disagreement at the official level, liked to retain cordial personal relations with the people he met.

He was a gentleman and those who knew him will regret his courtesy, his warmth and his charm.

[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)

Daniel Johnson lived his life in the public service, Mr. Speaker. He was first elected to the legislature of Quebec in a by-election late

490 COMMONS

Tributes to Late Premier Johnson in 1946. He was re-elected six times and served his legislature as deputy speaker and his province as a member of cabinet. Nearly seven years ago he was elected to lead his party. He led it well, and in June, 1966, became the premier of his province, one of the most important and difficult positions in this country. It is a good record, sir.

He was premier of Quebec at a time when the evolution of events in that province caused concern in other parts of Canada. It was therefore inevitable that he should be to a certain extent a controversial figure in his country.

I think that, at the present time, a premier of Quebec who loves his people and his country and wants to be loyal to them cannot help but be a controversial figure.

His course was a difficult one, but he followed it with patience and good humour.

He travelled across the country with his family. He wanted to get to know the country as well as he knew the province of Quebec where he was born.

Daniel Johnson wanted to build both Canada and Quebec, and he devoted his life to building a country where all Canadians could fulfil their aspirations.

On behalf of my party as an officer of the House of Commons and personally, because I had the opportunity to work with Premier Daniel Johnson and because I respected and considered him highly, I wish to offer my sincere sympathy to his family, his friends and colleagues as well as to the fellow-citizens of the deceased premier.

'[English]

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

Mr. Speaker, I join with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in *expressing our deep sense of shock at the death of Premier Daniel Johnson, and our sincere condolences to the government and people of Quebec and to the family of our late, distinguished Canadian. I speak on behalf of our party and of my colleagues who are here with me. I might add that a short while ago, over the telephone, our parliamentary leader, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), asked me to express his deep regret that illness prevented him from being here today to express his sorrow on this occasion.

We were all shocked this morning to hear .the news that came to us. Only yesterday we

.

DEBATES September 26, 1968

watched and heard Daniel Johnson on television. He seemed to be in good health; certainly he was in good form as he discussed issues that are of concern to us in this country.

When we think of him we are conscious of the fact that he was an articulate exponent of his point of view, a point of view shared by many of our French speaking fellow Canadians. It must also be said that although he expressed strongly and vigorously his point of view, a great deal of credit goes to him for the fact that we have developed a state of dialogue in this country with respect to relations between French speaking and English speaking Canadians, and with respect to relations between Ottawa and Quebec.

Mr. Johnson, as I say, was a vigorous exponent of his views but he was also a loyal Canadian who believed that the destiny of this country is for us to remain together and build a strong and united Canada. Not only will the people of Quebec miss him, but Canada as a whole can ill afford to lose such a leader at this time.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues of the New Democratic Party, I wish to express my most sincere sympathy to Mrs. Johnson and to the members of her family.

Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Ralliement Credi-tiste I wish to join with the other members of the house to say how we were deeply grieved this morning at the news of the sudden death of Hon. Daniel Johnson, premier of the province of Quebec.

Such a death will be deeply mourned by all the Quebec people and the whole French Canadian nation, and especially by the people of Bagot county, a great part of which is included in Shefford constituency which I have the honour to represent here and which has just lost its member of parliament.

As premier of his province since 1966, and member for Bagot since 1946, he might still, on account of his experience and talent, have served the province of Quebec and all the French Canadian people for many years to come.

In its unfathomable ways Providence has decided that he would no longer be with us after giving yesterday the most eloquent and the most important press conference of his whole political career, as if it were to be the crowning achievement of his work.

September 26, 1968 COMMONS

How forcefully are we reminded of the fragility of life. Although it is full of great possibilities, it is at the same time limited and conditioned by its span and its events.

Mr. Johnson had the courage of his convictions. He had his own disposition, of course. I knew him very well because on many occasions, as members of a good part of the same riding, we presided at the opening of the baseball or hockey season and at the inauguration of sports centres or schools. That is how I came to know the premier of Quebec as a public man and also as a good father.

On television yesterday he said something which impressed me this morning. He said that his illness had made him more human. But today his ailment takes him away from humans and puts an end to his life.

This afternoon he was going to inaugurate the Manicouagan dam which is the most important hydro-electric project in Quebec.

Hon. Maurice Duplessis died in Scheffer-ville, an important mining centre in Quebec. His successor, Hon. Daniel Johnson, died on duty in Manicouagan, an hydro-electric centre in the same Quebec area, in circumstances similar to those which preceded the death of Mr. Duplessis, who liked to look upon Hon. Daniel Johnson as his own son.

DEBATES 491

Tributes to Late Premier Johnson

History will rate Daniel Johnson as a politician and a statesman who has definitely marked out French Canadian political life. His love of work, his loyalty to his province, his clearsightedness will be missed greatly in Quebec. The strenuous political life which he had set for himself and the responsibilities which he had to assume have unfortunately taken away too soon this dearly beloved father from his family.

On behalf of the Ralliement Creditiste we express our deepest sympathy to Mrs. Johnson, her children and all his relatives, and especially his constituents in the riding of Bagot.

Some of his political enemies might silently rejoice. As far as we are concerned, we share the grief of the whole French Canadian people.

Mr. Trudeau:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, that this house do now adjourn.

Mr. Speaker:

Pursuant to the motion of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), seconded by the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), this house stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.

Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 2.50 p.m.

Friday, September 27, 1968

Mr. Speaker:

Order, please. I have the honour to inform this House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate has passed Bill S-2, an act amending the Publication of Statutes Act, for which the concurrence of this house is desired.

Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on wheat. World wheat production in 1968 will likely exceed 10 billion bushels, the third consecutive year in which the 10 billion bushel mark will have been surpassed. This is well above the average of the early 1960's. Competition for export markets will continue to be very keen. During the current crop year, for the period August 1 to September 18, Canadian exports of wheat and flour were 46.7 million bushels as compared with 43.6 million bushels in the same period last year.

Adverse weather conditions in western Canada have delayed the harvest and two weeks of clear warm weather are still required to enable farmers to complete their harvesting operations. Approximately 50 per cent of the crop remains to be harvested at the present time; the grades will be lower this year due mainly to frost and sprouting. The magnitude of the problem associated with handling tough and damp grain will depend a great deal on weather conditions during the next few weeks.

Top priority is being given to the movement of grain from the lakehead terminals to eastern positions for export and domestic use. This movement has been very impressive since the strike ended. During the first ten days of work over half of the 11,863 box cars waiting on track were loaded into the lake-head terminals. This has freed cars for movement from country points, and the movement from country elevators is now proceeding in a more normal fashion.

If there are large quantities of grain with high moisture, the Canadian Wheat Board, the Board of Grain Commissioners and the private grain companies will make every effort to handle such grain from the farmers before it goes out of condition. However, first priority must be given, before the close of navigation, to the movement of clean, dry grain to the lakehead for onward shipment to eastern positions.

As the house is aware, the purpose of the recent Canberra meeting was to review the world wheat situation and the operation of the new international grains arrangement since its entry into force on July 1. The result was positive. Exporter representatives expressed their determination to operate the new arrangement effectively and achieve its objectives, including the observance of the arrangement with respect to minimum prices. Satisfaction was expressed with the operation of the agreement to date and understandings were reached on action to be taken to strengthen the arrangement. It was agreed to fix minimum prices for two Australian hard wheats, and price guide lines were set for certain other wheats not listed in the schedule. New procedures were accepted for the collection of reliable ocean freight information for the calculation of minimum price equivalents and for keeping international wheat prices and export performance under continuing review.

The decisions and recommendations of the Canberra meeting will now be submitted to the prices review committee of the International Wheat Council, which includes representatives of importing countries. This committee will meet in early October, in London. The successful outcome of the Canberra meeting will contribute to price stability for wheat and facilitate the effective implementation of the grains arrangement.

The objective of the government of Canada and the Canadian Wheat Board is to secure 25 per cent of more of world wheat trade. This will mean exports of 1.3 billion bushels in the next three years.

Sales of Canadian wheat are being aggressively promoted on a direct seller to buyer basis. In conjunction with Expo, the Canadian Wheat Board invited all the major wheat buyers from around the world to visit Canada

September 27, 1968

494 COMMONS DEBATES

Recommendations of Canberra Meeting for marketing discussions and tours of our grain facilities. These visits aroused a great deal of interest and are now being followed up by Canadian Wheat Board missions into overseas markets wherever a sales potential exists.

[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)

I have written personally to senior trade commissioners of each of my department's offices abroad to ensure that no sales opportunity is overlooked. They are to submit market development suggestions based on their on-the-spot experience.

Private grain companies in their position as agents for the Canadian Wheat Board have a vast network of overseas contacts and are vigorously pursuing all export opportunities.

Individual sales on credit terms are being negotiated and I expect that the extension of credit arrangements by the government will result in the conclusion of significant sales in the near future. The government continues to purchase substantial quantities of wheat and flour for Canada's food aid program.

In order to mobilize more effectively the energies and experience of associations and organizations directly concerned with wheat exports, the government will establish, as a matter of priority, a national grains council. The Minister of Agriculture and I will be meeting with the interested groups in Winnipeg on October 16 to discuss the scope of the council's membership, its organization, administration, and terms of reference.

As I stated earlier, our objective is to export 1.3 billion bushels of wheat during the next three years. We are determined to do that or better.

In conclusion, the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) and I are collaborating closely on all these matters. He will shortly be introducing legislation to double the level of cash advances for grain producers. Together with our colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, and with the help of the national grains council, we shall be addressing ourselves urgently and intently to both the short and long term problems and opportunities for the Canadian grain industry. The grain economy of Canada is a matter of national interest. Success in our production and sales policies and performance is a major factor in Canadian prosperity from east to west.

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):

am pleased the Minister of Industry, Trade

and Commerce has seen fit to make a statement. Many members of the party to which I belong, particularly from western Canada, have been pressing for information from the minister ever since this session began.

At the outset I might say we are happy that at long last the government recognizes the situation to be a serious one. I agree that western Canada is encountering serious difficulties from the point of view of climate. But farmers have faced bad weather before. The most serious problem which faces western Canada arises from the fact that when the international wheat agreement was negotiated by the former government-and many of the ministers responsible are members of the present administration-the negotiating team did not reach the conference at Geneva on time. In our opinion, and in the opinion of many experts in the agriculture field, the farmers of Canada were shortchanged in this regard. Before the agreement was approved by the various parliamentary institutions and governments of the exporting and marketing nations, the United States, a business country with a large surplus, dumped her grain on many of Canada's traditional markets.

This situation is the most serious which western farmers have faced since 1956 when approximately 700 million bushels of wheat were piled up on the farms and in the elevators. Crops are above average in most parts and quotas are very low-practically negligible. Financing is hard to come by at this time of the year and as a result farmers are having difficulty in meeting their obligations. Young farmers especially, who just entered the trade within the last few years, are unable to meet their mortgage payments, and if it were not for provincial legislation in Alberta and Saskatchewan foreclosure would be the letter of the day. Therefore I must say that on the shoulders of the government rests the responsibility for the fall-off in markets.

Members of the government can bring in new legislation which is commendable in reference to increasing the cash advances, and which will temporarily relieve the situation. On that matter I congratulate them, but the fact remains that the grain trade will not become healthy unless farmers are able to sell their commodities; and the loss of markets is the responsibility of the government.

Since the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) has said that the spokesman for western agriculture is now the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatchewan (Mr. Lang), together with the Minister of

September 27, 1968

Agriculture (Mr. Olson)-and this is no personal criticism of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce-I would hope that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will see to it that the Wheat Board will fall mainly under the jurisdiction of a man from western Canada. I say this because when the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatchewan and the Minister of Agriculture go out to western Canada to discuss agricultural problems, the main problem involved is with regard to the Wheat Board and grain markets. How then can they intelligently answer western farmers, when the jurisdiction for the Wheat Board is in the hands of another minister who is not out in the field at that time?

Without personal criticism of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who did an excellent job last year with reference to exports of petroleum, the first recommendation I would like to see emerge is that jurisdiction over the Wheat Board should be placed in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture, as was the case during the term of office of another government, or in the hands of the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatchewan, who has said he would inherit that jurisdiction.

As the Winnipeg Free Press has pointed out, the main thing is to export grain. Many critics are talking about a two-price system, but that would not mean very much to the western farmer because domestically we consume approximately only 50 million bushels in Canada, including some domestic consumption for feed stock. Therefore if we introduced a two-price system, as suggested by some experts, providing another nickel a bushel for exports, it would not help the western farmer very much. It is the responsibility of the government to find markets, and I repeat that the responsibility for the loss of those markets lies directly on the shoulders of some of the ministers who sit in the government.

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the minister has now made a statement in the house. Certainly it was time that a statement like this was made to clear up some of the serious doubt that farmers in western Canada have regarding the strength of our position in international grain markets.

I am glad the minister feels that as a result of the Canberra meeting there is finally going to be some real stability in the new international grains agreement. But if I heard the minister correctly he said that agreement has

DEBATES 495

Recommendations of Canberra Meeting worked satisfactorily up to now, and with this I would have to disagree. It has not, and the farmer in western Canada paid the shot last year by sacrificing sales and holding the line while the ground was cut from under us by other exporting countries. I sincerely hope that the minister's confidence in the I.G.A. and in other exporting nations is now justified.

I also hope that at an early date the minister will give us some of the facts as to what will be done by the proposed national grains council, and what its purposes will be. Until now we have had a grain organization, in terms of the Canadian Wheat Board, the Board of Grain Commissioners, and the integration of farm organizations into the advisory committee of the wheat board, that farmers have considered satisfactory. I think this house should be clearly told what the purposes of the proposed national grains council are, who is going to be on it, and what it is going to do.

[DOT] (11:20 a.m.)

A statement which appears in the Winnipeg Free Press, and which was circulated to us, says that there is a need to sell more for less. As a farmer I never became rich selling more for less. There apparently are people, not in this house I am sure but in some places, who believe we should do this. No mention was made of the inland grain terminals being used for drying purposes. I hope this will be part of the program for taking care of our out-ofcondition grain. Because of the confidence I have in the officials of the Canadian Wheat Board and the Board of Grain Commissioners I fully expect that this will be part of the program.

Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):

Mr. Speaker, we are happy to note that one of the great Canadian resources is the abundance of western wheat. We ask and we hope that the government, fully aware of its responsibilities, will look upon this abundance as a manifestation of God's generosity.

This generosity should be used to feed humanity. There is no lack of technical means to transport this wheat to the countries which need it and it is the duty of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), in co-operation with the Minister of Finance, (Mr. Benson) to find ways to distribute part of this Canadian wealth to those countries.

September 27, 1968

Post Office Changes

There is always a railway transportation problem for the eastern farmers, as the minister has stressed.

In 1962, in this house, I asked that grain elevators be built and transportation made by water. Everyone welcomed the suggestion that the waterways should be used to help the eastern farmers but, although the Liberals have succeeded the Conservatives, the problem has not been solved yet and today the question is how to move western grain to the eastern farmers. The farmers would pay much less by water and greater consumption would result, if the farmers did not have to leave their farms.

I cannot understand that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Cote) has not found a way to have grain elevators built in eastern Canada so that grain, so plentiful in western Canada, can reach eastern Canada, and farming can become an economic operation.

I hope, therefore, that this affluence will be distributed throughout the world, after the problem has been solved in Canada, so that this plenty which God allows will not be a punishment but a blessing for all the Christians of the world.

Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General):

Mr. Speaker, I have a statement regarding certain changes in the operations of the Post Office. The Post Office Department in its continuing study of the requirements of the various services has reached the conclusion that a number of changes should now be made. The increased costs of labour, supplies and transportation has added substantially to the cost of operating the Post Office Department. We consider that the department must operate within the limits of the revenue produced. The contemplated changes will produce a substantial reduction in the cost of operating the department.

Our studies have indicated that several services are no longer required to the same extent as in the past. Business firms generally are operating on shorter hours and on a five day week. There is not, therefore, the same need to provide postal service on week ends when most businesses are closed. I should like to remark here that approximately 80 per

cent of all first class mail originates in business and in government. It is, therefore, intended to close the post offices on Saturdays. Deliveries of mail will not be made on Saturdays. This will include letter carrier service, parcel post and rural route deliveries. Special delivery service will continue to be provided on a seven day week basis. Mail will continue to be processed and forwarded to destinations over the week end in order to be available for delivery on Monday. Mailings are generally very light on Saturdays and Sundays and this essential work can be carried on by a minimum staff.

In order to provide the means to purchase stamps on Saturdays, sub post offices which are operated in connection with retail outlets which are open on Saturdays, will remain open. A program to instal additional stamp vending machines will also be undertaken.

These changes, which are scheduled for implementation on February 1, 1969 will provide a much more desirable work week for the majority of postal employees. These changes represent significant improvements in working conditions and we are convinced they will be readily acceptable by the majority of Canadians.

Mr. Heaih Macquarrie (Hillsborough):

Mr. Speaker, I may say at the outset that this is a somewhat casual way of announcing the diminution in the service of one of the great public utilities of this country. I note the minister is announcing on a week end that in effect the postal services will be operated on a five day week. Let me reflect further on the merits of the case.

I should like to say in passing that it is regrettable that the traditional courtesy extended in the house of allowing opposition members to have a gander at statements of ministers is not being followed. I have some difficulty in dealing with what the minister has just said. I noted his reference to the closing of some sub post offices and the retention of service in some others. It would strike me that, according to the dissertation that he has just made, he might be in danger of having the jurisdiction in effect, in relation to the service to be rendered, geared to another authority rather than the government of Canada. I think these matters must be looked at with great care.

It is also my belief that the whole subject might have been introduced in a less casual way, so that the matter at this initial stage could have been reflected upon by the people

September 27, 1968

of the country. It could then have been given more serious consideration.

I can promise that in the future we shall have more to say about this matter. At this time we have no reason to believe that there is not a good deal of merit in the suggestion. We do want to see improved facilities for the workers in our post offices, but we do not want any detriment to the service to our public.

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

Mr. Speaker, I join with the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) in expressing some amazement at the casual way in which a long standing practice in this country can be changed simply by a government announcement. It does seem to me that, with an item in the name of the Postmaster General on the order paper, which means that in due course we will be discussing matters affecting this department, there might have been a discussion in the House of Commons about this proposal before it was brought into effect.

The Postmaster General has made some pretty categorical statements about the extent to which businesses are on a five day week. It strikes me that he has been a bit rigid in what he has said, and that parliament ought to have had the opportunity to consider the position of those who may require service over the week end. I would point out that the suggestion that special delivery service will still be available on Saturday and Sunday is a way of saying that if people must have service on week ends, which they have been used to over the years, they will have to pay higher rates.

As the hon. member for Hillsborough suggested, there is undoubtedly merit in the idea of streamlining and making changes. We should not be people who say that because something has always been done, that is the way it should always be done. However, it does strike me as a bit alarming that we are beginning to get this succession of announcements on a unilateral basis from the government benches as to changes that are going to be made.

We had one from the Prime Minister a couple of days ago that we did not like. Now we have one from the Postmaster General. Who next without prior discussion, is going to stand up and tell parliament what is going to be done? As I have already said, there is an item on the order paper which we will reach in due course. I hope that when we reach it,

Post Office Changes

we will be able to discuss all aspects of the work of the Post Office Department.

[Translation}

Mr. Andre Foriin (Loibiniere):

Mr. Speaker, first I wish to tell the minister that we are glad of his endeavours to rejuvenate the Post Office Department and make it more efficient. However, I also want to tell him that we are disappointed that opposition parties have not been consulted once again-it is always the same thing. Opposition parties are not here just for the sake of appearance and should be consulted before measures like the one which is now proposed are adopted.

Evidently, the department must keep its operating costs within its income to be economical and to balance its budget. A close look at the revised estimates tabled this week reveals that operating costs-at least, as given-are much higher than had been expected. What has happened? No one knows and we cannot find out.

Le Devoir, on May 23, 1965, reported as follows, and I quote:

In his report dated September 27, 1965, Justice Anderson made the following comments:

"While in the process of determining whether the salary rates of postal employees are fair and reasonable, I reached a point where I wondered whether, with a view to ensuring a better postal service in Canada and to meeting the needs of the people who deal therewith, it might not be advisable to hand over the administration of that service to a crown corporation."

I do not mean to say that we are necessarily in favour of setting up a crown corporation, but I feel the house should know whether or not the hon. minister intends to transform the Post Office Department into a crown corporation, or whether he intends to continue making changes of minor importance as he is now doing?

Mr. Speaker, should those be the intentions of the minister, I feel it would certainly be in order for him to advise the house before making them rather than after.

[DOT] (11:30 a.m.)